This argument is so depressing. That there are antisemites in the Labour party does not seem possible to deny. The question is how widespread they are and how much influence they have. People may believe it is minimal, and we have pointing to Ed M's time as leader as an example, and it may be the case it is not as prevalent a force in the party as opponents of the current leader s.
I bwish!
My point, however, was even if that is the case (and which would mean a lot of work elsewhere needs doing to resolve that), that doesn't mean things these senior Labour people have said right now are not significant. Shah did what she did. Ken said what he said. That you think John Mann MP is making a bigger deal of this than should be the case, or that Tory clubs are worse, have no bearing on that she did and he said.
If someone is goaded along into saying racist things, to make an example, they are still responsible for what they said, and it is still a problem, even if it may not be reflective of anything wider. And of course it needs to be established clearly that it is not reflective first.
"That you think John Mann MP is making a bigger deal of this than should be the case."
Again, why this deliberate mis-representation ? I have not written anything about John Mann. I still do not know what he has said. Only thing I do know, is that he is a right-winger in the Labour party. I know little else about him.
It's not deliberate misrepresentation, it was poor language on my part - I apologise that I conflated you, Surbiton, with 'you', those in general who feel this is not a big deal and is being stirred up by Corbyn's opponents.
You really need to stop ascribing to malice that which stupidity will explain. I would much rather admit to the latter than the former. But I will rephrase my point, which was:
That people may think some are making a bigger deal of this than should be the case, or that Tory clubs are worse, has no bearing on what Shah did or Livingstone said.
I trust you will accept the point now, even if you do not agree with it, as is your inalienable right?
That's better put. I have met Livingstone before [ well over twenty years ago ] He is not anti-Jewish. I think his support for Palestinians is not well liked in the powers that matter. However, I do not know what he has said in this latest situation.
However, I wish the many people who jump for Israel would show a tiny percentage of that support for Palestinians who did not kill 6m Jews [ note I am no holocaust denier ] but have seen their land taken over by others at the behest of those countries who stood by when 6m Jews were killed.
The folks who are trying to unseat Mr Corbyn should perhaps in future choose a subject area the Great British public actually have any interest in or care about.
Any suggestions? Certainly Corbyn's going nowhere, and the anti-Corbynites have tried many options.
Anti-Corbynites are like nuclear waste for Labour voters.
When they pre-announced their efforts to get rid of Corbyn even before he was elected, their credibility shrank to absolute zero.
No one will listen to them simply because everyone knows they are not sincere in their criticism, they are just out to get Corbyn.
I'd suggest the problem is they might be sincere in their criticism on particular occasions, this being one, but they are also clearly out to get Corbyn, which makes people suspicious of motivations.
The folks who are trying to unseat Mr Corbyn should perhaps in future choose a subject area the Great British public actually have any interest in or care about.
Could this row hurt Labour's GOTV campaign next Thursday?
It will - no question.
Sadiq will comfortably win London as his opponent Zac has been maxing out on the politics of identity. Zac is also crap it has to be said.
It would seem so. I have to say I've been impressed by Khan, in relative terms. I won't say I'm unaffected by the arguments against him, but he seems to know how to respond, is keen to appear reasonable. He's deathly boring it seems, but Zac is just so bloody mundane as well, I get no sense from him at all, and Khan comes across as having more substance. That might not be the case, and I don't have the vote in London, but I can see why Zac is struggling to make headway.
The problem with Zac is that Boris was a one time thing. The vote for Labour in the council last time and the vote for Khan this time is almost the same, it's just that Boris got Labour votes with his charisma.
Goldsmith is not that charismatic as Boris and cannot compete with the ethnic block of Khan, Crosby made it worse by exaggerating the ethnic factor.
Dan Hannan Today, EFTA signed a free trade agreement with the Philippines. The talks took less than one year. Via @Hjortur_J: https://t.co/hpkFdpRoj4
Size of Philippines economy - $290 billion Size of US economy - $18 trillion
Different countries will require different amounts of time for negotiations to be concluded. Because you can do a deal with one country in a year, it does not follow that a deal with a much, much larger economy can be done in the same time frame.
And Hannan knows that. He is just playing the game.
Well it helps to have a 1 on 1 negotiation rather than a 27 on 1 - as there are so many competing conflicting interests - last time I heard Italian tomato growers were preventing a trade deal.
There are a number of bilateral EU-US trade treaties (and US-Norway, and US-Switzerland treaties, etc.), it's just that all are fairly small and cover only a limited range of products and services, and therefore don't come under the heading of a "Free Trade Agreement".
The must unify around one candidate to start with to prevent splitting the anti-Corbyn vote, and then they must try to reinvigorate ordinary, sensible people who would vote Labour.
There can be only one. Step forward, Ed Miliband !
If that one came home, I think I'd mention my 200/1 tip in every single post.
I'm hoping for TSE's 770/1 on Belarus for Eurovision to come in. (I think it was because they wanted to perform surrounded by wolves (possibly naked, not sure).)
"JERUSALEM — Israeli historians and opposition politicians on Wednesday joined Palestinians in denouncing Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel for saying it was a Palestinian, the grand mufti of Jerusalem, who gave Hitler the idea of annihilating European Jews during World War II."
Now if John Mann and other Anti-Corbynites were really persons of integrity they would go after you too with the same vile as they went against Livingstone.
You see the perils of being dragged to the mud is that you get dirty but the pig likes it.
Where the fuck did I say al-Husseini devised the Holocaust? Churning out propaganda for the Nazis, aiding in recruitment for the Nazis, trying to prevent Jews fleeing to the Middle East, etc., makes him responsible for the deaths of numerous Jews.
Israel has powerful influence. One way or other it will get you. Either by a death squad or through character assassination.
Today, if you criticise Israel, first you are labelled as anti-zionist and then anti-semetic.
The concept of Semitic ethnicity does not exist. Semitic people are those who spoke a Semetic language. The Israelis today are a very small part of the semetic people.
The expression has been hijacked.
What do you think is a better expression for those racially predjudiced against Jews? While strictly anti-semitism does cover other semitic peoples, that is not common usage of the term.
It was a common usage until recently. If someone is racially prejudiced against Jews, they should be called anti-Jew. Why bury the main thrust of the expression by including another 150m people. [ I haven't counted. I also think people in the Maghreb should not be included ]
It has not been common usage in my lifetime, i.e. in the last 50 years.
Indeed, a quick web search yields, from Encyclopaedia Britannica:
"The term anti-Semitism was coined in 1879 by the German agitator Wilhelm Marr to designate the anti-Jewish campaigns under way in central Europe at that time. Although the term now has wide currency, it is a misnomer, since it implies a discrimination against all Semites. Arabs and other peoples are also Semites, and yet they are not the targets of anti-Semitism as it is usually understood."
Further, the spelling was adapted to antisemitism without the hyphen to minimize the potential to read it as being against Semites in general rather than Jews in particular.
You are not the only one who can quote. I can too.
"The term Semitic people or Semitic cultures (from the biblical "Shem", Hebrew: שם) was a term for people or cultures who speak or spoke the Semitic languages. The racial use of the term, together with the parallel terms Hamitic and Japhetic, is now obsolete.[1] According to some scholars the concept of Semitic ethnicity does not exist[2] or should be avoided.[3][4]"
The largest Semite group are the Arabs. Are you saying the Arabs are not Semites ? Rewriting the language, are we ?
Realistically you've got to accept that "antisemitism" has been appropriated as a synonym for anti-Jewish. It's irritating maybe but probably less so than (for example) the American construct of "could care less". The attempts to extend the synonym to anti-Zionist are the bit it's worth getting exercised about.
However, I wish the many people who jump for Israel would show a tiny percentage of that support for Palestinians who did not kill 6m Jews [ note I am no holocaust denier ] but have seen their land taken over by others at the behest of those countries who stood by when 6m Jews were killed.
Nobody is suggesting you are a Holocaust denier that I can see, although as I have said I think you are most unwise to have tried to link these issues. I am however genuinely curious as to what more of a practical nature you think could have been done to help the Jews. The crucial difficulty was not necessarily getting them out before the war - it was then supporting them when they had left because of the confiscation of their assets. If the Nazis had been genuinely interested in getting rid of them to a remote location, as Livingstone has (wrongly) suggested, surely they would have made it easy for them to leave Germany by not stripping them of their wealth? Many Jews, indeed, were anxious to try and hang on in Germany in the firm belief things would improve.
The Jews were murdered in Poland from the very first, but since the only power that could have stopped this was Russia and far from preventing the massacres they took an active part in them, and France and Britain had already declared war, I'm again not sure what could in practice have been done to save them. Similarly the massacres in Ukraine and the Baltic states in 1941.
