So if she chaired that I assume she's soft left or centrist!

100%. "Labour is anti-semitic" is a long running news story so of course it would be picked up. You're never going to shred the skin if you keep blindly associating yourself with potential ant-semitism. It's political naievty and that in itself shows she shouldn't be in the Shadow Cabinet.

 

I'm convinced it 100% wouldn't have and didn't until Starmer sacked her which drew attention goin to it. The Labour is antisemetic story ended when Corbyn left. It was used to undermine his leadership by a hostile leadership.

I'm convinced it 100% wouldn't have and didn't until Starmer sacked her which drew attention goin to it. The Labour is antisemetic story ended when Corbyn left. It was used to undermine his leadership by a hostile leadership.

 

It still plagues the party though and will do for some time. From a leadership angle you can't say you will tackle anti-semitism in the party and then the moment someone is accused of being anti-semitic just try and brush it under the carpet. The original article insinuated that the methods used by the Israeli Secret State were used to kill George Floyd. I don't doubt for a second that she didn't read the article properly, but it was political naivety. I don't think Corbyn was an anti-semite, but people around him clearly were. His inability to distance himself from the people was all part of his leadership (or lack of).

Jonathan Pie hits the nail on the head here..

 

 

Into the incinerator you must go. :lol:

Okay he does make a point that this is an example of the cancel culture coming back to bite. If someone on the ‘right’ or non-corbynite wing of the party had done this I’m sure some people would’ve found an excuse to come for them

It's not been good to be a leftie this past week. It's very frustrating to see Starmer chase the older, lawful, pro-police vote even as I understand why he must do it.

 

@1277556165040148485

 

Defund the police is and has never been about removing the police, and yet there are people that are making it out to be so. I wish he could have opened up the conversation to the idea of community-based law enforcement, how it's far better for the health of a society when you treat them as people to be helped rather than adversaries, as well as the savings it provides to invest in other areas such that it lowers crime in the long term. THAT is what the defund the police movement in America seeks to aim for, and it could work that way in any country.

 

oh and BLM is a 'moment' too, that's actually probably more substantial of a takeaway from that clip because you know, shallowness wins the day.

After banging on for the last few years about how the Tories have slashed police funding, it would be rather odd if Labour suddenly started calling for funding to be reduced, however much they tried to argue that they wanted to see the money invested in measures shown to reduce crime.

It's not been good to be a leftie this past week. It's very frustrating to see Starmer chase the older, lawful, pro-police vote even as I understand why he must do it.

 

@1277556165040148485

 

Defund the police is and has never been about removing the police, and yet there are people that are making it out to be so. I wish he could have opened up the conversation to the idea of community-based law enforcement, how it's far better for the health of a society when you treat them as people to be helped rather than adversaries, as well as the savings it provides to invest in other areas such that it lowers crime in the long term. THAT is what the defund the police movement in America seeks to aim for, and it could work that way in any country.

 

oh and BLM is a 'moment' too, that's actually probably more substantial of a takeaway from that clip because you know, shallowness wins the day.

 

I think defunding the police in the UK & America are too different things - America invest a lot in weapons and have poor mental health support, whereas we only really have the latter. Isn't one of BLMUK's goals to defund the police? I agree that the choice of words used by Starmer was not the best, but I just don't see if any way shape or form defunding the police is ever going to happen nor will it be a vote grabber.

 

Also, Jonathan Pie hits the nail on the head with the video.

He shouldn't be calling it nonsense though. His current strategy is positioning himself to remain open to most strategies so as to make the most amount of people likely to support him. So it's odd he would specifically disavow an idea that's gaining traction now as if business as usual is fine there.

 

I don't think I'd have made a comment if the answer was instead an indication about funding all public services in an attempt to reduce crime. The effects would be different in the UK but dressing it up as redistributing the efforts of the police into a less punishment-based and instead community support/mental health aid based organisation. That's not difficult to sell. You can then work other benefits, like more money for education, in.

 

If you don't at least introduce these ideas to voters, then yes, they are going to go for the status quo. Starmer has a good opportunity over these 4 years to work them into the conversation in a palatable way. But the way he dismisses them like this shows it's a non-starter for him.

I agree that there’s a complete different sentiment behind Defund the Police in the US and the UK - I’ve always found the police forces in the US full of power trippers but I’ve been astounded the past few weeks to see the level of funding they must receive (seemingly unlimited!) which particularly strikes a cord in the current crisis with a damaged health system. There’s complete different conversations to be had in the UK and I agree those are conversations regarding a different approach that should be being highlighted. I feel any endorsement of the precise phrasing of Defund the Police would take Labour back a few steps and puts into dangerous political territory. We’ve seen in today’s world that you get elected on a third word phrase alone so there has to be careful political manoeuvring

Personally I'm probably the most leftwing, anti-authoritarian poster on here going by the last time we did the compass, and I have zero issue with the removing of Long-Bailey from her post, nor do I find it in any way complex.

