Let's not confuse the basic issue here - Zac ALWAYS looked the likely loser in this contest. It was almost as if the Tories had decided after 8 years of Boris that it was Buggins' turn for Labour.
Sunil, this nonsense demeans your argument- Hitler believed in vegetarianism, but I don't think Linda McCartney was a genocidal maniac. Incidentally, if you had taken your ideas from, you know, facts, instead of the latest drivel from the Daily Farage, then you might be able to tell the difference between a Hitlerian tyranny and a fairly loose association of democratic states.
As Ken Livingstone has shown, it is probably best not to refer to Hitler when trying to make a contemporary political argument. The scale and depravity of the crimes of Hitler and Stalin are such that the proper response is humility and grief, not the ignorant obnoxiousness that your sloganeering demonstrates.
Sunil, this nonsense demeans your argument- Hitler believed in vegetarianism, but I don't think Linda McCartney was a genocidal maniac. Incidentally, if you had taken your ideas from, you know, facts, instead of the latest drivel from the Daily Farage, then you might be able to tell the difference between a Hitlerian tyranny and a fairly loose association of democratic states.
As Ken Livingstone has shown, it is probably best not to refer to Hitler when trying to make a contemporary political argument. The scale and depravity of the crimes of Hitler and Stalin are such that the proper response is humility and grief, not the ignorant obnoxiousness that your sloganeering demonstrates.
"it is probably best not to refer to Hitler when trying to make a contemporary political argument. "
Why not? mentioning Mao and Hoxha has gone pretty well
People derided opponents of Obamacare for labeling the care review panels as 'death panels'
Well, it appears that the NHS - envy of the world - has a systemic problem of death panels of one. Individual doctors placing DNRs on patients without the family being informed let alone consulted.
It's time perhaps to revisit the leading candidates to be Trump's Veep running mate, with an announcement possible anytime soon.
John Kasich, on offer at between 2/1 and 3/1 has long been the favourite, all the more so with him remaining in the contest for the top job ...... there has to be some logic involved in his thinking.
Coming up fast on the rails however is Trump's friend Chris Christie who, according to The Times, appeared to angle for the job early on, endorsing Mr Trump in February. The billionaire, returning the favour, said on Tuesday: “I think Chris Christie is fantastic, so certainly he would be somebody on the list.”
That's good enough for me to have a small wager on him getting the gig, for which he's best-priced with Betfair at 7.6 (7.27 net), followed by Ladbrokes who have him at 7.0, with the big man as short as 5.0 with the likes of Paddy Power.
Sunil, this nonsense demeans your argument- Hitler believed in vegetarianism, but I don't think Linda McCartney was a genocidal maniac. Incidentally, if you had taken your ideas from, you know, facts, instead of the latest drivel from the Daily Farage, then you might be able to tell the difference between a Hitlerian tyranny and a fairly loose association of democratic states.
As Ken Livingstone has shown, it is probably best not to refer to Hitler when trying to make a contemporary political argument. The scale and depravity of the crimes of Hitler and Stalin are such that the proper response is humility and grief, not the ignorant obnoxiousness that your sloganeering demonstrates.
Not sure that Dr Prasannan was being as serious as you make him out to be.
Incidentally, if you had taken your ideas from, you know, facts, instead of the latest drivel from the Daily Farage, then you might be able to tell the difference between a Hitlerian tyranny and a fairly loose association of democratic states.
A fairly loose association of democratic states? Oh that it was. It has a central bureaucracy that will ruthlessly throw one of those democratic states under the bus, in order to keep its greater Project on track. Witness the Greek Govt. and the Euro.
Speaking of the influence of the Press, here's The Daily Telegraph's photographic way of conveying the latest news of Jezza Corbyn and his merry bunch:
Marquee Mark- the choice as to whether to sign up is voluntary- which is why the UK opts out of large chunks of the treaties, from Schengen to the Euro. If you do sign , you must keep the rules and there are sanctions if you don't. However if you do choose to leave, you can, but again you must take the consequences. Not a superstate, in fact not a state at all. A serious set of commitments? Absolutely, otherwise it would not be so important and, in my view, valuable.
BTW anyone who runs the gauntlet of the Heathrow immigration queue an a regular basis does find the idea that the UK "does not control its borders" pretty unconvincing.
Goldsmith has asked perfectly reasonable questions about Khan who has some very dubious past associations. The screams of rrrraaaccciiisssmmm from the Liberal left are the reason why we've reached the sort of nonsense that has engulfed the Labour party last week. As I said yesterday, if I was Jewish I'd be increasingly fearful about living in the UK and much more so if there was any prospect of a Labour government. In parts of London Labour have assiduously courted the Muslim vote. It's not healthy.
As Ken Livingstone has shown, it is probably best not to refer to Hitler when trying to make a contemporary political argument. The scale and depravity of the crimes of Hitler and Stalin are such that the proper response is humility and grief, not the ignorant obnoxiousness that your sloganeering demonstrates.
Sunil, this nonsense demeans your argument- Hitler believed in vegetarianism, but I don't think Linda McCartney was a genocidal maniac. Incidentally, if you had taken your ideas from, you know, facts, instead of the latest drivel from the Daily Farage, then you might be able to tell the difference between a Hitlerian tyranny and a fairly loose association of democratic states.
As Ken Livingstone has shown, it is probably best not to refer to Hitler when trying to make a contemporary political argument. The scale and depravity of the crimes of Hitler and Stalin are such that the proper response is humility and grief, not the ignorant obnoxiousness that your sloganeering demonstrates.
If only you had reminded Corbyn of the scale and depravity of the crimes of Stalin.
Goldsmith has asked perfectly reasonable questions about Khan who has some very dubious past associations. The screams of rrrraaaccciiisssmmm from the Liberal left are the reason why we've reached the sort of nonsense that has engulfed the Labour party last week. As I said yesterday, if I was Jewish I'd be increasingly fearful about living in the UK and much more so if there was any prospect of a Labour government. In parts of London Labour have assiduously courted the Muslim vote. It's not healthy.
It may finally dawn on the dullards who accept non integrated immigrant communities that the creation of those communities can only cause racial tension and a form of apartheid in society.
An integrated society has a chance of working harmoniously. The alternative we have created can only fail.
Goldsmith has asked perfectly reasonable questions about Khan who has some very dubious past associations. The screams of rrrraaaccciiisssmmm from the Liberal left are the reason why we've reached the sort of nonsense that has engulfed the Labour party last week. As I said yesterday, if I was Jewish I'd be increasingly fearful about living in the UK and much more so if there was any prospect of a Labour government. In parts of London Labour have assiduously courted the Muslim vote. It's not healthy.
The Labour party has always had leading figures who have not been sympathetic to Jews/Zionism, such as Sir Oswald Mosley (cabinet minister in the Labour government of 1929-31, Ernest Bevin (foreign minister in Attlee's government post 1945) and Lord Passfield (aka Sidney Webb, founder of the Fabian Society) and Malcolm Macdonald (son of Ramsay Macdonald), who were responsible for the distinctly anti-Zionist white papers on Palestine published in 1930 and 1939 respectively.
Ken Livingstone's anti-Zionist views are not new, and while he may not have got his facts regarding the 1930s exactly right, there was collusion then between the Zionists and German authorities (the Ha'avara agreement). He lost the 2012 Mayoral election narrowly probably due to the Jewish vote; there was a notable difference between support for the Labour candidate to represent Barnet and Camden on the Greater London Authority and first preference votes for him from that borough.
