The really scandalous thing about the bogus Labour leaflet is not that it contained falsehoods, but that it didn’t.
It said nothing inaccurate about Labour’s beliefs, views, or opinions. Starmer was proud to take the knee – the photo of him doing so was no fake. Labour is indeed a woke, racist party now.
That fake’s power, and its cleverness, arise from the fact that it said out loud these things Labour believes, but does not want to talk about and does not want voters to remember as they go into the polling booth.
The government will be coming after every one of those insane, malignant beliefs come the next GE, and they’ll probably increase their majority as a result.
“The government will be coming after every one of those insane, malignant beliefs come the next GE, and they’ll probably increase their majority as a result.”
I hope you’re right. And, as an American, I hope the republicans pursue a similar strategy of highlighting the democrats’ extremist beliefs in the US midterms next year.
In the previous post about this coming election, it was made very clear that the policy adopted by the Right was to totally ignore the propaganda of the Left, not to highlight its faults.
This strikes me as a bad thing in general but probably good in a focussed local election, where the voters are more concerned about their own local issues.
I think lots of people are arguing against Labour’s beliefs (I know several people who voted Labour in the past, but will now vote Tory or LibDem to keep Labour out). And a whole lot more may not do much arguing, but it is clear how they are voting.
Unherd, on its own, might not be very important in the greater scheme of things. but it is one of a growing number of news outlets that are providing space for positions that counter the current social-left position.
Well, nobody apart from the voters of Hartlepool, Chesham and Amersham, and – I imagine – Batley and Spen. And nobody apart from the 69% of the electorate who voted against Labour in 2019. Nobody apart from all those people voting Conservative, a party whose vote has gone up in each of the last six general elections. And so on.
Perhaps you meant “nobody Marxists care about”?
I did but it is ‘Awaiting for approval’ I will try again.
I suppose you hit the nail on the head. I quote from an article by Louise Perry in the very latest edition of The New Statesman.
‘.…the Labour Party joined this effort, accusing the Conservatives of “manufacturing” a culture war over free speech on campus in order to distract attention from government failures in the pandemic.’
And, in the same article,
‘The Conservatives are pursuing an anti-woke agenda because they know that it resonates with the voters.’
I did a mental double take at the latter quote because I naively assumed that the idea was to resonate with the voters. But my question is, who is answering these ridiculous comments? In my opinion, it is not about winning a at Batley. This is an attack from the Left via the back door. As learned people on UnHerd are belittling these Labour attempts, the teachers unions have taken over, the civil servants have taken over and our children are being taught things like: Churchill was evil, Britain owes every African a million dollars, if men want to be women, so let it be.
Who is fighting the battle? I think no-one is fighting, if you exclude my (and others’) verbosity.
Liz Truss stopped the Gender Recognition Act going through Parliament last summer (from memory). I think Jenrick condemned the pulling down of statues. Dowden appears to be keen on the idea of selling Channel 4. But the Tories are not doing nearly enough to counteract ‘woke’.
Have you noticed how “concerned”, people such as you are about the likes of UnHerd and GBN? Its almost as if you don’t approve or are nervous about all view points getting an airing. I’ve noticed this “phenomenon “, I think others have too.
Hi Stuart. First of all, I’m sorry to have upset you in some way. I have checked my posts above and they are aimed at criticism of a magazine article – not a personal attack on anyone.
However, when I joined UnHerd it was dominated by tough-talking, older people who might have been described at ‘Anarchists’ – everything modern was bad. Now over the last few weeks it has changed and more people are talking about feelings and my ideas and thoughts are anachronistic. The site needs to change. As of this mail I am leaving (not a trick, it is easy to check) and I urge you to stay. In a few weeks you will find that your ideas are fully supported and you will be able to say that you helped to control the ‘nasty’ people. The site will change towards your views if you persevere. I have never watched GB News.
Prashant Kotak
2 years ago
I’m seeing a bunch of erudite commenters on the left pontificating on what has gone wrong with Labour and what they can and should do to stop the slide. There is however a fundamental being missed here: Labour is in trouble precisely because it made the fatal mistake of listening to these people. Any party who actually pays heed to such a cacophony is by definition not going to be able to get out of the mess it’s in. But since the party hierarchy and membership is now pretty much precision engineered to attract, nurture and promote such people (Ed Miliband comes to mind) it cannot but help listening to them.
They have somehow got themselves into a position where anyone who is enthusiastic about joining Labour should automatically be barred, on the general principle that they will almost certainly be the type of people who will further damage the party.
It’s quite widely understood that people who join political parties tend to be more doctrinaire than those who merely vote for them. Labour’s unique problem is that its own loony membership gets to choose the leader. So rather than the pottiness being filtered out between the grassroots and the leader’s office, it flows straight in.
