Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Diane Abbott suspended as Labour MP.

The Labour campaign to lose a presumed unlosable general election continues...
Tbh it's very far from a foregone conclusion. As I've posted before, the tories need but a 5 point lead to win, Labour a 12 point one. While rs is doing all he can for shammer, shammer's pissing away any advantage with shit like this, with his u-turns, with his refusal to re-examine the UK relationship with the eu. What under any other labour leader would be a 20-30 point lead in the polls under shammer might allow Labour to scrape home. And shammer isn't getting as much attention now as he will during an election campaign. I am beginning to think sunak might squeak in after the next election with a 5-10 seat majority.
 
White supremacists love Kid Starver's Labour Party. However, if you're a person of colour, it's a hostile environment.
Then don't join them. Just vote. Not really sure what you're saying here; that Britain will start segretation or apartheid under Starmer? Surely some nuance is justified, even if I agree that Dianne has been poorly treated.
and replace them with slightly kinder-voiced Tories? Great. :facepalm:
Well...yes!
 
that seems very rational and not an over-reaction at all :)
Not an "overreaction" but most certainly rational. The party takes little or no action over colour-based racism.

Didn't you see this further up the thread?
 
Last edited:
Then don't join them. Just vote. Not really sure what you're saying here; that Britain will start segretation or apartheid under Starmer? Surely some nuance is justified, even if I agree that Dianne has been poorly treated.

Well...yes!
Ah, the luxury of white privilege.

I guess you didn't see this further up the thread.
 
Will the current leadership be embarrassed or pay any heed to this? Probably not, but they should:

Just wanted to point out re Neil Coyle (Southwark & Bermondsey) in that list of 10 racist or antisemitic Labour MPs seemed to be on his way out.
His particular vice seemed to be sinophobia and gross Russell Brand style sexism brought on by drink - and he was suspended by the House for 5 days.

from Wikipedia:
In early February 2022, Coyle was accused of making Sinophobic remarks on 1 February to Henry Dyer, a political reporter of British-Chinese origin.[38] It was reported Coyle said to Dyer that he could tell "from how you look like you've been giving renminbi to Barry Gardiner", following the latter's receiving funds from an agent of the Chinese state. According to Dyer, while discussing Gardiner, Coyle also said he had been funded by "Fu Manchu".[36] Consequently, on 11 February, Coyle had the Labour whip suspended pending an investigation and was banned from all bars on the Westminster estate.[25][26]

Dyer claimed Coyle refused to apologise when he confronted him, with Coyle asking him, "if it was just the case that [Dyer] was being over-sensitive".[39] After the incident was made public and reported to the Speaker of the House, Coyle apologised[40] for his "insensitive comments" and said he would be cooperating with the investigation. Coyle faced calls to resign.[41]

In July 2022, Coyle claimed he drank a lot because working as a MP is stressful.[42]

In March 2023, Coyle was found to have breached Parliament's bullying and harassment policy and was suspended from the Commons for five days.[43] Coyle had the Labour whip withdrawn since February 2022, and Labour faces a decision over whether to lift the suspension or not.[44]

Sexual harassment[edit]
In March 2023, it was revealed that Coyle had a sexual harassment complaint upheld against him as a Labour MP.[45] Coyle made derogatory remarks about the partner of a young woman and asked her if she was "going back with me or him tonight then?"[46]

Curiously his particular offence of Sinophobia - accusing Tory researcher Henry Dyer of being funded by Fu Manchu - could actually be true, figuratively.

Was Coyle just being a drunken racist lout - or was he on the button? Maybe he might be spared to fight the next election?
 
Was Coyle just being a drunken racist lout - or was he on the button? Maybe he might be spared to fight the next election?
Well this bit:
Sexual harassment[edit]
In March 2023, it was revealed that Coyle had a sexual harassment complaint upheld against him as a Labour MP.[45] Coyle made derogatory remarks about the partner of a young woman and asked her if she was "going back with me or him tonight then?"[46]
shows at a minimum he's entitled and annoying.
 
Ah, the luxury of white privilege.

I guess you didn't see this further up the thread.
So really all this comes down to is this: do you want good to be the enemy of perfect. Criticism of labour is fine and necessary, but it has to exist in a context otherwise all this 'kid starver' rhetoric just sounds like Supertanskii whining about tories. That context is that if Starmer doesn't win then the Tories do. A demonstrably worse prospect.