Regarding Naz Shah, it is not surprising that Muslim MPs share the general views of their co-religionists about the Zionist state - they don't accept its right to exist and regard the whole of the territory of Palestine as Dar-al-Islam. Tel Aviv is considered occupied territory stolen by the Zionists just as much as settlements in the West Bank (historic Judea & Samaria). Sending Jews currently living in Israel/Palestine to the USA (if it would allow them to enter - its doors were barred to Jewish refugees in the 1930s) might actually save them from a future Holocaust.
The current furore is not really about anti-Semitism, which is being deliberately conflated with anti-Zionism by both Zionists and anti-Semites. It is, as a leading union leader Len McCluskey has clearly stated, a deliberate attempt by Jeremy Corbyn's opponents within Labour to undermine his leadership and a cynical attempt to manipulate anti-Semitism for political aims. In essence it is a Blairite conspiracy - one of the leading protagonists is Lord Levy, close friend and confidant of the former PM.
Marquee Mark- the choice as to whether to sign up is voluntary- which is why the UK opts out of large chunks of the treaties, from Schengen to the Euro. If you do sign , you must keep the rules and there are sanctions if you don't. However if you do choose to leave, you can, but again you must take the consequences. Not a superstate, in fact not a state at all. A serious set of commitments? Absolutely, otherwise it would not be so important and, in my view, valuable.
Possibly you could point us to the section in the EU Treaties where it entitles the EU to replace a democratically elected government with a technocracy, I must have missed it.
eon has been accused of being “anti-democratic” by ignoring the result of the independence referendum as she struggled during a live TV debate to reconcile her desire for a rerun with her claim she respects the 2014 result.
Opposition party leaders were enthusiastically applauded and cheered by the audience during the BBC One Scotland showdown at Hopetoun House near Edinburgh as they took turns to round on the First Minister.
On topic any press influence will only ever be marginal but in a close election a marginal change can make all the difference.
If the referendum result, or the mayoral election, is close then that could show a significant influence still ... it's just that it wasn't enough to win on its own.
The current furore is not really about anti-Semitism, which is being deliberately conflated with anti-Zionism by both Zionists and anti-Semites. It is, as a leading union leader Len McCluskey has clearly stated, a deliberate attempt by Jeremy Corbyn's opponents within Labour to undermine his leadership and a cynical attempt to manipulate anti-Semitism for political aims. In essence it is a Blairite conspiracy - one of the leading protagonists is Lord Levy, close friend and confidant of the former PM.
That a lot of hand waving and attempting to obscure the issues. There are only two issues that have any relevance here.
1) Did they say or write what is reported 2) Are those sort of views acceptable for elected politicians to hold in today's UK
As for the conspiracy ? I think you need a new tiny foil hat tbh, but even if it was true, if they hadn't said and written those things, there would be no case to answer, no scandal, and no crisis.
Good to see Mike getting his excuses in early. I'm not sure any amount of good press can save Zac Goldsmith. London is trending Labour; it may now be impossible for a Tory to become Mayor of London. It's worth remembering that many people who read the Evening Standard won't have a vote on Thursday.
Normally the press lines up to back one party or another, but in this case almost all of the political parties (or their leadership at least) are in favour of staying in. I suspect some of the more critical press will fall into line as we get closer to the big day. But given the abuse of public finances and institutions so far by the Remain campaign, I really don't think there can be any complaints that the press aren't doing what Remainers would like.
Marquee Mark- the choice as to whether to sign up is voluntary- which is why the UK opts out of large chunks of the treaties, from Schengen to the Euro. If you do sign , you must keep the rules and there are sanctions if you don't. However if you do choose to leave, you can, but again you must take the consequences. Not a superstate, in fact not a state at all. A serious set of commitments? Absolutely, otherwise it would not be so important and, in my view, valuable.
Possibly you could point us to the section in the EU Treaties where it entitles the EU to replace a democratically elected government with a technocracy, I must have missed it.
The EU didn't do that. The technocrats were appointed based on the national states own constitution and the fact they were bankrupt and willing to go along with their creditors demands.
Had they not been bankrupt or not been willing to agree to creditors demands then it wouldn't have happened.
Having administrators appointed is part and parcel of going into bankruptcy related administration. Ask BHS.
On topic any press influence will only ever be marginal but in a close election a marginal change can make all the difference.
If the referendum result, or the mayoral election, is close then that could show a significant influence still ... it's just that it wasn't enough to win on its own.
Agreed, and its unlikely London is going to be remotely close enough.
Personally I don't think the press directly have much influence at all, you can see the short shrift a lot of people are giving the witterings of people like Matthew Parris/Polly Toynbee. Where I think they have have massive influence is giving currency to an "event", if someone does or says something incredibly stupid, the press make sure the voters know about it. The idea that this is a press conspiracy is idiotic, the press are business there to sell newspapers and/or advertising, politicians being idiots sells. Ultimately the politician is to blame for the event, not the media.
The current furore is not really about anti-Semitism, which is being deliberately conflated with anti-Zionism by both Zionists and anti-Semites. It is, as a leading union leader Len McCluskey has clearly stated, a deliberate attempt by Jeremy Corbyn's opponents within Labour to undermine his leadership and a cynical attempt to manipulate anti-Semitism for political aims. In essence it is a Blairite conspiracy - one of the leading protagonists is Lord Levy, close friend and confidant of the former PM.
That a lot of hand waving and attempting to obscure the issues. There are only two issues that have any relevance here.
1) Did they say or write what is reported 2) Are those sort of views acceptable for elected politicians to hold in today's UK
As for the conspiracy ? I think you need a new tiny foil hat tbh, but even if it was true, if they hadn't said and written those things, there would be no case to answer, no scandal, and no crisis.
The answer to both questions is YES. This is a manufactured crisis by Blairites/Zionists who regard views other than their own as unacceptable.
Marquee Mark- the choice as to whether to sign up is voluntary- which is why the UK opts out of large chunks of the treaties, from Schengen to the Euro. If you do sign , you must keep the rules and there are sanctions if you don't. However if you do choose to leave, you can, but again you must take the consequences. Not a superstate, in fact not a state at all. A serious set of commitments? Absolutely, otherwise it would not be so important and, in my view, valuable.
Possibly you could point us to the section in the EU Treaties where it entitles the EU to replace a democratically elected government with a technocracy, I must have missed it.
The EU didn't do that. The technocrats were appointed based on the national states own constitution and the fact they were bankrupt and willing to go along with their creditors demands.
Had they not been bankrupt or not been willing to agree to creditors demands then it wouldn't have happened.
Having administrators appointed is part and parcel of going into bankruptcy related administration. Ask BHS.
There is a slight different between a clothing chain and a sovereign state I am sure you will admit.
So in essence you believe in democracy, except when you don't.
Marquee Mark- the choice as to whether to sign up is voluntary- which is why the UK opts out of large chunks of the treaties, from Schengen to the Euro. If you do sign , you must keep the rules and there are sanctions if you don't. However if you do choose to leave, you can, but again you must take the consequences. Not a superstate, in fact not a state at all. A serious set of commitments? Absolutely, otherwise it would not be so important and, in my view, valuable.
Possibly you could point us to the section in the EU Treaties where it entitles the EU to replace a democratically elected government with a technocracy, I must have missed it.
The EU didn't do that. The technocrats were appointed based on the national states own constitution and the fact they were bankrupt and willing to go along with their creditors demands.
Had they not been bankrupt or not been willing to agree to creditors demands then it wouldn't have happened.
Having administrators appointed is part and parcel of going into bankruptcy related administration. Ask BHS.
There is a slight different between a clothing chain and a sovereign state I am sure you will admit.
So in essence you believe in democracy, except when you don't.
