Disagree with what I say, fair enough. Try and convince me otherwise should you so wish. But expect me to question your reasoning, politely and with respect. Dragging others in with a veiled insult and yep you've lost the debate.
I think the argument is that taking the "more moral line" has only brought Labour defeat at the ballot box. I would prefer Labour to stay out of the gutter. It makes me less inclined to vote for them personally when they engage in "dirty politics". But I recognise that, as Brexit and Tory victories have shown us, lies, misinformation and personal attacks do, I'm afraid, work. I do think the timing is strange though as Labour seem to be enjoying a pretty solid 15% plus lead. I would understand it more if they started this campaign nearer to a GE or if their polling was weakening.
I imagine they’re using this as a chance to test a few things ahead of an actual vote. If it plays well, or people say it changed behaviour, they’ll use it more for the general election.
Agreed. Hopefully they'll realise it's the wrong way to go. Really they just need to keep quiet, say as little as possible and it's in the bag.
May be my misgivings about the adverts are unfounded after all. I would still prefer it if the debate wasn't so dishonest though!
There is nothing actually wrong with attributing Tory failures to them, especially in those areas the Tories claim to be their strengths, like law and order or controlling borders. They have been spectacularly bad at those.
I appreciate that. But saying things like Sunak "doesn't want" to put adult child sex offenders in prison is stretching the truth to say the least. There are huge and obvious failings in our country, including within the justice system, that can be laid at the door of the Conservatives after 13 years in office. But I would prefer it if it didn't have to be a personal attack on Sunak. I deliberately say "didn't have to be" because it does seem to be where politics is right now, largely thanks to the obvious electoral success the Tories have had making personal attacks against successive Labour leaders.
It's a shame but personal attacks obviously work a lot better than detailed and considered criticism of policy. A perfect example is just a couple of pages back in this thread where Hornmeister called Starmer a hypocrite for benefiting from a tax break on pensions that he proposed to scrap and it was liked by another poster. In fact, Starmer had said he hadn't taken advantage of it and would scrap his own tax break going forward so he couldn't in the future. It perfectly encapsulates why personal attacks are so successful - it led to the comment 'politicians, they're all the same'. But they're not the all same. Starmer may be an aching dullard and not have revealed his detailed policy platform yet but could you ever imagine him getting numerous dodgy loans from various donors, repeatedly lying to Parliament and trashing the rule of law, taking a mistress on a trade tour, crashing the economy with a budget that no-one had voted for but was the product of a Think Tank that won't reveal its funding, or setting up a VIP lane where people connected to his party could make tens or hundreds of millions of pounds. They're not all the same, but it suits the bunch that have trashed the country and is trying to cling onto power that people think that they are.
Well the results are in: Poll reveals Sunak attack ad damaged Labour’s image among voters Results show campaign caused more harm to Keir Starmer’s party than a Tory poster accusing Labour leader of being soft on crime But when the numbers were crunched, those 'hurt feelings' didn't equate to any meaningful drop in the polling numbers: I wonder if Labour will turn up the dial to 11 on the current campaign to encompass these areas.
It clear Diane Abbott has not be right for a while but another anti-white rant has resulted in her losing the whip. https://uk.news.yahoo.com/diane-abbott-loses-labour-whip-103645189.html?.tsrc=fp_deeplink I admire the things she has done in her career as a trailblazer and against probably a lot of prejudice, despite my disagreement with most of her politics, I think it's past time to retire and step down as gracefully as possible.
Unhelpful, questionable and insensitive comments for sure. But not an ‘anti-white rant’. That’s quite ridiculous of you.
It’s very unwise to be seen to create a hierarchy of oppression, which is the elephant trap she fell into. There are certain characteristics about the pervasiveness of racism against non-whites. There is no hiding place for black people in a white society, appears to be what she was trying to say. But there are also huge and enduring legacies of other oppressions such as the industrial slaughter of Jewish people and the legacy of centuries of persecution.
Sir Starmer must be choking on his avocado We have a bunch of buffoons running the show All Labour have to do to win the next GE is to say nothing and they will be a shoo-in But idiots cannot help themselves Unless it is deliberate ? Jones Sarkar and Corbyns mob would rather stiff Starmer than see another Tory term They are the enemy within not the Tories who have always been my enemy
Absolutely ludicrous to suspend Dianne Abbott. Her view is slightly bonkers (although I think I get what she was trying to say) but surely she should be free to express her opinion?
In one way I agree with what you say. Both left and right are too ready to utterly trash people for their misteps. We’ve all joined in at times. On the other hand, she’s a MP, a representative of her party and her job must be to inspire the confidence of all communities in her party. She didn’t need to hastily respond to the previous letter. And wow, her point? Jewish people face prejudice not racism. There’s a grenade of zero effing use whatsoever to casually toss about.
She has a right to her opinion but the Labour party has a right to suspend her if that opinion is unacceptable to the party. She will continue as an MP and can still freely express her views so she has not been "cancelled" or censored. If the electorate find Abbott's opinion or the Labour party's response unacceptable they can have their say at the next election.
