26-Nov 2022 : LAB: 50% / CON: 27% / LDEM: 9% / GRN: 4%

[Deleted]

Apr 25, 2023 17:41:20 GMT leftieliberal said:

Apr 25, 2023 16:50:11 GMT @sotonsaint said:

I think we all knew - not least mercian when he wrote it - that it isn't and has never been an acceptable term. It's classic half-cut nocturnal mercian trolling and you've bitten.

The first two points from Mark in General Rules ukpollingreport2.proboards.com/post/5
1. Hate speech (racism, misogyny, homophobia etc). is expressly forbidden.
2. No flaming or trolling other users.

That's two yellow cards = a red card.

The sad thing is that there is a pecking order when it comes to protected groups and characteristics. I bet if an unacceptable term for black or Asian people had been used, more decisive action would have been taken.

Now I have little knowledge of and no affinity with travelling communities, but I am growing tired of certain people's flippant remarks about various groups. I know they are done knowingly, for 'comedic' reasons, but that doesn't make them okay. So I'm with jayblanc - sort it out or I'm off.

[ptarmigan]

Apr 25, 2023 14:11:20 GMT jayblanc said:

Apr 25, 2023 6:59:08 GMT @sotonsaint said:

Were they able to slash the tyres with the 'outer tyre' (if such a thing existed) unscathed?

Only saw this because it was quoted but...

NO IT IS NOT AND NEVER HAS BEEN AN ACCEPTABLE TERM. It has only ever been used as a derogatory way of referring to Roma and Travellers (while conflating the two different groups as the same). And your follow up that "they're all criminals" makes your racism clear.

Being scapegoated for local crimes has always been the sufferance of Roma. Does it not occur in your tiny minds to think about why the local car spares shop would bother to 'pay' anyone, when they could just get their kids to do it for free and blame the Roma? Does it not occur in your compressed frontal cortex, that this is what has happened for ages, a Roma presence being used to blame for anything. Lack of proper waste disposal, it was the Roma what did all that fly tipping not the local builders. Human waste in the rivers, must be the Roma not the Water Company allowing overflow. And as for crime... If the Roma had actually performed all the crimes they had been blamed for, we would be the richest people on the earth.

Mark If Mercian is still on this forum tomorrow, I won't be.

Yeah, Mercian was saying what a jolly good idea eugenics was the other night too. Not really sure where the line is on this forum but feel like he's surely crossed it numerous times.

[Mr Poppy]

Apr 25, 2023 17:41:20 GMT leftieliberal said:

Apr 25, 2023 16:50:11 GMT @sotonsaint said:

I think we all knew - not least mercian when he wrote it - that it isn't and has never been an acceptable term. It's classic half-cut nocturnal mercian trolling and you've bitten.

The first two points from Mark in General Rules ukpollingreport2.proboards.com/post/5
1. Hate speech (racism, misogyny, homophobia etc). is expressly forbidden.
2. No flaming or trolling other users.

That's two yellow cards = a red card.

AFAIK only Mark is responsible for enforcing the site rules - not you or anyone else

I'm not sure what mercian has said to upset people but if you've decided to make yourself moderator then is there anyone else you want to call out - or are you just picking on someone you don't like?

IIRC then Mark did recently say he'd be taking a tougher line on flaming (trolling) but then he also said he start a new thread and no sign of that either.

Once again I'll suggest a new general thread is started (maybe take y'days R&W) and that everyone gets a 'clean slate' and we can see if we drag this site out of the gutter. I don't mind chucking a few rocks back every now and then but it is a bit 🥱 and surely most people would prefer to discuss polling (or specific issues on the Issue Specific threads)?

In the mean time if you would like to supply a "Woke-pedia" for likes of mercian and myself so we don't upset anyone then please do. Ta muchly. 

[James E]

Re the 'Blue Wall':

Today's poll is still a 15.5% Con>Lab swing there, so as usual it's still somewhat higher than other GE polling (a lab 14-15% lead is a 13% swing).

Changes from GE2019

Lab 34% (+13)
Con 32% (-17)
LD 24% (-3)

Taking the very typically 'Blue Wall' constituency of Woking, these movements would turn it into almost a 3-way tie. (Con 30.9, Lab 29.4, LD 27.8 ). Dominic Raab's Esher and Walton seat, which is another of the 42 polled, would be LD 42%, Con31%, Lab 17%.

