Forum menu
She committed the cardinal sin and made the most fundamental schoolboy error imaginable. She upset the boomers - the people who are all absolutely guaranteed to vote - and dared to question their divine sense of entitlement.
Only one small part of the worst election campaign anybody has ever run
Obviously an achievement eclipsed by Grandad next time out with the 'a-manifesto-promise-a-minute' campaign
All the infighting does is provide a gift to a hostile media who relentlessly report the party as a disorganized rabble.
Not just the "media"... see also anywhere the public are chatting... be it Social Media, pubs, or... internet forums.
It’s also true that Labour was handed a gift with her “death tax” blunder.
I was going to bring this up the other day, when the talk was about social care, and the funding of it. Johnson has learnt... keep talking up a bold vision/plan... never write anything down, because the details will scare off a fair proportion of voters. [ EDIT: I reckon... ] He's hoping Labour will formulate a plan for him, float it, see what sticks and what loses support... and then adapt and offer it up as his own.
*Burnham’s ‘blame the darkies for Covid’,
Really? Link please because I don't recall this
and ‘it’s all London’s fault’ type rhetoric may appeal greatly to a significant number of people,
highlighting the difference in lockdown support for Manchester and other areas compared to what was offered when London was locked down??
but Burnham’s recent ranting about Scotland show that he’s a small town boy with small town ideas, with no idea of how to actually unite people, and would be even more useless than Starmer. If such a thing were possible.
Population of Greater Manchester is 2.8 million, essentially greater than 50% of Scotland and significantly more diverse.
Burnham is going nowhere, he knows he can be reasonably popular in his current role (although the GMP issue could bring him down) or an labour leader and hated by the left, the right, the special interest groups etc
[ EDIT: I reckon… ] He’s hoping Labour will formulate a plan for him, float it, see what sticks and what loses support… and then adapt and offer it up as his own.
If it fixes it then what is the problem? Somebody needs to bring something forward
She committed the cardinal sin and made the most fundamental schoolboy error imaginable. She upset the boomers
So you do want to talk about the 2017 general election after all binners!
But only if the narrative conforms to your own narrow agenda.
So you are willing to claim that the Tories did badly, apparently Theresa May commited fundamental schoolboy errors, but you refuse to accept that Labour, who increased their vote by a third, did unexpectedly well.
Your biased loaded analysis of the 2017 election is only interested in how much the Tories lost support and not in the least bit interested in how much Labour gained support.
If manipulation of the truth was the only criteria required you would be guaranteed a place in the present Tory Cabinet binners.
If it fixes it then what is the problem?
Because once Johnson has taken off the “edges” that put his support at risk, what’s left won’t work but will help him get past the next election without losing power… after which it will be mostly dumped anyway (ministers surprised that plan they sold to electorate is utterly flawed in ways they were warned it was beforehand by expert “moaners”).
but you refuse to accept that Labour, who increased their vote by a third, did unexpectedly well.
Everything's relative.
'Not an absolute catastrophe' was the highest benchmark anyone dared hope for Grandad and co. Despite Mays best efforts, he still lost. Yet it was mystifyingly hailed as a victory, somewhat bizarrely.
The absolute catastrophe was merely postponed for two years, when the inevitable arrived as surely as night follows day
So you are willing to claim that the Tories did badly, apparently Theresa May commited fundamental schoolboy errors, but you refuse to accept that Labour, who increased their vote by a third, did unexpectedly well.
You need to understand that Corbyn only had failings, and any popularity was entirely attributable to the conservative party. The reverse would be true of Starmer, except that we don't yet have any popularity to report.
Your point about May is demonstrably true and the forecasted landslide was precisely why she called for a GE. It’s also true that Labour was handed a gift with her “death tax” blunder.
So to sum up;
Labour were handed a gift
Labour polices were well loved
Labour lost the election
Wow.
Everything’s relative.
It is indeed and you could say Starmer currently has a gift with such a mess of a Government, and if there was a general election now Labour would do worse than 2019.
Yet it was mystifyingly hailed as a victory, somewhat bizarrely.
I'll remind you yet again binners that all this kicked off with you quite falsely claiming that support for the Tories has consistently increased in the last 5 years since the EU referendum.
Quite why you made that false statement I can't be entirely sure. It's either a big fat porkie or you are simply confused.
