Jump to content
Mike

'The economy is safe with the Tories'

Recommended Posts

BLM seem to think he's undermining them so unless you just want to be another privileged white lad telling people of colour that their lives experience isn't really their lives experience then you might want to revise that view Ant.

Edited by kop205
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

“It’s political not moral” is a nonsense too. Ant, you come across as a white man who hasn’t listened enough. That’s what I am too, but at least I now know I need to do the work and that’s where you need to get to too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Kvarme Ate My Food said:

“It’s political not moral” is a nonsense too. Ant, you come across as a white man who hasn’t listened enough. That’s what I am too, but at least I now know I need to do the work and that’s where you need to get to too.

We're all people who haven't listened enough, we're all on that journey.

 

12 minutes ago, kop205 said:

BLM seem to think he's undermining them so unless you just want to be another privileged white lad telling people of colour that their lives experience isn't really their lives experience then you might want to revise that view Ant.

I can understand why BLM think he's undermining them, but that doesn't mean I agree with that stance, nor should it be a negative reflection of mine or anyone's judgment, belief or support of equality for all and the support of the BLM message. 

 

Edited by Ant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Ant said:

We're all people who haven't listened enough, we're all on that journey.

 

".....We are the world, we are the children..."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Ant said:

I can understand why BLM think he's undermining them, but that doesn't mean I agree with that stance, nor should it be a negative reflection of mine or anyone's judgment, belief or support of equality for all and the support of the BLM message.

Can you explain this, because it appears to be nonsense.
If you don't agree with BLM that he's undermining them, then I think the politest response I have is that they definitely know better than you. It is a negative reflection of you and anyone else's judgement if you don't understand why that is, and suggests you don't understand the BLM message.

Edited by LicK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He hasn’t sought to clarify anything since either.  Doesn’t want to.  Is happy with himself.  Another day without a headline.  Get in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

18 minutes ago, Ant said:

We're all people who haven't listened enough, we're all on that journey.

 

I can understand why BLM think he's undermining them, but that doesn't mean I agree with that stance, nor should it be a negative reflection of mine or anyone's judgment, belief or support of equality for all and the support of the BLM message. 

 

Just because you don’t agree with them doesn’t mean you don’t agree with them 

 

You agree with their overall message you just don’t think it is as important as pleasing other people who don’t agree with their overall message

 

You’re listening but it’s your “journey” that should be centred

 

What’s gonna change, Ant?  You or BLM?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Ant said:

We're all people who haven't listened enough, we're all on that journey.

 

You missed the word white, and the word men. ;) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Ant said:

We're all people who haven't listened enough, we're all on that journey.

 

I can understand why BLM think he's undermining them, but that doesn't mean I agree with that stance, nor should it be a negative reflection of mine or anyone's judgment, belief or support of equality for all and the support of the BLM message. 

 

The second bit kind of conflicts with the first bit.

At the risk of coming over all Mike and the Mechanics, maybe you are hearing but listening. 

I don't really care what his intent was, he has made them feel undermined, ergo he's undermined them.

Probably best to listen to why that feeling is there as opposed to telling them why it shouldn't be.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Ant said:

I'm judging politics by the result of the last election, and the electorate opinion, and that if he wants to be in power he's got to play the long game and in addition, reflect this opinion that Defunding the Police in its literal sense is a bad idea. 

I understand why people may interpret what he said in the way they have but honestly, I think it has as much to do with the fact that he isn't Jeremy Corbyn than anything else. 

If you take his statement, line by line I think I come to the conclusion that it was staunch defence of the police, and a reflection that this argument detracts from the overall goal of BLM, he reflected its cultural significance and I don't think he downplayed it at all.

 

I've listened to it again. Yes its a staunch defence of the police and his role in supporting them.

He talks about the BLM Movement and the moment we're living in, and then goes onto say that its (with BLM) and he disagrees with the idea of defunding the police. 

Defunding the Police is a political point, not a point of morals. 

So in fairness, happy to debate about the politics of defunding the police but I think its unfair and inaccurate to say that he's undermining BLM. I think Defunding the Police is the wrong stance to take generally speaking and as a political Labour party policy. 

 

 

 

I don't know how to write this without maybe coming off as hostile which I really don't want to do as you are one guy and loads of people are coming back at you at machine gun pace and that has to be frustrating when all you are probably saying is "Of course the LOTO cannot say strip resources from the police and expect to win power." I think that to view it this way is to only view the debate through the prism of a selected type of person. That person can be any colour btw as there will be loads of black people and more crucially black people in working class areas who think the police are wonderful in their current form and that people should just stop doing bad things.