The Jews in Germany itself were only systematically exterminated towards the end of the war, after the Wannsee conference. Ironically, more Jews and Mischlinge (mixed race) people survived in Germany than did in Hungary, where within a few months of the German invasion (an invasion solely aimed at getting and killing the 144,000 Jews there, incidentally) almost all had been murdered at Auschwitz.
I find it hard to credit that the Holocaust could not have been stopped, and I certainly don't want to believe that people in the 1930s were powerless against such a monstrosity, but when you start to consider the logistics, you begin to realise just how hard it was to address it.
I suggest Rubinstein's The Myth of Rescue might be worth reading, although I don't agree with all his conclusions.
Dan Hannan Today, EFTA signed a free trade agreement with the Philippines. The talks took less than one year. Via @Hjortur_J: https://t.co/hpkFdpRoj4
Size of Philippines economy - $290 billion Size of US economy - $18 trillion
Different countries will require different amounts of time for negotiations to be concluded. Because you can do a deal with one country in a year, it does not follow that a deal with a much, much larger economy can be done in the same time frame.
And Hannan knows that. He is just playing the game.
Well it helps to have a 1 on 1 negotiation rather than a 27 on 1 - as there are so many competing conflicting interests - last time I heard Italian tomato growers were preventing a trade deal.
There are a number of bilateral EU-US trade treaties (and US-Norway, and US-Switzerland treaties, etc.), it's just that all are fairly small and cover only a limited range of products and services, and therefore don't come under the heading of a "Free Trade Agreement".
Well if you want New Zealand Lamb the tariff earned is 12.8% + €1.7183 / Kg That could drop to 0 when we leave the EU.
Mike - yes it is just Labour that have this particular problem.
They have this issue precisely because they understand the middle east insufficiently to distinguish between country, race, and religion.
Idiots like Corbyn and McDonnell will however ignore their own ignorance and try to persuade others of some lunacy or other. There are parallels with the Catholic church.
Other parties are no better, perhaps less preachy, and no worse.
The must unify around one candidate to start with to prevent splitting the anti-Corbyn vote, and then they must try to reinvigorate ordinary, sensible people who would vote Labour.
There can be only one. Step forward, Ed Miliband !
If that one came home, I think I'd mention my 200/1 tip in every single post.
I'm hoping for TSE's 770/1 on Belarus for Eurovision to come in. (I think it was because they wanted to perform surrounded by wolves (possibly naked, not sure).)
You aint the only one hoping for that little peach to rock in.
Idiots like Corbyn and McDonnell will however ignore their own ignorance and try to persuade others of some lunacy or other. There are parallels with the Catholic church.
Bit harsh on the Papists, maybe?
Or are we drawing parallels with the egregious Bishop Williamson here?
Of course the Gulags and the Red Terror happened before the concentration camp system.
I hate to be contrary, LondonBob, but technically the former came three years later.*
For the Red Terror, it depends a bit on whether you are including Lenin's tactics in the Civil War under the umbrella of 'Red Terror' - if not, then again it was probably 2-3 years after the first concentration camps opened.
*Later than the ones in Germany under the Nazis, obviously, not later than the idea of a 'concentration' of people which dates back to the nineteenth century and came to widespread attention following British mismanagement of them in the Boer War in 1901.
Came much before the Boer War:
"The English term originated in the reconcentrados (reconcentration camps) set up by the Spanish military in Cuba during the Ten Years' War (1868–1878), Cuban War for Independence (1895–1898), and by the United States during the Philippine–American War (1899–1902).[8]]"
Israel has powerful influence. One way or other it will get you. Either by a death squad or through character assassination.
Today, if you criticise Israel, first you are labelled as anti-zionist and then anti-semetic.
The concept of Semitic ethnicity does not exist. Semitic people are those who spoke a Semetic language. The Israelis today are a very small part of the semetic people.
The expression has been hijacked.
I don't think so. Anti-semitism was a politically correct term which was adopted in late nineteenth century Europe by people who didn't want to state baldly that they hated Jews. Arabs weren't much of a feature in European society at the time.
Idiots like Corbyn and McDonnell will however ignore their own ignorance and try to persuade others of some lunacy or other. There are parallels with the Catholic church.
Bit harsh on the Papists, maybe?
Or are we drawing parallels with the egregious Bishop Williamson here?
(Had to look your Williamson fella up)
No - I was referring directly to the Catholic Church (I don't regard them as terribly different to any other Christian branch, but just for these purposes they've had a decent while to correct themselves if wrong)
Pretty much every now accepted truism that had run contrary to the Catholic Church's teachings has been opposed and then accepted.
These weren't just hunches, these were things that the Church would kill you if you said weren't true.
Dan Hannan Today, EFTA signed a free trade agreement with the Philippines. The talks took less than one year. Via @Hjortur_J: https://t.co/hpkFdpRoj4
Size of Philippines economy - $290 billion Size of US economy - $18 trillion
Different countries will require different amounts of time for negotiations to be concluded. Because you can do a deal with one country in a year, it does not follow that a deal with a much, much larger economy can be done in the same time frame.
And Hannan knows that. He is just playing the game.
Well it helps to have a 1 on 1 negotiation rather than a 27 on 1 - as there are so many competing conflicting interests - last time I heard Italian tomato growers were preventing a trade deal.
There are a number of bilateral EU-US trade treaties (and US-Norway, and US-Switzerland treaties, etc.), it's just that all are fairly small and cover only a limited range of products and services, and therefore don't come under the heading of a "Free Trade Agreement".
Well if you want New Zealand Lamb the tariff earned is 12.8% + €1.7183 / Kg That could drop to 0 when we leave the EU.
Yes, I know. And I sincerely hope that we become a genuinely free trade country on exit, as we were prior to the First World War.
I'm just pointing out that there are many existing trade agreements with the US, just not one 'mega' free trade area deal.
Mike - yes it is just Labour that have this particular problem.
They have this issue precisely because they understand the middle east insufficiently to distinguish between country, race, and religion.
Idiots like Corbyn and McDonnell will however ignore their own ignorance and try to persuade others of some lunacy or other. There are parallels with the Catholic church.
Other parties are no better, perhaps less preachy, and no worse.
Labour's problem is bigger for two main reasons. Firstly, they've courted the vote of people who are undoubtedly anti-semitic and have either dogwhistled to them or have turned deaf ears to things they'd rather not have heard. And secondly, Labour has a greater sense of its own moral virtue than other parties and that blinds its leadership to its problems: Labour is tolerant and virtuous by definition, therefore there cannot be a problem.
'Livingstone is a done issue though, the talking subject is Mann.'
Not just Mann, although he is the chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on anti-semitism.
The list of Labour figures calling for Livingstone’s suspension are:
names snipped
You can put me on that list, but Mann is the only one to have done an embarrassing public brawl with Livingstone on TV.
The issue is not what John Mann said, it was what he did.
That is not the issue. The issue is whether those above-mentioned people will find themselves looking at each other in the same room and the lightbulb goes on: Corbyn! Let's get rid of him!
A day of entertaining stupidity: 1. Livingstone is right on so many things and is factually right on this one. But context anyone? Hitler also built autobahns but lets not praise his efforts or talk up what Jimmy Saville did for children by raising millions for charity. He was right to be suspended 2. John Mann choses to ambush Livingstone ot only whilst he's live on the radio but whilst TV crews are there to film pre-roll before his lunchtime TV slots. And shouts nonsense at Livingstone - if thats not bringing the party into disrepute what is? 3. Who chose to leak the Nas Shah stuff now? Hillsborough victory, winnig n London, doing ok in the locals, CRISIS FOR CONTINUTITY NEW LABOUR so lets whip back up the "anti-semitism" crisis story where the ONLY target is Corbyn. That Hillsborough result reminds everyone that Blair suppressed attempts to investigae as a favour to Murdoch adds fuel to their desperation.
Criticism of Israel is not criticism of Jews. I want to see a Jewish homeland where Jews can live in peace and security. Israel's government and the lunatic illegal settlers do all they can to prevent that from happening. What Nas Shah said was stupid. What Livingstone said was stupid. But not racist. Unless Israel and Jew are the same word.
Of course the Gulags and the Red Terror happened before the concentration camp system.
I hate to be contrary, LondonBob, but technically the former came three years later.*
For the Red Terror, it depends a bit on whether you are including Lenin's tactics in the Civil War under the umbrella of 'Red Terror' - if not, then again it was probably 2-3 years after the first concentration camps opened.
*Later than the ones in Germany under the Nazis, obviously, not later than the idea of a 'concentration' of people which dates back to the nineteenth century and came to widespread attention following British mismanagement of them in the Boer War in 1901.
Came much before the Boer War:
"The English term originated in the reconcentrados (reconcentration camps) set up by the Spanish military in Cuba during the Ten Years' War (1868–1878), Cuban War for Independence (1895–1898), and by the United States during the Philippine–American War (1899–1902).[8]]"
Idiots like Corbyn and McDonnell will however ignore their own ignorance and try to persuade others of some lunacy or other. There are parallels with the Catholic church.
