Forum menu
Being a Tory betrays his blackness? Do you stand by these words?
@ctk he didn't say that. You're taking two separate statements that aren't mutually exclusive and trying to make them so.
Splitting hairs a bit?
But her intention was clearly to imply that Kwarteng, in carrying out Tory policy, was betraying not only his own ‘Blackness’, but many of the very people such policies are designed to discriminate against.
So he can be a Tory as long as he doesn't carry out policy because if he does he betrays his own blackness- ffs.
Of course he can be a Tory, and of course he carry out Tory policies. He just needs to be criticised for it.
In the same way as Priti Patel was criticized for being a Tory and carrying out Tory policies, especially in Patel's case immigration policies.
The fact that these politicians are black/brown clearly adds an extra dimension to the criticism. If you want to pretend that you can't see that then that's up to you.
On another note more related to the thread's topic, does anyone else think that Starmer might be spending the weekend perusing wallpaper samples following the opinion polls of the last few days?
Configuration
I really like that definition and it gives a good explanation for some difficult things but it does not cover every eventuality and excludes some things that are racist
I just wanted to add that as my previous post sounded like i was rejecting it. Im not and i like it but its not the whole or only answer
He would be daft if he was. Many a slip twixt cup and lip but im sure he is at least beggining to hope....
The fact that these politicians are black/brown clearly adds an extra dimension to the criticism. If you want to pretend that you can’t see that then that’s up to you
Extra dimension? Are you saying it's worse when a black person makes tax cuts for the rich because they are black? What is this extra dimension?
FFS it’s you not understanding not me- Do you need me to walk you through it?
No thanks. I have no desire to try to wade through the mire that is your own opinion. You've already accused me of making a racist statement; I fear that any 'discussion' with you would not conclude positively unless I agreed with you. Which I'm not going to.
@ctk he didn’t say that. You’re taking two separate statements that aren’t mutually exclusive and trying to make them so.
Thank you. Why is it that some people understand, yet others don't?
Your insistance on using such a narrow definition and asserting its the only accepted one shows rigidity of thinking and a closed min
I never asserted anything of the kind. In this particular context, such a definition is one that works best to try to analyse and explain the situation.
Of course he can be a Tory, and of course he carry out Tory policies. He just needs to be criticised for it.
In the same way as Priti Patel was criticized for being a Tory and carrying out Tory policies, especially in Patel’s case immigration policies.
The fact that these politicians are black/brown clearly adds an extra dimension to the criticism. If you want to pretend that you can’t see that then that’s up to you.
+1.
Come on then chaps explain this extra dimension to an Eton educated black chancellor making tax cuts for the rich.
You've shown no willingness to enter into constructive discussion, so I feel people would be wasting their time. If you feel you've already made up your mind, and are 'right', then all power to you.
I don’t see this discussion going anywhere…
…it’s an impossible situation, and Labour acting fast to stop it dominating all their own interviews was politically astute. They’d still be going around in circles in all interviews about “was it racist” right now if they hadn’t. Did you see the Newsnight one the night before Starmer made his clear statement? A waste of everyone’s time (and one of the few moments in that conference week where the Tory comms team were probably high fiving each other).
Configuration read my post above where i try to explain my thinking a little more ckearly
It certainly read as if you were saying this is the one true and only acceptable definition. Limitations of text based discussion ?
Come on then chaps
Oh you with your working-class terminology.
I said: If you want to pretend that you can’t see that then that’s up to you.
Nevertheless....I know this won't satisfy you but consider the fact that "making tax cuts for the rich" will impact severely on poorer people and in the UK black people represent a great percentage of poor people than they do rich people.
In the case of Priti Patel her brown skin adds an interesting dimension to the clearly racist immigration policies which she pursued as Home Secretary.
HTH although I'm sure that it won't.
I must remember to remove that piece of black tape that's inexplicably stuck to my window...
You’ve shown no willingness to enter into constructive discussion, so I feel people would be wasting their time. If you feel you’ve already made up your mind, and are ‘right’, then all power to you.
You give up? 😜
Limitations of text based discussion ?
Probably. It's an intensely complex subject, and one which would take more than the confines of this thread in which to have a proper discussion. It currently feels as though we're trying to have a conversation in a noisy pub, only there's this drunk bloke who keeps trying seek attention...
Everyone’s drunk… let’s all go home now.
