advertisement


Keir Starmer sacks RL-B

I didn't say they did; I said 'Given the conflict between R-LB's views on abortion and those of many in the party she sought to lead' there were likely to be difficulties. That was exactly the problem with Tim Farron's views when he was LibDem leader; his views on LGBT issues may well have been unproblematic had he been leader of the Tories.
Am I going mad here? There was no conflict! The idea that there was was a confection, one that depended on the assumption that political positions follow from religious beliefs, and which played to old but ever-present forms of British bigotry.
 
I should maybe leave this alone,

I tried to give you all an easy exit from this - Sean's correct about the first post as I tried to explain to WE, WE dug a bit of a further hole and has since apologised, I think. The rest is a distinct and separate argument - it has f*ck all to do with Starmer's latest misjudgment. Nevertheless, Sean is still correct and the debate is perfectly valid - it's about determining who is oppressed and who is the oppressor, much like anything else, and the all important context.
 
I should maybe leave this alone, but something makes me want to prod it with a stick as I’m an atheist, and that’s kind of what we do. First off I’m just not buying the ‘Irish thing’, and it’s not the first time you’ve tried to attack someone here with that (Andrew P the other week where you managed to read something into his username that was clearly not there). Ireland, like much of the world, is blighted by religious division, but so what? What is unique about that? It is not a one-religion dictatorship, and one would sincerely hope atheism/agnosticism was well on the rise now anyway. Also this is just religion, a belief set, it is not racism the way anti-Semitism is. A Catholic is not a race.

Now, if we have an MP who aligns firmly with a given religion (I’ve no idea if RL-B does or not, and I don’t want this to be about her) it is fair to question them on some of the beliefs and behaviours of that religion and how their beliefs relate to their ministerial role. As stated upthread Tim Farron, an otherwise highly likeable chap, was found wanting here. The Catholic Church stands very firmly against woman’s rights, it is anti-contraception, it is anti-abortion, and it has a longstanding reputation of covering up the most hideous institutional child abuse going back pretty much forever. It was endemic. It is also a hugely wealthy and elitist institution that I’d have expected those on the far-left to be rather critical of, especially given the way it uses that wealth to conceal and buy-out its abuse victims.

To be honest I want to take RL-B out of this particular post as I actually had no idea she was a Catholic or even religious, and it certainly doesn’t make me dislike her, though I would like to see her answer a few of the above questions. This is not about her, it is about your reaction to what I read as a benign comment.

My point is really what your issue is as a) Ireland/NI is a multi-faith country, and b) the Catholic Church is a bit whiffy by most left/liberal/civil-rights standards. What exactly did I get wrong here? Genuinely curious. If I’m out of line I’ll happily apologise.
Tony if you are genuinely curious you'll be able to figure this out yourself. Start by saying "a Catholic is not a race" out loud a few times and see if you remind yourself of anyone.

I really regret bringing this up and should just have let it go. Definitely letting it go now.
 
I should maybe leave this alone, but something makes me want to prod it with a stick as I’m an atheist, and that’s kind of what we do. First off I’m just not buying the ‘Irish thing’, and it’s not the first time you’ve tried to attack someone here with that (Andrew P the other week where you managed to read something into his username that was clearly not there). Ireland, like much of the world, is blighted by religious division, but so what? What is unique about that? It is not a one-religion dictatorship, and one would sincerely hope atheism/agnosticism was well on the rise now anyway. Also this is just religion, a belief set, it is not racism the way anti-Semitism is. A Catholic is not a race.

Now, if we have an MP who aligns firmly with a given religion (I’ve no idea if RL-B does or not, and I don’t want this to be about her) it is fair to question them on some of the beliefs and behaviours of that religion and how their beliefs relate to their ministerial role. As stated upthread Tim Farron, an otherwise highly likeable chap, was found wanting here. The Catholic Church stands very firmly against woman’s rights, it is anti-contraception, it is anti-abortion, and it has a longstanding reputation of covering up the most hideous institutional child abuse going back pretty much forever. It was endemic. It is also a hugely wealthy and elitist institution that I’d have expected those on the far-left to be rather critical of, especially given the way it uses that wealth to conceal and buy-out its abuse victims.

To be honest I want to take RL-B out of this particular post as I actually had no idea she was a Catholic or even religious, and it certainly doesn’t make me dislike her, though I would like to see her answer a few of the above questions. This is not about her, it is about your reaction to what I read as a benign comment.