Bit harsh on the Papists, maybe?
Or are we drawing parallels with the egregious Bishop Williamson here?
(Had to look your Williamson fella up)
No - I was referring directly to the Catholic Church (I don't regard them as terribly different to any other Christian branch, but just for these purposes they've had a decent while to correct themselves if wrong)
Pretty much every now accepted truism that had run contrary to the Catholic Church's teachings has been opposed and then accepted.
These weren't just hunches, these were things that the Church would kill you if you said weren't true.
Popes are infallible and yet contradictory.
Yes, but the point is the Catholics have from time to time accepted their mistakes. When has Jez Corbyn ever changed his mind on anything?
I wouldn't have bothered looking Williamson up. There are some things life is too short for and finding out more about this mad neo-Nazi is one of them. I apologise profusely if I have forced you to waste time that could have been put to much better use!
Dan Hannan Today, EFTA signed a free trade agreement with the Philippines. The talks took less than one year. Via @Hjortur_J: https://t.co/hpkFdpRoj4
Size of Philippines economy - $290 billion Size of US economy - $18 trillion
Different countries will require different amounts of time for negotiations to be concluded. Because you can do a deal with one country in a year, it does not follow that a deal with a much, much larger economy can be done in the same time frame.
And Hannan knows that. He is just playing the game.
The Philippines' economy is bigger than more than half of those in the EU.
'Livingstone is a done issue though, the talking subject is Mann.'
Not just Mann, although he is the chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on anti-semitism.
You can put me on that list, but Mann is the only one to have done an embarrassing public brawl with Livingstone on TV.
The issue is not what John Mann said, it was what he did.
What's wrong with John Mann having an argument with Ken Livingstone?
I was at uni with John Mann. All he ever wanted was to be a Labour MP and I was happy to see him achieve his ambition. He can be a bit sanctimonious at times but I'll forgive him that for the way he launched into Livingstone today.
A day of entertaining stupidity: 1. Livingstone is right on so many things and is factually right on this one. But context anyone? Hitler also built autobahns but lets not praise his efforts or talk up what Jimmy Saville did for children by raising millions for charity. He was right to be suspended 2. John Mann choses to ambush Livingstone ot only whilst he's live on the radio but whilst TV crews are there to film pre-roll before his lunchtime TV slots. And shouts nonsense at Livingstone - if thats not bringing the party into disrepute what is? 3. Who chose to leak the Nas Shah stuff now? Hillsborough victory, winnig n London, doing ok in the locals, CRISIS FOR CONTINUTITY NEW LABOUR so lets whip back up the "anti-semitism" crisis story where the ONLY target is Corbyn. That Hillsborough result reminds everyone that Blair suppressed attempts to investigae as a favour to Murdoch adds fuel to their desperation.
Criticism of Israel is not criticism of Jews. I want to see a Jewish homeland where Jews can live in peace and security. Israel's government and the lunatic illegal settlers do all they can to prevent that from happening. What Nas Shah said was stupid. What Livingstone said was stupid. But not racist. Unless Israel and Jew are the same word.
Israel and Jew are not the same word. But one is a convenient shorthand for the other, as we have seen amply displayed today when Ken said Shah didn't hate all jews (because that would be anti-semitic), just the ones in Israel.
The huge irony being that I thought Shah's origninal apology was a model of thoughtful contrition (as did some Jewish friends I discussed it with). I really do think she regretted what she had said and done.
The critical issue, however, for the left is that those pesky Jews have stopped being victims who can be told what to do and what is good for them (cf. WWC who actually make some money). And the left has never forgiven them for it.
Just been catching up past 2 days. Andy Burham was good in parliament on hillsborough. He has done a good job in government and in opposition on this issue. I may have wasted my vote on him on the Labour leadership , with the Corbyn landslide. However I am glad he stayed in the shadow cabinet.
I believe there should be Yorkshire Police covering North , West , South and Humberside Police. Shame there was so much resistance to regionalisation between 2005 -10.
A day of entertaining stupidity: 1. Livingstone is right on so many things and is factually right on this one. But context anyone? Hitler also built autobahns but lets not praise his efforts or talk up what Jimmy Saville did for children by raising millions for charity. He was right to be suspended 2. John Mann choses to ambush Livingstone ot only whilst he's live on the radio but whilst TV crews are there to film pre-roll before his lunchtime TV slots. And shouts nonsense at Livingstone - if thats not bringing the party into disrepute what is? 3. Who chose to leak the Nas Shah stuff now? Hillsborough victory, winnig n London, doing ok in the locals, CRISIS FOR CONTINUTITY NEW LABOUR so lets whip back up the "anti-semitism" crisis story where the ONLY target is Corbyn. That Hillsborough result reminds everyone that Blair suppressed attempts to investigae as a favour to Murdoch adds fuel to their desperation.
Criticism of Israel is not criticism of Jews. I want to see a Jewish homeland where Jews can live in peace and security. Israel's government and the lunatic illegal settlers do all they can to prevent that from happening. What Nas Shah said was stupid. What Livingstone said was stupid. But not racist. Unless Israel and Jew are the same word.
Rochdale, you do know that the Nazis used the word 'transportation' (specifically 'Judentransporten') as a euphemism for 'killing,' don't you? Moreover, as I have noted before Livingstone is only factually correct if you accept Nazi claims at face value. Anyone who does that is putting themselves in grave danger of looking like a complete numpty. (Incidentally, I must confess I'm struggling to think of any other issues he's right on - could you help here?)
John Mann's job is fighting anti-semitism. Livingstone has defended it, and has form on it personally. How on earth is calling him out on this bringing Labour into disrepute? Trying to play down somebody's tweet by comparing it to the early work of Hitler, on the other hand...
I'll leave the conspiracy theory part of your post. It speaks for itself, loud, clear and devastating.
Dan Hannan Today, EFTA signed a free trade agreement with the Philippines. The talks took less than one year. Via @Hjortur_J: https://t.co/hpkFdpRoj4
Size of Philippines economy - $290 billion Size of US economy - $18 trillion
Different countries will require different amounts of time for negotiations to be concluded. Because you can do a deal with one country in a year, it does not follow that a deal with a much, much larger economy can be done in the same time frame.
And Hannan knows that. He is just playing the game.
Well it helps to have a 1 on 1 negotiation rather than a 27 on 1 - as there are so many competing conflicting interests - last time I heard Italian tomato growers were preventing a trade deal.
There are a number of bilateral EU-US trade treaties (and US-Norway, and US-Switzerland treaties, etc.), it's just that all are fairly small and cover only a limited range of products and services, and therefore don't come under the heading of a "Free Trade Agreement".
Well if you want New Zealand Lamb the tariff earned is 12.8% + €1.7183 / Kg That could drop to 0 when we leave the EU.
Yes, I know. And I sincerely hope that we become a genuinely free trade country on exit, as we were prior to the First World War.
I'm just pointing out that there are many existing trade agreements with the US, just not one 'mega' free trade area deal.
'Livingstone is a done issue though, the talking subject is Mann.'
Not just Mann, although he is the chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on anti-semitism.
You can put me on that list, but Mann is the only one to have done an embarrassing public brawl with Livingstone on TV.
The issue is not what John Mann said, it was what he did.
What's wrong with John Mann having an argument with Ken Livingstone?
I was at uni with John Mann. All he ever wanted was to be a Labour MP and I was happy to see him achieve his ambition. He can be a bit sanctimonious at times but I'll forgive him that for the way he launched into Livingstone today.
I guess the problem isn't the message but the messanger. Mann's a man who could never walk past a camera silently as his rent a quote appearances on EM Today testify to. To be fair, he's hardly alone in this on either side of the House,
@georgeeaton: Source predicts whips office will be reshuffled at some point to give Corbyn greater control.
What could go wrong....
I presume only jew hating terrorist sympathisers need apply.
Only those who would have thought to punish John Mann before Ken Livingstone today will be allowed to whip for Corbyn. The Thick of It was a documentary, wasn't it?
Idiots like Corbyn and McDonnell will however ignore their own ignorance and try to persuade others of some lunacy or other. There are parallels with the Catholic church.
Bit harsh on the Papists, maybe?
Or are we drawing parallels with the egregious Bishop Williamson here?
(Had to look your Williamson fella up)
No - I was referring directly to the Catholic Church (I don't regard them as terribly different to any other Christian branch, but just for these purposes they've had a decent while to correct themselves if wrong)
Pretty much every now accepted truism that had run contrary to the Catholic Church's teachings has been opposed and then accepted.
These weren't just hunches, these were things that the Church would kill you if you said weren't true.
Popes are infallible and yet contradictory.
