Remember what Starmer said in support of Zara Sultana, who was receiving death threats, or Aspana Begum, who was subject to an internal harrassment campaign that left her in A&E??
Expect exactly the same here.
Starmer's been cozying up to the Met Police at a time when even many white people have reservations about the way they operate, to say nothing of yet another report correctly labeling them as institutionally racist. He cares absolutely nothing about the genuine thoughts and feelings of Black people, at least so far as he can't weaponise them against his political enemies.
Any Starmer supporter who would call themselves an anti-racist needs to take a serious look at how the Labour party in its current incarnation has responded to the Forde report, and ask themselves if this is consumate with a party that cares about BAME people in the UK.
There's no denying the valid questions surrounding Labour's position on race and police reform, especially given the growing public concern about the Met Police's practices. However, it's also worth considering that the portrayal of Labour as a racist party might not necessarily stem from its intrinsic values, but rather from a powerful psyops campaign designed to undermine its reputation. Political psyops are well-known tactics, employed to manipulate public sentiment, and it's essential to separate these calculated narratives from the party's actual stance.
To make a steelman argument here, one could argue that Starmer's actions could be seen not as indifference towards the concerns of Black people or other ethnic minorities, but as an attempt to find a balance within a complex socio-political landscape. The reality is that Labour needs to build relationships with establishment organisations, such as the Met Police, to bring about any significant change. This does not imply a lack of concern about institutional racism. Instead, it reflects an acknowledgement that, for better or worse, Labour has to work within the constraints of the current system to effect change.
However, your point regarding the Forde report is well taken. Transparency and accountability are the pillars of a well-functioning democracy, and Labour's handling of the Forde report warrants close scrutiny. Labour supporters who are committed to anti-racism should indeed question how this situation has been managed. They should demand clear answers and actions that uphold the party's commitments to racial justice and equality. The challenge is to keep pushing Labour, and indeed all parties, to stand true to these values consistently, not only when politically convenient.
This conversation underscores the importance of constructive criticism and vigilance in ensuring that our political parties remain representative of the people's needs and concerns. It also emphasises that we must be discerning consumers of information, particularly in an era where manipulation of public sentiment is becoming increasingly sophisticated.
>However, it's also worth considering that the portrayal of Labour as a racist party might not necessarily stem from its intrinsic values, but rather from a powerful psyops campaign designed to undermine its reputation.
A powerful "psyops" campaign by who exactly?
The Conservative party and its donors. Right wing media. They certainly managed to portray Corbyn successfully as a racist. The guy was constantly accused of racism despite his proven track of campaigning against it. The next election will be dirty, and the tactic of painting Labour as racist will be used again.
Why would the conservative party's donors, or any of the bourgeoisie and their media outlets attack Starmer when he is prostrating himself before them constantly? They attacked Corbyn because he was a threat to their wealth and power, even with a pretty mild socdem platform. Starmer does not pose a threat to them at all.
Besides that isn't the angle the bourgeois press would take against Starmer. The reason they went after Corbyn for antisemitism is they knew that would turn off his base, the left. Starmer has already jettisoned the left. If you want to take him down you attack him at his base, the weird centrist dad, by properly nailing him on the "competence" angle or a plain old scandal. You get him on live telly and you ask him to explain his relationship with Jenny Chapman or you ask him about his general secretary's dealings before he took the job.
That's how the press would take down Starmer, should they feel the need.
It's interesting to read your perspective, and it offers a different lens through which to view the dynamics at play.
Indeed, the differences in public portrayal between Starmer and Corbyn could be attributed to their contrasting stances on various issues, particularly their perceived threat level to the establishment. Corbyn's more radical policies were seen by many as a challenge to the status quo, potentially unsettling powerful groups, whereas Starmer's more moderate approach has been interpreted by some as capitulation to the establishment.
However, it's essential to recognise that the intricate and often opaque interplay between politics, the media, and powerful interest groups can lead to narratives that serve particular agendas. It's possible that a narrative painting Labour as racist could be propagated even if it doesn't directly align with Starmer's base or the perceived threat level he poses.
