The Labour Party

[ctwrd]

Rayner today said the government made irresponsible spending plans and then in the next breath said the government is wrong to cut back.
Totally contradictory and this is the problem. They seem to be banking on getting into power by the Tories losing it rather than them winning it.

 

[meltonblue]

Whether you agree with his politics or not, the country having it's first non-white, first asian, first Indian, first post-colonial immigration Prime Minister is a pretty big deal and definitely a win for representation.

The second half of her tweet should have been enough.

Whilst it’s a win in terms of in the context of the country, it isn’t necessarily on an individual level as that then depends on the representative themselves too.

Politically I don’t think it was a good move. I don’t think she should have been told to delete it either though.

 

[The Stockport Iniesta]

Rayner today said the government made irresponsible spending plans and then in the next breath said the government is wrong to cut back.
Totally contradictory and this is the problem. They seem to be banking on getting into power by the Tories losing it rather than them winning it.

I haven't seen, that but I guess she was talking about massive borrowing for the now scrapped disastrous mini-budget? And I also guess she is saying that cutting public spending now is wrong?

 

[ctwrd]

I haven't seen, that but I guess she was talking about massive borrowing for the now scrapped disastrous mini-budget? And I also guess she is saying that cutting public spending now is wrong?

Yes. Please do explain how labour spending is different to Tory spending (90% of the cost of the mini budget measures was affecting ordinary people - its the basic 20p tax rate which “the markets” objected to not the top 45p rate)

 

[west didsblue]

Rayner today said the government made irresponsible spending plans and then in the next breath said the government is wrong to cut back.
Totally contradictory and this is the problem. They seem to be banking on getting into power by the Tories losing it rather than them winning it.

Link?

 

[The Stockport Iniesta]

Yes. Please do explain how labour spending is different to Tory spending (90% of the cost of the mini budget measures was affecting ordinary people - its the basic 20p tax rate which “the markets” objected to not the top 45p rate)

Well I would like to think the next time Labour are in charge of a budget, it will actually be costed to avoid the turmoil we have seen in the aftermath. I think the markets reacted because there was no plan in place for how all the tax cuts were to be paid for.

 

[ctwrd]

Well I would like to think the next time Labour are in charge of a budget, it will actually be costed to avoid the turmoil we have seen in the aftermath. I think the markets reacted because there was no plan in place for how all the tax cuts were to be paid for.

The point is they will largely only be able to do the same as what Sunak will now do. There is no big plan that will tear up the rule book and bring anything new or life changing. More of the same.

 

[Mr Kobayashi]

The point is they will largely only be able to do the same as what Sunak will now do. There is no big plan that will tear up the rule book and bring anything new or life changing. More of the same.

Except it isn't true. If Labour increased borrowing to spend money on infrastructure they'd see a return on investment and the markets wouldn't be spooked.

That isn't the same as uncosted tax cuts that goes only to the rich, to increase their bank balance, buy luxury goods or inflate asset classes.

 

[Don Karleone]

Probably the suggestion that if you're rich, successful or are financially solvent means having to return your 'Asian ethnic card'. You can be rich and still be representative of a community. Being someone of Asian heritage does not mean you must also have a socialist political leaning or it means you're not "a member" and it is arrogance to assume so.

It's the "no true Scotsman" fallacy. You can dislike him for his stance, his political leanings (if you are opposed to them) sure, but to suggest he's not 'representative' of his ethnicity because of it? Ooh that's naughty!

Whether you agree with his politics or not, the country having it's first non-white, first asian, first Indian, first post-colonial immigration Prime Minister is a pretty big deal and definitely a win for representation.

The second half of her tweet should have been enough.

Disagree with it, by all means, getting it deleted and a telling off for it? It isn't like she said she was going to "break him as a man" or

anything as bad as that, is it?

 

[Metal Biker]

Disagree with it, by all means, getting it deleted and a telling off for it? It isn't like she said she was going to "break him as a man" or

anything as bad as that, is it?

No, of course it isn't anywhere near as bad as the above statements... but it is still reprimandable and was rightly deleted and action taken. Comparing one awful statement to another awful statement, in an attempt to justify it as not being as bad, still doesn't neutralise the initial sentiment that was said as being acceptable.

It was deleted because it was reprehensible to suggest that Sunak isn't representative of the Asian community because of his living status. What sort of message does that send? "Rich" Asians aren't real Asians because real Asians are meant to be from poorer backgrounds, otherwise they aren't an accurate representation of the community at large? Being of Indian and Hindu heritage isn't what Sunak is trying to be, it's who he is. The rest of the statement, about him being disconnected from regular, low income working people due to his wealth, sure. Nothing wrong there. But to state he isn't representative? It's a very odd specific for Nadia Whittome to attack him on and it was for that she was reprimanded.