Labour’s leadership electors thus choose between electing the Marxist nutter (Khorbiyn), or an empty suit (Starmer) who stands a better chance of getting elected than a Marxist nutter, but whose main virtue is that the other Marxist nutters can manipulate him. Nobody else is a plausible candidate. If someone like Broon or John Smith came along today, neither would stand a chance in a leadership election among this electorate if opposed by some Stalinist chav like Angela Rayner.
Once it becomes clear that Starmer does not in fact stand a better chance of being elected, the members will dump him and just go bald-headed for the Marxist nutter. He’s not going to get elected anyway, so why not have the leader you want, even if the MPs he leads think him a waste of space?
Nobody else has it this bad because the other parties allow their MPs to pick who should lead them. It’s as hard to see a way out of this for Labour as it is to see turkeys voting for Christmas.
I would much prefer Batley to be retained by Labour, because who wants to be associated with the disgusting set of events earlier this year in which Islamists got away with forcing a whole family into hiding because nobody’s allowed to commit Muslim blasphemy apparently, even if you’re not a Muslim?
If I was a politician I’d regard having to represent that lot as a punishment, not a victory.
The ‘religious arm’ of the Labour Party would certainly be a poisoned chalice were the Tories to win their vote. Here’s hoping the lovely Mr Galloway is the recipient. Quite astounding to see the ‘religious arm’ attacking Labour canvassers on Sunday. Labour are morally repugnant and deserve everything they get.
With luck Galloway will get the Islamofascists and Labour will get the idlers and the grievance lobby, giving the Conservatives a majority.
Samir Iker
2 years ago
The reference to Kashmir is interesting, because it reveals a lot about the true nature of the “liberal”, “tolerant” camp.
Because when they talk about human rights and Kashmir, they are not talking about the minority Hindu community that was murdered, raped and exterminated from the valley, driven out by their own “peaceful” neighbors who then grabbed Hindu land and houses.
Nor do they talk about the people of Jammu and Ladakh who want to integrate with the rest of India, instead of being dominated by medieval religious fundamentalists.
No, what they care about is the Kashmiri majority group which is ferociously backward, bigoted and violent, and coincidentally also happens to be a Labour voting block in UK.
Hilarious though that these same people also moan about Israeli “human right” abuses. The Palestinians are lucky the Israelis don’t treat them like the Kashmiri peacefuls treated their minorities.
Last edited 2 years ago by Samir Iker
William Cameron
2 years ago
Labour is totally hypocritical. To get elected in Batley it needs the Muslim vote. That is by definition a vote which in large measure opposes LBGT and homosexuality.
Christopher Chantrill
2 years ago
When you think about it, over/under politics, with educated tossers and rich kids like Clement Attlee “representing” first the workers and now the helpless victims of racism-sexism-homophobia, has had a pretty good run.
But suppose ordinary Commoners, White Van men, and the like become a majority?
As Rosalind said many moons ago in the Forest of Arden: “not to be endured!” Bless her heart.
It’s a good point Chris. Identity politics proceeds from the assumption that. if you tell minorities that all they are is black and everything’s Whitey’s fault so vote Labour, Whitey won’t notice the insults, and will carry on obediently voting Labour too.
Of course, if Whitey decides to adopt the tenets of IdPol and vote along racial lines as well, the wheels fall off. At best you start to lose seats like Hartlepool, and at worst, you end up facing opponents who are as deranged as you are.
I don’t think we’ll ever elect a fascist party in the UK because we tend to laugh at fascists, but I wouldn’t be so sure about Italy, Spain or some of the Baltics.
Mark Cole
2 years ago
I love the thought of Batley as the Palo Alto of Yorkshire….could signal a new recycling heritage in electronic chips. Anyway to the point, the Tories should have made more of the shameful and false leaflets. What is more concerning is the underlying sentiment behind these dirty tricks and in particular the insult to the Hindu Indians and the petrol this throws on the fire of local race relations; the region has a history of Indians and Pakistanis having massed fights on the moors. Further Labour seems to be pushing a blanket endorsement of extreme muslim activity from threatening to behead an innocent white christian school teacher (so far no-one prosecuted for inciting violence and racial/religious hatred) to abusing, threaten violence to random jews. I am not a supporter of Netanyahus aggressive stance and land grab but perhaps Arabs/Palestinians might learn from Ghandi. Its seems that the islamist problem, along with the continued huge public sector defined pension benefit costs (and stagnant un productive culture) are two areas this Government refuses to address
The really scandalous thing about the bogus Labour leaflet is not that it contained falsehoods, but that it didn’t.