I agree that what she said wasn't going to be much of a vote winner but I still think suspending her is wrong
I think parties should be a broad church and confident enough to find room for different opinions (within reason) within their set up
I can also see what she is saying. Travellers or Jewish people and so on - you don't even know that is their identity a lot of the time. Not usually unless they tell you. They can avoid experiencing prejudice by keeping mum. I certainly can't tell by looking if someone is Jewish or a traveller. However if you are black or Asian then the difference is right there - it doesn't take much spotting. Although I think those groups DO experience racism (I don't agree with her that it is only prejudice) I am not convinced it is on quite the same level as that experienced by brown people. Silly Starmer says her comments were 'anti-semitic' - that is expressing hatred towards Jewish people. In my opinion they were not inthe slightest. Why does he not mention 'anti-traveller and gypsy'? That is a group that experiences a lot of prejudice and racism. Why only 'anti-semitic' if there is no 'hierarchy of racism' as he says? He should go out and defend a few travellers camps from the wrath of the landowners and local residents.
Both Jews and Travellers can be very easily identified without having to announce themselves, just by reflecting their cultural norms and traditions in the way they live. Physical attributes are not the only things that may identify a person’s heritage, and the worst racism can be engendered simply by a persons name or an item of clothing. The fact that they are less easily identified, when you consider that travellers and Jews experience the most prejudice of any groups, is quite a revelation too; more than suggesting that the racism they experience is disproportionate even to people who experience race triggered by appearance. And why anyone wishes to separate racism from any other form of prejudice or bigotry I do not know. Racism is a disgusting trait, but so is any other form of hate and disrespect that is the product of a person’s unchecked prejudices.
Abbott is extraordinarily stupid (which she disguises with that ridiculous slow drawl, in much the same manner as Jacob Rees-Mogg) but in this case she is, I think, correct. Not the red head thing which is obviously ********, but the fact that there is a hierarchy of prejudice. Of course there is. What is particularly stupid is that although this is self evidently true, only a complete moron (like me) would say it in public and have bile and vitriol rained down; and what practical difference does it make to anything to have said it?
With the recent publicity about anti-semitism in the Labour Party you just don't go there. Abbott has history of similar outbursts, even when she was a lot sharper, time for her to retire as she is no longer a positive for the party.
I agree but I think she must be a good MP for her constituents as the people of Hackney North and Stoke Newington seem to love her. If she decides to stand as an independent I suspect she might still get elected! Hopefully, from Labour's point of view, she goes quietly in to retirement.
Dianne Abbott has never been a leading intellectual but she generally comes across as fairly honest and sincere in her opinions. This particular one was unhelpful and not especially accurate. If you suffer prejudice it makes no difference to be told someone else suffers more. It also is likely to lose you support amongst those who now think you do not care about them. Overall a silly if not wicked comment. Suspending her was harsh in itself for her given that I am sure she meant no harm or offence even though she did belittle some groups however it was a sensible move for the party as a whole as it shows Labour will not tolerate any for of prejudice and will make others think more carefully of what they say. As others have said on here Labour do not need to do anything much to win the next election - they simply must not lose it. Avoid mistakes.
Labour reaffirms its socialist ideals by inviting the Honkers and Shankers Bank and RBS/Couts/Natwest into Westminster as part of their treasury 'team'. These people of course are noted launderers of dirty cash (including the ruskis) barely without bothering to even hide it. Progressive people, like @Moose, until when will you support these charlatans? They're just more Tories. There's no difference.
I will continue to support Labour, for the following reasons. A Tory defeat would be brilliantly enjoyable. Imagine the slapped arse look on the faces of hundreds of their departing MPs, some of whom are just the worst people on these wretched Islands. Secondly, however compromised and pro capital Labour are, they will still govern much better than the Tories. Labour would not have given us the bedroom tax or the Rwanda plan. Another Tory term promises even worse, with Free Ports and Free Cities abandoning any pretence of workers rights or the regulation of capital and the wealthy. They have to go. We can’t take much more of their hatred-spreading disaster capitalism. Thirdly, Labour will be easier for Trade Unions and other workers to make demands of. Moreover, the Labour leadership will be under immediate internal and external pressure, Starmer hasn’t made lots of friends and, as with Johnson, change could come much more quickly than expected. Fourthly, whether we like it or not, Starmer has steered the party towards cultural positions that are more reflective of many working class people. That was inevitable and it is more electable. I’m not a progressive, I’m a socialist and I think Labour has to echo the working class. It will match that with better services, even if it fails to redistribute. However, there may be other challenges that make better distribution inevitable, like AI. If not, then let the Unions take them on. Starmer’s apparent mendacity is dispiriting, his lack of socialist principle or loyalty appalling. But I don’t have to like him or be loyal to cheer Labour on. Another Tory Government is unthinkable. A Labour one is a new hand of cards.
We are fooked . Clive rowing with Moose . Sarker and Jones doing everything they possibly can to derail Starmer . All Labour have to do to win the next GE is to say nothing . Gotta be better than Old Etonians taking the rise. But oh no . Civil war is the way forward .
It would also be wrong not to criticise. You’ve often pointed out the hypocritical nature of the ‘nice’ politics of the left. Equally, what will drive a wedge between Labour and ordinary voters quicker than it being the party bankers feel comfortable with? It’s a delicate balance, not spooking the markets and getting elected, but Labour can’t just be another trick to deliver no change.
