Forum menu
Then how do you explain Brexit, in all it’s ‘send them back’ glory?
It's interesting that you should ask that because of course brexit is an issue that can't be discussed on stw. Any attempt to do so is met with an avalanche of knee-jerk reactions...."brexit supporters are all racist, stupid, uneducated, right wing" And that's just the polite comment, if you want more hate-filled rhetoric go over to the brexit thread. Which btw I find fascinating.
Actually in my experience when you engage in debate with people they generally become much more liberal and lefty than you might imagine.
Don't engage with anyone in the New Forest as I feel you may be disappointed.
“brexit supporters are all racist, stupid, uneducated, right wing”
Who said that?
DrJ… how do you want Starmer to answer questions like that on Brexit?
I'd have hoped he was a crafty enough politician to not get sucked into a question about fixing Johnson's mess. He was doing fine for a while, and then he started wittering on about how the EU has to compromise. It just makes him look like he has no principles.
If anyone needed any confirmation of the lack of energy or ideas at the top of the labour party, look no further. I'm sure the tories will be shitting themselves.
https://twitter.com/UKLabour/status/1404709533474344963?s=20
The Labour party have to try hard to get this extension to stick to the government (if they don't, you can be sure the voters will be blaming Labour for it). Teflon coated Johnson and Sunak seem to have a gift for causing problems and passing the blame for the measures they cause to be introduced onto Labour. Remember that Starmer pub mess in Bath, where he was the target taking the flak for government introduced measures lasting far too long because of government decisions? That'll keep happening if Labour don't actively try and stick the blame where it is due.
The Labour party have to try hard
Do you define 'try hard' as sending Nick Thomas-who-the-hell-is-he out to do an anonymous speech at 9.30am which no one will watch or report?
No, but I've heard Starmer and other Labour MPs on several radio stations in the last 24 hours making the same point. I think they have little chance of success, to be honest. Good luck to them.
That’ll keep happening if Labour don’t actively try and stick the blame where it is due.
That ship sailed months ago.
Yeah, I think they have next to no chance of getting any blame to stick to Johnson or his team (apart from the sacrificial Hancock, perhaps). Having truth on your side is no help these days.
https://twitter.com/bydonkeys/status/1404822229939113989?s=21
If you keep saying the same thing on a public forum, then it would seem fairly obvious that you are trying to convince others of your point of view.
So, what exactly are you doing, returning to this then? Trying to prove something?
As for the rest of it, you are presenting your opinion as fact. It isn’t.
It is, and I've already explained why, several times now, with evidence. You've either not seen it, or deliberately ignored it. Either way, the facts are there. I have challenged anyone to prove otherwise, and unsurprisingly, no one has. I wonder why? Oh; that's right; because it was only ever imagined by yourself and others.
In my opinion, you are wrong for the reasons already set out, so it’s a pity that you continue to be so “bone-headed”, as you put it.
You've actually unwittingly shown just how such slurs and insinuations can be weaponised against those with differing points of view. You've got caught up in the false narrative, as peddled by those with an agenda against the left, and fallen into the trap of needing to appear righteous. Except that that righteousness is false; what you're actually doing, is perpetuating the very division that those who wish to defame the left, and ultimately to undermine democracy, wish to see happening. Cancel culture, writ large. But the damage caused by this is tremendous; as we've seen with the Brexit debate, such divisions sow hate and create such a toxic environment, that we all lose sight of what's really happening. And whilst Labour destroys itself from within, so the tories just gain more power. So yes; focussing on how the elite of the party is courting the interests of the wealthy, rather than listening to the electorate, is definitely something that Starmer etc want to stamp down on. Trouble is, the genie is out of the bottle now.
Morning Comrade.
Hows the revolution progressing?
Well, that's a fiver won. Easy money. Thanks Binners. 😀
You’ve actually unwittingly shown just how such slurs and insinuations can be weaponised against those with differing points of view. You’ve got caught up in the false narrative, as peddled by those with an agenda against the left, and fallen into the trap of needing to appear righteous.
I haven't fallen for anything. I read the same words you did, and reached a different conclusion. How ever much you choose to carry on bleating about how beastly everyone is being, this is about interpretation and not about fact. My interpretation is that you're using an opportunity to play the victim as a way of deflecting from your use of an anti-semitic trope.
What makes a 50 year old public school Footlights-derived sketch comedy which sneared at all the usual targets (gays, socialists, the working class) any sort of contribution to discussion?
this is about interpretation and not about fact.
