| Apparently fighting inequality is 'fashionable' on 14:27 - Dec 17 with 1668 views | TieDyedIn95 |
I'd like to see more of it done offline and with real action, and not purely through advertising campaigns by big companies trying to sell their latest round of products or anons. on twitter.
Step up or step away. |  |
| Football League First Division / Premier League
Champions (1): 1961—62 - Runners-up (2): 1980—81, 1981—82
Football League Second Division / EFL Championship
Champions (3): 1960—61, 1967—68, 1991—92 - Play-off winners (1): 1999—2000
Football League Third Division / EFL League One Champions (2): 1953—54, 1956—57 - Southern League Champions (1): 1936—37
FA Cup Winners (1): 1977—78 - Texaco Cup Winners (1): 1972—73
UEFA Cup / UEFA Europa League Winners (1): 1980—81 | | Poll: | Would you attend a socially distanced training ground protest? |
|  |
| Apparently fighting inequality is 'fashionable' on 14:29 - Dec 17 with 1657 views | footers |
"Time and time again, we see politicians making their own evidence-free judgements."
Said the Brexiteer Conservative minister. |  |
| |
| Apparently fighting inequality is 'fashionable' on 15:43 - Dec 17 with 1590 views | factual_blue |
Yes, but don't you think it's a disgrace that we import so much cheese? |  |
| |
| Apparently fighting inequality is 'fashionable' on 15:44 - Dec 17 with 1589 views | snudge27 |
| Apparently fighting inequality is 'fashionable' on 15:43 - Dec 17 by factual_blue |
Yes, but don't you think it's a disgrace that we import so much cheese? |
What about those new pork markets? |  |
| |
| Apparently fighting inequality is 'fashionable' on 15:53 - Dec 17 with 1564 views | tractordownsouth |
Conservative blueprint
'We should stop focussing on the needs of X and help Y instead'
Do nothing to help Y
'We should stop focussing on the needs of Y and help Z instead'
Do nothing to help Z
Rinse and repeat. |  |
| |
| Apparently fighting inequality is 'fashionable' on 16:18 - Dec 17 with 1535 views | Darth_Koont |
Identity politics numpties.
Here’s an idea, Liz. Rather than acting like brand researchers and focus group junkies, why don’t you address inequalities on the basis of the actual effing metrics?!
Although that would mean politicians would be assessed on their actual performance of running the country and representing its citizens ... |  |
| |
| Apparently fighting inequality is 'fashionable' on 16:34 - Dec 17 with 1512 views | factual_blue |
| Apparently fighting inequality is 'fashionable' on 15:44 - Dec 17 by snudge27 |
What about those new pork markets? |
I think she made a right pig's ear of them. | |
| |
| Apparently fighting inequality is 'fashionable' on 16:38 - Dec 17 with 1505 views | monytowbray |
| Apparently fighting inequality is 'fashionable' on 14:27 - Dec 17 by TieDyedIn95 |
I'd like to see more of it done offline and with real action, and not purely through advertising campaigns by big companies trying to sell their latest round of products or anons. on twitter.
Step up or step away. |
When it's taken to the streets they moan too though.
 |  |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Apparently fighting inequality is 'fashionable' on 16:56 - Dec 17 with 1491 views | Darth_Koont |
| Apparently fighting inequality is 'fashionable' on 15:53 - Dec 17 by tractordownsouth |
Conservative blueprint
'We should stop focussing on the needs of X and help Y instead'
Do nothing to help Y
'We should stop focussing on the needs of Y and help Z instead'
Do nothing to help Z
Rinse and repeat. |
Agreed. Problem is the official Opposition either agree nowadays or they’re trying to triangulate with entirely new and useless letters called XY and YZ.
Starmer could have said the same as Truss, in fact he already has when he put the new focus on family, nation and opportunity which couldn’t be more One Nation Tory if it tried. | |
| |
| Apparently fighting inequality is 'fashionable' on 23:22 - Dec 17 with 1371 views | tractordownsouth |
| Apparently fighting inequality is 'fashionable' on 16:56 - Dec 17 by Darth_Koont |
Agreed. Problem is the official Opposition either agree nowadays or they’re trying to triangulate with entirely new and useless letters called XY and YZ.
Starmer could have said the same as Truss, in fact he already has when he put the new focus on family, nation and opportunity which couldn’t be more One Nation Tory if it tried. |
Think that's a massive false equivalence there. Rhetoric doesn't always match the policy - we've seen that with the Tories' claims that they're standing up for working class families during election periods and then going on to cut their benefits afterwards. Family and nation aren't policy-specific, but they're put there to counter the idea that Labour is anti-British or not positive enough (which is a vague notion, I know, but it's a perception that has to be tackled.) He's not trying to encourage hostility towards minorites in the way the likes of Johnsson and Patel have.
