Jeremy Corbyn

[lemonjelly]

It’s a tweet. The disturbing thing is so many pick up on a reversal of words, when the meaning is obvious, rather than the issue.

Exactly. Surely the bigger issue is the fact that fuck all has moved on since grenfell. The majority of survivors will spend christmas/new year in temporary accommodation. And social housing around the country is still dangerous and underfunded.

But a black labour woman with a health condition struggles with twitter. Big news.

 

[FrankMunro-371]

At least someone in the Labour Party is prepared to stand up to Momentum.

A constituency Labour Party chair has resigned in protest at “bullying” and “corruption” by Corbynistas who she claimed rigged a candidate selection. Kay Dickinson, who was in charge of Morecambe and Lunesdale CLP, announced her resignation on social media in a explosive post tearing into increasing hard-left influence within the party. Dickinson wrote:

“I hereby resign from being Chair of my CLP, resign from the CLP and resign from the Labour Party. Morecambe and Lunesdale have just had the most set up, one sided and biased selection that has sidelined all 3 excellent, loyal and dedicated local candidates…

“I feel this entire process has been a total set up to impose one particular candidate onto the CLP.

“One candidate felt so bullied and degraded by the harassment she felt subjected to that she withdrew from the selection…

“The Labour Party… is still a corrupt old boys club where people in power get to dictate who stands for Parliament…

“I know that I will be far from the only member to feel this way and withdraw their support from the local and/or national party. I would urge anyone doing so to state their reason in writing to the powers that be. I for one will not be party to this corruption.”

 

[Tredman]

What's the source article Frank?

 

[FrankMunro-371]

https://order-order.com/2017/12/19/clp-chair-resigns-accusing-labour-bullying-corruption/

 

[Tony Towner]

My MP Chris Williamson has resigned from the Labour front bench so that he can speak more openly. Upset Jezza by saying some houses should have their council tax bills doubled.

 

[Johnny75]

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/labour-inv...-white-people-more-attend-party-event-1656254

Surely this is racist? At the very worst it is blatant discrimination and illegal.

TL: DR - A Labour Party rally where Corbyn is speaking is charging white members £10 more to attend than ethnic minority members. This is wrong on every scale and shows what a disgusting mess the Labour Party is becoming.

 

[The Saturday Boy]

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/labour-inv...-white-people-more-attend-party-event-1656254

Surely this is racist? At the very worst it is blatant discrimination and illegal.

TL: DR - A Labour Party rally where Corbyn is speaking is charging white members £10 more to attend than ethnic minority members. This is wrong on every scale and shows what a disgusting mess the Labour Party is becoming.

It is positive action and it is lawful under the Equality Act. The MP who is complaining about it is a member of the party that was in government when the Equality Act came in.

Positive action is lawful if it can be shown that it "enables or encourages people who share a protected characteristic to participate in an activity in which their participation is disproportionately low." So as long as it can be shown that historically BAME participation is disproportionately low at events like this it is legal and legitimate. I believe young people are also being charged less.

The Resolution Foundation found, in research from last year, that BAME families earn upto £8900 per year less than their white British counterparts.

Austerity/spending cuts also has a disproportionate impact on BAME according to many reports.

So we have a group of people who share the same characteristics, who reports show have less disposable income than their white counterparts and are likely to be disproportionately represented at events like this....and they are offered an incentive to attend and it has been criticised by a Tory MP, Andrew Bridgen, who while an MP was paid over £7000 per month by his own firm for 6 hour work a month while at the same time calling for a pay increase for MPs.

 

[Johnny75]

It is positive action and it is lawful under the Equality Act. The MP who is complaining about it is a member of the party that was in government when the Equality Act came in.

Positive action is lawful if it can be shown that it "enables or encourages people who share a protected characteristic to participate in an activity in which their participation is disproportionately low." So as long as it can be shown that historically BAME participation is disproportionately low at events like this it is legal and legitimate. I believe young people are also being charged less.

The Resolution Foundation found, in research from last year, that BAME families earn upto £8900 per year less than their white British counterparts.

Austerity/spending cuts also has a disproportionate impact on BAME according to many reports.

So we have a group of people who share the same characteristics, who reports show have less disposable income than their white counterparts and are likely to be disproportionately represented at events like this....and they are offered an incentive to attend and it has been criticised by a Tory MP, Andrew Bridgen, who while an MP was paid over £7000 per month by his own firm for 6 hour work a month while at the same time calling for a pay increase for MPs.

Now I understand, it's the MP's fault for pointing out the clear discrimination against people of a different race.

So do the rich BAME attendees have to declare themselves? Those above a certain income threshold perhaps? Or what about the white working class people that live in poverty/ low income and Labour historically are supposed to represent, why are they being discriminated against. And white disabled folks who are demonised by this government, where is their concession?

I'm not sure the Equal Rights legislation was meant for this sort of use and hiding behind it is pretty disgraceful and I'm glad the Equalities commission are looking at this. It certainly isn't a positive thing to do for the Labour Party.

 

[The Saturday Boy]

Now I understand, it's the MP's fault for pointing out the clear discrimination against people of a different race.

So do the rich BAME attendees have to declare themselves? Those above a certain income threshold perhaps? Or what about the white working class people that live in poverty/ low income and Labour historically are supposed to represent, why are they being discriminated against. And white disabled folks who are demonised by this government, where is their concession?

I'm not sure the Equal Rights legislation was meant for this sort of use and hiding behind it is pretty disgraceful and I'm glad the Equalities commission are looking at this. It certainly isn't a positive thing to do for the Labour Party.

It's not racist. It's not illegal. It's not Equal Rights legislation, it is Equality legislation.

Your initial outrage and subsequent reply are reasons why we need it.

