C_J you’re saying the party of openly anti-semitic MPs and supporters led by white men are ….. not racist?
No, I didn’t say that at all if you read back. I said, historically, Labour have had problems with anti-semitism within its hard left ranks. Because it is a party that wishes to position itself as committed to equality, it is right that it attempts to weed out the antisemitic elements.
I gave you a historical range of examples that indicated the Tory’s long affiliation with racism that included policies that they are campaigning on to this day.
But the multi-ethnic Tories - made up of black, white, brown, mixed people - are the racists here, because of a speech made in the 1960’s and the fact they’re trying to prevent children drowning at the hands of people smugglers in the English channel?
The point made was that it was a fallacy to claim a party could not possibly harbour racist views or advance racist policies simply because some of its members are from different ethnic groups. In addition to which, it does not correspond to the prevailing legislation that makes discriminatory behaviour unlawful irrespective of what ethnic group a person might identify with.
I don’t believe you actually believe that. Be honest with yourself. Say what you mean and mean what you say.
I have been throughout.
Why do only white people get into Starmer’s top team?
Again, this goes to the point made above. I have not claimed that there aren’t issues in both parties — clearly there are — but Labour is, on balance, the party that seeks to position itself as committed to equality more so than the Tories. Consider the Tories desperate attempt to cling onto power through culture wars and its battle against wokeism. That said, Labour has some work to do to put its house in order whereas the Tories have a much steeper hill to climb if they ever espoused that they wished to follow the same trajectory.