No; it is actually about fact. The fact that you're wrong, end of. It really is that simple.
My interpretation is..
Wrong. I've tried to explain this, but you fail to understand/don't want to listen at all. Thus exemplifying the problems we face in our democracy today. You really WANT me to be an anti-Semite, but as I've stated earlier, doing so without facts, is just making you and others look really really foolish. As you cannot prove what you claim, I suggest you just go away now. Because you're only making yourself look more stupid. Thanks.
No; it is actually about fact. The fact that you’re wrong, end of. It really is that simple.
It's a pity that you're so invested in your narrative that you continue to peddle this falsehood.
Wrong. I’ve tried to explain this, but you fail to understand/don’t want to listen at all. Thus exemplifying the problems we face in our democracy today. You really WANT me to be an anti-Semite, but as I’ve stated earlier, doing so without facts, is just making you and others look really really foolish. As you cannot prove what you claim, I suggest you just go away now. Because you’re only making yourself look more stupid. Thanks.
I've read what you said and considered it. It's a pity you haven't extended me the same courtesy, as I've previously said that I don't believe you are an anti-semite. So your rather silly assertion that I want you to be one is, I suggest, making you look stupid rather than me.
Now, I'm not going anywhere, but it would be beneficial for you to stop and have a think, if you're capable.
So anyway, this Keir Starmer geezer, he's not very good, is he?
He's looking more and more irrelevant and ineffective. So... considering the next leader could face the exact same climate when they take over... who should it be, and when should it happen? Wait 'till the pandemic is less of a key issue, and we're further from the last election... or press ahead and change the leader (and team) ASAP? I still think a year out from the next election is the right time, but freely admit that could easily be scuppered by a change of election year by the government, and that Labour aren't capable of acting quickly at the right time anyway when it comes to a change of Leadership.
Never heard of him.
So anyway, this Keir Starmer geezer, he’s not very good, is he?
Seems that way. I think the plan of not attacking the govt while in the midst of a pandemic while understandable I think in hindsight has been an tactical error, and now that ship has now largely sailed.
FWIW, I don't look forward to a leadership battle (and I don't think Labour should tolerate one) but Starmer needs a re-boot fo'shure
Until enough people get fed up with Johnson it doesn't matter who the Labour leader is or what they do.
You would have thought with the way him and his party have handled everything over the last year that people would be going off them but seems to be the opposite.
You will not beat them by opposing what they are doing if people like what they are doing which is the biggest challenge any opposition leader will have.
he’s not very good, is he?
The biggest surprise is that the managerial competence we all assumed he'd have seems to be entirely absent. Clearly running the CPS, filled with professional and obedient staff is no preparation for running a party of largely self-interested and ruthlessly ambitious MPs, and a membership of consisting mostly of young idealists with dreams of a radically different world to what we have now.
Corbyn was a leader for the membership, Starmer a leader for the PLP (not even that TBH, more a leader for a blairite cabal). Until labour find someone who can do both they're f*****. If the schism between the PLP and the members can't be resolved, then labour should split or disband. Let the MPs go and do a SDP/Change UK, and let the membership and wider movement start afresh with new candidates who are part of their communities.
People might get more fed up with Johnson if they were enlightened on what's actually been going on by an effective Opposition. In the absence of that, they can believe absolutely anything, and they do.
So anyway, this Keir Starmer geezer, he’s not very good, is he?
He'll look like Keir Hardie when Richard Burgon is leader
Oi! Don't be dissing Rich. I'm personally looking forward to attending some lectures at the Tony Benn Memorial University of Socialist teachings
People might get more fed up with Johnson if they were enlightened on what’s actually been going on by an effective Opposition
It is there to see for those that are interested. The problem is most people are not interested.
Corbyn was a leader for the membership, Starmer a leader for the PLP
I think in name only for both of them. My criticism of Corbyn has always been his obvious lack of leadership skills. Now, he's fine orator, and by all accounts is a decent MP, and I have no doubt that he's a decent human being. None of those things made up for the fact that he was completely at sea when exposed at the pointy end of politics. Starmer, it would appear, has the same problems, I've no doubt I'd agree with him about a good many things. But he's also not demonstrated up to this point that he's got what it takes to be a leader, apart from skewering Johnson at the dispatch box on disappointingly few occasions
I think the crucial difference is that I think more folk can see themselves voting for Starmer than they can for Corbyn. But Starmer needs to be much much better at being that person. He's currently failing.
then labour should split or disband
I think that would disastrous.
