Stop voting for fucking Tories

[_Os_]

"Racism is black and white
Tomiwa Owolade claims that Irish, Jewish and Traveller people all suffer from “racism” (“Racism in Britain is not a black and white issue. It’s far more complicated”, Comment). They undoubtedly experience prejudice. This is similar to racism and the two words are often used as if they are interchangeable."

She's literally stating that these people don't suffer racism. From her title, the quotation marks around "racism", to the content. It's not ham fisted, it's very clear that she doesn't believe they suffer from racism.

The ham fisted part was the next part you didn't quote where she crams in historic examples that don't really work in the space of a letter reply.

The first part that you've quoted, I don't agree with the how she's worded it (yes Jews can suffer racism, her attempt to make a distinction between racism and prejudice doesn't work and doesn't make sense), but taken with the second part she's saying that blacks have suffered more racism historically.

It looks like an attempt to get rid of someone team Starmer doesn't like. You should watch the Al Jazeera Labour Files documentary (all the parts are on Youtube) if you haven't already. A lot of the people Labour has got rid of for anti-Semitism are Jewish.

"It is true that many types of white people with points of difference, such as redheads, can experience this prejudice. But they are not all their lives subject to racism. In pre-civil rights America, Irish people, Jewish people and Travellers were not required to sit at the back of the bus. In apartheid South Africa, these groups were allowed to vote. And at the height of slavery, there were no white-seeming people manacled on the slave ships."

You really think that bit changes it from "Whites don't suffer from racism"? The very first sentence just doubles down on the idea that whites don't suffer from racism, just other prejudices. She then talks about all sorts of world events that aren't related to the UK experience, so I don't see why it's a problem for others to raise non UK based facts.

It's apparent enough that all 3 of those groups also suffer from racism in the UK, despite what she's claiming. If she'd wanted to merely claim that blacks have it worse (and in the vast majority of cases, I'd be inclined to agree with that sentiment), she could have very easily said so, without clearly trying to make out that Whites cannot suffer from racism.

EDIT - It starts to come across in the same way as those who try and defend Corbyn on not recognising the mural as anti-semitic, or pretend that Trump isn't deliberately using specific language and phrasing to act as a dog whistle for racists.

Abbott is either thick as two short planks, and remarkably ignorant, to write a letter like that. Or she's the well educated and worldly wise person, who must therefore have been absolutely aware of what she was writing. She cannot have it both ways.

We're going around in circles. You've said before in the chat string that you think black people have suffered the most racism, and do again in this reply. Even with a very critical reading, that's obviously most of what Abbott was getting at too.

How is slavery "all sorts of world events that aren't related to the UK experience", when England had colonies in the West Indies filled with slaves before the UK existed and Abbott is descended from those people? It's madness to claim that's not part of the UK experience.
Apartheid too, has its origins in Shepstone's segregation laws in Natal (who was from the UK/British, and like all colonies ruling over British subjects). and the later segregation on British owned mines. In blunt racial terms, Jews owned the mines, whites were the foremen, blacks were the labourers ... and this was the system the UK created and oversaw in what became SA.

They're ham-fisted examples because it's impossible to explain all this in a letter response, even my extremely brief overview is longer than her letter. The only completely foreign example (to my knowledge) were the American buses.

But there's something else going on in the responses (including from Labour), are non-British examples acceptable yes or no? If "no" then black people have been discriminated against the most by the UK (something you agree with), if "yes" (which is the Labour position it seems) then inevitably any discussion of racism must start by first saying because of the Nazis anti-Semitism is the main concern and Israel must be supported (the Jewish people Labour got rid of for anti-Semitism opposed Israel). My memory may be bad, but I think the UK and colonies fought the Nazis and didn't in fact support them, not sure how the UK and their former colonies then get lumbered with Nazi crimes.

[Raggs]

Brevity does not explain her clearly ascribing prejudice to one group and racism to another. You were equally brief when you said she just meant blacks suffer from racism to a greater degree as it's on a daily basis. She is the one stating that different terms should be used for white Vs non white.

[Happyhooker]

I'm sure that she's been a great MP for her constituency, having been re-elected, what 6+ times (even if it's a shoe-in for Labour)?

No. No she hasn't at all.

It's just that they only have to weigh the vote around here, not count it.

When compared to the work done by creasy and hillier, two of her adjoining mps, her constituency work is shameful.

[_Os_]

Eh, where do you think Jews in the UK came from? Many of them fled Europe in the 20th Century for some reason.

Where did they come from? Some of the first pogroms in Europe were in England, they were all killed by around 1200 (I'm sure Paddington can use his Wiki skills for us), hence there were no Jews in what later became the UK. Hence not much anti-Semitism either. As I've already posted a Jewish person was PM whilst Britain was up to all sorts in its empire in the 19th century.

This is as amusing as it is embarrassing - the Jews weren’t all killed, they were expelled and then later readmitted during the Protectorate (ever wonder why so many British Jews are called Oliver?)
So there were Jews, there was anti-semitism and it was codified in law at various points, Jews requiring emancipation during the Victorian era. Happy to help.
Your approach to being called up on points that are clearly nonsense over this has been to keep throwing shit at the wall in the hope some will stick, just accept you’ve made a poorly thought out point and move on, it happens to all of us.

You didn't let me down. Yes I know, but no one reads the large paragraphs (including your good self on your own account), it's easier to give the half a line version and hand it over to you. Of course I knew Jews (and Catholics) had discriminatory laws against them removed in the 19th century, but what is the bigger 19th century British picture?

Is it "clearly nonsense"? You were sure all Abbott's examples were foreign, I'm not in the business of point scoring so didn't bother calling you out on it. Someone cannot be expected to know every aspect of history, nor will you see me directing you to Wikipedia if you were clearly making a rhetorical point and knew what you were talking about (as in I knew laws discriminating against Jews were removed in the 19th century).

[Paddington Bear]

Where did they come from? Some of the first pogroms in Europe were in England, they were all killed by around 1200 (I'm sure Paddington can use his Wiki skills for us), hence there were no Jews in what later became the UK. Hence not much anti-Semitism either. As I've already posted a Jewish person was PM whilst Britain was up to all sorts in its empire in the 19th century.

