The Chairman Mao resembling, Monarchy hating, threat to Britain, Labour Party thread

[blandy]

14 minutes ago, Jareth said:

Which is traditionally a Leicester problem?

And if the whole thing was transplanted to an affluent area like, North London, and boy am I being careful here not to fall into a trope - but Muswell Hill is a beautiful area, then that's amusing? Probably, because it would not happen there, would it?

What?  There were extremely rare outbreaks of significant disorder and violence between Leicester communities from Hindu and Muslim backgrounds. Local councillors and other community leaders and so on spent a lot of time, effort, words and so on trying to put the violence genie back in the bottle, to counter false accusations being flung about, to put out the rumour fire that was being fuelled.

None of that is “traditional” anywhere in the uk.

What was amusing was you decrying factionalism and also posting that you were attacking current  labour because 3 years ago, previous labour would have been attacked for a hypothetical situation.

[pas5898]

29 minutes ago, blandy said:

In Leicester 19 labour councillors have been told they can’t stand again for labour, by party h.q. 15 of those 19 are non white, 4 are white. The remaining 30 odd Labour councillors can stand again. They are also mostly non white. Leicester as a city is mostly non white. The replacements will be mostly non white, I would wager. I don’t see that the Leicester situation is about racism or any kind of race hierarchy or view that BAME communities are not important. I don’t see that holding a view that those deselected was because they are “trots” demonstrates “white privilege”.

But mostly, I don’t care. I’m not a labour member. For ever, basically whichever lot were in control of labour hq used that control to select and deselect favoured and unfavoured people. Factionalism has always been a problem.

Correct! As one who lives in Leicester I can assure you there's areas of the city where I can almost guarantee you the ethnicity of the replacements. Leicester is split into areas where there's heavy concentrations of a specific ethnicity or religion. There is absolutely no way a "white", or even a Hindu would ever be elected in a predominantly muslim area (it's just how it is). The replacements will represent the people / area they represent.

Where I live is high concentration of African immigrants, and my local councillor is Claudia Webb who is of African decent. Unfortunately she decided to threaten to throw acid on her boyfriends ex girfriend and was sacked by labour and given a suspended prison sentance. If / when she's replaced I can almost guarantee her replacement will be of African decent as the local population wants someone who they believe represents them. 

 

 

[Chindie]

A Labour politician supporting Linehan's commentary isn't a great look.

It's also not great when that commentary essentially diminishes the impact of mass murder of minorities and vulnerable groups.

[ml1dch]

14 minutes ago, pas5898 said:

Where I live is high concentration of African immigrants, and my local councillor is Claudia Webb who is of African decent. Unfortunately she decided to threaten to throw acid on her boyfriends ex girfriend and was sacked by labour and given a suspended prison sentance. If / when she's replaced I can almost guarantee her replacement will be of African decent as the local population wants someone who they believe represents them. 

Minor point of order, Webbe is the Member of Parliament, rather than a councillor - they current issues surround candidates for the local elections in May.

Webbe's replacement hasn't been selected yet, but there is talk that Keith Vaz (who had it for decades until Webbe) might stand again, which would be a rather brave decision by the local party given his "interesting" history.

[Jareth]

14 minutes ago, blandy said:

What?  There were extremely rare outbreaks of significant disorder and violence between Leicester communities from Hindu and Muslim backgrounds. Local councillors and other community leaders and so on spent a lot of time, effort, words and so on trying to put the violence genie back in the bottle, to counter false accusations being flung about, to put out the rumour fire that was being fuelled.

None of that is “traditional” anywhere in the uk.

What was amusing was you decrying factionalism and also posting that you were attacking current  labour because 3 years ago, previous labour would have been attacked for a hypothetical situation.

Hindu Vs Muslim violence was offered as a possible reason for preventing 60% of BAME councillors from standing again.

