Britain's Labour turns page on socialism with Starmer as new leader

[rooster59]

Britain's Labour turns page on socialism with Starmer as new leader

By Kate Holton

 

Britain's opposition Labour Party Shadow Brexit Secretary Keir Starmer leaves the BBC headquarters after appearing on The Andrew Marr Show in London, Britain January 5, 2020. REUTERS/Simon Dawson

 

LONDON (Reuters) - Keir Starmer was elected as the leader of Britain's main opposition Labour Party on Saturday, pledging to bring an end to years of bitter infighting and to work with the government to contain the raging coronavirus pandemic.

 

Starmer, a former director of public prosecutions who was known for a forensic attention to detail when opposing the country's exit from the European Union, won with 56% of the vote.

 

The comprehensive defeat of an ally of the outgoing leader Jeremy Corbyn, and the election of Angela Rayner as Starmer's deputy, heralds the end of the party leadership's embrace of a radical socialism that was crushed in the December election.

 

Starmer, who takes over immediately, said he would work constructively with government when it was the right thing to do, while testing Conservative Prime Minister Boris Johnson's arguments and challenging the failures.

 

"Our purpose when we do that is the same as the government's, to save lives," he said in a statement that was pre-recorded due to the pandemic.

 

Starmer added that once the country emerges on the other side, once the hospital wards have emptied and the threat subsided, it would need to build a fairer society, where key workers on the front line receive decent salaries and better chances in life.

 

"In their courage and their sacrifice and their bravery, we can see a better future. This crisis has brought out the resilience and human spirit in all of us," he said.

 

Johnson said on Twitter he had congratulated Starmer and the two agreed on the importance of working together.

 

The party of Tony Blair and Gordon Brown endured its worst election performance since 1935 in December, when infighting over strategy, a confused policy over Brexit and allegations of unchecked anti-Semitism turned traditional voters away.

 

Starmer pushed for a second Brexit referendum but said the election result had “blown away” that argument.

 

Corbyn ally Rebecca Long-Bailey came second in the party's vote with 28% and Lisa Nandy was third with 16%.

 

Many centrist Labour politicians celebrated the result as a sign that the government would finally face proper scrutiny.

 

"A fresh Labour leader will challenge the Tories where necessary and give the party the chance to renew itself in time for the next election," Alf Dubs, an opposition Labour lord who fled to Britain as a child to escape the Nazis, told Reuters.

 

Starmer acknowledged the scale of the task ahead.

 

Well ahead in opinion polls, Johnson's Conservatives have also occupied much of traditional Labour territory, with the coronavirus crisis prompting the ruling party to deliver unprecedented state support to workers and businesses.

 

"This is my pledge to the British people. I will do my utmost to guide us through these difficult times, to serve all of our communities and to strive for the good of our country," Starmer said.

 

"I will lead this great party into a new era, with confidence and with hope."

 

(Additional reporting by Elizabeth Piper; Editing by Mark Heinrich and Frances Kerry)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2020-04-05

Follow Thaivisa on LINE for breaking COVID-19 updates

[stuhan]

Another dreamer full of poo poo, don't believe what any of these idiots come out with all of them.

[Bluespunk]

2 hours ago, rooster59 said:

The party of Tony Blair and Gordon Brown

Is it theirs? That is a sad indictment of our times...
 

Kier Hardie would have had nothing to do with such politicians. 
 

 

[Walter Travolta]

Labour and the left wing hypocrites and liars outing themselves for what they are yet again. A SET OF VIRTUE SIGNALLERS who tell us all they are the party for the diverse, the minorities and the forgotten.
They had 4 women in the running and 1 WHITE male, none of colour were represented an any decent level, no Trans, no gay, no LGBTQ whatsoever from a party that "PRIDES" (haha see what I did there) itself on its self labelled diversity!!??

So, a champagne socialist, not too distantly related to Corbyns ideas has been voted in by . . . . LABOUR members, who, let me remind you again, are the party for the minorities. 
A white privileged male, replacing a white privileged male . . . how diverse!! 