This is as amusing as it is embarrassing - the Jews weren’t all killed, they were expelled and then later readmitted during the Protectorate (ever wonder why so many British Jews are called Oliver?)
So there were Jews, there was anti-semitism and it was codified in law at various points, Jews requiring emancipation during the Victorian era. Happy to help.
Your approach to being called up on points that are clearly nonsense over this has been to keep throwing shit at the wall in the hope some will stick, just accept you’ve made a poorly thought out point and move on, it happens to all of us.

You didn't let me down. Yes I know, but no one reads the large paragraphs (including your good self on your own account), it's easier to give the half a line version and hand it over to you. Of course I knew Jews (and Catholics) had discriminatory laws against them removed in the 19th century, but what is the bigger 19th century British picture?

Is it "clearly nonsense"? You were sure all Abbott's examples were foreign, I'm not in the business of point scoring so didn't bother calling you out on it. Someone cannot be expected to know every aspect of history, nor will you see me directing you to Wikipedia if you were clearly making a rhetorical point and knew what you were talking about (as in I knew laws discriminating against Jews were removed in the 19th century).

You said:

Here's some questions for you, when has Britain legally discriminated against Jews in the UK itself or in its colonies? When Disraeli was PM, what was the UK getting up to in Africa

Which strongly suggests you didn’t know about legal discrimination against Jews in the UK.

And if you’re not in the interests of point scoring don’t try and score points. This place tends to be pretty good at having good debates without going full PR, but you’ve opted to start posting like a patronising prick because you don’t like being called up on factual errors.
But we’re getting nowhere and I (genuinely) don’t want to get in a days long shitfight, so I’ll leave it there and we can try again on another topic another time. Last word is all yours if you’d like it or you can move on as well, your call.

[fishfoodie]

I think this thread demonstrates why Starmer is absolutely correct in expelling Abbott, when he eventually gets around to it; she's a fucking liability, & her one safe seat isn't enough to compensate of her ability to damage Labours election in every other fucking constituency !

I fundamentally disagree with OS on the Pros & Cons of internal Party discipline versus having a many voices & opinions within the Parliamentary Party.

Labour & the Tories have both had blocks of rebels who wouldn't be whipped, & while it's one thing to have them with a strong leader, it's a fucking disaster when there's a weak leader. If you're in the Party, then you're in the Party, & if you don't agree to vote for what's in the manifesto, fuck off & run as an Independent !

The Labour party has traditionally been far more tolerant of them, & I would say that has been a significant part of why they've been out of power for considerably longer than they've been in power ! The Tories on the other hand might grumble & gripe, but when there's an election, they fall into line, & as long as they do so & stay on message, the Party leaves them alone.

The likes of Corbyn & Hoey voted against their Parties policy on hundreds of occasions, & never saw any consequences; at least with Skinner or Benn you felt there was some kind of principle behind their vote; with the others it was like a five year old refusing to eat their veg, & by Dog does the Tory media know how to activate these knuckle-draggers, & get themselves a quote to damage the prospects of every other Labour candidate !!!

[_Os_]

Brevity does not explain her clearly ascribing prejudice to one group and racism to another. You were equally brief when you said she just meant blacks suffer from racism to a greater degree as it's on a daily basis. She is the one stating that different terms should be used for white Vs non white.

Which she then rowed back on in her apology and said racism is the correct term.

Like I've said from the first post, I don't agree with her politics (and that whole not racism but prejudiced thing was clearly political). But if she's got rid of for this, when it's not cut and dried at all. Then it looks a bit bad for a Starmer government. Part of the Labour objection was that the comments were "offensive", well no shit, how does being an MP work if you cannot say things some will find offensive (40% of people will usually disagree with any opinion). Seems like centrally controlled communication, opinion polling every comment beforehand, New Labour mk2. Problem with that is don't expect much meaningful change, it would risk offending too many people.

[Raggs]

Brevity does not explain her clearly ascribing prejudice to one group and racism to another. You were equally brief when you said she just meant blacks suffer from racism to a greater degree as it's on a daily basis. She is the one stating that different terms should be used for white Vs non white.

Which she then rowed back on in her apology and said racism is the correct term.

Like I've said from the first post, I don't agree with her politics (and that whole not racism but prejudiced thing was clearly political). But if she's got rid of for this, when it's not cut and dried at all. Then it looks a bit bad for a Starmer government. Part of the Labour objection was that the comments were "offensive", well no shit, how does being an MP work if you cannot say things some will find offensive (40% of people will usually disagree with any opinion). Seems like centrally controlled communication, opinion polling every comment beforehand, New Labour mk2. Problem with that is don't expect much meaningful change, it would risk offending too many people.

As I said, she's either stupid enough to somehow fuck up that letter badly enough in the first place. Or she's smart enough to know exactly what she wrote, and now just puts an apology together to try and get the clamour to die down.

If she's the first, it makes sense to get rid of her. If she's the second then it's the same deal. It's a letter to a national publication, that she had plenty of time to read and reread, to ensure she was completely happy with it. It's not some private memo she banged out in a rush down to her next meeting.

[_Os_]

[You said:

Here's some questions for you, when has Britain legally discriminated against Jews in the UK itself or in its colonies? When Disraeli was PM, what was the UK getting up to in Africa

Which strongly suggests you didn’t know about legal discrimination against Jews in the UK.

It's a standard debating technique, they're leading questions. The hint is in the question, I obviously know something about Disraeli why else mention him. And just from chatting on this thread it should be obvious I know at least something about how UK democracy developed (eg I've posted about constitutional reform enough, and we've spoken about it before). When someone replies with "you are very wrong etc", I reply "err is this less or more than blacks experienced?". Then get radio silence as I have got.

And if you’re not in the interests of point scoring don’t try and score points. This place tends to be pretty good at having good debates without going full PR, but you’ve opted to start posting like a patronising prick because you don’t like being called up on factual errors.
But we’re getting nowhere and I (genuinely) don’t want to get in a days long shitfight, so I’ll leave it there and we can try again on another topic another time. Last word is all yours if you’d like it or you can move on as well, your call.

I think we have similar views on eachother, there's times when I've thought you're a dick too, but you're clearly well read on what you're interested in and have firm views. We just disagree that's all. Neither of us are "embarrassed" or anything like that, I expect.

