Keir Starmer far away from Labour's metropolitan heartlands. (Photo by Finnbarr Webster/Getty Images)
![](https://unherd.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Embery-100x100.jpg)
Reports of the death of the Labour Party have usually been greatly exaggerated. After the calamity of 1931, when, with the country in the midst of a financial crisis, the party’s first Prime Minister, Ramsay MacDonald, and a handful of fellow apostates went off to join the Tories and Liberals in a national government (reducing the number of Labour MPs at the ensuing election from 287 to 52), many thought it was game over. Fourteen years later came the party’s first landslide victory.
Likewise, half a century later, this time led by the magnificent but hapless Michael Foot, Labour’s routing at the hands of a Tory leader riding a wave of popularity on the back of a war in the South Atlantic — a defeat made more crushing thanks to the SDP’s splitting of the Left vote — convinced some that there was no way back. Fourteen years after that particular catastrophe, the party stormed to its second landslide.
Prophecies of Labour’s extinction should, then, be taken with a generous dose of salt. And that applies even today, with the party still reeling from the disaster that befell it one year ago. Though Labour is wounded badly, we won’t wake up one morning to discover that it has gone out of business; its roots are — for the moment, at least – sunk too deeply into our national life for that to happen.
But there is certainly a question mark over whether Labour will remain a serious electoral force in British politics or instead become an organ of permanent protest. How that question will be answered depends on the party’s desire to win power again, and that in turn is contingent on whether it has the courage to reflect with the searing honesty demanded on why things went so badly wrong and the boldness to do what is necessary to put things right.
The first step is obvious. Labour needs to win back the trust of voters in its lost Red Wall seats. Without them, electoral redemption is a pipe dream. Every morning when he wakes, and again before he goes to sleep, Sir Keir Starmer should recite in his mind the mantra: “There is no route back to power for Labour that doesn’t pass through Don Valley.” That statement should become his personal credo.
In everything the party says and does over the next four years, it must consider how the message resonates in that former mining constituency in South Yorkshire which returned a Labour MP at every election from 1922 to 2019 and is now represented by a Conservative. That means a major shift in language and recalibration of priorities. It demands a laser-like focus on the everyday concerns of those living in our neglected post-industrial and coastal communities, and the crafting of a programme that puts those concerns front and centre.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribePaul has said all this many times before in various columns and on Triggernometry. And, of course, it is the central thesis of his book, with its excellent cover. (I believe Emily Thornberry has a framed image of the brilliant book cover hanging in every room of her various mansions).
Of course, he is correct, But I don’t see how you can appeal to Hartlepool without alienating Hampstead. To do this, Labour would have to start putting the interests of the law abiding before the interests of the criminal; the interests of the girls before the interests of the groomers and rapers; the interests of the pupils before the interests of the teachers; the interests of the British before the interests of foreigners; the interests of the workers before the interests of the skivers; the interests of small business before the interest of bureaucracy; the interests of humanity before the interests of finance; the interest of freedom before the interests of the EU;etc.
This would go against all of Labour’s most cherished beliefs and threaten the interests of all its core groups of support.
Hit the nail(s) on the head.
Labour has a choice of doing all the above, or descend further into the realm of being a perpetually unelectable identity-obsessed version of the Lib Dems.
Ah, the Lib Dems. Disappeared into the mists of irrelevance, along with that other invisible entity of the past, the SDP.
Most of Corbyn’s actual policies did just as you suggest. He did genuinely suffer from the recollections of his enthusiasms while languishing as a more or less despised back-bencher for so long through the 1984-2008 ‘wilderness years’, the perpetual internal opposition to the neoliberal elite centrists who held sway before, during and after Blair and “New Labour”.
The policies were the right ones, but the chatter about his enthusiasm for Irish Republicans, and Palestinians, got in the way. Unlike the way that opposition to apartheid didn’t seem to matter so much for Blair and Brown. I suppose it had more or less blown over as an issue before they rose to prominence?
“Chatter about his enthusiasm for the IRA…” Is thaf what it was? Really? Not disgust and condemnation?
Corbyn stands condemned for his failure to stamp out Labour’s antisemitism. His excuse for not seeing it in that mural showed an untrustworthy man without any credible leadership qualities.
And Starmer was prepared to work under him and tried to put him into power. I’m no Tory. I just can’t vote in conscience for Labour until it utterly purges itself of those of supported Corbyn. Plus its divisive identity politics. You can add Labour’s failure to deal with grooming gangs. (Edited)
All true. For myself, I’d add the impossibility of voting for Kier Starmer. He worked to put Corbyn into power and would have served under him. He said he’d respect the Referendum, then spent his time trying to overthrow it. He was very quiet about Labour’s antisemitism.
That quip “if you don’t like my principles, I have others” was made for him.
And your choice for leader would be? Let’s not live in fantasy land and think that Corbyn is gong to ushered back in again…
So far as I’m concerned, Labour are finished. I’m politically homeless.
“And your choice for leader would be?”
Paul Embery.
“But I don’t see how you can appeal to Hartlepool without alienating Hampstead.”
This is clearly the issue. Recently the Labour party has focussed mainly on Hampstead, with traditional party loyalty keeping the Hartlepool voters onside, regardless of neglect.
Now that working class voters have shown that their loyalty is conditional, the question has been turned on its head. How far can we neglect the views of “Hampstead” before they jump ship.
I actually think it would take quite a lot before Hampstead Labour could actually bring itself to vote Tory. Being left wing is a bit of a tribal marker for these people, because it really is all that divides them from the rich Tory voters they despise.
Thank you for that list Fraser, I am in total agreement; these were the concerns I heard from Labour in my student days (1970s)! But … ‘All changed, changed utterly’ no ‘terrible beauty’ has been born’ (apologies to WB Yeats). Today Labour preaches historical illiteracy, abandonment of Enlightenment values, narcissistic aggrandisement and Quisling delusion. We need a new party; one composed of honest, patriotic, rationalists which puts National security before personal posturing and easy money.
I live and vote in the Don Valley, not far from Rotherham. I learned to despise the local Labour party because of their corrupt and disgusting handling of the ‘grooming’ gangs issue (I won’t be more specific lest I get censored). Odd that this issue hasn’t been mentioned…
I’ll certainly never vote for the scumbags ever again.
It’s not a thing confined to a particular locality. Birmingham and the Black Country are just as bad. It said it all that Corbyn kicked out Sarah Champion for telling the truth – and appointed the truly ghastly Naz Shah in her stead. An appointment confirned essentially by Starmer
But hey, the WWC are history anyway, there’s no such thing as indigenous – embrace the future; grovel on a knee; cry a river over Palestine, chuck some more statues in the river, cancel Ted Hughes – wave of the future
Sorry, but what does ‘WWC’ stand for?
White Working Class
32 more Labour voters arrested yesterday in the Leeds/Kirklees area.
Rest assured, your reasons are echoed by many millions..
Well, we can’t all vote Conservative, so that’s the get-out clause for Labour.
But knee-bender Starmer is not for me, any more than his predecessor.
“Labour must also start speaking in a language that working-class communities understand.”
I’m trying to imagine Emily Thornberry speaking in a language that working-class communities understand. I wonder if Paul Embery had a smile on his face as he typed that.