 

Starmer is simply playing the game and removing (from ONE position in the Shadow Cabinet) someone who has proven themself to be a political liability. The fact that she was also a political rival is the cherry on top.

 

Long-Bailey is still a Labour MP. She still has her income and her responsibilities. She simply is no longer a member of Starmer's inner circle, and imo, rightly so.

 

Whether or not what she shared was antisemitic is besides the point. The main thrust is that she carelessly brought the idea of associating Labour with Jews, Israel, and antisemitism back into the public consciousness by sharing on her PROFESSIONAL Twitter feed an article that had no otherwise relevance to her job. That is simply sloppy in my book.

He shouldn't be calling it nonsense though. His current strategy is positioning himself to remain open to most strategies so as to make the most amount of people likely to support him. So it's odd he would specifically disavow an idea that's gaining traction now as if business as usual is fine there.

 

I don't think I'd have made a comment if the answer was instead an indication about funding all public services in an attempt to reduce crime. The effects would be different in the UK but dressing it up as redistributing the efforts of the police into a less punishment-based and instead community support/mental health aid based organisation. That's not difficult to sell. You can then work other benefits, like more money for education, in.

 

If you don't at least introduce these ideas to voters, then yes, they are going to go for the status quo. Starmer has a good opportunity over these 4 years to work them into the conversation in a palatable way. But the way he dismisses them like this shows it's a non-starter for him.

 

Where is their clamor for defunding the police though? If you even endorse it you're going to lose the Centre ground back to the Tories. There is very little widespread against the whole country. It's clear our police force has some issues but they are also mainly a force for good. In the whole interview isn't he directly addressing the BLMUK's drives and aims? The reality is as a nation we have rejected socialism time and time again. If you're going to win an election you need to get a foothold of the middle ground - which is where Corbyn went wrong time and time again after his "famous 2017 election win".

Where is their clamor for defunding the police though? If you even endorse it you're going to lose the Centre ground back to the Tories. There is very little widespread against the whole country. It's clear our police force has some issues but they are also mainly a force for good. In the whole interview isn't he directly addressing the BLMUK's drives and aims? The reality is as a nation we have rejected socialism time and time again. If you're going to win an election you need to get a foothold of the middle ground - which is where Corbyn went wrong time and time again after his "famous 2017 election win".

 

I'm not sure why you brought up socialism when my post didn't mention it at all. I've never expected Starmer to be the one to bring in a socialist paradise.

 

The point is to get rid of institutional racism, which still does exist in the UK, primarily through high policing of "high crime areas". Black Lives Matter's UK branch does have a point, and to dismiss it as a flash in the pan movement rather than look at tackling the systemic issues it demands is papering over the problem at best, insulting at worst. And as long as the police have a focus of punishing criminals first, and the community safe second, that's how it's going to be, and no, not all forces across the UK are going to have that, but there is a lot of room to make them a better part of public service. Like yes, this is all way more pronounced in America but it's still an issue in the UK.

 

The big issue at the moment is that "reasonable" voices are on the march downplaying the concerns of Black Lives Matter, taking away black voices from the conversation, there's meaningless guff around like removing TV episodes that has the double whammy of serving to not do anything to end systemic racism AND give right-wingers ammo to say 'the progressives are crazy', and it's very disappointing to see the Labour leader, who should be fighting FOR marginalised voices or at the very least presenting their struggles as valid towards the wider electorate, to come in and say that one of their key demands is nonsense.

 

I've tried to find the full interview to confirm if it was just a bad clip, but haven't had any luck, but then when you have Nigel Farage agreeing with the Labour leader because of the widely shared clip, and minority groups understandably upset, the optics Starmer's going for aren't looking too hot.

Where is their clamor for defunding the police though? If you even endorse it you're going to lose the Centre ground back to the Tories. There is very little widespread against the whole country. It's clear our police force has some issues but they are also mainly a force for good. In the whole interview isn't he directly addressing the BLMUK's drives and aims? The reality is as a nation we have rejected socialism time and time again. If you're going to win an election you need to get a foothold of the middle ground - which is where Corbyn went wrong time and time again after his "famous 2017 election win".

 

surely that's a simplistic 1994 version of British politics - I mean do the Tory party reach out to this fabled middle ground or does that only count for the socialists? Or does that middle ground change compared to what your opinion is? I would argue the middle ground has been obliterated since 2016. Are the mainly populist Brexit Tory party the centre ground now??

