Political round up.............

by Duty281 Fri Dec 20, 2019 10:33 am

Pr4wn wrote:Why are 16 and 17 year olds old enough to pay tax but not old enough to vote?

Good point, take them out of having to pay tax.

by **Dolphin Ziggler** Fri Dec 20, 2019 10:36 am

A BBC article in Oct wrote:"There are variations across different groups - for example, women are considerably less likely than men, and black people considerably less likely than white people, to have a driving licence. Certain ethnic groups such as Gypsies and Irish Travellers are much less likely than the average to have a passport.

The government plans to offset this risk - of denying some people the vote because they do not have ID - by introducing a new form of identity document voters can apply for free of charge.

This follows the recommendation of the Electoral Commission in a report on a pilot of voter ID checks during the 2019 local elections and might I add that doing this during a local election, something less young people are going to care about, is an issue

The Electoral Commission found the vast majority of people already had an acceptable form of ID.

During the pilot, in 10 areas in England, about 2,000 people were turned away at polling stations for lack of ID.

About 750 of these people did not subsequently return with ID to cast their ballot, representing less than 1% of voters in the pilot areas.

But, while the numbers of people being turned away for lack of in the 10 pilot areas were relatively small, they far outstripped the reported cases of alleged voter fraud in the whole country.

The report also found, in the pilot areas, awareness of the new ID requirements differed by demographic group, with younger voters and those from black and minority ethnic backgrounds being less likely to know about the requirements.

And that is an issue that might not necessarily be mitigated by supplying free ID, since voters would have to be aware of the requirement in order to apply."

by Duty281 Fri Dec 20, 2019 10:38 am

Rudolphin Ziggler wrote:Not only that, the likelihood is that an election at 16 will impact their lives til they're 21. They are more than likely to have paid tax by that point

So we should really have votes at 13, then? Given there’ll be five years between an election and they’ll probably be paying tax by the time they reach 18?

by Muscular-mouse Fri Dec 20, 2019 10:43 am

Duty281 wrote:
Rudolphin Ziggler wrote:Not only that, the likelihood is that an election at 16 will impact their lives til they're 21. They are more than likely to have paid tax by that point

So we should really have votes at 13, then? Given there’ll be five years between an election and they’ll probably be paying tax by the time they reach 18?

That is being pedantic. At 16/17 you can join the Army, have children legally, drive a car etc. They should be allowed to vote. In Scottish local elections 16+ can vote and it works well...

by Soul Requiem Fri Dec 20, 2019 10:48 am

Rudolphin Ziggler wrote:
Soul Requiem wrote:Fearmongering? Oh no you have to prove who you are to vote, how terrible.

Because, and you're smart enough to know this, it is building an idea for fraudulent voting. And it is an idea to making voting a little more inconvenient, and it's certainly not going to affect the older voter...

If you cannot be bothered to take ID with you then frankly you don't deserve to vote.

Fraudulent voting is a thing but to what extent we do not know.

by Luckless Pedestrian Fri Dec 20, 2019 10:49 am

If the government is going to make it a requirement to show ID in order to vote, then it should provide free ID to everyone on the electoral register, or make it free to apply for ID.

by Duty281 Fri Dec 20, 2019 10:54 am

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:If the government is going to make it a requirement to show ID in order to vote, then it should provide free ID to everyone on the electoral register, or make it free to apply for ID.

Works for me. thumbsup

by Luckless Pedestrian Fri Dec 20, 2019 11:02 am

Although how do you apply for ID if you don't have ID? Headscratch

by Soul Requiem Fri Dec 20, 2019 11:07 am

If we're using paying tax as a reason for voting does that also mean those who don't pay tax can't vote? Or is it just a one way street?

by Duty281 Fri Dec 20, 2019 11:13 am

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:Although how do you apply for ID if you don't have ID?