I'm gonna to be generous, I'm that kinda guy, and assume that you were confused. Because there is other evidence of how confused you are.
Apart from believing that support for the Tories has consistently risen in the last 5 years since the referendum, you appear to have forgotten that 2017 is in the last 5 years and you apparently believe that the Tories won the 2017 general election.
No political party won the 2010 and 2017 general elections. Being in government is not proof of winning an election.
Otherwise the LibDems could quite rightly claim to have won the 2010 general election.
I don't know what A levels you studying for binners but judging by your confused political naivety I can only assume that none of them cover UK politics. Next time you are in your sixth college perhaps try to find someone who can explain things to you?
@bridges was this question directly for me or was it just a wider question to the assembled masses with too much time on their hands ;)? (just wondering as you quoted my post and not fully au fait with forum posting/responding nuances)
if you don’t really want proper change, why not simply vote tory?
I have no intention of voting tory, but there is absolutely no hope of me choosing Lab. I ahve this far in my pre and voting lifetime, considered the LP were closest to my views on a fairer society for all. The only evidence I see currently is that, like so many other politicians, they are only in it for themselves.*
Of all the LP folks I have heard speak recently, I have to say I have been more impressed with Kim Leadbitter than anyone else. Yes, I know she is only a candidate in the Bat & Spen bye election (that should be the name of a pub for discussing all things politics and the respective merits of the print media whilst drinking fine cask ale), but what she said actually sounded like she meant it. It was the kind of language that I think would resonate with people more widely, though possibly not in this election.
*There will be very worthy and notable exceptions to this sweeping generalisation I am aware, but their voices are not heard loudly enough. All my opinion, but I'm entitled to one.
She's a good candidate. It'll be very depressing if she loses, as not only would she make a fine MP, but so were both her predecessors, both in terms of not "being in it for themselves" and working to make a difference for their constituents. If after all that the voters think the answer is to vote Tory, or for Galloway to spite the Labour party leadership, then they're shitting in their own coffee. Just my opinion.
Really? Link please because I don’t recall this
Everything's been covered already in this thread. And you can do your own research. As for Manchester; the population of London is around 8 million, the South East region in total around 20 million. So nearly a 3rd of the entire population of the UK. Not a great idea to be openly hostile to such a large proportion of the electorate. Burnham simply isn't intelligent enough to understand that dog-whistle politics will only ever lead to more division, but then, he's not interested in much more than his own career, so I doubt that bothers him. He's a B team player, and nothing more.
Burnham is going nowhere
Oh yes. This much is evident. He's reached his level.
@bridges was this question directly for me or was it just a wider question to the assembled masses with too much time on their hands ;)? (just wondering as you quoted my post and not fully au fait with forum posting/responding nuances)
No; it's aimed at those who deludedly think that Labour sticking to the centre right, and ignoring all the 'lefties' and everyone else, will ever achieve any form of necessary societal change. They won't. So, if they're happy with that, they can simply vote tory and be on the 'winning side'. No need to worry about who the Labour leader will be, that way. Life would be much simpler for them.
Everything’s been covered already in this thread. And you can do your own research.
So you are making it up because you dislike Burnham?
Burnham simply isn’t intelligent enough to understand that dog-whistle politics will only ever lead to more division, but then, he’s not interested in much more than his own career, so I doubt that bothers him.
What was the dog whistle? He pointed out that GM and other areas were being locked down with worse support packages than those offered when national lockdowns applied and that there was a clear divide in the Gov approach.
I'm not a Burnham fan but please don't make up faults when there is so much good material available.
Sir Keir Starmer’s ratings have plunged to the same low level as Jeremy Corbyn’s at the same stage of his leadership, reveals an exclusive poll.
What a yardstick.
Half the public think Labour should change its leader before the next general election. Strikingly, 48 per cent of Labour supporters say they agree.
Only half?!
Sir Keir beats Mr Johnson for honesty (by 29 per cent to 22) but the Tory leader is ahead for patriotism (60 versus 38), for having lots of personality (61 to 16). Mr Johnson is seen as more out of touch (by 56 to 41 per cent).
Who needs trust when you have an abundance of patriotism?
Oh, lots of wibble in there about Burnham, despite the fact he's not an MP, and can't take over as leader, even if so many men do love him, and women want to be him.
