The Labour Government

[metalblue]

No you're inferring that . It was obviously a daft thing to do, to goad and provoke a response rather than go inside and wait for them to move on.

You’re being rather fatuous - I am inferring that from the words you write. Questioning it he was innocent, that he goaded them, provoked them, should have locked himself inside and not dared venture outside. All implying it’s his fault.

If you can’t criticise both sides for any violence committed - actually in your specific case defend the actions of one - then I can’t take you seriously, you’re just a WUM at that point. Two tier I think is the on trend expression.

 

[blueinsa]

It's not been a boring first few weeks in power has it?

 

[law74]

I’ll hold my hands up, I held racist views (towards Bengali/Pakistsnis) from a young age due to being attacked numerous times by Asian lads growing up in Oldham. As I grew up i realised these lads possibly had the same from white lads, and that’s why they did it. Nothing eever used to happen when it happened to us though, teachers or police wasn’t arsed. The the grooming scandal came out etc etc adding more fuel to the fire. Eventually I realised hate breeds hate, and even became good friends with Asian lads when in secondary school. Even though there was a lot of problems there too. My point being is, the British people are sick of being ignored. And the work I have seen in my community is gonna break I fear.

Grooming scandal you say.....https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westminster_paedophile_dossier

Tommy Robinson is a hypocrite when it comes to opposing child sexual exploitation – HOPE not hate

Despite presenting himself as a protector of children and women, Stephen Yaxley-Lennon has repeatedly failed to confront child sexual exploitation and abuse within his own team and amongst his supporters.

hopenothate.org.uk

 

[Cheadle_hulmeBlue]

They came out to defend their communities in response to rumours of a far right rally that turned out to be a hoax.

I'm not sure why you are more pissed off about Muslims defending their community, property and businesses than thugs burning down hotels and libraries.

Doesn't make the police force's job any easier but they are a necessary reaction.

Any far right thugs now have the message. You want to strike fear to the Muslims and ethnic minorities. They'll put their fear of god into you.

Let's hope the cowards get the message.

That’s not what happened though. It ended up being gangs of men, armed to the teeth with weapons attacking people and targeting people in their cars. That’s not defending the community. That’s a bunch of racist thugs, just the same as the people rioting in Southport

It sounds like you’re trying to defend it.

 

[Dave Ewing's Back 'eader]

It's not been a boring first few weeks in power has it?

It's just the thing against which Yvette Cooper can test her mettle! It's been a long time since we've had a Home Secretary who can make the streets safe. Come to think of it, I can't think of one!

 

[Cheadle_hulmeBlue]

No you're inferring that . It was obviously a daft thing to do, to goad and provoke a response rather than go inside and wait for them to move on.

You don’t seem to be putting any blame at all on the 20/30 people that battered a lone person. I remember at the semi final in 2010 a lone city fan, who was a bit aggressive got badly beaten up by a large group of United fans. It was completely uncalled for and things like that are never justified.

If you’re going to call it out, do it for all sides. Whether that’s racist thugs in Southport or thugs in Birmingham

 

[threespires]

My issue is about the language the prime minister uses. He should, IMHO, be there calming the waters, priority one has to be getting people off the streets and restore order - and that is all sides. He must stand above all of these grievance, take no side, but instead he has thrown himself in as being against the rioters, effectively saying your concerns have no justification. It doesn’t matter if he is right or wrong, it’s how that’s going to be seen by those he is singling out.

If I tell you there are right wing thugs out there what do you think that does? Counter protests… have they all passed off peacefully? No. They will only increase in numbers if these riots continue. Bringing further disorder. This was occurring when he made his speech so you simply have to say all thugs will face the full force of the law. That tells everyone to stay at home or else.

For whatever reason this group of people think they are being hard done-by by immigration- now they get the PM telling them it’s them that are the problem but other “thugs” aren’t. How is that going to make them think? Ah he’s right you know we’re the problem and we were wrong all along, time to go home and have a word with ourselves? Nope it’s going to have the opposite effect they are going to feel even more let down.

Now of course we all know the counter protests would not be there if they weren’t out on the street but you think people who throw shit at dibble and put through hotel windows and try and set fire to them are rational thinkers? Parenting 101, you’re not bad your behaviour is bad - and then the punishment. And yes you’ve got to break it down to this type of language to the hard of thinking.

Being the PM is about joined up thinking and that starts with using inclusive, not divisive, language. Anyway if people can’t see any of this then that’s on them, I really can’t be bothered going around in circles on it.

Oh and the telegraph aren’t running this country they can call them whatever they like. As can you and I and everyone on this forum. They are being stirred up by racist thugs, showing their true racist colours, and deserve all that’s coming their way, which is going to be plenty of early morning door knocking. Makes me ashamed to be British.

Here's an alternative hypothesis for why Starmer is using the language he is.

Starmer and Cooper will already have had all sorts of intelligence briefings about what's going on in the country that none of us are privvy to. He will also be well aware that in parliament there is now an extremely dangerous individual who has declared he intends to build a "mass movement". He knows that person has no real interest in traditional representative parliamentary democracy because he spends all his time trashing it. He also knows that over 4 million people voted for that person's party/company. If the modus operandi of this mass movement involves even a fraction of those 4 million becoming a mob and smashing things up when they don't like something then we have a huge problem as a country.