[ptarmigan]

Not done any sort of digging and analysis but would think that R&W Blue Wall poll seems good for those of a LOC disposition? So far as I recall it's a funny mix of LAB/CON and (primarily) CON/LIB seats but the Lib Dems having a bit of a revival would bode well for the latter seats, with Lab capturing the former. Probably need JamesE's expertise

Edit: and already this post is out of date!

[leftieliberal]

Apr 25, 2023 18:33:46 GMT Mr Poppy said:

Apr 25, 2023 17:41:20 GMT leftieliberal said:

The first two points from Mark in General Rules ukpollingreport2.proboards.com/post/5
1. Hate speech (racism, misogyny, homophobia etc). is expressly forbidden.
2. No flaming or trolling other users.

That's two yellow cards = a red card.

AFAIK only Mark is responsible for enforcing the site rules - not you or anyone else

I'm not sure what mercian has said to upset people but if you've decided to make yourself moderator then is there anyone else you want to call out - or are you just picking on someone you don't like?

IIRC then Mark did recently say he'd be taking a tougher line on flaming (trolling) but then he also said he start a new thread and no sign of that either.

Once again I'll suggest a new general thread is started (maybe take y'days R&W) and that everyone gets a 'clean slate' and we can see if we drag this site out of the gutter. I don't mind chucking a few rocks back every now and then but it is a bit 🥱 and surely most people would prefer to discuss polling (or specific issues on the Issue Specific threads)?

In the mean time if you would like to supply a "Woke-pedia" for likes of mercian and myself so we don't upset anyone then please do. Ta muchly. 

I'm just quoting the rules that Mark set up at the beginning of this board. If you don't like them, you and mercian can always set up another board with your own rules. 

[Deleted]

Apr 25, 2023 18:33:46 GMT Mr Poppy said:

Apr 25, 2023 17:41:20 GMT leftieliberal said:

The first two points from Mark in General Rules ukpollingreport2.proboards.com/post/5
1. Hate speech (racism, misogyny, homophobia etc). is expressly forbidden.
2. No flaming or trolling other users.

That's two yellow cards = a red card.

AFAIK only Mark is responsible for enforcing the site rules - not you or anyone else

I'm not sure what mercian has said to upset people but if you've decided to make yourself moderator then is there anyone else you want to call out - or are you just picking on someone you don't like?

IIRC then Mark did recently say he'd be taking a tougher line on flaming (trolling) but then he also said he start a new thread and no sign of that either.

Once again I'll suggest a new general thread is started (maybe take y'days R&W) and that everyone gets a 'clean slate' and we can see if we drag this site out of the gutter. I don't mind chucking a few rocks back every now and then but it is a bit 🥱 and surely most people would prefer to discuss polling (or specific issues on the Issue Specific threads)?

In the mean time if you would like to supply a "Woke-pedia" for likes of mercian and myself so we don't upset anyone then please do. Ta muchly. 

If you're 'not sure' what mercian said, why wade in? Bit careless to not do one's research when others are saying it's bad enough to chuck him off the forum, no?

And a "Woke-pedia" (ho ho) whatever it may be is not necessary, assuming you know what hate speech is.

[pjw1961]

Apr 25, 2023 16:25:47 GMT Rafwan said:

I am not sure how amenable this board is to anyone who wishes to support Diane Abbott over her letter, but I want to anyway, so here goes. Her letter was not in any way antisemitic. The interpretations that have been put upon it are distortions that do not reflect what she intended.

Diane Abbott has been MP for Hackney North since 1987. She was the first black female MP and there is abundant evidence that she has suffered extensive discrimination and abuse since the outset. She has herself spoken and written movingly about this abuse and it makes my stomach turn. Additionally, Amnesty International conducted a survey of abusive tweets and found that she received almost 50% of the total sent to women MPs in the 6 weeks before the 2017 election. She received 4500; second was Emily Thornberry with 450. To dismiss her letter as antisemitic is to deny this felt experience.

Diane Abbott's constituency includes Stamford Hill which embraces the largest group of Hasidic Jews in Europe (around 15,000). Her vote has solidified over her time as MP and this could only happen with the support of this community. She has an excellent working relationship with them and is much liked. They have been quick to support her publicly when she has been accused of antisemitism. Quite simply, she could not possibly be M.P. without their support.

The widespread antipathy to her letter feeds a malign narrative that being left-wing is somehow also antisemitic. This is wrong and deeply troubling. It should be resisted.

