While hodges gets increasingly frantic, I see atul hatwal is sticking to his guns that Corbyn will not win. Oh, the histrionics if he does not, it would be amazing.
Let's face it, he is definitely going to win. And in the first round - 300,000 people didn't scramble to sign up at the last minute to vote for Kendall. Atul and his bizarre gang on his tiny blog read pretty much exclusively by Tories are the ones in a desulsional bubble, not the Corbyn supporters.
I'm not a Tory and I read it. I don't think he's right in this instance but it's still an insight into a wing of the Labour Party, if one that is diminished, so it seems sensible to keep track of them. It's why it's necessary to look at conhome and the like too.
Diminished isn't the word. The likes of Atul are a tiny cult, not a wing of the Labour Party.
He fits right in, since the Labour Party is now an uneasy grouping of cults. The various Blairites, Cooperites, Corbynites - all biding their time, and waiting for the outbreak of war.
Labour insiders familiar with the latest figures have told Uncut that the picture for Labour in marginal seats, where it is fighting the Tories, is almost uniformly grim.
Seats that canvass returns had suggested were strong prospects for gains are much more finely balanced and those that were close are swinging heavily to the Tories.
The tartan scare is working with the fear of McLabour shifting large numbers of wavering Lib Dems and Ukippers into the Tory column.
The bit later on was less prescient:
"The very thin silver lining to the disastrous postal ballot field reports is Scotland: while the position in is bad, it is not the total meltdown suggested by the polls."
And:
"According to the postal ballot reports, over half of Labour’s seats are genuinely winnable."
Haha, this proves Atul was just spouting self-serving bum gravy as usual, and just lucked out in England as a stopped clock.
The Labour who had lost their village in Deir Yassin.”
Except - he attended a meeting organised by Eisen in 2013, and Eisen had already been publicly exposed as a supporter of Ernst Zündel in 2005 by inter alia David Aaronivitch in the Times (non paywall version of the article here: http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=43881). I can't however find the specific date Eisen is thought to have had an Irving-style 'conversion' but given Holocaust deniers usually appear to have been deniers on the quiet for some years before coming out (cf Irving, Butz) a date of 2000 or earlier, around the time of the Irving libel case, if unconfirmed, is not improbable.
It would appear that either Corbyn is lying or that he doesn't know what he's talking about. Either way, it's rather worrying. But I don't suppose that either case would make any meaningful difference to his admirers, who will put it all down to media bias.
The simple fact is the vast majority of the UK are either completely indifferent to Israel/Palestine or see Israel as a vile intransigent racist bully steadily dispossessing a helpless people. This Israel-first attitude that happily swallows the clear and obviously tired boy-who-cried-wolf strategy of smearing anyone who publically advocates for the pro-Palestinian cause as anti-semitic, pointing to a few nutters, is confined to a tiny establishment echo chamber.
Note that polls show about 70% + of the UK have negative views of Israel, and I imagine most of them would give the establishment/israel love in and it's predictable smears short shrift.
It's a theory. A theory that ignores all the information in the original post, but a theory nonetheless.
Every Jew in Europe has chosen not to live in Israel. Some of them have even been there and returned.
What's your point? Every Jew America has chosen not to live in Israel. By all means defend the vicious bigot Corbyn's antisemitic racist fellow travellers but make a better job of defending the murderous anti western barstewards than that.
My point is simple. There is in my opinion a difference between defending every nut and bolt of Israeli policy towards Palestine, and making an antisemitic statement. I expect you regard the previous sentence as antisemitic, too.
Mr. Eagles, be interesting to see the impact of Corbyn's overtures to the SNP on this. May help Labour in Scotland (or not), not sure it'll go down well in England.
Such was The SNP rout of Labour (like The Byzantine Empire against The Bulgars at Kleidon) there are so few marginals in Scotland that Corbyn could offer every Scottish voter a million pounds and a night of rumpy pumpy with Brad Pitt or Karen Gillan and Labour might still lose their only seat in Scotland.
Interesting piece, thanks TP. I was sceptical, like Southam, about a Corbyn-Khan crossover (went for Corbyn/Jowell in the end myself), but Livingstone is closer to the action. I still don't think that most members see a clear political difference - I've seen loads of Jowell/Khan leaflets and emails, and it's a blur about who endorsed what. Lammy and Wolmar are still sending out emails, though I've not seen anything from Abbott for quite a while.
Thanks Nick - I intended (but forgot!) to include as bit of devil's advocacy that you seemed to be fairly confident in Tessa. (Cue some unkind jokes, no doubt...)
Some contradictory thoughts from the past two thread headers as to the state of play in the London Mayoral election. The first question to ask is why did Boris win twice ? The answer is his upbeat, positive spirit resonates with many Londoners - he was (not is) far more representative of London than of the Conservatives. A touch of flamboyance and bravado as a contrast to the duller but worthy Ken Livingstone and at a time of global economic gloom, there was only going to be one winner.
Yet London is never as it was - the 2014 locals and 2015 GE results showed the ongoing political polarisation between the staunchly Conservative areas and the markedly Labour ones and, to be fair, Labour have advanced, not everywhere and not evenly. It looks tougher for Goldsmith in 2016 than it did for Boris in 2008 and 2012.
In my part of the world, Labour got a 5% swing from the Conservatives in May and took Ilford North. Yes, there were Labour failures, Hendon and Croydon Central as two examples and they offer a cautionary note for backers of Khan and Jowell but there is polling evidence both can beat Goldsmith (assuming he is the Conservative candidate).
From a personal viewpoint, I would expect the successful Mayoral candidate to immediately resign his or her Westminster seat (by election bets ?) and Boris's decision to renege on his own commitment from 2012 not to seek to return to Westminster while serving as Mayor was and remains contemptible though I note most Tory activists don't seem too bothered.
This time, of course, it would be possible for the elected Mayor to serve a team and then stand for Westminster in 2020 though whether that's a message any of the candidates wants to send out is debatable.
Labour insiders familiar with the latest figures have told Uncut that the picture for Labour in marginal seats, where it is fighting the Tories, is almost uniformly grim.
Seats that canvass returns had suggested were strong prospects for gains are much more finely balanced and those that were close are swinging heavily to the Tories.
The tartan scare is working with the fear of McLabour shifting large numbers of wavering Lib Dems and Ukippers into the Tory column.
The bit later on was less prescient:
"The very thin silver lining to the disastrous postal ballot field reports is Scotland: while the position in is bad, it is not the total meltdown suggested by the polls."
And:
"According to the postal ballot reports, over half of Labour’s seats are genuinely winnable."
Haha, this proves Atul was just spouting self-serving bum gravy as usual, and just lucked out in England as a stopped clock.
No, it proves he's a pundit like any other - almost always wrong.
Labour insiders familiar with the latest figures have told Uncut that the picture for Labour in marginal seats, where it is fighting the Tories, is almost uniformly grim.
Seats that canvass returns had suggested were strong prospects for gains are much more finely balanced and those that were close are swinging heavily to the Tories.
The tartan scare is working with the fear of McLabour shifting large numbers of wavering Lib Dems and Ukippers into the Tory column.