So he can either use neutral language in the hope of unifying people knowing that, irrespective of how he positions things, there is a bad actor who will continue to pour petrol on the flames and attempt to bring more and more Reform voters out on the street.

Or he can try and draw a clear distinction between voting Reform and going out on the street to fight with the police and setting fire to things and trying to kill people. So in talking about far-right thugs he is sending an implicit message to the vast majority of Reform voters to say this isn't you or shouldn't be you. If you do this too it will take you away from the mainstream and into right wing extremism, you will de facto become a far right thug.

He needs to try and isolate that behaviour and make it unacceptable in the minds of people who will be encouraged in the coming weeks to join in as part of "ordinary people having their voice heard".

It's difficult because as well as being malign Farage is also a smart political operator with backing. But calling it what it is is probably the lesser of the two evils, it brings it into the light and makes people face up to the choices they are making.

 

[metalblue]

You don’t pander to racist, vile, violent, far-right thugs by assuaging their precious egos and their view of themselves.

You call them out for what they are. Far-right thugs.

Well done Prime Minister.

You don’t pander to them absolutely not, but do you inflame them further by playing to their, albeit irrational, concerns?

They will have a mistrust in the mainstream press, a feeling that they are treated differently, all their problems are down to foreigners, etc etc.

So you use language that doesn’t single them out for specific treatment. You don’t have your Home Secretary interviewed by her husband. Small things like that feed in to their narrative. The priority has to be to get all sides off the streets and order restored then you can give as many early morning door knocks as possible.

Musk might be a **** of a human but he was bang on in what he said to Starmer about “all” communities. The problem is the people who stoke these protesters up are now going to use that as a signal that the government doesn’t get you.

Now Starmer’s team will have played his potential responses out and gone for what would have been seen as popular, and the number of people who have said he’s bang on on here would suggest I am in the minority of thinking this was the wrong language to use - not all of it btw, some such as saying you’ll face the full force of the law I thought was correct. However being popular and being right are not always the same thing.

Was Starmer the cause of these riots? Absolutely not. Has he, publicly, done anything helpful since? No, IMHO he has gone straight in and picked a side - he’s not really left himself much room to manoeuvre. Will order be restored? Yes, hopefully soon. Hopefully today.

 

[metalblue]

Here's an alternative hypothesis for why Starmer is using the language he is.

Starmer and Cooper will already have had all sorts of intelligence briefings about what's going on in the country that none of us are privvy to. He will also be well aware that in parliament there is now an extremely dangerous individual who has declared he intends to build a "mass movement". He knows that person has no real interest in traditional representative parliamentary democracy because he spends all his time trashing it. He also knows that over 4 million people voted for that person's party/company. If the modus operandi of this mass movement involves even a fraction of those 4 million becoming a mob and smashing things up when they don't like something then we have a huge problem as a country.

So he can either use neutral language in the hope of unifying people knowing that, irrespective of how he positions things, there is a bad actor who will continue to pour petrol on the flames and attempt to bring more and more Reform voters out on the street.

Or he can try and draw a clear distinction between voting Reform and going out on the street to fight with the police and setting fire to things and trying to kill people. So in talking about far-right thugs he is sending an implicit message to the vast majority of Reform voters to say this isn't you or shouldn't be you. If you do this too it will take you away from the mainstream and into right wing extremism, you will de facto become a far right thug.

He needs to try and isolate that behaviour and make it unacceptable in the minds of people who will be encouraged in the coming weeks to join in as part of "ordinary people having their voice heard".

It's difficult because as well as being malign Farage is also a smart political operator with backing. But calling it what it is is probably the lesser of the two evils, it brings it into the light and makes people face up to the choices they are making.

That’s an excellent post. Certainly thought provoking.

 

[BobKowalski]

Here's an alternative hypothesis for why Starmer is using the language he is.

Starmer and Cooper will already have had all sorts of intelligence briefings about what's going on in the country that none of us are privvy to. He will also be well aware that in parliament there is now an extremely dangerous individual who has declared he intends to build a "mass movement". He knows that person has no real interest in traditional representative parliamentary democracy because he spends all his time trashing it. He also knows that over 4 million people voted for that person's party/company. If the modus operandi of this mass movement involves even a fraction of those 4 million becoming a mob and smashing things up when they don't like something then we have a huge problem as a country.

So he can either use neutral language in the hope of unifying people knowing that, irrespective of how he positions things, there is a bad actor who will continue to pour petrol on the flames and attempt to bring more and more Reform voters out on the street.

Or he can try and draw a clear distinction between voting Reform and going out on the street to fight with the police and setting fire to things and trying to kill people. So in talking about far-right thugs he is sending an implicit message to the vast majority of Reform voters to say this isn't you or shouldn't be you. If you do this too it will take you away from the mainstream and into right wing extremism, you will de facto become a far right thug.

He needs to try and isolate that behaviour and make it unacceptable in the minds of people who will be encouraged in the coming weeks to join in as part of "ordinary people having their voice heard".

It's difficult because as well as being malign Farage is also a smart political operator with backing. But calling it what it is is probably the lesser of the two evils, it brings it into the light and makes people face up to the choices they are making.

Agreed. Polling shows that a majority of Reform voters are no more sympathetic to riots and disorder than other groups of voters. Isolating Farage on public disorder issues makes sense.