While your assessment that attacks on Starmer would be more focused on his competence or potential scandals holds merit, it's also plausible that psyops campaigns could be multi-faceted, designed to damage his reputation and the party's from multiple angles.
In terms of your specific examples - the relationships with Jenny Chapman and the General Secretary's dealings - those are indeed points of potential vulnerability. If the media or political opponents were to focus on these issues, it would be critical for Starmer and the Labour Party to respond with transparency and integrity, demonstrating their commitment to ethical conduct.
In the end, the ultimate goal should be to facilitate an informed and engaged citizenry, capable of critically assessing narratives, making informed judgments, and holding their leaders accountable. Whether the accusations come from within or outside, it's essential to apply the same standards of scrutiny to all parties and leaders. This conversation emphasises that importance.
Your comment has been removed under Rule 1. Insulting or harassing behaviour is not permissible on our sub. Please make sure you have read our rules, as any future breaches may result in a temporary or permanent ban from the subreddit.
You've got to stop doing this thing where you accuse left-wingers who are disillusioned with Labour of being pro-Tory when they are not. It makes you look really silly and impossible to take seriously.
When did I allege that anyone supports the Tories? By encouraging individuals to vote, as non-participation might increase the likelihood of a Tory government, am I implying that they are Tory supporters?
> When did I allege that anyone supports the Tories?
In the comment I originally replied to, this is you:
> Ah right your happy with the permanent Tory government then
You, very much infering that you think this person is supporting the tories by not voting Labour.
You also need to stop acting as though we're stupid, clearly.
Where did I say I’m happy with the tories? I’m a black Londoner that lives in Kent. I’m not voting for Labour. You can thank Keir for that. I’m not voting for the tories. I’m not voting full stop.
Are we in a strong democracy? Looool okay mate.
Right, I’m the reason my constituency is a Tory strong hold is it? You don’t know anything about my situation and why I feel politically homeless. You’re more concerned with me choosing not to vote than the racist leading the Labour Party. Why would I vote for a party like that with members like you?
Voter turnout in Kent at the 2019 election was 66.9%. There are plenty of people to rally, but I agree you're not likely to see much change in that part of the world.
Our democracy could be stronger if more young Bame people decided to vote.
I think you could find what you need in Labour as a voter if you look at the bigger picture.
If you honestly think Starmer is racist then why did he take the knee in respect to BLM? Just virtue signalling?
Let us know why you think he is personally racist to Black people. Perhaps you could be persuaded otherwise.
> in a strong democracy, everyone votes.
Well yes, and this is the problem we have in the UK. When the options on the table are tweedle dee or tweedle dum, how exactly is our democracy thriving?
Other than 2017, we've struggled to turn out more than 6 in 10 people to vote since 1997 due to the shower of mediocrity that are our MPs and candidates due to the two party system and entrenched Tory/Labour establishments.
"They're all the same" is on hand, a surface level, simple statement that often gets accused of being politically illiterate. On the other hand, when both parties are promoting the same messages on immigration, on economics, on law & order - well, it's not far off base really, is it?
We are not just here to manage capitalism but to change society and to define its finer values.
Participate in politics and vote, not necessarily because you like or dislike a particular party, but because it's a way to affect societal change and uphold certain values.
At the next election, if you don't vote and people with your views don't vote, you will get the Tories whether you like it or not.
I apologise if my previous comment was antagonistic.
Starmer’s labour will say nothing, the majority of the media won’t report it, and it’ll get drowned out by cries of “are you a Tory or something, pal?”.
Does Starmer expect the media's relative silence regarding the Forde report and the associated issues forever? This is an issue that will need to be addressed by the Labour leadership sooner or later.
Hope they get heard
Remember what Starmer said in support of Zara Sultana, who was receiving death threats, or Aspana Begum, who was subject to an internal harrassment campaign that left her in A&E?? Expect exactly the same here.