I'll do my best to answer why Diane Abbott's letter was problematic from a left point of view (right of centre criticism is largely hypocritical, given the same commentators and newpapers' past treatment of Abbott).

Firstly, I don't for a moment think that she is personally antisemitic, I accept her apology at face value and what you say about the abuse she has suffered is completely true. I haven't met anyone in the Labour Party who dislikes Diane Abbott. Her personal journey as the child of a poor immigrant family, who went to Cambridge and became the first black woman MP is an inspiring one. 

However, the letter is deeply problematic, as she now recognises herself. It argues in effect for a hierarchy of racism - Jews and Travellers suffer "prejudice" but not racism, which is restricted to people of African descent. The problem with that is not so much that it is antisemitic, but that it is racist in itself (with the comparison to prejudice against redheads just making it worse). Jews and Travellers have indisputably suffered racism and trying to argue that one group's experience is worse than another's is staggeringly unhelpful to the overall fight against racism. The only sustainable stance to take is that all forms of racism - by any group, against any group - are wrong and equally abhorrent. It has to be remembered that all human societies are capable of racism - Idi Amin was an African racist against the Asian population of Uganda, there are Jewish racists in the current Israeli government and our own home secretary makes racist statements, notwithstanding her South Asian heritage. Racism is a problem of humanity in general and trying to sub-divide it only weakens the fight against it. 

Which brings me to the third point. It may be unfair, but people on the (broad) left have to hold themselves to a higher standard. If that letter had been written by someone on the right making a similar argument (for example that racism against Jews is worse that than that against black people) I would be condemning it as wrong. Therefore, I can't excuse it because it happens to be written by someone on the left. Not to condemn it provides an easy attack line for people on the right who are either racist themselves or who wish to try to misuse the issue for their own ends.  

None of this implies that it should automatically lead to the end of Diane Abbott's career - others have apologised and been forgiven - but in light of her well known health issues, age and the proximity of the next general election I think it may well do so. If this is the case that I sincerely hope that she gets to bow out with dignity. 
     

[pjw1961]

Apr 25, 2023 18:19:43 GMT @sotonsaint said:

Apr 25, 2023 17:41:20 GMT leftieliberal said:

The first two points from Mark in General Rules ukpollingreport2.proboards.com/post/5
1. Hate speech (racism, misogyny, homophobia etc). is expressly forbidden.
2. No flaming or trolling other users.

That's two yellow cards = a red card.

The sad thing is that there is a pecking order when it comes to protected groups and characteristics. I bet if an unacceptable term for black or Asian people had been used, more decisive action would have been taken.

Now I have little knowledge of and no affinity with travelling communities, but I am growing tired of certain people's flippant remarks about various groups. I know they are done knowingly, for 'comedic' reasons, but that doesn't make them okay. So I'm with jayblanc - sort it out or I'm off.

I hope you and jayblanc don't leave. The only way to combat racism is to call it out when it occurs. Believe me, living in Essex I've had plenty of experience of that. 

[pjw1961]

Apr 25, 2023 18:57:05 GMT @sotonsaint said:

Apr 25, 2023 18:33:46 GMT Mr Poppy said:

AFAIK only Mark is responsible for enforcing the site rules - not you or anyone else

I'm not sure what mercian has said to upset people but if you've decided to make yourself moderator then is there anyone else you want to call out - or are you just picking on someone you don't like?

IIRC then Mark did recently say he'd be taking a tougher line on flaming (trolling) but then he also said he start a new thread and no sign of that either.

Once again I'll suggest a new general thread is started (maybe take y'days R&W) and that everyone gets a 'clean slate' and we can see if we drag this site out of the gutter. I don't mind chucking a few rocks back every now and then but it is a bit 🥱 and surely most people would prefer to discuss polling (or specific issues on the Issue Specific threads)?

In the mean time if you would like to supply a "Woke-pedia" for likes of mercian and myself so we don't upset anyone then please do. Ta muchly. 

If you're 'not sure' what mercian said, why wade in? Bit careless to not do one's research when others are saying it's bad enough to chuck him off the forum, no?

And a "Woke-pedia" (ho ho) whatever it may be is not necessary, assuming you know what hate speech is.

I'm 61. When I was young you could hear what would now be considered racism, homophobia and sexism on Saturday night TV, yet I've managed to keep pace and comprehend what is and it not acceptable; it isn't that difficult. Therefore those that pretend not to understand are making a specific choice not to. 

[steve]

The Christo fascists are now setting the standards for biological gender appropriate clothing and appearance apparently this is to ensure " a professional standard" it's in reality an attack on trans people.

