Thats a genuine question BTW - I am interested in why you think the labour cabinet should have more non white faces as a % that the general population
I have already answered that TJ, there aren't any Tories either in the Cabinet. It has nothing to do with "% as in the general population"
We are talking about a Labour Cabinet. I would expect more ethnic representation. You obviously don't. The issue was drawn to my attention by a black person, I hadn't noticed until it was pointed out to me. All I did was simply to ask if anyone on here had noticed.
Obviously I should expected the reaction and accusations of trolling because I dared to question a decision made by St Keir.
More cash - you do qualify this later in the post but there is a huge assumption there
do you want less experienced/skilled people from minority backgrounds trying to deal with the mess the Tories left, or accept that stronger white ministers are better at least for now?
I should expected the reaction and accusations of trolling because... there aren’t any Tories either in the Cabinet.
You made an interesting comment about representation of ethnic minorities in the cabinet... others joined in with sensible comments on representation as regards Labour MPs as whole, senior Labour politicians beyond Westminster, and how all that compares to the make up of the UK population as a whole... discussion. Comparing the representation of ethnic minorities to the number of Conservative MPs in a Labour cabinet is just dumb arse shit posting designed to rile people and flood the thread with nonsense to distract from the contributions that might be at odds with you own, IMHO. The same goes for your continued accusations that everyone else thinks, and posts, the same... and without your contributions there would be no discussion, no debate... we'd be an echo chamber. Here's a shock for you... we can have good discussion and disagreements without you. You do make useful contributions. But you're not the only one. Many people do. Most people do.
right. so you want over representation? ~Why?
I would have expected a level of representation around the % in the general population. I also think the labour party is institutionally racist BTW
Given Ernie's not so subtle dog-whistle. I think he's trying to suggest that Starmer is not promoting Asian MPs to the cabinet as he (Starmer) can't find any who can be trusted to think the same way as him over Gaza.
All I did was simply to ask if anyone on here had noticed.
I have to admit I hadn't. I had noticed the more pro palestinian tone but not that
It's a mistake to think that tokenism equals representation. Whilst agreeing with the tenets of the Forde report, shitz can be of all colours and orientations.
right. so you want over representation? ~Why?
Are you ok about over representation of lawyers? Why?
Anyway don't worry about it, the issue was drawn to my attention by someone and I was simply interested in hearing the opinions of others on here.
It turns out that the dozen or so individuals who decide what the STW political consensus should be don't have a problem with it.
Although I'm guessing that they probably would if it was a Tory Cabinet.
I am also guessing that Martin Forde KC, who wrote the Forde Report into racism within the Labour Party, probably also has a problem with it. I don't supposed anyone has asked him yet though
To my knowledge, unless I've missed something, there are no Gary's in the cabinet.
I don't think most people realise what a persecuted minority Gary's are and the challenges they face in life. Or they do realise and just don't care! Either way its unacceptable.
As above - I have no doubt that the labour party is institutionally racist.
I still do not understand why you think non white faces should be over represented in cabinet tho
Are you ok about over representation of lawyers?
Yes.
Why?
Because the job of parliament and in particular the ministers within the cabinet is to make law or policy shaped by law, so it's really, really important that they understand how to read and interpret it, the implications of it on their decision making and policy choices and ultimately therefore how to draft it.
As above – I have no doubt that the labour party is institutionally racist.
Eh? Say what now?
I have to admit I hadn’t
That's the point. I said right at the start that I hadn't noticed. That's probably because I am white. I was interested in knowing if others had noticed, one person said they had but I don't know if they are white or not.
The point is that white people don't notice stuff like that which is just one reason why we need more black representation at the top.
Ethnic minorities in our society are dominated by the opinions and attitudes of the white majority, it would be nice if a Labour government gave them a greater voice.
I'm still down for the technocratic 'pick qualified people who have relevant experience in the appropriate area' approach.
there are no Gary’s in the cabinet
Lawyers? Garys? Tories? Redheads? FFS. Whatever the point/joke being made... it belittles the problems we've had in the UK when it comes to ethnic minorities being heard and seen in politics, especially at the national level. Having senior politicians from many minorities at high levels in all our political parties shows how much progress there has been over the last 40 years... but it's not a signifier of "job done"... hopefully there's still more to come.