The interesting thing would be what we agree on I guess. We only communicate through disagreements.

[Biffer]

This discussion is making me desperate for whatever shite the Tories come out with next, purely to change the fucking record.

[_Os_]

As I said, she's either stupid enough to somehow fuck up that letter badly enough in the first place. Or she's smart enough to know exactly what she wrote, and now just puts an apology together to try and get the clamour to die down.

Maybe a bit of both, the tabloids go hard on her basically saying she's stupid. A bit suspicious they don't give many other MPs the same treatment in such a sustained way. On this subject she knows more than most I expect.

The default is now to assume any apology is insincere. Maybe not a great development, plenty of people have been nuked for a Twitter comment. Normally apologising just increases the outrage. Given that you could argue if she was trying to save herself she doesn't apologise and goes for the 2000 word opinion piece instead.

I think she's done whatever she does, Starmer clearly wants to purge the Labour left. If it wasn't this it would be something else.

[_Os_]

This discussion is making me desperate for whatever shite the Tories come out with next, purely to change the fucking record.

We'll all fight like rats in a sack once they're gone.

In 1997 Labour came in on an economic upturn, people wanting change and optimistic. Whatever the mood music is it's not "things can only get better" euphoria. Probably Labour comes in and no one is particularly happy after not that long.

[tabascoboy]

[Insane_Homer]

Spoiler

Show

[/spolier]

I fail to see how the method of arrival is the determining factor or does the daughter of immigrants have insider knowledge as to their imported values? Certainly seems like the child (vile cunt) of immigrants is the one with values at odds with 'our' country.

[tabascoboy]

Spoiler

Show

[/spolier]

I fail to see how the method of arrival is the determining factor or does the daughter of immigrants have insider knowledge as to their imported values? Certainly seems like the child (vile cunt) of immigrants is the one with values at odds with 'our' country.

Hey, it's not as if our system of justice is based on "innocent before proven guilty" after all...

[dpedin]

Spoiler

Show

[/spolier]

I fail to see how the method of arrival is the determining factor or does the daughter of immigrants have insider knowledge as to their imported values? Certainly seems like the child (vile cunt) of immigrants is the one with values at odds with 'our' country.

Hey, it's not as if our system of justice is based on "innocent before proven guilty" after all...

They desperately need an enemy to 'hate' and use as the fall guys in their war on woke and to whip up some real jingoistic fervour and xenophobic shit for the elections down south. What better than an enemy that can't speak for itself and is easy to demonise. They can't do it with the EU because post Brexit omnishambles they realise that they are going to have to go cap in hand to the EU and seek favours to implement Windsor Agreement and when implementing the forthcoming checks on imports into the UK. They are struggling to find an enemy now - the EU is out of bounds, there are too many folk on the bread line to blame them and they need them all back into work, woke tofu eating left raises all sorts of issues with shit on beaches, BBC leadership, food banks, climate change that folk now are really worried about, etc. They have no one left to blame all their self inflicted shite on apart from the 'boat people'. Once you accept they are a shower of cunts then everything they do makes sense!

[Line6 HXFX]

Everything they told you is lies. Trickle down economics that they spouted all last century and for much of this one was bullshit (David Cameron admitted as much). The Royal Family don't attract tourists, the Palaces and Castles do (France doesn't have one and they attract many more visitors to their palaces). The Royal Family even interferes massively in our democracy.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/202 ... ns-consent
That if you just aspire you will be fine..when the country needs massive scap heaps, well behaved poverty and people to have like zero income.
That university education is worth it..
Britain is built on bullshit.

One fragile lie atop another atop another, atop another.
All to keep the wealthy in their castles and you in the keep.
And it is all is unravelling.


They only have reactionary, distractionary populist tosh left.

[I like neeps]

This discussion is making me desperate for whatever shite the Tories come out with next, purely to change the fucking record.

We'll all fight like rats in a sack once they're gone.

In 1997 Labour came in on an economic upturn, people wanting change and optimistic. Whatever the mood music is it's not "things can only get better" euphoria. Probably Labour comes in and no one is particularly happy after not that long.

Agreed, very unclear how Labour are going to improve anything. They're just as reactionary as the Tories at this point.

[dpedin]

This discussion is making me desperate for whatever shite the Tories come out with next, purely to change the fucking record.

We'll all fight like rats in a sack once they're gone.

In 1997 Labour came in on an economic upturn, people wanting change and optimistic. Whatever the mood music is it's not "things can only get better" euphoria. Probably Labour comes in and no one is particularly happy after not that long.

Agreed, very unclear how Labour are going to improve anything. They're just as reactionary as the Tories at this point.

That's exactly the line the Tories are desperate for you to believe! They are desperate to sell the 'all politicians are shite but because we talk posh, went to a Red Brick Uni to study PPE and have three houses' we are better than you and should retain political power. JRM is the epitome of this message. Get the bastards out and lets see what the other parties can do, it can't be much worse and if Labour repeat what the did last time at least the NHS will get better, child poverty will reduce and public services will work!

[tabascoboy]

Spoiler

Show

[/spolier]

I fail to see how the method of arrival is the determining factor or does the daughter of immigrants have insider knowledge as to their imported values? Certainly seems like the child (vile cunt) of immigrants is the one with values at odds with 'our' country.

Apparently she got "skewered" today on GMB, having to admit that the boast of 20 000 new police recruits only makes up the shortfall of the number lost from 2010 - 2017...

[SaintK]

Spoiler

Show

[/spolier]

I fail to see how the method of arrival is the determining factor or does the daughter of immigrants have insider knowledge as to their imported values? Certainly seems like the child (vile cunt) of immigrants is the one with values at odds with 'our' country.

Apparently she got "skewered" today on GMB, having to admit that the boast of 20 000 new police recruits only makes up the shortfall of the number lost from 2010 - 2017...

She gets skewered every time she opens her mouth in an interview. Always appears completely unprepared for any questions on whatever subject she's trying to discuss!!

[JM2K6]

Brevity does not explain her clearly ascribing prejudice to one group and racism to another. You were equally brief when you said she just meant blacks suffer from racism to a greater degree as it's on a daily basis. She is the one stating that different terms should be used for white Vs non white.