Instead of kneeling for the Marxist BLM scam, Starmer should have prostrated himself – Willy Brandt style – before a Working Man’s club in the north of England or South Wales.
“and how far it is prepared to go to win back the affection of the good people of Don Valley”
A grandfather of one of the 1523 Rotherham victims – October 2018 figure supplied by police Operation Stovewood – told the ex Labour Police and Crime Commissioner Sean Wright to his face that if he had a gun he would shoot him.
If they want to get back into favour they should go and hang themselves
A good ‘to do’ list Paul..and just who is to be entrusted to embark on the task?
Starmer when hes done his diversity critical race workshop?Diane Abbot Chris Bryant Dawn Butler Lisa Nandy David Lammy A gela Rayner the chakarabati woman ?
Forget it…best to scrub the whole party and start again..with the genuinely patriotic,family oriented, common sense, economically literate, oh and fairly literate in general kind of person.
Not a big ask.
If Labour want to be elected they need to remember the first rule of politics (Learn to Count) – Lyndon Johnson I think.
How many votes do the “woke” have ? (surprisingly few) . And How many votes did you lose to other parties (literally millions).
Roughly 10m people voted labour at the last Election. Lots of Guardian readers in their, Lots of “woke” folk, many residents of Islington, but added together they dont add up to a string of beans. If you want real working people to vote for you then you need to meet their requirements. They dont want their schools hospitals and surgeries overloaded with ever increasing numbers. They used to have a better world when the Uk population (thirty years ago) was 10 million lower.
Never going to happen.
Even today Lisa nandy talks about the EU having control over us in stuff that’s nothing to do with them.
They learnt nothing and Keir starmers lip service is just plainly false.
You must remember even weeds have roots and labour is a weed in our lives.
But nice try Paul now take off the blinkers and accept labour is just rubbish
Yes, Labour gives the appearance of neglecting the main issues in favour of LGBT etc. At this point I feel like they need to go a step further and say that they are focusing on poverty and workers rights and conservative values. Voters don’t trust them anymore to prioritise these things. It would help if they didn’t have a leader who lives in north London. There is a desire for a Labour party to stand up for the working class and those in precarious jobs, but also to be proud to fight for these things.
Totally agree with Paul’s points but in order for Labour to win, it’s not just the Red Wall seats but a good number of Scottish seats too and it’s all similar issues, that have resulted in the defection to the SNP.
Paul has set out a pretty good analysis of the electoral challenge faced by Labour and it maps pretty well on to the compelling academic analysis offered by Matthew Goodwin. Both sound spot on to me. However Paul’s faith in Starmer, I believe, is misplaced. He isn’t Corbyn and he looks exactly like a Prime Minister from central casting might look. More than that he has a reputation for forensic questioning and exudes the air of cleverness. And that is where the supposed virtues end and not even all of those are clear cut virtues. He can triangulate. He can cleverly defend complex nuanced positions. If I were bang to rights guilty of some awful crime he would be the sort of chap I would hire to defend me. Everyone and their dog may know that I was guilty but he’d nit pick and dig down and make a big deal of obscure facts, cast aspersions, use the whole tool box. That’s fine for a lawyer. But the impression he gives me as a politician is as a person that I wouldn’t trust. That he’s someone going along to get along. He’ll be Corbyn’s “trusted friend and colleague” while Corbyn is facilitating antisemitism. He campaigned for Corbyn to be PM. Personally I am glad that Corbyn got his comeuppance. But Starmer slid ever so smoothly from defending Corbyn to prosecuting him. Another great lawyerly skill. But for my part and I believe for many others that just proves that Starmer is slipperier than goat snot. Now ok that might work. If we all pretend not to notice. But I expect Tory Party researchers have taken it all down and it will be used in evidence against him.
He actually paid a central role in the sinister Stasi like prosecution of multiple Murdoch journalists – Operation Elveden. Don’t like the cut of his jib one little bit.
His abject take the knee thing was an arch piece of submissive grovelling – plenty of cultural Marxists crawling in the Labour Party woodwork. The Tory Brexit debacle will quite possibly put them in the driving seat, sheer feckless folly.
This is spot on. The Tories are corrupt, venal and stupid, but they are not totalitarian like Starmer, and the Labour Party (whatever faction).
The Labour Party cannot practice tolerance within itself. Think how intolerant a Labour government will be. There’ll be more “thought crimes” and other things of that nature.
But Labour hasn’t learned a thing from its defeat. The left just doesn’t learn. This is a function of progressivism/Whig history/dialectical materialism or whatever you want to call it. Whatever you do call it, it’s the idea that there is an “arc of history” (to quote Obama) and that it bends towards justice. Invariably, this ends up meaning that it bends towards you, and you end up taking yourself as the standard of good. In that situation, it’s impossible to learn.
Yes, they’ve learned that you can’t just continue shovelling horse do-dah down people’s necks and not get it spat back in your face, but that just means you have to dilute it and feed it in, a bit at a time, from an eye dropper. They haven’t learned that what they’re shovelling continues to be horse do-dah, nor will they because, as stated above, they take themselves as the standard of good, therefore what they’re shovelling must be good.
Neither party seems to have re-built with any intelligence or style after defeats. How many tries did the Tories have before they accidentally fell upon an innocent-looking and bland Etonian like Cameron, who would just look a bit less ‘rough’ than the grumpy Gordon Brown. And thus appeal to those after a bit of posh niceness.
Truly, Starmer is more like Cameron every day. Captain mild, captain sensible.
Labour has invested heavily to corner the right-on middle class vote who jealously head their rainbow alliance.
I’m not sure how Labour can make overtures to those problematic gammons in Don Valley without risking their hard won position as racial grievance mongers-in-chief. Now that their trust has been lost, the diversity buzzwords will no longer the pass northerners unnoticed. Likewise the venal rainbow alliance is unlikely to stay loyal to a party that finds it difficult to chant the buzzwords without cult-like fervour, particularly as other identity grifters wait hungrily in the wings.
My take is that seems short-sighted to risk the future electoral hegemony of melting pot Britain by gambling to regain the trust of those demographically diminishing gammons.
The mistake there being assuming that everyone in melting-pot Britain will think the same.
Then it’s doomed. The overriding message from Labour and the left is “The UK is terrible, especially England, and anyone thinking otherwise is scum. Everything bad in the world is our fault.”
Blair, for all his many sins, understood this and part of his electoral appeal was that he projected that he felt good about the UK and its people. But unfortunately any hint of positivity about the UK from anywhere and the left just snorts and looks down its collective nose these days.
Labour must, naturally, commit to a programme designed to improve the lives of Red Wall voters in a material sense.
We may have found the problem – the fallacy that all will be right if only TopMen create a mechanism for improving the lot of the proles. Was the point to demonstrate just thoroughly the writer misunderstands the point of govt?
It is not the role of govt to “improve lives.” If it were, then govt has failed miserably. The role of govt is to efficiently manage other people’s money in delivering certain services that we apparently think are better handled through the public sector. Things like public safety, roads and bridges, the courts, and schools, not a wholesale micromanaging of every aspect of human activity.
So many observations by Paul Embery are essentially accurate in identifying why Labour has lost touch, that I find it hard to pick out one issue as more important than another. Everything is so intertwined.