Edited June 29, 20205 yr by Steve201

surely that's a simplistic 1994 version of British politics - I mean do the Tory party reach out to this fabled middle ground or does that only count for the socialists? Or does that middle ground change compared to what your opinion is? I would argue the middle ground has been obliterated since 2016. Are the mainly populist Brexit Tory party the centre ground now??

 

The Lib Dems still exist! Albeit we’re nearly wiped out now! :lol:

The Lib Dems still exist! Albeit we’re nearly wiped out now! :lol:

Although I'm not a fan of the party and the Scottish leader Willie Rennie is a doofus, it's a shame what's happened to the Lib Dems because even as someone on the left it's obvious to me we need a good centerist party. Off topic a bit but imo they never would've won more than 30-35 ish seats last year but that absurd revoke policy + Jo Swinson = disaster

I'm not sure why you brought up socialism when my post didn't mention it at all. I've never expected Starmer to be the one to bring in a socialist paradise.

 

The point is to get rid of institutional racism, which still does exist in the UK, primarily through high policing of "high crime areas". Black Lives Matter's UK branch does have a point, and to dismiss it as a flash in the pan movement rather than look at tackling the systemic issues it demands is papering over the problem at best, insulting at worst. And as long as the police have a focus of punishing criminals first, and the community safe second, that's how it's going to be, and no, not all forces across the UK are going to have that, but there is a lot of room to make them a better part of public service. Like yes, this is all way more pronounced in America but it's still an issue in the UK.

 

The big issue at the moment is that "reasonable" voices are on the march downplaying the concerns of Black Lives Matter, taking away black voices from the conversation, there's meaningless guff around like removing TV episodes that has the double whammy of serving to not do anything to end systemic racism AND give right-wingers ammo to say 'the progressives are crazy', and it's very disappointing to see the Labour leader, who should be fighting FOR marginalised voices or at the very least presenting their struggles as valid towards the wider electorate, to come in and say that one of their key demands is nonsense.

 

I've tried to find the full interview to confirm if it was just a bad clip, but haven't had any luck, but then when you have Nigel Farage agreeing with the Labour leader because of the widely shared clip, and minority groups understandably upset, the optics Starmer's going for aren't looking too hot.

 

The full interview is on iPlayer on BBC Breakfast. There are some important parts from the BLMUK movement, but defunding the police is not near the list of high priorities in my humble opinion. Primarly because if you say "we are going to defund the police" how does that read to the average Joe? This is a country which struggles to get people who are registered to vote to even get off their arses to vote. The election is often decided by the 10pm news, it's not a good aim if you want to win a General Election and nor is it one I think Labour should go down.

 

As for the Nigel Farage agreeing with the Labour leader, I have to smile about that one when I saw people getting their knickers in a twist about it earlier. Think if people cast their own minds back far enough from the Far Left they will see Nigel Farage agreeing with Jeremy Corbyn's Eurosceptic approach too! It's shite like this which will just keep the Tories in power. Too many people cry wolf when they don't see the bigger picture ahead.

Dawn Butler had to close her consistency office last week due to her and her staff getting abuse — and now an article in the New Statesman has resurfaced about Diane Abbott.

 

@1284427609904951296

 

It has always struck me as odd how people in general, as well as members on this forum, treat Abbott. What is it about the first black female MP and longest-serving black MP that drove and continues to drive people crazy? The numbers gaffe was all it took? During the tracking period, she was receiving more online abuse than all female Conservative MPs combined.

 

Fortunately, Labour have been always been supportive.

 

 

Edited July 19, 20204 yr by blacksquare

Yeh it's her left wing views I would assume, the press had someone on her the moment she was Shadow Home Secretary!

Left-wing female politicians of colour always seem to be a magnet for this sort of abuse (you also see it in America with the AOC-Omar Squad) and I've seen it directed at some of the young intake of Labour MPs like Nadia Whittome and Zarah Sultana too.

 

They fit the criteria for someone who is "speaking on matters outside of their station" and because it's left-wing rhetoric that challenges the status quo, it gets the sort of men likely to throw abuse online very uncomfortable.

 

But then those stats for Abbott are staggering in just how much she alone gets, compare that to any Tory Home Secretary who actually caused suffering like May or Rudd and Abbott's abuse dwarfs that for... getting numbers wrong on TV? There's two explanations, Conservatives are more likely to be abusive, or there's racism and sexism involved. And, well, come on, it's a mix, it's intersectional. The fact that black and Asian women MPs get far more of the abuse just proves we need to approach feminism and anti-racism from an intersectional perspective, because the abusers are already doing that.