The bit later on was less prescient:
"The very thin silver lining to the disastrous postal ballot field reports is Scotland: while the position in is bad, it is not the total meltdown suggested by the polls."
And:
"According to the postal ballot reports, over half of Labour’s seats are genuinely winnable."
That certainly didn't prove his finest hour, given the size of SNP majorities (is it five seats with Labour in second place with a majority of less than 6,000?)! Maybe, however, it was his sources that were the problem. I can quite imagine the Scottish Labour party whistling to keep their spirits up, the propaganda being taken seriously, and finally the information being passed on as fact when it was fiction.
@JEO that's very true. But it would still be a huge surprise if they were wrong by such a colossal margin. Can anyone think of a possible parallel? Because I certainly can't. Even Truman's come-from-behind win in 1948 saw more accurate polling.
Indy editorial slams dishonest Cameron's plans to deceive the public on EU negotiations
"The plan, apparently, is for Cameron to have a “big row with the French” in February, which will be “choreographed” so that, when it is over, the Prime Minister will be able to claim that the terms of EU membership have been “renegotiated”. On that basis, he will call for a vote to say “yes” to continued membership of the bloc. The French are reportedly as anxious as Cameron is to keep Britain within the EU, so can be relied upon to play their part...
But this is a childish way to handle relations with Europe. How much more honest Cameron would be if he were to admit that the EU is a complicated, flawed structure in which change comes at a snail’s pace – yet, for all its faults, we are better off in than out."
If that's how it plays out Cameron will be in a whole load of trouble.
Most of the fence-sitters (myself included) are waiting to see what genuine reform can be had for the non-Eurozone EU members, anything that looks like the Emperor's New Clothes will result in an OUT vote.
@theobertram: Andy Burnham is making it clear he won't take on Corbyn either in this contest or - more critically - if he wins.
Burnham is a follower, a sycophant, a 'yes' man... not a leader
He's also got all of Corbyn's voters second preferences.
A candidate's 2nd preferences are irrelevant unless that candidate comes outside the top 2 So 2nd preferences of these who put Corbyn first are irrelevant!
He has to hope to do well with his own first preferences. But I'm grateful to be reminded of the lunacy of the election system.
Mr. Eagles, be interesting to see the impact of Corbyn's overtures to the SNP on this. May help Labour in Scotland (or not), not sure it'll go down well in England.
Such was The SNP rout of Labour (like The Byzantine Empire against The Bulgars at Kleidon) there are so few marginals in Scotland that Corbyn could offer every Scottish voter a million pounds and a night of rumpy pumpy with Brad Pitt or Karen Gillan and Labour might still lose their only seat in Scotland.
They'd win back lots of others on a sudden influx of voters from England though, surely?
Indy editorial slams dishonest Cameron's plans to deceive the public on EU negotiations
"The plan, apparently, is for Cameron to have a “big row with the French” in February, which will be “choreographed” so that, when it is over, the Prime Minister will be able to claim that the terms of EU membership have been “renegotiated”. On that basis, he will call for a vote to say “yes” to continued membership of the bloc. The French are reportedly as anxious as Cameron is to keep Britain within the EU, so can be relied upon to play their part...
But this is a childish way to handle relations with Europe. How much more honest Cameron would be if he were to admit that the EU is a complicated, flawed structure in which change comes at a snail’s pace – yet, for all its faults, we are better off in than out."
Apparently, one senior cabinet minister said they would have some 'theatre' with the renegotiation. It's completely crazy. If we have a grown up, honest debate, we can have the final result and move past it. But the leadership seems to be intent on having this referendum dishonestly: first they ignored the electoral commission's suggestion for the most impartial question, then they removed the long established principle of purdah, now they are planning to manufacture rows and create 'theatre' dishonestly. It seems designed to split the party and cause lasting recriminations.
I haven't decided which way I will vote yet, but I'm going to put very little faith in the leadership's claims of what's been renegotiated, and the media should not give much creedence to their spin either. We will just have to compare it with all the suggestions for what needs to change with the EU over the years, and not be manipulated by government expectation setting.
Any government minister who engages is dishonest spinning over this will end up going down as the mirror image of Red Tories: manipulative blue Europhiles. Its a recipe for the conservative membership turning against them.
NPXMP -- ''What is quite common is the implied reverse coattail: "Vote for me because I'm very close to [popular candidate] X", designed to appeal to X's supporters. X can't really say bugger off, you're not really close to me, so the selectorate who like X get the message whether it's true or not. But none of the deputy candidates have been playing that game this time - they all say carefully that they'll vote with whoever is elected leader, without expressing a preference, and Abbott has endorsed Corbyn but hasn't been making a big thing out of it. I'm aware of the preferences of a couple of the other candidates but they've chosen not to make them public.''
Indy editorial slams dishonest Cameron's plans to deceive the public on EU negotiations
"The plan, apparently, is for Cameron to have a “big row with the French” in February, which will be “choreographed” so that, when it is over, the Prime Minister will be able to claim that the terms of EU membership have been “renegotiated”. On that basis, he will call for a vote to say “yes” to continued membership of the bloc. The French are reportedly as anxious as Cameron is to keep Britain within the EU, so can be relied upon to play their part...
But this is a childish way to handle relations with Europe. How much more honest Cameron would be if he were to admit that the EU is a complicated, flawed structure in which change comes at a snail’s pace – yet, for all its faults, we are better off in than out."
Apparently, one senior cabinet minister said they would have some 'theatre' with the renegotiation. It's completely crazy. If we have a grown up, honest debate, we can have the final result and move past it. But the leadership seems to be intent on having this referendum dishonestly: first they ignored the electoral commission's suggestion for the most impartial question, then they removed the long established principle of purdah, now they are planning to manufacture rows and create 'theatre' dishonestly. It seems designed to split the party and cause lasting recriminations.
I haven't decided which way I will vote yet, but I'm going to put very little faith in the leadership's claims of what's been renegotiated, and the media should not give much creedence to their spin either. We will just have to compare it with all the suggestions for what needs to change with the EU over the years, and not be manipulated by government expectation setting.
Any government minister who engages is dishonest spinning over this will end up going down as the mirror image of Red Tories: manipulative blue Europhiles. Its a recipe for the conservative membership turning against them.
While hodges gets increasingly frantic, I see atul hatwal is sticking to his guns that Corbyn will not win. Oh, the histrionics if he does not, it would be amazing.
I read that article and was puzzled by it. Hatwal is usually a very shrewd commentator - he predicted months before May that Labour were heading for a bad defeat at a time when it was fashionable to assume they would be at worst a close second. But as one of the comments below the post noted, for Corbyn to lose now would be the equivalent of the polls before the General Election being as they were, but UKIP winning the actual election.
As we've seen on this thread, reasoned arguments about his grave shortcomings and unsavoury associates no longer sway Corbyn supporters - they just brush it off or try to change the subject to something else. So it's very hard to see, short of some actual criminal offence being uncovered (which with all his faults seems unlikely) what could stop him now.
Except these polls are based on a much more uncertain electorate that the polling firms have no history of polling.
