Westminster Politics

Feck Sunak but I think I will be emotional seeing a minority as British PM.
 
It's a sad indictment on our country.

Is it really that sad? There's a small section of society which is floridly racist like that but the flip side is that, as much of a cnut as he is, we're hours away from having a prime minister who is from an ethnic minority, married to a woman from an ethnic minority and is openly Hindu himself, having seen him wear the Kautuka openly on many occasions (unlike say Patel, who I've never seen lean into her Indian heritage at all unless as a crutch while attacking Labour/ migrants.

Yes he's a cnut and yes I hope that he and the rest of his party are obliterated in an election very soon but that is not something that can be said in most Western countries.
 
Would Sunak expect to beat Mordaunt if it came to a members vote? I don't see a lot of their voters taking well to a obscenely rich brown man holding office. But again Mordaunt is a woman so they'll probably feel they'd have had enough after the Truss disaster show which they no doubt would put down to some misogynistic nonsense.

Really depressing thinking that Boris would walk away with it if he got the nominations.
 
Would Sunak expect to beat Mordaunt if it came to a members vote? I don't see a lot of their voters taking well to a obscenely rich brown man holding office. But again Mordaunt is a woman so they'll probably feel they'd have had enough after the Truss disaster show which they no doubt would put down to some misogynistic nonsense.

Really depressing thinking that Boris would walk away with it if he got the nominations.

The membership are Boris-Ultras. I think Rishi might scrape out a win, but obviously the racists will vote with their racism in a private ballot.
 
Why?
I even hated seeing Kwasi Kwarteng hold a powerful position. Not all skinfolk are kinfolk

Because representation is vital, especially for kids growing up who will have only ever seen white faces on the TV/ print media in such important roles.

He doesn't need to be 'kinfolk' and an 'ally' to do that, and you can still point out and criticise his incredibly regressive politics whilst acknowledging the above.

I remember attending events in the past where Arab teens and young adults were saying there's no point them getting involved in politics because there was nobody like them, nobody they could recognise. There was no path and no comparison point. The more that changes, even in people with views we disagree with, the better.
 
Because representation is vital, especially for kids growing up who will have only ever seen white faces on the TV/ print media in such important roles.

He doesn't need to be 'kinfolk' and an 'ally' to do that, and you can still point out and criticise his incredibly regressive politics whilst acknowledging the above.

I remember attending events in the past where Arab teens and young adults were saying there's no point them getting involved in politics because there was nobody like them, nobody they could recognise. There was no path and no comparison point. The more that changes, even in people with views we disagree with, the better.
I wholeheartedly disagree. Representation for the sake of it is counter productive, and the only thing putting people like kwasi, or Patel or Braveman does for young kids is show them if you want to get into a position of power, forget obout your ethnic/cultural identity and toe the line.
 
Because representation is vital, especially for kids growing up who will have only ever seen white faces on the TV/ print media in such important roles.

He doesn't need to be 'kinfolk' and an 'ally' to do that, and you can still point out and criticise his incredibly regressive politics whilst acknowledging the above.

I remember attending events in the past where Arab teens and young adults were saying there's no point them getting involved in politics because there was nobody like them, nobody they could recognise. There was no path and no comparison point. The more that changes, even in people with views we disagree with, the better.

Yes, representation is vital but at the same time what good does it do when those who look like you are inflicting policies that hurt the very same communities they came from?

Representation just for the sake of it is potentially more harmful than no representation at all, and the idea that "if there were more of us in power" things would change only seeks to take blame away from those who make it hard for minorities to take up those positions in the first place.
And its not just about having differing opinions - Kwasi Kwarteng actively supported the Tories' actions during Windrush, if that's what it means to have "representation" then they can feck off.
I'd prefer to not be represented by dickheads.
 
The reform Party are going to be entertaining, aren't they?

Already calling Sunak a con-socialist. They're not very bright are they?
 
I wholeheartedly disagree. Representation for the sake of it is counter productive, and the only thing putting people like kwasi, or Patel or Braveman does for young kids is show them if you want to get into a position of power, forget obout your ethnic/cultural identity and toe the line.

Difficult one this one. On the one hand I don't think that Sunak and co are remotely good role models for young people of colour.

On the other hand, I also dislike this trope that all people of colour are inherently left wing and care about all races equally and that it's only white people that changed that. We have agency you know, we can produce our own classist, selfish, right wing, racist knobheads thank you very much!
 

I don’t think its ego so much. I think she’s probably right in thinking that if she can somehow just get to that 100 votes and get it to he members she has a good chance of beating Sunak and she’s right because he’s really not a popular choice with the members. Truss trounced him for god sake.
 
I don’t think its ego so much. I think she’s probably right in thinking that if she can somehow just get to that 100 votes and get it to he members she has a good chance of beating Sunak and she’s right because he’s really not a popular choice with the members. Truss trounced him for god sake.

Usherwood clarified as much on James O'brien's show about 60 seconds ago. She thinks the membership will back her and she's holding out for huge a job.
 
I don’t think its ego so much. I think she’s probably right in thinking that if she can somehow just get to that 100 votes and get it to he members she has a good chance of beating Sunak and she’s right because he’s really not a popular choice with the members. Truss trounced him for god sake.

I agree, she has a good chance of winning if she gets to a membership vote. Trouble is, it would be Truss all over again, a figure with nowhere near enough Parliamentary base to keep it all together. I think the number of low number of nominations she's got should make that clear to her, so Im minded to think she's just positioning.
 
I agree, she has a good chance of winning if she gets to a membership vote. Trouble is, it would be Truss all over again, a figure with nowhere near enough Parliamentary base to keep it all together. I think the number of low number of nominations she's got should make that clear to her, so Im minded to think she's just positioning.

To be fair she is far more competent and media friendly than Truss. I struggle to really see why she'd cause disunity? I'd actually say she'd do a better job as whilst she has less support she doesn't a group firmly against her either. Same with the general public really.

Hopefully she doesn't stand as if it goes into a membership vote they'll both have to spend a week appealing to the members and that just pushes them further right.
 
Is it really that sad? There's a small section of society which is floridly racist like that but the flip side is that, as much of a cnut as he is, we're hours away from having a prime minister who is from an ethnic minority, married to a woman from an ethnic minority and is openly Hindu himself, having seen him wear the Kautuka openly on many occasions (unlike say Patel, who I've never seen lean into her Indian heritage at all unless as a crutch while attacking Labour/ migrants.

Yes he's a cnut and yes I hope that he and the rest of his party are obliterated in an election very soon but that is not something that can be said in most Western countries.
That's true enough. Too bad I can't get behind the Tory Party.
 
Is this one for the posts that sound racist thread or just racist?
Sounds. If you look back over my posting history I don't think you would find much if anything that could be considered racist.
I've altered it really wasn't trying to offend anybody.
 
Penny Moribund is thick as mince, unfortunately.

This whole, "isn't it a big moment" for a British Indian to take the PM job, smacks of "it's only diversity if they agree with me..." (saw on twitter).
 
Is it really that sad? There's a small section of society which is floridly racist like that but the flip side is that, as much of a cnut as he is, we're hours away from having a prime minister who is from an ethnic minority, married to a woman from an ethnic minority and is openly Hindu himself, having seen him wear the Kautuka openly on many occasions (unlike say Patel, who I've never seen lean into her Indian heritage at all unless as a crutch while attacking Labour/ migrants.

Yes he's a cnut and yes I hope that he and the rest of his party are obliterated in an election very soon but that is not something that can be said in most Western countries.
I've also seen him wear Palm Angels sliders mate. Not sure this has any bearing on competency or ability to govern.