Nevertheless, in response both to this well-written and well-argued article, and to the tone of some of the comments, especially Kevin Ryan’s just 25 minutes or so before mine, I find the following especially important, partly because Mr Embery expresses my own frustrations, my sense of being largely unrepresented by any major party, and partly because, living in a largely rural area, well away from any large towns, I am aware that there are countless other electors who feel the same.
In these circumstances it is hardly surprising that so many of the commenters in UnHerd show values reasonably congruent with those described by Mr Embery.
I can’t comment on Labour’s first recovery landslide as I was not born then, however the second was achieved against a weak Tory Leader with a party divided over EU and by a charismatic leader whose policy was to out Tory the Tories, but with a charming smile (great for photos with people like Jimmy Savile). Such a shame he turned out to be so venal and phoney leading us into an illegal war with dodgy dossiers. Do we really want a 3rd recovery landslide if it brings us that?
A few simple, simple tests:
1.) Do you think it is acceptable for someone to say that there is something fundamentally different between a woman and a former-man who has chosen to identify as one?
2.) Do you think children (under 16) should be barred form receiving puberty blocking drugs or other irreversible sex-change medical interventions?
3.) Do you think it was right to respect the referendum result and leave the EU?
There are doubtless a few others, but these would be a good start. Unless they answer all these with a clear, simple “yes,” Labour is not yet fit for power.
Your ‘interventionist programme’ lists all the wrong things! Its housing, schools, roads. Then its not the NHS – its A and E, waiting lists, GP services, Dying. We will vote for ANYONE who convinces us they’ll get on with the DAY JOB. You don’t even know what the day job is – like most politicians – stupid.
oh dear, oh dear, much discussion about can, but shouldn’t, divide us – race. Very little discussion about building solidarity. Rather proves Paul’s point
Paul has a point?
Sounds great in theory. It’s a tall order, though.
Paul is able to think outside the box when it comes to wokeness, Remainerism, etc., but he is same old same old in the way he instinctively places elections, constituencies, marginal seats, etc., at the centre of his ruminations about British politics. The two political turnarounds he refers to – that between 1931 and 1945 and that between 1983 (and why not 1979, which was a bigger landslide in terms of the total vote) and 1997 were each overshadowed by social changes vastly more important that psephology. In his first example, it was Churchill’s – and the British Establishment’s – acceptance of the welfare state and trade union power, rather than the accident of Labour’s electoral triumph, which changed people’s lives. In the second example, Blair’s acceptance of the Thatcherite “legacy”, based on home-ownership and the destruction of heavy industry, was the significant factor, not the fact that Blair’s spin-doctors outplayed those of the hapless Major government.
Everybody, woke or Brexiteer, has their prejudices, but it is one’s material interests rather than one’s prejudices that motivate one’s politics, or lack of politics.
After the last election a Momentum supporter said it’s not the winning that matters as long as we continue to protest then everthing is ok which if we are to be honest that is where Labour are nowadays just a party of protest and until we get some grown-up people runing
Labour that’s where they will stay
Starmer has made a policy of not having a policy. That won’t do at an election, and nothing he can put forward will satisfy the voters of both Don Valley and Islington.
Given that a no-deal Brexit will wipe 7% off regional GDP in Yorks and Humber, and 5% even if a threadbare deal is reached, telling the Leave-voting constituents of Don Valley that they in fact made the right choice is patronising, insulting and a plain abuse of the truth. Unless these voters stop blaming immigrants, or foreigners, or Europe, for regional deprivation, and start blaming Tories, I can’t see much opportunity for change.
Far from being ignored and overlooked, those voters in red wall areas actually have a very powerful grip on politics – they are over-represented politically (hence having a majority of parliamentary seats on a minority of the national vote). Far from not being listened to, they have dominated the last four years of political discourse. Meanwhile, other working and middle class voters are being treated with at best indifference, at worst, contempt – the urban poor, BAME populations, young people, public sector workers, etc.
I’m getting tired of being told that we urban Labour supporters have to listen to these red wall concerns, without any sense that this should be a two-way street. You may even consider the possibility that Don Valley constituents should listen to voters’ concerns in Southwark.
With Brexit, these voters have shit the bed, and now the whole country has to lie in it. Perhaps next time we should listen to someone else instead
I don’t understand what Paul means by returning the Bank of England to democratic control. He doesn’t mean having the Chancellor of the Exchequer make the bank rate decisions again, surely? The Bank of England now is far more restricted in its scope than other inflation-targeting central banks in the Anglosphere. The US Fed can do as it pleases. It could abandon inflation targeting tomorrow if it chose and it just decided in August to move to average inflation targeting without requiring any approval from the Treasury Department. The Bank of Canada negotiates a renewal of the inflation-control agreement every five years with the Minister of Finance, determining the target rate of inflation, changes in the core inflation measure to be used as the operational guide and so forth. The Reserve Bank of Australia and the Reserve Bank of New Zealand have similar arrangements for their inflation targeting regimes. So the Bank of England is extremely confined by comparison in having its remit for inflation targeting dictated to it by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Perhaps the Monetary Policy Committee of the Bank of England should have less, not more, democratic control.
When will you stop infantilising ‘the working class’ ? (as if that homogenous mass has existed for a very long time). When will you realise they are actors in their own fate and have some responsibility for their actions? The English working class and trade union Tory voter is as old as time, do you know how many of them voted for Maggie? Do you know how many of them haven’t bothered to vote at all until Brexit? Why do they vote for Johnson? Could it be that they prefer a lying, idle, politically incorrect womanising charlatan to someone who reminded them of a pious teacher they hated, who spoke of responsibility and homework? The nail in the coffin of Labour is Scottish nationalism and the first past the post electoral system. Still perhaps you can join the Millwall supporters on the streets on New Years day chanting ‘one world cup and two world wars’ looking forward to the Royal Navy blasting the frogs out of the channel and the north sea.
Labour will win if it takes the centre ground. The U.K. is not as working class as it used to be, and therein lies the clue.
This bigoted tirade is best considered in tandem with another Unherd article by Dan Hitchens on 8 December about Labour and christianity (q.v.) Hitchens’ argument rightly illustrates that Labour’s disgraceful failure to act on minority and lgbt issues before Blair is partly the result of its christian roots. He writes: three Labour MPs, Rebecca Long-Bailey, Rachael Maskell, and Janet Daby [are Catholic]. All three have entered Parliament in the last six years, and all three have served in the shadow cabinet, which might suggest that Labour is a welcoming place for Christians. So might Sir Keir Starmer’s recent message of thanks to the group Christians on the Left: “Within our party, you’ve set a great example of the culture we need.”
Two years ago, Amnesty International declared: “The chief, organised global campaign against equal rights, marriage equality and full adoption rights … is christianity. With Islam and Judaism, the three monotheisms represent the sole ideological underpinning of homophobic hate utterance …” Now Mr Embery tells us that “Labour activists have for too long given high priority [to lgbt issues]” Really? Have you met any Labour MPs? I spent 20 years in and out of the Labour equality campaigns and I can tell Embery that the MPs’ views reflect those of the voters who elected them and who Embery seems to accept are not interested in equality at all. He says quite openly: ‘ “equality” … mean[s] little to normal people.’ Yes, that’s right. Check it out. He actually wrote that.