It turns out that the dozen or so individuals who decide what the STW political consensus should be
Pot, have you met kettle?
it would be nice if a Labour government gave them a greater voice.
So the only way the Labour Party can give a voice to people now is by making them cabinet members?
I suppose when you put it like that, you can't really fault your logic
there aren’t any Tories either in the Cabinet.
I'm quite glad that's now an agreed position because plenty of people were throwing that accusation at the Labour front bench not that long ago.
Eh? Say what now?
I am struggling to believe that you haven't heard of the Forde Report, which was fully accepted by the Labour Party.
The report made it clear that the Labour Party is institutionally racist. Now you could argue that in the last couple of years since the report everything has been sorted out and it is no longer the awful problem it was, but just two brown faces among 26 Cabinet members doesn't inspire a huge amount of confidence. Well not from some black and Asian people anyway.
Still not prepared to come out for the Gary's though, are you?
Your double standards sicken me
Look at the treatment of Abbott and others. Its no coincidence that black and brown folk are far more likely to be deselected and bypassed. Listen to the testimonies of those who struggle to be heard.
racism in the labour party is an obvious tho small thread running thru it
Still not prepared to come out for the Gary’s though, are you?
Your double standards sicken me
Talk to me about the Forde Report binners. I know that you like to get all jokey when you feel that you are on dodgy ground but how about you explain the findings of the Forde Report and the evidence of institutional racism in the Labour Party?
You challenged TJ's claim of institutional racism in the Labour Party how about explaining why you might reject the same claim from Martin Forde KC? Is he a dodgy barrister or something?
Take the Asian guy who the LP put up against Corbyn. Was he going to represent brown people or private healthcare?
Would be good to overcompensate I suppose so how many is the magic number, what % of white to non-white and what %s within the non white.
With a relatively small number of people hitting a target % doesn't make sense but over would possibly be better than under.
Without knowing all the people and their skills on offer though I can't say whether upping the % while getting me the most qualified people is achievable currently which points to a different problem.
Ernie - so I am reading it that you think some over representation is needed to send a signal or something similar? Makes me uneasy and smacks of tokenism
Take the Asian guy who the LP put up against Corbyn. Was he going to represent brown people or private healthcare?
Praful Nargund? His company are IVF specialists... but I'm not sure why he wouldn't have been a good representative for his constituents if he had won... whatever their ethnicity.
I very much doubt the culture has changed at all. I saw obvious racism in the deselection of candidates. also in Scotland we have a serious sectarian / religious divide in the labour party.
Its not the " wee hate brown and black people" of Reform - its the insidious "people like us" racism where minority voices of all types struggle to be heard
Kelvin - I do not think there is much doubt about who he wanted to represent
LABOUR’S candidate to replace Jeremy Corbyn in Islington North tomorrow has said the privatisation of healthcare is “very, very important” and was until recently director of an investment company for fertility services that made nearly £17 million tax-free profit in nine months.
Praful Nargund was filmed giving a talk in March 2015 saying that “as we are in the run-up to a general election in the UK, privatisation of healthcare is very, very important and it’s about what the private sector can do to prove its worth to the public sector.”
OK its from the morning star but I doubt it made his words up
So anyway……. only two brown faces in the Cabinet, that’s not very good, it’s a shame that Starmer couldn’t find more ethnic minority MPs whose “attitude” he could trust.
To turn that around, I assume you were happy with the ethnic make-up of the (constantly changing...) Tory cabinet, even as they rinsed the country, crashed the economy, ratcheted up the division and stoked the culture wars...?
Shame about the £30bn black hole in the economy but hey, at least the Chancellor was a black guy, how very diverse.
Shame about the illegal Rwanda policy but hey, at least it was a woman of Indian descent who was pushing for it (irony presumably not being one of her strong points).
Does Lisa Nandy not qualify for this exercise, or is one Asian parent insufficient?
I believe that Labour winning such a huge majority is fantastic, but I also believe that only receiving 34% of the vote is shite and very disappointing.
In a four horse race where nominal share would be 25%, I think getting 34/25ths of that is actually pretty decent when set in context.
Alternatively, by that type of logic (34% of 62% turn out = 20% of people actually voted for Labour) we've pretty well never had a government with a true mandate.
