old labour mps to be put out to seed

[butchersapron]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4530293.stm

The relevant figures are above. Four Muslim MPs in total. 'If elected in numbers in proportion to their presence in society, there should be 20 Muslim MPs.' The Lib Dems now have no black or asian MPs.

Have you ever heard the term 'Parliamentary Cretinism'?

 

[rebel warrior]

Have you ever heard the term 'Parliamentary Cretinism'?

Are you talking to me or Pickmans (who started the thread)?

 

[Pickman's model]

Have you ever heard the term 'Parliamentary Cretinism'?

you could usefully have omitted the word "parliamentary" from yr criticism of rw.

 

[Pickman's model]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4530293.stm

The relevant figures are above. Four Muslim MPs in total. 'If elected in numbers in proportion to their presence in society, there should be 20 Muslim MPs.' The Lib Dems now have no black or asian MPs.

How is Respect institutionally racist? Because we show solidarity to Palestine?

because they've claimed to be mainstream. and you've above asserted that all the mainstream parties are institutionally racist. therefore...

 

[butchersapron]

Are you talking to me or Pickmans (who started the thread)?

You. My quoting of your previous post above mine was an indication of this. So have you? What do you think of the idea?

 

[Pickman's model]

has rebel scarpered - again?

 

[poster342002]

has rebel scarpered - again?

I think it takes a while for the latest instructions to cross all those light years between Earth and the Dalek-homeworld, Skaro.

 

[rebel warrior]

I think Pickmans is clearly suffering from both Parliamentary Cretinism and a deep unrequited love for George Galloway.

I do not think it is 'Parliamentary Cretinism' to point out that black and asian people are not being politically represented adequately under capitalist democracy. And it is not 'Parliamentary cretinism' to note that the three mainstream parties all avoid picking Muslim candidates where possible because they are institutionally racist.

What is 'Parliamentary cretinism' however, is to defend the mainstream parties record on these matters and to defend the fact that there are so few minority MPs in Parliament on the spurious grounds that it is not somehow of relevance to the struggle for socialism.

 

[Pickman's model]

I think Pickmans is clearly suffering from both Parliamentary Cretinism and a deep unrequited love for George Galloway.

I do not think it is 'Parliamentary Cretinism' to point out that black and asian people are not being politically represented adequately under capitalist democracy. And it is not 'Parliamentary cretinism' to note that the three mainstream parties all avoid picking Muslim candidates where possible because they are institutionally racist.

What is 'Parliamentary cretinism' however, is to defend the mainstream parties record on these matters and to defend the fact that there are so few minority MPs in Parliament on the spurious grounds that it is not somehow of relevance to the struggle for socialism.

1. you say that the mainstream parties are institutionally racist.

2. senior officers - and members - of the ruc have described the ruc as a mainstream party.

3. therefore - following yr argument - the ruc is institutionally racist.

4. why do you apparently demur from selma jacobs' assertion that the ruc is mainstream? is it not mainstream enough for you?

 

[poster342002]

I do not think it is 'Parliamentary Cretinism' to point out that black and asian people are not being politically represented adequately under capitalist democracy.

So capitalism is democratic, now!

Silly me - thinking it was a faceless, authoritarian, undemocratic, oligarchical, kleptocratic mercantileocracy.

 

[butchersapron]

I think Pickmans is clearly suffering from both Parliamentary Cretinism and a deep unrequited love for George Galloway.

I do not think it is 'Parliamentary Cretinism' to point out that black and asian people are not being politically represented adequately under capitalist democracy. And it is not 'Parliamentary cretinism' to note that the three mainstream parties all avoid picking Muslim candidates where possible because they are institutionally racist.

What is 'Parliamentary cretinism' however, is to defend the mainstream parties record on these matters and to defend the fact that there are so few minority MPs in Parliament on the spurious grounds that it is not somehow of relevance to the struggle for socialism.

I presume you can point out exactly where any poster has done this?

 

[rebel warrior]

As poster 342002 noted 'Any chance of crowbarring the issue of socialism or the working class into a political discussion on the state of politics in the UK, though?'

Which implies that pointing out the racism of the three big parties is somehow irrelevant to either socialism or the working class...

 

[Pickman's model]

rw

the indian parliament is composed almost exclusively - perhaps exclusively, even - of asian people. please could you explain why india is not a socialist country.

 

[Pickman's model]

As poster 342002 noted 'Any chance of crowbarring the issue of socialism or the working class into a political discussion on the state of politics in the UK, though?'

Which implies that pointing out the racism of the three big parties is somehow irrelevant to either socialism or the working class...

you still seem at odds with the ruc hierarchs...

i wonder what they'll make of yr off-message comments.

 

[butchersapron]

As poster 342002 noted 'Any chance of crowbarring the issue of socialism or the working class into a political discussion on the state of politics in the UK, though?'

Which implies that pointing out the racism of the three big parties is somehow irrelevant to either socialism or the working class...

So that's another 'no' then.

 

[Sorry.]

As poster 342002 noted 'Any chance of crowbarring the issue of socialism or the working class into a political discussion on the state of politics in the UK, though?'