Here's boss Hogg whose setting the standards.









www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/apr/25/texas-agriculture-department-dress-memo-sid-miller

[oldnat]

As foolish Cleverly looks more and more inept. ScotGov continues to engage with non-UK governments.

[Mr Poppy]

Apr 25, 2023 18:55:03 GMT leftieliberal said:

Apr 25, 2023 18:33:46 GMT Mr Poppy said:

AFAIK only Mark is responsible for enforcing the site rules - not you or anyone else

I'm not sure what mercian has said to upset people but if you've decided to make yourself moderator then is there anyone else you want to call out - or are you just picking on someone you don't like?

IIRC then Mark did recently say he'd be taking a tougher line on flaming (trolling) but then he also said he start a new thread and no sign of that either.

Once again I'll suggest a new general thread is started (maybe take y'days R&W) and that everyone gets a 'clean slate' and we can see if we drag this site out of the gutter. I don't mind chucking a few rocks back every now and then but it is a bit 🥱 and surely most people would prefer to discuss polling (or specific issues on the Issue Specific threads)?

In the mean time if you would like to supply a "Woke-pedia" for likes of mercian and myself so we don't upset anyone then please do. Ta muchly. 

I'm just quoting the rules that Mark set up at the beginning of this board. If you don't like them, you and mercian can always set up another board with your own rules. 

You decided to interpret the rules to declare mercian was "2 x yellow = red"

I can't speak for anyone else but I'm quite happy with the rules, why should it be me that needs to leave? It seems that some people want to get rid of people who have different views to them.

UKPR2 isn't even a workplace. If people don't want to read the comments from someone else then don't read them - simples. If anyone wants to voluntarily leave the site then the decision should be for them - or Mark (and only Mark ) has the power to kick someone off. 

[Mr Poppy]

mercian Out of curiosity then are you still with us?

[shevii]

Apr 25, 2023 19:13:48 GMT pjw1961 said:

Apr 25, 2023 16:25:47 GMT Rafwan said:

I am not sure how amenable this board is to anyone who wishes to support Diane Abbott over her letter, but I want to anyway, so here goes. Her letter was not in any way antisemitic. The interpretations that have been put upon it are distortions that do not reflect what she intended.

Diane Abbott has been MP for Hackney North since 1987. She was the first black female MP and there is abundant evidence that she has suffered extensive discrimination and abuse since the outset. She has herself spoken and written movingly about this abuse and it makes my stomach turn. Additionally, Amnesty International conducted a survey of abusive tweets and found that she received almost 50% of the total sent to women MPs in the 6 weeks before the 2017 election. She received 4500; second was Emily Thornberry with 450. To dismiss her letter as antisemitic is to deny this felt experience.

Diane Abbott's constituency includes Stamford Hill which embraces the largest group of Hasidic Jews in Europe (around 15,000). Her vote has solidified over her time as MP and this could only happen with the support of this community. She has an excellent working relationship with them and is much liked. They have been quick to support her publicly when she has been accused of antisemitism. Quite simply, she could not possibly be M.P. without their support.

The widespread antipathy to her letter feeds a malign narrative that being left-wing is somehow also antisemitic. This is wrong and deeply troubling. It should be resisted.

I'll do my best to answer why Diane Abbott's letter was problematic from a left point of view (right of centre criticism is largely hypocritical, given the same commentators and newpapers' past treatment of Abbott).

Firstly, I don't for a moment think that she is personally antisemitic, I accept her apology at face value and what you say about the abuse she has suffered is completely true. I haven't met anyone in the Labour Party who dislikes Diane Abbott. Her personal journey as the child of a poor immigrant family, who went to Cambridge and became the first black woman MP is an inspiring one. 

However, the letter is deeply problematic, as she now recognises herself. It argues in effect for a hierarchy of racism - Jews and Travellers suffer "prejudice" but not racism, which is restricted to people of African descent. The problem with that is not so much that it is antisemitic, but that it is racist in itself (with the comparison to prejudice against redheads just making it worse). Jews and Travellers have indisputably suffered racism and trying to argue that one group's experience is worse than another's is staggeringly unhelpful to the overall fight against racism. The only sustainable stance to take is that all forms of racism - by any group, against any group - are wrong and equally abhorrent. It has to be remembered that all human societies are capable of racism - Idi Amin was an African racist against the Asian population of Uganda, there are Jewish racists in the current Israeli government and our own home secretary makes racist statements, notwithstanding her South Asian heritage. Racism is a problem of humanity in general and trying to sub-divide it only weakens the fight against it. 