The same way anyone gets their first driving license or passport.

by Muscular-mouse Fri Dec 20, 2019 11:17 am

Soul Requiem wrote:If we're using paying tax as a reason for voting does that also mean those who don't pay tax can't vote? Or is it just a one way street?

HH you should know that everyone pays tax in this country including the unemployed and the retired.

by Luckless Pedestrian Fri Dec 20, 2019 11:18 am

See already that's an expense to get either of those, thus the poor being at a disadvantage. Free ID has to come hand in hand with this new requirement.

by **Afro** Fri Dec 20, 2019 11:24 am

Soul Requiem wrote:If we're using paying tax as a reason for voting does that also mean those who don't pay tax can't vote? Or is it just a one way street?

That's just pedantic. Just because paying tax should entitle you to a say doesn't mean that not paying tax doesn't.

by Soul Requiem Fri Dec 20, 2019 11:33 am

Afro wrote:
Soul Requiem wrote:If we're using paying tax as a reason for voting does that also mean those who don't pay tax can't vote? Or is it just a one way street?

That's just pedantic. Just because paying tax should entitle you to a say doesn't mean that not paying tax doesn't.

It's not pedantic at all, it's consistency. Either paying tax matters when it comes to voting or it doesn't.

by Muscular-mouse Fri Dec 20, 2019 11:42 am

Soul Requiem wrote:
Afro wrote:
Soul Requiem wrote:If we're using paying tax as a reason for voting does that also mean those who don't pay tax can't vote? Or is it just a one way street?

That's just pedantic. Just because paying tax should entitle you to a say doesn't mean that not paying tax doesn't.

It's not pedantic at all, it's consistency. Either paying tax matters when it comes to voting or it doesn't.

But HH everyone pays tax. Unemployed people pay VAT and council tax, green tax, excise duties etc Everyone in this country pays some kind of tax.

by **Afro** Fri Dec 20, 2019 11:49 am

Soul Requiem wrote:
Afro wrote:
Soul Requiem wrote:If we're using paying tax as a reason for voting does that also mean those who don't pay tax can't vote? Or is it just a one way street?

That's just pedantic. Just because paying tax should entitle you to a say doesn't mean that not paying tax doesn't.

It's not pedantic at all, it's consistency. Either paying tax matters when it comes to voting or it doesn't.

That's not consistency. All that is being said is that if you are old enough to pay tax, you should be old enough to have a say in how it is spent.

No one mentioned that paying tax is the pre-cursor to being able to vote

by **Pr4wn** Fri Dec 20, 2019 12:01 pm

Soul Requiem wrote:If we're using paying tax as a reason for voting does that also mean those who don't pay tax can't vote? Or is it just a one way street?

Grow up.

by Soul Requiem Fri Dec 20, 2019 12:22 pm

Pr4wn wrote:
Soul Requiem wrote:If we're using paying tax as a reason for voting does that also mean those who don't pay tax can't vote? Or is it just a one way street?

Grow up.

Wow that's me told.

by **navyblueshorts** Fri Dec 20, 2019 3:14 pm

Pr4wn wrote:Why are 16 and 17 year olds old enough to pay tax but not old enough to vote?

Agree. What was it someone once, sort of, said? No taxation without representation? Wonder what came of that...?

by lostinwales Sat Dec 21, 2019 2:10 pm

navyblueshorts wrote:
Pr4wn wrote:Why are 16 and 17 year olds old enough to pay tax but not old enough to vote?
Agree. What was it someone once, sort of, said? No taxation without representation? Wonder what came of that...?

Depends. If you are an EU citizen you don't get any say

by SecretFly Sat Dec 21, 2019 8:22 pm

Hadn't the voting demographic already supposedly changed 'positively' so that any new Referendum would clearly reflect the supposed pro-EU, leftist preferences of the newbie voters?
Hmmm, seems that was a little premature a projection. So now - let the Greta Thunberg generation vote!