And please to notice the word ‘normal’, where one is expecting ‘ordinary’. ‘Normal’ in his context means white, straight, cis, able-bodied etc.So his argument is: for god’s sake let’s get back to the good old working class Alf Garnett-style bigotry of the post-war era and then we can come to power – and to hell with the plight of minorities.
Of course he is right that PC woke madness is rife within Labour – the antics of the witchhunters (Chris Bryant, John Mann, et al) are nauseating. But throwing the baby out with the bathwater is not the answer.
” “equality” … mean[s] little to normal people.’ Yes, that’s right. Check it out. He actually wrote that.”
Nice attempt at misquoting someone. What he actually said was
“Labour must also start speaking in a language that working-class communities understand. That means talking incessantly and in plain terms about things like family, work and community, and ending the tiresome resort to buzzwords such as “diversity”, “inclusivity” and “equality”, which mean little to normal people.”
As I understand it, Paul is saying that using “equality” as a ‘buzzword’ with little substance, means little to ordinary people.
As far as I can see, we don’t disagree. And I did not misquote him.
As the calamity of a hard Brexit plays out Labour will have a path to retaking No.10 that only they can block.
“Blue Labour” is one of the blocks lying in wait.
Embry should exit the Labour Party and join Farage’s nascent Reform UK.
Scan the list of comments for a minute. Then ponder this from Unherd’s Mission Statement –
“We are not aligned with any political party, and the writers and ideas we are interested in come from both left and right traditions”. Ha!
Thank you. I have raised this issue, mentioning your comment, in my comment posted about 25 minutes after yours; and I offer a suggestion about why the comments here tend to align in the direction you imply.
I am pretty certain that it is not by design of UnHerd’s editorial staff. Rather, it is because this is one of the few places in which those described by Paul Embery (of which I am definitely one) can express their ideas, be reasonably confident that they will not inevitably be censored by ideologues, and engage in some civil discourse on such matters.
“Civil discourse” -. Very good, that’s one of the best I’ve heard here:-)
compared to leftie web sites, you bet it’s far more civil, and if you frequent those web sites, you know this too.
I’ve largely given up reading the comments on unherd because so many are rude, condescending and nasty. Can’t we use this column for generous but critical debate and discussion – including sharing wider reading etc… PLEASE?
Unherd may indeed not be aligned with any “political party” but they are clearly aligned with the policies and ideologies of the right wing with no limit on how far out on the right wing that”to date”that alignment will extend.
boo hoo.
Paul’s emphasis on culturally conservative ‘patriotic’ (code for English Nationalist) values with a large State using a lot of economic muscle and focussing on law and order, immigration and national security sounds more like right wing populism than socialism or social democracy.
If Labour successfully campaigned for a democracy in the UK parliamentary system, in the form of proportional representation, then it wouldn’t necessarily result in outright Labour victories but would likely result in governments more aligned to the values of social/cultural liberalism, inclusivity, diversity and redistributive economic policies without the worrying shadow of opposition to immigration and locking up more people.
More Labour votes went to the Greens, Lib Dems and SNP between 2017 and 2019 than went to the Conservatives. Labour won’t win those votes back by imitating the dog whistle racism of the Tories. Hostile environment, Grenfell, Windrush scandal, deportations, stop and search, longer prison sentences, pay freezes for public sector employees. All policies affecting poor people, and in particular black and brown poor people. Pursuing those policies gives some white people the feeling the Conservative Government is ‘on their side’ because the Government is kicking someone else harder than they kick them.
Labour should never go down that route to power.
Well said. As ever with Paul, there is a gaping hole in the middle of this piece. And that hole is in the shape of xenophobia and intolerance – which is in fact an insult to the ‘working class voters’ he claims to champion, many who are themselves members of minorities.
Oh do me a lemon.
His wife is of Indian descent FFS.
Dog whistle politics indeed.
I wonder what she makes of his nonsense then. The problem Paul routinely fails to recognise (or perhaps he does recognise, I’m not sure) is that if you demote concern for LGBT rights, resistance to oppression, diversity, inclusivity and equality you are implicitly promoting their opposites.
that’s nonsense. It’s almost like saying that Corbyn’s labour, by demoting working class interests, was implictly promoting their opposites. Idiotic.
You’re not and he’s not saying you should.
Care to elaborate?
It’s a reductive argument used by those who peddle Critical Social Justice Theory as a panacea.
So what is your solution (literally a panacea then!) to these issues that does not involve dealing with them specifically?
No-one’s mentioned not dealing with them.
Paul certainly doesn’t think we should give them much concern, or even think that we should talk about them with other voters! So that doesn’t suggest he’s much interested in tackling them.
He says there are issues that are higher priority for most voters and he’s right.
No. What he is arguing is that the priority given to these particular issues is too high. Why does he even think all these issues compete? Economic equality, political equality and equality of respect are indivisible.
Either Paul rejects inclusivity, diversity and equality, or he is claiming that the ‘working class’ (a very wide-ranging concept these days) don’t understand what these ideas refer to. I think he should stop being mealy-mouthed and tell us which it is.
Issues related specifically to race, orientation, gender etc are not a priority even for minorities. It is patronising and demeaning to suggest that if you’re gay, for instance, your orientation must be your preoccupation. Embery is right that Labour have been hamstrung by their obsession with identity at the expense of the macro issues that affect everyone regardless of their immutable characteristics.
‘Issues related specifically to race, orientation, gender etc are not a priority even for minorities.’
This is an equivocation. You need to say whether you believe these issues are not at the top of their concerns (I’ve already said this sort of ‘ranking’ is meaningless), or that they are of no concern to them at all. Of course the extent to which they are a concern depends on how well society is addressing them, so if we start ignoring them, they will certainly become more of a concern.
If you read the 2019 Labour manifesto you will find plenty of priority given to ‘macro’ issues. And we know that minorities frequently suffer disproportionately the consequences of these ‘macro’ issues – Covid-19 being a textbook demonstration.
I’m clearly saying that problems related to identity are a concern but not the top priority for most minorities. No-one is saying we should ignore these concerns! If identity is not Labour’s priority they need to make the message clearer. Starmer’s first act as leader was to try and win back the Jewish vote. Meanwhile there’s a deafening silence on the obscene situation we are in where 3 million people in insecure, low paid employment (many of them ethnic minorities) are getting £400 a month dole money, or risking their lives working because they’re not eligible for furlough while the middle classes put their feet up and rake in £2500 a month. And I say this as a (poor) Jew. That’s the sort of issue the Labour party should be getting involved in first and foremost.
“Issues related specifically to race, orientation, gender etc. are not a priority even for minorities.”
Precision matters in this realm. Depends what you mean by “issues related to race.” The left’s contemporary obsession with race and gender in really absurd ways is off-putting to all but a few jackasses on twitter.
The British Library’s idiocy vis-a-vis Ted Hughes is a great example. Holding Hughes accountable for stuff done by an ancestor 300 years ago is utterly stupid. It is not in the slightest< bit/i> dismissive of racism to point this out.
Another example: dismissing a guy’s girtlfriend because he said “white lives matter”.
Another: the unconscionable treatment of JK Rowling for having the temerity to suggest that maybe there’s a discussion to be had about the definition of “woman.”
The extremist positions on these topics is incredibly damaging to the Labour Party. as they are the contemporary symbol of this stuff in UK politics.
