Scrutable

bjn wrote: Fri Jul 18, 2025 11:49 am Her words were different though, previously she call racism against jews “prejudice” as opposed to black people experiencing racism. From what I’ve read, she now calls both such forms of discrimination racism, but that it was expressed differently for different groups, especially if you were clearly a member of that group because of skin colour.

It was probably not the wisest move politically nor the best way to express what she appears to be trying to say.

Clearly, there must be a difference between racism which is about colour and other types of racism because you can see a Traveller or a Jewish person walking down the street, you don’t know.

I just think that it’s silly to try and claim that racism which is about skin colour is the same as other types of racism. I don’t know why people would say that.

The words are different, but it's essentially the same point, that there is more than one quality of racism.

It seems that she must be trying to say - and I'm afraid it does make me think of the Four Yorkshiremen - that a certain group has it harder, and so suffer more than certain others. Is that to try and say, and so we are more deserving of something? Or is it just to communicate to that group, to say, I'm on your side, vote for me?

But different groups do experience racism differently, both by type of discrimination and degree.

Anecdata.

I grew up in Australia in the 70s, I did my damndest to get into a selective school as I used to see my brother beaten up coming home from the local high school for being a “f.cking wog”, along with regularly being told to “go home to your own country” and asked “Don’t you hate being a wog and wouldn’t you like to be an Australian like me?”. It was sh.t, but better than what an Asian would experience and massively better than what an aboriginal Australian had to go through*. Those were all racism, but qualitatively and quantitatively different. Fortunately Oz is much better for most immigrants now (don’t be muslim) but marginally better for Aboriginals.


*Winding up dead in police cells after being arrested on spurious grounds covered in unexplainable bruises.

bjn wrote: Fri Jul 18, 2025 1:30 pm But different groups do experience racism differently, both by type of discrimination and degree.

I agree. Though, for a politician, finding an acceptable way of saying it, we learn, is very difficult. So if you go to the trouble, nevertheless, of saying it, then presumably you had a very good reason for wanting to make that point? You were probably not just making a random list of things you think to be true.

I remain unclear why it seemingly matters so much for Abbott to try and say it. What does she achieve, or think she achieves, by saying it?

Finding acceptable ways of saying things ties politicians up in knots, and is a reason that so many people like Trump - he doesn’t even bother to try and find acceptable ways to say things. It leads to talking in circles and like a robot. Starmer is a prime example of trying to think through every damn thing he says before he says it. It makes him wooden and unrelatable.

IvanV wrote: Fri Jul 18, 2025 2:11 pm

bjn wrote: Fri Jul 18, 2025 1:30 pm But different groups do experience racism differently, both by type of discrimination and degree.

I agree. Though, for a politician, finding an acceptable way of saying it, we learn, is very difficult. So if you go to the trouble, nevertheless, of saying it, then presumably you had a very good reason for wanting to make that point? You were probably not just making a random list of things you think to be true.

I remain unclear why it seemingly matters so much for Abbott to try and say it. What does she achieve, or think she achieves, by saying it?

She's a woman of colour. Why should anyone be surprised by her talking about racism and how she experiences it?

Stephanie wrote: Fri Jul 18, 2025 6:07 pm

IvanV wrote: Fri Jul 18, 2025 2:11 pm

bjn wrote: Fri Jul 18, 2025 1:30 pm But different groups do experience racism differently, both by type of discrimination and degree.

I agree. Though, for a politician, finding an acceptable way of saying it, we learn, is very difficult. So if you go to the trouble, nevertheless, of saying it, then presumably you had a very good reason for wanting to make that point? You were probably not just making a random list of things you think to be true.

I remain unclear why it seemingly matters so much for Abbott to try and say it. What does she achieve, or think she achieves, by saying it?

She's a woman of colour. Why should anyone be surprised by her talking about racism and how she experiences it?

It’s her talking about how other people experience racism that’s upsetting people, comparing it with her own experience.

Media talk of Starmer's damaged authority as Rayner steps down... not sure I see that myself. Seems a lot more plausible as an honest mistake than loads of Tory dodgy dealings (e.g. donations for planning approvals) but hey ho. When you support the nasty party a certain amount of shithousery is priced in, meaning the "good guys" get measured to different standards.

If Farage did something similar intentionally he's probably get lauded for it ("telling HMRC to stick it's unfair stamp duty tax up it's arse").

And the airtime Reform get is startling.

Politics seems to be in the biggest hole I can remember.

Farage has done something very similar, intentionally, and has done it legally because his wife is the owner of his constituency home. Farage also hasn’t been picking on Rayner about it, to be fair.

Surprised he moved Lammy on from Foreign Sec... would have thought it best to keep stability in that role, he seemed to be able to rub along with Vance. That seems a mistake to me.

Grumble wrote: Fri Sep 05, 2025 2:14 pm Farage has done something very similar, intentionally, and has done it legally because his wife is the owner of his constituency home. Farage also hasn’t been picking on Rayner about it, to be fair.

https://newsthump.com/2025/09/05/angela ... el-farage/

Grumble wrote: Fri Sep 05, 2025 2:14 pm Farage has done something very similar, intentionally, and has done it legally because his wife is the owner of his constituency home. Farage also hasn’t been picking on Rayner about it, to be fair.

I'm surprised to hear that she'd have chosen Clacton as her principal residence.