It said nothing inaccurate about Labour’s beliefs, views, or opinions. Starmer was proud to take the knee – the photo of him doing so was no fake. Labour is indeed a woke, racist party now.
That fake’s power, and its cleverness, arise from the fact that it said out loud these things Labour believes, but does not want to talk about and does not want voters to remember as they go into the polling booth.
The government will be coming after every one of those insane, malignant beliefs come the next GE, and they’ll probably increase their majority as a result.
“The government will be coming after every one of those insane, malignant beliefs come the next GE, and they’ll probably increase their majority as a result.”
I hope you’re right. And, as an American, I hope the republicans pursue a similar strategy of highlighting the democrats’ extremist beliefs in the US midterms next year.
In the previous post about this coming election, it was made very clear that the policy adopted by the Right was to totally ignore the propaganda of the Left, not to highlight its faults.
This strikes me as a bad thing in general but probably good in a focussed local election, where the voters are more concerned about their own local issues.
Have you noticed that nobody is arguing against Labour’s beliefs? Obviously UnHerd is not important in the greater scheme of things.
I think lots of people are arguing against Labour’s beliefs (I know several people who voted Labour in the past, but will now vote Tory or LibDem to keep Labour out). And a whole lot more may not do much arguing, but it is clear how they are voting.
Unherd, on its own, might not be very important in the greater scheme of things. but it is one of a growing number of news outlets that are providing space for positions that counter the current social-left position.
Well, nobody apart from the voters of Hartlepool, Chesham and Amersham, and – I imagine – Batley and Spen. And nobody apart from the 69% of the electorate who voted against Labour in 2019. Nobody apart from all those people voting Conservative, a party whose vote has gone up in each of the last six general elections. And so on.
Perhaps you meant “nobody Marxists care about”?
Tell us what those beliefs are, and then maybe we can argue about them.
I did but it is ‘Awaiting for approval’ I will try again.
I suppose you hit the nail on the head. I quote from an article by Louise Perry in the very latest edition of The New Statesman.
‘.…the Labour Party joined this effort, accusing the Conservatives of “manufacturing” a culture war over free speech on campus in order to distract attention from government failures in the pandemic.’
And, in the same article,
‘The Conservatives are pursuing an anti-woke agenda because they know that it resonates with the voters.’
I did a mental double take at the latter quote because I naively assumed that the idea was to resonate with the voters. But my question is, who is answering these ridiculous comments? In my opinion, it is not about winning a at Batley. This is an attack from the Left via the back door. As learned people on UnHerd are belittling these Labour attempts, the teachers unions have taken over, the civil servants have taken over and our children are being taught things like: Churchill was evil, Britain owes every African a million dollars, if men want to be women, so let it be.
Who is fighting the battle? I think no-one is fighting, if you exclude my (and others’) verbosity.
Those quotes suggest to me that it’s Labour, not UnHerd, which is unimportant in the greater scheme of things.
Liz Truss stopped the Gender Recognition Act going through Parliament last summer (from memory). I think Jenrick condemned the pulling down of statues. Dowden appears to be keen on the idea of selling Channel 4. But the Tories are not doing nearly enough to counteract ‘woke’.
Have you noticed how “concerned”, people such as you are about the likes of UnHerd and GBN? Its almost as if you don’t approve or are nervous about all view points getting an airing. I’ve noticed this “phenomenon “, I think others have too.
Hi Stuart. First of all, I’m sorry to have upset you in some way. I have checked my posts above and they are aimed at criticism of a magazine article – not a personal attack on anyone.
However, when I joined UnHerd it was dominated by tough-talking, older people who might have been described at ‘Anarchists’ – everything modern was bad. Now over the last few weeks it has changed and more people are talking about feelings and my ideas and thoughts are anachronistic. The site needs to change. As of this mail I am leaving (not a trick, it is easy to check) and I urge you to stay. In a few weeks you will find that your ideas are fully supported and you will be able to say that you helped to control the ‘nasty’ people. The site will change towards your views if you persevere. I have never watched GB News.
I’m seeing a bunch of erudite commenters on the left pontificating on what has gone wrong with Labour and what they can and should do to stop the slide. There is however a fundamental being missed here: Labour is in trouble precisely because it made the fatal mistake of listening to these people. Any party who actually pays heed to such a cacophony is by definition not going to be able to get out of the mess it’s in. But since the party hierarchy and membership is now pretty much precision engineered to attract, nurture and promote such people (Ed Miliband comes to mind) it cannot but help listening to them.
They have somehow got themselves into a position where anyone who is enthusiastic about joining Labour should automatically be barred, on the general principle that they will almost certainly be the type of people who will further damage the party.