Yes, but the point is the Catholics have from time to time accepted their mistakes. When has Jez Corbyn ever changed his mind on anything?
I wouldn't have bothered looking Williamson up. There are some things life is too short for and finding out more about this mad neo-Nazi is one of them. I apologise profusely if I have forced you to waste time that could have been put to much better use!
Corbyn changed his mind on the EU, which is a shame .
@georgeeaton: Source predicts whips office will be reshuffled at some point to give Corbyn greater control.
What could go wrong....
I presume only jew hating terrorist sympathisers need apply.
Only those who would have thought to punish John Mann before Ken Livingstone today will be allowed to whip for Corbyn. The Thick of It was a documentary, wasn't it?
The characters in the thick of it were consument professionals compared to Team Chairman Milne
It's no secret that many Muslims have no fondness for Jews. Many of the Pakistani ones are not too keen on the Indians either. Now throw into the mix a good dollop of homophobia and misogyny in some cases and Labour will struggle to work out how to keep all of them onside.
It takes the old political trick of saying different things to different audiences. I don't think Sadiq is particularly Islamist at all, but he feels the need to be a politician. At least he's come out this time in one corner. Mind you, I suspect he has a lot of the Muslim sewn up anyway.
Ken and possibly Naz were less politician-ish and said what they probably think. Naz is still an amateur and Ken's stopped bothering. I doubt it's a conspiracy.
A day of entertaining stupidity: 1. Livingstone is right on so many things and is factually right on this one. But context anyone? Hitler also built autobahns but lets not praise his efforts or talk up what Jimmy Saville did for children by raising millions for charity. He was right to be suspended 2. John Mann choses to ambush Livingstone ot only whilst he's live on the radio but whilst TV crews are there to film pre-roll before his lunchtime TV slots. And shouts nonsense at Livingstone - if thats not bringing the party into disrepute what is? 3. Who chose to leak the Nas Shah stuff now? Hillsborough victory, winnig n London, doing ok in the locals, CRISIS FOR CONTINUTITY NEW LABOUR so lets whip back up the "anti-semitism" crisis story where the ONLY target is Corbyn. That Hillsborough result reminds everyone that Blair suppressed attempts to investigae as a favour to Murdoch adds fuel to their desperation.
Criticism of Israel is not criticism of Jews. I want to see a Jewish homeland where Jews can live in peace and security. Israel's government and the lunatic illegal settlers do all they can to prevent that from happening. What Nas Shah said was stupid. What Livingstone said was stupid. But not racist. Unless Israel and Jew are the same word.
Exactly how fucking thick are you? How fucking thick are the pb hard lefties? Really really fucking thick? Or even thicker than that?
For the avoidance of all future doubt, this is what Ken said today, on live TV. I know, because I watched it.
"a real antisemite doesn't just hate the Jews in Israel, they hate their Jewish neighbour in Golders Green "
Dwell on that for a while. Savour it. A REAL anti-Semite doesn't just hate the Jews in Israel. So if you JUST hate the Jews in Israel you're what? How would you define someone who hates the Jews in Israel? Personally, I'd call them a Jew hater. And a racist. Because hating people simply for their race or nationality is racist.
But perhaps you need further help in understanding. Let's tweak what Ken said.
"A real racist doesn't just hate the blacks in Africa, he hates the blacks in Brixton too."
So, by Ken's definition, anyone who JUST hates blacks in Africa is, you know, kinda OK, cause they're not REALLY a racist.
What would you say to someone who offered that opinion in an argument?
The debate ends.
When I retire , I might watch the daily politics . Must be hard for you to make a choice , between that and Homes under the Hammer.
Glad I have entertained some of you. Would I quote Hitler on any subject as a poositive? No. I recently gave up meat - I haven't quoted Hitler's vegetarianism as inspiration.
To flip a few comments round the other way, accusations of anti-semitism are deployed to stop any and all negative comments about policies of the state of Israel. Which is absurd - noone is above question. And I respect Sean T but take his interpretation under advisement. Livingstone doesn't hate Jews in Israel which rather stops the second part of his argument from making any sense.
Anway, for perspective from actual jewish members of the party lets reprint their letter in today's Guardian:
Letter sent to The Guardian today (written before Ken Livingstone's suspension) Dear Editor, We are Jewish members and supporters of the Labour Party and of Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership, who wish to put our perspective on the “antisemitism” controversy that has been widely debated in the last few weeks. We do not accept that antisemitism is “rife” in the Labour party. Of the examples that have been repeated in the media, many have been reported inaccurately, some are trivial, and a very few may be genuine examples of antisemitism. The tiny number of cases of real antisemitism need to be dealt with, but we are proud that the Labour Party historically has been in the forefront of the fight against all forms of racism. We, personally, have not experienced any antisemitic prejudice in our dealings with Labour Party colleagues. We believe these accusations are part of a wider campaign against the Labour leadership, and they have been timed particularly to do damage to the Labour Party and its prospects in elections in the coming week. As Jews, we are appalled that a serious issue is being used in this cynical and manipulative way, diverting attention from much more widespread examples of Islamaphobia and xenophobia in the Conservative and other parties. We dissociate ourselves from the misleading attacks on Labour from some members of the Jewish community. We urge others, who may be confused or worried by recent publicity, to be sure that the Labour Party, under its present progressive leadership, is a place where Jews are welcomed in a spirit of equality and solidarity. Yours sincerely, Julia Bard Jenny Bloom Alice Bondi Miriam E. David Professor Stephen Deutsch Lynda Gilbert Alex J. Goldhill Adam Goodkin Stuart Goodman Tony Greenstein Rosamine Hayeem Abe Hayeem Jane Henriques Lorraine Hershon Richard Kuper Pam Laurance Leah Levane Rachel Lever Sue Lukes Stephen Marks Helen Marks Charles Shaar Murray Professor Mica Nava Susan Pashkoff Rina Picciotto Caroline Raine Roland Rance Dr. Brian Robinson Denise Robson Jeff Daniel Rollin David Rosenberg Jonathan Rosenhead Stephen Sands Dr. Ian Saville Lynne Segal Steve Tiller Ray Sirotkin Inbar Tamari Naomi Wimborne-Idrissi Benjamin Young
Mrs Moses has no real interest in politics, pays no attention to any political stories in the news and really doesn't care that much about who does what. I Walked through the door tonight and she mentions the story.
A day of entertaining stupidity: 1. Livingstone is right on so many things and is factually right on this one. But context anyone? Hitler also built autobahns but lets not praise his efforts or talk up what Jimmy Saville did for children by raising millions for charity. He was right to be suspended 2. John Mann choses to ambush Livingstone ot only whilst he's live on the radio but whilst TV crews are there to film pre-roll before his lunchtime TV slots. And shouts nonsense at Livingstone - if thats not bringing the party into disrepute what is? 3. Who chose to leak the Nas Shah stuff now? Hillsborough victory, winnig n London, doing ok in the locals, CRISIS FOR CONTINUTITY NEW LABOUR so lets whip back up the "anti-semitism" crisis story where the ONLY target is Corbyn. That Hillsborough result reminds everyone that Blair suppressed attempts to investigae as a favour to Murdoch adds fuel to their desperation.
Criticism of Israel is not criticism of Jews. I want to see a Jewish homeland where Jews can live in peace and security. Israel's government and the lunatic illegal settlers do all they can to prevent that from happening. What Nas Shah said was stupid. What Livingstone said was stupid. But not racist. Unless Israel and Jew are the same word.
Exactly how fucking thick are you? How fucking thick are the pb hard lefties? Really really fucking thick? Or even thicker than that?
For the avoidance of all future doubt, this is what Ken said today, on live TV. I know, because I watched it.
"a real antisemite doesn't just hate the Jews in Israel, they hate their Jewish neighbour in Golders Green "
Dwell on that for a while. Savour it. A REAL anti-Semite doesn't just hate the Jews in Israel. So if you JUST hate the Jews in Israel you're what? How would you define someone who hates the Jews in Israel? Personally, I'd call them a Jew hater. And a racist. Because hating people simply for their race or nationality is racist.
But perhaps you need further help in understanding. Let's tweak what Ken said.
"A real racist doesn't just hate the blacks in Africa, he hates the blacks in Brixton too."
So, by Ken's definition, anyone who JUST hates blacks in Africa is, you know, kinda OK, cause they're not REALLY a racist.
What would you say to someone who offered that opinion in an argument?
Idiots like Corbyn and McDonnell will however ignore their own ignorance and try to persuade others of some lunacy or other. There are parallels with the Catholic church.
Bit harsh on the Papists, maybe?
Or are we drawing parallels with the egregious Bishop Williamson here?
(Had to look your Williamson fella up)
No - I was referring directly to the Catholic Church (I don't regard them as terribly different to any other Christian branch, but just for these purposes they've had a decent while to correct themselves if wrong)
Pretty much every now accepted truism that had run contrary to the Catholic Church's teachings has been opposed and then accepted.
