Tuesday, September 21, 2010

"a white British candidate in preference to a Bengali"

Imagine that the Tories have dropped a candidate in, say, Cirencester, for being a bit too nationalistic (i.e. having links to dubious right organisations), after a Guardian-led campaign against him exposed said links. The Tory #2 is an Asian solicitor and a very competent chap, but he’s dropped for a little-known white candidate.

Tory bloggers bemoan the enforced change, but point out that "they could not go to the person who came second in the poll, without it looking like they were choosing an Asian in preference to a white British candidate".

I wonder what the born-again Labour Party members at Socialist Unity would make of that ?

"Once the Labour Party NEC decided to suspend Rahman as candidate, in the face of Gilligan’s Islamophobic witchhunt, then they could not go to the person who came second in the poll for the Labour Party candidate selection, John Biggs, without it looking like they were choosing a white British candidate in preference to a Bengali. So they have ended up imposing the unloved Helal Abbas, who has little support. "
By putting John Biggs second in the poll, Labour activists of all ethnicities were indeed choosing him in preference to Abbas, who came third - on grounds presumably of proven ability (former council leader) and voter recognition. That was apparently OK as long as he was second - it was just putting a white British candidate first in Tower Hamlets that was unacceptable.

I can appreciate the realpolitik of it - and a Majority Rights type would doubtless say that the voters of Tower Hamlets would be rationally voting for their ethnic interests - but I say - and see - leftist hypocrisy - what we're seeing in Tower Hamlets is the sort of thing that white voters simply aren't allowed to do without having the BBC and Guardian on their backs until they cry 'Capivi!'.

It's also an interesting insight into the voters of Tower Hamlets - presumably the local Labour Party know and accept what their constituents would feel about a white candidate.

We seem to be further than ever away from a time when John Biggs can be judged not on the colour of his skin, but on the content of his character.

4 comments:

Mark said...

'It's also an interesting insight into the voters of Tower Hamlets - presumably the local Labour Party know and accept what their constituents would feel about a white candidate.'

I think the local Labour Party is fully aware of the ethnic peculiarities prevailing there. During the Blair landslide of 1997 one seat in London showed no swing to Labour- yes, it was Bethnal Green, won (and then lost in 2005) by Oona King, whose ethnic heritage is Jewish/black American (neither parts of which many of the local Bengali population were enthusiastic about).

It can safely be assumed that, for the forseeable future, this constituency will continue to be represented either by a muslim Bengali, or by a demagogue of another ethnicity who blatantly plays upon muslim Bengali prejudices.

Laban said...

Though I forgot to mention George Galloway - proof that a Brit can get the gig is he's pro-Islam and pro-Palestinian enough.

Brian said...

Perhaps John Biggs lacked the large extended family needed to apply for and fill in thousands of postal votes?

sandrabullock said...

Make $3000-$40000 A Month by Using internet At Home, Internet is quickly growing into a world-wide marketplace, which provides a unique opportunity for everyday people like you and me to cash in on it and start making money online!make $300 per day