Which she then rowed back on in her apology and said racism is the correct term.

Like I've said from the first post, I don't agree with her politics (and that whole not racism but prejudiced thing was clearly political). But if she's got rid of for this, when it's not cut and dried at all. Then it looks a bit bad for a Starmer government. Part of the Labour objection was that the comments were "offensive", well no shit, how does being an MP work if you cannot say things some will find offensive (40% of people will usually disagree with any opinion). Seems like centrally controlled communication, opinion polling every comment beforehand, New Labour mk2. Problem with that is don't expect much meaningful change, it would risk offending too many people.

I dunno how much clearer it has to be that Starmer is fanatical about ensuring that Labour cannot be hit with the usual criticisms and slurs which are the only things that can torpedo their election chances. Abbott choosing to fight that particular battle and very obviously opening herself up to accusations of anti-Semitism - not for the first time - along with being intrinsically linked to Corbyn and others who already bear that stain, mean that it would absolutely bonkers if she wasn't severely punished. It would make no sense for Starmer to reverse course on this. It would make no sense to throw away everything he's tried to build regarding the public perception of Labour in order to save someone who's only been a liability for much of the last decade.

You and I probably agree on a lot of the criticism of Labour under Starmer and I'm aghast at some of the failings of the past few months, and the direction of travel on issues I strongly give a shit about, but it would be chaotic at a bare minimum if Abbott was given a free pass for this.

[I like neeps]

We'll all fight like rats in a sack once they're gone.

In 1997 Labour came in on an economic upturn, people wanting change and optimistic. Whatever the mood music is it's not "things can only get better" euphoria. Probably Labour comes in and no one is particularly happy after not that long.

Agreed, very unclear how Labour are going to improve anything. They're just as reactionary as the Tories at this point.

That's exactly the line the Tories are desperate for you to believe! They are desperate to sell the 'all politicians are shite but because we talk posh, went to a Red Brick Uni to study PPE and have three houses' we are better than you and should retain political power. JRM is the epitome of this message. Get the bastards out and lets see what the other parties can do, it can't be much worse and if Labour repeat what the did last time at least the NHS will get better, child poverty will reduce and public services will work!

But they won't do that re NHS, child poverty etc because as Os said Labour came into a growing economy and Blair/Brown/New Labour's "third way" was Thatcherite economics + increased state spending.

Thatcherite economics have failed. It's not repeatable. So let's park the they'll do what Blair did right there.

So what will they do? On the NHS Starmer and Streeting have both taken the there's no money, unions are wrong, private businesses will help the NHS line. So what's their plan for sorting it out? Haven't said one. How will they grow the economy to increase tax revenue to fund these services? They have no industrial and economic plan.

They have new policies weekly, often contradicting last year's. There's no clear theme to any of it, not even the clean up politics we take the high ground anymore. Sadly Labour are also politics by focus group.

I'm sure labour will make things marginally better but the anger, disillusionment, and decline will continue.

[JM2K6]

I would worry less about announced policies right now than when we're actually close to an election. The Tories are not above nicking decent ideas. Policy announcements by Labour right now are essentially meaningless, they're not in power.

I don't think there's any advantage to pretending that Labour aren't going to take over an essentially broke country. They should be pushing far, far harder on the Tories economic failures but regardless of what they do and say before the election is over, if they win there is zero doubt that the fiscal situation is going to be nightmarish. Making grand promises for big expensive projects seems like a bad idea.

[_Os_]

Loads of examples of Irish people as slaves. The African Market was just bigger and more industrial. Diane would know this stuff. As for Jews and slavery she knows EXACTLY what she is doing as the stuff about Jews as the dominant slave owners, a load of cock, took off in the last few years. That was partly wrapped in BLM and all sorts of hard left Palestinian cock wombling

The Irish didn't suffer slavery, which means being owned by someone on a heredity basis (after the initial slave is taken, the rest are born into it). There was indentured labour, which meant a contract freely entered into (although of course, someone has to be desperate to enter into it, and the English ravaged Ireland, so how free it was is debatable), which ended after a set time (usually 7 or so years) after which the individual got capital and/or land in the colony. The Irish were indentured in the West Indies and were later fully replaced by African slaves. Indians were also indentured in SA and Fiji. There were also Irish unwillingly deported to colonies as prisoners (but again, the English basically destroyed Ireland, so being guilty of a "crime" becomes debatable).

The Irish slave thing is used in the US to say whites were slaves too (many of the indentured Irish descendants ended up in the South), to try and diminish black slavery.

I wasn't aware of the Jewish slave owners thing. Looks like black Americans competing on the victim totem pole. Maybe not just an American thing though, Wiley was making anti-Semitic statements years before Kanye and on a similar theme.

[robmatic]

Loads of examples of Irish people as slaves. The African Market was just bigger and more industrial. Diane would know this stuff. As for Jews and slavery she knows EXACTLY what she is doing as the stuff about Jews as the dominant slave owners, a load of cock, took off in the last few years. That was partly wrapped in BLM and all sorts of hard left Palestinian cock wombling

The Irish didn't suffer slavery, which means being owned by someone on a heredity basis (after the initial slave is taken, the rest are born into it). There was indentured labour, which meant a contract freely entered into (although of course, someone has to be desperate to enter into it, and the English ravaged Ireland, so how free it was is debatable), which ended after a set time (usually 7 or so years) after which the individual got capital and/or land in the colony. The Irish were indentured in the West Indies and were later fully replaced by African slaves. Indians were also indentured in SA and Fiji. There were also Irish unwillingly deported to colonies as prisoners (but again, the English basically destroyed Ireland, so being guilty of a "crime" becomes debatable).

The Irish slave thing is used in the US to say whites were slaves too (many of the indentured Irish descendants ended up in the South), to try and diminish black slavery.

I wasn't aware of the Jewish slave owners thing. Looks like black Americans competing on the victim totem pole. Maybe not just an American thing though, Wiley was making anti-Semitic statements years before Kanye and on a similar theme.

I don't think it was on the same scale as the Atlantic slave trade but some Irish people would have ended up as slaves in the Ottoman Empire courtesy of the Barbary pirates in the 16th and 17th centuries.