My point is really what your issue is as a) Ireland/NI is a multi-faith country, and b) the Catholic Church is a bit whiffy by most left/liberal/civil-rights standards. What exactly did I get wrong here? Genuinely curious. If I’m out of line I’ll happily apologise.

"Ireland, like much of the world, is blighted by religious division," Ireland is not blighted by religious division. You probably mean NI, as later you tie them together with an oblique sign but that, as things stand, is equally incorrect. NI is as different from Ireland as Scotland is from England.

I agree being prejudiced against Catholics is not racism, but it is still bigotry and needs to be opposed in the same way as racism. You can and should call out the Catholic Church on a number of issues, but just as working for the Daily Telegraph etc or buying it doesn't define you a rabid rightwinger, being a practising Catholic doesn't mean you accept its views on everything. When it is so acceptable and easy to denigrate religion in general I feel respect for any thinking person who can find enough faith to maintain their religion.
 
Tony if you are genuinely curious you'll be able to figure this out yourself. Start by saying "a Catholic is not a race" out loud a few times and see if you remind yourself of anyone.

As a person of Irish descent am I somehow required by birth to turn a blind eye the authoritarianism, sexism, homophobia and systemic child abuse of a religion that has ruined the lives of so many people in that country (and others)? Really? That somehow makes me Tommy Yaxley-Racist?!
 
This is a good detailed account of the real reason RLB was sacked:

https://tribunemag.co.uk/2020/06/how-keir-starmer-sabotaged-rebecca-long-bailey

I think it's right that Starmer gave RLB the Education portfolio because it's high profile enough to appease the left, but not central to his immediate objectives. Unfortunately, the pandemic changed all that and led to growing tension between Starmer and RLB. I don't agree with every single point of emphasis in the article but as a description of how that tension escalated, I believe the article is essentially correct. And like I said before, if Starmer had sacked her for this, I would have accepted the decision, while disagreeing with it.

Stepping back, I have little hope that Starmer will offer even the mildest challenge to the status quo. I hope I'm wrong, but I can't think of anything he's said or done since becoming leader that suggests I am. Yet with climate change, automation, pandemics, and a chronically weak global economy progressive new ideas are more important than ever. Without them, the inexorable slide to nationalism, xenophobia and worse will continue, whether Labour win the next election or not.
 
Stepping back, I have little hope that Starmer will offer even the mildest challenge to the status quo. I hope I'm wrong, but I can't think of anything he's said or done since becoming leader that suggests I am. Yet with climate change, automation, pandemics, and a chronically weak global economy progressive new ideas are more important than ever. Without them, the inexorable slide to nationalism, xenophobia and worse will continue, whether Labour win the next election or not.
Now we don't know Starmer's position but if he intended to go to war against the vested interests that have destabilised our society how would he go about it? Would he work to get elected by being attractive to the large wavering centre? Tick. Would he move to put the unelectable hard left element back in their box? Tick. Would he keep quiet about intending to go to war in order to avoiding unleashing the full resources of those currently sucking the life out of our country while he is in opposition and lacks the power a government would possess. Tick. Etc...

At the moment we simply lack the evidence to know if he is Blair mark 2, what the country requires to fix our society or something somewhere between the two. In a perverse way the fact RLB has been dismissed for stated reasons (rather than real ones) that don't seem reasonable (the punishment does not fit the stated crime) suggests he might have more of an eye on the big picture. We simply don't know yet but if he keeps on the present course he will continue gaining the power needed to be in a position to start fixing things. Early days but he is doing better than I expected and the hard left have put up less of a fight than I expected. If there was an election tomorrow I would vote labour rather than spoiling my ballot which seemed the only reasonable option last time given none of the parties were anywhere near close to being supportable.
 
It seems my comment triggered you (which probably explains why it hasn't been withdrawn). I didn't know calling someone lightweight = hatred of women. It is possible to be critical of someone without it being about their identity.

Not in their eyes - try criticising Dianne Abbott and see what happens.
 
Yes I have my opinion, but I’ve set out very clearly the external evidence basis of my opinion that RLB is very far from being a lightweight politician. Your opinion appears to be based on nothing but internal prejudice.

Perhaps she suffers from the auld it’s really difficult to have real gravitas before you’re 50 syndrome.

This was one of the criticisms levelled at her during the leadership campaign.
 
There are some dangerous assumptions being made, just because someone is Catholic doesn’t mean they are automatically anti-abortion or against wider emancipation.

People often take a view on which bits of their chosen religion they follow, this often evolves over their lifetime.

I have no idea what RLBs views are on a variety of subjects & would never make assumptions based upon her religion.
 