Which brings me to the third point. It may be unfair, but people on the (broad) left have to hold themselves to a higher standard. If that letter had been written by someone on the right making a similar argument (for example that racism against Jews is worse that than that against black people) I would be condemning it as wrong. Therefore, I can't excuse it because it happens to be written by someone on the left. Not to condemn it provides an easy attack line for people on the right who are either racist themselves or who wish to try to misuse the issue for their own ends.  

None of this implies that it should automatically lead to the end of Diane Abbott's career - others have apologised and been forgiven - but in light of her well known health issues, age and the proximity of the next general election I think it may well do so. If this is the case that I sincerely hope that she gets to bow out with dignity. 
     

I 100% agree with all the comments you make on what she said and why it was wrong.  Less sure about your final paragraph as that sounds a bit like some of the American presidential stuff about someone being too old or needing a health check or whatever- that's something for her to decide based on her perception of her health not for us to judge her ability to do her job for sure.

Ironically the "hierarchy of racism" is what Forde says is going on within the Labour Party and hasn't been addressed:

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-65032001

"The lawyer echoed his previous comments that complaints made by black and Asian members were not being treated as seriously as those related to anti-Semitism."

[Mr Poppy]

Apr 25, 2023 20:35:59 GMT shevii said:

Apr 25, 2023 19:13:48 GMT pjw1961 said:

I'll do my best to answer why Diane Abbott's letter was problematic from a left point of view (right of centre criticism is largely hypocritical, given the same commentators and newpapers' past treatment of Abbott).

Firstly, I don't for a moment think that she is personally antisemitic, I accept her apology at face value and what you say about the abuse she has suffered is completely true. I haven't met anyone in the Labour Party who dislikes Diane Abbott. Her personal journey as the child of a poor immigrant family, who went to Cambridge and became the first black woman MP is an inspiring one. 

However, the letter is deeply problematic, as she now recognises herself. It argues in effect for a hierarchy of racism - Jews and Travellers suffer "prejudice" but not racism, which is restricted to people of African descent. The problem with that is not so much that it is antisemitic, but that it is racist in itself (with the comparison to prejudice against redheads just making it worse). Jews and Travellers have indisputably suffered racism and trying to argue that one group's experience is worse than another's is staggeringly unhelpful to the overall fight against racism. The only sustainable stance to take is that all forms of racism - by any group, against any group - are wrong and equally abhorrent. It has to be remembered that all human societies are capable of racism - Idi Amin was an African racist against the Asian population of Uganda, there are Jewish racists in the current Israeli government and our own home secretary makes racist statements, notwithstanding her South Asian heritage. Racism is a problem of humanity in general and trying to sub-divide it only weakens the fight against it. 

Which brings me to the third point. It may be unfair, but people on the (broad) left have to hold themselves to a higher standard. If that letter had been written by someone on the right making a similar argument (for example that racism against Jews is worse that than that against black people) I would be condemning it as wrong. Therefore, I can't excuse it because it happens to be written by someone on the left. Not to condemn it provides an easy attack line for people on the right who are either racist themselves or who wish to try to misuse the issue for their own ends.  

None of this implies that it should automatically lead to the end of Diane Abbott's career - others have apologised and been forgiven - but in light of her well known health issues, age and the proximity of the next general election I think it may well do so. If this is the case that I sincerely hope that she gets to bow out with dignity. 
     

I 100% agree with all the comments you make on what she said and why it was wrong.  Less sure about your final paragraph as that sounds a bit like some of the American presidential stuff about someone being too old or needing a health check or whatever- that's something for her to decide based on her perception of her health not for us to judge her ability to do her job for sure.

Ironically the "hierarchy of racism" is what Forde says is going on within the Labour Party and hasn't been addressed:

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-65032001

"The lawyer echoed his previous comments that complaints made by black and Asian members were not being treated as seriously as those related to anti-Semitism."

I don't read every post but I will again point out

Under the Equality Act, there are nine protected characteristics:

- age
- disability
...

www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/advice-and-guidance/your-rights-under-equality-act-2010

PS As plenty of people have pointed out then Starmer (Sir Keith Stalin to the LW LAB folks) has been very inconsistent in who he goes after and on what basis.

[steve]

"mercian Out of curiosity then are you still with us?"