[Paddington Bear]

Loads of examples of Irish people as slaves. The African Market was just bigger and more industrial. Diane would know this stuff. As for Jews and slavery she knows EXACTLY what she is doing as the stuff about Jews as the dominant slave owners, a load of cock, took off in the last few years. That was partly wrapped in BLM and all sorts of hard left Palestinian cock wombling

The Irish didn't suffer slavery, which means being owned by someone on a heredity basis (after the initial slave is taken, the rest are born into it). There was indentured labour, which meant a contract freely entered into (although of course, someone has to be desperate to enter into it, and the English ravaged Ireland, so how free it was is debatable), which ended after a set time (usually 7 or so years) after which the individual got capital and/or land in the colony. The Irish were indentured in the West Indies and were later fully replaced by African slaves. Indians were also indentured in SA and Fiji. There were also Irish unwillingly deported to colonies as prisoners (but again, the English basically destroyed Ireland, so being guilty of a "crime" becomes debatable).

The Irish slave thing is used in the US to say whites were slaves too (many of the indentured Irish descendants ended up in the South), to try and diminish black slavery.

I wasn't aware of the Jewish slave owners thing. Looks like black Americans competing on the victim totem pole. Maybe not just an American thing though, Wiley was making anti-Semitic statements years before Kanye and on a similar theme.

I don't think it was on the same scale as the Atlantic slave trade but some Irish people would have ended up as slaves in the Ottoman Empire courtesy of the Barbary pirates in the 16th and 17th centuries.

Into the 19th Century IIRC - I think the US under Thomas Jefferson declared war on the Barbary pirates over this.

[_Os_]

Brevity does not explain her clearly ascribing prejudice to one group and racism to another. You were equally brief when you said she just meant blacks suffer from racism to a greater degree as it's on a daily basis. She is the one stating that different terms should be used for white Vs non white.

Which she then rowed back on in her apology and said racism is the correct term.

Like I've said from the first post, I don't agree with her politics (and that whole not racism but prejudiced thing was clearly political). But if she's got rid of for this, when it's not cut and dried at all. Then it looks a bit bad for a Starmer government. Part of the Labour objection was that the comments were "offensive", well no shit, how does being an MP work if you cannot say things some will find offensive (40% of people will usually disagree with any opinion). Seems like centrally controlled communication, opinion polling every comment beforehand, New Labour mk2. Problem with that is don't expect much meaningful change, it would risk offending too many people.

I dunno how much clearer it has to be that Starmer is fanatical about ensuring that Labour cannot be hit with the usual criticisms and slurs which are the only things that can torpedo their election chances. Abbott choosing to fight that particular battle and very obviously opening herself up to accusations of anti-Semitism - not for the first time - along with being intrinsically linked to Corbyn and others who already bear that stain, mean that it would absolutely bonkers if she wasn't severely punished. It would make no sense for Starmer to reverse course on this. It would make no sense to throw away everything he's tried to build regarding the public perception of Labour in order to save someone who's only been a liability for much of the last decade.

You and I probably agree on a lot of the criticism of Labour under Starmer and I'm aghast at some of the failings of the past few months, and the direction of travel on issues I strongly give a shit about, but it would be chaotic at a bare minimum if Abbott was given a free pass for this.

I posted months (years?) back Starmer was minimising the attack surface for the tabloids to nothing, which means going along with all the tabloid narratives (and I don't mean the Mirror). So she's done then.

There are some problems though:

#1 As I outlined in a post (last week?), when the Tories hammer on about immigration and it gets media time a demographic puts immigration at the top of their priority list and the Tory polling goes up, whilst Labour polling goes down. Squint and you can just about see Labour polling in the high 30s and the Tories in the low 30s, an election then becomes competitive. This subject has become detached from all reality, if the Tories can make a lot of the right wing narrative about this, then Labour leaning to the right and getting an advantage becomes harder. The truth is given the UK's history (over 2bn mostly poor people in the Commonwealth, English a global language), combined with cheaper and easier travel, any immigration system the UK has will always be overloaded. "Take back control" may as well be "undo half a millennia of history".

#2 Connected to #1, and shown up by Abbott in some ways. If Labour keep agreeing with the tabloids/Tories, they end up attacking their own base. If they want to be tough and crime, do they support profiling? If they want to be tough on immigration, do they support the hostile environment? The polling hasn't shown any slippage in the Labour base yet, but especially in urban seats they depend on voters they're hinting they're going to turn on. The calculation seems to be there's no one else for these people to vote for, but there always is (Greens, Lib Dems), and people can just stop voting too.

#3 If they're campaigning this way they'll govern this way. Looks like there may be some constitutional reform (because it's cheap and can be done), maybe something on green energy but the details are slim and there's no money. Other than that they'll have to keep sailing in the direction they are. How the FPTP system works is a small amount of swing voters end up with disproportionate power (well below a million voters), both the Tories and Labour (and oddly the Lib Dems) are now catering for a voter they've invented who supports Brexit, dislikes the EU, cares most about immigration, and just wants wants the economy to work without any clue how to make that happen. It's an invented voter because things like nationalisation (which consistently gets a majority in polling) mysteriously doesn't get included into the profile. If Labour tries to govern by appealing to this demographic, they'll find these people quickly become disillusioned in them and turn on them. The combination of what these voters want and what the Tories (and probably Labour) have been prepared to give them, just results in alienation when it meets reality.

#4 The mode of UK politics is now the purge. Johnson/Cummings purged the moderates in the Tories, and it produced the current government/s. It could well turn out that Sunak has been foolish not to in turn purge the Tory right (they clearly dislike him). Starmer is purging the Labour left. The Labour left never gives up, so Starmer is setting himself up to iun turn be purged years down the road, it's not possible for the entire Labour membership to be on the left of him and to keep evading that reality (Starmer's public polling also struggles to get above Sunak's in a head to head). Needless to say the UK system isn't supposed to work by purging everyone you disagree with, as the current government shows.

[SaintK]

30p Lee at his polite best

[JM2K6]

I posted months (years?) back Starmer was minimising the attack surface for the tabloids to nothing, which means going along with all the tabloid narratives (and I don't mean the Mirror). So she's done then.