I remain calm and hopeful that Hatwal is right and Cooper will prevail. He certainly puts a good argument. I have been trying to work out for days where on earth all these hard-left activists have been hiding for the last twenty years. As he says not a few thousand but hundreds of thousands!
Where he could fall down is it seems possible that many non hard, left-of-centre members, possibly even former fans of Blair, such as Dr Palmer, are voting Corbyn for various non-idealogical reasons to do with shaking things up, seeing what happens, a chance for more party democracy etc.
If Hatwal is wrong then it won't be the extreme left wot won it. It will be fairly ordinary members who in the words of their ex-mentor, Tony Blair (about something else entirely), will have "shaken the kaleidoscope".
I predict they will come to bitterly regret playing with kaleidoscopes.
Do Mr Burnham and Mrs Cooper not understand that hitting seven shades of shhh out of each other in public is not the way to win an election, especially not one under AV..?
Do Mr Burnham and Mrs Cooper not understand that hitting seven shades of shhh out of each other in public is not the way to win an election, especially not one under AV..?
Mr. Eagles, be interesting to see the impact of Corbyn's overtures to the SNP on this. May help Labour in Scotland (or not), not sure it'll go down well in England.
Such was The SNP rout of Labour (like The Byzantine Empire against The Bulgars at Kleidon) there are so few marginals in Scotland that Corbyn could offer every Scottish voter a million pounds and a night of rumpy pumpy with Brad Pitt or Karen Gillan and Labour might still lose their only seat in Scotland.
They'd win back lots of others on a sudden influx of voters from England though, surely?
He'd have my vote.
Hell I'll campaign for Labour, my campaigning skills are awesome. Every seat I campaigned in this year was either a Tory hold or Tory gain
Do Mr Burnham and Mrs Cooper not understand that hitting seven shades of shhh out of each other in public is not the way to win an election, especially not one under AV..?
Tony Blair must be looking on and wondering what is the monster that he created, if only for not clipping Brown's wings.
They have certainly differentiated themselves from winners.....
The labour electorate have shown themselves to be quite disconnected from reality so its pretty impossible to see what will happen The best of an appalling bunch is in fact Cooper, but she looks like coming 3rd. This would be quite a come down for Labour's former 'power couple' and could lead to a double exit from politics and more time with the family.
Needless to say in large part I (and my betting position) agree.
What I would add is that I think Abbott is still too long at 20/1 for the nomination, although still an outsider, and should be about 8/1. I got on at 25/1 so YMMV.
The reason Zac should be boosted by a Corbyn win is that he doesn't get on with Jowell, their most successful candidate electorally, and of course a large Corbyn win is a predictor of a Khan (or even Abbott) victory.
Those pbers in London will remember the mileage the Evening Standard made of every (?) candidate backing down over the Mansion Tax. Those sorts of questions will be directed at the newly elected.
The political establishment will all be In, as will the BBC. Print media [on balance] may be for Out, and hokey-cokey Farage will also be for Out.
That's not a remotely even contest.
If out loses will Farage resign for an hour and then be forced to unresign.
Of course, he will do so sadly and reluctantly, but convinced that it is necessary for the UK and for UKIP, whatever his personal wishes for a continued life of service/peaceful retirement...
Except - he attended a meeting organised by Eisen in 2013, and Eisen had already been publicly exposed as a supporter of Ernst Zündel in 2005 by inter alia David Aaronivitch in the Times (non paywall version of the article here: http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=43881). I can't however find the specific date Eisen is thought to have had an Irving-style 'conversion' but given Holocaust deniers usually appear to have been deniers on the quiet for some years before coming out (cf Irving, Butz) a date of 2000 or earlier, around the time of the Irving libel case, if unconfirmed, is not improbable.
It would appear that either Corbyn is lying or that he doesn't know what he's talking about. Either way, it's rather worrying. But I don't suppose that either case would make any meaningful difference to his admirers, who will put it all down to media bias.
The simple fact is the vast majority of the UK are either completely indifferent to Israel/Palestine or see Israel as a vile intransigent racist bully steadily dispossessing a helpless people. This Israel-first attitude that happily swallows the clear and obviously tired boy-who-cried-wolf strategy of smearing anyone who publically advocates for the pro-Palestinian cause as anti-semitic, pointing to a few nutters, is confined to a tiny establishment echo chamber.
Note that polls show about 70% + of the UK have negative views of Israel, and I imagine most of them would give the establishment/israel love in and it's predictable smears short shrift.
It's a theory. A theory that ignores all the information in the original post, but a theory nonetheless. [said by Antifrank - my quoting has gone awry]
I'm not sure why Wisemann always brings Israel into everything. Still the criticism of someone like Raed Salah is that he has been found by an English court of having uttered the medieval blood libel against Jews. This libel is unquestionably an anti-Semitic statement.
Not all criticisms of Jews or Israel are anti-Semitic, of course. Equally, there are those who are anti-Semitic and seek to camouflage this by claiming that they are just being anti-Zionist. Best to ignore their own descriptions and look at what they actually say.
I find it hard to see how anyone who is a Holocaust denier cannot be claimed to be an anti-Semite. Such people usually claim that the Holocaust did not happen and/or that it was less serious than claimed and/or that the only thing wrong with it was that it did not kill enough Jews. We are in the realms of some sort of mental psychosis.
The persistent human need for a scapegoat is depressing, though.
It will be the useful idiots that win it for Corbyn. The people who have taken all the wrong lessons from the SNP's rise in Scotland and/or who want to punish the other three candidates for running dreadful campaigns and/or believe the electorate will indulge a bit of Labour self-pleasure and/or have convinced themselves Corbyn is a peacemaker, not someone whose entire foreign policy outlook is guided by anti-Americanism. Labour's only chance is that these essentially well-meaning, but profoundly naive, people snap out of their stupidity sooner rather than later to understand they have conspired with Trots, Tories and Greens to elect someone who can only ever lead their party to ballot box blow-up. A few early big electoral defeats next year might be the start of that process.
Tory voters have helped into power a party that has armed tens of thousands of anti-Semitic holocaust deniers in number of countries. Jezza might have chatted to a couple whilst campaigning for justice for a people hideously oppressed by a fascist establishment ally. I think we can all see who should be more sanguine about the facts on the ground.
Tory voters have helped into power a party that has armed tens of thousands of anti-Semitic holocaust deniers in number of countries. Jezza might have chatted to a couple whilst campaigning for justice for a people hideously oppressed by a fascist establishment ally. I think we can all see who should be more sanguine about the facts on the ground.
You can keep pushing this line, but only Jezbollah considers them his friends.
Boris has shown that it is very much a third (or even fourth) job, and yet its salary is higher than that of the PM.
It's obviously another of these farcical taxpayer-funded non-jobs that any good Conservative should want to see cut to save money.
I think Zac would still be going for the job even if it was pro bono tbh.
Which would be a good and principled decision, except:
1) It is a step down the road of only rich people entering politics;
2) He'd need to pay for all the staffing costs, including that of deputy mayor (£97k I think), over and above what would have been needed in a traditional council set-up.
It's a sinecure. Time to bring in Jessop's third rule of politics: no public servant can earn more than the PM.