The problem is most people are not interested.
How do you get them interested? Still think Starmer is too dull to engage those who aren’t already engaged. But I also don’t have the answer (or candidate) to suggest to improve Labour’s fortunes right now. There are alternative leaders who could better energise “the base”, but can they grow electoral support past where it was in 2017? I don’t know who could do that right now.
The people need a vision.
A number of people could sell that vision, but overall they need to be shown a clear / brighter / better alternative
A number of people could sell that vision
Who?
Agree that is needs to be at a high level rather in at the policy level but you're assuming they agree with your "better" alternative or indeed whether an alternative is even required.
The why needs answering before the how.
A clear, better, brighter vision is needed to overcome this current crop, get that in place then sort you show out behind that.
You’re missing something key… for a lot of voters the “who” they are voting for is absolutely key. Vision, policy, the whys and hows obviously matter… but so does the who. If Starmer is to be replaced now, you need the name of who will cut through better now.
I think Starmer could do the job tbh, but all I'm seeing at the moment is the odd points scored every wednesday which very much needs to be done but there needs to be a bigger picture starting to come into view too (pref using something along the 3 words strategy) not the endless manifesto drempt up last time around, at the moment it's all micro and no macro - they're going to need to set that stall out sooner or later
I'd agree timing is key as they've a long way to go yet and you can't ride that big picture wave for too long as life/changes/worldwide pandemics happen which will take it out of view, but the foundations at least need to be started to be out in place and used as a platform to hammer home a consistent standpoint
I think that would disastrous.
The situation right now is disastrous.
Unless you think things could get even worse than having an attention-seeking clown as prime minister with no effective opposition nor any likelihood of effective position on the horizon?
Personally I can't see how things could realistically be any worse.
I think that would disastrous.
I agree, but if the PLP continue to ignore the wishes of the membership and treat the party solely as a vehicle for their own personal career ambitions then what alternative is there? MPs are there to serve their constituents and their constituency parties not themselves. There are far too many in labour who do the latter.
The situation right now is disastrous.
Not if you're a blairite right wing labour MP with a safe metropolitan seat. The situation for them right now is very much better than it has been for some time. The trouble is that's the limit of their ambition.
Not if you’re a blairite right wing labour MP with a safe metropolitan seat. The situation for them right now is very much better than it has been for some time. The trouble is that’s the limit of their ambition.
But people are complaining about his (failed) attempts to appeal to voters in exactly the opposite kind of seat, aren't they? He's not been focused on "safe metropolitan seats", and the Labour voters in those kind of seats, in the slightest. Has he? If you really want to invest in a "safe metropolitan seat" strategy, then I can easily suggest a few alternative leaders that could do that very well. Starmer is going out of his way (but not succeeding) to appeal to voters in marginals that Labour have either lost to the Tories, or come close to doing so and are likely to at the next election now the Brexit Party candidates are gone. If Starmer is failing in those constituencies against Johnson, who can replace him and do better with those voters?
Unless you think things could get even worse than having an attention-seeking clown as prime minister with no effective opposition nor any likelihood of effective position on the horizon?
We only got Trump-Lite with Johnson.
We could have had a full Trump.
We could have had a full Trump.
?
Personally I can’t see how things could realistically be any worse.
Priti Patel as PM?
I think Starmer could do the job tbh
The evidence suggests he can't. People have formed their opinions of him (those that noticed him).
with no effective opposition nor any likelihood of effective position on the horizon?
If Labour fragmented into two or three smaller parties with all the bitter recriminations, lack of faith and an unwillingness to co-operate with each other to oust the Tories, that that would mean, then decades of unchallenged tory govt would be the result, and as bad you think it is now, I imagine it would get worse.
Personally I can’t see how things could realistically be any worse.
Didn't have you down for some-one with such a limited imagination. We've a way yet to get to sorts of hyper-capitalism and unregulated marketisation like the US has, but give the Tories a free hand, and I could see us getting there.
Personally I can’t see how things could realistically be any worse.
We used to think Theresa May was a terrible PM...
We used to think Theresa May was a terrible PM…
we used to laugh about how rubbish Gordon Brown was
God, I'd even take Tony Blair now... that's how bad things have got! And, yes, off course things can get a lot worse, under Johnson or his successors. When people think "things can't get worse", they are often ruling out the kind of stuff we've seen happen time and time again, across history, across the world... just because "these things don't happen in the UK"... until they do.
I don’t believe you are an anti-semite
And finally. Why did you persist with your nonsense then? I'll take that as your apology, because that's probably as good as I'm going to get. Well done.