There are some problems though:

#1 As I outlined in a post (last week?), when the Tories hammer on about immigration and it gets media time a demographic puts immigration at the top of their priority list and the Tory polling goes up, whilst Labour polling goes down. Squint and you can just about see Labour polling in the high 30s and the Tories in the low 30s, an election then becomes competitive. This subject has become detached from all reality, if the Tories can make a lot of the right wing narrative about this, then Labour leaning to the right and getting an advantage becomes harder. The truth is given the UK's history (over 2bn mostly poor people in the Commonwealth, English a global language), combined with cheaper and easier travel, any immigration system the UK has will always be overloaded. "Take back control" may as well be "undo half a millennia of history".

#2 Connected to #1, and shown up by Abbott in some ways. If Labour keep agreeing with the tabloids/Tories, they end up attacking their own base. If they want to be tough and crime, do they support profiling? If they want to be tough on immigration, do they support the hostile environment? The polling hasn't shown any slippage in the Labour base yet, but especially in urban seats they depend on voters they're hinting they're going to turn on. The calculation seems to be there's no one else for these people to vote for, but there always is (Greens, Lib Dems), and people can just stop voting too.

#3 If they're campaigning this way they'll govern this way. Looks like there may be some constitutional reform (because it's cheap and can be done), maybe something on green energy but the details are slim and there's no money. Other than that they'll have to keep sailing in the direction they are. How the FPTP system works is a small amount of swing voters end up with disproportionate power (well below a million voters), both the Tories and Labour (and oddly the Lib Dems) are now catering for a voter they've invented who supports Brexit, dislikes the EU, cares most about immigration, and just wants wants the economy to work without any clue how to make that happen. It's an invented voter because things like nationalisation (which consistently gets a majority in polling) mysteriously doesn't get included into the profile. If Labour tries to govern by appealing to this demographic, they'll find these people quickly become disillusioned in them and turn on them. The combination of what these voters want and what the Tories (and probably Labour) have been prepared to give them, just results in alienation when it meets reality.

#4 The mode of UK politics is now the purge. Johnson/Cummings purged the moderates in the Tories, and it produced the current government/s. It could well turn out that Sunak has been foolish not to in turn purge the Tory right (they clearly dislike him). Starmer is purging the Labour left. The Labour left never gives up, so Starmer is setting himself up to iun turn be purged years down the road, it's not possible for the entire Labour membership to be on the left of him and to keep evading that reality (Starmer's public polling also struggles to get above Sunak's in a head to head). Needless to say the UK system isn't supposed to work by purging everyone you disagree with, as the current government shows.

I agree with all of this, except #4 to a certain extent. Starmer has indeed purged some of the left - and despite being someone who is ideologically more aligned to them than to Starmer, none of them were a net positive to the party as far as I could tell - but he's stopped short of driving out any of the big hitters and in recent months it's hardly been a focus. I honestly believe that he would've let Abbott carry on doing her thing if she hadn't very publicly shit the bed in the one area that threatens the core of what he's trying to do with the party.

[eldanielfire]

I posted months (years?) back Starmer was minimising the attack surface for the tabloids to nothing, which means going along with all the tabloid narratives (and I don't mean the Mirror). So she's done then.

There are some problems though:

#1 As I outlined in a post (last week?), when the Tories hammer on about immigration and it gets media time a demographic puts immigration at the top of their priority list and the Tory polling goes up, whilst Labour polling goes down. Squint and you can just about see Labour polling in the high 30s and the Tories in the low 30s, an election then becomes competitive. This subject has become detached from all reality, if the Tories can make a lot of the right wing narrative about this, then Labour leaning to the right and getting an advantage becomes harder. The truth is given the UK's history (over 2bn mostly poor people in the Commonwealth, English a global language), combined with cheaper and easier travel, any immigration system the UK has will always be overloaded. "Take back control" may as well be "undo half a millennia of history".

#2 Connected to #1, and shown up by Abbott in some ways. If Labour keep agreeing with the tabloids/Tories, they end up attacking their own base. If they want to be tough and crime, do they support profiling? If they want to be tough on immigration, do they support the hostile environment? The polling hasn't shown any slippage in the Labour base yet, but especially in urban seats they depend on voters they're hinting they're going to turn on. The calculation seems to be there's no one else for these people to vote for, but there always is (Greens, Lib Dems), and people can just stop voting too.

#3 If they're campaigning this way they'll govern this way. Looks like there may be some constitutional reform (because it's cheap and can be done), maybe something on green energy but the details are slim and there's no money. Other than that they'll have to keep sailing in the direction they are. How the FPTP system works is a small amount of swing voters end up with disproportionate power (well below a million voters), both the Tories and Labour (and oddly the Lib Dems) are now catering for a voter they've invented who supports Brexit, dislikes the EU, cares most about immigration, and just wants wants the economy to work without any clue how to make that happen. It's an invented voter because things like nationalisation (which consistently gets a majority in polling) mysteriously doesn't get included into the profile. If Labour tries to govern by appealing to this demographic, they'll find these people quickly become disillusioned in them and turn on them. The combination of what these voters want and what the Tories (and probably Labour) have been prepared to give them, just results in alienation when it meets reality.

#4 The mode of UK politics is now the purge. Johnson/Cummings purged the moderates in the Tories, and it produced the current government/s. It could well turn out that Sunak has been foolish not to in turn purge the Tory right (they clearly dislike him). Starmer is purging the Labour left. The Labour left never gives up, so Starmer is setting himself up to iun turn be purged years down the road, it's not possible for the entire Labour membership to be on the left of him and to keep evading that reality (Starmer's public polling also struggles to get above Sunak's in a head to head). Needless to say the UK system isn't supposed to work by purging everyone you disagree with, as the current government shows.

I agree with all of this, except #4 to a certain extent. Starmer has indeed purged some of the left - and despite being someone who is ideologically more aligned to them than to Starmer, none of them were a net positive to the party as far as I could tell - but he's stopped short of driving out any of the big hitters and in recent months it's hardly been a focus. I honestly believe that he would've let Abbott carry on doing her thing if she hadn't very publicly shit the bed in the one area that threatens the core of what he's trying to do with the party.