Does Lisa Nandy not qualify for this exercise, or is one Asian parent insufficient?
Nandy counts for sure, but she’s not in the cabinet. Not all ministers are in the cabinet. Another reason why the make up of the cabinet isn’t the end of the story when looking at representation in the senior ranks of the Labour Party.
Cabinet and full front bench team here.
There is a reason why this place is a political echo and as a consequence totally unrepresentative of wider political opinions, and unable therefore to engage in a sensible exchange of ideas, it is the staggering level of intolerance shown to anyone who should dare to deviate from the extremely narrowly defined STW political consensus.
Rambling post alert!
^^That got me thinking ernie.
The centrist/left bias of the forum is pretty hard to deny, ditto the thoughts on Brexit and the infamous STW "pile-on." Where we all are on that spectrum is for another post.
I think the forum got here organically from a general lefty bias to far more of an echo chamber in large part as a reaction to the Tory government and later, Brexit. Brexit particularly polarised this and other forums just as it did people in real life. I think both factors pushed political threads posters further left and ever more anti Brexit. At that point some people will have ducked out of the threads or began to post less in them.
Now, apart from the occasional... visitor... the political threads could be accused of being an echo chamber. So, do we want to change that and how? I dont go on other forums these days so no idea how Pistonheads etc are? Are they similar or are dissenting voices more tolerated or simply ignored? Honest question as I don't know? I also wonder how we would encourage dissenting voices? If 10 new members joined and constantly pointed out how Braveman is completely right in her views, do we sit back and let those views go unchallenged? The echo chamber would almost definitely kick in and many if us would feel compelled to call them out on that opinion. You are a decent guy Ernie and I suspect you would be one of the people keen to point out Braverman's horrific faults.
"binners Vs ernie, the eternal battle for our souls."
I post that title tongue in cheek but I'll use you both as examples here as you are both totems of "opposing" views. I put the quotes there as I've never seen you as poles apart, more flip sides of the same coin, neither side ever being completely wrong, or right. Both of you might be a little miffed at that which is possibly my point.lol You are not as far apart as you might think you are, your goals are very similar but you see different paths as the best way to get there.
To me the only difference between you both is that binners is (arguably) more pragmatic and you are (arguably) more idealistic. This is the problem, and why you both butt heads, as neither of you are empirically correct, or perhaps you both are! (I'm stretching empirically here...)
We need idealists in this world, more now than ever, it's not a bad stance in any shape or form.
But...
We need pragmatists in this world, more now than ever, it's not a bad stance in any shape or form.
So here we are...
As the political threads stand, they are probably, currently more composed of pragmatists than idealists in broad terms. That unfortunately does lead to the pile in effect kicking in. Things might recalibrate over time as opinions change or new members arrive of course. What we can do is keep things a bit more civil though and remember that, fundamentally, we all want what's best for the country and society... even grimep would agree with that.
Ernesto - my understanding of the Forde report is that it was looking into factionalism and antisemitism, no?
I'm just having a google around and its saying it identifies issues, which the Labour website then details how these are being addressed as an ongoing process.
Can you point me to the bit where it says that the Labour party is institutianally racist, as yourself and TJ are claiming please?
In a four horse race where nominal share would be 25%, I think getting 34/25ths of that is actually pretty decent when set in context.
I think its pretty poor - but then I am used to a 5 party race where the winners get 40+ %
The centrist/left bias of the forum is pretty hard to deny,
Its not centre left. Its centre right establishment. Its just a load of folk who are centre right claim to be centre left. I find the right wing establishment comfy middle class bias very obvious.
But the modern labour party is centre right. anti tax, anti spending, pro brexit, racist and pro privitisation. these are not lerft wing positions. the frogs have been well and truely boiled
It’s funny, but a forum I used to a big hitter on drove me from the right to the left with the attitude of a minority of posters and I now no longer frequent that forum. I now find myself being driven towards the right (that I still consider left) by a minority of posters who frequent this forum…
Binners
The Labour Party’s response
Promptly after receipt of the Forde Report, the NEC determined that it should be published in full.At the time of publication the NEC, the General Secretary, David Evans and the Leader of the Labour Party Keir Starmer issued apologies (below) for the circumstances that led to allegations of racism and harassment not being addressed.
https://labour.org.uk/resources/the-forde-report/
Depressingly, we were provided with a wealth of
evidence (both oral and written) regarding the perceived
widespread existence of discriminatory behaviours,
based on religion, race, gender and sexual orientation.