[ or change the subject ]
Passive aggressive suits you danny
Oh you with your working-class terminology
🤣
Nevertheless….I know this won’t satisfy you but consider the fact that “making tax cuts for the rich” will impact severely on poorer people and in the UK black people represent a great percentage of poor people than they do rich people.
So it is expected that he should act differently because he is black? This is racism. He went to Eton, he has a hell of an educational palmares and yet he is judged on his skin colour. I am not pretending that this isn't the case but I think it's a damn shame.
Does anyone want a kebab on the way home?
So it is expected that he should act differently because he is black? This is racism.
That's me.....a proper hardcore racist.
Passive aggressive suits you danny
I think you are very wrong.
No chilli sauce, but plenty of pickled chilies… ta.
No chilli sauce on a kebab? Are you some kind of pervert??😱
I'm sure that whoever recorded these comments originally will be very happy about a bunch of labor supporters bending themselves out of shape about an issue that's been very effectively put to bed quickly by the party's leader.
Carry on.
very effectively put to bed quickly by the party’s leader.
I am not sure claiming that a comment made by a Labour MP is racist and supporting the decision to suspend her pending the outcome of a disciplinary procedure, which he claims he wasn't involved in, is putting the issue "to bed quickly".
It in fact seems to be doing the complete opposite - dragging out the whole issue unnecessarily.
Upon hearing that her comments had been recorded Rupa Huq immediately and personally gave an unqualified apology to Kwarteng. Putting the issue to bed quickly would have been Starmer saying that Ms Huq had personally apologised to Mr Kwarteng and that was the end of the matter.
Instead we now have to wait for the outcome of the disciplinary procedure, which has already been prejudicially affected by Starmer's claim that Huq's comment was definitely racist, and which might result in Huq's permanent expulsion from the party.
I don't know if any appeals procedures might drag it out even longer although I suspect probably not as the concept of natural justice doesn't rank very highly in such matters. My understanding is that you are lucky if you have been given a specific reason for your expulsion from the Labour Party - the reason often appears to be very vague and generalised.
He did what had to be done to put it to bed while the Labour Party Conference was getting media and public attention. An essential move. The public had to hear the messages from the conference for them to consider changing their vote to Labour. Polls suggest that the messages at least partly got through. The future? Her apology will probably prevent her expulsion. There was no “but” to it. She’ll probably have the whip back at the end of the process, by when the comment will no longer be as live and it won’t be the week of a conference.
He did what had to be done
No he didn't. He should have said that it wouldn't be appropriate for him to comment as it had been referred to the NEC and in the meantime she had been suspended.
Instead he decided to indulge the right-wing press by publicly judging her and claiming that her comment was definitely racist.
How can she have a fair hearing now after the party leader, whose supporters have a majority on the NEC, has already publicly judged her and accused her of racism?
The woman is a right-wing Labour MP and Starmer supporter, the only reason I am pointing out that imo she has been treated unfairly is because I believe in basic justice, which is a concept that Starmer as a lawyer should understand.
I also think her comment was daft but not racist, in the same way as a black person calling a black man an "Uncle Tom" isn't racist.
It in fact seems to be doing the complete opposite – dragging out the whole issue unnecessarily
Certainly seems to be here. As before, there are many criticisms that could have been leveled at kwarteng, none of which needed reference to his colour. Move on.
I'd level that he's either (a) incompetent for the role he now has, or (b) he really totally couldn't give a shiiite about how the proles live or starve or freeze or are homeless, or (c) he's trying to get into Lizzy's knickers by doing her evil bidding for her.
Or maybe (d) ALL of the above.
none of which needed reference to his colour.
Missed this bit?
I also think her comment was daft
Move on.
Not yet - we need the result of the disciplinary process first.
She has already been judged guilty of racism by Starmer so if the decision to restate her is made the headline will be "Labour MP guilty of racism has her suspension lifted".
If the disciplinary process ends with her being expelled from the party for racism then it carries on for much longer as she either permanently stays as an independent MP untill the next general election or she resigns and forces a by-election.
Quite why the Labour Party wouldn't expell someone guilty of racism I don't know. There is no 'good' or 'bad' racism, all racism is bad and shouldn't be tolerated. Making a racist comment is definitely racism.
The ^earlier chat re PR is interesting - it's easily forgotten that we had a referendum on the issue in 2011.
It's easy to consign it to the history bin of ideas, mostly because it was designed to fail.
AV is the poor man's idea of PR - but it was what was on offer. It was quite clear at the time that it was being offered because it wasn't particularly attractive.