Yes, white privilege, which I enjoy, is a luxury. Unfortunately that's the world I live in and I woudln't have chosen for it to be that way. It exists in the Labour party, but that doesn't mean we can't all benefit from a government that isn't as rancid, corrupt, broken dysfunctional, and hateful as this current lot
 
So really all this comes down to is this: do you want good to be the enemy of perfect. Criticism of labour is fine and necessary, but it has to exist in a context otherwise all this 'kid starver' rhetoric just sounds like Supertanskii whining about tories. That context is that if Starmer doesn't win then the Tories do. A demonstrably worse prospect.

How so? You haven't actually demonstrated that Starmer's Labour is any "good" in the first place. Do you think Starmer and his cronies genuinely have any interest in say, preventing the NHS from being run down as a prelude to privatisation? Do you think Starmer's purging of the Labour left was a complete accident? Starmer has repeatedly gone back on any promises relating to maintaining the common welfare of the ordinary voter. At best he is an empty shell with no convictions and no spine to stand up the right-wing press, and at worst he is just a more competent Tory wearing a red rosette.

What exactly are you basing your supposition on?
 
Not an "overreaction" but most certainly rational. The party takes little or no action over colour-based racism.

Didn't you see this further up the thread?
Not forgetting that Labour members are many times more likely to be investigated, sanctioned or expelled for antisemitism ... if they're Jewish. :facepalm:

The Jews Expelled from Labour over Antisemitism
 
So really all this comes down to is this: do you want good to be the enemy of perfect. Criticism of labour is fine and necessary, but it has to exist in a context otherwise all this 'kid starver' rhetoric just sounds like Supertanskii whining about tories. That context is that if Starmer doesn't win then the Tories do. A demonstrably worse prospect.

Yes, white privilege, which I enjoy, is a luxury. Unfortunately that's the world I live in and I woudln't have chosen for it to be that way. It exists in the Labour party, but that doesn't mean we can't all benefit from a government that isn't as rancid, corrupt, broken dysfunctional, and hateful as this current lot
I think you'll find that we don't all benefit from any government. Pls could you demonstrate that a tory win is worse than a Labour win.
 
The Tories are currently getting more hostile because of Labour.

You may have noticed recently that Sunak is attacking urban planning and green spending. He's doing that because Labour is now so right wing that he has no other option if he wants to make a sellable pitch on fresh terrain.

The choice is not "least worst Labour" and I wish people would stop pretending it is. The choice Starmer offers is "rght-wing Labour now, ratcheting the overall political centre to the right, with even worse Tories later." That's the vote.
 
Not an "overreaction" but most certainly rational. The party takes little or no action over colour-based racism.

Didn't you see this further up the thread?

That article appears to me to support the idea that the Labour Party leadership backs its non-left MPs, whatever their ethnicity, when they say or do things which might attract stronger action in the case of left-leaning MPs.

Given that three of the MPs mentioned are "non-white" it certainly doesn't support the idea that the leadership is victimising "non-white" MPs, or that "white privilege" is any sort of explanation.
 
The Tories are currently getting more hostile because of Labour.

You may have noticed recently that Sunak is attacking urban planning and green spending. He's doing that because Labour is now so right wing that he has no other option if he wants to make a sellable pitch on fresh terrain.

The choice is not "least worst Labour" and I wish people would stop pretending it is. The choice Starmer offers is "rght-wing Labour now, ratcheting the overall political centre to the right, with even worse Tories later." That's the vote.
I think there's a horse/cart argument there and I disagree with your order!
Tories are finding the last divisive issues where they can appeal to their base and 'red wall' wc voters and on areas they think those people see Labour as weak or not on their side. Green issues, for example.
 
So really all this comes down to is this: do you want good to be the enemy of perfect. Criticism of labour is fine and necessary, but it has to exist in a context otherwise all this 'kid starver' rhetoric just sounds like Supertanskii whining about tories. That context is that if Starmer doesn't win then the Tories do. A demonstrably worse prospect.

Yes, white privilege, which I enjoy, is a luxury. Unfortunately that's the world I live in and I woudln't have chosen for it to be that way. It exists in the Labour party, but that doesn't mean we can't all benefit from a government that isn't as rancid, corrupt, broken dysfunctional, and hateful as this current lot
I can't vote for a party that sees my lived experience as irrelevant and that takes next to no action over colour-based racism. Why are you so incapable of understanding that?
 
That article appears to me to support the idea that the Labour Party leadership backs its non-left MPs, whatever their ethnicity, when they say or do things which might attract stronger action in the case of left-leaning MPs.

Given that three of the MPs mentioned are "non-white" it certainly doesn't support the idea that the leadership is victimising "non-white" MPs, or that "white privilege" is any sort of explanation.
I'm sorry you feel that way.
 
Back
Top Bottom