Ultimately, it's the same old... Starmer doesn't entertain and doesn't tickle the self satisfied true Brit bone.
I think we will see the LP really start to regain some ground in opinion polls due to their latest policy of asking employers to let people go home early to watch the England football game. 🙄
Everything’s been covered already in this thread. And you can do your own research
Which is shorthand for ‘there aren’t any facts whatsoever to support the nonsense I’m spouting, but who needs facts when you have poetry? Peoples Poetry’
So to sum up;
Labour were handed a gift
Labour polices were well loved
Labour lost the electionWow.
Yes. What makes you say "wow"? As you're aware, the election was called because the tories had a 25 point lead and everyone predicted a landslide. In the event, they lost their overall majority.
Which is shorthand for ‘there aren’t any facts whatsoever to support the nonsense I’m spouting, but who needs facts when you have poetry? Peoples Poetry’
This from the man who makes crap up and hasn't the grace to admit it when the facts are presented. Irony much?
Felicity, felicity, you fill me with electricity…
In the event, they lost their overall majority.
They got one easy enough, though.
And of course on the biggest issue of the day - Brexit - they could rely on the Lexiteer leader of the opposition to three line whip his MPs to slavishly support their anti-EU, right wing agenda at every juncture, thus rendering the term ‘opposition’ somewhat academic
I guess we’ll all have to hold our breath and wait for the bright socialist sunny uplands that the ‘Leader of HM Opposition’ believed Brexit will usher in
Looking good so far, isn’t it?
FFS I've just seen this :
Navendu Mishra, the MP for Stockport said the “divisive” leaflet sought to turn communities against each other and exposed a “hierarchy of racism” within the party.
He added: “We beat our opponents based on policies, not by dog-whistle racism.”
The Labour Party has descended into the gutter under Starmer. It is now using racist tactics of attempting to turn ethnic minorities against each in a desperate attempt to hold onto a once safe Labour seat.
One can only imagine the outcry which would have occurred had someone used a photo of Starmer shaking the hand of an Israeli politician to whip up hatred against Jews.
It now seems obvious that Starmer is prepared to tolerate racism and bigotry against black people, Muslims, and Hindus. But has zero tolerance against alleged anti-jewish racism.
What a monumental hypocrite.
And of course on the biggest issue of the day – Brexit – they could rely on the Lexiteer leader of the opposition to three line whip his MPs to slavishly support their anti-EU, right wing agenda at every juncture, thus rendering the term ‘opposition’ somewhat academic
Well done binners, the sheer quantity of bullshit you come out with makes it too much effort to counter.
Clever tactic..... drown any opposition with an overwhelming avalanche of bullshit.
Perhaps you can suggest that tactic to Keir Starmer? The 'keep silent and hope for the best' tactic doesn't appear to be working too well for him.
Correct me if I’m wrong but the beardy messiah called for article 50 to be triggered the day after the referendum then three-line-whipped his MPs to trigger article 50, leave the customs Union and leave the single market
Or did I miss something?
On the biggest issue of the day, you might as well have had Nigel Farage leading the Labour Party. In fact; Nige might have been a bit more reticent than Jezza
Brexit…. The greatest victory of divisive backward-looking, far right nationalism: Signed, sealed and gift-wrapped by the leader of the Labour Party
You couldn’t make it up
Yeah well you did make it you daft Muppet 🙂
Corbyn's Shadow Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union was Keir Starmer
And Keir Starmer was the principal person behind Labour's 2019 policy of a second referendum, which provided an open goal for the Tories.
Seriously mate, countering your nonsense is becoming tedious.
How's your colouring in going btw?
You couldn’t make it up
You're having a pretty good go.
Rather than arguing over the ashes of the demise of JC let's turn back to Starmer and what he needs to do potentially after losing B&S, what three things can be do straight away that will make a difference?
thus rendering the term ‘opposition’ somewhat academic
Good point. Thankfully whilst the government has been screwing up its response to the pandemic we now have the such a great opposition leader valiantly setting traps, in the minds of the faithful anyway, every question time with his forensic approach. Mere sixth formers and others not so highly trained might think he is completely ineffectual but I am sure come Thursday the three byelection wins for three will show them to be wrong and the crayon brigade to be correct.
Don’t be dissing the crayons.