Only potential problemo there of course is that obviously - and quite quite obviously - not all 16 and 17 year olds are planet hugging, left wingist, anti-aircraft, pro-EU, non sexist, "liberal", Globalist Progressives.
So what are you unleashing? You don't know, but you might get what you most fear and least think you'll get - a goose-stepping enthusiastic little army of obedient, wargames-playing, far-right enforcers wearing crisp sexy uniforms.

Or...even more scary, and few million Greta Thunbergs marching to the yelping orders of Yasmin Alibhai Brown!
Run for the environmentally friendly, metal wind turbine infested hills!

by Muscular-mouse Sun Dec 22, 2019 2:14 am

SecretFly wrote:Hadn't the voting demographic already supposedly changed 'positively' so that any new Referendum would clearly reflect the supposed pro-EU, leftist preferences of the newbie voters?
Hmmm, seems that was a little premature a projection. So now - let the Greta Thunberg generation vote!

Only potential problemo there of course is that obviously - and quite quite obviously - not all 16 and 17 year olds are planet hugging, left wingist, anti-aircraft, pro-EU, non sexist, "liberal", Globalist Progressives.
So what are you unleashing? You don't know, but you might get what you most fear and least think you'll get - a goose-stepping enthusiastic little army of obedient, wargames-playing, far-right enforcers wearing crisp sexy uniforms.

Or...even more scary, and few million Greta Thunbergs marching to the yelping orders of Yasmin Alibhai Brown!
Run for the environmentally friendly, metal wind turbine infested hills!

Firstly you can't judge how a referendum will turn out based on an election, and if you did, well the 2nd referendum parties got more votes. Secondly I am pro 16/17 year olds getting the vote no matter their political leaning, it is not some scheme to try to get more votes for my party.

by **Afro** Tue Dec 24, 2019 9:56 am

Muscular-mouse wrote:
SecretFly wrote:Hadn't the voting demographic already supposedly changed 'positively' so that any new Referendum would clearly reflect the supposed pro-EU, leftist preferences of the newbie voters?
Hmmm, seems that was a little premature a projection. So now - let the Greta Thunberg generation vote!

Only potential problemo there of course is that obviously - and quite quite obviously - not all 16 and 17 year olds are planet hugging, left wingist, anti-aircraft, pro-EU, non sexist, "liberal", Globalist Progressives.
So what are you unleashing? You don't know, but you might get what you most fear and least think you'll get - a goose-stepping enthusiastic little army of obedient, wargames-playing, far-right enforcers wearing crisp sexy uniforms.

Or...even more scary, and few million Greta Thunbergs marching to the yelping orders of Yasmin Alibhai Brown!
Run for the environmentally friendly, metal wind turbine infested hills!

Firstly you can't judge how a referendum will turn out based on an election, and if you did, well the 2nd referendum parties got more votes. Secondly I am pro 16/17 year olds getting the vote no matter their political leaning, it is not some scheme to try to get more votes for my party.

The second point of this is the most important. Which way they vote is irrelevant to the argument of whether they should have the right to do so.

by SecretFly Tue Dec 24, 2019 10:56 am

The only reason it rises its head as a topic at all is the anger that the magic 'youth' vote didn't turn up on the day as many hoped/suspected it would do.

So let's try younger and younger to 'create' the majority most of these pages seem to support - left of centre Globalism.

Sorry, but I won't be made believe that you'd all applaud the emergence of a easily influenced far right hoard of teenagers with a vote. The topic only rises because most of you believe the 'youth' are mostly on your side....so let'em vote!

BTW, IF sixteen year olds did get a vote, what restrictions would you place on the teaching profession to ensure they could not seek to politically influence the voting intentions of the pupils under their guidance? After all, their role is to teach, not to electioneer. How can you ensure students will not be unduly -and knowingly -politically influenced by the opinions of teachers they spend long days with in a classroom?

by SecretFly Tue Dec 24, 2019 11:02 am

But as you ponder such issues....in the meantime, a Merry Christmas to all you Off Topic gentlemen...and ladies if such are around Hug

Think the important thing for all us to remember at such times is that most of us.... well most of us.... despite our political differences, have goodness in our hearts. We only disagree on the tools used to effect it.