If this wasn't combined with any meaningful policy opposition I'd agree with you but this isn't the case. Starmer, like Corbyn, has been quite clear in his opposition to austerity and has highlighted the cruelty of the FSM cuts and the shame in the need for a UNICEF intervention, among other things. Policy wise he seems to be doing what you want him to do, yet you seem to have it against him because he isn't Corbyn. Reasoned criticism is healthy of course, but for you to claim you're only interested in the policies, only to decide Starmer's crap because you don't like his rhetoric seems a bit odd. | |
| |
| Apparently fighting inequality is 'fashionable' on 00:00 - Dec 18 with 1357 views | Darth_Koont |
| Apparently fighting inequality is 'fashionable' on 23:22 - Dec 17 by tractordownsouth |
Think that's a massive false equivalence there. Rhetoric doesn't always match the policy - we've seen that with the Tories' claims that they're standing up for working class families during election periods and then going on to cut their benefits afterwards. Family and nation aren't policy-specific, but they're put there to counter the idea that Labour is anti-British or not positive enough (which is a vague notion, I know, but it's a perception that has to be tackled.) He's not trying to encourage hostility towards minorites in the way the likes of Johnsson and Patel have.
If this wasn't combined with any meaningful policy opposition I'd agree with you but this isn't the case. Starmer, like Corbyn, has been quite clear in his opposition to austerity and has highlighted the cruelty of the FSM cuts and the shame in the need for a UNICEF intervention, among other things. Policy wise he seems to be doing what you want him to do, yet you seem to have it against him because he isn't Corbyn. Reasoned criticism is healthy of course, but for you to claim you're only interested in the policies, only to decide Starmer's crap because you don't like his rhetoric seems a bit odd. |
His rhetoric is meaningless, I agree. Just like his 10 pledges and commitment to unity.
But he shows no signs of communicating transformative policies and taking the country with him. He can’t even do that with the Labour Party. And anyway the racist homeowners and media he’s prioritising won’t listen to it. | |
| |
| Apparently fighting inequality is 'fashionable' on 00:42 - Dec 18 with 1328 views | tractordownsouth |
| Apparently fighting inequality is 'fashionable' on 00:00 - Dec 18 by Darth_Koont |
His rhetoric is meaningless, I agree. Just like his 10 pledges and commitment to unity.
But he shows no signs of communicating transformative policies and taking the country with him. He can’t even do that with the Labour Party. And anyway the racist homeowners and media he’s prioritising won’t listen to it. |
I agree on the 10 pledges part and wish those hadn't been made in the first place as I'm not sure they'll be kept - I'd have prefered a smaller list of promises. Not sure why you think Starmer can't communicate transformative policies though? He's voiced his opposition to Tory cuts and I'm sure will unveil policies in time. That's the norm for most opposition leaders - they've got to spread their policy development out over a long period as we're 3.5 years away from the election. I don't recall Corbyn or Miliband releasing a large list of specific policy proposals within months of taking over either, but I may be wrong. Of course, if no policies have been announced within the next year or 2, then thay's a legitimate criticism but it's too early to have such expectations.
Polling would suggest that the not "taking the country with him" argument is wrong - voting intention is roughly equal but crucially, for the first time since 2007, the Labour leader is ahead of the Tory leader in the 'best PM' surveys. The next election will be tough for Labour as there's a mountain to climb, but in an era where
many people cast their vote based on party leaders, that can only be a good thing. It's also a bit of a lazy stereotype to seemingly dismiss those that didn't support Corbyn's Labour as a "racist homeowner" - that kind of language only alienates people further.
As for unity, that's important but can't come with the caveat of excusing racism/apologists. Can't imagine JC will be getting the whip back anytime soon after his interview and support for Kerry Ann Mendoza for example. If that is the case, that's his own fault for taking those actions and appearing on such a platform. | |
| |
| Apparently fighting inequality is 'fashionable' on 07:33 - Dec 18 with 1263 views | TractorWood |
| Apparently fighting inequality is 'fashionable' on 14:27 - Dec 17 by TieDyedIn95 |
I'd like to see more of it done offline and with real action, and not purely through advertising campaigns by big companies trying to sell their latest round of products or anons. on twitter.
Step up or step away. |
I agree on the big companies point. Lots of companies pay lip service to equality by using a more diverse range of models in their glitzy TV ads.
However, how many provide bursaries or scholarships to encourage talented people to pursue their passions when they can't afford it or to give them a chance at making it. How many sponsor adult evening classes to progress people who had tough childhoods. How many have totally blind CV reviews in their recruitment processes or don't insist on a 2:1 from a red brick.
