That doesn't make them Labour voters. The opposite would be more likely. Right-wing but opposed to voting for the Tories or indeed voting for anyone, for example. You've provided no evidence that they're turned Labour voters.
I helped organise a lot of anti nazi events through community groups and unions in the 1990s and 2000s. I working with the Anti Nazi League and Islanders Against the nazis in 1994 campaign to get Derek Beacon (the BNP nazi Councillor) voted out. Lots of the politicians, newspapers and tv pundits claimed that the anti nazi campaign was not needed as the BNP would be voted out once people realised how racist they were. While the campaign was successful (he lost) what was not recognised then or remembered now is that the number of BNP votes where he lost was higher than when he won. The deciding factor was that the voters who abstained previously came out and voted the second time. That suggested that 1. Labour voters made the difference by coming out and voting in the second election. 2. That the strategy of organising "Don't Vote Nazi" campaigns worked better than ignoring the BNP.
I think you are misunderstanding the intellectuals though. The poorly educated and people who have low intelligence more easily fall for the right wing propaganda on race. That has been true for ever. What has changed is that hitherto respectable parties like the Conservatives and the Republicans now actively recruit voters with such propaganda. Their opponents simply can't respond by sinking to the same level so they have a huge problem in deciding how to respond. Telling the truth isn’t good enough. Social attitude surveys in the UK have put the number of people who self identify as racist in the range 35% to 40% for decades. They used not to vote as a bloc but they do now. Changing that back is a huge problem.
The Artist Formerly Known as Prince Andrew pays off his accuser: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-60393843
Scottish Young Labour making Young Labour look ridiculous: If you support Putin, then you're on the wrong ****ing side. It's not hard.
Why? It ain't like he runs an extreme right wing, homophobic, anti immigrant regime which stamps down on unions or victimises those who disagree with it! It reminds me of when I read about socialists defending the ussr back in the day whenever they occupied an Eastern European country. I asked some old guy (I was 20 ish so he could of been 30 plus and that was enough to make him well old tbh ) why the Communist Party members in the UK were called tankies and he told me its cos they always defended them sending the tanks in. Thought he was joking at first but he was being straight up.
It does demonstrate how nuanced these things are though. On Iraq I would suggest Stop the War had the better standpoint. Standing firm against Putin is the right way to go though.
They also blamed the West for Russia invading Crimea in 2014: https://www.stopwar.org.uk/article/...d-crimea-statement-by-stop-the-war-coalition/ They're not nuanced any more. They're simply anti-Western government. That's literally regurgitated Russian propaganda.
The organised left has literally imploded leaving many of us with out a home. I did a lot of work with Stop the War until 2009 ish. My workplace got mentioned in their book celebrating the anti war movement cos of all the anti war events we organised and took part in. Then from around 2008/9 the organised left decided it would be more fun to fight each other than to fight for social improvements. The two most famous groups, the SWP and SP plus some unions even managed to have their own very serious #metoo moments ffs For me it is very worrying that there is so much extreme right wing activity trying to make up ground with very little organised opposition
A lot of it's not organic. Why would a lot of the right wing suddenly adopt an anti-vax position, for example? The same applies to some left-wing campaigns that spring up.
Just what she (and her representatives of course) wanted. Or presumably he's guilty because he's "establishment". And no, paying her off does not make him guilty. If there was real evidence we would have heard it by now and it would form the basis of a criminal rather than a civil trial. He's done stuff he doesn't want people to know about, which makes him sleezy rather than a criminal.
I think that he had sex with her, but he didn't know that she'd been trafficked. Why would Epstein tell him that? It didn't suit his aims. I assume that his legal team and advisors think that this is the cheaper and less damaging route to take.
'trafficked' is a somewhat open term. If you assume that Andrew knew that these girls were supplied by Epstein and Maxwell, then he (anyone, indeed) would guess that at best they were sex workers and at worst of an age likely victims of exploitation. Does the settlement make him guilty of a sexual offence? No. Does it remove any possibility of guilt? No - but arguably makes innocence even less likely. He is rightly finished. Washed up with no way back. There is talk of up to £10m settlement. That's a ****ing expensive pizza...and hopefully it won't be effectively indirectly paid by the UK taxpayers.
Any teaching staff who have sex with a student over 16 can be prosecuted and disbarred for breach of trust. I personally agree with this even though it it different to regular consensual sex laws. I personally don't get how a 40 year old prince shags a 17 or 18 year old and thinks that it's not an issue. He has so much power cos of his standing in the world and morally should ****ing know better...his daughters were only 5 or 6 years younger than her ffs. I am also really uncomfortable with the "she knew what she was doing" insinuations about her ... that is the kind of **** attitudes that allows youngsters to be groomed and for people to justify doing nothing. (Ain't a dig at anyone...just seen this crap around) Finally, (and I accept that this is purely a personal view) I have no idea how anyone in their 40s (or even 30s) think that sleeping with someone barely out of school is a good idea...just seems weird to me tbh. It's not an age gap issue just don't get middle aged men wanting sex with 17 year old.
The guy is a sleezy asshole. His relationship with Epstein is unforgivable. That doesn't make him a criminal however, but I suspect regardless of what the civil trial proved or didn't, it would reflect very badly on Andrew and probably the Royal Family. I would not be at all surprised if Charles has told him to fall on his sword and take the pain. The only reason I have a soft spot for him is because of his service to this country in the Falklands, which is something I tend to extend to all who have served, even when it's probably "not a good idea".