So until the New Year, have a good time.

by Soul Requiem Tue Dec 24, 2019 12:00 pm

Afro wrote:
Muscular-mouse wrote:
SecretFly wrote:Hadn't the voting demographic already supposedly changed 'positively' so that any new Referendum would clearly reflect the supposed pro-EU, leftist preferences of the newbie voters?
Hmmm, seems that was a little premature a projection. So now - let the Greta Thunberg generation vote!

Only potential problemo there of course is that obviously - and quite quite obviously - not all 16 and 17 year olds are planet hugging, left wingist, anti-aircraft, pro-EU, non sexist, "liberal", Globalist Progressives.
So what are you unleashing? You don't know, but you might get what you most fear and least think you'll get - a goose-stepping enthusiastic little army of obedient, wargames-playing, far-right enforcers wearing crisp sexy uniforms.

Or...even more scary, and few million Greta Thunbergs marching to the yelping orders of Yasmin Alibhai Brown!
Run for the environmentally friendly, metal wind turbine infested hills!

Firstly you can't judge how a referendum will turn out based on an election, and if you did, well the 2nd referendum parties got more votes. Secondly I am pro 16/17 year olds getting the vote no matter their political leaning, it is not some scheme to try to get more votes for my party.

The second point of this is the most important. Which way they vote is irrelevant to the argument of whether they should have the right to do so.

You know full well that isn't why this is being debated, were young people more like to vote for the Tories you wouldn't be saying a word nor would anyone else on here.

by **Dolphin Ziggler** Tue Dec 24, 2019 12:36 pm

Soul Requiem wrote:
Afro wrote:
Muscular-mouse wrote:
SecretFly wrote:Hadn't the voting demographic already supposedly changed 'positively' so that any new Referendum would clearly reflect the supposed pro-EU, leftist preferences of the newbie voters?
Hmmm, seems that was a little premature a projection. So now - let the Greta Thunberg generation vote!

Only potential problemo there of course is that obviously - and quite quite obviously - not all 16 and 17 year olds are planet hugging, left wingist, anti-aircraft, pro-EU, non sexist, "liberal", Globalist Progressives.
So what are you unleashing? You don't know, but you might get what you most fear and least think you'll get - a goose-stepping enthusiastic little army of obedient, wargames-playing, far-right enforcers wearing crisp sexy uniforms.

Or...even more scary, and few million Greta Thunbergs marching to the yelping orders of Yasmin Alibhai Brown!
Run for the environmentally friendly, metal wind turbine infested hills!

Firstly you can't judge how a referendum will turn out based on an election, and if you did, well the 2nd referendum parties got more votes. Secondly I am pro 16/17 year olds getting the vote no matter their political leaning, it is not some scheme to try to get more votes for my party.

The second point of this is the most important. Which way they vote is irrelevant to the argument of whether they should have the right to do so.

You know full well that isn't why this is being debated, were young people more like to vote for the Tories you wouldn't be saying a word nor would anyone else on here.

That's complete conjecture and also completely wrong in regards to my own opinion.

It does prove why you're so against it though...

by Muscular-mouse Wed Dec 25, 2019 2:09 am

Rudolphin Ziggler wrote:
Soul Requiem wrote:
Afro wrote:
Muscular-mouse wrote:
SecretFly wrote:Hadn't the voting demographic already supposedly changed 'positively' so that any new Referendum would clearly reflect the supposed pro-EU, leftist preferences of the newbie voters?
Hmmm, seems that was a little premature a projection. So now - let the Greta Thunberg generation vote!