The choice was seen by too many people as do you want this, or that, and they chose this.
Thing is, AV wasn't the end point - it was somewhere along the way - too many people who were actually pro PR voted against AV, because it wasn't the end they wanted, and they weren't willing to make incremental changes.
Because AV wasn't the form of PR they wanted, they were willing to gift their opponents the overwhelming mandate that this country has no appetite for PR.
It's ^up there - 2 to 1 'we' don't want 'any' form of PR.
Sometimes you have to play a longer game than you would like to play.
Ultimately, even if Starmer isn't the first past your post, he's got to be higher on your transferable than the blue ticket, yes?
I've just seen that today's Mail on Sunday is carrying on the Rupa Huq story and fully exploiting Starmer's accusation of racism.
Apparently Kwarteng gave an interview to the Mail on Sunday :
Kwasi Kwarteng has launched a hard-hitting attack on Labour for characterising him as not ‘the right sort of black person’, as he derided the party’s record on diversity.
The under-fire Chancellor spoke out in an exclusive Mail on Sunday interview, in which he also defended his mini-Budget that caused turmoil on the international money markets and alarmed Tory MPs.
Mr Kwarteng branded Labour as ‘backward’ when it came to identity politics as he gave his first response to their MP Rupa Huq shockingly describing him as ‘superficially’ black.
So instead of being fully held for account for his appalling budget in which he put money into the pockets of the wealthy during a cost of living crises, Kwarteng is able to divert attention away from himself and attack the Labour Party.
Starmer accusing a Labour MP of racism doesn't seem to have put the matter to bed.
And the Liberal Democrats in Rupa Huq's constituency are also fully exploiting Starmer's intervention on the matter:
On Wednesday (28 September), the Leader of the Labour Party, Keir Starmer, criticised Huq telling LBC what she said was “racist” and “wrong”. The Shadow Culture Secretary, Lucy Powell, echoed Sir Keir’s criticism: “Rupa’s comments were racist, in my view, they were wrong, they were incredibly stupid” she said.
Ealing’s Liberal Democrat Leader drew on Labour’s slap down of Huq, going further and calling for her resignation over what he described as a pattern of racist comments.
https://chiswickcalendar.co.uk/ealing-lib-dems-call-for-rupa-huq-to-resign/
What was probably a light-hearted comment at a fringe meeting which wasn't intended to be taken too seriously, concerning Kwarteng's Eton education not being typical of the UK's black community, has now escalated thanks to the Labour leader instead of saying "no comment, it is being investigated" publicly denouncing it as racism, and thereby providing Kwarteng an excellent distraction when he should be on the ropes.
The ^earlier chat re PR is interesting – it’s easily forgotten that we had a referendum on the issue in 2011.
No we didn't!
AV is the poor man’s idea of PR – but it was what was on offer. It was quite clear at the time that it was being offered because it wasn’t particularly attractive.
Which is why it failed.
It’s ^up there – 2 to 1 ‘we’ don’t want ‘any’ form of PR.
AV is not PR which is why it was rejected. It's still winner takes all.
Proportionality
IRV is a single-winner application of a proportional voting method, technically single-winner STV with a droop quota (50%+1). Like all winner-take-all voting methods, IRV tends to exaggerate the number of seats won by the largest parties; small parties without majority support in any given constituency are unlikely to earn seats in a legislature, although their supporters will be more likely to be part of the final choice between the two strongest candidates.[62] A simulation of IRV in the 2010 UK general election by the Electoral Reform Society concluded that the election would have altered the balance of seats among the three main parties, but the number of seats won by minor parties would have remained unchanged.[63]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting#Proportionality
I agree there was an element of cutting noses off to spite our faces (I voted for it BTW) but when even the people presenting the case weren't committed it was only going to go one way. I'd have sooner taken our STV system which has been proven to mostly work than AV but that wasn't on offer for obvious reasons.
instead of saying “no comment, it is being investigated”
Was tried by multiple front benchers the night before. It wasn’t going to work. It would only have stopped Labour getting their policies from conference in front of the public. Where as now, the only chatter about I’ve seen is coming from fake accounts on Twitter, and, er here…
If you find some examples of Labour interviews the night before, they make it bleedingly obvious why Starmer took a different approach the following morning.
