The point is that she had her initial suspension lifted after she apologised, but has now said she didn’t regret the original comments which renders her apology insincere. She’s given Starmer nowhere to go on this. And that’s coming from someone who didn’t agree with yesterday’s suspensions.You will have to ask her that. Let's not act like the Labour right haven't been itching to get rid of her for years.
If the polls don't improve, he'll be reducing it to 12.It is no more than a shameless attempt to manipulate the next election. They know that most kids at that age naturally rail at what they see as the injustices of the world around them and attach themselves to politicians and political parties that reflect that. When I was that age I was the same, Labour, Socialist worker, anti-nazi league all of it. What I did not understand was human characteristics, our nature and how our behaviours are shaped by self interest. How could I ? at that age you have not experienced life. It is the same all over, most start left and move right as you get older.
There may have been an argument for this when most kids of 16 were working but certainly not now when most are literally still school kids . It seems to me they enjoy an extended childhood these days, I do not see that they are more mature in any way.
Should we be surprised ? , not really, this is the party that opened the doors to mass migration in part because they believed they would swell their constituency with grateful migrants . Truly without shame or principle.
The only consolation is that like everything they touch at the moment it will backfire. I think this give momentum to the Greens and Jezbollah and split the Labour vote further. Serves them right.
I read all that and I think you were trying to say, don't vote reformIf choice A is shit and choice B is shit it doesn't automatically make sense to vote for Choice C simply because it's not A or B. I keep asking a question and no one answers me, what is it that Reform are going to do that would make things better and what gives you the confidence based on evidence to date that they would be able to do a good job?
You could equally ask, why do I think they can't do a good job? In which case I would point out that historically right-wing populist governments almost never ever deliver sustainable improvements for ordinary people. I'd also point out that some of the types of policies Reform have indicated they'd pursue will probably result in worse services for more money, for example if you think our healthcare model is inefficient per £ then go and have a look at the US one. I'd point out that the free market, low tax model Farage has always aligned himself with, has shown itself over decades to favour the rich rather than ordinary people. At which point I'd also note that Farage is a multi millionaire who hangs round with billionaires and despite his photo ops in pubs has no idea whatsoever about ordinary peoples lives. I'd point out that whilst going in hard on immigration might (in about a dozen areas of the country) provide some short term relief on housing and services pressures, pretty much every economic model out there suggests it will actually cause bigger problems than it solves. I'd point out that at least one Reform council leader is asking the government to loosen it's visa restrictions because she's realised the complexity of the issue. I'd point out that Farage personally has a long track record of using public office to enrich himself whilst doing as little as possible as part of that public service. I'd point out during Brexit he applied for and got a German passport so that any impacts other people felt, he could swerve. I'd point out the problems that exist already in the Reform controlled councils that suggest despite repeated promises over the years to built a functional political party, Farage is either unwilling or incapable of doing so. And so on.
As far as I can tell the one thing Reform has got going for it is a commitment to PR but then you can get that from other parties.
From what I can see voting Reform only makes obvious some sense if you are either a multi-millionaire or a racist or for some reason you actively want to live in a poundshop version of Trump's America. I don't believe the majority of Reform voters are those things, I think they are mostly ordinary understandably pissed off working class people. Assuming you don't fit into the three categories above, please tell what is it you expect to see happen that will improve your life? Why does it make sense ? Because I just can't see it. I can only see (very understandably) pissed off people jumping out of the frying pan and into the fire and to me that doesn't make sense at all.
So old enough to vote but not old enough to be an MP, surely that's not fair, lower the age then all the kids could start there own party , now that would be fun!16/17 year olds would have voted to remain, it could have swung the result and look at the disaster that's happened since that vote.
Plenty of 16 year olds ready to take her place.She is 71, perhaps she needs to retire and let a younger person take the reigns. Perhaps all MPs should retire at retirement age.
So old enough to vote but not old enough to be an MP, surely that's not fair, lower the age then all the kids could start there own party , now that would be fun!
I thought it was proven that she had lied when she stated that the first draft of her article, which obviously triggered the issue, did not represent her views?But that's not what she said originally. Saying that there are differences isn't suggesting a hierarchy, or diminishing other people's experiences. The interview this week, says she was asked about her initial letter, and if she regretted the incident. Her reply, "No, not at alll". The bit you're quoting is just part of what she has said - but the other quotes suggest she is doubling down on the original argument.
That letter didn't simply say that racism affected different groups in different ways, it said that Irish, Jewish and Travellers didn't face racism, they faced 'prejudice', which was different. And she then said that people with red hair also faced prejudice, further diminishing the experiences of those groups.