Mr. Eagles, Hannibal survived Zama. Varro did not survive Cannae. Nor Flaminius Trasimene.
Better to die on your feet that live on your knees - Some Klingon in Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country
Zapata. ...Or was it Zena The Warrior Woman?
"Capt. Nately: You're a shameful opportunist! What you don't understand is that it's better to die on your feet than to live on your knees. Old man in whorehouse: You have it backwards. It's better to live on your feet than to die on your knees." Catch 22
Tory voters have helped into power a party that has armed tens of thousands of anti-Semitic holocaust deniers in number of countries. Jezza might have chatted to a couple whilst campaigning for justice for a people hideously oppressed by a fascist establishment ally. I think we can all see who should be more sanguine about the facts on the ground.
Why the conditional tense? Why do you apparently seek to deny what Corbyn has himself admitted is true? If you're fine with what he has done why criticise the Tories for arming (in your words) "anti-Semitic holocaust deniers" who are also (again in your words) "campaigning for justice for a people hideously oppressed by a fascist establishment ally"?
I find it hard to see how anyone who is a Holocaust denier cannot be claimed to be an anti-Semite. Such people usually claim that the Holocaust did not happen and/or that it was less serious than claimed and/or that the only thing wrong with it was that it did not kill enough Jews. We are in the realms of some sort of mental psychosis.
I think you can. Paul Eisen is one of the Holocaust deniers that Corbyn has associated with. He's a Jew himself, believes there was no planned extermination of the Jews, but feels the Nazis were still evil anti-Semites that treated the Jews horrendously. The guy is clearly a bit loopy, but I don't think it's as simple as saying Holocaust denial is the same as anti-Semitism. A lot of people just get seduced by conspiracy theories.
Tory voters have helped into power a party that has armed tens of thousands of anti-Semitic holocaust deniers in number of countries. Jezza might have chatted to a couple whilst campaigning for justice for a people hideously oppressed by a fascist establishment ally. I think we can all see who should be more sanguine about the facts on the ground.
You can keep pushing this line, but only Jezbollah considers them his friends.
I admire your tenacity JEO and I am happy to help. But really banging your head against a brick wall would be more useful.
Cycle free - I see your reading comprehension is as poor as your grasp of global affairs. I didn't say there weren't unsavoury characters as a tiny minority amongst the broad church of campaigners for Palestinian justice - this Eisen guy amongst them - i was saying the incontrovertible fact that every prominent pro-Palestinian figure in the public eye has been smeared as anti-Semitic as some point, when to any sane observer they are nothing of the sort. It suggests a pattern.
Tory voters have helped into power a party that has armed tens of thousands of anti-Semitic holocaust deniers in number of countries. Jezza might have chatted to a couple whilst campaigning for justice for a people hideously oppressed by a fascist establishment ally. I think we can all see who should be more sanguine about the facts on the ground.
You can keep pushing this line, but only Jezbollah considers them his friends.
Except he doesn't, and has stated he disagrees with them and their actions. Unless you want to take the phrase completely out of context, which is the 'realpolitik' of peace talks.
Tory voters have helped into power a party that has armed tens of thousands of anti-Semitic holocaust deniers in number of countries. Jezza might have chatted to a couple whilst campaigning for justice for a people hideously oppressed by a fascist establishment ally. I think we can all see who should be more sanguine about the facts on the ground.
You can keep pushing this line, but only Jezbollah considers them his friends.
I admire your tenacity JEO and I am happy to help. But really banging your head against a brick wall would be more useful.
I think I've come to the same conclusion. It's the rudeness to other commenters that reveals him as being trollish. I guess it's the mentality of intolerance to other views that will get Corbyn elected.
That is almost unbelievable. What sort of idiot would leave the place out of the indictment? Maybe the same sort of person who wrote this extremely strange headline, which gave me a very misleading view of the case: 'Referendum assault against Labour MP Marie Rimmer re-raised'.
Tory voters have helped into power a party that has armed tens of thousands of anti-Semitic holocaust deniers in number of countries. Jezza might have chatted to a couple whilst campaigning for justice for a people hideously oppressed by a fascist establishment ally. I think we can all see who should be more sanguine about the facts on the ground.
That is almost unbelievable. What sort of idiot would leave the place out of the indictment? Maybe the same sort of person who wrote this extremely strange headline, which gave me a very misleading view of the case: 'Referendum assault against Labour MP Marie Rimmer re-raised'.
You have to understand that BBC Scotland is the Propoganda Section of SLAB. It won't pass up the chance to mislabel a story so cursory examination puts the SNP or Yes in a bad light.
Krugman and Bernanke are walking down the street and see a pile of dog shit. Bernanke says “I’ll give you twenty thousand dollars to eat that pile of shit.” Krugman does it, gets paid, and they keep walking. After a while they see another pile of shit on the road. Seeing an opportunity for revenge, Krugman says “Tell you what, I’ll give YOU twenty grand to eat that pile of shit.” Bernanke does it, Krugman gives him back the money, and they keep walking. After a while Bernanke says “I’m feeling pretty sick. We both ate shit and neither of us is any richer.” Krugman answers “You’re missing the bigger picture. We’ve increased GDP by forty thousand dollars and created two jobs.”
It would appear that either Corbyn is lying or that he doesn't know what he's talking about. Either way, it's rather worrying. But I don't suppose that either case would make any meaningful difference to his admirers, who will put it all down to media bias.
The simple fact is the vast majority of the UK are either completely indifferent to Israel/Palestine or see Israel as a vile intransigent racist bully steadily dispossessing a helpless people. This Israel-first attitude that happily swallows the clear and obviously tired boy-who-cried-wolf strategy of smearing anyone who publically advocates for the pro-Palestinian cause as anti-semitic, pointing to a few nutters, is confined to a tiny establishment echo chamber.
Note that polls show about 70% + of the UK have negative views of Israel, and I imagine most of them would give the establishment/israel love in and it's predictable smears short shrift.
It's a theory. A theory that ignores all the information in the original post, but a theory nonetheless.
[said by Antifrank - my quoting has gone awry]
I'm not sure why Wisemann always brings Israel into everything. Still the criticism of someone like Raed Salah is that he has been found by an English court of having uttered the medieval blood libel against Jews. This libel is unquestionably an anti-Semitic statement.
Not all criticisms of Jews or Israel are anti-Semitic, of course. Equally, there are those who are anti-Semitic and seek to camouflage this by claiming that they are just being anti-Zionist. Best to ignore their own descriptions and look at what they actually say.
I find it hard to see how anyone who is a Holocaust denier cannot be claimed to be an anti-Semite. Such people usually claim that the Holocaust did not happen and/or that it was less serious than claimed and/or that the only thing wrong with it was that it did not kill enough Jews. We are in the realms of some sort of mental psychosis.
The persistent human need for a scapegoat is depressing, though.
There is something blackly funny in seeing people who obviously consider that killing Jews is a good thing going to great lengths to deny that it happened. Really, they should be out and proud about the holocaust.
There's another theory which you overlooked, but which is popular in the Muslim world. Namely, the holocaust did take place, but it was carried out by Jewish leaders, in collaboration with the Nazis, to bring about the creation of the State of Israel.