Another telling factor that the Labour party are about as useful as dust, is the fact that they got hammered in the last election because of their attempts to block Brexit which was voted for by many people in the North and the Midlands, yet they dont even have an MP from those areas in the running. Even the Northern Labour members have had enough. So, a white privileged champagne socialist from LONDON is the new Labour leader ????

This is great news for the right wing. It couldnt get any better. Already guaranteed the next 5 years, and more than likely, at least the next 5 after that . . . making 20 years. 

Democrats in the states do the same, always talking about minorities yet never giving them a hand up!! Candace Owens sussed it a long time ago which proves the old addage . . . you cant fool all the people all the time

 

[bristolboy]

4 minutes ago, Walter Travolta said:

Labour and the left wing hypocrites and liars outing themselves for what they are yet again. A SET OF VIRTUE SIGNALLERS who tell us all they are the party for the diverse, the minorities and the forgotten.
They had 4 women in the running and 1 WHITE male, none of colour were represented an any decent level, no Trans, no gay, no LGBTQ whatsoever from a party that "PRIDES" (haha see what I did there) itself on its self labelled diversity!!??

So, a champagne socialist, not too distantly related to Corbyns ideas has been voted in by . . . . LABOUR members, who, let me remind you again, are the party for the minorities. 
A white privileged male, replacing a white privileged male . . . how diverse!! 

Another telling factor that the Labour party are about as useful as dust, is the fact that they got hammered in the last election because of their attempts to block Brexit which was voted for by many people in the North and the Midlands, yet they dont even have an MP from those areas in the running. Even the Northern Labour members have had enough. So, a white privileged champagne socialist from LONDON is the new Labour leader ????

This is great news for the right wing. It couldnt get any better. Already guaranteed the next 5 years, and more than likely, at least the next 5 after that . . . making 20 years. 

Democrats in the states do the same, always talking about minorities yet never giving them a hand up!! Candace Owens sussed it a long time ago which proves the old addage . . . you cant fool all the people all the time

 

In the full 116th Congress, the overwhelming majority of racial and ethnic nonwhite members are Democrats (90%), while just 10% are Republicans.

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/02/08/for-the-fifth-time-in-a-row-the-new-congress-is-the-most-racially-and-ethnically-diverse-ever/

https://cawp.rutgers.edu/list-women-currently-serving-congress

[Walter Travolta]

7 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

In the full 116th Congress, the overwhelming majority of racial and ethnic nonwhite members are Democrats (90%), while just 10% are Republicans.

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/02/08/for-the-fifth-time-in-a-row-the-new-congress-is-the-most-racially-and-ethnically-diverse-ever/

https://cawp.rutgers.edu/list-women-currently-serving-congress

Nothing to do with my point whatsoever, unless you can prove me wrong with stats that show leaders of colour or gender other than white males on the left wing anywhere in Western politics, seeing my point was actually about left wing lies or virtue signalling conning the sheep for their votes. If you cant, I wont reply to something that takes my comment in a different direction than it was intended. I believe the Mods here call it going off topic. My comment about the Dems isnt off topic because it relates and aligns with exactly how the labour party operate, telling minorities how they are there for them and can trust them, yet when push comes to shove, they couldnt care less about them and then try and push the blame to the right haha - the world is waking up to all this BS. All the left want is their votes but now the left have been sussed, they have nowhere else to turn for votes, except the uncontrolled flow of immigrants from Mexico (USA) or the middle east and north Africa (into Europe), which has also been sussed

[Bluespunk]

3 hours ago, Bluespunk said:

Is it theirs? That is a sad indictment of our times...
 

Kier Hardie would have had nothing to do with such politicians. 
 

 

@chopper higgot

 

blair and brown are politicians of a very different ilk to Keith Hardie, one of the driving forces behind the forming of the Labour Party. 

[Laughing Gravy]

He is a champagne socialist and was in the young socialist as a labour member when he was younger apparently.