A slight difference yes, not big enough to avoid the laws of economics eventually though.
The bankruptcy administrators were approved democratically by their own Parliament so how does that violate a single principle of democracy?
The current furore is not really about anti-Semitism, which is being deliberately conflated with anti-Zionism by both Zionists and anti-Semites. It is, as a leading union leader Len McCluskey has clearly stated, a deliberate attempt by Jeremy Corbyn's opponents within Labour to undermine his leadership and a cynical attempt to manipulate anti-Semitism for political aims. In essence it is a Blairite conspiracy - one of the leading protagonists is Lord Levy, close friend and confidant of the former PM.
That a lot of hand waving and attempting to obscure the issues. There are only two issues that have any relevance here.
1) Did they say or write what is reported 2) Are those sort of views acceptable for elected politicians to hold in today's UK
As for the conspiracy ? I think you need a new tiny foil hat tbh, but even if it was true, if they hadn't said and written those things, there would be no case to answer, no scandal, and no crisis.
The answer to both questions is YES. This is a manufactured crisis by Blairites/Zionists who regard views other than their own as unacceptable.
How did they get Ken to start banging on about Hitler? Is he in on it?
The current furore is not really about anti-Semitism, which is being deliberately conflated with anti-Zionism by both Zionists and anti-Semites. It is, as a leading union leader Len McCluskey has clearly stated, a deliberate attempt by Jeremy Corbyn's opponents within Labour to undermine his leadership and a cynical attempt to manipulate anti-Semitism for political aims. In essence it is a Blairite conspiracy - one of the leading protagonists is Lord Levy, close friend and confidant of the former PM.
That a lot of hand waving and attempting to obscure the issues. There are only two issues that have any relevance here.
1) Did they say or write what is reported 2) Are those sort of views acceptable for elected politicians to hold in today's UK
As for the conspiracy ? I think you need a new tiny foil hat tbh, but even if it was true, if they hadn't said and written those things, there would be no case to answer, no scandal, and no crisis.
The answer to both questions is YES. This is a manufactured crisis by Blairites/Zionists who regard views other than their own as unacceptable.
Those antisemitic views are disgusting and unacceptable.
Good to see Mike getting his excuses in early. I'm not sure any amount of good press can save Zac Goldsmith. London is trending Labour; it may now be impossible for a Tory to become Mayor of London. It's worth remembering that many people who read the Evening Standard won't have a vote on Thursday.
Normally the press lines up to back one party or another, but in this case almost all of the political parties (or their leadership at least) are in favour of staying in. I suspect some of the more critical press will fall into line as we get closer to the big day. But given the abuse of public finances and institutions so far by the Remain campaign, I really don't think there can be any complaints that the press aren't doing what Remainers would like.
Good to see Mike getting his excuses in early. I'm not sure any amount of good press can save Zac Goldsmith. London is trending Labour; it may now be impossible for a Tory to become Mayor of London. It's worth remembering that many people who read the Evening Standard won't have a vote on Thursday.
Normally the press lines up to back one party or another, but in this case almost all of the political parties (or their leadership at least) are in favour of staying in. I suspect some of the more critical press will fall into line as we get closer to the big day. But given the abuse of public finances and institutions so far by the Remain campaign, I really don't think there can be any complaints that the press aren't doing what Remainers would like.
Tosh.. If you think there has been abuse of public finances, get the police involved .. you will find it was all perfectly legal..
Good to see Mike getting his excuses in early. I'm not sure any amount of good press can save Zac Goldsmith. London is trending Labour; it may now be impossible for a Tory to become Mayor of London. It's worth remembering that many people who read the Evening Standard won't have a vote on Thursday.
Normally the press lines up to back one party or another, but in this case almost all of the political parties (or their leadership at least) are in favour of staying in. I suspect some of the more critical press will fall into line as we get closer to the big day. But given the abuse of public finances and institutions so far by the Remain campaign, I really don't think there can be any complaints that the press aren't doing what Remainers would like.
Good to see Mike getting his excuses in early. I'm not sure any amount of good press can save Zac Goldsmith. London is trending Labour; it may now be impossible for a Tory to become Mayor of London. It's worth remembering that many people who read the Evening Standard won't have a vote on Thursday.
Normally the press lines up to back one party or another, but in this case almost all of the political parties (or their leadership at least) are in favour of staying in. I suspect some of the more critical press will fall into line as we get closer to the big day. But given the abuse of public finances and institutions so far by the Remain campaign, I really don't think there can be any complaints that the press aren't doing what Remainers would like.
Tosh.. If you think there has been abuse of public finances, get the police involved .. you will find it was all perfectly legal..
It's possible for an action to be both legal and an abuse. Especially where the government writes the laws about what is legal.
WRT London Mayor and Boris specifically.. he was great because he defeated the utterly loathsome Ken Livingstone, Boris was the man for the moment. As far as any other career moves are concerned, I think that's hit the buffers head on.
Good to see Mike getting his excuses in early. I'm not sure any amount of good press can save Zac Goldsmith. London is trending Labour; it may now be impossible for a Tory to become Mayor of London. It's worth remembering that many people who read the Evening Standard won't have a vote on Thursday.
Normally the press lines up to back one party or another, but in this case almost all of the political parties (or their leadership at least) are in favour of staying in. I suspect some of the more critical press will fall into line as we get closer to the big day. But given the abuse of public finances and institutions so far by the Remain campaign, I really don't think there can be any complaints that the press aren't doing what Remainers would like.
Good to see Mike getting his excuses in early. I'm not sure any amount of good press can save Zac Goldsmith. London is trending Labour; it may now be impossible for a Tory to become Mayor of London. It's worth remembering that many people who read the Evening Standard won't have a vote on Thursday.
Normally the press lines up to back one party or another, but in this case almost all of the political parties (or their leadership at least) are in favour of staying in. I suspect some of the more critical press will fall into line as we get closer to the big day. But given the abuse of public finances and institutions so far by the Remain campaign, I really don't think there can be any complaints that the press aren't doing what Remainers would like.
Tosh.. If you think there has been abuse of public finances, get the police involved .. you will find it was all perfectly legal..
It's possible for an action to be both legal and an abuse. Especially where the government writes the laws about what is legal.
The Govt didn't write any specific laws laws AFAIK.. it used precedent of previous referenda.
The current furore is not really about anti-Semitism, which is being deliberately conflated with anti-Zionism by both Zionists and anti-Semites. It is, as a leading union leader Len McCluskey has clearly stated, a deliberate attempt by Jeremy Corbyn's opponents within Labour to undermine his leadership and a cynical attempt to manipulate anti-Semitism for political aims. In essence it is a Blairite conspiracy - one of the leading protagonists is Lord Levy, close friend and confidant of the former PM.
That a lot of hand waving and attempting to obscure the issues. There are only two issues that have any relevance here.
1) Did they say or write what is reported 2) Are those sort of views acceptable for elected politicians to hold in today's UK
As for the conspiracy ? I think you need a new tiny foil hat tbh, but even if it was true, if they hadn't said and written those things, there would be no case to answer, no scandal, and no crisis.
The answer to both questions is YES. This is a manufactured crisis by Blairites/Zionists who regard views other than their own as unacceptable.
Surely you should be called Dodo and become extinct.
Marquee Mark- the choice as to whether to sign up is voluntary- which is why the UK opts out of large chunks of the treaties, from Schengen to the Euro. If you do sign , you must keep the rules and there are sanctions if you don't. However if you do choose to leave, you can, but again you must take the consequences. Not a superstate, in fact not a state at all. A serious set of commitments? Absolutely, otherwise it would not be so important and, in my view, valuable.