………………
Oh, and the AV system proposed wasn’t PR. That referendum was also a very useful proving ground for the people and bodies that went on to give us Brexit, Johnson and Truss. In many ways the start of “all this”, and one of the biggest mistake the LibDems. Totally out played!
Not Starmer's fault Huq said something racist. He can't sack her. He was in a lose/lose situation, it's her own stupid fault.
The hypocrisy of the Mail running the story though! FML
Starmer accusing a Labour MP of racism doesn’t seem to have put the matter to bed.
Exactly. The Tories managed to turn just about any negative press into something positive (aided of course by the largely right-wing mass media. This is a trick Labour still haven't learned. What Starmer should have done, is immediately gone on the offensive and highlighted just how much Tory policies would affect those in minority groups, particularly people of colour. He could then have neatly segued onto how badly the old and infirm would be affected, linked in just how badly the NHS will struggle this winter, etc. Moved the debate so far from the original 'offence', that people would have more or less forgotten it. That is classic Tory tactics, but it works. Politics is a very dirty game, and Starmer is to busy trying to out-nice Corbyn. Never going to work. Labour may well be enjoying a mythical lead in current polls, but that's meaningless in the context of an electoral cycle. To conjour a footballing analogy; it's like Starmer has nicked the ball off the opposition striker, rounded his own goalkeeper and fired a rocket into the top corner. And then turned round and realising it was the wrong goal, and it's the opposition who are cheering.
I agree there was an element of cutting noses off to spite our faces (I voted for it BTW) but when even the people presenting the case weren’t committed it was only going to go one way. I’d have sooner taken our STV system which has been proven to mostly work than AV but that wasn’t on offer for obvious reasons.
But that's exactly it - it was obvious that it was a sham to 'prove' that there was no appetite for electoral reform.
So even people that did have an appetite for electoral reform took part in putting the argument back by decades because it wasn't the 'right' question.
It is not entirely fanciful to suggest, given that we have had rather more active election cycles over the last decade than you would normally expect, that the argument would have moved on, and change would have begat more change, and the clamour for 'more' would have more weight...
But 'We' voted No - and by a super majority to boot - so, you see, it is quite clear, there is no appetite for electoral reform in the UK.
Well, 20 point leads for Labour over the Conservatives might have been a pleasant surprise... but now they're polling over 50%...
https://twitter.com/peoplepolling/status/1578338358732140545?s=21
https://twitter.com/BritainElects/status/1578410947865108481?s=20&t=UGQvSgyWEKCEaDKnznD_xg
And that New Statesman piece linked to is interesting... tactical voting seems more likely as the Tory support falls... possibly returning many more Labour seats in the North of England... not scaring off tactical voters (who then may become more enthusiastic Labour voters if they win and deliver) is probably part of Starmer's overly cautious approach, and timing, no?
Out of the last 13 national opinion polls 9 of them have given Labour at least 50% of the vote, and the lowest level of support any poll gave Labour is 46%
There is now surprisingly little discrepancy between the polls and they are stable and consistent.
With that sort of margin I think we can reasonably say that it will be absolutely impossible for Liz Truss to reverse her fortune. The U-turn on the top rate did nothing to improve the situation for the Tories.
The Tories's only hope is to quickly replace her but I doubt if even that will now be sufficient for them to form a majority government after next general election.
If Labour maintains this lead over the Tories tactical voting won't be necessary to stop the Tories, bad news probably for the LibDems imo but possibly good news for the Greens.
It will also strengthen Starmer's hand if he continues to oppose the Labour Party's Conference decision to back PR.
Bad news for the LibDems in terms of votes, but not in terms of seats, perhaps. That tactical vote thing works both ways... voters in Tory/LibDem marginals more likely to back LibDem candidates if the fear of Labour is being neutralised, and the Tories remain the mess that they are. As for the Greens... I'll take that bet now... only one seat no matter the size of the national vote share. Sadly. As for Labour and PR... the fudge will be proposing an upper house elected by some form of PR, I suspect. Doesn't mean PR for the Commons is dead... they will just try and push it away as an issue for this election... focus, focus, focus. They'll be more elections though...
The national chart from that article…
According to that ^^ LibDem support drops by 2% compared to last general election but they double their total number of MPs.
Interesting stuff but I doubt that the Tories will be down to 83 MPs after the next general election.
Kier Starmer has said a thing…
Keir Starmer: UK needs election now whether Liz Truss stays or goes
“My approach on this is to challenge the proposition that governments lose elections. I believe oppositions have to win them…”