Keeping them between the lines is harder than you think
Rather than arguing over the ashes of the demise of JC let’s turn back to Starmer and what he needs to do potentially after losing B&S, what three things can be do straight away that will make a difference?
Don't go asking difficult questions, it is far easier to argue the toss about Corbyn.
The first think Starmer can do is acknowledge that he was a bad choice for leader as he just doesn't have it
Second thing is to find someone who does have it and quickly put them into a safe Labour seat
Third thing is to make that person leader while also employing better media/marketing/strategy people and coming up with 2 or 3 simple and clear things they stand for.
What are those 2 or 3 things though?
I don't see why Starmer can't try the 2 or 3 things first.
Mine
1. Parliamentary reform inc. Federalism/ PR/ Scrap Lords.
2. Green energy/ transport infrastructure plan.
3. Massive investment in education.
This is an interesting article in the FT that sums up the problem now for labour, no matter who the leader is. How you square this circle of weaponised nationalism, I really don't know.
‘More divided and more angry’ — how Brexit reshaped British politics
Conservative victories in a swath of Brexit-voting Labour seats at the 2019 general election — and Johnson’s victory in May’s Hartlepool by-election — confirmed that some core Labour voters were attracted by a Tory message of Brexit, patriotism and cultural conservatism.
The first think Starmer can do is acknowledge that he was a bad choice for leader as he just doesn’t have it
Second thing is to find someone who does have it and quickly put them into a safe Labour seat
Third thing is to make that person leader while also employing better media/marketing/strategy people and coming up with 2 or 3 simple and clear things they stand for.
Here here.
No commentary on which side of the politic Labour should work from?
You can have all three of those things but if you don't tackle without massive spending plans and move away from tax and spend the party doesn't have much to say. (Can't see Labour taking this option. They will move more to the right after Starmer.)
Conservative victories in a swath of Brexit-voting Labour seats at the 2019 general election — and Johnson’s victory in May’s Hartlepool by-election — confirmed that some core Labour voters were attracted by a Tory message of Brexit, patriotism and cultural conservatism.
Yeah been saying this for years.
But it's how you address that patriotism. Oddly the Tories aren't that patriotic as we know they will look to the global market / nepotism to make use of the best purchasing power against human interest in their own country.
We all know this.
Maybe if Labour looked at the Pandemic and our role in it as a patriotic consensus to save lives - we could've have avoided the flags debacle and said something useful as party.
The likes of Julia Hartley Brewer are fine examples of anti-patriots. They're all GB flags and Brexit - but first on a plane out of the country and she's been a huge propenent of herd immunity - yet she commands that very Tory audience that see themselves as patriotic.
So you are making it up because you dislike Burnham?
What was the dog whistle?
Which is shorthand for ‘there aren’t any facts whatsoever to support the nonsense I’m spouting, but who needs facts when you have poetry? Peoples Poetry’
This is so, so easy:
Not even 'dog whistle'. Blatant xenophobia. Burnham is just another 'blame others' politician. Even a senior tory agrees with me:
I have posted exactly this info earlier in this thread. Which is why this must be so embarrassing for Binners; but then, we know Binners isn't a fan of actual facts. Which version of the Rose and Crown story is is this week Binners; is it the one where you gallantly fought all the racists and kicked them out of your local pub, telling them never to return? I can't keep up... 😀
I really don’t know.
Well if you really want to understand the issue binners, and move away from your absurd claims that Labour under Corbyn was more pro-brexit than Nigel Farage, then this article might help
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/may/05/labour-remainers-brexit-uk-eu-leavers
It's from the Guardian so I know how much you will value it.
How you square this circle of weaponised nationalism, I really don’t know.
By challenging it. Dont just sit there and allow the tories to define what being patriotic means. Ask why if they are so patriotic are they busy flogging the country off to the lowest bidder.
Ask why so many of these patriots dont want to live here.
For their simplistic view of history attack it via means which they would find harder to spin into a culture war. Point out how many people in England lost out to provide those lovely estates.
Not even ‘dog whistle’. Blatant xenophobia.
As I said to TJ when he took the same approach, by hysterically yelling 'RACIST!!' at everyone who even raises these issues, you are far more of the problem than they are.