Although we recognise that this evidence was provided
by a self-selecting group of people, who represent a small
proportion of the overall membership of the Party, it was
nevertheless both shocking and disappointing
Edit: It started out as you say but uncovered a cesspit of discrimination so scope was widened.
widespread existence of discriminatory behaviours,
based on religion, race, gender and sexual orientation
That doesn’t mean “institutionally racist”. Failure to address such behaviours (which sadly happen in any large organisation) when identified could well be a sign of institutional racism.
Yes Uncle Jezza... as I said earlier, I've just read that
I'll try again... can you point me to the bit that says the Labour party is institutionally racist, as your claiming please?
Institutionally racist is my conclusion watching from the sidelines. Its obvious and overt to me.
A fair personal opinion, if not explicitly stated by the QC or his team. Do you think anything has changed since the report was written? What do you think of the response of the current Labour leadership as detailed at the link you shared?
Without knowing all the people and their skills on offer though I can’t say whether upping the % while getting me the most qualified people is achievable currently which points to a different problem.
Is absolutely conversation we should be having, and is the problem we - as a nation/society - need to be solving. Whatifs and tokenism do not help.
Institutionally racist is my conclusion watching from the sidelines.
Ah... ok... so....
Institutionally racist is my conclusion watching from the sidelines. Its obvious and overt to me.
While you may be right, it doesn't seem to be in the report. Written by the group that had all the actual evidence.
Do you think anything has changed since the report was written?
Not significantly watching the treatment of Abbott and other minority candidates who are clearly held to a higher standard than white folk and more easily deselected
What do you think of the response of the current Labour leadership as detailed at the link you shared?
Mealy mouthed fine words with no action. Where are the significant numbers of sackings? should have been dozens from all side being given their jotters
More cash - institutional racism is when an organisation consistently discriminates against folk because of race. The labour party does so. ( and on other grounds)
Failure to address such behaviours (which sadly happen in any large organisation) when identified could well be a sign of institutional racism.
Well the behaviors still persist so what conclusion does that bring? Look at the treatment of abbott and co. why were those guilty of the discriminatory behaviour not6 sacked> there were loads of them on all sides
institutional racism is when an organisation consistently discriminates against folk because of race. The labour party does so. ( and on other grounds)
I did say you may be right!
My question really is why is that not in the report if the evidence was provided at the time. As much a criticism of the report than your opinion.
(Though you do come across as very entrenched with a few comments and opinions recently)
clearly held to a higher standard than white folk and more easily deselected
Interesting opinion. My take is that most of those deselected due to the tightening of expectations on standards after Forde have been white. But specifically as regards Abbot, she apologised, and took the training Labour have put in place. She should have be reinstated faster…but looking at other MPs and councillors etc that have been through this, the whole process needs to be quicker, I see no evidence that she was singled because of her ethnicity.
In response to Binners 🙂
My question really is why is that not in the report if the evidence was provided at the time. As much a criticism of the report than your opinion.
Not in the remit? It had already been hugely extended. IMO if the culture tolerates discrimination then the organisation is institutionally racist
Has there been an election, did I miss something, did Reform sweep to power and overnight demand anyone with any skin pigment should officially 'go back where they came from'.
Listen to yourselves, racism is there just below the surface regardless if ethnicity. If we really want move to genuinely inclusive society we appoint people on skill and experience, ethnicity should not matter. To a greater extent this is what Starmer has done. The best way of increasing harmony in society is not to keep nit picking and point scoring, we need a more equitable society so people are less likely to be descending into othering.
Ah, good stuff, we're back to being predominantly centre right now on this site :yes:
As for deselection, that was as simple as you could get, even Abbott, who was brought back in before the election is still actively messaging against Labour via her posts online, less than a week in government and you have MPs not towing the line, and probably the reason she'll be kicked out the party sooner rather than later, not due to race, just due to doing their own thing, same thing would happen to anyone who did that in their day job.