I'd stop decrying factionalism, if the leader of Labour had sorted it fairly, he has done the opposite. It's a pity for Labour - the one thing that party needs is unification - he has approached that issue by getting rid of one side, he's probably right that it's the simplest way to sort the issue - but it's not a vote winner for me. That Labour will reinstate the right kind of BAME councillors because the community believe they will represent them - is also highly cynical. Boris Johnson is white, he doesn't represent me. 

[blandy]

40 minutes ago, Jareth said:

Hindu Vs Muslim violence was offered as a possible reason for preventing 60% of BAME councillors from standing again.

By who? Firstly, the 60% figure is wrong. There are 15 councillors of BAME background being dropped by Labour, to be replaced by other BAME candidates, from around 50 total Labour councillors, the majority of whom are also BAME. The 60% refers to 60% of those who have been deselected, not 60% of the total, as I understand it. There are a handful of white candidates also dropped, and we don't know whether they are being replaced by other white people, black people, brown people...

Really you want, as @pas5898said, local residents who best represent their local community to be chosen. If person 1 is dropped by Labour and replaced by outsider 1, then that will not go well. But if person 1 is dropped and replaced by person 2, who is also a good member of the local community, then that may go much better. It's rare for local councillors to be parachuted in from London or wherever - candidates are almost universally locals already.

Secondly, if you're referring to my post which asked a question, the question as to whether the violence and unrest and the fallout from it might be a relevant factor in the deselection - the reason I asked (I genuinely don't  know the answer) is because some people might be assumed to have done well, demonstrated calm and diplomacy and so on, and others might have been quite partisan to one community or other, or performed poorly, or just not been able to function in the way the City needed. Rioting and inter-religion violence and stuff is extremely serious and has long term consequences, and can expose weaknesses in people or systems.

I agree with your point about substituting people based purely on skin colour - that's daft and kind of racist in itself if it goes on - "Oh - we'll just put another person in and as long as their skin colour matches, then that's all that matters" kind of approach is insulting at best - people need to be good candidates and respected (if possible) already, because of their ability.

[blandy]

58 minutes ago, Chindie said:

A Labour politician supporting Linehan's commentary isn't a great look.

It's also not great when that commentary essentially diminishes the impact of mass murder of minorities and vulnerable groups.

Totally agree. Linehan's outpourings are often deranged. Izzard (who is also a Labour candidate, or prospective one) seems like a good soul, but him raising the holocaust, or Nazi Germany (indeed anyone doing that) is probably better advised not to. Him, as a transvestite man might well have been victimised in past times. Almost certainly I'd say. But we're not in nazi Germany of nearly a century ago. The arguments around treating trans people kindly and fairly, whilst also treating straight women fairly and kindly and safely is not the same or analogous to mass murder of innocents by fascists.

[MakemineVanilla]

4 hours ago, magnkarl said:

Stop the War should be renamed 'Help Putin' tbh. It's a joke of a blinkered organisation.

I know it is not a popular opinion but I think dissident voices are necessary and many such used to be on the Left.

Dissident voices are necessary to establish a counter-narrative.

Dissident voices are often excluded from the authorised version of history, for the comfort and reassurance of the natives.

Reducing the war to a contest between Putin and Zelensky does usefully simplify the moral argument but I am uncomfortable with that.

Cheer-leading the deaths of the 'enemy' is just crass.

Horror and tragedy are usually obscured by euphemism.

 

[Jareth]

44 minutes ago, blandy said:

By who? Firstly, the 60% figure is wrong. There are 15 councillors of BAME background being dropped by Labour, to be replaced by other BAME candidates, from around 50 total Labour councillors, the majority of whom are also BAME. The 60% refers to 60% of those who have been deselected, not 60% of the total, as I understand it. There are a handful of white candidates also dropped, and we don't know whether they are being replaced by other white people, black people, brown people...

Really you want, as @pas5898said, local residents who best represent their local community to be chosen. If person 1 is dropped by Labour and replaced by outsider 1, then that will not go well. But if person 1 is dropped and replaced by person 2, who is also a good member of the local community, then that may go much better. It's rare for local councillors to be parachuted in from London or wherever - candidates are almost universally locals already.