There are a couple of things which you say which really need addressing. You reference the that he does not want to underplay the cultural significance of the BLM. I probably agree however BLM is not a cultural movement. It is one that is aimed at restructuring power in an attempt end suffering. Power is fine when you talk about culture but if you step up to claim the ability to determine factors of your own existence then you are told you are

Quote

getting tangled up with organisation issues

It is also when you are accused of the very things you are trying to fight and fired because power will seek to crush you if you scrutinise it.

 

You say

Quote

Defunding the Police is a political point, not a point of morals.

Defunding the Police cannot be anything but political. Politics is the space where society meets and thrashes out its concerns. The other interpretation of what you are saying is that people are saying it to sound trendy. This is a key misunderstanding. You do not see police in certain communities that are resourced because why would the police be there. You do see police in communities that struggle for resource so instead of beefing up the policing of people who are experiencing harm because of the conditions imposed on them, let's just get them the resources so that they can also get on with their lives.

 

When you say

Quote

I understand why people may interpret what he said in the way they have but honestly, I think it has as much to do with the fact that he isn't Jeremy Corbyn than anything else. 

This is a fundamental misrepresentation of something that is critical to people's very existence. The police were set up to control the bodies of those who needed to be exploited through their labour and manage the communities which were scant in resource as a result of the economic system used. That role has not changed. You can see it in all the videos in this country of the multi ethnic but disproportionately  black working class being harassed, you can see it in the stats about who gets policed for lockdown violations and you can see it in who suffers from deaths in police custody.

 

This is not some Westminster game and the leader of the left party in this country has to not be willing to sacrifice the core material concerns of the unrepresented while brandishing his establishment credentials. This is real to people Ant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, Ant said:

We're all people who haven't listened enough, we're all on that journey.

 

I can understand why BLM think he's undermining them, but that doesn't mean I agree with that stance, nor should it be a negative reflection of mine or anyone's judgment, belief or support of equality for all and the support of the BLM message. 

 

You are more than entitled to disagree with BLM. Just because someone says a thing, doesn't make it a thing and if you end up in a position where the only way you can talk about a subject is if you are literally that person then you end up somewhere useless. I just think your analysis has areas that would be strengthened by more understanding be it book, experiential or emotional.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Swan Red said:

Where do people think this space is between morality and politics?

Generally where it doesn't affect them personally.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Swan Red said:

Where do people think this space is between morality and politics?

Oh, it's that stretch on the M1 right?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, sammy & a said:

I don't know how to write this without maybe coming off as hostile which I really don't want to do as you are one guy and loads of people are coming back at you at machine gun pace and that has to be frustrating when all you are probably saying is "Of course the LOTO cannot say strip resources from the police and expect to win power." I think that to view it this way is to only view the debate through the prism of a selected type of person. That person can be any colour btw as there will be loads of black people and more crucially black people in working class areas who think the police are wonderful in their current form and that people should just stop doing bad things.

There are a couple of things which you say which really need addressing. You reference the that he does not want to underplay the cultural significance of the BLM. I probably agree however BLM is not a cultural movement. It is one that is aimed at restructuring power in an attempt end suffering. Power is fine when you talk about culture but if you step up to claim the ability to determine factors of your own existence then you are told you are

It is also when you are accused of the very things you are trying to fight and fired because power will seek to crush you if you scrutinise it.

 

You say

Defunding the Police cannot be anything but political. Politics is the space where society meets and thrashes out its concerns. The other interpretation of what you are saying is that people are saying it to sound trendy. This is a key misunderstanding. You do not see police in certain communities that are resourced because why would the police be there. You do see police in communities that struggle for resource so instead of beefing up the policing of people who are experiencing harm because of the conditions imposed on them, let's just get them the resources so that they can also get on with their lives.

 

When you say

This is a fundamental misrepresentation of something that is critical to people's very existence. The police were set up to control the bodies of those who needed to be exploited through their labour and manage the communities which were scant in resource as a result of the economic system used. That role has not changed. You can see it in all the videos in this country of the multi ethnic but disproportionately  black working class being harassed, you can see it in the stats about who gets policed for lockdown violations and you can see it in who suffers from deaths in police custody.

 

This is not some Westminster game and the leader of the left party in this country has to not be willing to sacrifice the core material concerns of the unrepresented while brandishing his establishment credentials. This is real to people Ant.