Interesting to see if the newly elected Independent Leicester South MP will be the first MP forced to resign following the General Election.
https://www.thetimes.com/uk/law/article/leicester-man-terrorism-offences-charged-ttp72pcx5
tjagain
Full Member
The centrist/left bias of the forum is pretty hard to deny,Its not centre left. Its centre right establishment. Its just a load of folk who are centre right claim to be centre left. I find the right wing establishment comfy middle class bias very obvious.
I had to make some sweeping statements to keep a large post as brief as possible. Also I think we could could have huge post on where we all are on the political spectrum but fundamentally it doesn't matter.
The last point in my post is what matters to me. The posters on here want a better society, I dont care where they think they are on the political spectrum and they shouldn't care where I think they are either. 😀
Interesting to see if the newly elected Independent Leicester South MP will be the first MP forced to resign following the General Election.
So he should resign because someone he knows is being charged?, what’s the actual offence the person in question is being charged with?
@somafunk https://www.leics.police.uk/news/leicestershire/news/2024/july/man-charged-with-encouragement-of-terrorism/
Not that its evidence the MP has done anything more than simply talk to constituents
Its not centre left. Its centre right establishment. Its just a load of folk who are centre right claim to be centre left.
LMAO
Of course it’s left wing here - everyone is happy to use performative terms like Gammon, talk about how hideously right wing even One Nation Tories are, and see any hint of sympathy with Reform as signs of unadorned stupidity or evil.
Not that I necessarily disagree with many of the opinions expressed here, but I am surprised by the level of self awareness your comment shows.
Cheers piemonster,
”Majid Novsarka, also known as Majid Freeman, 36, of Cecil Road, Leicester, has been charged with encouragement of terrorism and supporting a proscribed organisation.”
I guess the dickhead was waving a flag or similar at one of the marches, bloody idiot. Meanwhile 40,000 have been indiscriminately killed in gaza, and a very clear distinction is made in the media when reporting Ukrainian deaths vs Palestinian deaths, as an aside have we seen the legal advice given to the government back in January this year regarding the possibility of enabling a genocide by supplying military equipment and enabling the use of UK surveillance drones/aircraft/air bases in Cyprus, I believe Kier Starmer was asking for it to be published months ago as a matter of extreme urgency so I imagine it’s top of his to-do list.
Petty hair splitting aside, I'll echo what someone way upthread said...I'm still a little bit in disbelief at seeing our government actualy, errm, governing?
It's almost hard to belive after the last lot, whos M.O. was seemingly just to gut the country, sever international relations, stoke hatred and run off with the dosh.
Is this real life?
Governing you say? Timpson is the 15th Prisons Minister in 14 years. The civil service think it can take a year to master the brief. I’ll let that settle.
BTW the UK is socially centre left and economically centre right. I see little evidence that STW is any different. The party occupying that middle ground may have moved more than once in recent years. The populace has not.
Anyone who thinks the consensus on this forum is left wing in any way has been a frog thats been boiled. Ernie is left wing. I am centre left. we are both way to the left of the consensus on here the labour party is centrist at best and most of its policies are centre right. SNP have been way to the left of labour and they are centre left.
the political consensus in this country has moved so far right. Now lets see. Against tax rises, increased defense spending, no benefits increase ( even refusing to look at the 2 child limit), no redistributive policy, pro brexit, pro privatisation, neoliberal economic policy. very left wing. indeed
Name me one left wing policy the labour party have?
Why does everything have to be neatly pigeon holed as left or right? it's a very simplistic, childish, even, way of looking at things.
Problems require the correct solutions, not be dictated by some partisan ideology regardless of whether its suitable.
Why does everything have to be neatly pigeon holed as left or right?
And why do people sound like they are talking down to anyone who isn't exactly like them?
Name me one left wing policy the labour party have?
VAT on private school fees
Fining water company bonuses for polluting
If market dynamics is a RW ethos, increasing minimum wage to a living wage and reforming zero hours rules is quite LW
Problems require the correct solutions, not be dictated by some partisan ideology regardless of whether its suitable.
Correct solution for who? What is "correct" for millionaires and landlords may be very different for what is "correct" for the ex squaddie living on the street.
the political consensus in this country has moved so far right
So, it’s not you that’s left wing, it’s just that everyone else is far right wing. Or more realistically you are just much further left of centre than your subjective perspective tells you.