If we're talking about the left of the Labour part, whose a bigger hitter than Corbyn and Abbott? Both had the whip removed and Starmers thoughtt o have Corbn removed and ensure the parties new rules allow that.

I expect a Labour win next election, but I can see how the turnout will be lower, a Tory party rife with division and no new ideas, and a Labour party rife with division with some uninspiring ideas and will present economic plans not far from the Sunak-Hunt mold. Personally I'd like to see Labour pull a lot of the ecominic vision from the 2017 manifesto. Become a proper social democratic party.

If nothing else people liked Corbyns economic plans and the Tories ave nothing here. Polls massively favour Labour but the belief in Starmer as leader is weak. It's Corbyn's personal and cultural stuff, always siding with the IRA/terrorists and seemingly defending antisemites which undid him. As did Starmers battles over Brexit forcing Corbyn to present the most ridiculous Brexit policy, which clearly was against Corbyns core beliefs. But I always maintained, against New Labour and Tory orthodoxy, the massses do wnat some genuine social Demicrtic economic intervention done well.

[eldanielfire]

I posted months (years?) back Starmer was minimising the attack surface for the tabloids to nothing, which means going along with all the tabloid narratives (and I don't mean the Mirror). So she's done then.

There are some problems though:

#1 As I outlined in a post (last week?), when the Tories hammer on about immigration and it gets media time a demographic puts immigration at the top of their priority list and the Tory polling goes up, whilst Labour polling goes down. Squint and you can just about see Labour polling in the high 30s and the Tories in the low 30s, an election then becomes competitive. This subject has become detached from all reality, if the Tories can make a lot of the right wing narrative about this, then Labour leaning to the right and getting an advantage becomes harder. The truth is given the UK's history (over 2bn mostly poor people in the Commonwealth, English a global language), combined with cheaper and easier travel, any immigration system the UK has will always be overloaded. "Take back control" may as well be "undo half a millennia of history".

I kinda see this point. But I'd also argue the Tories play the immigration card a lot but always seem to be the party of record immigration. They have never really atken action on it, only presented big contraversial talking points on what to do. Of course boats are goingt o come over with a weakly funded and staffed border force and no resourceput into assessing refugees and immigrants and enforcing the rules.

The Tories liek to talk about it a lot but then do everything to incentivise things for people to enter the country because they are too addicted to small government-neo-liberal bullshit.

#2 Connected to #1, and shown up by Abbott in some ways. If Labour keep agreeing with the tabloids/Tories, they end up attacking their own base. If they want to be tough and crime, do they support profiling? If they want to be tough on immigration, do they support the hostile environment? The polling hasn't shown any slippage in the Labour base yet, but especially in urban seats they depend on voters they're hinting they're going to turn on. The calculation seems to be there's no one else for these people to vote for, but there always is (Greens, Lib Dems), and people can just stop voting too.

I don't think being tough on crime is attacing their own base. It might be attacking a certain kind of Islington dinner party elite who genuinely thinsk defund the police is a godo diea, but outside some chattering classes most communities are pro-police in principle, they jsut don't trust them, and rightfully so. As above the Tories talk about crime and fighting it, but it's them who actually did defund the police over the past decade. Again the Tories have no solutions and don't adddress their cultural-neo liberal divide in policy.

#3 If they're campaigning this way they'll govern this way. Looks like there may be some constitutional reform (because it's cheap and can be done), maybe something on green energy but the details are slim and there's no money. Other than that they'll have to keep sailing in the direction they are. How the FPTP system works is a small amount of swing voters end up with disproportionate power (well below a million voters), both the Tories and Labour (and oddly the Lib Dems) are now catering for a voter they've invented who supports Brexit, dislikes the EU, cares most about immigration, and just wants wants the economy to work without any clue how to make that happen. It's an invented voter because things like nationalisation (which consistently gets a majority in polling) mysteriously doesn't get included into the profile. If Labour tries to govern by appealing to this demographic, they'll find these people quickly become disillusioned in them and turn on them. The combination of what these voters want and what the Tories (and probably Labour) have been prepared to give them, just results in alienation when it meets reality.

#4 The mode of UK politics is now the purge. Johnson/Cummings purged the moderates in the Tories, and it produced the current government/s. It could well turn out that Sunak has been foolish not to in turn purge the Tory right (they clearly dislike him). Starmer is purging the Labour left. The Labour left never gives up, so Starmer is setting himself up to iun turn be purged years down the road, it's not possible for the entire Labour membership to be on the left of him and to keep evading that reality (Starmer's public polling also struggles to get above Sunak's in a head to head). Needless to say the UK system isn't supposed to work by purging everyone you disagree with, as the current government shows.

I agree some type asof voter is invented. But there are some truth to that. I genuinely believe a center-left or left wing party whose firm on immigration levels, proud of the nation and doesn't keep using identity politics to pour scourn on a people due to what others did in the past and runs the economy well with good econimic investment then it should dominate. Not all of this is Labours fault, it always gets smeered by association to it's "broad church" and pandering to those with those cultural hard left ideas that out off many moderates. But in Denmark they have managed to do this and take power successfully. Blair did this to a large extent, but IMO came too far right and neo-liberal on economic matters.

[Insane_Homer]

left wing party whose firm on immigration levels, proud of the nation

[tabascoboy]

[Blackmac]

I think the Nepalese guards story is getting guilded to some extent. I presume they were employed by contractors as security guards and brought to Afghanistan by their company or made their own way there. I doubt they were fighting the Taliban in the street which is what is almost implied in the story.
They were removed to safety, presumably paid and flown home.

[fishfoodie]

Can't really see this particular defenestration generating too many sympathetic posts

More likely just people asking why this goon isn't facing a substantial suspension, & recall petition

Andrew Bridgen: MP expelled by Tories after Covid vaccine comments

he Conservative Party has expelled MP Andrew Bridgen after he compared Covid-19 vaccines to the Holocaust and was found to have breached lobbying rules.

The member for North West Leicestershire had already lost the party whip, meaning he was sitting as an independent.

But the Tories have now stripped him of his party membership as well.

Mr Bridgen said his expulsion "confirms the culture of corruption, collusion and cover-ups".

A Conservative Party spokesman said Mr Bridgen was expelled "following the recommendation of a disciplinary panel".