These weren't just hunches, these were things that the Church would kill you if you said weren't true.
Popes are infallible and yet contradictory.
Yes, but the point is the Catholics have from time to time accepted their mistakes. When has Jez Corbyn ever changed his mind on anything?
I wouldn't have bothered looking Williamson up. There are some things life is too short for and finding out more about this mad neo-Nazi is one of them. I apologise profusely if I have forced you to waste time that could have been put to much better use!
Corbyn changed his mind on the EU, which is a shame .
True, O Cophetua! But I feel some sympathy with him in this case. Corbyn has always defined himself in terms of who he is against, which is one reason of course why he ends up looking silly when he gets on to the actual issues. Making a choice between being against Cameron and the EU and being against Bozza and the pro-American lobby must have been very difficult for him!
"On the face of it this could damage the red team’s hopes in London though I’ve been impressed by the way Khan has dealt with this." OGH
Yes I saw how Khan dealt with the Livingstone problem: "He must go, terrible person. Who? Never heard of him, I've always loved Jews - (now with tears in the eyes) please vote for me."
If Labour allow this anti-semitism thing to become a battleground between the Corbynite left and Blairite right then I think it could see the end of them, as a serious political force.
Surely they can see the intense peril they now face? This is the Ratnerisation of Labour, times ten.
Yes we can see it. Apparently though the removal of not just Corbyn but the last vestiges of socialism is more important. Its not a conspiracy as suggested that there is an intense battle going on between continuity New Labour types in Progress (which I'd ban) and send Blair to the Hague types in Momentum (which I'd ban). The rest of us not foaming at the mouth (a condition familiar to Tory members at the moment) watch in amazement as both sides hurl rocks at each other and not the government.
A day of entertaining stupidity: 1. Livingstone is right on so many things and is factually right on this one. But context anyone? Hitler also built autobahns but lets not praise his efforts or talk up what Jimmy Saville did for children by raising millions for charity. He was right to be suspended 2. John Mann choses to ambush Livingstone ot only whilst he's live on the radio but whilst TV crews are there to film pre-roll before his lunchtime TV slots. And shouts nonsense at Livingstone - if thats not bringing the party into disrepute what is? 3. Who chose to leak the Nas Shah stuff now? Hillsborough victory, winnig n London, doing ok in the locals, CRISIS FOR CONTINUTITY NEW LABOUR so lets whip back up the "anti-semitism" crisis story where the ONLY target is Corbyn. That Hillsborough result reminds everyone that Blair suppressed attempts to investigae as a favour to Murdoch adds fuel to their desperation.
Criticism of Israel is not criticism of Jews. I want to see a Jewish homeland where Jews can live in peace and security. Israel's government and the lunatic illegal settlers do all they can to prevent that from happening. What Nas Shah said was stupid. What Livingstone said was stupid. But not racist. Unless Israel and Jew are the same word.
Israel and Jew are not the same word. But one is a convenient shorthand for the other, as we have seen amply displayed today when Ken said Shah didn't hate all jews (because that would be anti-semitic), just the ones in Israel.
The huge irony being that I thought Shah's origninal apology was a model of thoughtful contrition (as did some Jewish friends I discussed it with). I really do think she regretted what she had said and done.
The critical issue, however, for the left is that those pesky Jews have stopped being victims who can be told what to do and what is good for them (cf. WWC who actually make some money). And the left has never forgiven them for it.
My impression is that Naz Shah was indulging in some tasteless humour of the type that many people indulge in. Of course, it's unwise to record it on Facebook, if you want a political career. I too felt that she regretted what she had said.
Livingstone, on the other hand, goes out of his way to bait Jews. He's done it too often for it not to be deliberate.
Idiots like Corbyn and McDonnell will however ignore their own ignorance and try to persuade others of some lunacy or other. There are parallels with the Catholic church.
Bit harsh on the Papists, maybe?
Or are we drawing parallels with the egregious Bishop Williamson here?
(Had to look your Williamson fella up)
No - I was referring directly to the Catholic Church (I don't regard them as terribly different to any other Christian branch, but just for these purposes they've had a decent while to correct themselves if wrong)
Pretty much every now accepted truism that had run contrary to the Catholic Church's teachings has been opposed and then accepted.
These weren't just hunches, these were things that the Church would kill you if you said weren't true.
Popes are infallible and yet contradictory.
Yes, but the point is the Catholics have from time to time accepted their mistakes. When has Jez Corbyn ever changed his mind on anything?
I wouldn't have bothered looking Williamson up. There are some things life is too short for and finding out more about this mad neo-Nazi is one of them. I apologise profusely if I have forced you to waste time that could have been put to much better use!
He's changed his mind quite a bit.EU, nuclear weapons, democracy, and recently dress-sense.
If I told you that in fact he was just a drop-out-unsuccessful Undergraduate from the late 70s, how would you counter it?
That doesn't make him wrong at all, but it's slightly further from making him right.
''To flip a few comments round the other way, accusations of anti-semitism are deployed to stop any and all negative comments about policies of the state of Israel.''
That is complete and utter total thorough going horsesh8t of the first order. Goodness me a leftist posted a quote down thread where Israeli politicians (count them) teamed up with Palestinians to criticise their own government.
Want to slate Israel's policies? be my guest. Israelis do it all the time. Why should it stop Britons?
The fact is that some in the labour party don't think Israel has a right to exist. How it ceases to exist doesn't really concern them, it seems.
If Labour allow this anti-semitism thing to become a battleground between the Corbynite left and Blairite right then I think it could see the end of them, as a serious political force.
Surely they can see the intense peril they now face? This is the Ratnerisation of Labour, times ten.
If they allow the fight against casual racism to become one of faction, they will at least achieve the modest distinction of becoming the first truly serious political farce.
Idiots like Corbyn and McDonnell will however ignore their own ignorance and try to persuade others of some lunacy or other. There are parallels with the Catholic church.
Bit harsh on the Papists, maybe?
Or are we drawing parallels with the egregious Bishop Williamson here?
(Had to look your Williamson fella up)
No - I was referring directly to the Catholic Church (I don't regard them as terribly different to any other Christian branch, but just for these purposes they've had a decent while to correct themselves if wrong)
Pretty much every now accepted truism that had run contrary to the Catholic Church's teachings has been opposed and then accepted.
These weren't just hunches, these were things that the Church would kill you if you said weren't true.
Popes are infallible and yet contradictory.
Yes, but the point is the Catholics have from time to time accepted their mistakes. When has Jez Corbyn ever changed his mind on anything?
I wouldn't have bothered looking Williamson up. There are some things life is too short for and finding out more about this mad neo-Nazi is one of them. I apologise profusely if I have forced you to waste time that could have been put to much better use!
He's changed his mind quite a bit.EU, nuclear weapons, democracy, and recently dress-sense.
If I told you that in fact he was just a drop-out-unsuccessful Undergraduate from the late 70s, how would you counter it?
That doesn't make him wrong at all, but it's slightly further from making him right.
Oh and PS - the Catholic Church has accepted their mistakes, vaguely if pressed apologised for secular crimes, but I can't recall an acknowledgement of wrongness. They even couch all their previous comsmological nonsense in vague talk (as far as I know).
Idiots like Corbyn and McDonnell will however ignore their own ignorance and try to persuade others of some lunacy or other. There are parallels with the Catholic church.
Bit harsh on the Papists, maybe?
Or are we drawing parallels with the egregious Bishop Williamson here?
(Had to look your Williamson fella up)
No - I was referring directly to the Catholic Church (I don't regard them as terribly different to any other Christian branch, but just for these purposes they've had a decent while to correct themselves if wrong)
Pretty much every now accepted truism that had run contrary to the Catholic Church's teachings has been opposed and then accepted.
These weren't just hunches, these were things that the Church would kill you if you said weren't true.
Popes are infallible and yet contradictory.
Yes, but the point is the Catholics have from time to time accepted their mistakes. When has Jez Corbyn ever changed his mind on anything?
I wouldn't have bothered looking Williamson up. There are some things life is too short for and finding out more about this mad neo-Nazi is one of them. I apologise profusely if I have forced you to waste time that could have been put to much better use!
He's changed his mind quite a bit.EU, nuclear weapons, democracy, and recently dress-sense.
If I told you that in fact he was just a drop-out-unsuccessful Undergraduate from the late 70s, how would you counter it?
That doesn't make him wrong at all, but it's slightly further from making him right.
He was not an undergraduate, as North London Polytechnic was not a university at that time.
EU and dress sense I rather think his mind was changed for him.
I didn't realise he was once for nuclear weapons and against democracy. In fact, I thought his consistency on those points - even though I am reluctantly compelled to disagree with him on nuclear weapons - was a point in his favour.