But let’s try an objective measure, what media outlet do people use round here? My impression is that by far the most quoted outlet is The Guardian, with the BBC sometimes referenced despite a thread not too long ago about how awfully right wing biased it (or Laura Kuenssberg) was. Right wing news outlets are referred to in derogatory terms such as “Daily Heil”. From this we can conclude that most people posting around here are centre left or further left.
I don’t expect any argument to deflect you from your opinion, so I’ll say no more.
VAT on private school fees
Ill give you that one - a tiny marginal policy
Fining water company bonuses for polluting
Nope - the left wing solutioin is nationalization
increasing minimum wage to a living wage
Is that a commitment? I have never seen it mooted and the "living wage~" is far from a living wage
reforming zero hours rules is quite LW
NO commitment to anything radical nor to banning it. Whats proposed is window dressing and will have zero effect
None of those things are very radicaland all would fit happily in the centre right partiesd manifgestos europe wide
Where is the radical stuff? Redistibution of wealth? Taxation on rich folk? Nationalisation of monopolies, left wing economics?
The guardian is not left wing! Its liberal and thru most ofrecent history has not supported labour - only doing so when labour has moved right
Or more realistically you are just much further left of centre than your subjective perspective tells you..
Its the political centre of the UK is much further right than in most of europe. I am lookiing at international views
"Why does everything have to be neatly pigeon holed as left or right? it’s a very simplistic, childish, even, way of looking at things.
Problems require the correct solutions, not be dictated by some partisan ideology regardless of whether its suitable."
Possibly the most sensible opinion ever posted in an STW politics thread!
FWIW, I think STW is generally liberal politically, and that's not something I've ever thought of in terms of left and right wing ideology (but understand that might not be a 'traditional' view).
FWIW, I think STW is generally liberal politically, and that’s not something I’ve ever thought of in terms of left and right wing ideology (but understand that might not be a ‘traditional’ view).
I would agree. Liberal which as you say is not left wing.
the political centre of the UK is much further right than in most of europe
I’ve worked in a lot of European countries, particularly Germany, and I assure you that is simply not true.
The guardian is not left wing!
I rest my case your honour.
I'm sorry, when you said LW policies I didn't realise the radical was silent 😉
https://labour.org.uk/change/kickstart-economic-growth/#making-work-pay
Making work pay
Greater in-work security, better pay, and more autonomy in the workplace improve the lives of working people and bring substantial economic benefits. Britain’s outdated employment laws are not fit for the modern economy, and recent Conservative legislation has fuelled hostility and confrontation leading to the worst period in industrial relations since the 1980s.For too many people a job does not offer the route out of poverty it should: either because work is insecure, inflexible, or low paid; or because people face barriers when trying to move into a better job. Responsible businesses face being undercut when rights are not enforced properly.
Labour will stop the chaos and turn the page to create a partnership between business and trade unions, by implementing ‘Labour’s Plan to Make Work Pay: Delivering a New Deal for Working People’ in full – introducing legislation within 100 days. We will consult fully with businesses, workers, and civil society on how to put our plans into practice before legislation is passed. This will include banning exploitative zero hours contracts; ending fire and rehire; and introducing basic rights from day one to parental leave, sick pay, and protection from unfair dismissal. We will strengthen the collective voice of workers, including through their trade unions, and create a Single Enforcement Body to ensure employment rights are upheld. These changes will improve the lives of working people across the entire UK.
Labour will also make sure the minimum wage is a genuine living wage. We will change the remit of the independent Low Pay Commission so for the first time it accounts for the cost of living. Labour will also remove the discriminatory age bands, so all adults are entitled to the same minimum wage, delivering a pay rise to hundreds of thousands of workers across the UK.
I'm a lib dem who voted labour, and I think we should increase spending on defence...
So what the does that make me? a political vagrant?
How long would it take - and at what cost - to send a cold flannel to Edinburgh to cool a fevered brow?
Everyone just relax - STW won't make any material change to the UK unless...there are some cabinet members hiding behind some of the user names; Kier, are you there?
I don’t expect any argument to deflect you from your opinion, so I’ll say no more.
fair point - and I wont be able to change anyone elses minds either. Its one of those things. People claim to be more left wing than they are and will hear nothing different - same as everyone is an above average driver and a good dog owner 🙂