Why exactly are the Labour Party ‘the symbol of this stuff’ when in fact they have had nothing to do with it? Is that their fault or that of their dishonest opponents in the media and elsewhere?
Consider the idiotic ‘trans debate’ before the last Labour leadership election. They all dodged the fundamental question by merely uttering the empty platitude “trans rights are human rights.”
That statement is so empty, so anodyne that is can only possibly have been concocted to avoid having to face the fact that Labour is so infected with woke crap that grown-up debate is not possible.
Who kept asking this question? It seems they were the ones fixated with this issue, rather than the Labour leadership candidates. And are trans rights not human rights? What do you think they should have said?
People with gender dysphoria who have chosen to engage in sex change are still human, and so of course have human rights. And the sun rises in the East. And there are camels. These are all true. But so what? None of them address the basic, fundamental question that we expect serious politicians to be able to answer: should women be allowed to argue that they are entitled to exclude men, and former-men, from their ‘reserved spaces’? Or should advocating this position cause them to be thrown out of the party?
Has anyone been thrown of the Labour Party for this? Whose decision would/should it be if they were?
Go back and look at the debate and the position papers the candidates were being asked to sign.
Do you recall the infamous “pledge”?
I’m clearly saying that problems related to identity are a concern but not the top priority for most minorities. No-one is saying we should ignore these concerns! If identity is not Labour’s priority they need to make the message clearer. Starmer’s first act as leader was to fight anti-Semitism in the Labour party: aka win back the Jewish vote. Meanwhile there’s a deafening silence on the obscene situation we are in where 3 million people in insecure, low paid employment (many of them ethnic minorities) are getting £400 a month dole money, or risking their lives working because they’re not eligible for furlough while the middle classes put their feet up and rake in £2500 a month. And I say this as a (poor) Jew. That’s the sort of issue the Labour party should be getting involved in first and foremost.
I’m clearly saying that problems related to identity are a concern but not the top priority for most minorities. No-one is saying we should ignore these concerns! If identity is not Labour’s priority they need to make the message clearer. Starmer’s first act as leader was to address anti-semitism in the Labour party: aka win back the Jewish vote. Meanwhile there’s a deafening silence on the obscene situation we are in where 3 million people in insecure, low paid employment (many of them ethnic minorities) are getting £400 a month dole money, or risking their lives working because they’re not eligible for furlough while the middle classes put their feet up and rake in £2500 a month. And I say this as a (poor) Jew. That’s the sort of issue the Labour party should be getting involved in first and foremost.
I’m not sure how much clearer Labour could have made it that their concerns extended to all poorly-paid and insecure workers. It’s certainly there in that manifesto – have you read it? But the media have been much more interested in painting the whole party as anti-semitic. Rightly or wrongly, Starmer has responded to that problem
And rightly or wrongly, the public perception is that Labour have become stuck in the quagmire that is identity politics, at the expense of everything else. The ball’s in their court.
That’s true up to a point – although it isn’t just Labour that is stuck in this ‘quagmire’, as the anti-semitism issue demonstrates. But accepting xenophobic and intolerant attitudes (tacitly or otherwise) is not the correct response.
I’m clearly saying that problems related to identity are a concern but not the top priority for most minorities. No-one is saying we should ignore these concerns! If identity is not Labour’s priority they need to make the message clearer. Starmer’s first act as leader was to address anti-semitism in the Labour party: aka win back the Jewish vote. Meanwhile there’s a deafening silence on the obscene situation we are in where 3 million people in insecure, low paid employment (many of them ethnic minorities) are getting £400 a month dole money, or risking their lives working because they’re not eligible for furlough while the middle classes put their feet up and rake in £2500 a month. And I say this as a (poor) Jew. That’s the sort of issue the Labour party should be getting involved in first and foremost.
It’s a reductive argument used by those who peddle Critical Social Justice as a panacea.
classic example of why it’s asking the impossible of Labour politicians and activists to do what think they ought to. They can’t. They’re wedded to the causes that British working people (and most others) don’t care much about.
Paul Embery might be better spending his time explaining why the workforce of the London Fire Brigade is only 15% minority ethnic while the population of London that it supposedly serves is 55% minority ethnic. White British firefighters like Paul Embery were unconcerned about the people living in Grenfell Tower and all of us ethnic minorities in London because they largely live in the “white flight” commuter towns around London for reasons that we know too well. Despite the clear findings of the Grenfell Tower Inquiry in relation to the “systematic failings” of the London Fire Brigade and the obvious incompetence of its leadership, Paul Embery has stubbornly persisted in blaming everyone else. After all, it’s not for us minorities to expect that white British people overrepresented in public sector sinecures would actually do the jobs that immigrant taxes pay them to do.
The thing about the Grenfell Fire was that its occurrence was the product exclusively of white British incompetence – in the London Fire Brigade, in Kensington & Chelsea Council members and senior management, in the refurishment contractor Rydon, in rigid foam board maker Celotex. Every single person involved was white British. But almost all of those who died in the fire were ethnic minorities. When Paul Embery says “equality” means little to normal people, what he really means is that white British people like him don’t want to hear that our lives matter as much as theirs. Believe me, the way him and his colleagues do their jobs, we are well aware of that.
www cream-migration org/files/FiscalEJ pdf
^ dots instead of spaces
Here is UCL research showing was that non-EEA migrants took out around £95 billion more in services than they had paid in in taxes between 1995″“2011.
In your defence, the research does find that between 2001-2011 migrants from the EEA contributed around £22 billion into the UK economy. (Still net negative)
But then of course there’s the brilliant slight of hand that every salaried diversity officer and inclusivity programme (including those paid for by taxes) is counted as wealth created by immigrants. And then of course these ‘wealth generators’ get their taxes tallied back into the contributions.
But hey, whatever helps you grievance monger with a clear conscience. Stick it to that whitey Embery, he certainly deserves it.
“The thing about the Grenfell Fire was that its occurrence was the product exclusively of white English incompetence…”
there, fixed it for you.
I thought there was incompetence but it had nothing to with race. More to do with class ie poor people being housed in what has been shown to be sub standard.
w w w cream-migration org/files/FiscalEJ pdf
^ dots instead of spaces
Here is UCL research showing that non-EEA migrants took out around £95 billion more in services than they had paid in in taxes between 1995″“2011.
In your defence, the research does find that between 2001-2011 migrants from the EEA contributed around £22 billion into the UK economy. (Still net negative)
But then of course there’s the brilliant slight of hand that every salaried diversity officer and inclusivity programme (including those paid for by taxes) is counted as wealth created by immigrants. And then of course these ‘wealth generators’ get their taxes tallied back into the contributions.
But hey, whatever helps you grievance monger with a clear conscience. And keep on sticking it to that white devil Embery, he certainly deserves it.
and of course you discount the wealth accumulated by the British Empire off the backs of these immigrants’ home nations that were the wealth creators of England.
Hahaha, good one mate.
The empire was a demonstrable cost to the British taxpayer.
In 1870 contribution of the empire to the British economy was 1.1%,
This contribution peaked in 1913 at 3.3%.
‘Foreign Investment and Empire, 1860-1914’ by Michael Edelstein.
In the same period around 37% of tax receipts were spent on defence of the empire.