I think he only emerges if someone feeds him after midnight.

I think the best approach to his geriatric insensitivity and casual xenophobia is to factually dissect the utter bollocks he sometimes posts.

[oldnat]

Naturally, not for a moment would I suggest that, not only ScotGov, but non-UK governments too are gently reminding the UK Foreign Secretary that his writ is infinitely more limited than he imagined. I'd suggest it for a considerably longer period of time!

Of course, it is open to UKGov via the Elections Act 2022 to create a new offence of "talking to foreigners" that would prevent anyone from standing for election. It really is a much more dangerous bit of legislation than just the photo ID that has been the focus.

I very much doubt that the English electorate intended to have a proto-totalitarian government in Downing St - but that's what their votes achieved.

[pjw1961]

Apr 25, 2023 20:35:59 GMT shevii said:

Apr 25, 2023 19:13:48 GMT pjw1961 said:

None of this implies that it should automatically lead to the end of Diane Abbott's career - others have apologised and been forgiven - but in light of her well known health issues, age and the proximity of the next general election I think it may well do so. If this is the case that I sincerely hope that she gets to bow out with dignity. 
     

I 100% agree with all the comments you make on what she said and why it was wrong.  Less sure about your final paragraph as that sounds a bit like some of the American presidential stuff about someone being too old or needing a health check or whatever- that's something for her to decide based on her perception of her health not for us to judge her ability to do her job for sure.

I'm actually trying to be a bit protective of her. Diane Abbot was/is a sharp and clever lady and used to be a very effective television performer, but she has definitely lost something lately and sometimes to preserve a legacy it is best to know when to leave the stage. Churchill for example stayed in parliament at least 1 term too long.

More controversially, if she doesn't have the whip restored by the time of the election she can't stand as a Labour candidate. I wouldn't be surprised if that turns out to be the case, which would be truly sad.   

They clearly don't have much of a health check in the US, given Biden's decision today to stand again meaning the next US Presidential election is likely to be contested by two candidates with a combined age of 158. I really wish he hadn't done that, although I expected it.  

As a final note - and totally separate from Diane Abbott or age/health matters - I am not completely on board with this idea that being an  MP in a safe seat is a job for life and it is solely up to the MP to decide when they pack it in. There have been MPs of all parties who have become ineffective, with low attendance and speaking records (and again, I am not talking about Diane Abbott) who frankly needed deselecting for everyone's sake. But then I am in favour of STV anyway,, which would remove the existence of such things as 'safe seats'. 

[Rafwan]

Apr 25, 2023 19:13:48 GMT pjw1961 said:

Apr 25, 2023 16:25:47 GMT Rafwan said:

I am not sure how amenable this board is to anyone who wishes to support Diane Abbott over her letter, but I want to anyway, so here goes. Her letter was not in any way antisemitic. The interpretations that have been put upon it are distortions that do not reflect what she intended.

Diane Abbott has been MP for Hackney North since 1987. She was the first black female MP and there is abundant evidence that she has suffered extensive discrimination and abuse since the outset. She has herself spoken and written movingly about this abuse and it makes my stomach turn. Additionally, Amnesty International conducted a survey of abusive tweets and found that she received almost 50% of the total sent to women MPs in the 6 weeks before the 2017 election. She received 4500; second was Emily Thornberry with 450. To dismiss her letter as antisemitic is to deny this felt experience.

Diane Abbott's constituency includes Stamford Hill which embraces the largest group of Hasidic Jews in Europe (around 15,000). Her vote has solidified over her time as MP and this could only happen with the support of this community. She has an excellent working relationship with them and is much liked. They have been quick to support her publicly when she has been accused of antisemitism. Quite simply, she could not possibly be M.P. without their support.

The widespread antipathy to her letter feeds a malign narrative that being left-wing is somehow also antisemitic. This is wrong and deeply troubling. It should be resisted.

I'll do my best to answer why Diane Abbott's letter was problematic from a left point of view (right of centre criticism is largely hypocritical, given the same commentators and newpapers' past treatment of Abbott).

Firstly, I don't for a moment think that she is personally antisemitic, I accept her apology at face value and what you say about the abuse she has suffered is completely true. I haven't met anyone in the Labour Party who dislikes Diane Abbott. Her personal journey as the child of a poor immigrant family, who went to Cambridge and became the first black woman MP is an inspiring one. 