Only potential problemo there of course is that obviously - and quite quite obviously - not all 16 and 17 year olds are planet hugging, left wingist, anti-aircraft, pro-EU, non sexist, "liberal", Globalist Progressives.
So what are you unleashing? You don't know, but you might get what you most fear and least think you'll get - a goose-stepping enthusiastic little army of obedient, wargames-playing, far-right enforcers wearing crisp sexy uniforms.

Or...even more scary, and few million Greta Thunbergs marching to the yelping orders of Yasmin Alibhai Brown!
Run for the environmentally friendly, metal wind turbine infested hills!

Firstly you can't judge how a referendum will turn out based on an election, and if you did, well the 2nd referendum parties got more votes. Secondly I am pro 16/17 year olds getting the vote no matter their political leaning, it is not some scheme to try to get more votes for my party.

The second point of this is the most important. Which way they vote is irrelevant to the argument of whether they should have the right to do so.

You know full well that isn't why this is being debated, were young people more like to vote for the Tories you wouldn't be saying a word nor would anyone else on here.

That's complete conjecture and also completely wrong in regards to my own opinion.

It does prove why you're so against it though...

Haha you hit the nail right on the head. Hammersmith Harrier is against 16/17 year olds voting because he doesn't believe they will vote Tory lol

by Soul Requiem Thu Dec 26, 2019 3:09 pm

Wow I bet that took some real brain power to work that out Chris_Dior.

by Muscular-mouse Fri Dec 27, 2019 2:28 am

Soul Requiem wrote:Wow I bet that took some real brain power to work that out Chris_Dior.

Not really you're very easy to read. You pretty much just say things not because you believe in it but because it is the opposite view to certain users.

I blocked your last 2 accounts because youre quite boring, you turn every civilised debate into an argument. You have a problem where you just look to try and get 1 up on certain users even if that results in you taking an extreme point of view just to go against their view. Anyway after all these years you haven't changed and thus I shall put you on ignore again so I don't have to see your childish responses.

by **navyblueshorts** Tue Dec 31, 2019 5:33 pm

lostinwales wrote:
navyblueshorts wrote:
Pr4wn wrote:Why are 16 and 17 year olds old enough to pay tax but not old enough to vote?
Agree. What was it someone once, sort of, said? No taxation without representation? Wonder what came of that...?

Depends. If you are an EU citizen you don't get any say

Strange. I missed the part where the EU set our VAT, income tax, business rates etc levels...

by **navyblueshorts** Tue Dec 31, 2019 5:34 pm

SecretFly wrote:The only reason it rises its head as a topic at all is the anger that the magic 'youth' vote didn't turn up on the day as many hoped/suspected it would do.

So let's try younger and younger to 'create' the majority most of these pages seem to support - left of centre Globalism.

Sorry, but I won't be made believe that you'd all applaud the emergence of a easily influenced far right hoard of teenagers with a vote. The topic only rises because most of you believe the 'youth' are mostly on your side....so let'em vote!

BTW, IF sixteen year olds did get a vote, what restrictions would you place on the teaching profession to ensure they could not seek to politically influence the voting intentions of the pupils under their guidance? After all, their role is to teach, not to electioneer. How can you ensure students will not be unduly -and knowingly -politically influenced by the opinions of teachers they spend long days with in a classroom?

Bad man. Shouldn't raise such contentious issues....

by TRUSSMAN66 Wed Jan 01, 2020 8:09 am

navyblueshorts wrote:
SecretFly wrote:The only reason it rises its head as a topic at all is the anger that the magic 'youth' vote didn't turn up on the day as many hoped/suspected it would do.

So let's try younger and younger to 'create' the majority most of these pages seem to support - left of centre Globalism.

Sorry, but I won't be made believe that you'd all applaud the emergence of a easily influenced far right hoard of teenagers with a vote. The topic only rises because most of you believe the 'youth' are mostly on your side....so let'em vote!