Last Wednesday, Labour’s “procedure committee” gathered on a conference call to discuss the leadership election. First up was Harriet Harman, who had troubling news: a mapping of new supporters against the party’s election canvassing data had revealed many of them weren’t Labour supporters at all. Almost one in five of the recently registered had voted for other parties at the general election. Given Labour’s canvassing data covered five million voters, Ms Harman proposed cross-referencing all new sign-ups with the canvassing lists. Those who’d told Labour activists in May they were voting Conservative, Respect, Ukip or for any other party would be invited to confirm they were genuine supporters. If they did, their votes would be counted. If they didn’t, they wouldn’t.
The trade union representatives on the committee listened politely. And then, one by one, they responded. No. There would be no questioning of those who had supported the Conservatives or other parties. Their applications would be processed without further scrutiny.
Krugman and Bernanke are walking down the street and see a pile of dog shit. Bernanke says “I’ll give you twenty thousand dollars to eat that pile of shit.” Krugman does it, gets paid, and they keep walking. After a while they see another pile of shit on the road. Seeing an opportunity for revenge, Krugman says “Tell you what, I’ll give YOU twenty grand to eat that pile of shit.” Bernanke does it, Krugman gives him back the money, and they keep walking. After a while Bernanke says “I’m feeling pretty sick. We both ate shit and neither of us is any richer.” Krugman answers “You’re missing the bigger picture. We’ve increased GDP by forty thousand dollars and created two jobs.”
I was surprised to see that Corbyn has taken a leaf out of the Jim Murphy playbook and going for the Unionist denier approach to try and woe the lost SLAB voters:
The problem with these eye catching headlines is that once you actually read the articles it becomes clear that Corbyn as with Jim are in favour of the union - so effectively contradict themselves - I'm not sure how they think anybody is going to buy their line.
Excellent article, as one would expect from Tissue Price. I agree that it seems unlikely that the Corbyn phenomenon isn't damaging Tessa's chances; I know that Nick P disagrees, but I wonder if his view is skewed by the fact that he's more in touch with long-standing Labour members rather than with the new sign-ups.
The Betfair mayoral market has been rather odd for a long time. It has often offered shorter odds on Sadiq Khan than the bookies were offering. Admittedly it's not very liquid - only £31K traded, which itself is a bit strange.
Last Wednesday, Labour’s “procedure committee” gathered on a conference call to discuss the leadership election. First up was Harriet Harman, who had troubling news: a mapping of new supporters against the party’s election canvassing data had revealed many of them weren’t Labour supporters at all. Almost one in five of the recently registered had voted for other parties at the general election. Given Labour’s canvassing data covered five million voters, Ms Harman proposed cross-referencing all new sign-ups with the canvassing lists. Those who’d told Labour activists in May they were voting Conservative, Respect, Ukip or for any other party would be invited to confirm they were genuine supporters. If they did, their votes would be counted. If they didn’t, they wouldn’t.
The trade union representatives on the committee listened politely. And then, one by one, they responded. No. There would be no questioning of those who had supported the Conservatives or other parties. Their applications would be processed without further scrutiny.
Isn't the point of the £3 supporters that you get people from other parties voting, so that you appeal beyond the Labour base? I mean I know the result hasn't worked out, but non-Labour people voting was in the very design of the system, so it's hardly an abuse.
Excellent article, as one would expect from Tissue Price. I agree that it seems unlikely that the Corbyn phenomenon isn't damaging Tessa's chances; I know that Nick P disagrees, but I wonder if his view is skewed by the fact that he's more in touch with long-standing Labour members rather than the new sign-ups.
The Betfair mayoral market has been rather odd for a long time. It has often offered shorter odds on Sadiq Khan than the bookies were offering. Admittedly it's not very liquid - only £31K traded, which itself is a bit strange.
Thanks RN.
It's a bit early for Betfair to hot up as there won't be too many casual punters involved (not least because of the current popcornfest). At this stage I'd probably trust the bookies' collective wisdom more - i.e. Zac is favourite, but clearly not odds-on.
What is incredibly frustrating is the tendency to take any criticism of Israel as automatically Anti-Semitic.
Check out Ben Carson's Op-Ed in the Jerusalem Post: "Shockingly, his diatribe also was replete with coded innuendos employing standard anti-Semitic themes involving implied disloyalty and nefarious influences related to money and power."
Obama has probably been the most even handed president in dealing with the Israel-Palestine question, yet the bloke who's currently 3rd in the GOP presidential poll thinks he's Anti- Semitic?!
Tory voters have helped into power a party that has armed tens of thousands of anti-Semitic holocaust deniers in number of countries. Jezza might have chatted to a couple whilst campaigning for justice for a people hideously oppressed by a fascist establishment ally. I think we can all see who should be more sanguine about the facts on the ground.
Why the conditional tense? Why do you apparently seek to deny what Corbyn has himself admitted is true? If you're fine with what he has done why criticise the Tories for arming (in your words) "anti-Semitic holocaust deniers" who are also (again in your words) "campaigning for justice for a people hideously oppressed by a fascist establishment ally"?
You really are hard of thinking aren't you? How on earth did you get a logical leap from - the fact I think that Corbyn's having met unsavoury pro-Palestinian nutters in the course of campaigning on the issue does not make him an anti-semite - to - I should be happy the Tories have given tens of thousands Islamic fundamentalists weapons. Corbyn is trying to promote peace talks in the region, the Tories have enabled mass death and destruction.
Excellent article, as one would expect from Tissue Price. I agree that it seems unlikely that the Corbyn phenomenon isn't damaging Tessa's chances; I know that Nick P disagrees, but I wonder if his view is skewed by the fact that he's more in touch with long-standing Labour members rather than the new sign-ups.
The Betfair mayoral market has been rather odd for a long time. It has often offered shorter odds on Sadiq Khan than the bookies were offering. Admittedly it's not very liquid - only £31K traded, which itself is a bit strange.
Thanks RN.
It's a bit early for Betfair to hot up as there won't be too many casual punters involved (not least because of the current popcornfest). At this stage I'd probably trust the bookies' collective wisdom more - i.e. Zac is favourite, but clearly not odds-on.
I think 3.25 sounds right for what we may have expected six weeks ago - Burnham/Jowell or Burnham/Khan. I think evens might be achievable for Corbyn/Khan, which leaves something like 2.5 about right.
In April there was only one property sale recorded above this price bracket in the whole of Scotland as the hefty tax increases put off would-be buyers. In May there were two and in June this rose to six.
As a result the amount raised through the new land and buildings transaction tax (LBTT), which replaced UK-wide stamp duty in Scotland in April, fell to only £982,511 in the second quarter. It had been almost £8.6 million between January and March.
Under the LBTT, the first tax to be set by the Scottish parliament, buyers of homes worth £750,001 or more will have to pay tax at 12 per cent for the proportion of the value of the property that is higher than that bracket. They also pay 10 per cent for the amount from £325,001 to £750,000.
Tory voters have helped into power a party that has armed tens of thousands of anti-Semitic holocaust deniers in number of countries. Jezza might have chatted to a couple whilst campaigning for justice for a people hideously oppressed by a fascist establishment ally. I think we can all see who should be more sanguine about the facts on the ground.