Possibly you could point us to the section in the EU Treaties where it entitles the EU to replace a democratically elected government with a technocracy, I must have missed it.
The EU didn't do that. The technocrats were appointed based on the national states own constitution and the fact they were bankrupt and willing to go along with their creditors demands.
Had they not been bankrupt or not been willing to agree to creditors demands then it wouldn't have happened.
Having administrators appointed is part and parcel of going into bankruptcy related administration. Ask BHS.
There is a slight different between a clothing chain and a sovereign state I am sure you will admit.
So in essence you believe in democracy, except when you don't.
A slight difference yes, not big enough to avoid the laws of economics eventually though.
The bankruptcy administrators were approved democratically by their own Parliament so how does that violate a single principle of democracy?
No one bothered asking the people what they wanted to do ?
WRT London Mayor and Boris specifically.. he was great because he defeated the utterly loathsome Ken Livingstone, Boris was the man for the moment. As far as any other career moves are concerned, I think that's hit the buffers head on.
Clearly Ken has stuff and needs help. Labour shouldn't let him back in until they are satisfied he has got professional help. For our part, we should not forget that he beat the Party system in the first Mayoral election, which no one else has come close to doing.
May I assume that Peebies generally think that JC has handled the issue well, given that all the bile has been directed at Ken (who has deserved all he's got)?
Marquee Mark- the choice as to whether to sign up is voluntary- which is why the UK opts out of large chunks of the treaties, from Schengen to the Euro. If you do sign , you must keep the rules and there are sanctions if you don't. However if you do choose to leave, you can, but again you must take the consequences. Not a superstate, in fact not a state at all. A serious set of commitments? Absolutely, otherwise it would not be so important and, in my view, valuable.
Possibly you could point us to the section in the EU Treaties where it entitles the EU to replace a democratically elected government with a technocracy, I must have missed it.
The EU didn't do that. The technocrats were appointed based on the national states own constitution and the fact they were bankrupt and willing to go along with their creditors demands.
Had they not been bankrupt or not been willing to agree to creditors demands then it wouldn't have happened.
Having administrators appointed is part and parcel of going into bankruptcy related administration. Ask BHS.
There is a slight different between a clothing chain and a sovereign state I am sure you will admit.
So in essence you believe in democracy, except when you don't.
A slight difference yes, not big enough to avoid the laws of economics eventually though.
The bankruptcy administrators were approved democratically by their own Parliament so how does that violate a single principle of democracy?
No one bothered asking the people what they wanted to do ?
It's a Parliamentary democracy. The people were asked at the previous election who chose MPs and the MPs chose the government accordingly. Just as Major and Brown and likely a Tory MP in this Parliament too became PM due to being the one who could command a majority of MPs.
Had the administration been appointed AGAINST the wishes of MPs you'd be right.
May I assume that Peebies generally think that JC has handled the issue well, given that all the bile has been directed at Ken (who has deserved all he's got)?
We are discussing the forward that came into the box and gratuitously hacked down the defender, there is some debate to be had about how long the ref is going to take to send him off, but the real problem is the hacking down, and what made him think it was an acceptable thing to do.
Goldsmith has asked perfectly reasonable questions about Khan who has some very dubious past associations. The screams of rrrraaaccciiisssmmm from the Liberal left are the reason why we've reached the sort of nonsense that has engulfed the Labour party last week. As I said yesterday, if I was Jewish I'd be increasingly fearful about living in the UK and much more so if there was any prospect of a Labour government. In parts of London Labour have assiduously courted the Muslim vote. It's not healthy.
The Labour party has always had leading figures who have not been sympathetic to Jews/Zionism, such as Sir Oswald Mosley (cabinet minister in the Labour government of 1929-31, Ernest Bevin (foreign minister in Attlee's government post 1945) and Lord Passfield (aka Sidney Webb, founder of the Fabian Society) and Malcolm Macdonald (son of Ramsay Macdonald), who were responsible for the distinctly anti-Zionist white papers on Palestine published in 1930 and 1939 respectively.
Ken Livingstone's anti-Zionist views are not new, and while he may not have got his facts regarding the 1930s exactly right, there was collusion then between the Zionists and German authorities (the Ha'avara agreement). He lost the 2012 Mayoral election narrowly probably due to the Jewish vote; there was a notable difference between support for the Labour candidate to represent Barnet and Camden on the Greater London Authority and first preference votes for him from that borough.
Regarding Naz Shah, it is not surprising that Muslim MPs share the general views of their co-religionists about the Zionist state - they don't accept its right to exist and regard the whole of the territory of Palestine as Dar-al-Islam. Tel Aviv is considered occupied territory stolen by the Zionists just as much as settlements in the West Bank (historic Judea & Samaria). Sending Jews currently living in Israel/Palestine to the USA (if it would allow them to enter - its doors were barred to Jewish refugees in the 1930s) might actually save them from a future Holocaust.
The current furore is not really about anti-Semitism, which is being deliberately conflated with anti-Zionism by both Zionists and anti-Semites. It is, as a leading union leader Len McCluskey has clearly stated, a deliberate attempt by Jeremy Corbyn's opponents within Labour to undermine his leadership and a cynical attempt to manipulate anti-Semitism for political aims. In essence it is a Blairite conspiracy - one of the leading protagonists is Lord Levy, close friend and confidant of the former PM.
Yep, this is what Labour party members voted for. A leadership that excuses and embraces anti-Semites, and, therefore, total irrelevancy. They have consigned the people Labour is supposed to care about to endless years of right wing government. How proud they must feel.
To be fair I don't think the Standard's coverage has been that bad - certainly compared to last time, when it managed to outdo Conservative Party leaflets. The political editor is an ex-Mail man and his material tends to be strongly anti-Khan, but around a third of their coverage have been helpful to Khan, and a recent editorial remarked that it would be unfair to vote against Khan because of the anti-semitism furore. I expect them to come out for Goldsmith this week, but they give the general impression that they think both candidates are reasonable.
The Mail, of course, is berserk. And the general theme of the thread is right. If the press were still dominant, Goldsmith and Leave would both be well ahead, and it'll be interesting to see if that's still the case.
The current furore is not really about anti-Semitism, which is being deliberately conflated with anti-Zionism by both Zionists and anti-Semites. It is, as a leading union leader Len McCluskey has clearly stated, a deliberate attempt by Jeremy Corbyn's opponents within Labour to undermine his leadership and a cynical attempt to manipulate anti-Semitism for political aims. In essence it is a Blairite conspiracy - one of the leading protagonists is Lord Levy, close friend and confidant of the former PM.
That a lot of hand waving and attempting to obscure the issues. There are only two issues that have any relevance here.
1) Did they say or write what is reported 2) Are those sort of views acceptable for elected politicians to hold in today's UK
As for the conspiracy ? I think you need a new tiny foil hat tbh, but even if it was true, if they hadn't said and written those things, there would be no case to answer, no scandal, and no crisis.
The answer to both questions is YES. This is a manufactured crisis by Blairites/Zionists who regard views other than their own as unacceptable.
Those antisemitic views are disgusting and unacceptable.
I am neither a Blairite nor a zionist.
I don't support the views of Ken Livingstone or Naz Shah either, but they have a right to express such views and it is self-defeating, particularly for a widely hated minority, to take umbrage at them.
WRT London Mayor and Boris specifically.. he was great because he defeated the utterly loathsome Ken Livingstone, Boris was the man for the moment. As far as any other career moves are concerned, I think that's hit the buffers head on.