It’s quite widely understood that people who join political parties tend to be more doctrinaire than those who merely vote for them. Labour’s unique problem is that its own loony membership gets to choose the leader. So rather than the pottiness being filtered out between the grassroots and the leader’s office, it flows straight in.
Labour’s leadership electors thus choose between electing the Marxist nutter (Khorbiyn), or an empty suit (Starmer) who stands a better chance of getting elected than a Marxist nutter, but whose main virtue is that the other Marxist nutters can manipulate him. Nobody else is a plausible candidate. If someone like Broon or John Smith came along today, neither would stand a chance in a leadership election among this electorate if opposed by some Stalinist chav like Angela Rayner.
Once it becomes clear that Starmer does not in fact stand a better chance of being elected, the members will dump him and just go bald-headed for the Marxist nutter. He’s not going to get elected anyway, so why not have the leader you want, even if the MPs he leads think him a waste of space?
Nobody else has it this bad because the other parties allow their MPs to pick who should lead them. It’s as hard to see a way out of this for Labour as it is to see turkeys voting for Christmas.
Agreed. Come to think of it, wasn’t it Ed Miliband who bought in that rule change, that the membership rather than MPs would pick the leader?
Yes it was. It was a ridiculous unforced error. It has removed leadership ability from the list of requirements of the Labour leadership.
“Stalinist chav” – I love it!
I would much prefer Batley to be retained by Labour, because who wants to be associated with the disgusting set of events earlier this year in which Islamists got away with forcing a whole family into hiding because nobody’s allowed to commit Muslim blasphemy apparently, even if you’re not a Muslim?
If I was a politician I’d regard having to represent that lot as a punishment, not a victory.
The ‘religious arm’ of the Labour Party would certainly be a poisoned chalice were the Tories to win their vote. Here’s hoping the lovely Mr Galloway is the recipient. Quite astounding to see the ‘religious arm’ attacking Labour canvassers on Sunday. Labour are morally repugnant and deserve everything they get.
With luck Galloway will get the Islamofascists and Labour will get the idlers and the grievance lobby, giving the Conservatives a majority.
The reference to Kashmir is interesting, because it reveals a lot about the true nature of the “liberal”, “tolerant” camp.
Because when they talk about human rights and Kashmir, they are not talking about the minority Hindu community that was murdered, raped and exterminated from the valley, driven out by their own “peaceful” neighbors who then grabbed Hindu land and houses.
Nor do they talk about the people of Jammu and Ladakh who want to integrate with the rest of India, instead of being dominated by medieval religious fundamentalists.
No, what they care about is the Kashmiri majority group which is ferociously backward, bigoted and violent, and coincidentally also happens to be a Labour voting block in UK.
Hilarious though that these same people also moan about Israeli “human right” abuses. The Palestinians are lucky the Israelis don’t treat them like the Kashmiri peacefuls treated their minorities.
Labour is totally hypocritical. To get elected in Batley it needs the Muslim vote. That is by definition a vote which in large measure opposes LBGT and homosexuality.
When you think about it, over/under politics, with educated tossers and rich kids like Clement Attlee “representing” first the workers and now the helpless victims of racism-sexism-homophobia, has had a pretty good run.
But suppose ordinary Commoners, White Van men, and the like become a majority?
As Rosalind said many moons ago in the Forest of Arden: “not to be endured!” Bless her heart.
It’s a good point Chris. Identity politics proceeds from the assumption that. if you tell minorities that all they are is black and everything’s Whitey’s fault so vote Labour, Whitey won’t notice the insults, and will carry on obediently voting Labour too.
Of course, if Whitey decides to adopt the tenets of IdPol and vote along racial lines as well, the wheels fall off. At best you start to lose seats like Hartlepool, and at worst, you end up facing opponents who are as deranged as you are.
I don’t think we’ll ever elect a fascist party in the UK because we tend to laugh at fascists, but I wouldn’t be so sure about Italy, Spain or some of the Baltics.
I love the thought of Batley as the Palo Alto of Yorkshire….could signal a new recycling heritage in electronic chips. Anyway to the point, the Tories should have made more of the shameful and false leaflets. What is more concerning is the underlying sentiment behind these dirty tricks and in particular the insult to the Hindu Indians and the petrol this throws on the fire of local race relations; the region has a history of Indians and Pakistanis having massed fights on the moors. Further Labour seems to be pushing a blanket endorsement of extreme muslim activity from threatening to behead an innocent white christian school teacher (so far no-one prosecuted for inciting violence and racial/religious hatred) to abusing, threaten violence to random jews. I am not a supporter of Netanyahus aggressive stance and land grab but perhaps Arabs/Palestinians might learn from Ghandi. Its seems that the islamist problem, along with the continued huge public sector defined pension benefit costs (and stagnant un productive culture) are two areas this Government refuses to address