‘The Costs and Benefits of British Imperialism, 1846-1914’ by Patrick O’Brien
In 1870 that’s:
£1.3bn income from empire
£2.6bn expenditure on empire (in today’s money)
The wealth of the empire was made through in industrial innovation (inventing things like stainless steel, mauveine and trains, you know, those big things with wheels that make the choo-choo noise?) and selling these industrial goods to the people of the empire and the rest of the world (and offering finance to other countries).
The sad truth is the historical humiliation that wounds minorities so deeply and which they value so highly was worth about 5% of what we annually spend on transport.
Presumably somebody got rich from the Empire? Quite willing to believe it wasn’t the State. Then, as now, the rich, individuals and corporations, avoid paying taxes.
if not for prevarication, mendacity and lies you and yours would have nothing to say…
How much money did Britain take away from India? About $45 trillion in 173 years, says top economist
https://www.businesstoday.i…
please do continue…
Well they certainly getting it all back now aren’t they? In troves I’d say; Treasure troves actually
you would say many things nary a single one fact based.
How much money did Britain take away from India? About $45 trillion in 173 years, says top economist
https://www.businesstoday.i…
It would be interesting to know how much of the £95 billion was spent in London.
What you write is economically illiterate.
First, net contribution to the exchequer and net contribution to the economy are not the same thing but you are using the two concepts as if they are.
Secondly, you do not recognise that the average person in the UK takes out more in services than they pay in taxes. The UK has been running a net budget deficit more or less permanently for decades. So the real comparison is not whether a group of people are net contributors to the exchequer but where the net contribution/deficit of that group of people stands relative to others. Immigrants may be net beneficiaries but the question is whether they are larger or smaller net beneficiaries than non-immigrants. You do not address that.
Thirdly, there’s the question as to whether the supposed benefits are really benefits at all. The public sector in this country is stuffed full of people who can’t do what they are supposedly paid to – with the London Fire Brigade (remember “systemic failings”) being a perfect example.
The biggest grievance mongers around are white British like you and Paul Embery – always blaming everyone else for their own failures.
Your post is an obscene insult to the firefighters who risked their lives and witnessed things more horrific than you can begin to imagine, in an effort to save the lives of human beings.
You have shoe horned a lot of pigmentation in there. I would through experience, suggest that having a low income and insisting on living in a location like Kensington as opposed to the cheaper, less criminogenic outer boroughs will bring unwanted outcomes. Financially struggling month to month will be one. Poor accommodation will be another. And being part of the perverse property situation in central London will put you at real risk. Despite these obvious facts blaming courageous fire fighters demonstrates how far London centric thinking has fallen.
Rob – if you want to scrutinize something and condemn it then do so by all means. Globalization and its impact would be a good place to focus. But Fire Fighters probably aren’t a good place to invest your anger with the tragedy of Grenfell.
The Grenfell Enquiry found “systematic failings” in the way the London Fire Brigade prepared for, and handled, the Grenfell Tower fire. But according to you we should ignore those findings and not attribute any blame to “courageous fire fighters”. Instead, we should attribute the Grenfell Tower fire to the higher level of crime in “Kensington as opposed to the cheaper, less criminogenic outer boroughs” even though nobody has suggested any connection between the Grenfell Fire and crime levels. I don’t think I’ve ever seen a better example of victim-blaming. I wonder why it was worth having the Grenfell Enquiry when white British people like you and Paul Embery don’t want to accept its findings.
I’m not white Rob. I’m mixed, Caribbean and Scots.
But seriously, its fantastically easy for the establishment to craft an Enquiry, blame an institution that wears a uniform (usually working class men & women) and ensure nobody looks at the real drivers behind woeful accommodation like Grenfell. The high rise in London( and elsewhere) isn’t fit for purpose but house building just isn’t taking place in any meaningful way (just high net worth new builds for the foreign wealthy – gold bricks) so as a result high rise like Grenfell keep being utilised when they shouldn’t. Who in Govt is acting on behalf of those house builders, who has a secondary ‘non-executive’ job working for them? That is where this problem truly starts, I suspect its where it could be resolved. Not with pointing at Bill the fire fighter.
Have you “worn a uniform” in the past? Is the nonsense you’re spouting here basically affinity bias on your part.
The Grenfell enquiry was a judge-led enquiry and it found what it found about the . Any unbiased person who heard the Dany Cotton, then head of the London Fire Brigade, give testimony and say she would do the same things over again knew she was not up to much. Eventually she resigned. I’m certain that she never lived in a tower block in central London.
That’s what my point was – if you have unrepresentative public services then they cannot serve the public. That’s not an affirmative action point. It’s actually the same point as those who say it is not good to have hospitals and GP surgeries in areas that are 95% white British staffed by people who are 90% ethnic minority. If those providing public services are divorced from the public they are serving they cannot do their job.
Rob – I get that your passionate but applying skin pigmentation to an aging high rise fire and bypassing the multiple weather factors, corporate culture failings, human responses, lack of maintenance oversight, a moody construction industry, an abscence of high grade fire fighting machinery, extreme variables and a whole host of other actions is a bit of a leap. People at Grenfell didn’t die because of their skin colour mate. They died because of the nature of big money. It doesn’t care. It would rather risk lives then expand overheads and reduce profits. The enquiry was always going to roll it down hill. In the main I feel thats what enquires are for. Positioning blame away from the actual source.
Its not about race mate, I can promise you that.
Why don’t you answer my question? I get the strong feeling that you have been in army, police or similar. You don’t want to knowledge the failings of these services that are stuffed to the gills with poorly performing white British and fail to recruit a representative workforce. In the case of London it’s very apparent to those of us who live here that the majority of police and fire brigade members live on the other side of the M25 and have little or no identification with us and our communities.
So why don’t “your” people get jobs as firefighters, police, etc.? I’m sure there are well-paid jobs with prospects, but they do call for commitment.
I was in the scouts as it goes 🙂
You must know very little peace Rob. Being on an island genetically populated by Celts, Anglo Saxons and Angles (in the main) and necky mixed race people like myself. In sum your generally surrounded by inept white people who have the gall to live outside the M25. Horrid.
Seriously, going forward it would be advantageous if we could consider that the many issues in play, such as Grenfell are about money and haves & have nots.
Wealth controls power. It corrupts it. Buys it.
Politics is greatly exposed to big corporate money and their interests. Especially House Builders. And he who pays the piper calls the tune. Once we can rally round that understanding we will be better placed to understand the challenge and see something done about it.
There was not a lot of point in the Grenfell Enquiry, because we all knew it would be The Government’s Fault. Do you not remember David Lammy complaining about the elderly white man appointed as chairman of the enquiry? he said “Whose side is he going to be on?”
The courageous firefighters were not the ones calling the shots, you fool.
Who do you think was calling the shots in how the Grenfell fire was handled if not the London Fire Brigade?
Not the ones that went into the building!
But maybe the ones who were phoning people and telling them to stay in their flats so they could be incinerated.
Classic British dicing and slicing the whole organisation structure so nobody has any responsibility. It wasn’t the firefighters on the scene who could not organise ladders. It wasn’t the firefighters phoning people in their flats telling them to stay in situ to be incinerated. It wasn’t the firefighters that should have shown up at Grenfell but failed to do so. Nobody in the London Fire Brigade has any responsibility. They’re all heroes. No criticism permitted.