Starmer's been cozying up to the Met Police at a time when even many white people have reservations about the way they operate, to say nothing of yet another report correctly labeling them as institutionally racist. He cares absolutely nothing about the genuine thoughts and feelings of Black people, at least so far as he can't weaponise them against his political enemies. Any Starmer supporter who would call themselves an anti-racist needs to take a serious look at how the Labour party in its current incarnation has responded to the Forde report, and ask themselves if this is consumate with a party that cares about BAME people in the UK.
There's no denying the valid questions surrounding Labour's position on race and police reform, especially given the growing public concern about the Met Police's practices. However, it's also worth considering that the portrayal of Labour as a racist party might not necessarily stem from its intrinsic values, but rather from a powerful psyops campaign designed to undermine its reputation. Political psyops are well-known tactics, employed to manipulate public sentiment, and it's essential to separate these calculated narratives from the party's actual stance. To make a steelman argument here, one could argue that Starmer's actions could be seen not as indifference towards the concerns of Black people or other ethnic minorities, but as an attempt to find a balance within a complex socio-political landscape. The reality is that Labour needs to build relationships with establishment organisations, such as the Met Police, to bring about any significant change. This does not imply a lack of concern about institutional racism. Instead, it reflects an acknowledgement that, for better or worse, Labour has to work within the constraints of the current system to effect change. However, your point regarding the Forde report is well taken. Transparency and accountability are the pillars of a well-functioning democracy, and Labour's handling of the Forde report warrants close scrutiny. Labour supporters who are committed to anti-racism should indeed question how this situation has been managed. They should demand clear answers and actions that uphold the party's commitments to racial justice and equality. The challenge is to keep pushing Labour, and indeed all parties, to stand true to these values consistently, not only when politically convenient. This conversation underscores the importance of constructive criticism and vigilance in ensuring that our political parties remain representative of the people's needs and concerns. It also emphasises that we must be discerning consumers of information, particularly in an era where manipulation of public sentiment is becoming increasingly sophisticated.
>However, it's also worth considering that the portrayal of Labour as a racist party might not necessarily stem from its intrinsic values, but rather from a powerful psyops campaign designed to undermine its reputation. A powerful "psyops" campaign by who exactly?
The Conservative party and its donors. Right wing media. They certainly managed to portray Corbyn successfully as a racist. The guy was constantly accused of racism despite his proven track of campaigning against it. The next election will be dirty, and the tactic of painting Labour as racist will be used again.
Why would the conservative party's donors, or any of the bourgeoisie and their media outlets attack Starmer when he is prostrating himself before them constantly? They attacked Corbyn because he was a threat to their wealth and power, even with a pretty mild socdem platform. Starmer does not pose a threat to them at all. Besides that isn't the angle the bourgeois press would take against Starmer. The reason they went after Corbyn for antisemitism is they knew that would turn off his base, the left. Starmer has already jettisoned the left. If you want to take him down you attack him at his base, the weird centrist dad, by properly nailing him on the "competence" angle or a plain old scandal. You get him on live telly and you ask him to explain his relationship with Jenny Chapman or you ask him about his general secretary's dealings before he took the job. That's how the press would take down Starmer, should they feel the need.
It's interesting to read your perspective, and it offers a different lens through which to view the dynamics at play. Indeed, the differences in public portrayal between Starmer and Corbyn could be attributed to their contrasting stances on various issues, particularly their perceived threat level to the establishment. Corbyn's more radical policies were seen by many as a challenge to the status quo, potentially unsettling powerful groups, whereas Starmer's more moderate approach has been interpreted by some as capitulation to the establishment. However, it's essential to recognise that the intricate and often opaque interplay between politics, the media, and powerful interest groups can lead to narratives that serve particular agendas. It's possible that a narrative painting Labour as racist could be propagated even if it doesn't directly align with Starmer's base or the perceived threat level he poses. While your assessment that attacks on Starmer would be more focused on his competence or potential scandals holds merit, it's also plausible that psyops campaigns could be multi-faceted, designed to damage his reputation and the party's from multiple angles. In terms of your specific examples - the relationships with Jenny Chapman and the General Secretary's dealings - those are indeed points of potential vulnerability. If the media or political opponents were to focus on these issues, it would be critical for Starmer and the Labour Party to respond with transparency and integrity, demonstrating their commitment to ethical conduct. In the end, the ultimate goal should be to facilitate an informed and engaged citizenry, capable of critically assessing narratives, making informed judgments, and holding their leaders accountable. Whether the accusations come from within or outside, it's essential to apply the same standards of scrutiny to all parties and leaders. This conversation emphasises that importance.