Lots of people talk about diversity and inclusivity but so few people in these businesses have experienced how challenging it is to face discrimination and sociatal disadvantage. This means that normally the attempt to tell the public that are aware of the zeitgeist comes across as patronising, over-produced marketing waffle that actually has no substance. [Post edited 18 Dec 2020 7:35]
|  |
| |
| Apparently fighting inequality is 'fashionable' on 09:45 - Dec 18 with 1182 views | BlueLikeJazz |
| Apparently fighting inequality is 'fashionable' on 00:00 - Dec 18 by Darth_Koont |
His rhetoric is meaningless, I agree. Just like his 10 pledges and commitment to unity.
But he shows no signs of communicating transformative policies and taking the country with him. He can’t even do that with the Labour Party. And anyway the racist homeowners and media he’s prioritising won’t listen to it. |
"But he shows no signs of communicating transformative policies and taking the country with him. He can’t even do that with the Labour Party. "
God I'm getting sick of this. Do you know who else showed zero signs of GENUINELY communicating transformative policies and taking the country with him? Saint Jeremy, whose biggest achievement was handing the worst government in living memory (and possibly ever) an 80 seat majority. Yeah, well done. *slow handclap* [Post edited 18 Dec 2020 9:46]
|  | | |
| Apparently fighting inequality is 'fashionable' on 11:27 - Dec 18 with 1145 views | Darth_Koont |
| Apparently fighting inequality is 'fashionable' on 09:45 - Dec 18 by BlueLikeJazz |
"But he shows no signs of communicating transformative policies and taking the country with him. He can’t even do that with the Labour Party. "
God I'm getting sick of this. Do you know who else showed zero signs of GENUINELY communicating transformative policies and taking the country with him? Saint Jeremy, whose biggest achievement was handing the worst government in living memory (and possibly ever) an 80 seat majority. Yeah, well done. *slow handclap* [Post edited 18 Dec 2020 9:46]
|
Not sure that’s borne out by people joining the Labour Party because Corbyn stood for progressive politics, him being attacked for those positions from the start and within 2 years having a manifesto chock-full if them that had several million more people voting Labour than in 2015 and crucially enormous support from the younger generation.
In 8 months of leadership, Starmer has stood for nothing except “competence” and “trust” —despite him looking incompetent at managing his own party and untrustworthy on his leadership campaign pledges and supposed commitment to unity. Plus his handling of inequality with regard to BAME and Islamophobia is borderline criminal and makes a mockery of his puritanical stance on antisemitism.
You probably won’t agree but for the many people looking for transformative, progressive politics in opposition he’s been awful so far. In fact he looks like his role is to nip all that in the bud and we head back to the safe, technocratic neo-liberalism light that helped get us into this in the first place.
That’s why he’s been given a free ride by the press and the establishment. He is exactly what they want in an “opposition” leader. | |
| |
| Apparently fighting inequality is 'fashionable' on 11:55 - Dec 18 with 1125 views | Darth_Koont |
| Apparently fighting inequality is 'fashionable' on 00:42 - Dec 18 by tractordownsouth |
I agree on the 10 pledges part and wish those hadn't been made in the first place as I'm not sure they'll be kept - I'd have prefered a smaller list of promises. Not sure why you think Starmer can't communicate transformative policies though? He's voiced his opposition to Tory cuts and I'm sure will unveil policies in time. That's the norm for most opposition leaders - they've got to spread their policy development out over a long period as we're 3.5 years away from the election. I don't recall Corbyn or Miliband releasing a large list of specific policy proposals within months of taking over either, but I may be wrong. Of course, if no policies have been announced within the next year or 2, then thay's a legitimate criticism but it's too early to have such expectations.
Polling would suggest that the not "taking the country with him" argument is wrong - voting intention is roughly equal but crucially, for the first time since 2007, the Labour leader is ahead of the Tory leader in the 'best PM' surveys. The next election will be tough for Labour as there's a mountain to climb, but in an era where
many people cast their vote based on party leaders, that can only be a good thing. It's also a bit of a lazy stereotype to seemingly dismiss those that didn't support Corbyn's Labour as a "racist homeowner" - that kind of language only alienates people further.
As for unity, that's important but can't come with the caveat of excusing racism/apologists. Can't imagine JC will be getting the whip back anytime soon after his interview and support for Kerry Ann Mendoza for example. If that is the case, that's his own fault for taking those actions and appearing on such a platform. |
See above. Think most of that relates to your post too.