Thanks for that. I think that's all fair enough and I don't see this is being a right/wrong debate and you've made me look at this in a different way (I'm trying to be sincere and it's not coming across correctly without me sounding insincere) 

My only retort would be on your last sentence, in that you're right this is about real people. I just feel intuitively however that the approach that (Not BLM) that the politics of momentum and the far left of the labour party are doing the most damage in terms of the opportunity for there to be real and substantive change in a country which is inherently right wing, conservatives voting and yes institutionally racist. Left Wing policies and politics are intertwined with that of BLM and I guess what I am trying to say that, Keir needs to be careful about supporting a elements of a radical left wing agenda that is unpalatable to the electorate, how you do that without seemingly undermining the message of BLM is a difficult one. I have sympathy for him.  

If you're expecting him to support the sentiments behind such a statement like Defend the Police whole-heartedly it isn't going to happen, because he won't win and Labour won't be in power and we'll be having this argument again in another 5 years time.  Could he have handled it better, yes, could he have been more nuanced, probably. But if Labour and Starmer keep doing what we've always done then we'll never get the change we need. 

In summary, from a personal perspective I accept that BLM feel Starmer has undermined them, I accept and I understand a little through his sentiments (in the best way a white man can) why they feel that's the case.

 

 

Edited by Ant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Listening to Starmer's words again, there's no doubting his intent to undermine Black Lives Matter as an organisation. He literally says "I wouldn't have any truck with what the organisation (Black Lives Matter) is saying about defunding the police or anything else."

Pretty clear that for him Black Lives Matter "internationally" was indeed just a moment. A short-lived reaction and protest about "what happened dreadfully in the US a few weeks ago".

So he played his part and took a knee for a nice photo-op but now he's moved on. So should everyone else because you know, it didn't happen here and his support for OUR police is very, very strong. #BlackLivesMatteredForAWeekOrSo

I hope he's enjoying all the plaudits he's getting from the likes of Nigel f***ing Farage.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He’s getting his headlines now

 

“Starmer skeptical about Johnson’s rebuilding plans”

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Apparently Starmer refused to answer a direct question from the ace Lara McNeill on the NEC about Reeves/Astor today. Seems antisemitism only applies if he doesn't want you around.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"I wouldn't have any truck with what the organisation (Black Lives Matter) is saying about defunding the police or anything else." 

And

"the Black Lives Matter Movement, or moment, if you like

Pretty hard to be able to say either of those sentences isn't massively undermining and belittling the BLM organisation and the issues it and its supporters are fighting 

Edited by Tommok
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Ant said:

Thanks for that. I think that's all fair enough and I don't see this is being a right/wrong debate and you've made me look at this in a different way (I'm trying to be sincere and it's not coming across correctly without me sounding insincere) 

My only retort would be on your last sentence, in that you're right this is about real people. I just feel intuitively however that the approach that (Not BLM) that the politics of momentum and the far left of the labour party are doing the most damage in terms of the opportunity for there to be real and substantive change in a country which is inherently right wing, conservatives voting and yes institutionally racist. Left Wing policies and politics are intertwined with that of BLM and I guess what I am trying to say that, Keir needs to be careful about supporting a elements of a radical left wing agenda that is unpalatable to the electorate, how you do that without seemingly undermining the message of BLM is a difficult one. I have sympathy for him.  

If you're expecting him to support the sentiments behind such a statement like Defend the Police whole-heartedly it isn't going to happen, because he won't win and Labour won't be in power and we'll be having this argument again in another 5 years time.  Could he have handled it better, yes, could he have been more nuanced, probably. But if Labour and Starmer keep doing what we've always done then we'll never get the change we need. 

In summary, from a personal perspective I accept that BLM feel Starmer has undermined them, I accept and I understand a little through his sentiments (in the best way a white man can) why they feel that's the case.

 

 

I said earlier when the statue issue kicked off that i was happy to swerve a culture war as long as there was a genuinely radical agenda there for economic and social equality (they are necessary functions of each other so maybe I am wrong to split them but anyway) but I just do not think that there is. I would also contest that the call for a fundamental change to the structures that see so many we share this country with struggle can be characterised as Labour

 

Quote

keep doing what we've always done

 

I also think it would be hypocritical to speak in the way we often do about the electorate being this or that and then moan if someone looks to appeal to that as the platform for introducing an alternative agenda. Those are not my beliefs about the people of this country though. There is accepted left wing ideology that is uncompeted ground politically to the point where people do not think it political. It is the job of the leader of the left party to be able to articulate the case for justice in a way that unifies and leaves no one out. It might be deemed a difficult project but we cannot create swathes of the country we are prepared to sacrifice. Liverpool knows this. To have had a politician talk down the city, or indeed, down to the city due to perceived political realism would be wrong. This cannot stand for brethren elsewhere either.