However, the letter is deeply problematic, as she now recognises herself. It argues in effect for a hierarchy of racism - Jews and Travellers suffer "prejudice" but not racism, which is restricted to people of African descent. The problem with that is not so much that it is antisemitic, but that it is racist in itself (with the comparison to prejudice against redheads just making it worse). Jews and Travellers have indisputably suffered racism and trying to argue that one group's experience is worse than another's is staggeringly unhelpful to the overall fight against racism. The only sustainable stance to take is that all forms of racism - by any group, against any group - are wrong and equally abhorrent. It has to be remembered that all human societies are capable of racism - Idi Amin was an African racist against the Asian population of Uganda, there are Jewish racists in the current Israeli government and our own home secretary makes racist statements, notwithstanding her South Asian heritage. Racism is a problem of humanity in general and trying to sub-divide it only weakens the fight against it. 

Which brings me to the third point. It may be unfair, but people on the (broad) left have to hold themselves to a higher standard. If that letter had been written by someone on the right making a similar argument (for example that racism against Jews is worse that than that against black people) I would be condemning it as wrong. Therefore, I can't excuse it because it happens to be written by someone on the left. Not to condemn it provides an easy attack line for people on the right who are either racist themselves or who wish to try to misuse the issue for their own ends.  

None of this implies that it should automatically lead to the end of Diane Abbott's career - others have apologised and been forgiven - but in light of her well known health issues, age and the proximity of the next general election I think it may well do so. If this is the case that I sincerely hope that she gets to bow out with dignity. 
     

Many thanks, much appreciate your thoughtful response. I will digest and get back to you in due course. Tied up tomorrow, so may take a day or two.

Initial reactions. I think what you say she says goes far beyond what she actually says. Secondly, it takes insufficient account of her felt experience (though I fully recognise that as privileged white men, that is something you and I will struggle to understand fully - doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try though). Thirdly, I feel uncomfortable with the idea that the left must jump higher hurdles than the right.

[ptarmigan]

Apr 25, 2023 18:19:43 GMT @sotonsaint said:

Apr 25, 2023 17:41:20 GMT leftieliberal said:

The first two points from Mark in General Rules ukpollingreport2.proboards.com/post/5
1. Hate speech (racism, misogyny, homophobia etc). is expressly forbidden.
2. No flaming or trolling other users.

That's two yellow cards = a red card.

The sad thing is that there is a pecking order when it comes to protected groups and characteristics. I bet if an unacceptable term for black or Asian people had been used, more decisive action would have been taken.

Now I have little knowledge of and no affinity with travelling communities, but I am growing tired of certain people's flippant remarks about various groups. I know they are done knowingly, for 'comedic' reasons, but that doesn't make them okay. So I'm with jayblanc - sort it out or I'm off.

Agree. I think we all largely appreciate the light-touch moderation on this site and clearly Mark can't be here all the time but when you have the same individual(s) getting called out repeatedly and they still make gratuitously offensive comments... well, then what? I don't think the onus should always be on members to call out derogatory language. If people can't or won't adhere to the rules they shouldn't be here.

[peterbell]

pjw1961 wrote

"I'm actually trying to be a bit protective of her. Diane Abbot was/is a sharp and clever lady and used to be a very effective television performer, but she has definitely lost something lately and sometimes to preserve a legacy it is best to know when to leave the stage. Churchill for example stayed in parliament at least 1 term too long."

pjw1961, I have mixed feelings re the correct action to take on this. It is correct that there should be a suspension but to me the question is "how long". As you wrote in your post above, "she has definitely lost something lately" and I totally agree with that. I had a lot of time for Diane, but I have noticed that the last few times I have seen her on TV her performances have not been at the level they once were. I would suggest that the comment about the red hair is symptomatic of that.

I therefore agree that she should gracefully bow out at the next election and I would hope that the party find a way of enabling this.

[oldnat]

No mercian tonight? As I said to Anthony when he ended his stewardship of UKPR1, what I valued about it was seeing the views of people with whom I fundamentally disagreed, but being enlightened as to their thinking.

mercian clearly represented the thinking of a significant proportion of the English and Welsh electorate (and a very small part of the Scots one - similar people here being more obsessed by the fate of Rangers and NI, not necessarily in that order). Unless I were to read the Daily Mail/Express (or see the TV coverage of their bigotry) I would be unaware of the depths to which a large part of any population can sink.

So come back mercian .

[steve]

oldnat

I don't accept it's that significant, vociferous yes and given a platform as never before by this talentless corrupt regime of liars.