However, it's all rather a side issue to Ken Livingstone having the most transparent moment of madness since Ron Davies went badger watching on Hampstead Heath.
A day of entertaining stupidity: 1. Livingstone is right on so many things and is factually right on this one. But context anyone? Hitler also built autobahns but lets not praise his efforts or talk up what Jimmy Saville did for children by raising millions for charity. He was right to be suspended 2. John Mann choses to ambush Livingstone ot only whilst he's live on the radio but whilst TV crews are there to film pre-roll before his lunchtime TV slots. And shouts nonsense at Livingstone - if thats not bringing the party into disrepute what is? 3. Who chose to leak the Nas Shah stuff now? Hillsborough victory, winnig n London, doing ok in the locals, CRISIS FOR CONTINUTITY NEW LABOUR so lets whip back up the "anti-semitism" crisis story where the ONLY target is Corbyn. That Hillsborough result reminds everyone that Blair suppressed attempts to investigae as a favour to Murdoch adds fuel to their desperation.
Criticism of Israel is not criticism of Jews. I want to see a Jewish homeland where Jews can live in peace and security. Israel's government and the lunatic illegal settlers do all they can to prevent that from happening. What Nas Shah said was stupid. What Livingstone said was stupid. But not racist. Unless Israel and Jew are the same word.
Exactly how fucking thick are you? How fucking thick are the pb hard lefties? Really really fucking thick? Or even thicker than that?
For the avoidance of all future doubt, this is what Ken said today, on live TV. I know, because I watched it.
"a real antisemite doesn't just hate the Jews in Israel, they hate their Jewish neighbour in Golders Green "
Dwell on that for a while. Savour it. A REAL anti-Semite doesn't just hate the Jews in Israel. So if you JUST hate the Jews in Israel you're what? How would you define someone who hates the Jews in Israel? Personally, I'd call them a Jew hater. And a racist. Because hating people simply for their race or nationality is racist.
But perhaps you need further help in understanding. Let's tweak what Ken said.
"A real racist doesn't just hate the blacks in Africa, he hates the blacks in Brixton too."
So, by Ken's definition, anyone who JUST hates blacks in Africa is, you know, kinda OK, cause they're not REALLY a racist.
What would you say to someone who offered that opinion in an argument?
The debate ends.
Is hating anyone on the left ok ?
Ah dont worry about that plenty on the left hate Tories as well.
If Labour allow this anti-semitism thing to become a battleground between the Corbynite left and Blairite right then I think it could see the end of them, as a serious political force.
Surely they can see the intense peril they now face? This is the Ratnerisation of Labour, times ten.
Yes we can see it. Apparently though the removal of not just Corbyn but the last vestiges of socialism is more important. Its not a conspiracy as suggested that there is an intense battle going on between continuity New Labour types in Progress (which I'd ban) and send Blair to the Hague types in Momentum (which I'd ban). The rest of us not foaming at the mouth (a condition familiar to Tory members at the moment) watch in amazement as both sides hurl rocks at each other and not the government.
You don't have to accept anti-Semitism to have socialism. Unfortunately the Left in this country has completely lost the plot.
Ah dont worry about that plenty on the left hate Tories as well.
Genuine, serious question, Rochdale - don't you find it rather sad that so many on the left define themselves purely negatively, i.e. by what they hate/are not, rather than by saying what they are and will do?
I've often thought it's one possible reason they spend most of their time in opposition. 'Vote for us because we hate the other lot even more than you do' isn't, with rare exceptions (1945, 1997) a terribly convincing sales pitch.
Ken, I know you hated him but Dennis Healey was a far wiser man than you. You would particularly benefit from his sensible maxim, 'When you're in a hole, stop digging.'
Idiots like Corbyn and McDonnell will however ignore their own ignorance and try to persuade others of some lunacy or other. There are parallels with the Catholic church.
Bit harsh on the Papists, maybe?
Or are we drawing parallels with the egregious Bishop Williamson here?
(Had to look your Williamson fella up)
No - I was referring directly to the Catholic Church (I don't regard them as terribly different to any other Christian branch, but just for these purposes they've had a decent while to correct themselves if wrong)
Pretty much every now accepted truism that had run contrary to the Catholic Church's teachings has been opposed and then accepted.
These weren't just hunches, these were things that the Church would kill you if you said weren't true.
Popes are infallible and yet contradictory.
Yes, but the point is the Catholics have from time to time accepted their mistakes. When has Jez Corbyn ever changed his mind on anything?
I wouldn't have bothered looking Williamson up. There are some things life is too short for and finding out more about this mad neo-Nazi is one of them. I apologise profusely if I have forced you to waste time that could have been put to much better use!
Corbyn changed his mind on the EU, which is a shame .
True, O Cophetua! But I feel some sympathy with him in this case. Corbyn has always defined himself in terms of who he is against, which is one reason of course why he ends up looking silly when he gets on to the actual issues. Making a choice between being against Cameron and the EU and being against Bozza and the pro-American lobby must have been very difficult for him!
Yes I agree. Makes you wonder why he want this job really. I am sure he would have been happier as a back bench MP, allowed to be personally against the issues he defined. Rather than a spokesperson for offical party lines. It can not be the money . He seems to me a decent man,not a selfish career Frank Underwood type .
Bale's is just a Denial-There's-A-Special-Problem Tweet, similar to the tactic of citing road deaths during the Brussels/Paris terror attacks. I presume Bale - much BBC work - is a lefty.
Dan Hannan Today, EFTA signed a free trade agreement with the Philippines. The talks took less than one year. Via @Hjortur_J: https://t.co/hpkFdpRoj4
Size of Philippines economy - $290 billion Size of US economy - $18 trillion
Different countries will require different amounts of time for negotiations to be concluded. Because you can do a deal with one country in a year, it does not follow that a deal with a much, much larger economy can be done in the same time frame.
And Hannan knows that. He is just playing the game.
Well it helps to have a 1 on 1 negotiation rather than a 27 on 1 - as there are so many competing conflicting interests - last time I heard Italian tomato growers were preventing a trade deal.
There are a number of bilateral EU-US trade treaties (and US-Norway, and US-Switzerland treaties, etc.), it's just that all are fairly small and cover only a limited range of products and services, and therefore don't come under the heading of a "Free Trade Agreement".
Well if you want New Zealand Lamb the tariff earned is 12.8% + €1.7183 / Kg That could drop to 0 when we leave the EU.
Yes, I know. And I sincerely hope that we become a genuinely free trade country on exit, as we were prior to the First World War.
I'm just pointing out that there are many existing trade agreements with the US, just not one 'mega' free trade area deal.
Quite so.
The case for Leaving is overwhelming.
It's interesting to see how polarised Leave/Remain now is on ideological lines. Right wing voters split 3:1 for Leave, Left-wing voters 3:1 for Remain, according to Yougov. Cameron is out on a limb.
Ah dont worry about that plenty on the left hate Tories as well.
Genuine, serious question, Rochdale - don't you find it rather sad that so many on the left define themselves purely negatively, i.e. by what they hate/are not, rather than by saying what they are and will do?
I've often thought it's one possible reason they spend most of their time in opposition. 'Vote for us because we hate the other lot even more than you do' isn't, with rare exceptions (1945, 1997) a terribly convincing sales pitch.
You either don't want to see what the left defines itself as or choose to ignore it. My Labour Party membership card says this - and I agree with every word. The Labour Party is a democratic socialist party. It believes that by the strength of our common endeavour we achieve more than we achieve alone, so as to create for each of us the means to realise our true potential and for all of us a community in which power, wealth and opportunity are in the hands of the many not the few; where the rights we enjoy reflect the duties we owe, and where we live together, freely, in a spirit of solidarity, tolerance and respect.
As a higher rate taxpayer enjoying a 100% marginal tax rate on child benefit i am a leftie because I give a fuck about the people who work far harder than me who aren't in the lucky position to enjoy a 100% marginal tax rate. I've done very well off tthe coalition and now the Tories. but its not about me.
If Labour allow this anti-semitism thing to become a battleground between the Corbynite left and Blairite right then I think it could see the end of them, as a serious political force.
Surely they can see the intense peril they now face? This is the Ratnerisation of Labour, times ten.
Yes we can see it. Apparently though the removal of not just Corbyn but the last vestiges of socialism is more important. Its not a conspiracy as suggested that there is an intense battle going on between continuity New Labour types in Progress (which I'd ban) and send Blair to the Hague types in Momentum (which I'd ban). The rest of us not foaming at the mouth (a condition familiar to Tory members at the moment) watch in amazement as both sides hurl rocks at each other and not the government.
Us Tories were thinking that we had a monopoly on throwing rocks at each other, thanks to Labour for reminding us that the blues are only amateurs at this sport.