BTW, IF sixteen year olds did get a vote, what restrictions would you place on the teaching profession to ensure they could not seek to politically influence the voting intentions of the pupils under their guidance? After all, their role is to teach, not to electioneer. How can you ensure students will not be unduly -and knowingly -politically influenced by the opinions of teachers they spend long days with in a classroom?
Bad man. Shouldn't raise such contentious issues....

Wouldn't place any restrictions on Teachers.........After all we have just seen the Tories run a campaign based on lies like 'Brexit will be over at the end of January'.....'The Labour manifesto will cost 1.2 trillion'.......'Homelessness is lower than it was before 2010'.....'The minimum wage will rise to £10'....Plus lies on the NHS.....National debt.....Immigration etc..

Just seen the most Corrupt...Nasty and Dionsyian election campaign since Bush in 2004 leading to the re-election of a Narcissistic racist..

Good luck in brain washing youngsters I say...After all Factory fodder up and down the Country has been brainwashed in to thinking poor wages and poor standards of living is all the fault of Immigrants..

Very sad....But I voted Labour even if those that need a Labour Govt more than me won't help themselves..

Happy New Year by the way..

by **Dolphin Ziggler** Wed Jan 01, 2020 8:46 am

Teachers are already restricted. We are not allowed to discuss political views with the children or do anything that would influence their political leanings. I was told I wouldn’t be allowed to even do something as insignificant as having a Party sticker on the car.

by TRUSSMAN66 Wed Jan 01, 2020 9:38 am

Teachers are smart people I imagine generally... The virtues of subtlety I'm sure aren't lost on many of them..

Good luck to them if that is case

by TRUSSMAN66 Mon Jan 13, 2020 2:07 pm

So the only black Labour candidate has withdrawn from the Labour leadership race because he can't find 20 nominations out of 200 Mps...

Apparently Labour's problem is with Anti Semitism..Go figure !!

by **navyblueshorts** Mon Jan 13, 2020 5:04 pm

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:So the only black Labour candidate has withdrawn from the Labour leadership race because he can't find 20 nominations out of 200 Mps...

Apparently Labour's problem is with Anti Semitism..Go figure !!

Just maybe Lewis isn't actually that good as leadership material, or at least perceived not to be? Or MPs preferred different candidates for reasons other than colour? He's only been an MP since 2015 for Heaven's sake. Bit like Long-Bailey. If Labour think that's the way to pick a leader, they're ****ed.

Still, at least there's four women out of five, so they tick that box OK.

by TRUSSMAN66 Mon Jan 13, 2020 5:32 pm

Perhaps better for thousands of Labour Councillors...and 500,000 members of Labour to decide how good he is instead of 200 backside licking Mps more interested in seeking favour from the Winner...

....Whatever the situation freezing out the only candidate of Color isn't a good look..

by Luckless Pedestrian Mon Jan 13, 2020 5:38 pm

I'm not a fan of positive discrimination in any form. If Clive Lewis didn't have the numbers then so be it. I'd take a dim view of MPs backing an inferior politician just because he's black.

by GSC Mon Jan 13, 2020 6:24 pm

then again the membership may not be the best judge of what the electorate think

by Soul Requiem Mon Jan 13, 2020 9:15 pm

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Perhaps better for thousands of Labour Councillors...and 500,000 members of Labour to decide how good he is instead of 200 backside licking Mps more interested in seeking favour from the Winner...

....Whatever the situation freezing out the only candidate of Color isn't a good look..

There's something quite unpleasant about this post.

by Duty281 Mon Jan 13, 2020 9:32 pm

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:....Whatever the situation freezing out the only candidate of Color isn't a good look..

Leaving aside your strange obsession with the colour of people’s skin, you do know Lisa Nandy (from an ethnic minority background with an Indian father) is a leadership candidate, right?

by lfc91 Tue Jan 14, 2020 8:42 am

Unfortunately this type of thing is becoming more and more prevalent (See the recent BAFTA and Oscar nominations fiasco). Any time a black person is outperformed by a white person it has to be related to racism. Also, conveniently, if you point out that it could be down to other factors (i.e maybe one person just done a better job or is a better candidate than the other person) you must be part of the problem.