I suppose the charge of The Light Brigade was the soldiers’ fault too.
Regardless of what lead to the fire, the fire brigade management let Grenfell residents die and have brought shame to their staff and institution. They acted like coward jobsworth bureaucrats and have shown no contrition. They did follow the rules though.
I doubt the vast majority of the residents of GT paid any taxes to the UK coffers in their entire time in this country….or ever would have come to that Not that I’d wish any of them ill under any circumstance I must add but let’s get things into perspective eh?
What’s interesting about this comment is that one can make the same point about those in the “left-behind”/”Red Wall” places in England that Paul Embery writes about. They have their benefits subsidised.
On a tax/spending basis the biggest net contributor among English regions is London. London is also 55% ethnic minority. In fact if you plot English regions on a graph where one axis is ethnic minority share and the other axis is net contribution/deficit the correlation shows that higher ethnic minority share of population corresponds with higher net contribution to taxes.
What that is to do with Grenfell Tower fire and the failures involved, I have no idea.
Because you want your fireman to have been born and brought up in London, and , when he was recruited, London wasn’t that ethnically diverse. Stop projecting today back 20, 30 years, and inventing stupid complaints
What you write is simply untrue. The London Fire Brigade is not full of firemen who have 20-30 years service. The average duration of service of acting firemen is under 10 years. The figure for 55% ethnic minority share of London population comes from the 2011 census, so already 6 years before the Grenfell Fire – it will certainly be a higher figure in the 2021 census (if that goes ahead). In the 2001 census over 40% of Londoners were ethnic minority. The idea that 15% ethnic minority fire brigade is any way representative is nonsense.
First time posting here, but your comments Rob are extraordinary and worth a rebuttal. Perhaps representation in the obvious and absolute fashion you suggest is a silly notion. Maybe a whole host of reasons are at play that mean demographics pertaining to identity won’t always be reflected precisely, or much at all, in certain occupations, organisations etc.
Perhaps the intersection of white, British and male is the locus of an unusually high degree of bravery, physical prowess and fellow-feeling that leads inevitably to a career in the fire service.
I, and I’m sure a great many others commenting on here, could do the thinking for you, Rob, but can you truly not think of, say, five perfectly sound reasons why London firefighters tend to be white and male that isn’t indicative of institutional racism or some other perceived oppression?
I have not mentioned institutional racism, perceived oppression or maleness. Frankly, firefighting needs a decent amount of brawn and I think anyone who wants 50/50 male/female firefighters is putting ideology ahead of lives.
However, there is hubris or worse in your statement “the intersection of white, British [and male] is the locus of an unusually high degree of bravery, physical prowess and fellow-feeling that leads inevitably to a career in the fire service” White British ethnics do not have a greater average physical strength than other ethnicities in London. I see plenty of south Asians (e.g. Sikhs), white Europeans (e.g. Polish), black African doing heavy labour on construction sites and in other dangerous dirty jobs. Still much of the road building labour is done by Irish for historical reasons. Bravery is not a trait I associate with the white British and I’d love you to show your empirical evidence.
As regards the reasons why there is such overrepresentation of white British among London firefighters I would say lack of ambition is one reason. The job does not pay particularly well and probably suits those who have inherited property or council housing and don’t need to make the money that those of us from immigrant backgrounds do. In a response to another commenter I noted:
“The truth is that recruitment efforts by the Met and the London Fire Brigade are directed at white flight towns. I live in central London and the only time I have seen a billboard poster ad (or any ad) recruiting for the Met was at East Grinstead station. The low pay for the Met and the London Fire Brigade is part of the problem. Educated ethnics like me in London can get much better paid jobs. The pay should go up and the numbers should go down a little. We should restore the station houses and provide subsidised housing to policemen. It’s ridiculous that London taxes are subsidising overinflated public sector pay in the rest of the country.”
It is a bad situation when most of the police and firefighters working in London do not live in London and do not live in communities that look like London. If you have unrepresentative public services then they cannot serve the public well. As I noted in a response to another poster, that’s not an affirmative action point. It’s actually the same point as those who say it is not good to have hospitals and GP surgeries in areas that are 95% white British staffed by people who are 90% ethnic minority. If those providing public services are divorced from the public they are serving there will be problems. I already see this in the NHS.
Ironically, I’m making the point that Paul Embery should be making. The problem is that he’s not really a communitarian. He’s just interested in propagating white British identity politics.
I really cannot believe there would have been any difference in the Grenfell tragedy had their been a mixture of ethnicities more involved in the decision making process that lead up to it, you may be angry about the tragedy but it’s no excuse for racism.
Classic white British response alleging racism when someone points out the failings of white British people. You can believe what you like but you believing something does not make it true.
I know one thing for sure – that if a 85% ethnic minority fire brigade had been guilty of “systemic failings” that resulted in 72 white British people dying in a fire there would be Paul Embery and the usual suspects bleating about the failings of affirmative action, etc.
It is racist of you Rob to say the Grenfell tragedy happened because of “white people”, you simply cannot know if the outcome would have been different had the colour of peoples skin been any different, I get that you have bought in to the “victim mentality” culture and use this to view the world around you but it’s lead you to racism.
“The thing about the Grenfell Fire was that its occurrence was the product exclusively of white British incompetence – in the London Fire Brigade, in Kensington & Chelsea Council members and senior management, in the refurishment contractor Rydon, in rigid foam board maker Celotex. Every single person involved was white British.”
What I wrote is a factual statement.
You are occupying exactly the same territory as those who say it is racist that the large majority of terrorist attacks in the UK over the past fifteen years have been by people who are of south Asian ethnicity. You are saying that stating facts is racist.
If you want to see “victim mentality” culture keep reading Paul Embery’s pieces.
Sorry Rob, you can’t explain it away “white British incompetence”, by your standards it would be perfectly ok to describe the the poor performance of most African governments as due to black incompetence, so yes it is racist not a statement of fact.
Your comment bob is nonsense. Repeating a stupid point just makes it more stupid. White British people messed up and ethnic minorities died. That is a fact. If you find it racist to say that fact, so be it. I have no more time for the snowflakes of the right than I do for the snowflakes of the left.
I would never consider myself a snowflake Rob but racism needs to be called out, insulting behaviour won’t change that.
White lies matter
Who rattled your cage?
Maybe that’s because illegal acts committed by elements of the 55% far outweigh a £30k a year job fighting fires or dont possess the necessary qualifications to pass the aptitude tests. Dealing in drugs and stabby shooty turf wars dont produce the calibre or character needed to become employable by the London Fire and rescue service. Although you could argue for targeted employment and make a law that the LFRS must consist of 55% non whites. Good luck with that one – innit.
Do you have any evidence that Londoners who are members of ethnic minorities are more likely to commit illegal acts than those who are white British? No, you don’t, so don’t made idle speculation in comments. We know that both the police and the army have had to reduce the requirements for new joiners to allow those who have criminal convictions to join, and almost all of those joining are white British.
Do you have any evidence that drug dealing and stabbing are more common among ethnic minorities in London than among white British in London? Why mention only drug dealing and stabbing and not other criminal offences.
We know the calibre and character of those in the London Fire Brigade currently. The finding of the Grenfell enquiry was “systematic failings”. You don’t seem to understand this.
