There will be unsuitable appointments from all races that make up the parliament of a diverse population. Some will be bigoted and found out, some will be incompetent and found out, white, black, Asian, christian, Muslim, Jew. The question is which ones do we choose to highlight and why. The Brexit party had by far the highest number of controversial representatives making dubious bigoted comments but this seems to bypass many on here as they focus on the Labour Party. As already said, the Conservative leader has referred to picaninnies, bum boys and letter boxes and he is the leader of the whole life for backed by many on here. So why do you choose to focus just on these three, and of ethnic minorities, when talking about controversial mps?
As already said, the in disappointed in the appointment of Shah but will keep an open mind on Kahn. His comments on Israel were 12 years ago and don't appear to represent his current views as far as I can see. Whatever party you are from I don't think you should be damned for your isolated comments that are not repeated and apologised for and I would hope that Starmer knows him well enough in his career to make this appointment knowing full well his previous comments. I'm willing to give them time and show what they can do. There are 30 appointments in the Shadow cabinet and whilst the extreme centrist minority such as Kerr will want any trace of the left excluded, thankfully Starmer is showing to want to encourage a genuine broad church in the Labour Party, the very thing the centrist plp mps said that Corbyn was not doing. I'm pleased that we are not swinging from one extreme (such as Corbyn was an extreme) to the other. I wish Khan and Shah well if they have truly learned and changed their views, and I wish them quickly exposed and dismissed of not.




Reply With Quote