 

[Johnny75]

It's not racist. It's not illegal. It's not Equal Rights legislation, it is Equality legislation.

Your initial outrage and subsequent reply are reasons why we need it.

In what way?

How is it a positive thing to discriminate against a group of people? It isn't a job or chance to do something that historically one section of society were excluded from doing it is a speech where anybody could attend in much the same way anybody can attend a football match.

If Labour really wanted to get people of low income in they would have made it free.

 

[The Saturday Boy]

In what way?

Because it provides a rational framework in which equality of opportunity can be pursued in a civilised society. The Equality Act is not perfect but at least it recognises in law that there are groups in our society that are disadvantaged and do not have the same opportunities as others. This enables services providers and employers to take limited (by law) action to address those inequalities of opportunity should they wish to do so knowing that despite the usual rhetoric they will enjoy the protection of the law to pursue their legitimate aims.

Disabled people are disadvantaged in the labour market. They are under represented in the workplace and experience pay inequality. Some employers decide that they will guarantee an interview to anyone who has a disability. This is positive action. It is enabled in law because disability in law is a protected characteristic. Race is also a protected characteristic so employers could, if they can demonstrate that BAME are under represented, offer BAME candidates a guaranteed interview.

The Labour Party want to encourage greater participation of BAME (and young people) so are offering a reduced rate.

To not be in breach of the law, the measure must be to address a disadvantage or where there is a disproportionately low level of participation. The measure aims to overcome that disadvantage and/or low level of participation. And any positive action has to be a proportionate means to address any inequality of opportunity.

Or it's racist against white people even though it isn't. Up to you to decide where you stand.

 

[Johnny75]

So it is the Labour Party hiding behind the legislation as I can't see any research which prevents/ historically restricts people of any ethnicity of being unable to attend a speech.

Unless of course you can prove otherwise.

I think it's immoral that a party supposedly representing the working classes who would, I imagine, struggle with seeing the leader of this party for the same price as watching a Premier League game. It does puzzle me that the Labour Party have charged that much money for tickets and did not charge everybody £30.

Top work from a morally bankrupt party of the people (allegedly).

I don't expect you to agree TSB but thanks for the post on equality.

 

[Tony Towner]

So it is the Labour Party hiding behind the legislation as I can't see any research which prevents/ historically restricts people of any ethnicity of being unable to attend a speech.

+1 it's indefensible. If they charged based on ability to pay in the same way as schools make judgements on lunch, trips etc then fair enough. If the report is accurate then doing so based purely on the colour of your skin stinks. Inclusivity isn't brought about by a gerrymandered price hierarchy.

 

[The Saturday Boy]

+1 it's indefensible. If they charged based on ability to pay in the same way as schools make judgements on lunch, trips etc then fair enough. If the report is accurate then doing so based purely on the colour of your skin stinks. Inclusivity isn't brought about by a gerrymandered price hierarchy.

Except in law it is defensible. Do you think the Equality Act is racist? Or sexist? Or any other -ist.

I get that people don’t agree, I don’t get the hysteria. No white person is harmed. A white person can, with their own mind, decide for themselves whether it is fair...or just too expensive. I did a quick google search, first page on this issue was Brietbart, Daily Mail and various other right wing outlets generally expressing their ire over something that has no material impact on them other than it panders to the white people are victims agenda. Bunch of snowflakes.

 

[YoungWolf]

I don't get why people are angry? What is wrong with trying to encourage people from BAME backgrounds to attend? Why is there no anger at young people paying less too?

And why do people get angry when they think white people are being disadvantaged but are never in this much uproar at other equality issues? Funny that.

 

[Langers]

I don't get why people are angry? What is wrong with trying to encourage people from BAME backgrounds to attend? Why is there no anger at young people paying less too?

And why do people get angry when they think white people are being disadvantaged but are never in this much uproar at other equality issues? Funny that.

Indeed. Don't understand the uproar - it seems rather misplaced. And I'm far from happy with the Labour party at the moment.

 

[Johnny75]

I don't get why people are angry? What is wrong with trying to encourage people from BAME backgrounds to attend? Why is there no anger at young people paying less too?

And why do people get angry when they think white people are being disadvantaged but are never in this much uproar at other equality issues? Funny that.

I didn't know ticket price based on somebody's ethnicity was a morally acceptable thing to do. I guess you and I have a different moral compass. And particularly by an organisation that purports to be for the working classes.

Hiding behind legislation and if you dare to disagree you're inferred as a racist. If your last sentence is aimed at me then you're bang out of order and should apologise.

Edit: To address your young person line, this is a well trotted out excuse but fails to address youth concessions in society are normal. Concessions based on ethnicity are not.

You could argue Labour are buying votes and I find that morally repugnant.

 

[YoungWolf]

:icon_lol:

My last sentence was 'funny that', but I assume you mean the one before that. No, it wasn't aimed at any individual, I see lots of posts on twitter, even had a message from a Tory uni friendon this issue, who are upset about this but never get upset when it is the other way round. As I said - funny that.

I also think your second sentence is bang out of order and you should apologise.

 

[Penk Wolf]

I don't get why people are angry? What is wrong with trying to encourage people from BAME backgrounds to attend? Why is there no anger at young people paying less too?

And why do people get angry when they think white people are being disadvantaged but are never in this much uproar at other equality issues? Funny that.

I think the difference is that encouraging BAME is very blatant and more noticeable, where discrimination against isn’t blatant or noticeable.

Concession for younger and older people is there in all walks of life.

 

[YoungWolf]

The Resolution Foundation found, in research from last year, that BAME families earn upto £8900 per year less than their white British counterparts.

.

Shouldn't this be what we are really in uproar about? And this is not exactly news either is it. Yet we are more concerned about making a fucking speech more accessible for people from minority backgrounds. And then people say there is no issue.