Why the conditional tense? Why do you apparently seek to deny what Corbyn has himself admitted is true? If you're fine with what he has done why criticise the Tories for arming (in your words) "anti-Semitic holocaust deniers" who are also (again in your words) "campaigning for justice for a people hideously oppressed by a fascist establishment ally"?
You really are hard of thinking aren't you? How on earth did you get a logical leap from - the fact I think that Corbyn's having met unsavoury pro-Palestinian nutters in the course of campaigning on the issue does not make him an anti-semite - to - I should be happy the Tories have given tens of thousands Islamic fundamentalists weapons. Corbyn is trying to promote peace talks in the region, the Tories have enabled mass death and destruction.
No point in engaging with your insults.
As for your last sentence, Daniel Barenboim has probably done more to promote peace between Palestinians and Israelis than anything Corbyn has ever done.
In April there was only one property sale recorded above this price bracket in the whole of Scotland as the hefty tax increases put off would-be buyers. In May there were two and in June this rose to six.
As a result the amount raised through the new land and buildings transaction tax (LBTT), which replaced UK-wide stamp duty in Scotland in April, fell to only £982,511 in the second quarter. It had been almost £8.6 million between January and March.
Under the LBTT, the first tax to be set by the Scottish parliament, buyers of homes worth £750,001 or more will have to pay tax at 12 per cent for the proportion of the value of the property that is higher than that bracket. They also pay 10 per cent for the amount from £325,001 to £750,000.
The kicking Granny is my MP, and the only good thing I can say about her is that for the first time in yonks, my MP is older than me (just). Not altogether sure that's a good thing, though.
Tony Blair has met Mahmoud Abbas, PA Chairman and holocaust denier, on numerous occasions.
In my time I have had discussions with Fidel Castro, the then head of the KGB etc. I did this to gain knowledge and also pass on certain messages - does that make me and others a bad person?
Tony Blair has met Mahmoud Abbas, PA Chairman and holocaust denier, on numerous occasions.
In my time I have had discussions with Fidel Castro, the then head of the KGB etc. I did this to gain knowledge and also pass on certain messages - does that make me and others a bad person?
Tony Blair has met Mahmoud Abbas, PA Chairman and holocaust denier, on numerous occasions.
Did Blair subsequently lie about Abbas' views or the times when he met him though? Or was he so incompetent that he was unaware of Abbas' publicly stated views? Because that's the charge against Corbyn.
As I predicted, Corbyn's supporters immediately changed the subject to being about Israel and the wider question of anti-semitism. But that is not the point. 'Your Holocaust Denier is better than my Holocaust Denier' is not at issue (if it's even possible to argue something as surreal as that). It's about whether or not someone who is attempting to become Leader of the Opposition or Prime Minister is dishonest or stupid - or of course, both.
In April there was only one property sale recorded above this price bracket in the whole of Scotland as the hefty tax increases put off would-be buyers. In May there were two and in June this rose to six.
As a result the amount raised through the new land and buildings transaction tax (LBTT), which replaced UK-wide stamp duty in Scotland in April, fell to only £982,511 in the second quarter. It had been almost £8.6 million between January and March.
Under the LBTT, the first tax to be set by the Scottish parliament, buyers of homes worth £750,001 or more will have to pay tax at 12 per cent for the proportion of the value of the property that is higher than that bracket. They also pay 10 per cent for the amount from £325,001 to £750,000.
In April there was only one property sale recorded above this price bracket in the whole of Scotland as the hefty tax increases put off would-be buyers. In May there were two and in June this rose to six.
As a result the amount raised through the new land and buildings transaction tax (LBTT), which replaced UK-wide stamp duty in Scotland in April, fell to only £982,511 in the second quarter. It had been almost £8.6 million between January and March.
Under the LBTT, the first tax to be set by the Scottish parliament, buyers of homes worth £750,001 or more will have to pay tax at 12 per cent for the proportion of the value of the property that is higher than that bracket. They also pay 10 per cent for the amount from £325,001 to £750,000.
It would appear that either Corbyn is lying or that he doesn't know what he's talking about. Either way, it's rather worrying. But I don't suppose that either case would make any meaningful difference to his admirers, who will put it all down to media bias.
It's a theory. A theory that ignores all the information in the original post, but a theory nonetheless.
[said by Antifrank - my quoting has gone awry]
I'm not sure why Wisemann always brings Israel into everything. Still the criticism of someone like Raed Salah is that he has been found by an English court of having uttered the medieval blood libel against Jews. This libel is unquestionably an anti-Semitic statement.
Not all criticisms of Jews or Israel are anti-Semitic, of course. Equally, there are those who are anti-Semitic and seek to camouflage this by claiming that they are just being anti-Zionist. Best to ignore their own descriptions and look at what they actually say.
I find it hard to see how anyone who is a Holocaust denier cannot be claimed to be an anti-Semite. Such people usually claim that the Holocaust did not happen and/or that it was less serious than claimed and/or that the only thing wrong with it was that it did not kill enough Jews. We are in the realms of some sort of mental psychosis.
The persistent human need for a scapegoat is depressing, though.
There is something blackly funny in seeing people who obviously consider that killing Jews is a good thing going to great lengths to deny that it happened. Really, they should be out and proud about the holocaust.
There's another theory which you overlooked, but which is popular in the Muslim world. Namely, the holocaust did take place, but it was carried out by Jewish leaders, in collaboration with the Nazis, to bring about the creation of the State of Israel.
Indeed. If you want to enrage such people you can show them the picture of the Palestinian leader of the time, the man whom Arafat revered, with Hitler, and mention the SS brigade made up of Muslims and talk about the way the Nazi propaganda of the time which was spread into Egypt and other Middle Eastern countries was adapted to suit Arab ears (the Nazis despising Arabs quite as much as other non-Aryans but finding them useful in their war against the Allies in North Africa) and was later adopted by Al-Banna and others in the Muslim Brotherhood, who have been one of the ideological pillars behind the Islamist world view.
Mind you, the amount of frothing that would ensue would make a tsunami seem calm.
Paul Berman is a reputable historian who has written deeply on this topic.
Tony Blair has met Mahmoud Abbas, PA Chairman and holocaust denier, on numerous occasions.
Did Blair subsequently lie about Abbas' views or the times when he met him though? Or was he so incompetent that he was unaware of Abbas' publicly stated views? Because that's the charge against Corbyn.
As I predicted, Corbyn's supporters immediately changed the subject to being about Israel and the wider question of anti-semitism. But that is not the point. 'Your Holocaust Denier is better than my Holocaust Denier' is not at issue (if it's even possible to argue something as surreal as that). It's about whether or not someone who is attempting to become Leader of the Opposition or Prime Minister is dishonest or stupid - or of course, both.
In April there was only one property sale recorded above this price bracket in the whole of Scotland as the hefty tax increases put off would-be buyers. In May there were two and in June this rose to six.
As a result the amount raised through the new land and buildings transaction tax (LBTT), which replaced UK-wide stamp duty in Scotland in April, fell to only £982,511 in the second quarter. It had been almost £8.6 million between January and March.