It’s a pity that you’re so invested in your narrative that you continue to peddle this falsehood.
it would be beneficial for you to stop and have a think
😀 You're funny. Deluded, but funny.
God, I’d even take Tony Blair now
I'd take literally any other prime minister from the last 100 years.
Including Call Me Dave and Thatcher.
We could have had a full Trump.
That isn't imo a realistic possibility for Britain.
It is quite astonishing that Trump become US president, even if he didn't quite get the majority of votes.
However I can't see that being replicated in Britain. Firstly we don't have a directly elected prime minister, the British establishment would never give power to someone like Trump.
Secondly the huge support for conspiracy theories which exists in the US, coupled with a deep, ingrained, and lasting hatred of government, simply doesn't exist here.
Thirdly the British people actually like their leaders to be smart, whatever you think of Johnson most people don't think he's stupid.
Many Americans on the other hand appear to be strangely attracted to politicians who aren't very capable intellectually, I suspect that it makes them feel they have more in common with them. Along with conspiracy theories and deep hatred of government there is probably also a dislike and mistrust of "know-it-alls". I think Ronald Reagan tapped into that with his famous "oh there you go again" comment.
I’d even take Tony Blair...
Into a back room and waterboard the ****?
If Blair was in charge now, I think we'd be in exactly the position we are now. Possibly even worse.
And finally. Why did you persist with your nonsense then? I’ll take that as your apology, because that’s probably as good as I’m going to get. Well done.
It was a point I made several pages ago, so it's just further evidence that you respond to what you imagine is written, rather than what is actually written. I look forward to your retraction of your complaint together with a promise to do better next time.
😀 You’re funny. Deluded, but funny
You can do better than that. Have another go.
That isn’t imo a realistic possibility for Britain.
“these things don’t happen in the UK”
All the obsession on here with who is Prime Minister is a bit weird. Boris is very easy to dislike, but really he's only a puppet, a figurehead who will do the bidding of people in the shadows and maintain their power. Pretty much all the prime ministers before him were the same, and their freedom to change things is quite limited so it doesn't really matter in the grand scheme of things. If you want evidence of this then look no further than Corbyn.
Unless of course people or more bothered about the image he presents rather than what he does. Which is also odd because I find the fact that he can attend an international summit with scraggy hair and an ill-fitting suit and behaving like the pissed uncle at a wedding pretty hilarious. These things are designed to project power and make the rest of us defer to them. Boris sort of does the opposite to that, which probably explains his popularity.
Boris is very easy to dislike, but really he’s only a puppet
Ooh, careful... 😉
All the obsession on here with who is Prime Minister is a bit weird.
In a thread about the leader of the opposition. Really?!?
Pretty much all the prime ministers before him were the same, and their freedom to change things is quite limited so it doesn’t really matter in the grand scheme of things. If you want evidence of this then look no further than Corbyn.
He's never actually been PM, you do know that, don't you?
I prefer the obsession with the Rose and Crown, Ramsbottom. It's far more interesting and entertaining.
I know some of you will turn your nose up at anything written by Owen Jones but this should be setting off major alarm bells. First labour ostracised it's working class base, then the young and idealistic, now it's hugely loyal muslim voters. Starmer looks less like a leader and potential PM and more like a liquidator winding up a bankrupt business.
Ah, good old Gorgeous George Galloway.
Leadbeater is a great candidate. Depressing to think that anyone would campaign for Galloway because of her selection. Really hope she can cut through and hold the seat for Labour, she'd make a great MP.
I’d take literally any other prime minister from the last 100 years.
Including Call Me Dave and Thatcher.
Unless of course they are on the hard right of the Tory Party I am intrigued to know why someone should prefer Margret Thatcher to Boris Johnson.
Margaret Thatcher raised the standard for the small state, public thrift, tax cuts, and the “creative” destruction wrought by free markets. Britain’s steel, shipbuilding and coal industries fell victim to her conviction that if a business needed state subsidy it should not be in business. Prosperity was rooted in the endeavours of enterprising individuals.
One supposes she was turning in her grave this week as Johnson trumpeted his organising mission as increased state support for “jobs, business and economic growth”. The scale of the reversal was laid out in his legislative agenda for a new session of parliament. He has called it one-nation conservatism. True Thatcherites might prefer “treachery”.
https://www.ft.com/content/ad5061b8-6a16-42de-b5a9-824cf15b84b6
Johnson is the most leftwing Tory Prime Minister of last 40 years. Thatcher was the most rightwing Tory Prime Minister of the last 40 years.