What you are actually doing is preventing the actual issue from being discussed or addressed. In this case this will have led to actual deaths, due to nobody wanting to upset the conspicuois virtue-signallers
What he said isn't racist in the mind of any sane person. What he was pointing out is simply a truism. Everyone in Greater Manchester knows it, as they are familiar with the demographics of the places n question. You only have to look at the postcodes of the areas affected. So does that make us all racists then?
Actually.. don't bother answering that. We all know that nobody can live up to your lofty moral standards and everyone must be castigated for their moral impurities.
What this sort of competitive virtue signalling and shutting down debate also does is hand the Tories a stick to beat labour with. They can just point at 'the left' and indulge their 'political correctness gaaaawn maaaaad' narrative that has been playing for them so well in 'red wall' seats
Not even ‘dog whistle’. Blatant xenophobia. Burnham is just another ‘blame others’ politician. Even a senior tory agrees with me:
I've no idea about the parts about people from asian backgrounds not taking Covid seriously, but the part about people of asian heritage tending to live more densely in multi-generational households is just factually true, and seems obviously likely to be a factor in spreading Covid. The urban areas with the highest Covid spikes have tended to coincide with high levels of asian heritage populations. These areas often also have high levels of deprivation, poor health and comparatively low levels of education, and poor English skills amongst the older people.
It would be racist to say that this is something intrinsic to the fact that they are asian, but trying to pretend these factors don't exist isn't anti-racist, it's just anti-evidence.
Dismissive ad hominems are just so tedious. There's no problem expressing concerns about multiple occupancy households and covid so long as it's put in the context of poverty, discrimination etc.
but the part about people of asian heritage tending to live more densely in multi-generational households is just factually true, and seems obviously likely to be a factor in spreading Covid.
Just Asian people? Not other groups? Only Asians, then?
What about the dog-whistling over 'immigration' then? How do you explain that?
Trouble is, people are too quick to overlook the faults in a person they admire/like/support. Just look at the love for Blair on here. But Burnham is just another populist who will jump on whatever convenient bandwagon suits his career ambitions. He buggered off to a safe job away from Westminster politics, once he realised he was out of his depth there. He's most definitely not a man for a fight. Gobbing off about the Covid lockdown 'unfairness' was easy; he had nothing to lose (and was only part of a wider group saying the same anyway). He'll be off soon enough, when something better paid comes along.
Just Asian people? Not other groups? Only Asians, then?
What?
What about the dog-whistling over ‘immigration’ then? How do you explain that?
What, the stuff that Craig Whittaker said?
As I said to TJ when he took the same approach, by hysterically yelling ‘RACIST!!‘ at everyone who even raises these issues, you are far more of the problem than they are.
Is easily answered by this:
There’s no problem expressing concerns about multiple occupancy households and covid so long as it’s put in the context of poverty, discrimination etc.
But Burnham didn't do that. He knew exactly what he was doing; appealing to the fearful, by invoking xenophobia. As BillMC rightfully points out; high density occupation is down to issues such as poverty and deprivation, more than any 'cultural' considerations. But Burnham didn't mention that. He could easily have spoken about high density occupation in the context of poverty and deprivation, but he didn't. He only mentioned race and culture. Xenophobia.
you are far more of the problem than they are
So; being critical of racism is worse than actual racism? Right. Ok.
He’s most definitely not a man for a fight.
I can think of 96 families who would strongly disagree with you there
We get it. You don't like him
So; being critical of racism is worse than actual racism? Right. Ok
Not when what you're calling racist isn't remotely racist at all.
You are aware that people displaying attitudes such as yours with your constant vocal virtue-signalling, permanent moral outrage and Taliban-esque demands for moral purity are an absolute gift to the Tories?
All you and people like you on 'the left' do is alienate and irritate all but the most pious and sanctimonious and drive even liberal, reasonable people away in droves with your moral extremism
What he said isn’t racist in the mind of any sane person
A common tactic of yours, is to ascribe negative characteristics to people you disagree with. Here, it's implying that anyone concerned about racism is 'insane'. You refer to Corbyn as 'Grandad'; ageist. Ascribing mental illness to 'loony lefties' is another favourite of yours. It appears you're incapable of actually engaging and debating effectively, and need to resort to putting others down. Why?
Not even ‘dog whistle’. Blatant xenophobia. Burnham is just another ‘blame others’ politician.
Depends if his comments are based on facts.