Under the LBTT, the first tax to be set by the Scottish parliament, buyers of homes worth £750,001 or more will have to pay tax at 12 per cent for the proportion of the value of the property that is higher than that bracket. They also pay 10 per cent for the amount from £325,001 to £750,000.
In April there was only one property sale recorded above this price bracket in the whole of Scotland as the hefty tax increases put off would-be buyers. In May there were two and in June this rose to six.
As a result the amount raised through the new land and buildings transaction tax (LBTT), which replaced UK-wide stamp duty in Scotland in April, fell to only £982,511 in the second quarter. It had been almost £8.6 million between January and March.
Under the LBTT, the first tax to be set by the Scottish parliament, buyers of homes worth £750,001 or more will have to pay tax at 12 per cent for the proportion of the value of the property that is higher than that bracket. They also pay 10 per cent for the amount from £325,001 to £750,000.
Tony Blair has met Mahmoud Abbas, PA Chairman and holocaust denier, on numerous occasions.
In my time I have had discussions with Fidel Castro, the then head of the KGB etc. I did this to gain knowledge and also pass on certain messages - does that make me and others a bad person?
For me no but for the McCarthyite freaks currently at large you're suspect.
Has Kendall sent out her blurb yet? I've had something from the rest
Dear Sir,
The future of the Labour Party hangs in the balance this week.
This Leadership Election has shown that Labour is crying out for a big vision. But we’re also at grave risk of returning to the in-fighting of the early 80s, when we allowed Thatcher’s Government to bulldoze her way through Labour communities up and down this country. I won’t let that happen again.
I’m offering a radical vision, but one with economic credibility at its heart. I will unite our Party, bringing together the many voices that have emerged during this campaign, and I will make sure we win in 2020 on the back of truly Labour policies and values.
Please read my manifesto here and watch an extract from the speech I gave yesterday here:
Andy's speechClick here to watch the video
Let’s unite against our real Opposition – the Tories – and deliver the Labour Government that this country desperately needs.
Comments
My point is simple. There is in my opinion a difference between defending every nut and bolt of Israeli policy towards Palestine, and making an antisemitic statement. I expect you regard the previous sentence as antisemitic, too.
So 2nd preferences of these who put Corbyn first are irrelevant!
Some contradictory thoughts from the past two thread headers as to the state of play in the London Mayoral election. The first question to ask is why did Boris win twice ? The answer is his upbeat, positive spirit resonates with many Londoners - he was (not is) far more representative of London than of the Conservatives. A touch of flamboyance and bravado as a contrast to the duller but worthy Ken Livingstone and at a time of global economic gloom, there was only going to be one winner.
Yet London is never as it was - the 2014 locals and 2015 GE results showed the ongoing political polarisation between the staunchly Conservative areas and the markedly Labour ones and, to be fair, Labour have advanced, not everywhere and not evenly. It looks tougher for Goldsmith in 2016 than it did for Boris in 2008 and 2012.
In my part of the world, Labour got a 5% swing from the Conservatives in May and took Ilford North. Yes, there were Labour failures, Hendon and Croydon Central as two examples and they offer a cautionary note for backers of Khan and Jowell but there is polling evidence both can beat Goldsmith (assuming he is the Conservative candidate).
From a personal viewpoint, I would expect the successful Mayoral candidate to immediately resign his or her Westminster seat (by election bets ?) and Boris's decision to renege on his own commitment from 2012 not to seek to return to Westminster while serving as Mayor was and remains contemptible though I note most Tory activists don't seem too bothered.
This time, of course, it would be possible for the elected Mayor to serve a team and then stand for Westminster in 2020 though whether that's a message any of the candidates wants to send out is debatable.
@JEO that's very true. But it would still be a huge surprise if they were wrong by such a colossal margin. Can anyone think of a possible parallel? Because I certainly can't. Even Truman's come-from-behind win in 1948 saw more accurate polling.
@JonCisBack - perhaps the receipient of a happy finish?
Most of the fence-sitters (myself included) are waiting to see what genuine reform can be had for the non-Eurozone EU members, anything that looks like the Emperor's New Clothes will result in an OUT vote.
I haven't decided which way I will vote yet, but I'm going to put very little faith in the leadership's claims of what's been renegotiated, and the media should not give much creedence to their spin either. We will just have to compare it with all the suggestions for what needs to change with the EU over the years, and not be manipulated by government expectation setting.
Any government minister who engages is dishonest spinning over this will end up going down as the mirror image of Red Tories: manipulative blue Europhiles. Its a recipe for the conservative membership turning against them.
Priceless...
The political establishment will all be In, as will the BBC. Print media [on balance] may be for Out, and hokey-cokey Farage will also be for Out.
That's not a remotely even contest.
Where he could fall down is it seems possible that many non hard, left-of-centre members, possibly even former fans of Blair, such as Dr Palmer, are voting Corbyn for various non-idealogical reasons to do with shaking things up, seeing what happens, a chance for more party democracy etc.
If Hatwal is wrong then it won't be the extreme left wot won it. It will be fairly ordinary members who in the words of their ex-mentor, Tony Blair (about something else entirely), will have "shaken the kaleidoscope".
I predict they will come to bitterly regret playing with kaleidoscopes.
Hell I'll campaign for Labour, my campaigning skills are awesome. Every seat I campaigned in this year was either a Tory hold or Tory gain
The best of an appalling bunch is in fact Cooper, but she looks like coming 3rd. This would be quite a come down for Labour's former 'power couple' and could lead to a double exit from politics and more time with the family.
Have a glance.
Needless to say in large part I (and my betting position) agree.
What I would add is that I think Abbott is still too long at 20/1 for the nomination, although still an outsider, and should be about 8/1. I got on at 25/1 so YMMV.
The reason Zac should be boosted by a Corbyn win is that he doesn't get on with Jowell, their most successful candidate electorally, and of course a large Corbyn win is a predictor of a Khan (or even Abbott) victory.
Those pbers in London will remember the mileage the Evening Standard made of every (?) candidate backing down over the Mansion Tax. Those sorts of questions will be directed at the newly elected.
http://www.espncricinfo.com/the-ashes-2015/content/story/910541.html
Odds of Australia being all out for less than 10 in one innings of their next series increase dramatically.
And he'll say that both sides of the hour.
Boris has shown that it is very much a third (or even fourth) job, and yet its salary is higher than that of the PM.
It's obviously another of these farcical taxpayer-funded non-jobs that any good Conservative should want to see cut to save money.
Cameron will recommend "in" and will take at least half the party with him. If Corbyn backs "in" then three-quarters will follow him.
I'm not sure why Wisemann always brings Israel into everything. Still the criticism of someone like Raed Salah is that he has been found by an English court of having uttered the medieval blood libel against Jews. This libel is unquestionably an anti-Semitic statement.
Not all criticisms of Jews or Israel are anti-Semitic, of course. Equally, there are those who are anti-Semitic and seek to camouflage this by claiming that they are just being anti-Zionist. Best to ignore their own descriptions and look at what they actually say.