Thatcher didn't just treble unemployment and destroy entire industrial communities with her economic policies, whilst simultaneously giving tax breaks to a new class of wealthy yuppies, but she also tore at the very fabric of society and left us with Section 28, smouldering riot-torn cities, and the most restrictive employment laws in the Western World.
Boris Johnson has a long way to go to match that.
We agree on something. Thatcher did a LOT more harm than Boris ever could and we are still seeing the aftermath of what she did across society.
I agree, but give him time.
Give him time.
So some people might prefer Thatcher to Johnson based on what he might do compared to what she actually did?
Well I said I was intrigued, I am no less intrigued.
He certainly seems to be going in the wrong direction to wrought the sort of damage to society which she inflicted.
He certainly seems to be going in the wrong direction to wrought the sort of damage to society which she inflicted.
Well, as you claim not to know anyone who likes him, or supports him, you would say that.
He certainly seems to be going in the wrong direction to wrought the sort of damage to society which she inflicted.
I think he would be perfectly happy to watch as much or even more of the UK burn, socially, economically, the union itself, all of it.
My previous comment was quite tongue in cheek, don't take it that seriously. An expression of how truly and utterly awful I think the current lot are, no more, no less. I just didn't think it needed a smiley face to indicate that.
Well, as you claim not to know anyone who likes him, or supports him
And yet I have never said that.
I have claimed that I don't know loads of people who love him, which I'm sure you'll agree isn't the same.
Anyway I don't see what any of that has to do with me agreeing with the FT comment that Johnson is going in the opposite direction to Thatcher.
Do think that if I got to know more Johnson lovers I wouldn't agree with the FT?
Do you think the FT's problem is that they don't know enough people who like/love Johnson?
If you aren’t mixing with the people who support Johnson, then your comment about not damaging society makes sense.
I haven't read the FT piece, or commented on it. In general though, going on Johnson's track record I would be very wary about cheering his spending commitments... I want to know who is going to pocket that money, and whether they are chosen based on their quality and reliability as regards actually delivering, or for being mates of mates. You can spend a lot of money getting little done if you're corrupt acting as part of the chumocracy.
You seem to know me better than I know myself Kelvin.
How do you know who I mix with?
I don't know why you have brought in a comment I made concerning Johnson's popularity. I said that I had seen no evidence that "loads of people love Johnson". Yes he might be the preferred choice by a wide margin for a significant minority but I made the comparison with vomiting and diarrhoea. I said that I prefer diarrhoea to vomiting by a wide margin but it doesn't mean that I love diarrhoea.
None of that has anything at all to do with whether the FT comment that Thatcher must be spinning in her grave is true or not.
I was replying to this statement…
He certainly seems to be going in the wrong direction to wrought the sort of damage to society which she inflicted.
Which I consider a very glass half full attitude towards Johnson, which ignores everything he has done in politics over the last 15 years.
I was not denying that he has proposed splashing money around, he’s always liked doing so promising to do so. If anyone can be relied on to oversee commitments to big spending followed by poor value for money delivery, he’s your man.
That "statement" was in direct reference to the FT article.
I still have no idea why who I mix with has any relevance.
I currently appear to be spending a ridiculous amount of time in the company of middle-class liberals who claim that they once rode a bike discussing bollox.
Does that come into the equation?
I still have no idea why who I mix with has any relevance.
The relevance is... if you're safely cocooned from the effects he is having on society with his divide and rule approach, then of course you might be happy to defend it.
No I don't exist. You've been spending too much time on stw
Wow impressive editing Kelvin, even by your standards.
Although not so much editing more 'replacing one post with another completely different post'.
then of course you might be happy to defend it.
So I'm defending Johnson now? By that same logic I can't challenge anyone who claims that Johnson eats babies?
Get a grip.
I can’t challenge anyone who claims that Johnson eats babies?
Are you for real?
Is he friends with Biden? I hear he eats babies, too.
The biggest surprise is that the managerial competence we all assumed he’d have seems to be entirely absent. Clearly running the CPS, filled with professional and obedient staff is no preparation for running a party of largely self-interested and ruthlessly ambitious MPs, and a membership of consisting mostly of young idealists with dreams of a radically different world to what we have now.