Regarding the OP did this research ensure that a representative number of Islamic voters were included in the survey or somehow control for this? Voters are far more likely to be led by social background than the political parties they identify with on this question. Lumping all Labour voters together doesn't tell us anything particularly interesting here. Lumping all Islamic or C2DEs together might.
Ah dont worry about that plenty on the left hate Tories as well.
Genuine, serious question, Rochdale - don't you find it rather sad that so many on the left define themselves purely negatively, i.e. by what they hate/are not, rather than by saying what they are and will do?
I've often thought it's one possible reason they spend most of their time in opposition. 'Vote for us because we hate the other lot even more than you do' isn't, with rare exceptions (1945, 1997) a terribly convincing sales pitch.
You either don't want to see what the left defines itself as or choose to ignore it. My Labour Party membership card says this - and I agree with every word. The Labour Party is a democratic socialist party. It believes that by the strength of our common endeavour we achieve more than we achieve alone, so as to create for each of us the means to realise our true potential and for all of us a community in which power, wealth and opportunity are in the hands of the many not the few; where the rights we enjoy reflect the duties we owe, and where we live together, freely, in a spirit of solidarity, tolerance and respect.
As a higher rate taxpayer enjoying a 100% marginal tax rate on child benefit i am a leftie because I give a fuck about the people who work far harder than me who aren't in the lucky position to enjoy a 100% marginal tax rate. I've done very well off tthe coalition and now the Tories. but its not about me.
I’m not a Labour Party member, and haven’t been for many years, but I understand exactly where you are coming from and agree 100% with your sentiments. It’s not about me, it’s about us! Chris Mullin had it right in his 1997 victorty speech “Britain governed in the interests of all, not just the interests of the fortunate”.
Quibbling with the 'undergraduate' bit wasn't entirely the response I expected, nor that most likely to persuade me of Mr Corbyn's parts.
These are not necessarily binary things. Nonetheless, either his mind has changed on some of these things, or his party policy is at odds with his beliefs.
I'd like to say that my hunch was that he's a good man doing what he has to do to achieve what he believes is best.
I can't really hang on the the 'good man' bit though, and he's quite happy supporting the forces of disorder and unlawfulness.
I used to think that the majority of Hitler sympathisers, resident in the UK, had skinheads and steel-toed Doc Martens .... but I changed my mind about 20 years ago.
With the local elections, it looks like there are 3 uncontested wards this year: Labour are unopposed in Halton: Broadheath and Preston: St George's, and the Tories in Epping Forest: Passingford. The total number of wards being contested is 2,178.
Idiots like Corbyn and McDonnell will however ignore their own ignorance and try to persuade others of some lunacy or other. There are parallels with the Catholic church.
Bit harsh on the Papists, maybe?
Or are we drawing parallels with the egregious Bishop Williamson here?
(Had to look your Williamson fella up)
No - I was referring directly to the Catholic Church (I don't regard them as terribly different to any other Christian branch, but just for these purposes they've had a decent while to correct themselves if wrong)
Pretty much every now accepted truism that had run contrary to the Catholic Church's teachings has been opposed and then accepted.
These weren't just hunches, these were things that the Church would kill you if you said weren't true.
Popes are infallible and yet contradictory.
Yes, but the point is the Catholics have from time to time accepted their mistakes. When has Jez Corbyn ever changed his mind on anything?
I wouldn't have bothered looking Williamson up. There are some things life is too short for and finding out more about this mad neo-Nazi is one of them. I apologise profusely if I have forced you to waste time that could have been put to much better use!
He's changed his mind quite a bit.EU, nuclear weapons, democracy, and recently dress-sense.
If I told you that in fact he was just a drop-out-unsuccessful Undergraduate from the late 70s, how would you counter it?
That doesn't make him wrong at all, but it's slightly further from making him right.
He was not an undergraduate, as North London Polytechnic was not a university at that time.
EU and dress sense I rather think his mind was changed for him.
I didn't realise he was once for nuclear weapons and against democracy. In fact, I thought his consistency on those points - even though I am reluctantly compelled to disagree with him on nuclear weapons - was a point in his favour.
However, it's all rather a side issue to Ken Livingstone having the most transparent moment of madness since Ron Davies went badger watching on Hampstead Heath.
Comments
'Livingstone is a done issue though, the talking subject is Mann.'
Not just Mann, although he is the chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on anti-semitism.
The list of Labour figures calling for Livingstone’s suspension are:
Sadiq Khan, London Mayor candidate
Seema Malhotra, Shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury
Lucy Powell, Shadow Education Secretary
Luciana Berger, Shadow Minister for Mental Health
Chris Bryant, Shadow Leader of the Commons
Carwyn Jones AM, Welsh Labour leader
Kezia Dugdale MSP, Scottish Labour leader
Kate Green, Shadow Minister for Women and Equalities
Jon Ashworth, Shadow minister without portfolio
Nia Griffith, Shadow Wales Secretary
Jess Phillips
Michael Dugher
John Woodcock
Conor McGinn, Labour whip
Wes Streeting
Stella Creasy
Liz Kendall
Tristram Hunt
Phil Wilson
Anna Turley
John Mann, Chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on anti-semitism
Tom Blenkinsop
Ivan Lewis
Alison McGovern
Gavin Shuker
Clive Efford
Chris Evans
Dan Jarvis
Chris Leslie
Yvette Cooper
Neil Coyle
Kevin Barron
Stephen Doughty
Jamie Reed
Angela Smith
Caroline Flint
David Lammy
Karen Buck
Ian Austin
Ben Bradshaw
Tulip Siddiq
:
However, I wish the many people who jump for Israel would show a tiny percentage of that support for Palestinians who did not kill 6m Jews [ note I am no holocaust denier ] but have seen their land taken over by others at the behest of those countries who stood by when 6m Jews were killed.
The vote for Labour in the council last time and the vote for Khan this time is almost the same, it's just that Boris got Labour votes with his charisma.
Goldsmith is not that charismatic as Boris and cannot compete with the ethnic block of Khan, Crosby made it worse by exaggerating the ethnic factor.
Trump 49 .. Cruz 28 .. Kasich 17
Clinton 53 .. Sanders 43
http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/ReutersTrackingCorePolitical4.27.2016.pdf
The issue is not what John Mann said, it was what he did.
US presidential hopeful Ted Cruz has been called "Lucifer in the flesh" by the former Speaker of the House of Representatives, John Boehner.
Mr Boehner, a fellow Republican, has also reportedly said he will not vote for Mr Cruz if he becomes the nominee
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-us-2016-36163188
The Jews were murdered in Poland from the very first, but since the only power that could have stopped this was Russia and far from preventing the massacres they took an active part in them, and France and Britain had already declared war, I'm again not sure what could in practice have been done to save them. Similarly the massacres in Ukraine and the Baltic states in 1941.
The Jews in Germany itself were only systematically exterminated towards the end of the war, after the Wannsee conference. Ironically, more Jews and Mischlinge (mixed race) people survived in Germany than did in Hungary, where within a few months of the German invasion (an invasion solely aimed at getting and killing the 144,000 Jews there, incidentally) almost all had been murdered at Auschwitz.
I find it hard to credit that the Holocaust could not have been stopped, and I certainly don't want to believe that people in the 1930s were powerless against such a monstrosity, but when you start to consider the logistics, you begin to realise just how hard it was to address it.
I suggest Rubinstein's The Myth of Rescue might be worth reading, although I don't agree with all his conclusions.
https://twitter.com/AndyDataSci/status/725745714765111297
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04/28/turkey-sentences-journalists-to-prison-over-charlie-hebdo-cartoo/
This gives Cruz votes.
Clinton 43 .. Trump 36
Clinton 44 .. Cruz 34
Clinton 41 .. Kasich 37
http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/ReutersTrackingCorePolitical4.27.2016.pdf
Mike - yes it is just Labour that have this particular problem.
They have this issue precisely because they understand the middle east insufficiently to distinguish between country, race, and religion.
Idiots like Corbyn and McDonnell will however ignore their own ignorance and try to persuade others of some lunacy or other. There are parallels with the Catholic church.
Other parties are no better, perhaps less preachy, and no worse.
Or are we drawing parallels with the egregious Bishop Williamson here?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-3563779/Karen-Danczuk-dumps-reality-TV-boyfriend-fun-single-returning-work-ex-husband.html
"The English term originated in the reconcentrados (reconcentration camps) set up by the Spanish military in Cuba during the Ten Years' War (1868–1878), Cuban War for Independence (1895–1898), and by the United States during the Philippine–American War (1899–1902).[8]]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internment
No - I was referring directly to the Catholic Church (I don't regard them as terribly different to any other Christian branch, but just for these purposes they've had a decent while to correct themselves if wrong)
Pretty much every now accepted truism that had run contrary to the Catholic Church's teachings has been opposed and then accepted.
These weren't just hunches, these were things that the Church would kill you if you said weren't true.