I find it hard to see how anyone who is a Holocaust denier cannot be claimed to be an anti-Semite. Such people usually claim that the Holocaust did not happen and/or that it was less serious than claimed and/or that the only thing wrong with it was that it did not kill enough Jews. We are in the realms of some sort of mental psychosis.
The persistent human need for a scapegoat is depressing, though.
1) It is a step down the road of only rich people entering politics;
2) He'd need to pay for all the staffing costs, including that of deputy mayor (£97k I think), over and above what would have been needed in a traditional council set-up.
It's a sinecure. Time to bring in Jessop's third rule of politics: no public servant can earn more than the PM.
Old man in whorehouse: You have it backwards. It's better to live on your feet than to die on your knees."
Catch 22
I didn't say there weren't unsavoury characters as a tiny minority amongst the broad church of campaigners for Palestinian justice - this Eisen guy amongst them - i was saying the incontrovertible fact that every prominent pro-Palestinian figure in the public eye has been smeared as anti-Semitic as some point, when to any sane observer they are nothing of the sort. It suggests a pattern.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-33959444
http://www.samizdata.net/2015/08/those-wacky-economists/
I'm not sure why Wisemann always brings Israel into everything. Still the criticism of someone like Raed Salah is that he has been found by an English court of having uttered the medieval blood libel against Jews. This libel is unquestionably an anti-Semitic statement.
Not all criticisms of Jews or Israel are anti-Semitic, of course. Equally, there are those who are anti-Semitic and seek to camouflage this by claiming that they are just being anti-Zionist. Best to ignore their own descriptions and look at what they actually say.
I find it hard to see how anyone who is a Holocaust denier cannot be claimed to be an anti-Semite. Such people usually claim that the Holocaust did not happen and/or that it was less serious than claimed and/or that the only thing wrong with it was that it did not kill enough Jews. We are in the realms of some sort of mental psychosis.
The persistent human need for a scapegoat is depressing, though.
There is something blackly funny in seeing people who obviously consider that killing Jews is a good thing going to great lengths to deny that it happened. Really, they should be out and proud about the holocaust.
There's another theory which you overlooked, but which is popular in the Muslim world. Namely, the holocaust did take place, but it was carried out by Jewish leaders, in collaboration with the Nazis, to bring about the creation of the State of Israel.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/11808433/Why-are-Labour-Party-members-putting-up-with-the-Corbyn-cultists-claptrap.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/11807562/Are-your-money-manners-socially-acceptable.html
Corbyn looks quite thin - would he use this one - or would fatties be banned from his party??
http://www.dailysabah.com/money/2015/08/18/european-commission-to-fine-halloumi-producers-outside-cyprus
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/13609421.Corbyn__I_m_a_Socialist_not_a_Unionist/
The problem with these eye catching headlines is that once you actually read the articles it becomes clear that Corbyn as with Jim are in favour of the union - so effectively contradict themselves - I'm not sure how they think anybody is going to buy their line.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-30810362
Give it a few weeks no doubt Kezia will pop up joining the Unionist denier headline club.
The Betfair mayoral market has been rather odd for a long time. It has often offered shorter odds on Sadiq Khan than the bookies were offering. Admittedly it's not very liquid - only £31K traded, which itself is a bit strange.
It's a bit early for Betfair to hot up as there won't be too many casual punters involved (not least because of the current popcornfest). At this stage I'd probably trust the bookies' collective wisdom more - i.e. Zac is favourite, but clearly not odds-on.
Check out Ben Carson's Op-Ed in the Jerusalem Post:
"Shockingly, his diatribe also was replete with coded innuendos employing standard anti-Semitic themes involving implied disloyalty and nefarious influences related to money and power."
Obama has probably been the most even handed president in dealing with the Israel-Palestine question, yet the bloke who's currently 3rd in the GOP presidential poll thinks he's Anti- Semitic?!
How on earth did you get a logical leap from - the fact I think that Corbyn's having met unsavoury pro-Palestinian nutters in the course of campaigning on the issue does not make him an anti-semite - to - I should be happy the Tories have given tens of thousands Islamic fundamentalists weapons. Corbyn is trying to promote peace talks in the region, the Tories have enabled mass death and destruction.
As for your last sentence, Daniel Barenboim has probably done more to promote peace between Palestinians and Israelis than anything Corbyn has ever done.
Was the £8.6 inflated by people bringing purchases forward?
The kicking Granny is my MP, and the only good thing I can say about her is that for the first time in yonks, my MP is older than me (just). Not altogether sure that's a good thing, though.
As I predicted, Corbyn's supporters immediately changed the subject to being about Israel and the wider question of anti-semitism. But that is not the point. 'Your Holocaust Denier is better than my Holocaust Denier' is not at issue (if it's even possible to argue something as surreal as that). It's about whether or not someone who is attempting to become Leader of the Opposition or Prime Minister is dishonest or stupid - or of course, both.
http://wingsoverscotland.com/the-geography-of-news/
Yawn, saddo , Tories still fighting for list seats like baldy men over a comb. They getting a surge.
Just a smidgen of the 3.15 Tessa left too.
Good work all...
EDIT: I see Richard had already noticed!
Depressing isn't it?
Who'd have thunk it eh?
There's another theory which you overlooked, but which is popular in the Muslim world. Namely, the holocaust did take place, but it was carried out by Jewish leaders, in collaboration with the Nazis, to bring about the creation of the State of Israel.
Indeed. If you want to enrage such people you can show them the picture of the Palestinian leader of the time, the man whom Arafat revered, with Hitler, and mention the SS brigade made up of Muslims and talk about the way the Nazi propaganda of the time which was spread into Egypt and other Middle Eastern countries was adapted to suit Arab ears (the Nazis despising Arabs quite as much as other non-Aryans but finding them useful in their war against the Allies in North Africa) and was later adopted by Al-Banna and others in the Muslim Brotherhood, who have been one of the ideological pillars behind the Islamist world view.
Mind you, the amount of frothing that would ensue would make a tsunami seem calm.
Paul Berman is a reputable historian who has written deeply on this topic.
The deafening roar would blow them into low Earth orbit.
So you think that the collapse in tax receipts is a good thing?
Put down the invective-gun for a minute and tell us...
Could I push you for an actual opinion Malcolm?
After our discussion about tax powers, any evidence is important...
Brutal
If there is a big slump in the next few years, perhaps more people will be willing to listen to Jezza than anybody thinks.
The future of the Labour Party hangs in the balance this week.
This Leadership Election has shown that Labour is crying out for a big vision. But we’re also at grave risk of returning to the in-fighting of the early 80s, when we allowed Thatcher’s Government to bulldoze her way through Labour communities up and down this country. I won’t let that happen again.
I’m offering a radical vision, but one with economic credibility at its heart. I will unite our Party, bringing together the many voices that have emerged during this campaign, and I will make sure we win in 2020 on the back of truly Labour policies and values.
Please read my manifesto here and watch an extract from the speech I gave yesterday here:
Andy's speechClick here to watch the video
Let’s unite against our real Opposition – the Tories – and deliver the Labour Government that this country desperately needs.
Best wishes,
Andy Burnham
Labour Leadership Candidate