My theoretical office base is in Leicester, which was never out of lockdown last year. Was consistently being mentioned that mixing of multi generational Asian households was a key driver to the consistently high infection rate, and they put a huge targeted effort in on communication and testing in those communities.
No one accused the authorities in Leicester of dog whistle racism.
Though it was interesting hearing colleagues from different backgrounds blaming the mixing on the "others", so mosques v temples etc.
You are aware that people displaying attitudes such as yours with your constant vocal virtue-signalling, permanent moral outrage and Taliban-esque demands for moral purity are an absolute gift to the Tories.
And here we go...
'in the 3 years to March 2019, an average of around 787,000 (3%) of the estimated 23 million households in England were overcrowded (that is, they had fewer bedrooms than they needed to avoid undesirable sharing)
around 2% of White British households were overcrowded
the households with the highest rates of overcrowding were in the Bangladeshi (24%), ****stani (18%), Black African (16%), Arab (15%) and Mixed White and Black African (14%) ethnic groups
White British households were less likely to be overcrowded than households from all other ethnic groups combined – this was across all socio-economic groups and age groups, most regions and income bands, and regardless of whether they owned or rented their home'
Yup, we are in a weird position where even admitting the undeniable factual evidence that non-white households are significantly more likely to be overcrowded (which is the first thing you'd need to do to be able to tackle the issue), makes you a racist.
And here we go…
?
My theoretical office base is in Leicester, which was never out of lockdown last year. Was consistently being mentioned that mixing of multi generational Asian households was a key driver to the consistently high infection rate, and they put a huge targeted effort in on communication and testing in those communities.
No one accused the authorities in Leicester of dog whistle racism.
Burnham referred to Asian people in particular, when he could just as easily have said 'I mean those people who have to live in high density occupation housing', and completely avoided mentioning 'Asians'. So why didn't he?
Yup, we are in a weird position where even admitting the undeniable factual evidence that non-white households are significantly more likely to be overcrowded
All 'non-white' households?
?
Quite. Unsurprising that went right over your head.
Do you need a bigger shovel?
All ‘non-white’ households?
Maybe stick to responding to stuff that people have actually said? Just a thought.
So why didn’t he?
It was the interviewer who mentioned asians, and he actually avoided a weasely answer. I would stake the house that the vast majority of people living in high density housing in Manchester will be asian.
I would probably agree he should have highlighted that there were other factors at play but maybe he didn't get the chance, I don't know.
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/stamford-hill-highest-covid-infections-world-b920632.html
Can we blame 'the Jews'?
"Spitz pointed to factors that have blighted other ethnic groups incuding multi-generational households, poverty and a higher incidence of pre-existing health conditions"
Context.
Maybe stick to responding to stuff that people have actually said? Just a thought.
I have. Burnham specifically referred to 'Asians' when he was questioned about the spread of Covid in Manchester.
Quite. Unsurprising that went right over your head.
Oh I get it. You're calling me a racist because I made reference to an organisation renowned for its insistence on moral purity to illustrate a point about the insistence on moral purity
Definitely racist, rather than just an obvious reference to moral purity
Oh cool, whataboutery. Well we have around 2.5 million or more people with asian heritage in the UK, how many Orthodox Jews are there? So yes it's an issue but on a much lesser scale. Also none of the issues regarding connections to the Indian sub-continent and the Delta variant.
Oh I get it. You’re calling me a racist because I made reference to an organisation renowned for its insistence on moral purity to illustrate a point about the insistence on moral purity
Where did I call you a racist? You're just imagining stuff now. As well as not understanding things. My question to you was about why you are very keen to ascribe negative characteristics to people you disagree with. As you then went and so brilliantly demonstrated with that comment. A question you, as yet, have failed to answer. Care to give it a go?
Not really.
Would you like a picture of some kittens instead?
Oh cool, whataboutery. Well we have around 2.5 million or more people with asian heritage in the UK, how many Orthodox Jews are there? So yes it’s an issue but on a much lesser scale.
https://www.ft.com/content/c5d29294-fdaf-465e-adc9-d4d27b9cbfa9
"An Orthodox Jewish community in London has one of the world’s highest rates of Covid-19 past infection, according to a study that points to crowded housing and socio-economic deprivation as possible reasons for the increased prevalence.