 

"In his teenage years Starmer was active in Labour politics, and was a member of the East Surrey Young Socialists.^"

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keir_Starmer

[Kadilo]

I never thought I would see the day when a “Sir” was the leader of the Labour Party. 

Unfortunately he was the face every one saw during the Brexit fiasco and the disastrous General election and he is going to find it one hell of a job to convince people he wasn’t Corbyns right hand man  

 

I wish him all the best as the country needs a strong opposition. 

[jany123]

11 minutes ago, Walter Travolta said:

Nothing to do with my point whatsoever, unless you can prove me wrong with stats that show leaders of colour or gender other than white males on the left wing anywhere in Western politics

By “leaders”.... are you specifically referencing heads of state

 

20 minutes ago, Walter Travolta said:

Nothing to do with my point whatsoever, unless you can prove me wrong with stats that show leaders of colour or gender other than white males on the left wing anywhere in Western politics, seeing my point was actually about left wing lies or virtue signalling conning the sheep for their votes. If you cant, I wont reply to something that takes my comment in a different direction than it was intended. I believe the Mods here call it going off topic. My comment about the Dems isnt off topic because it relates and aligns with exactly how the labour party operate, telling minorities how they are there for them and can trust them, yet when push comes to shove, they couldnt care less about them and then try and push the blame to the right haha - the world is waking up to all this BS. All the left want is their votes but now the left have been sussed, they have nowhere else to turn for votes, except the uncontrolled flow of immigrants from Mexico (USA) or the middle east and north Africa (into Europe), which has also been sussed

Ummm.... your intention/rant (that you won’t let yourself be deterred of), seems to be to drive the point that liberals are lying and virtue signaling to scam votes. You claim you won’t be deterred because it’s off topic.... yet the topic is about the election of a new leader.

 

elections of party leadership are by the party, not electorate, so vote scamming conspiracies regards the electorate, political lying or virtue signaling and veering of into American politics seem to be points of your making and not included in the topic... therefore.... as you put it.... “I believe the Mods here call it going off topic.”

 

lol.... and then you demand that others don’t follow your lead... classic argument style.... my old man used to say “do as I say, not as I do!” ... love it!

[Walter Travolta]

2 minutes ago, jany123 said:

By “leaders”.... are you specifically referencing heads of state

 

Ummm.... your intention/rant (that you won’t let yourself be deterred of), seems to be to drive the point that liberals are lying and virtue signaling to scam votes. You claim you won’t be deterred because it’s off topic.... yet the topic is about the election of a new leader.

 

elections of party leadership are by the party, not electorate, so vote scamming conspiracies regards the electorate, political lying or virtue signaling and veering of into American politics seem to be points of your making and not included in the topic... therefore.... as you put it.... “I believe the Mods here call it going off topic.”

 

lol.... and then you demand that others don’t follow your lead... classic argument style.... my old man used to say “do as I say, not as I do!” ... love it!

Nice try at baiting but you are way off. The reply to me was regarding how many women were/are in congress in the states which was nothing to do with my OP. Red my OP again clearly and hopefully you will understand what my actual point is. I have explained it for you, I cant understand it for you also - OK? 

As for it being a rant, why would it be? Im in ecstasy watching the left crumble each and everytime something political goes on. Trump winning, Johnson winning by the biggest landslide in 85 years, Labour replacing like for like, Farage working tirelessly and Boris doing what he said he would bt getting Brexit done. Life is wonderful for me so I can honestly say my post was certainly not a rant. Did you take it as a rant because unlike you I didnt include the 'lol' bit? Or maybe a laughing emoji maight have stopped you calling it a rant? 
I think it was you who read it as a rant because the anger is within you maybe? Who knows . . . 

???? - see what I did there? ???? 

[billythehat]

British Labour Party members = Conservative Party member's with flat caps ????

[pixelaoffy]

3 minutes ago, billythehat said:

British Labour Party members = Conservative Party member's with flat caps ????