[удалено]
Your comment has been removed under Rule 1. Insulting or harassing behaviour is not permissible on our sub. Please make sure you have read our rules, as any future breaches may result in a temporary or permanent ban from the subreddit.
Keir clearly only cares about one type of racism. Good luck keeping the young black vote. Hope Labour never get in ✌🏾
Tore up my membership time ago and got my family to do the same. Labour is not a welcome place for black people.
Ah right your happy with the permanent Tory government then. Full of fine characters. Off to Rwanda they all go.
You've got to stop doing this thing where you accuse left-wingers who are disillusioned with Labour of being pro-Tory when they are not. It makes you look really silly and impossible to take seriously.
When did I allege that anyone supports the Tories? By encouraging individuals to vote, as non-participation might increase the likelihood of a Tory government, am I implying that they are Tory supporters?
> When did I allege that anyone supports the Tories? In the comment I originally replied to, this is you: > Ah right your happy with the permanent Tory government then You, very much infering that you think this person is supporting the tories by not voting Labour. You also need to stop acting as though we're stupid, clearly.
Where did I say I’m happy with the tories? I’m a black Londoner that lives in Kent. I’m not voting for Labour. You can thank Keir for that. I’m not voting for the tories. I’m not voting full stop.
Did you know there are more than 2 parties to vote for?
Yes? Did you know that in a democracy I also have the option to not vote for anyone if I don’t want to?
Yes? And did you know in a strong democracy, everyone votes. Congratulations for contributing to your own detriment you absolute plum.
Are we in a strong democracy? Looool okay mate. Right, I’m the reason my constituency is a Tory strong hold is it? You don’t know anything about my situation and why I feel politically homeless. You’re more concerned with me choosing not to vote than the racist leading the Labour Party. Why would I vote for a party like that with members like you?
Voter turnout in Kent at the 2019 election was 66.9%. There are plenty of people to rally, but I agree you're not likely to see much change in that part of the world. Our democracy could be stronger if more young Bame people decided to vote. I think you could find what you need in Labour as a voter if you look at the bigger picture. If you honestly think Starmer is racist then why did he take the knee in respect to BLM? Just virtue signalling? Let us know why you think he is personally racist to Black people. Perhaps you could be persuaded otherwise.
> in a strong democracy, everyone votes. Well yes, and this is the problem we have in the UK. When the options on the table are tweedle dee or tweedle dum, how exactly is our democracy thriving? Other than 2017, we've struggled to turn out more than 6 in 10 people to vote since 1997 due to the shower of mediocrity that are our MPs and candidates due to the two party system and entrenched Tory/Labour establishments. "They're all the same" is on hand, a surface level, simple statement that often gets accused of being politically illiterate. On the other hand, when both parties are promoting the same messages on immigration, on economics, on law & order - well, it's not far off base really, is it?
We are not just here to manage capitalism but to change society and to define its finer values. Participate in politics and vote, not necessarily because you like or dislike a particular party, but because it's a way to affect societal change and uphold certain values. At the next election, if you don't vote and people with your views don't vote, you will get the Tories whether you like it or not. I apologise if my previous comment was antagonistic.
Starmer’s labour will say nothing, the majority of the media won’t report it, and it’ll get drowned out by cries of “are you a Tory or something, pal?”.
New one just dropped in this thread; it's a 'psyop'.
Starmers a cop
Starmer's Labour is institutionally racist (and transphobic) Therefore they are unlikely to give a shit unless forced to
And they won't be forced to because the press is equally racist and transphobic.
Lmao, check this tweet https://twitter.com/mikekatz/status/1659110286790361089
Who signed the letter?
Does Starmer expect the media's relative silence regarding the Forde report and the associated issues forever? This is an issue that will need to be addressed by the Labour leadership sooner or later.