Secondly, if you're referring to my post which asked a question, the question as to whether the violence and unrest and the fallout from it might be a relevant factor in the deselection - the reason I asked (I genuinely don't  know the answer) is because some people might be assumed to have done well, demonstrated calm and diplomacy and so on, and others might have been quite partisan to one community or other, or performed poorly, or just not been able to function in the way the City needed. Rioting and inter-religion violence and stuff is extremely serious and has long term consequences, and can expose weaknesses in people or systems.

I agree with your point about substituting people based purely on skin colour - that's daft and kind of racist in itself if it goes on - "Oh - we'll just put another person in and as long as their skin colour matches, then that's all that matters" kind of approach is insulting at best - people need to be good candidates and respected (if possible) already, because of their ability.

I had it as 60% of its BAME councillors - not all councillors - and those who were white being stopped were 20% of the white block. 60% Vs 20% - it's a bad look, IMHO. If they replace the BAME councillors with equally competent and rightfully selected BAME councillors, then I have to ask why they've done what they have done - what was the point of the exercise? It probably needs an explanation - but I doubt anyone other than the pedants with time on their hands (myself included) are going to notice. 

[Chindie]

It's only a purge when people we don't like do it.

[blandy]

5 minutes ago, Jareth said:

If they replace the BAME councillors with equally competent and rightfully selected BAME councillors, then I have to ask why they've done what they have done - what was the point of the exercise? It probably needs an explanation

That's similar to my approach - if they replace some councillors with new candidates who are better, or as good, but different (presumably more aligned with the manifesto or etc.) then maybe factionalism (as has always gone on, from both sides), but that's about the gist of it. Where I took issue was with (IMO) jumping to assumptions centred around discrimination, around jumping to comparisons (invalid ones, IMO) with problems Labour had in some places with anti-semitism. There will unfortunately always be people with racist or anti-semitic attitudes, and they should be fought against, but until or unless there's evidence of such a thing going on with this Leicester council thing I don't personally think there's any justification for alleging Labour is or has become anti BAME, or discriminatory against BAME communities or people. There was evidence under the last leader of Labour having problems with anti-semitism and dealing with those problems. Neither side of the party came out of it well, and it was something the press used to attack Labour about relentlessly. Like I say, it'll always be there to an extent within societies, not just ours, but it should be fought against when discovered. Equally it should not be assumed to be automatically the case (e.g. in Leicester) until or unless there's actual evidence. So far there's to my mind, no such evidence. People being dropped and replaced by other people from the same locale, with similar backgrounds isn't evidence of racism or discrimination around race or ethnicity.

[blandy]

1 minute ago, Chindie said:

It's only a purge when people we don't like do it.

And it's only unfair when people we like, or share views with, have it done to them, right?

[blandy]

24 minutes ago, Jareth said:

I had it as 60% of its BAME councillors - not all councillors

OK, that makes sense. Thanks.

[ml1dch]

22 minutes ago, Jareth said:

I had it as 60% of its BAME councillors - not all councillors - and those who were white being stopped were 20% of the white block. 60% Vs 20% - it's a bad look, IMHO. If they replace the BAME councillors with equally competent and rightfully selected BAME councillors, then I have to ask why they've done what they have done - what was the point of the exercise? It probably needs an explanation

@bickster offered one, which you weren't happy with.

 

3 hours ago, bickster said:

No they haven't this is not true, many of them are still standing. Just not for Labour

This appears to be about wanting to abolish the directly elected mayoral position. Similar happened in Liverpool when the short list of candidates for the Labour Ticket all wanted to abolish the position.

Starmer appears to want to keep directly elected Mayors. This is about policy

That also seems to correlate with what is being reported.

Quote

 

A former Labour councillor has quit the party and announced her bid to be Leicester's next elected city mayor in order to scrap the role.

Councillor Rita Patel, who represents Rushey Mead, launched her campaign for Leicester's top job this week, saying the city needed "a fresh start".

She has promised one of her first jobs will be to remove the mayoral role.