Which implies that pointing out the racism of the three big parties is somehow irrelevant to either socialism or the working class...

I'd like an explanation of how institutional racism functions in the 3 big parties, rather than just an assertion that this is the case. Particularly given the subject matter of the thread - the determination of the Labour hierarchy to artifically install a higher quotient of non-white MPs.

 

[Louis MacNeice]

How many working class MPs are there and which parties do they belong to?

Louis Mac

 

[poster342002]

the determination of the Labour hierarchy to artifically install a higher quotient of non-white MPs.

I think this is a means of installing purely on-message MPs. The use of predominantly non-white ones will enable any opposition to this to be dismissed as "racist". A ploy that RW is only to happy to give succour to, it would appear.

 

[exosculate]

How many working class MPs are there and which parties do they belong to?

Louis Mac

None - at a guess.

Definition of working class maybe required however.

 

[exosculate]

I think this is a means of installing purely on-message MPs. The use of predominantly non-white ones will enable any opposition to this to be dismissed as "racist". A ploy that RW is only to happy to give succour to, it would appear.

Is there any chance of some 'off message' black MPs - a la Bernie Grant.

 

[poster342002]

None - at a guess.

Definition of working class maybe required however.

The trots will probably next be insisting that everyone bar the Queen is working class (and they're probably working on that one. They'll call them "worker royals" or "workers in ermine" or "workers in crowns" or something ).

The mainstream parties and media deny the existance of class conflict by insisting the working classes are middle class. The trots, in effect, do the same by insisting the middle class are working class.

 

[rebel warrior]

I'd like an explanation of how institutional racism functions in the 3 big parties, rather than just an assertion that this is the case. Particularly given the subject matter of the thread - the determination of the Labour hierarchy to artifically install a higher quotient of non-white MPs.

What Labour and the other main parties are doing is rather like what the Police or armed services are doing - trying to recruit more non-white members - they have to do it because they are so unrepresentative in the first place.

How many MPs are there? 646. Only 15 are non white. That is a fucking massive indictment of institutionalised racism among the three main parties if I ever saw one.

Now of course because this is New Labour they are going to want to replace 'old labour' MPs with fresh faced Blairites. But that doesn't mean New Labour are not still institutionally racist - it just means they are institutionally control freaks too.

 

[poster342002]

Is there any chance of some 'off message' black MPs - a la Bernie Grant.

I doubt there's a chance of any new "off-message" MPs, full stop. This will be the final clear-out of those few that remain.

 

[Sorry.]

What Labour and the other main parties are doing is rather like what the Police or armed services are doing - trying to recruit more non-white members - they have to do it because they are so unrepresentative in the first place.

How many MPs are there? 646. Only 15 are non white. That is a fucking massive indictment of institutionalised racism among the three main parties if I ever saw one.

Now of course because this is New Labour they are going to want to replace 'old labour' MPs with fresh faced Blairites. But that doesn't mean New Labour are not still institutionally racist - it just means they are institutionally control freaks too.

I would like an explanation why rw, a little political analysis! Not just an assertion that this is so. An institution is not racist purely because it doesn't fulfil the correct ratio of non-whites. There has to be a mechanism by which it discriminates on the basis of race.

The recruitment of 'on-message' minority candidates suggests that the main concern of the government is the message, not the race of who's delivering it, at the very least surely?

 

[exosculate]

I doubt there's a chance of any new "off-message" MPs, full stop. This will be the final clear-out of those few that remain.

Well if it alienates more people from the Labour Party - so be it!

 

[In Bloom]

working class MPs

Shirley a contradiction in terms?

 

[exosculate]

I would like an explanation why rw, a little political analysis! Not just an assertion that this is so. An institution is not racist purely because it doesn't fulfil the correct ratio of non-whites. There has to be a mechanism by which it discriminates on the basis of race.

The recruitment of 'on-message' minority candidates suggests that the main concern of the government is the message, not the race of who's delivering it, at the very least surely?

Of course - goes without saying.

I fail to see how recruiting more middle class black MPs will make race relations more harmonious - or the lives of working class blacks and whites any better.

 

[Sorry.]

Shirley a contradiction in terms?

I'd say that what we're looking at here is how the Labour Party discrimates in the process of candidate selection. So you'd be looking at the immediate background of candidates upon selection and what the selection criteria was.

IME, nowadays I would suggest university educated, middle-class, professional are all far higher up the list than white (in fact I would suspect white is on very few of these lists).

 

[In Bloom]

I'd say that what we're looking at here is how the Labour Party discrimates in the process of candidate selection. So you'd be looking at the immediate background of candidates upon selection and what the selection criteria was.

Fair point.

 

[butchersapron]

I'd say that what we're looking at here is how the Labour Party discrimates in the process of candidate selection. So you'd be looking at the immediate background of candidates upon selection and what the selection criteria was.

IME, nowadays I would suggest university educated, middle-class, professional are all far higher up the list than white (in fact I would suspect white is on very few of these lists).

In terms of the Laboutr party, that's pretty much always been the case as regards candidates, selection etc - what's interesting is that this now extends to general membership as well.