If you think that you are out if touch with members ! Labour party membership swung dramatically to the left under a £3 membership fee and a group called momentum 

[Walter Travolta]

24 minutes ago, jany123 said:

By “leaders”.... are you specifically referencing heads of state

 

Ummm.... your intention/rant (that you won’t let yourself be deterred of), seems to be to drive the point that liberals are lying and virtue signaling to scam votes. You claim you won’t be deterred because it’s off topic.... yet the topic is about the election of a new leader.

 

elections of party leadership are by the party, not electorate, so vote scamming conspiracies regards the electorate, political lying or virtue signaling and veering of into American politics seem to be points of your making and not included in the topic... therefore.... as you put it.... “I believe the Mods here call it going off topic.”

 

lol.... and then you demand that others don’t follow your lead... classic argument style.... my old man used to say “do as I say, not as I do!” ... love it!

I shall try 1 time to explain my point - the left, whether it be in the UK, US, Canada always bang the drum for minorities either based on colour, race, culture or sexual orientation. This is called virtue signalling. But when the left are having a change of leadership, and have the chance to elect someone from any of the above categories, they flatter to deceive each time. Yet another white male has taken the place of a white male, both regarded as privileged in todays world as long as it suits? The reply was a link basically saying how many women are in congress in the states, not relevant whatsoever.

Of course I understand how the voting system works, members of said party vote for THEIR next leader, just like the Tories did with BoJo, who doesnt know that? Im 52 so please dont patronise me ???? smiley emoji for your benefit. What you are missing is that with all the drum banging the left do about minority oppression, when they have a chance to back up their virtue signalling they fail everytime. That was the point of my OP. If you read any comments by me in previous topics, I do not avoid debate, I just refuse to be drawn into conversations about things I havent said or have been misread by other members ???? another happy emoji to show you Im not ranting ???? 
I cant offer you any more of my time as I feel it would be wasted like the last 15 minutes have been. Have a fantastic day 

[billythehat]

20 minutes ago, pixelaoffy said:

If you think that you are out if touch with members ! Labour party membership swung dramatically to the left under a £3 membership fee and a group called momentum 

3 quid ain’t nowt lad; I put more than that on t’expense claim form for keeping me pigeons in t’second house in London…now, where did I put me favourite validation flat cap?...????

[blazes]

1 hour ago, Laughing Gravy said:

He is a champagne socialist and was in the young socialist as a labour member when he was younger apparently.

 

"In his teenage years Starmer was active in Labour politics, and was a member of the East Surrey Young Socialists.^"

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keir_Starmer

 

There are (were) "socialists" in East Surrey????  In England's green and pleasant land?

 

Better inform MI5.

[billythehat]

18 minutes ago, Walter Travolta said:

Hab snip:

But when the left are having a change of leadership, and have the chance to elect someone from any of the above categories, they flatter to deceive each time.

In a nutshell.

Edited April 5, 2020 by billythehat
typo

[bristolboy]

1 hour ago, Walter Travolta said:

Nothing to do with my point whatsoever, unless you can prove me wrong with stats that show leaders of colour or gender other than white males on the left wing anywhere in Western politics, seeing my point was actually about left wing lies or virtue signalling conning the sheep for their votes. If you cant, I wont reply to something that takes my comment in a different direction than it was intended. I believe the Mods here call it going off topic. My comment about the Dems isnt off topic because it relates and aligns with exactly how the labour party operate, telling minorities how they are there for them and can trust them, yet when push comes to shove, they couldnt care less about them and then try and push the blame to the right haha - the world is waking up to all this BS. All the left want is their votes but now the left have been sussed, they have nowhere else to turn for votes, except the uncontrolled flow of immigrants from Mexico (USA) or the middle east and north Africa (into Europe), which has also been sussed

And the 2018 midterms was about the Dems being sussed, was it?

[jany123]

19 minutes ago, Walter Travolta said:

Nice try at baiting but you are way off. The reply to me was regarding how many women were/are in congress in the states which was nothing to do with my OP. Red my OP again clearly and hopefully you will understand what my actual point is. I have explained it for you, I cant understand it for you also - OK? 

