Comments by "Awesome Avenger" (@awesomeavenger2810) on "Why is this election so white? – 'We are not represented' | Anywhere but Westminster" video.

  1. So white politicians can't represent non white people? Then that means non white politicians can't represent white people. And as whites are the majority in the country, we couldn't possibly have a non white prime minister or minister. That is what this twat is pushing. Political segregation based on race. He's just too stupid to realise it.
    11
  2. And btw, its not up to the tax payer to pay for others to learn to speak English.
    4
  3. silhouette. But most constituencies are majority white. So, in order for the majority in those constituencies not to be UNDERREPRESENTED in parliament, they should naturally vote for the white candidate in most cases. Because if you believe that people can only be properly represented by someone of the same skin colour as themselves, then you can't argue with parliament being 94% white. If you play racially based politics, then you should be happy with the results.
    4
  4. If we agree that people can only be properly represented by politicians of the same skin colour as themselves, then it stands to reason that we would have far less than 14% non white MPs in parliament. As, apart from a few areas, the majority of constituencies are majority white. Then we would have to ask why London doesn't have a non black mayor? How can he speak for them, as he isn't black? What about the Chinese minority? Are they to be ignored? And what can we say about a male or female prime minister? Because either way, that's half the population 'disenfranchised'. Be very careful of where the ideology of racial based politics leads you. You might not like the results.
    3
  5. cinnamons87 The 600 or so MP's in Parliament can never be representative of the diversity of the UK. You may choose to draw your line arbitrarily at skin colour or 'class'. But there are an infinite number of ways in which you could diversify society. Right down to the individual. The man is an idiot. Pushing the idea of racial based politics is a very dangerous game to be playing.
    2
  6. Playing racial based politics is always a bad thing. Apart from the nonsensical idea that all people of a certain skin colour think this way or that, it can backfire badly. Which in many cases it has. I was perhaps too lenient when it came to my description of the twat in the video. Because it amazes me that he clearly hasn't thought his argument thro. The danger is that what he is saying is bollox. And most people can see this. So if we don't call it out for the bollox it is, what happens when some far right asshole comes along and calls it out? How are you going to argue against him? I don't believe that one person's skin colour entitles them to speak for everyone else of the same skin colour. I don't believe that one person with a particular skin colour cannot empathise and represent someone of a different skin colour. But if you do, then the racists have got it right. Then having a non-white MP, minister, mayor, or PM representing white constituents is bad for those white constituents. So you better vote for skin colour and not the man or woman.    As to parliament representing a wider range of 'groups'. Without getting too sociological, there will always be winners in all sections of society. And winners at different things. Not everybody has the self discipline or physical ability needed to become a top athlete. Not everybody has the talent and skill needed to be a successful artist or musician. So those that do make it to the top can never be representative of the vast majority of us. The same is true when it comes to politics (and especially business). Basically, most people are not prepared to put in the time and dedication to politics as all successful politicians do. And you don't have to agree with their politics to recognise that there are many local politicians who work just as hard who never get anywhere near the top. So in politics, just like in everything else, what you have is very hard working, dedicated, and self disciplined people at the top. And those people tend to be successful people. It will always be that way. No matter what system you try to implement. And in a democracy this is not a problem.
    2
  7. And clearly you didn't understand my first post. If you believe in racially based politics, then the elected parliament reflects the needs of the majority white electorate.
    1
  8. Absolutely. Good role models are vital for any young generation (and older ones too). The trouble is, that is not something that can be socially engineered by the political class. And neither should it be (-actually it can. But we don't want that) Unfortunately, those who do have the ability to influence such things have tended to push a culture of grievance, victimhood, helplessness, and lack of self-responsibility. More often than not the buzz word is 'disenfranchisement' (which basically means 'the majority don't agree with me') Sure, society isn't equal. But then it never has been and never can be. Some people are born with disability. Some people are born with a natural talent for mathematics, or art, or athletics. Some people are born into wealthy families. Some are born into families who couldn't give a shit. So when you talk about 'inequality' you are talking about a whole range of issues outside the control of those who manage society. And do we really need or want parliament to be more representative? If the majority aren't prepared to put in the work and dedication required to make it to the top in politics, or business, or anything else (maybe they have other priorities), do we really want them in the top jobs? After all, if you were investing your savings into a start up business, who would you trust more. The guy who puts in the effort? Or the guy that just turns up? Saying you want to eradicate poverty is a noble aim. And we can all argue about the best way to bring that about (that is what most politics is-we all agree on the destination, but argue about which direction is best). The problem starts when you compare the top 1% against everyone else. Then call that 'inequality'. And we don't have to look to far back into history to see the results of engineering society to eradicate inequality to see how that will turn out.
    1