Popes are infallible and yet contradictory.
I'm just pointing out that there are many existing trade agreements with the US, just not one 'mega' free trade area deal.
1. Livingstone is right on so many things and is factually right on this one. But context anyone? Hitler also built autobahns but lets not praise his efforts or talk up what Jimmy Saville did for children by raising millions for charity. He was right to be suspended
2. John Mann choses to ambush Livingstone ot only whilst he's live on the radio but whilst TV crews are there to film pre-roll before his lunchtime TV slots. And shouts nonsense at Livingstone - if thats not bringing the party into disrepute what is?
3. Who chose to leak the Nas Shah stuff now? Hillsborough victory, winnig n London, doing ok in the locals, CRISIS FOR CONTINUTITY NEW LABOUR so lets whip back up the "anti-semitism" crisis story where the ONLY target is Corbyn. That Hillsborough result reminds everyone that Blair suppressed attempts to investigae as a favour to Murdoch adds fuel to their desperation.
Criticism of Israel is not criticism of Jews. I want to see a Jewish homeland where Jews can live in peace and security. Israel's government and the lunatic illegal settlers do all they can to prevent that from happening. What Nas Shah said was stupid. What Livingstone said was stupid. But not racist. Unless Israel and Jew are the same word.
I presume only jew hating terrorist sympathisers need apply.
I wouldn't have bothered looking Williamson up. There are some things life is too short for and finding out more about this mad neo-Nazi is one of them. I apologise profusely if I have forced you to waste time that could have been put to much better use!
The huge irony being that I thought Shah's origninal apology was a model of thoughtful contrition (as did some Jewish friends I discussed it with). I really do think she regretted what she had said and done.
The critical issue, however, for the left is that those pesky Jews have stopped being victims who can be told what to do and what is good for them (cf. WWC who actually make some money). And the left has never forgiven them for it.
Andy Burham was good in parliament on hillsborough.
He has done a good job in government and in opposition on this issue.
I may have wasted my vote on him on the Labour leadership , with the Corbyn landslide.
However I am glad he stayed in the shadow cabinet.
I believe there should be Yorkshire Police covering North , West , South and Humberside Police.
Shame there was so much resistance to regionalisation between 2005 -10.
John Mann's job is fighting anti-semitism. Livingstone has defended it, and has form on it personally. How on earth is calling him out on this bringing Labour into disrepute? Trying to play down somebody's tweet by comparing it to the early work of Hitler, on the other hand...
I'll leave the conspiracy theory part of your post. It speaks for itself, loud, clear and devastating.
The case for Leaving is overwhelming.
https://t.co/GOnXbhB8mp https://t.co/UFjp87PFQQ
It's no secret that many Muslims have no fondness for Jews. Many of the Pakistani ones are not too keen on the Indians either. Now throw into the mix a good dollop of homophobia and misogyny in some cases and Labour will struggle to work out how to keep all of them onside.
It takes the old political trick of saying different things to different audiences. I don't think Sadiq is particularly Islamist at all, but he feels the need to be a politician. At least he's come out this time in one corner. Mind you, I suspect he has a lot of the Muslim sewn up anyway.
Ken and possibly Naz were less politician-ish and said what they probably think. Naz is still an amateur and Ken's stopped bothering. I doubt it's a conspiracy.
Must be hard for you to make a choice , between that and Homes under the Hammer.
To flip a few comments round the other way, accusations of anti-semitism are deployed to stop any and all negative comments about policies of the state of Israel. Which is absurd - noone is above question. And I respect Sean T but take his interpretation under advisement. Livingstone doesn't hate Jews in Israel which rather stops the second part of his argument from making any sense.
Anway, for perspective from actual jewish members of the party lets reprint their letter in today's Guardian:
Letter sent to The Guardian today (written before Ken Livingstone's suspension)
Dear Editor,
We are Jewish members and supporters of the Labour Party and of Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership, who wish to put our perspective on the “antisemitism” controversy that has been widely debated in the last few weeks.
We do not accept that antisemitism is “rife” in the Labour party. Of the examples that have been repeated in the media, many have been reported inaccurately, some are trivial, and a very few may be genuine examples of antisemitism. The tiny number of cases of real antisemitism need to be dealt with, but we are proud that the Labour Party historically has been in the forefront of the fight against all forms of racism. We, personally, have not experienced any antisemitic prejudice in our dealings with Labour Party colleagues.
We believe these accusations are part of a wider campaign against the Labour leadership, and they have been timed particularly to do damage to the Labour Party and its prospects in elections in the coming week.
As Jews, we are appalled that a serious issue is being used in this cynical and manipulative way, diverting attention from much more widespread examples of Islamaphobia and xenophobia in the Conservative and other parties.
We dissociate ourselves from the misleading attacks on Labour from some members of the Jewish community. We urge others, who may be confused or worried by recent publicity, to be sure that the Labour Party, under its present progressive leadership, is a place where Jews are welcomed in a spirit of equality and solidarity.
Yours sincerely,
Julia Bard
Jenny Bloom
Alice Bondi
Miriam E. David
Professor Stephen Deutsch
Lynda Gilbert
Alex J. Goldhill
Adam Goodkin
Stuart Goodman
Tony Greenstein
Rosamine Hayeem
Abe Hayeem
Jane Henriques
Lorraine Hershon
Richard Kuper
Pam Laurance
Leah Levane
Rachel Lever
Sue Lukes
Stephen Marks
Helen Marks
Charles Shaar Murray
Professor Mica Nava
Susan Pashkoff
Rina Picciotto
Caroline Raine
Roland Rance
Dr. Brian Robinson
Denise Robson
Jeff Daniel Rollin
David Rosenberg
Jonathan Rosenhead
Stephen Sands
Dr. Ian Saville
Lynne Segal
Steve Tiller
Ray Sirotkin
Inbar Tamari
Naomi Wimborne-Idrissi
Benjamin Young
https://twitter.com/TheFix/status/725740782867603456
Mrs Moses has no real interest in politics, pays no attention to any political stories in the news and really doesn't care that much about who does what. I Walked through the door tonight and she mentions the story.
That's seriously is how bad this is for Labour.
"On the face of it this could damage the red team’s hopes in London though I’ve been impressed by the way Khan has dealt with this." OGH
Yes I saw how Khan dealt with the Livingstone problem: "He must go, terrible person. Who? Never heard of him, I've always loved Jews - (now with tears in the eyes) please vote for me."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PrBQMJEObR8
Livingstone, on the other hand, goes out of his way to bait Jews. He's done it too often for it not to be deliberate.
If I told you that in fact he was just a drop-out-unsuccessful Undergraduate from the late 70s, how would you counter it?
That doesn't make him wrong at all, but it's slightly further from making him right.
That is complete and utter total thorough going horsesh8t of the first order. Goodness me a leftist posted a quote down thread where Israeli politicians (count them) teamed up with Palestinians to criticise their own government.
Want to slate Israel's policies? be my guest. Israelis do it all the time. Why should it stop Britons?
The fact is that some in the labour party don't think Israel has a right to exist. How it ceases to exist doesn't really concern them, it seems.
EU and dress sense I rather think his mind was changed for him.
I didn't realise he was once for nuclear weapons and against democracy. In fact, I thought his consistency on those points - even though I am reluctantly compelled to disagree with him on nuclear weapons - was a point in his favour.
However, it's all rather a side issue to Ken Livingstone having the most transparent moment of madness since Ron Davies went badger watching on Hampstead Heath.
https://t.co/WlIbd01vWt
I've often thought it's one possible reason they spend most of their time in opposition. 'Vote for us because we hate the other lot even more than you do' isn't, with rare exceptions (1945, 1997) a terribly convincing sales pitch.
Makes you wonder why he want this job really.
I am sure he would have been happier as a back bench MP, allowed to be personally against the issues he defined.
Rather than a spokesperson for offical party lines.
It can not be the money .
He seems to me a decent man,not a selfish career Frank Underwood type .
As a higher rate taxpayer enjoying a 100% marginal tax rate on child benefit i am a leftie because I give a fuck about the people who work far harder than me who aren't in the lucky position to enjoy a 100% marginal tax rate. I've done very well off tthe coalition and now the Tories. but its not about me.
What can he possibly say tonight that will make the situation anything other than a whole lot worse?
*runs to shop to replenish popcorn supplies*
Chris Mullin had it right in his 1997 victorty speech “Britain governed in the interests of all, not just the interests of the fortunate”.
These are not necessarily binary things. Nonetheless, either his mind has changed on some of these things, or his party policy is at odds with his beliefs.
I'd like to say that my hunch was that he's a good man doing what he has to do to achieve what he believes is best.
I can't really hang on the the 'good man' bit though, and he's quite happy supporting the forces of disorder and unlawfulness.
There is nothing about Jeremy Corbyn.