However similar views can be heard in golf clubs and Wetherspoons the length of the U.K..

Remember Scotland had a million Brexit voters and isn't devoid of similar views.

[neilj]

Apr 26, 2023 0:26:29 GMT oldnat said:

No mercian tonight? As I said to Anthony when he ended his stewardship of UKPR1, what I valued about it was seeing the views of people with whom I fundamentally disagreed, but being enlightened as to their thinking.

mercian clearly represented the thinking of a significant proportion of the English and Welsh electorate (and a very small part of the Scots one - similar people here being more obsessed by the fate of Rangers and NI, not necessarily in that order). Unless I were to read the Daily Mail/Express (or see the TV coverage of their bigotry) I would be unaware of the depths to which a large part of any population can sink.

So come back mercian .

While I agree about seeing the views of others you disagree with is good, where do you draw the line with hate and or racist language
Would you think it's acceptable, for example, for people to use the N word to describe black people or the C word to describe women on this forum?

I don't think it should be and neither do I think is the word Mercian used to describe gypsies

Now that doesn't mean I think Mercian should be permanently banned,(I do find some of Mercians posts engaging and humourous) that is for Mark to decide on. Am sure there us a whole range of sanctions/reprimands he could use

[Danny]

R4 repoting that alcoholism increased during lockdown and has not returned to baseline. Resulting in an anticipated 14,000 extra deaths. (I presume they mean annually?)

Lockdowns kill.

[Danny]

Apr 25, 2023 14:11:20 GMT jayblanc said:

Mark If Mercian is still on this forum tomorrow, I won't be.

Going to let him win then are you and wholly dominate the public discourse?

[Danny]

Apr 25, 2023 15:21:09 GMT alec said:

The covid strategy we have adopted is to leave decisions on risk up to 'personal responsibility', and then remove all the data upon which such decisions can reasonably be made. The net result is that the most vulnerable in society are facing a life amounting to a choice of lockdowns without end or serious ill health and premature death. This seems to be rationalised by the majority - including some on here - as not being a particular issue as the only people affected have comorbidities already. It's an odd way to rationalise exclusion, but there you go. It's what we're hearing every day.

Lockdown was of course the classic example of the strategy you want us to adopt. Close down all society and then no one will catch any diseases from other people. Easy.

Only then we all die. Because society collapses and none of us is self sufficient so we can live in that bubble never meeting anyone else.

Lockdown was an utterly destructive strategy which could not be sustained. We are currently experienceing a world recession caused by the stupidity of adopting worlwide lockdowns. The plain fact is people die. If they didnt die we would either have to start killing them, or stop new ones being born. Alec, are you willing to live forever at the price of not being allowed any descendants?

And the plain fact is that since we deteriorate steadily with age, and medical science is unable to prevent that, what you are really saying is you want people to live on increasingly decrepit at the expense of having fewer younger people in society. That is the society we live in.

And its worse than that. The way to minimise disease in a society and protect the vulnerable is to create herd immunity. We always knew that, it got mentioned regarding covid in 2020. Well it seems we cannot create herd immunity to covid as a whole, but we certainly did create herd immunity to each succesive wave. The way to minimise deaths amongst the vulnerable was always to minimise the total amount of covid in circulation, and that was best done by getting it over FAST. Whereas lockdown was a strategy deliberately designed to make the outbreak last as long as possible before it worked through the population. We deliberately extended the at risk time. And we seem to have created ideal conditions for mutations to develop in the process. We could hardly have done more to make things worse.

Though oddly politicians dont want to admit this.

[Danny]

Apr 25, 2023 16:25:47 GMT Rafwan said:

I am not sure how amenable this board is to anyone who wishes to support Diane Abbott over her letter, but I want to anyway, so here goes. Her letter was not in any way antisemitic. The interpretations that have been put upon it are distortions that do not reflect what she intended.

Some time ago maybe Yougov did some surveying to assess the levels of antisemitism in political parties and conluded conservatives were more so inclined. The importance of this is that a charge of antisemitism really doesnt work against conservatives, because they dont care. Whereas it is especially damaging against people who do actually care about the issue and who have supporters who also care. And thats why labour leaders are accused of being antisemitic.

[Danny]

Apr 25, 2023 18:01:55 GMT Mr Poppy said:

A curse on both their houses perhaps as ABCON + ABLAB benefits LDEM?

Does look as though the fall in lab recently mirrors a rise in libs. And the obvious problem labour have is they refuse to support rejoin.