Clearly Ken has stuff and needs help. Labour shouldn't let him back in until they are satisfied he has got professional help. For our part, we should not forget that he beat the Party system in the first Mayoral election, which no one else has come close to doing.
May I assume that Peebies generally think that JC has handled the issue well, given that all the bile has been directed at Ken (who has deserved all he's got)?
Corbyn is joined at the hip to Ken Livingstone.. and Corbyn couldn't handle anything well. He is the black knight
The current furore is not really about anti-Semitism, which is being deliberately conflated with anti-Zionism by both Zionists and anti-Semites. It is, as a leading union leader Len McCluskey has clearly stated, a deliberate attempt by Jeremy Corbyn's opponents within Labour to undermine his leadership and a cynical attempt to manipulate anti-Semitism for political aims. In essence it is a Blairite conspiracy - one of the leading protagonists is Lord Levy, close friend and confidant of the former PM.
That a lot of hand waving and attempting to obscure the issues. There are only two issues that have any relevance here.
1) Did they say or write what is reported 2) Are those sort of views acceptable for elected politicians to hold in today's UK
As for the conspiracy ? I think you need a new tiny foil hat tbh, but even if it was true, if they hadn't said and written those things, there would be no case to answer, no scandal, and no crisis.
The answer to both questions is YES. This is a manufactured crisis by Blairites/Zionists who regard views other than their own as unacceptable.
Those antisemitic views are disgusting and unacceptable.
I am neither a Blairite nor a zionist.
I don't support the views of Ken Livingstone or Naz Shah either, but they have a right to express such views and it is self-defeating, particularly for a widely hated minority, to take umbrage at them.
widely hated ? I doubt 98% of people are remotely interested, widely hated amongst Corbynite leftie nutters, more likely.
What is self-defeating is excusing these sorts of view, it guarantees not getting elected again for the foreseeable future.
The current furore is not really about anti-Semitism, which is being deliberately conflated with anti-Zionism by both Zionists and anti-Semites. It is, as a leading union leader Len McCluskey has clearly stated, a deliberate attempt by Jeremy Corbyn's opponents within Labour to undermine his leadership and a cynical attempt to manipulate anti-Semitism for political aims. In essence it is a Blairite conspiracy - one of the leading protagonists is Lord Levy, close friend and confidant of the former PM.
That a lot of hand waving and attempting to obscure the issues. There are only two issues that have any relevance here.
1) Did they say or write what is reported 2) Are those sort of views acceptable for elected politicians to hold in today's UK
As for the conspiracy ? I think you need a new tiny foil hat tbh, but even if it was true, if they hadn't said and written those things, there would be no case to answer, no scandal, and no crisis.
The answer to both questions is YES. This is a manufactured crisis by Blairites/Zionists who regard views other than their own as unacceptable.
Those antisemitic views are disgusting and unacceptable.
I am neither a Blairite nor a zionist.
I don't support the views of Ken Livingstone or Naz Shah either, but they have a right to express such views and it is self-defeating, particularly for a widely hated minority, to take umbrage at them.
The current furore is not really about anti-Semitism, which is being deliberately conflated with anti-Zionism by both Zionists and anti-Semites. It is, as a leading union leader Len McCluskey has clearly stated, a deliberate attempt by Jeremy Corbyn's opponents within Labour to undermine his leadership and a cynical attempt to manipulate anti-Semitism for political aims. In essence it is a Blairite conspiracy - one of the leading protagonists is Lord Levy, close friend and confidant of the former PM.
That a lot of hand waving and attempting to obscure the issues. There are only two issues that have any relevance here.
1) Did they say or write what is reported 2) Are those sort of views acceptable for elected politicians to hold in today's UK
As for the conspiracy ? I think you need a new tiny foil hat tbh, but even if it was true, if they hadn't said and written those things, there would be no case to answer, no scandal, and no crisis.
The answer to both questions is YES. This is a manufactured crisis by Blairites/Zionists who regard views other than their own as unacceptable.
Those antisemitic views are disgusting and unacceptable.
I am neither a Blairite nor a zionist.
I don't support the views of Ken Livingstone or Naz Shah either, but they have a right to express such views and it is self-defeating, particularly for a widely hated minority, to take umbrage at them.
It is self defeating for a hated minority to take umbrage at hatred? Wow.
Do you say the same about all such hatred or only anti-Semitism?
The current furore is not really about anti-Semitism, which is being deliberately conflated with anti-Zionism by both Zionists and anti-Semites. It is, as a leading union leader Len McCluskey has clearly stated, a deliberate attempt by Jeremy Corbyn's opponents within Labour to undermine his leadership and a cynical attempt to manipulate anti-Semitism for political aims. In essence it is a Blairite conspiracy - one of the leading protagonists is Lord Levy, close friend and confidant of the former PM.
That a lot of hand waving and attempting to obscure the issues. There are only two issues that have any relevance here.
1) Did they say or write what is reported 2) Are those sort of views acceptable for elected politicians to hold in today's UK
As for the conspiracy ? I think you need a new tiny foil hat tbh, but even if it was true, if they hadn't said and written those things, there would be no case to answer, no scandal, and no crisis.
The answer to both questions is YES. This is a manufactured crisis by Blairites/Zionists who regard views other than their own as unacceptable.
Those antisemitic views are disgusting and unacceptable.
I am neither a Blairite nor a zionist.
I don't support the views of Ken Livingstone or Naz Shah either, but they have a right to express such views and it is self-defeating, particularly for a widely hated minority, to take umbrage at them.
Could you clarify who you mean by "widely hated minority"?
It reads like you mean Jews, but surely that is not what you meant?
WRT London Mayor and Boris specifically.. he was great because he defeated the utterly loathsome Ken Livingstone, Boris was the man for the moment. As far as any other career moves are concerned, I think that's hit the buffers head on.
Clearly Ken has stuff and needs help. Labour shouldn't let him back in until they are satisfied he has got professional help. For our part, we should not forget that he beat the Party system in the first Mayoral election, which no one else has come close to doing.
May I assume that Peebies generally think that JC has handled the issue well, given that all the bile has been directed at Ken (who has deserved all he's got)?
Corbyn is joined at the hip to Ken Livingstone.. and Corbyn couldn't handle anything well. He is the black knight
Given that JC was elected as Party leader (and would be re-elected to-morrow, surely) I repeat my question: what advantage do you see in the legality of a Party that behaves as Labour does to-day? If you find that offensive (which can only be because you enjoy taking offence where none is meant) let me ask a different question: assuming the Tories win a landslide in 2020 - as I think we almost all expect - why do you want Labour to remain the official Opposition, - and if you don't, who do you want to replace them?
The current furore is not really about anti-Semitism, which is being deliberately conflated with anti-Zionism by both Zionists and anti-Semites. It is, as a leading union leader Len McCluskey has clearly stated, a deliberate attempt by Jeremy Corbyn's opponents within Labour to undermine his leadership and a cynical attempt to manipulate anti-Semitism for political aims. In essence it is a Blairite conspiracy - one of the leading protagonists is Lord Levy, close friend and confidant of the former PM.
That a lot of hand waving and attempting to obscure the issues. There are only two issues that have any relevance here.
1) Did they say or write what is reported 2) Are those sort of views acceptable for elected politicians to hold in today's UK
As for the conspiracy ? I think you need a new tiny foil hat tbh, but even if it was true, if they hadn't said and written those things, there would be no case to answer, no scandal, and no crisis.
The answer to both questions is YES. This is a manufactured crisis by Blairites/Zionists who regard views other than their own as unacceptable.
Those antisemitic views are disgusting and unacceptable.
I am neither a Blairite nor a zionist.