If you have children who are minors please post your full name so that I can report you to social services so that they can take your children away from you and have them put into care. Someone with your low IQ and nonsensical prejudice should not have children in their care.
What have dumb low skilled London criminals incapable of joining a semi disciplined got to do with how I look after my children?
Keep up the good work Rob. What next? Racist?? White supremacist? Fascist? xenophobic little Englander?
What acceptance criteria should the police and fire service drop to in order to recruit from the 55% of non white Londoners? 24 teeth? 2 arms 2 legs? Able to write X in the box?
Why do you think that 55% of police and firefighters arent non white? Please, dont reply because of institutional racism. That hoary old chestnut has been played to death.
From the ONS Rob. 55% of non white Londoners committed two thirds of all knife crime.
The claim seems to refer to data on knife crime in London only, not the country as a whole. In 2017 two thirds of knife crime offenders under 25 in London were black or minority ethnic, according to the Mayor of London’s Office for Policing and Crime.
Across England and Wales in 2017, 38% of knife possession convictions among under 25s were convictions of youths who self-defined as an ethnic minority, according to data from the Ministry of Justice.
First, “ethnic minority” is not the same as “non-white”. More than 20% of us in London are white and ethnic minority.
Secondly, in the 2011 census 55% of Londoners were ethnic minority. The percentage in 2017 is likely higher – closer to 60%. However, the percentage of Londoners that are ethnic minority is not the same as the percentage of Londoners aged say 14-24 that are ethnic minority. We know that in London ethnic minority percentage is higher among younger age groups than among say the over 65s, certainly up at the 66% level. (I pick 14-24 on the basis that relatively few offenders would be under 14).
So two thirds of knife crime offenders under 25 in London being black or minority ethnic means no material overrepresentation of ethnic minorities among knife crime offenders under the age of 25.
That’s before we even factor in other things such as police and criminal justice bias against ethnic minorities (including white ethnic minorities).
I reiterate. You are too low IQ to be able to care adequately for children.
Its a great hobby horse you ride Rob. Just using the minutiae of the available statistics to prove that 66% of non white Londoners commit 66% of the knife crime proves the point somewhat. How do LFB and Police recruit from such hopeless and useless candidates? I hear your white man bad Rob. As for my children. All grown up, University educated and all working in well paid employment. I wager your shoe size exceeds your IQ.
You may have little to do Rob than bang your white man bad drum but I have business to attend to. Someone has to contribute to the £1 billion Grenfell Tower rebuilding programme and ensure all the Grenfell survivors are housed in one of the most expensive real estate in the world.
They manage to recruit plenty of useless white British ones – the ones who left 72 people to die in Grenfell Tower.
Dear Rob, I hate to be the one to break this difficult news to you but you are a racist. You are making sweeping generalisations about a whole section of people based on nothing more than the colour of their skin. While I’m breaking difficult news to you, I may as well add that your position also makes you a hypocrite, since you seem to be trying to promote an anti-racist stance. I’m afraid you are failing if that is your intention. One doesn’t overcome anti-BAME racism by adopting anti-white racism.
Dear Julia.
Please extract the generalisation that you claim I have made.
The Grenfell Fire was caused by the negligence and errors of white British people. The Grenfell Fire resulted in the deaths of ethnic minority people died. Those are the fact. There was a televised enquiry about it.
The workforce of the London Fire Brigade is only 15% minority ethnic while the population of London that it supposedly serves is 55% minority ethnic. Those are statistical facts. Do you understand the difference between statistics and generalisations?
I hate to break it to you, but you made a really stupid and patronising comment that suggests you are low IQ and poorly educated.
Dear Rob, I am the second person you have suggested has a low IQ. I am educated to degree level (Government, Essex University), thank you for your concern. There is no need to resort to insults.
Now, I suggest you go back over your earlier comment and re-read it carefully. You’ve made three frankly racist statements about white people. 1) White British firefighters are unconcerned…
2) Every single person concerned was white British…
3) White British people like him don’t want to hear that our lives matter as much as theirs.
Please explain how these generalisations are not racist.
I’m afraid I don’t consider a government degree from Essex university much of an education.
(1) Yes, white British firefighters like Paul Embery were unconcerned about the people living in Grenfell Tower. We know that because the Grenfell Enquiry found “systemic failings” on the part of the 85% white British London Fire Brigade including its white British head, Dany Cotton.
(2) The Grenfell Enquiry was held, evidence was taken, we all saw the ethnic background of those involved who gave evidence – in the London Fire Brigade, in Kensington & Chelsea Council members and senior management, in the refurishment contractor Rydon, in rigid foam board maker Celote. They were white British. The enquiry has found them culpable. What bit of this is so difficult for you to process?
(3) It’s very obvious from the comments on my comment that many white British people don’t believe that ethnic minority lives matter as much as theirs. My statement, even as you quote it, was very clear in referring to a subset of white British people, i.e. white British people like Paul Embery.
Celotex’s criminal declaration that their cladding was safe was because they’re white? You’re a special kind of deluded.
Your point about the ethnic make-up of the LFB is moot. The rest of your post would be more welcome on Stormfront than on here. Same mindset.
Thanks for dealing with this.
I work in commercial property and cannot agree with your final paragraph Blair’s Government took most of the responsibility for Fire nspections and Fire Engineering away from The Fire Officer within England’s Fire Brigades in 2003/4. This was after the Tories had diluted and semi privatised building control in England both of which led directly to this catastrophe.
The issues with composite cladding containing “Celotex”were known about after a massive warehouse fire in the USA in the late 1980s. My experience in commercial situations occupiers avoid such cladding because their insurers limit cover by high excesses and higher premiums if “celotex” is used. The blunt truth is that under the old building control and Fire Officer Certificates regime this would never have happened.
Thank you for your comment. If responsibility for fire inspections and fire engineering was taken away from the fire brigades to whom was it given?
I do not see what bearing your comment has on what I said regarding Kensington & Chelsea Council members and senior management, in the refurishment contractor Rydon, in rigid foam board maker Celotex.
I also do not see what bearing your comment has on what I have said regarding the London Fire Brigade. The Grenfell Enquiry found “sytematic failings” in how the London Fire Brigade dealt with the fire and evacuation once it started. It was very obvious from the evidence given to the Enquiry and the tapes played of the recorded 999 calls that the issues I have noted played a big role in the London Fire Brigades failings.
Your post is an obscene insult to the firefighters who risked their lives and witnessed things more horrific than you can begin to imagine, in an effort to save the lives of human beings.
The Grenfell Enquiry found “systematic failings” in the performance of the London Fire Brigade in respect of how it handled the Grenfell Fire. What’s the point in having an enquiry when so many people like you are so bigoted that you cannot even acknowledge its findings?
The London Fire Brigade were negligent and 72 people died. Even more insanely, the overpromoted head of the London Fire Brigade Dany Cotton said she would do the same thing all over again.
If my taxes are going to pay for the London Fire Brigade I damn well want it to do the job it is paid to do. They didn’t at Grenfell and if people like you have your way they won’t the next time either.
What is it you don’t understand about the difference between the officers calling the shots and the firefighters on the front line? The London Fire Brigade chiefs might have been negligent but firefighters broke the rules and risked their lives to save people. And you have the audacity to call others stupid.