Sadly he isn't wrong about the optics though, many people will look at the situation and decide he didn't get enough nominations because he is a black man.

by lfc91 Tue Jan 14, 2020 8:52 am

Note: Obviously can't discount it as a possibility tbf.

by **navyblueshorts** Tue Jan 14, 2020 9:34 am

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Perhaps better for thousands of Labour Councillors...and 500,000 members of Labour to decide how good he is instead of 200 backside licking Mps more interested in seeking favour from the Winner...

....Whatever the situation freezing out the only candidate of Color isn't a good look..

You may have a point re. an open vote amongst the wider membership, but thems the rules of their Party. 'Freezing out' is a suggestive term. Everyone sees definite conspiracy these days, where it's almost always nothing of the sort or simply a c0ck-up.

by Soul Requiem Tue Jan 14, 2020 11:23 am

Craig is going to be happy today.

by TRUSSMAN66 Tue Jan 14, 2020 11:27 am

Duty281 wrote:
TRUSSMAN66 wrote:....Whatever the situation freezing out the only candidate of Color isn't a good look..

Leaving aside your strange obsession with the colour of people’s skin, you do know Lisa Nandy (from an ethnic minority background with an Indian father) is a leadership candidate, right?

She doesn't class herself as BAME....You know that, right ?

by TRUSSMAN66 Tue Jan 14, 2020 11:29 am

navyblueshorts wrote:
TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Perhaps better for thousands of Labour Councillors...and 500,000 members of Labour to decide how good he is instead of 200 backside licking Mps more interested in seeking favour from the Winner...

....Whatever the situation freezing out the only candidate of Color isn't a good look..
You may have a point re. an open vote amongst the wider membership, but thems the rules of their Party. 'Freezing out' is a suggestive term. Everyone sees definite conspiracy these days, where it's almost always nothing of the sort or simply a c0ck-up.

I don't know 'Everyone' and neither do you....But I'm suggesting the only leadership contender of color being kept off the ballot is not a good look considering the same MPs moaned about Corbyn being racist..

by **navyblueshorts** Tue Jan 14, 2020 12:58 pm

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:
navyblueshorts wrote:
TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Perhaps better for thousands of Labour Councillors...and 500,000 members of Labour to decide how good he is instead of 200 backside licking Mps more interested in seeking favour from the Winner...

....Whatever the situation freezing out the only candidate of Color isn't a good look..
You may have a point re. an open vote amongst the wider membership, but thems the rules of their Party. 'Freezing out' is a suggestive term. Everyone sees definite conspiracy these days, where it's almost always nothing of the sort or simply a c0ck-up.

I don't know 'Everyone' and neither do you....But I'm suggesting the only leadership contender of color being kept off the ballot is not a good look considering the same MPs moaned about Corbyn being racist..

Stop being so literal. Of course it's not literally 'everyone' who sees conspiracy.
For someone, rightly, concerned about equality etc, you need to think a little more about the language you use. Who is suggesting that Lewis was actively (as implied by your phraseology) kept off the leadership ballot?

by Duty281 Tue Jan 14, 2020 1:15 pm

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:
Duty281 wrote:
TRUSSMAN66 wrote:....Whatever the situation freezing out the only candidate of Color isn't a good look..

Leaving aside your strange obsession with the colour of people’s skin, you do know Lisa Nandy (from an ethnic minority background with an Indian father) is a leadership candidate, right?

She doesn't class herself as BAME....You know that, right ?

What on Earth are you going on about? She isn’t white, she’s mixed-race and hence is a ‘candidate of colour’.

Best look these things up before going on with your nonsensical conspiracy theories.

by Sponsored content