Mayor Sir Peter Soulsby said it was "disappointing" to see Ms Patel walking away from the party.

Ms Patel was one of four city councillors suspended for six months for their attempt to scrap the mayor's office through a vote at a council meeting at the start of the month.

She was suspended alongside fellow councillors Ross Willmott, Patrick Kitterick and Jacky Nangreave meaning the four will not be able to stand in May's elections.

 

 

[Chindie]

11 minutes ago, blandy said:

And it's only unfair when people we like, or share views with, have it done to them, right?

No.

I'm not a fan of central party controls fiddling with local representatives, parachuting in their chosen candidates and getting rid of people they don't like, unless there's a bloody good reason to. And that goes for whoever is doing it.

[Jareth]

14 minutes ago, ml1dch said:

@bickster offered one, which you weren't happy with.

 

That also seems to correlate with what is being reported.

 

I'm all for @bickster offering explanations, but with respect to those explanations, Labour should probably be explaining it, unless they don't much care how it's perceived, and that in itself speaks volumes about who they are courting next election. 

[magnkarl]

1 hour ago, MakemineVanilla said:

I know it is not a popular opinion but I think dissident voices are necessary and many such used to be on the Left.

Dissident voices are necessary to establish a counter-narrative.

Dissident voices are often excluded from the authorised version of history, for the comfort and reassurance of the natives.

Reducing the war to a contest between Putin and Zelensky does usefully simplify the moral argument but I am uncomfortable with that.

Cheer-leading the deaths of the 'enemy' is just crass.

Horror and tragedy are usually obscured by euphemism.

 

Of course there should be a place for voices of dissent, I just think we rightly (In STWC and NO2NATO's case at least) need to question why these politicians and contrarians act the way they do. For many of the STWC and especially No2NATO people it's because they're Putin\Iran\Hezbollah or whatever-shills. The line up for the No2NATO gig is essentially a list of foreign agents at this point, and Twitter has comically tagged several of the idiots as such even with conspiracy theorist Elon in charge. Sure there should be space for them, but they also need to handle being questioned and fact checked, they often don't. George Galloway and Chris Williamson are two examples of people who not long ago held top spots within Labour who are now essentially so crooked that even the conspiracy theorists laugh at them.

Edited March 24, 2023 by magnkarl

[bickster]

Just now, Jareth said:

I'm all for @bickster offering explanations, but with respect to those explanations, Labour should probably be explaining it, unless they don't much care how it's perceived, and that in itself speaks volumes about who they are courting next election. 

I looked at it, because it is exactly what happened in Liverpool with the mayoral candidates. Then a few Labour councillors resigned the whip and became Independents, then the Labour Party suspended 6 more (for stating they would vote against the budget)

This appears to be pretty much the same situation - infighting and an attempt to get rid of the elected mayor position.

 

[ml1dch]

3 minutes ago, Jareth said:

...but with respect to those explanations, Labour should probably be explaining it, unless they don't much care how it's perceived, and that in itself speaks volumes about who they are courting next election. 

In that same linked article

Quote

 

Sir Peter (current Labour mayor) said it was "disappointing" to see Ms Patel running as an independent mayoral candidate.

Responding to allegations that the council was stifling debate, he said: "It's funny she's never said that in all the years she's been a Labour councillor.

"She also had, I would guess, almost 100 meetings of the Labour group in the last 12 years and never once raised the proposal we should move away from the mayoral system. Instead, she's said on many occasions she wants to do the job herself."

The Labour Party said it took its responsibilities "very seriously" in all selections and "at every level of the party".

 

From what I've read, nobody on either side seems to think that it's about anything other than directly-elected mayors. 

[blandy]

40 minutes ago, Chindie said:

No.

I'm not a fan of central party controls fiddling with local representatives, parachuting in their chosen candidates and getting rid of people they don't like, unless there's a bloody good reason to. And that goes for whoever is doing it.

How does that view tally with

57 minutes ago, Chindie said:

It's only a purge when people we don't like do it.