I don't support the views of Ken Livingstone or Naz Shah either, but they have a right to express such views and it is self-defeating, particularly for a widely hated minority, to take umbrage at them.
I'm assuming that your 'widely hated minority' is Blairites but you really ought to consider other possible interpretations, particularly given the context.
Of course people should have the right to express unpleasant and racist views. It's an important part of democracy that extremists should be able to peddle their filth: they serve as a useful safety valve, warning sign and it's a lot easier for the security services to keep tabs as necessary if they're organised publicly.
The question is whether such views are compatible with a mainstream party.
The Mail has a very robust history in supporting exiled Labour figures like Ken Livingstone on anti-semitism. Why you only have to go back to the 1930's when it was shoulder to shoulder with the likes of Oswald Moseley .....
For those of us wondering WTF Corbyn was doing at the May Day rally - according to the Times, it's the first time a Labour leader has attended in 50yrs, is that right?
IIRC Tony made May 1st a bank holiday, but that's it. He certainly wouldn't been seen dead at it.
WRT London Mayor and Boris specifically.. he was great because he defeated the utterly loathsome Ken Livingstone, Boris was the man for the moment. As far as any other career moves are concerned, I think that's hit the buffers head on.
Clearly Ken has stuff and needs help. Labour shouldn't let him back in until they are satisfied he has got professional help. For our part, we should not forget that he beat the Party system in the first Mayoral election, which no one else has come close to doing.
May I assume that Peebies generally think that JC has handled the issue well, given that all the bile has been directed at Ken (who has deserved all he's got)?
Corbyn is joined at the hip to Ken Livingstone.. and Corbyn couldn't handle anything well. He is the black knight
Given that JC was elected as Party leader (and would be re-elected to-morrow, surely) I repeat my question: what advantage do you see in the legality of a Party that behaves as Labour does to-day? If you find that offensive (which can only be because you enjoy taking offence where none is meant) let me ask a different question: assuming the Tories win a landslide in 2020 - as I think we almost all expect - why do you want Labour to remain the official Opposition, - and if you don't, who do you want to replace them?
I see none, I think Labour is in a long slow decline to irrelevance, but a Tory landslide would also be disastrous for the country. I suspect lots of Labour voters who cannot stand Corbyn and co will vote Lib Dem, failing that , its not impossible for a new party to emerge.
I don't think that there is any doubt that the influence of the press is not what it was. Their biggest influence these days is that they set the agenda and content of so much of the 24 hour news programs but they of course report what the press are speaking about in rather more neutral tones and without all of the spin.
I would agree with Nick that the support given to Boris the last time was on a completely different level from anything given to Zac but then Khan is a completely different level of candidate to Ken and the whole election is less visceral as a result. As a result London is reverting to type which is Labour's last stronghold.
On Brexit I think it is clear that the media other than the press are generally supportive of Remain and that is going to significantly outweigh any frothing in the Telegraph or the Express. For me, it is a vote for Brexit that would call into question the power of the media in this country, not the reverse.
Goldsmith has asked perfectly reasonable questions about Khan who has some very dubious past associations. The screams of rrrraaaccciiisssmmm from the Liberal left are the reason why we've reached the sort of nonsense that has engulfed the Labour party last week. As I said yesterday, if I was Jewish I'd be increasingly fearful about living in the UK and much more so if there was any prospect of a Labour government. In parts of London Labour have assiduously courted the Muslim vote. It's not healthy.
I agree. Any criticism of Labour's connection of with extremists and we're racists! But the facts are these brutes are being given free rein to spread their filth by Labour. The Conservative party has to publicise that Labour is harbouring these disgusting people and they doth protest too much about decent people exposing them.
The current furore is not really about anti-Semitism, which is being deliberately conflated with anti-Zionism by both Zionists and anti-Semites. It is, as a leading union leader Len McCluskey has clearly stated, a deliberate attempt by Jeremy Corbyn's opponents within Labour to undermine his leadership and a cynical attempt to manipulate anti-Semitism for political aims. In essence it is a Blairite conspiracy - one of the leading protagonists is Lord Levy, close friend and confidant of the former PM.
That a lot of hand waving and attempting to obscure the issues. There are only two issues that have any relevance here.
1) Did they say or write what is reported 2) Are those sort of views acceptable for elected politicians to hold in today's UK
As for the conspiracy ? I think you need a new tiny foil hat tbh, but even if it was true, if they hadn't said and written those things, there would be no case to answer, no scandal, and no crisis.
The answer to both questions is YES. This is a manufactured crisis by Blairites/Zionists who regard views other than their own as unacceptable.
Those antisemitic views are disgusting and unacceptable.
I am neither a Blairite nor a zionist.
I don't support the views of Ken Livingstone or Naz Shah either, but they have a right to express such views and it is self-defeating, particularly for a widely hated minority, to take umbrage at them.
I'm assuming that your 'widely hated minority' is Blairites but you really ought to consider other possible interpretations, particularly given the context.
Of course people should have the right to express unpleasant and racist views. It's an important part of democracy that extremists should be able to peddle their filth: they serve as a useful safety valve, warning sign and it's a lot easier for the security services to keep tabs as necessary if they're organised publicly.
The question is whether such views are compatible with a mainstream party.
Another question: should "mainstream" parties seek the votes of those who hold such views?
The current furore is not really about anti-Semitism, which is being deliberately conflated with anti-Zionism by both Zionists and anti-Semites. It is, as a leading union leader Len McCluskey has clearly stated, a deliberate attempt by Jeremy Corbyn's opponents within Labour to undermine his leadership and a cynical attempt to manipulate anti-Semitism for political aims. In essence it is a Blairite conspiracy - one of the leading protagonists is Lord Levy, close friend and confidant of the former PM.
That a lot of hand waving and attempting to obscure the issues. There are only two issues that have any relevance here.
1) Did they say or write what is reported 2) Are those sort of views acceptable for elected politicians to hold in today's UK
As for the conspiracy ? I think you need a new tiny foil hat tbh, but even if it was true, if they hadn't said and written those things, there would be no case to answer, no scandal, and no crisis.
The answer to both questions is YES. This is a manufactured crisis by Blairites/Zionists who regard views other than their own as unacceptable.
Those antisemitic views are disgusting and unacceptable.
I am neither a Blairite nor a zionist.
I don't support the views of Ken Livingstone or Naz Shah either, but they have a right to express such views and it is self-defeating, particularly for a widely hated minority, to take umbrage at them.
widely hated ? I doubt 98% of people are remotely interested, widely hated amongst Corbynite leftie nutters, more likely.
What is self-defeating is excusing these sorts of view, it guarantees not getting elected again for the foreseeable future.
Why is Corbyn a "nutter"? He may be incompetent as a leader, but he has much sounder views than Cameron on many issues. For example, he is far more critical of the criminal Saudi regime, which is the source of much of the Muslim extremism and anti-Zionism/anti-Semitism in the world today.
In my personal experience, anti-Semitic views are held by all segments of the population, and are more likely to be held by those opposed to multi-culturalism. At least this is not Germany, where the rapidly advancing AfD (former ally of the Conservatives in the European parliament) has now espoused an openly anti-Muslim and anti-Semitic platform.
The current furore is not really about anti-Semitism, which is being deliberately conflated with anti-Zionism by both Zionists and anti-Semites. It is, as a leading union leader Len McCluskey has clearly stated, a deliberate attempt by Jeremy Corbyn's opponents within Labour to undermine his leadership and a cynical attempt to manipulate anti-Semitism for political aims. In essence it is a Blairite conspiracy - one of the leading protagonists is Lord Levy, close friend and confidant of the former PM.