As an aside, I don’t like Kerry Ann Mendoza’s style and her Twitter persona. She seems too abrasive and often tone deaf. But the Canary itself has some good pieces and is certainly as legitimate as most other political media outlets. And her style and persona, indeed her integrity, are on a par with say Stephen Pollard of the Jewish Chronicle at that level of the debate
I prefer the more in-depth, detailed stuff of Novara, Middle East Eye, Byline Times etc and more serious journalism surrounding these and other areas. And less of the shock-jock style of writing and commentating.
So Corbyn saying reasonable stuff on the Canary or Starmer omitting to criticise white supremacism on the more often ludicrous LBC? Not sure there’s a case to answer for Corbyn. | |
| |
| Apparently fighting inequality is 'fashionable' on 16:24 - Dec 18 with 1064 views | tractordownsouth |
| Apparently fighting inequality is 'fashionable' on 11:55 - Dec 18 by Darth_Koont |
See above. Think most of that relates to your post too.
As an aside, I don’t like Kerry Ann Mendoza’s style and her Twitter persona. She seems too abrasive and often tone deaf. But the Canary itself has some good pieces and is certainly as legitimate as most other political media outlets. And her style and persona, indeed her integrity, are on a par with say Stephen Pollard of the Jewish Chronicle at that level of the debate
I prefer the more in-depth, detailed stuff of Novara, Middle East Eye, Byline Times etc and more serious journalism surrounding these and other areas. And less of the shock-jock style of writing and commentating.
So Corbyn saying reasonable stuff on the Canary or Starmer omitting to criticise white supremacism on the more often ludicrous LBC? Not sure there’s a case to answer for Corbyn. |
I'd have liked to see a stronger rebuttal of that LBC caller too, and the station has definitely hired some awful people as presenters in the past - had Starmer appeared on a show hosted by Katie Hopkins I'd have slated him. I don't like Nick Ferrari and think he's a bit of a tabloid headline generator but to equate him with Mendoza is massive false equivalence. Have you seen the stuff she comes out with? It's the left-wing equivalent of Tommy Robinson - she spends her life goading a minority.
I think the figures about Labour members having experienced Islamophobia are concerning and that matter needs to be dealt with, but I can't understand why you felt Corbyn's handling with anti-semitism was fine, but this (which is a less widespread issue, as important as it is to those affected) apparently indicates that Starmer is a massive failure. As for the policy thing, I still don't get how you can complain Starmer has no policies whilst simultaenously saying he's ditched all his 10 pledges. You can't have it both ways. I doubt all 10 will be kept but there's no way of knowing that, and Covid has taken over political priorities for now. If Starmer was asking questions about nationalising the railways in PMQs in the middle of a pandemic that wouldn't be the right focus. Maybe in future he will.
Anyhow, it's pointless arguing with you over this because we're just going round in circles. | |
| |
| Apparently fighting inequality is 'fashionable' on 17:11 - Dec 18 with 1021 views | Darth_Koont |
| Apparently fighting inequality is 'fashionable' on 16:24 - Dec 18 by tractordownsouth |
I'd have liked to see a stronger rebuttal of that LBC caller too, and the station has definitely hired some awful people as presenters in the past - had Starmer appeared on a show hosted by Katie Hopkins I'd have slated him. I don't like Nick Ferrari and think he's a bit of a tabloid headline generator but to equate him with Mendoza is massive false equivalence. Have you seen the stuff she comes out with? It's the left-wing equivalent of Tommy Robinson - she spends her life goading a minority.
I think the figures about Labour members having experienced Islamophobia are concerning and that matter needs to be dealt with, but I can't understand why you felt Corbyn's handling with anti-semitism was fine, but this (which is a less widespread issue, as important as it is to those affected) apparently indicates that Starmer is a massive failure. As for the policy thing, I still don't get how you can complain Starmer has no policies whilst simultaenously saying he's ditched all his 10 pledges. You can't have it both ways. I doubt all 10 will be kept but there's no way of knowing that, and Covid has taken over political priorities for now. If Starmer was asking questions about nationalising the railways in PMQs in the middle of a pandemic that wouldn't be the right focus. Maybe in future he will.
Anyhow, it's pointless arguing with you over this because we're just going round in circles. |
Well, it’s pointless because there’s really nothing to say.
I was defending Corbyn from the more obvious factional and political attacks from newly engaged anti-racists. What we’re seeing now is what we’ve always known about them: generally, these are people who don’t care about systemic racism and other inequalities and certainly not about transformative policies. That’s not why they’re in politics and especially the Labour Party. Just like the Matt Hancocks and Tom Hunts of the world it’s about power and influence.
That’s always been my opinion about UK politics as a whole too. [Post edited 18 Dec 2020 17:12]
| |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