As for it being a rant, why would it be? Im in ecstasy watching the left crumble each and everytime something political goes on. Trump winning, Johnson winning by the biggest landslide in 85 years, Labour replacing like for like, Farage working tirelessly and Boris doing what he said he would bt getting Brexit done. Life is wonderful for me so I can honestly say my post was certainly not a rant. Did you take it as a rant because unlike you I didnt include the 'lol' bit? Or maybe a laughing emoji maight have stopped you calling it a rant? 
I think it was you who read it as a rant because the anger is within you maybe? Who knows . . . 

???? - see what I did there? ???? 

I gave my impression of your point in my paragraph one. If I am mistaken in my impression of your opinion (as it your opinion, and having read my understanding of it)... then you should correct it, rather than rant about baiting.

 

I accept that you can’t understand something for me... I also believe that it’s a failing in communication on your part, if I am unable to understand your writing.... that you feel I am not understanding of your argument, indicates that it was a rant.... normal non rants are easily understood. Telling me to re read something because you failed communication 101 is a bit tish.

 

Me... if I am misunderstood, I try to clarify the point, rather than making unhelpful and illogical accusations about anger management.

 

“Im in ecstasy watching the left crumble each and everytime something political goes on. Trump winning, Johnson winning by the biggest landslide in 85 years, Labour replacing like for like, Farage working tirelessly and Boris doing what he said he would”

 

and you you weren’t going to be drawn off topic... good golly miss molly... get back on topic for heavens sake! Ecstasy.... an emotional or religious frenzy or trancelike state.. very stable

 

But the funniest bit is this;

“The reply to me was regarding how many women were/are in congress in the states which was nothing to do with my OP”

 

when what you posted was this;

1 hour ago, Walter Travolta said:

Democrats in the states do the same, always talking about minorities yet never giving them a hand up!! Candace Owens sussed it a long time ago which proves the old addage . . . you cant fool all the people all the time

You made the Congress of the US a part of your post, and then seemingly forget about it... this is why you got the reply which you got.

 

i do hope that you find this helpful.

 

 

[Laughing Gravy]

48 minutes ago, blazes said:

 

There are (were) "socialists" in East Surrey????  In England's green and pleasant land?

 

Better inform MI5.

I guess you are a fan.  So you are using the past tense as your argument. Okay lets see how this works out. On credibility for me he has nothing.

 

If Johnson stuff this pandemic up he could lose the next election. But that's a long way off

 

I am assuming that he must be your great Labour hope.  Good luck with that.

 

Sadly he is not the working mans leader at all.

 

I will say it again he is a Champagne socialist of the highest order.

[hotchilli]

3 hours ago, Walter Travolta said:

none of colour were represented an any decent level, no Trans, no gay, no LGBTQ whatsoever from a party that "PRIDES" (haha see what I did there) itself on its self labelled diversity!!??

Maybe they were in that position because of their ability, instead of the "token" person as you've labelled them above. You can support the minorities as long as you have an un-biased delegation.

However if they have candidates that can seriously challenge the post then go for it.

But jobs just for a "token" candidate is going backwards and achieves nothing.

 

[anterian]

3 hours ago, Walter Travolta said:

They had 4 women in the running and 1 WHITE male, none of colour were represented an any decent level, no Trans, no gay, no LGBTQ whatsoever from a party that "PRIDES" (haha see what I did there) itself on its self labelled diversity!!??

Why should a minority group expect more than minority representation? 

[Bluespunk]

2 hours ago, Bluespunk said:

@chopper higgot

 

blair and brown are politicians of a very different ilk to Keith Hardie, one of the driving forces behind the forming of the Labour Party. 

Should have read Keir Hardie. 
 

Spell check autocorrected 

[Walter Travolta]

1 hour ago, bristolboy said:

And the 2018 midterms was about the Dems being sussed, was it?

Trolling much? You know exactly what I mean. If you dont, why the heck are you on a site like this? You have made 2 comments, both of which are way off the mark. You are a perfect example of why not to get into discussions with people who have no clue about the subject they are commenting on

[Laughing Gravy]

I have to say Khunken you are the strangest poster I have known in 17 years on TV Forum. you are confused on everything, anything and even on the simples, like on the basics.