That a lot of hand waving and attempting to obscure the issues. There are only two issues that have any relevance here.
1) Did they say or write what is reported 2) Are those sort of views acceptable for elected politicians to hold in today's UK
As for the conspiracy ? I think you need a new tiny foil hat tbh, but even if it was true, if they hadn't said and written those things, there would be no case to answer, no scandal, and no crisis.
The answer to both questions is YES. This is a manufactured crisis by Blairites/Zionists who regard views other than their own as unacceptable.
Those antisemitic views are disgusting and unacceptable.
I am neither a Blairite nor a zionist.
I don't support the views of Ken Livingstone or Naz Shah either, but they have a right to express such views and it is self-defeating, particularly for a widely hated minority, to take umbrage at them.
Oooppps ....
You just stepped over into la-la land. What a shame.
Your earlier post was an exemplar piece of trolling of its type. Cogently argued with a sufficient allowance of juicy junk to tempt the unwary.
Good morning all. Typical Bank Holiday weather down in London. Cloud covered sky. Morose, if weather can be called morose, and threatening rain.
So it's a cuppa for me and back to bed in a jiffy.
My mother is a true Tory. She still rails against Harold Wilson for making May day a bank holiday.
If I became PM the first thing I would do is scrap this Bank Holiday and add one in the first Monday in July.
Has anyone asked their local Tory MP (if they have one) to sponsor a Private Member's Bill to this effect? I suspect that would be the Whips' preferred route, and the fact that there hasn't been such a Bill tells us all we need to know.
The current furore is not really about anti-Semitism, which is being deliberately conflated with anti-Zionism by both Zionists and anti-Semites. It is, as a leading union leader Len McCluskey has clearly stated, a deliberate attempt by Jeremy Corbyn's opponents within Labour to undermine his leadership and a cynical attempt to manipulate anti-Semitism for political aims. In essence it is a Blairite conspiracy - one of the leading protagonists is Lord Levy, close friend and confidant of the former PM.
That a lot of hand waving and attempting to obscure the issues. There are only two issues that have any relevance here.
1) Did they say or write what is reported 2) Are those sort of views acceptable for elected politicians to hold in today's UK
As for the conspiracy ? I think you need a new tiny foil hat tbh, but even if it was true, if they hadn't said and written those things, there would be no case to answer, no scandal, and no crisis.
The answer to both questions is YES. This is a manufactured crisis by Blairites/Zionists who regard views other than their own as unacceptable.
Those antisemitic views are disgusting and unacceptable.
I am neither a Blairite nor a zionist.
I don't support the views of Ken Livingstone or Naz Shah either, but they have a right to express such views and it is self-defeating, particularly for a widely hated minority, to take umbrage at them.
It is self defeating for a hated minority to take umbrage at hatred? Wow.
Do you say the same about all such hatred or only anti-Semitism?
As a Tory I get quite a bit of abuse on Twitter from official Labour twitter handles. And I am a nobody. Labour has a large number of vile members. Labour have a institutionalised racist group in their party.
People derided opponents of Obamacare for labeling the care review panels as 'death panels'
Well, it appears that the NHS - envy of the world - has a systemic problem of death panels of one. Individual doctors placing DNRs on patients without the family being informed let alone consulted.
An "interesting" view. I may be misreading you, but it sound like you approve of some of Adolf's actions. I'm sure you'll be a fan of Enver Hoxha. He was a little tinker at times too, and made Stalin look like a big softie..
Another question: should "mainstream" parties seek the votes of those who hold such views?
Every one has one vote and they all count the same. Let's be honest, Ukip gained a lot of votes for the BNP - does that make Ukip racist? Of course not. Did Ukip make a tactical decision to focus on immigration to secure their votes? Possibly, but even so it's not comparable to what the BNP espouse. Personally I think the people who voted BNP did so because no one was listening to them. In Ukip they have now found a voice for their concerns.
The same is true with the Muslim vote. Clearly there is the potential for a niche political party to benefit from their votes. That has been seen with George Galloway and Lutfur Rahman. There is nothing wrong with Labour winning elections in these areas, but the danger is that Labour appear to pander to the extreme views held by some in these areas. The worst thing about the Naz Shah situation is that she is the MP for Bradford West. It's unfair to jump to conclusions about what she may or may not have done to win that election, but given that constituency elected George Galloway, it's hard not ask questions.
Given that JC was elected as Party leader (and would be re-elected to-morrow, surely) I repeat my question: what advantage do you see in the legality of a Party that behaves as Labour does to-day? If you find that offensive (which can only be because you enjoy taking offence where none is meant) let me ask a different question: assuming the Tories win a landslide in 2020 - as I think we almost all expect - why do you want Labour to remain the official Opposition, - and if you don't, who do you want to replace them?
If the BNP are legal, then the current Labour party can be legal. What is this obsession with banning political parties ? Any party that doesn't promote breaking the law, and isn't directly a threat to national security should be legal, otherwise who gets to choose who is legal and who isn't. You wouldn't want Fatcha choosing who the legal parties are, and I wouldn't want McDonnell choosing, so its safe it we just leave nutters to dig their own electoral grave (see: BNP)
The current furore is not really about anti-Semitism, which is being deliberately conflated with anti-Zionism by both Zionists and anti-Semites. It is, as a leading union leader Len McCluskey has clearly stated, a deliberate attempt by Jeremy Corbyn's opponents within Labour to undermine his leadership and a cynical attempt to manipulate anti-Semitism for political aims. In essence it is a Blairite conspiracy - one of the leading protagonists is Lord Levy, close friend and confidant of the former PM.
That a lot of hand waving and attempting to obscure the issues. There are only two issues that have any relevance here.
1) Did they say or write what is reported 2) Are those sort of views acceptable for elected politicians to hold in today's UK
As for the conspiracy ? I think you need a new tiny foil hat tbh, but even if it was true, if they hadn't said and written those things, there would be no case to answer, no scandal, and no crisis.
The answer to both questions is YES. This is a manufactured crisis by Blairites/Zionists who regard views other than their own as unacceptable.
Those antisemitic views are disgusting and unacceptable.
I am neither a Blairite nor a zionist.
I don't support the views of Ken Livingstone or Naz Shah either, but they have a right to express such views and it is self-defeating, particularly for a widely hated minority, to take umbrage at them.
So Jews are a widely-hated minority, are they? And it is self-defeating of them to take umbrage at those who hate them?
I see.
Substitute "Muslims" in your formulation. Then perhaps you may be able to see how loathsome your statement sounds.
For those of us wondering WTF Corbyn was doing at the May Day rally - according to the Times, it's the first time a Labour leader has attended in 50yrs, is that right?
IIRC Tony made May 1st a bank holiday, but that's it. He certainly wouldn't been seen dead at it.
WRT London Mayor and Boris specifically.. he was great because he defeated the utterly loathsome Ken Livingstone, Boris was the man for the moment. As far as any other career moves are concerned, I think that's hit the buffers head on.
Clearly Ken has stuff and needs help. Labour shouldn't let him back in until they are satisfied he has got professional help. For our part, we should not forget that he beat the Party system in the first Mayoral election, which no one else has come close to doing.
May I assume that Peebies generally think that JC has handled the issue well, given that all the bile has been directed at Ken (who has deserved all he's got)?
You may not assume this - at least not as far as this PB is concerned. JC is part of the problem. There is barely a cigarette paper between his views and those of Livingstone and Shah. JC is not the solution and I have zero confidence that under his leadership Labour will drag itself away from the filth where it currently wallows while spitting deluded conspiracy bile at anyone pointing out the mess it is in.