Corbyn was a leader for the membership, Starmer a leader for the PLP (not even that TBH, more a leader for a blairite cabal). Until labour find someone who can do both they’re f*****. If the schism between the PLP and the members can’t be resolved, then labour should split or disband. Let the MPs go and do a SDP/Change UK, and let the membership and wider movement start afresh with new candidates who are part of their communities.
Spot on. Pretty much what I've been saying all along. But I'd add that the membership also contains a lot of old school 'lefties' who are sick to the back teeth of the Blairites/neoliberals, and who despair at the direction the party has taken. I think unless Labour do find a new messiah, a schism is inevitable. The wealthy elite of the party would most likely retain the 'brand', but it would then at least create a blank slate for a new, more centre left social democrat party with greater representation from the ordinary electorate. Really needs to happen in my opinion. But the neoliberal Blairites would then up in political no-man's land, and no longer be relevant. They know this, which is why they are desperate to cling onto 'power', even if it means ****ing over millions of ordinary working people. ****s.
Well he does produce a lot of babies that nobody ever sees and he is a bit fat so...
Spot on. Pretty much what I’ve been saying all along. But I’d add that the membership also contains a lot of old school ‘lefties’ who are sick to the back teeth of the Blairites/neoliberals, and who despair at the direction the party has taken. I think unless Labour do find a new messiah, a schism is inevitable. The wealthy elite of the party would most likely retain the ‘brand’, but it would then at least create a blank slate for a new, more centre left social democrat party with greater representation from the ordinary electorate. Really needs to happen in my opinion. But the neoliberal Blairites would then up in political no-man’s land, and no longer be relevant. They know this, which is why they are desperate to cling onto ‘power’, even if it means * over millions of ordinary working people. *.
Whatever you are taking I suggest lowering the dose, a lot. But do it gradually though otherwise it could get even worse.
I know some of you will turn your nose up at anything written by Owen Jones
The problem with Owen Jones, is that whilst he's a clever lad, and does seem to genuinely give a shit about others, he never really comes up with anything original. Simply rehashes stuff that other people have said, often weeks, even months previously. Creates a sort of 'Guardianised' version for the metropolitan middle class elite. And Binners. But he shows his true white middle class blinkered privilege with comments like this:
"Muslim party members resentfully mutter that candidates from their community were overlooked"
Which is pretty much the same sort of attitude many of the Labour elite have, towards the Minorities. They'll make the right sort of noises about fighting racism, how unfair it all is, but they don't want to actually live next door to anyone who is a bit different. See also that 'Funny Tinge' idiot whose name I can't even be bothered to remember. Sums up the elite's attitude towards many of their voters; 'just do what we decide is good for you'. Way to go. That's working out so well, isn't it?
Ah, good old Gorgeous George Galloway.
I had a lot of time for Galloway, when he bloodied the noses of the Blairites in Tower Hamlets. My wife was teaching in the borough at the time, in a school with a predominantly Bangladeshi intake, and the incumbent at the time, Oona King, routinely overlooked real needs of local people, particularly the minority groups and most vulnerable, in order to court the developers at Canary Wharf and Docklands. Something needed to change, and it did, and the nice white middle class Labour elite were incensed and declared war on the ordinary working people of that borough. Still, Oona and her friends did very well out of property in the borough, so that's all great. Galloway, sadly, then went on a path of self-destruction, by making some incredibly stupid career choices, then descending into a grotesque caricature trotting out anti-Semitic tropes to appeal to his largely Muslim* fan base; mostly people from poorer, deprived areas with a paucity of educational provision and opportunities. But that just revealed further the extent of actual (not imagined) anti-Semitism in our society, and the issues which many were rightly extremely concerned with, and which the Labour right gleefully leapt on in order to weaponise against all on the left. Galloway is a mendacious, manipulative ****, who has a hell of a lot to answer for. It's depressing how many are taken in by his 'charm'. But there are still many in the upper echelons of the party, who are just as xenophobic towards other minority groups; see aforementioned Funny Tinge Woman.
*Just feel I should point out that I don't believe all Muslims are inherently anti-Semitic, any more than the rest of the population; the situation with the Israeli oppression of Palestinians is extremely emotive and polarising, and many Muslims will feel an affinity towards their 'brethren', rather than see that it's a situation that needs to examined far more in terms of its myriad nuances. But I wondered earlier if cancelling his appearance at an Iftar event would come back to bite Starmer on the bum, and it seems it has. It was seen by many, as him favouring one group over another, and he allowed himself to be played by those who seek to divide and rule. He's clueless and out of his depth. And losing support. Will Starmer be the 'leader' who oversees the death of the Labour party?