The rate of past infection, known as seroprevalence, in one Orthodox Jewish community of roughly 15,000 people was found to be 64 per cent, according to researchers at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine.
By contrast, seroprevalence is believed to be 7 per cent across the UK and 11 per cent in London, the Office for National Statistics has estimated."
Can you find me an example of a London politician, when asked about the spread of Covid, referring specifically to the Jewish population? In the same way Burnham referred to 'Asians'? Or, is it that those concerned with dealing with the crisis were much more interested in the socio-economic factors, rather than stuff like ethnicity or culture?
When the BBC interviewer asked if he was referring predominantly to the Asian population of Greater Manchester, Burnham said: "Yes, I do mean that."
My bold.
The fact he didn't mention Prestwich is probably part of a conspiracy
*taps nose knowingly*
How you square this circle of weaponised nationalism, I really don’t know.
Oh FFS stop with the pathetic defeatism. It's really very simple, you offer them an alternative based on their needs and interests that shows normal people that you are on their side, and that you will fight for them. That's what happened in 2017 and labour massively increased it's vote share. The minute working people think labour don't represent their interests, they will stop voting for them. As that article Ernie shared (thanks BTW, I missed that) says, the only group labour represents right now are pissed off middle class remainers who still haven't accepted they lost in 2016. That's fine, but it's not going to win them an election, and instead they will end up like the liberal democrats, a fringe party of elitist liberals who like to talk about the working class whilst failing to to talk to them.
"We are struggling," Mr Burnham told the cameras and the impromptu crowd that had gathered. "This pandemic has hit the North harder than it has other places because of the entrenched poverty in the north of England, because Westminster has neglected the north of England for too many years."
People are asking: why is it that the poorest places in the north are the most affected by this virus? Some on the right are seeking to put the blame on the people themselves and on different communities. We must not let them do this.
Oh FFS stop with the pathetic defeatism. It’s really very simple....
Binners isn't interested in practical solutions, they get in the way of his unrestrained ranting.
And it's obvious how much he enjoys that as he makes stuff up just so he can rant about it.
To be fair I enjoy his rants too, specially when they enter the realm of nonsensical gibberish, there's something uniquely special about them.
I quite liked this one a couple of hours ago :
You are aware that people displaying attitudes such as yours with your constant vocal virtue-signalling, permanent moral outrage and Taliban-esque demands for moral purity are an absolute gift to the Tories?
Says the man who stormed out of his local pub in a fit of moral outrage.
Have you been back to say sorry yet binners?
Oh good. Are we back to my local boozer again.
Can I ask yet again... why the constant obsession with it?
You must know that it's really, really odd, right? The amount of time all you lefties spend mulling over the events at a local pub in east Lancashire
Would you like me to see if I can set up a webcam with a live feed, so you can all sit and watch the comings and goings? You can update yourself with the latest developments in the ongoing bowling green saga.
In other local pub news, it's really hotting up in Rammy... the landlord of the Eagle and Child, just up the road has been dabbling in anti-vax conspiracy theories. Theres been uproar on the 'Whats on in Ramsbottom' Facebook page with some people saying they're going to take their custom to the Hearth of the Ram despite the beer garden not being as nice.
I'll tell you what... should we spare everyone else having to put up with your frankly weird compulsion and just start a separate Rammy Pubs thread? Would that make you happy? I can keep you all abreast of developments as they happen. If I get time I could produce a series of illustrations that you could print out and make yourself a little scrap book to show your friends, like the worlds most tragic Panini stickers album?
Can I ask yet again… why the constant obsession with it?
I thought the link was obvious. You accusing people of virtue signalling and moral outrage and your legendary tale of storming out of your local pub in a fit of moral outrage.
Not sure about the Taliban connection though.
How about you explain your constant obsession with "lefties" and Jeremy Corbyn binners?
Or your interminable obsession with a film made in 1979?
EDIT : I take it you haven't been back to say sorry?
I don't think its really virtue-signalling to object to people referring to people of colour as N**s and Asian people as P's, is it?
Because what that is is genuine, nasty and unpleasant, straight-out racism and its deeply offensive. Surely thats something we can all agree on, no? I genuinely don't get what your issue is here?
