Discussion in 'Speaker's Corner' started by BowdonUK, Dec 14, 2019.
Interesting shadow cabinet they are putting together - overall some fairly competent people.
The one that really grinds my gears (as it links fake news and education) is the post that does the rounds every so often about the removal of the holocaust from the National Curriculum because it offends Muslims.
I've had a to call out a number of friends for sharing it on Facebook and even one of my friend's dad — considering his daughter is the assistant head of a secondary school, you would have thought that he would check with her before posting such drivel but you'd be mistaken.
Back on topic:
Ed Miliband rises like a phoenix from the ashes — I wonder if he will bring his rock with him.
I'm just relieved someone with sanity who also has a grasp on reality has been appointed leader. Had RLB won then I fear this would have been the end for Labour. As it stands they still have a mountain to climb. The only fly in the ointment is the appointment of David Lammy as shadow justice secretary. The man appears to be barking and to me at least sports a massive racial chip on his shoulder.
Got to wonder how much influence Lammy will actually have though with Starmer as leader and Lord Falconer as Shadow AG. Wouldn't surprise me if he's mainly there to keep the pressure on over Windrush.
He still owes me an owl.
I'm not sure of the case you're meaning?
I'm all for letting anyone speak on anything. It's not like they are changing laws.
I think being challenged by unconventional views starts conversations and debates by everyone who hears it.
I'm sure for every one person that expresses a view 10 (or more) people think about it, or have questions about it. So for them to see their thought heard and then challenged in public I think can be a good education.
It’s absolutely pathetic. It is deluded to even think this cabinet has any competence whatsoever. The party is heading on a downward spiral even lower than it is now.
Plus there will be much fuss from the hard left side and momentum. Party will implode itself. It’s to far gone full loon to ever recover.
Compared to the alternatives, especially within Labour, there is a relative level of competence there. The state of politics and leadership in this country is woeful whatever party, etc. you look at currently.
(Certainly wouldn't be my pick but it is towards the least worst of a bad bunch).
The overall was inserted there for a reason as well
I would agree to the point of Wrong Daily. She was up and round the bend.
But the last election was more to Labour than a defeat. It was a signal that the way the politics and ideas is moving does not appeal to many people. The ideology is too far gone. Labour needed centralising. This cabinet is still very left wing. With people like Rayner and Nandy those wild ideologists still exists in the party. Which will only continue their current popularity and Un electability.
I am against extremists trying to rewrite history.
There is a difference between 'unconventional views', 'rewriting history' and revisionism. The Germans were bureaucrats and kept details of people they killed. In the latter stages when they moved inmates out of the way of advancing Soviet troops some might have been missed but the total are broadly agreed.
Only if the reason is a legitimate query. Most people's queries can easily be solved on the internet. Everything is out there.
At least Diane Abbott’s son won’t have to worry about be lifted by the Met anytime soon.
Yeah scratch my back I’ll scratch yours etc ...
You're never going to vote for them anyway and will look for any reason to justify it, that's my assumption from your history so far, that's fine, but I feel it's that sort of mess that's made the opposition what it is and ultimately damaging the Tories as they don't need to try anymore.
There was a conservative focus group that asked people who voted Tories in those heartlands last year what they thought of the leadership contenders, Lisa Nandy was unanimously the favourite with Keir pleasing about half the group and so having her in the cabinet was always going to happen.
You're obviously free to disagree with her politics (I certainly do), but she has support out there that is not insignificant.
I noticed Thornberry is back in the cabinet.
Emily Thornberry appointed as shadow international trade secretary
I'm not sure why he picked her. She has no support in the party, as demonstrated by being eliminated first.
There seems to be a clique when it comes to picking cabinet positions. Starmer should have given some of the other MP's a go.
And never mind that the charges against Savile weren't pressed in 2008, before Starmer ever became DPP.
I think the problem on that subject is that society has accepted a no questioned asked mind set, which immediately makes any subject taboo and leaves a gap for people like Irving to come in and provide a narrative.
I think if a proper history was argued instead of a politically correct weak view was put forward then people like Irving and others would be in a very weak position themselves.. As a young man I had many questions that were never answered by the mainstream taught position. I only got those answers when I grew up and balanced the argument on what is reasonable. I think if I had been taught in school the conclusions that I came to in later life then the mainstream view would be a lot stronger.
While questions go unanswered certain groups on the left and right have become obsessively cultish about it.
I'm of the belief that arguments, points of view, can only stand if the majority respects them. No platforming is a short term solution with long term consequences. If a view is never challenged, yet more and more questions go unanswered then the view, whether right or wrong, will fall.
It was one of the appointments I was most pleased to see. I have a lot of time for Thornberry.
Once something has been argued over for years and a concensus reached based on the evidence that is not a 'no questioned asked mindset' and it does not leave a gap for any reputable person. It is just cranks and extremists who for their own political goals or mindset refuse to acknowledge the work of many people by offering little or no evidence to rebutt the consensus.
Your idea of 'political correct' seems to be facts you do not like due to your own political leaning.
No platforming is a weapon to remove the ideas of cranks or as Thatcher said 'do not give them the oxygen of publicity'.
Separate names with a comma.