View attachment 163299
But that's not what she said originally. Saying that there are differences isn't suggesting a hierarchy, or diminishing other people's experiences. The interview this week, says she was asked about her initial letter, and if she regretted the incident. Her reply, "No, not at alll". The bit you're quoting is just part of what she has said - but the other quotes suggest she is doubling down on the original argument.
That letter didn't simply say that racism affected different groups in different ways, it said that Irish, Jewish and Travellers didn't face racism, they faced 'prejudice', which was different. And she then said that people with red hair also faced prejudice, further diminishing the experiences of those groups.
View attachment 163299
I thought it was proven that she had lied when she stated that the first draft of her article, which obviously triggered the issue, did not represent her views?
Quite a while ago now, but I seem to recall that the article was in fact published as she had intended, and that her excuse around an initial draft was proven to be false.
Because she was asked about it in an interview obviously. To be clear what she apologised for was the clumsy way she expressed her argument. Rather than saying people experience racism/ prejudice in different ways she tied herself in knots trying to make an unnecessary differentiation between two.She’s doubled down on comments she previously apologised for. Why go there again?
But that's not what she said originally. Saying that there are differences isn't suggesting a hierarchy, or diminishing other people's experiences. The interview this week, says she was asked about her initial letter, and if she regretted the incident. Her reply, "No, not at alll". The bit you're quoting is just part of what she has said - but the other quotes suggest she is doubling down on the original argument.
That letter didn't simply say that racism affected different groups in different ways, it said that Irish, Jewish and Travellers didn't face racism, they faced 'prejudice', which was different. And she then said that people with red hair also faced prejudice, further diminishing the experiences of those groups.
View attachment 163299
The point is that she had her initial suspension lifted after she apologised, but has now said she didn’t regret the original comments which renders her apology insincere. She’s given Starmer nowhere to go on this. And that’s coming from someone who didn’t agree with yesterday’s suspensions.
I read all that and I think you were trying to say, don't vote reform
She could have worded her first interview differently, but her point was clear. Her interview today, I thought, cleared that up.
Join the Army / Navy / Air Force at 16
Leave home at 16
Have Sex at 16
Rights to medical decisions at 16
Drive a moped on the highway at 16
Claim some welfare benefits at 16
Apply for a Passport at 16
But you don't want them to vote ?
She said “no” then clarified by saying there are different types of racism. Ie distancing herself from her previous remarks on the subject. You’ve got to go some to think her R4 interview was offensive.
I’m far from her biggest fan but this is a bit of a cunts trick by Starmer. @Don Karleone is spot on when he said Mein Kier has just been looking for an excuse, any excuse.
Fair question. I could say, first recognise that even though Reform gets much more media coverage, remember that there are other parties out there who are not Labour or the Tories and present an alternative too. But the reality is they'd have to spend much more time seeking that information out in a way they don't have to for Reform.
So my honest answer is that it isn't on ordinary working class people to do anything. It's on the likes of the alternatives such as the Greens to try and find a way to cut through. I know that sounds pie in the sky but if you think about where politics is being played out these days it's frequently online and Reform are beating the shit out of the other parties. Someone like Gary Stevenson has an online presence every politician apart from Farage can only dream of having. He voted Green last election but has just this week basically held out the offer to Labour to work with him. I don't think he thinks they're going to take it up, or at least not whilst Starter and the current policy direction exists. He's discounted the Greens because of our FPTP system but if I was Zack Polanski and I won in September I'd be camping on his doorstep to try and get somenform of collaboration going. It's not much I admit but it's a crumb of hope.
My other honest answer would if we do see some evidence of a change of approach/likely outcomes from Labour between now and the election to let that play out rather than shoot yourself in the face.
(and if I really had the answer I probably wouldn't be blathering away on here).
It's well understood that youngsters are more idealistic and tend to be more socialist leaning compared to when the get older (I hesitate to say "grow up").Where did I say I didn’t want them to vote?
Post Office Scandal
Blood Scandal
Afghanistan Refugee Scandal
£20 Billion Black hole
Crisis in SEND funding
Grooming gang scandal
Over Crowded Prisons Scandal
WASPI Women Scandal
Backlog in NHS Operations
Backlog in the courts Scandal
Junior Doctors Pay
Railway Drivers Pay
do you need me to list any more thing to Tories kicked into the long grass.....?
She is 71, perhaps she needs to retire and let a younger person take the reigns. Perhaps all MPs should retire at retirement age.