He has 28 days, from the date of his expulsion on 12 April, to appeal.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-l ... e-65402195

[I like neeps]

I would worry less about announced policies right now than when we're actually close to an election. The Tories are not above nicking decent ideas. Policy announcements by Labour right now are essentially meaningless, they're not in power.

I don't think there's any advantage to pretending that Labour aren't going to take over an essentially broke country. They should be pushing far, far harder on the Tories economic failures but regardless of what they do and say before the election is over, if they win there is zero doubt that the fiscal situation is going to be nightmarish. Making grand promises for big expensive projects seems like a bad idea.

Policies that speak to target voters and the mission labour has for the government are important. Starmer does not know who or what he represents. The Wokingham Man, the Stevenage Woman. Yesterday's focus group Deborah Mattinson went to is tomorrow's policy. When Starmer became leader he had a really compelling story and some sense of mission. I just don't see that now, he's going a bit Ed Miliband where it becomes inauthentic.

And there's no need for big grand promises. But there is the need for ideas and some hope that things will get better.

[tabascoboy]

Can't really see this particular defenestration generating too many sympathetic posts

More likely just people asking why this goon isn't facing a substantial suspension, & recall petition

Andrew Bridgen: MP expelled by Tories after Covid vaccine comments

he Conservative Party has expelled MP Andrew Bridgen after he compared Covid-19 vaccines to the Holocaust and was found to have breached lobbying rules.

The member for North West Leicestershire had already lost the party whip, meaning he was sitting as an independent.

But the Tories have now stripped him of his party membership as well.

Mr Bridgen said his expulsion "confirms the culture of corruption, collusion and cover-ups".

A Conservative Party spokesman said Mr Bridgen was expelled "following the recommendation of a disciplinary panel".

He has 28 days, from the date of his expulsion on 12 April, to appeal.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-l ... e-65402195

Predictably he's waffling on about "freedom of speech", conspiracy etc; when he should already have been expelled for perjury in the High Court.

[JM2K6]

I would worry less about announced policies right now than when we're actually close to an election. The Tories are not above nicking decent ideas. Policy announcements by Labour right now are essentially meaningless, they're not in power.

I don't think there's any advantage to pretending that Labour aren't going to take over an essentially broke country. They should be pushing far, far harder on the Tories economic failures but regardless of what they do and say before the election is over, if they win there is zero doubt that the fiscal situation is going to be nightmarish. Making grand promises for big expensive projects seems like a bad idea.

Policies that speak to target voters and the mission labour has for the government are important. Starmer does not know who or what he represents. The Wokingham Man, the Stevenage Woman. Yesterday's focus group Deborah Mattinson went to is tomorrow's policy. When Starmer became leader he had a really compelling story and some sense of mission. I just don't see that now, he's going a bit Ed Miliband where it becomes inauthentic.

And there's no need for big grand promises. But there is the need for ideas and some hope that things will get better.

I completely agree these policies are needed. But they're needed as something to campaign on when the time is right - not just to give the Tories a free run at them a long time before an election. Absolutely no reason for Labour to essentially be in electioneering mode yet. They should focus on hammering the Tories.

[_Os_]

Loads of examples of Irish people as slaves. The African Market was just bigger and more industrial. Diane would know this stuff. As for Jews and slavery she knows EXACTLY what she is doing as the stuff about Jews as the dominant slave owners, a load of cock, took off in the last few years. That was partly wrapped in BLM and all sorts of hard left Palestinian cock wombling

The Irish didn't suffer slavery, which means being owned by someone on a heredity basis (after the initial slave is taken, the rest are born into it). There was indentured labour, which meant a contract freely entered into (although of course, someone has to be desperate to enter into it, and the English ravaged Ireland, so how free it was is debatable), which ended after a set time (usually 7 or so years) after which the individual got capital and/or land in the colony. The Irish were indentured in the West Indies and were later fully replaced by African slaves. Indians were also indentured in SA and Fiji. There were also Irish unwillingly deported to colonies as prisoners (but again, the English basically destroyed Ireland, so being guilty of a "crime" becomes debatable).

The Irish slave thing is used in the US to say whites were slaves too (many of the indentured Irish descendants ended up in the South), to try and diminish black slavery.

I wasn't aware of the Jewish slave owners thing. Looks like black Americans competing on the victim totem pole. Maybe not just an American thing though, Wiley was making anti-Semitic statements years before Kanye and on a similar theme.

Yes they did suffer slavery in the likes of the Ottoman empire. Just because some white nationalist pricks have used it as an example to undermine the scale and experiences of Africans doesn't change it. I didn't for example say it mirrored the experience but rather they were slaves. They were. That has been the central pillar of the argument against Irish slavery: it didn't mirror the African experience. Yeah cool it didn't

The only times I've seen it come up is from white Southerners in the US, nearly all the indentured or their descendants ending up in the South particularly the Carolinas. South Carolina being the first to seceded and a founding member of the Confederacy, most of its black population was enslaved. So you get an incongruous situation where whites today quite keen on the Confederacy will mention it.

Yes the Ottoman slave trade existed, but that targeted all non-Muslims they could reach. They valued white slaves above black slaves, black slaves were often castrated. Which meant a lot of the slaves came from Eastern Europe, because it was easier to reach over the Black Sea (and Crimea was Muslim). Most of the descendants are now Arab (there were cases of people taken returning to their homes, usually a long time after and minus family members, there's one quite crazy story of someone from Iceland of all places).

Victimhood is used to make political points, that's how it tends to work. It's most powerful when there's living populations descended from those that suffered the crimes and an existing state that committed them. It's shit but that's how it works, take it from a white South African.

None of that's really the case with the Ottomans, the slave descendants were just absorbed into those populations. It's why the Irish love a rebel song about the British, but does a "Come Out Ye Ottomans" exist? You could sing "Rule Britannia" if none exists?

I don't think it was on the same scale as the Atlantic slave trade but some Irish people would have ended up as slaves in the Ottoman Empire courtesy of the Barbary pirates in the 16th and 17th centuries.

I've tried to look into the scale before, numbers are very hard to get at. Lots of eunuchs, and lots of guessing. It would make sense if it was larger than the Atlantic trade given the closer geography.