This is a good detailed account of the real reason RLB was sacked:

https://tribunemag.co.uk/2020/06/how-keir-starmer-sabotaged-rebecca-long-bailey

I think it's right that Starmer gave RLB the Education portfolio because it's high profile enough to appease the left, but not central to his immediate objectives. Unfortunately, the pandemic changed all that and led to growing tension between Starmer and RLB. I don't agree with every single point of emphasis in the article but as a description of how that tension escalated, I believe the article is essentially correct. And like I said before, if Starmer had sacked her for this, I would have accepted the decision, while disagreeing with it.

Stepping back, I have little hope that Starmer will offer even the mildest challenge to the status quo. I hope I'm wrong, but I can't think of anything he's said or done since becoming leader that suggests I am. Yet with climate change, automation, pandemics, and a chronically weak global economy progressive new ideas are more important than ever. Without them, the inexorable slide to nationalism, xenophobia and worse will continue, whether Labour win the next election or not.
That is an excellent article. It weaves together several known threads into an unpleasant picture. If that picture is correct then the real reason RLB was sacked was for her unequivocal support for the teaching unions. Starmer it seems, wants to distance himself further away from the unions and closer to the other side. On the issue of coronavirus and schools, the unions and RLB have been proven correct. The government U turn on re opening schools was not down to the unions or RLB, it was down to a decision by the majority of heads that it was just not possible within the government’s 2 metre rule.

The government was clearly trying to achieve a political objective with obvious potential risks, while being able to transfer those risk onto schools. That is, if anything did go wrong, government could blame schools for breaking the impossible 2 meter rule.

The Tories did something similar over Easter by asking schools to stay open ‘where possible’. As a consequence many heads told teachers they ‘had’ to work over Easter when in fact they don’t. The government has neatly pressurised teachers into giving up yet more of their own time to work for free while sidestepping any responsibility for their decision. If government had said teachers ‘had’ to work over Easter, they’d have found themselves in court, by delaying the decision to individual heads, and comeback would lie with them

Starmer appears to be on the side of Government against the teachers, the unions and a mass of eminently sensible evidence, while RLB was on the side of basic worker rights, basic health and safety, and basic common sense.

All things I would’ve hoped any Labour Party would stand up for with a sense of pride.

A Labour Party that sees getting to power by being just like those in power is a Labour Party that has lost its way
 
This is a good detailed account of the real reason RLB was sacked:

https://tribunemag.co.uk/2020/06/how-keir-starmer-sabotaged-rebecca-long-bailey

I think it's right that Starmer gave RLB the Education portfolio because it's high profile enough to appease the left, but not central to his immediate objectives. Unfortunately, the pandemic changed all that and led to growing tension between Starmer and RLB. I don't agree with every single point of emphasis in the article but as a description of how that tension escalated, I believe the article is essentially correct. And like I said before, if Starmer had sacked her for this, I would have accepted the decision, while disagreeing with it.

Stepping back, I have little hope that Starmer will offer even the mildest challenge to the status quo. I hope I'm wrong, but I can't think of anything he's said or done since becoming leader that suggests I am. Yet with climate change, automation, pandemics, and a chronically weak global economy progressive new ideas are more important than ever. Without them, the inexorable slide to nationalism, xenophobia and worse will continue, whether Labour win the next election or not.

Says it all about Starmer that education isn't his top priority, nevermind high on the list.

There's also a word of warning to those on this list who have repeated the libel like Tory parrots - "The accusation that she defended an “antisemitic conspiracy theory” is entirely without basis. In fact, it is probably actionable."
 
Not in their eyes - try criticising Dianne Abbott and see what happens.

From the Guardian:

Tellingly, she [Peake] admitted to having made an “assumption”, a habit all too common on the far left: a readiness to assume that if there’s evil afoot...
 
From the Guardian:

Tellingly, she [Peake] admitted to having made an “assumption”, a habit all too common on the far left: a readiness to assume that if there’s evil afoot...

This isn’t about AS. This is a case of AS being used to achieve the political end of getting rid of a rival who’s view on a vital area of party policy, differs from that of the leader
 
Me and Maxine on the naughty step.
If only I'd Googled it instead of just assuming eh?
"I am Catholic and I have no doubt that my Catholic education instilled the moral values in me to care and look after the people around me, as we all should. It was a vital part of my spiritual and moral journey growing up and that is why I now send my child to a catholic school so that he can also have that spiritual support and guidance from our community as he grows up."
https://www.thetablet.co.uk/news/12345/rebecca-long-bailey-my-faith-keeps-me-going-
 


advertisement


Back
Top