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/stamp-duty- ... ers-relief

TopBadger wrote: Fri Sep 05, 2025 6:13 pm

Grumble wrote: Fri Sep 05, 2025 2:14 pm Farage has done something very similar, intentionally, and has done it legally because his wife is the owner of his constituency home. Farage also hasn’t been picking on Rayner about it, to be fair.

https://newsthump.com/2025/09/05/angela ... el-farage/

The sequel is quite funny too.
https://newsthump.com/2025/09/05/angela ... to-reform/

IvanV wrote: Sat Sep 06, 2025 9:45 am The sequel is quite funny too.
https://newsthump.com/2025/09/05/angela ... to-reform/

I have no wish to defend Farage in any way, but contrary to the final line there, he does not have a German passport, nor is there any evidence that he ever applied for German citizenship. Another rumour suggests that he applied for Belgian citizenship, presumably based on the time he spent in Brussels as an MEP, but again there is no evidence.

Two of his children have German birthright citizenship through their mother. I actually saw a rabid anti-Farageist arguing that this was hypocrisy on his part ("His children are insulated from Brexit, he should have forbidden them from taking up their German nationality"). Extreme Remoaners are a thing too.

Interestingly, he would be entitled to move to many EU countries under EU Freedom of Movement with his partner, who is French. They're not married but "stable partnerships" are accepted by many countries (you can feel the ambiance in the room, particularly the awkward shuffling in their seats by the central/eastern European countries, when this was discussed by reading Article 3 section 2 of Directive 2004/38/EC), and they've been together quite a while. If they wanted to move to France then French immigration rules would apply (because of Sovrintee™), but I think the French rules are fairly OK with non-formal long-term partnerships too.

I wonder how long it will be until Starmer has to sack Mandy... I accept that knowing a criminal isn't a crime, but it's not a good look when the victims of Epstein are calling for him to go. Makes you wonder if they know something about his involvement that has yet to come to light.

That assumes that the victims aren't just going after any of the great and powerful who associated with Epstein out of malice.

The trouble is sacking Mandelson looks an awful lot like saying the UK won’t stand for sleazy behaviour, while still sucking up to Trump.

Grumble wrote: Wed Sep 10, 2025 5:14 pm The trouble is sacking Mandelson looks an awful lot like saying the UK won’t stand for sleazy behaviour, while still sucking up to Trump.

Ouch.

I think he probably should go.

TopBadger wrote: Wed Sep 10, 2025 12:43 pm I wonder how long it will be until Starmer has to sack Mandy... I accept that knowing a criminal isn't a crime, but it's not a good look when the victims of Epstein are calling for him to go. Makes you wonder if they know something about his involvement that has yet to come to light.

That assumes that the victims aren't just going after any of the great and powerful who associated with Epstein out of malice.

Given that he attempted to help Epstein after he was charged, it's not out of malice.

Turns out Mandy didn't have long at all - bad few weeks for Starmer.

What they need is to get on the front foot with policies that improve the lives of ordinary people.

November budget will be huge I think.

TopBadger wrote: Thu Sep 11, 2025 10:09 am Turns out Mandy didn't have long at all - bad few weeks for Starmer.

What we have learned about Mandy in the last few days isn't really anything we didn't already know, as Mandy himself said. And that's why he should never have been given the job.

But I suppose it's a question of how things are drawn to the attention of particular audiences, and that's why Mandy had to go now.

Similarly, what we know about Trump's misogyny is already extensive and intolerable. But the Epstein thing is drawing it to the attention of particualr audiences.

dyqik wrote: Wed Sep 10, 2025 10:38 pm Given that he attempted to help Epstein after he was charged, it's not out of malice.

Helping a friend after they're charged is one thing - maintaining a friendship after they've been convicted is another - it's the latter that has sunk Mandy and it seems that either Starmer should have known about this, or worse, did know and appointed him anyway.

This is much worse than Rayner's tax error... it leaves a huge question mark over his judgment.

TopBadger wrote: Thu Sep 11, 2025 12:11 pm

dyqik wrote: Wed Sep 10, 2025 10:38 pm Given that he attempted to help Epstein after he was charged, it's not out of malice.

Helping a friend after they're charged is one thing - maintaining a friendship after they've been convicted is another - it's the latter that has sunk Mandy and it seems that either Starmer should have known about this, or worse, did know and appointed him anyway.

This is much worse than Rayner's tax error... it leaves a huge question mark over his judgment.

It's the latter of the bolded bit. Everyone knew at the time, and just about everyone chose to ignore it, or tell us how it wasn't important.

My prediction is that more things are going to be noticed until Starmer quits.

I can't help thinking that, if someone else had been the subject of a scandal like this, Mandelson's advice would have been to sack them immediately, rather than allow them to dangle in the wind for a day or two. It's unimpressive that neither Starmer, nor Mandelson himself, were able to work out that he was going to have to go sooner or later, and that sooner was better than later.

snoozeofreason wrote: Thu Sep 11, 2025 3:08 pm I can't help thinking that, if someone else had been the subject of a scandal like this, Mandelson's advice would have been to sack them immediately, rather than allow them to dangle in the wind for a day or two. It's unimpressive that neither Starmer, nor Mandelson himself, were able to work out that he was going to have to go sooner or later, and that sooner was better than later.

Yup. Mandelson is obviously talented but a liability

So Starmer has nothing to say about the violent mess of yesterday’s far right rally. Nothing to say about far right thugs attacking police. Nothing to say about a foreign billionaire calling for the dissolution of Parliament.

Instead he’s posting on Twitter as if nothing happened.

Starting to come around to the idea it’s time for him to go.