 

I wonder who are you and then I am glad I don't want to know you. Your intellect is unique.

Edited April 5, 2020 by Laughing Gravy

[Walter Travolta]

1 hour ago, jany123 said:

I gave my impression of your point in my paragraph one. If I am mistaken in my impression of your opinion (as it your opinion, and having read my understanding of it)... then you should correct it, rather than rant about baiting.

 

I accept that you can’t understand something for me... I also believe that it’s a failing in communication on your part, if I am unable to understand your writing.... that you feel I am not understanding of your argument, indicates that it was a rant.... normal non rants are easily understood. Telling me to re read something because you failed communication 101 is a bit tish.

 

Me... if I am misunderstood, I try to clarify the point, rather than making unhelpful and illogical accusations about anger management.

 

“Im in ecstasy watching the left crumble each and everytime something political goes on. Trump winning, Johnson winning by the biggest landslide in 85 years, Labour replacing like for like, Farage working tirelessly and Boris doing what he said he would”

 

and you you weren’t going to be drawn off topic... good golly miss molly... get back on topic for heavens sake! Ecstasy.... an emotional or religious frenzy or trancelike state.. very stable

 

But the funniest bit is this;

“The reply to me was regarding how many women were/are in congress in the states which was nothing to do with my OP”

 

when what you posted was this;

You made the Congress of the US a part of your post, and then seemingly forget about it... this is why you got the reply which you got.

 

i do hope that you find this helpful.

 

 

Are you for real? I mentioned the dems being the same as the Labour party because they are both left wing and have the same principles. I wasnt the one who started posting figures of how many women were in congress! All I did was say that the Labour party are a set of virtue signalling liars who promise they will do everything for minorities yet never follow through, JUST LIKE THE DEMS IN THE STATES - Are you understanding yet?

I also said it is a trait of the left wing in the west to be like this, yet point to anywhere in the west where there is a leader that is a woman, someone of colour, trans, or any other minority? Merkel is one. I wasnt talking about anyone being 'deputy' or 'vice' whatever, I was talking about leaders. Honestly what are you picking at? 

My other point about inviting all and sundry in via immigration from any babhole is the lefts only chance of winning votes. Yet that usually backfires because the left are not too fond of work, they prefer people who have the ability to oppose and demonstrate against the sitting governments ideas because the left simply do not have any of their own hahaha

Please dont come across as you are schooling me, it was you that couldnt comprehend what I wrote, with the help of that irrelevant link you jumped on. And now you are so far in, you havent got the face to admit you got it wrong. I typed it the way I typed, if you didnt understand that, that is a YOU problem, not mine. Dont bother expecting yet another explanation because of your inability to comprehend ????

[jany123]

1 hour ago, Walter Travolta said:

I shall try 1 time to explain my point - the left, whether it be in the UK, US, Canada always bang the drum for minorities either based on colour, race, culture or sexual orientation. This is called virtue signalling. But when the left are having a change of leadership, and have the chance to elect someone from any of the above categories, they flatter to deceive each time. Yet another white male has taken the place of a white male, both regarded as privileged in todays world as long as it suits? The reply was a link basically saying how many women are in congress in the states, not relevant whatsoever.

Of course I understand how the voting system works, members of said party vote for THEIR next leader, just like the Tories did with BoJo, who doesnt know that? Im 52 so please dont patronise me ???? smiley emoji for your benefit. What you are missing is that with all the drum banging the left do about minority oppression, when they have a chance to back up their virtue signalling they fail everytime. That was the point of my OP. If you read any comments by me in previous topics, I do not avoid debate, I just refuse to be drawn into conversations about things I havent said or have been misread by other members ???? another happy emoji to show you Im not ranting ???? 
I cant offer you any more of my time as I feel it would be wasted like the last 15 minutes have been. Have a fantastic day 

Ah... so President Obama and other colored folk in positions of leadership (trumps Gang of Four?), past and present, are their because of virtue signaling.... got it.