You intuit that far left policies are preventing substantive change but "far left" is a label. Surely you belieive in the politics of making people and the community whole. Which people struggling right now would you be prepared to look in the face and say that their needs as humans cannot be part of your fight to secure more seats in Westminster.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Relevant :

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-06-29/nyc-to-shift-1-billion-from-nypd-to-social-services-mayor-says?fbclid=IwAR3JKOhCwfpPxVhS_VLyLmTjBu0bemjY9O9qgYCDiA41YU04jLVYFDQo_Bw

Quote

 

NYC to Shift $1 Billion From NYPD to Social Services, Mayor Says

New York Mayor Bill de Blasio said he’s presented a plan to the City Council to shift about $1 billion from the police department to social programs.

The issue, coming a day before the city’s June 30 budget deadline, may remove a major obstacle in negotiations because City Council Speaker Corey Johnson has insisted on cutting that amount from the NYPD’s $5.9 billion budget.

The mayor proposed a $95 billion municipal budget in January, then reduced it to $89.3 billion in April, as the virus forced a lockdown that obliterated billions of dollars in tax revenue. His latest budget, he has said, has been pared down to about $87 billion.

The fiscal crisis spawned by the economic shutdown -- and the protests erupting in the aftermath of the killing of George Floyd in Minneapolis -- have presented the city with “an unprecedented opportunity to change some things,” de Blasio said.

Over the weekend, he said, his office presented the council with a plan that also proposes $500 million in capital spending be diverted from the NYPD to youth recreation centers and public housing -- separate from the $1 billion shifted from operating expenses. De Blasio said Police Commissioner Dermot Shea supports the changes.

The NYPD budget cuts were denounced by Patrick Lynch, president of the Police Benevolent Association representing rank and file officers. He said the mayor and City Council “have surrendered to lawlessness.” An activist group, Communities United for Police Reform, also attacked the plan, saying the city’s elected leaders resorted to “budget tricks that are protecting and giving special treatment” to the department.

The mayor declined to give details of where the police cuts would be made, pending a formal agreement with the City Council, which must come by 11:59 p.m. Tuesday, the end of the fiscal year.

“We have a plan that can achieve real reform, real redistribution, while at the same time ensure that we can keep our city safe,” de Blasio said. “We can do this. We can strike a balance.”

The cutbacks are being negotiated as the city sees the biggest increase in shootings in at least 20 years. “We have to make sure we can handle that,” de Blasio said.

The police department’s current budget is $5.9 billion, and the mayor’s plan for the next fiscal year had already reduced department spending to $5.6 billion. He didn’t say whether those cuts were included in his $1 billion in savings.

“Negotiations continue,” de Blasio said. “They’ve been very productive. I’m very hopeful where they are going.”

 

 

Edited by Flight

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, sammy & a said:

I said earlier when the statue issue kicked off that i was happy to swerve a culture war as long as there was a genuinely radical agenda there for economic and social equality (they are necessary functions of each other so maybe I am wrong to split them but anyway) but I just do not think that there is. I would also contest that the call for a fundamental change to the structures that see so many we share this country with struggle can be characterised as Labour

 

 

I also think it would be hypocritical to speak in the way we often do about the electorate being this or that and then moan if someone looks to appeal to that as the platform for introducing an alternative agenda. Those are not my beliefs about the people of this country though. There is accepted left wing ideology that is uncompeted ground politically to the point where people do not think it political. It is the job of the leader of the left party to be able to articulate the case for justice in a way that unifies and leaves no one out. It might be deemed a difficult project but we cannot create swathes of the country we are prepared to sacrifice. Liverpool knows this. To have had a politician talk down the city, or indeed, down to the city due to perceived political realism would be wrong. This cannot stand for brethren elsewhere either.

You intuit that far left policies are preventing substantive change but "far left" is a label. Surely you belieive in the politics of making people and the community whole. Which people struggling right now would you be prepared to look in the face and say that their needs as humans cannot be part of your fight to secure more seats in Westminster.

I agree with all of that, but without reverting to another crap analogy. I think the further we entrench our views on the left, the less likely we are to have change that will impact the very people the left are there to protect.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bloody hell

Even the BBC website have taken to "fact checking" a Boris announcement

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Ant said:

I agree with all of that, but without reverting to another crap analogy. I think the further we entrench our views on the left, the less likely we are to have change that will impact the very people the left are there to protect.

 

So we get our views from where then?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...