Whereas saying that Andy Burnham is racist because he had the temerity to comment on the simple fact that multi-generational households are predominantly in certain areas is just complete nonsense
And its just that sort of nonsense that generally has people rolling their eyes at the professionally outraged people who tend to offer up such ridiculous opinions.
And ultimately, banging on about the latter devalues the former, which is the real problem
EDIT : I take it you haven’t been back to say sorry?
Why on earth would I apologise to a bunch of racist *s for pointing out that they're a bunch of racist *s? What exactly would I be apologising for? My colourful use of language? My Guardian reading? British colonial rule in Africa in the 19th century?
Now please, for the benefit of everyone, not least yourself, can we get off the subject of my local pub, once and for all?
at the professionally outraged people
Your lack of self-awareness is frankly stunning binners. I don't think there is a single person on here who fits the description "professionally outraged" better than you.
Indeed it is your outbursts of uncontrolled outrage which returned me from causal observer to active poster again. 😀
What exactly would I be apologising for? My colourful use of language? My Guardian reading? British colonial rule in Africa in the 19th century?
That would be a start.
Although to be fair I didn't know about your connection with British colonial rule in Africa in the 19th century.
Indeed it is your outbursts of uncontrolled outrage which returned me from causal observer to active poster again.
Then my work here is done, comrade 😉
The minute working people think labour don’t represent their interests, they will stop voting for them.
And vote for a Tory party that represents their interests even less?
What if working people like what the tories are doing, why do you think what you would offer them be better in their opinion?
The consistently high polling support for both Brexit (still!) and this present Tory administration (still!) would suggest that turkeys really do not only vote for Christmas but are positively ecstatic at the prospect of it
I don’t think its really virtue-signalling to object to people referring to people of colour as N**s and Asian people as P’s, is it?
Some people would consider that to be virtue-signalling, which is the point really.
Perhaps you could have a think about that the next time you accuse others of the same.
And vote for a Tory party that represents their interests even less?
See my earlier comment. A lot of people who have stopped voting labour have moved to other parties or are just not voting. Those who voted tory did so purely on the single issue of brexit. Labour are now seen as the party which represents the niche interests of woke metropolitan remainers, whereas the tories at least sound as if they are interested in non-metropolitan working class people, even if we all know they aren't.
Some people would consider that to be virtue-signalling, which is the point really.
To be honest, the kind of person who thinks objecting to that kind of language is virtue signalling can, quite frankly, **** right off anyway 🙂
To be honest, the kind of person who thinks objecting to that kind of language is virtue signalling can, quite frankly, **** right off anyway 🙂
I agree, but such observations are relative to the observer. Which, again, is the point.
Those who voted tory did so purely on the single issue of brexit.
Thats way too simplistic. Brexit was just the beginning. It most certainly isn't the end. We've got an awful long way to travel yet on the Brexit bus
The Tory's are continuing and intensifying their culture war because they know they're on to a winner with what you might diplomatically refer to as 'socially conservative' voters.
It's the Daily Mail ethos. Paul Dacre always said that his mission (such as it is) was to have the reader hating somebody by the end of an editorial. And we all know the subjects towards which that hate was usually directed, don't we?
The Tory's have simply turned Paul Dacre's editorial policy into actual government policy, and it would appear that a large percentage of people are absolutely lapping it up, on account of them being ****s
It might stop before we reach outright fascism. It might not. Who knows? There does seem to be a very real appetite for something closely resembling fascism in this country at the moment though.
Thats not me being defeatest. Thats me being a realist
What are your actual practical suggestions for labour countering something that it seems a large percentage of people are very receptive too? because it looks to me like a lot of (angry, parochial, white) people are done with any form of liberalism, and are quite happy to vote for a government that is too, and will put 'progress' into reverse.
Which kind of leaves you a bit screwed as an essentially liberal party, when it's liberalism itself which is being scapegoated as the cause of all this countries problems
Brexit was just the beginning.
You do realise that a Tory government agreed to hold a referendum on brexit in an attempt to bury the issue once and for all, don't you?
They were convinced of a remain victory otherwise they would never have staged the referendum.
Paul Dacre always said that his mission (such as it is) was to have the reader hating somebody by the end of an editorial.
When you say always do you have one example of him saying that?
Not that I would doubt the accuracy of what you post binners.
And can you provide examples of the government's mission to ferment hate crime? Preferably without virtue signalling or going into a fit of moral outrage.