 

And more virtue signaling... dems do nothing for minorities when they have the chance... crikey. The last administration inherited a black unemployment rate equivalent to the all time low in recorded history. That democratic virtue signaling administration turned that statistic around, such that the black unemployment rate was about 2% lower than the all time high.... nice work for doing nothing for minorities... unfortunately, under trump, the black unemployment rate has become the worst in recorded history.

 

further... the dems have included minorities in leadership roles.... in numbers sufficient to qualify as inclusive.... whereas non dems are attacking their inclusion.

 

”I shall try 1 time to explain my point”

Maybe answering my questions would have explained your point... because those bits are what’s not understood... hence the question

 

”i do not avoid debate”

Yes... you do. By avoiding pointed questions, on the post that you made, you are avoiding debate. If your post raises questions that you ignore... that’s text book avoidance.

 

“I cant offer you any more of my time as I feel it would be wasted like the last 15 minutes have been”

yes it has been wasted, which was what you chose to do with your time, as you failed to answer questions which would have made understanding your point easier. 

 

if you change your mind about wasting time supporting your claim, and wish to further educate me... here’s a tip... ask me what I don’t understand... at least then your explanation might have purpose.

[Walter Travolta]

31 minutes ago, hotchilli said:

Maybe they were in that position because of their ability, instead of the "token" person as you've labelled them above. You can support the minorities as long as you have an un-biased delegation.

However if they have candidates that can seriously challenge the post then go for it.

But jobs just for a "token" candidate is going backwards and achieves nothing.

 

Totally agree, I have said ever since this concept of "why arent there more black this, or more Trans that employed in XYZ sector", so yeah I agree, best person for the job, should get the job. 

[Walter Travolta]

35 minutes ago, anterian said:

Why should a minority group expect more than minority representation? 

More to the point, the minority of votes NEVER won an election hahaha so yeah, dumb Labour cant see that even after a record thrashing. Life is great watching the left self implode constantly. The last 4 years have been the best in my political life. I would put the Thatcher years up there but I was only 11 when she was elected. Now, if there were more women like her in politics today, I wouldnt even be commenting, Id have another Thatcher before any man that has occupied number 10 since her

[Walter Travolta]

10 minutes ago, jany123 said:

Ah... so President Obama and other colored folk in positions of leadership (trumps Gang of Four?), past and present, are their because of virtue signaling.... got it.

 

And more virtue signaling... dems do nothing for minorities when they have the chance... crikey. The last administration inherited a black unemployment rate equivalent to the all time low in recorded history. That democratic virtue signaling administration turned that statistic around, such that the black unemployment rate was about 2% lower than the all time high.... nice work for doing nothing for minorities... unfortunately, under trump, the black unemployment rate has become the worst in recorded history.

 

further... the dems have included minorities in leadership roles.... in numbers sufficient to qualify as inclusive.... whereas non dems are attacking their inclusion.

 

”I shall try 1 time to explain my point”

Maybe answering my questions would have explained your point... because those bits are what’s not understood... hence the question

 

”i do not avoid debate”

Yes... you do. By avoiding pointed questions, on the post that you made, you are avoiding debate. If your post raises questions that you ignore... that’s text book avoidance.

 

“I cant offer you any more of my time as I feel it would be wasted like the last 15 minutes have been”

yes it has been wasted, which was what you chose to do with your time, as you failed to answer questions which would have made understanding your point easier. 

 

if you change your mind about wasting time supporting your claim, and wish to further educate me... here’s a tip... ask me what I don’t understand... at least then your explanation might have purpose.

3 times now. If you cant comprehend what it is Im saying just forget it, you're not understaing it. Like I said I cant help you with that so stop bothering me. And stop saying Im not explaining it when I have 3 different ways.Y ou are constantly banging on about the states when all I did in my OP was to make a comparison with Labour in the UK. It was an on topic comparison, go back and read it, then read it again and again if you have to.

I thought trolls were warned here ????