The Paper Press has morphed into Print and on-line, If you watch TV, which is gaining a bit of ground, they use stories from the Press to make their news. So, Newspapers are still powerful, but more subtly. On-line is often called an echo chamber - people talking to others already convinced of their views, therefore of little use.
In particular in London, re; power of The Standard newspaper, which has 2 million readership, it is true that London during the day is Conservative. But 3 million people who work here live outside London. That's why it is always amazing that you meet so many decent people, then a Labour politician, full of idiocy, bigotry and vitriol gets elected.
WRT London Mayor and Boris specifically.. he was great because he defeated the utterly loathsome Ken Livingstone, Boris was the man for the moment. As far as any other career moves are concerned, I think that's hit the buffers head on.
Clearly Ken has stuff and needs help. Labour shouldn't let him back in until they are satisfied he has got professional help. For our part, we should not forget that he beat the Party system in the first Mayoral election, which no one else has come close to doing.
May I assume that Peebies generally think that JC has handled the issue well, given that all the bile has been directed at Ken (who has deserved all he's got)?
You may not assume this - at least not as far as this PB is concerned. JC is part of the problem. There is barely a cigarette paper between his views and those of Livingstone and Shah. JC is not the solution and I have zero confidence that under his leadership Labour will drag itself away from the filth where it currently wallows while spitting deluded conspiracy bile at anyone pointing out the mess it is in.
Corbyn and Livingstone have been lifelong political allies and friends. There is not room for a cigarette paper between them.
WRT London Mayor and Boris specifically.. he was great because he defeated the utterly loathsome Ken Livingstone, Boris was the man for the moment. As far as any other career moves are concerned, I think that's hit the buffers head on.
Clearly Ken has stuff and needs help. Labour shouldn't let him back in until they are satisfied he has got professional help. For our part, we should not forget that he beat the Party system in the first Mayoral election, which no one else has come close to doing.
May I assume that Peebies generally think that JC has handled the issue well, given that all the bile has been directed at Ken (who has deserved all he's got)?
You may not assume this - at least not as far as this PB is concerned. JC is part of the problem. There is barely a cigarette paper between his views and those of Livingstone and Shah. JC is not the solution and I have zero confidence that under his leadership Labour will drag itself away from the filth where it currently wallows while spitting deluded conspiracy bile at anyone pointing out the mess it is in.
Being a bit far from the action I have yet to form a view as to weather Corbyn is simply a ineffective old fool with his mind set in the 1970's who though inaction and wanting to hear everyone views and tackle everything in a "workshop mode"* which allows dubious characters like McDonnell to flourish under his negligent watch. Or if there is a malign intelligence at work such that he is himself promoting and succoring unsavoury views.
*See Alexi Sayle on "workshop" www.youtube.com/watch?v=icMP4AlB61I
The problem for Labour has always been the fringe element. The sort that got all worked up about the Beatles when they sang "If you want money for people with minds that hate, all I can tell you is brother you have to wait." They do have minds that hate.
As far as they're concerned, there are people who can do no wrong, and other groups who can do no right because they are evil and need destroying. There's no middle ground for them. A Jezza view of the world. A good chunk grow up but a lot don't.
The current furore is not really about anti-Semitism, which is being deliberately conflated with anti-Zionism by both Zionists and anti-Semites. It is, as a leading union leader Len McCluskey has clearly stated, a deliberate attempt by Jeremy Corbyn's opponents within Labour to undermine his leadership and a cynical attempt to manipulate anti-Semitism for political aims. In essence it is a Blairite conspiracy - one of the leading protagonists is Lord Levy, close friend and confidant of the former PM.
That a lot of hand waving and attempting to obscure the issues. There are only two issues that have any relevance here.
1) Did they say or write what is reported 2) Are those sort of views acceptable for elected politicians to hold in today's UK
As for the conspiracy ? I think you need a new tiny foil hat tbh, but even if it was true, if they hadn't said and written those things, there would be no case to answer, no scandal, and no crisis.
The answer to both questions is YES. This is a manufactured crisis by Blairites/Zionists who regard views other than their own as unacceptable.
Those antisemitic views are disgusting and unacceptable.
I am neither a Blairite nor a zionist.
I don't support the views of Ken Livingstone or Naz Shah either, but they have a right to express such views and it is self-defeating, particularly for a widely hated minority, to take umbrage at them.
So Jews are a widely-hated minority, are they? And it is self-defeating of them to take umbrage at those who hate them?
I see.
Substitute "Muslims" in your formulation. Then perhaps you may be able to see how loathsome your statement sounds.
If once is disliked, particularly if in a minority, it is generally better to keep a low profile and not "up the ante". If the atmosphere becomes excessively unpleasant and intolerable, it is generally best to leave and not make a fuss.
The whole affair is politicking at its worst, particularly when there a set of elections on May 5th. Its timing seems to have been deliberately planned to take the heat off Camborne and direct it at Corbyn.
Something wrong there though. Foot was Employment Secretary until Wilson retired in 1976, under Sunny Jim he was Deputy Leader and Leader of the House.
Undefined discussion subject.
Comments
Believe in BRITAIN!
Be LEAVE!
It was almost as if the Tories had decided after 8 years of Boris that it was Buggins' turn for Labour.
Maybe Zac ain't that good and no amount of media can save him?
As Ken Livingstone has shown, it is probably best not to refer to Hitler when trying to make a contemporary political argument. The scale and depravity of the crimes of Hitler and Stalin are such that the proper response is humility and grief, not the ignorant obnoxiousness that your sloganeering demonstrates.
"it is probably best not to refer to Hitler when trying to make a contemporary political argument. "
Why not? mentioning Mao and Hoxha has gone pretty well
btw I have started liking Dmitri Kabalevsky.
Well, it appears that the NHS - envy of the world - has a systemic problem of death panels of one. Individual doctors placing DNRs on patients without the family being informed let alone consulted.
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-36184760
Yes, that's what I thought, really, (and is obv. the accepted consensus) but my lad has been playing some piano pieces, and I started enjoying them..
I may be a plodder at listening, I suppose...
It's time perhaps to revisit the leading candidates to be Trump's Veep running mate, with an announcement possible anytime soon.
John Kasich, on offer at between 2/1 and 3/1 has long been the favourite, all the more so with him remaining in the contest for the top job ...... there has to be some logic involved in his thinking.
Coming up fast on the rails however is Trump's friend Chris Christie who, according to The Times, appeared to angle for the job early on, endorsing Mr Trump in February. The billionaire, returning the favour, said on Tuesday: “I think Chris Christie is fantastic, so certainly he would be somebody on the list.”
That's good enough for me to have a small wager on him getting the gig, for which he's best-priced with Betfair at 7.6 (7.27 net), followed by Ladbrokes who have him at 7.0, with the big man as short as 5.0 with the likes of Paddy Power.
DYOR.
In the battle of the genocidal regimes, did the fascists produce any good art? or is that a win for the communists, do you reckon?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/05/01/jeremy-corbyn-under-pressure-to-denounce-friends-hamas-and-hezbo/
BTW anyone who runs the gauntlet of the Heathrow immigration queue an a regular basis does find the idea that the UK "does not control its borders" pretty unconvincing.
Not sure that Dr Prasannan was being as serious as you make him out to be.
I should hope not, but living in the "Bloodlands" makes you pretty irritable with levity based on either National Socialism or Soviet Socialism.
I think all of my Estonian friends have at least one close relative who was taken. A third of the population was killed, exiled or fled.
Not good.
Agree.
An integrated society has a chance of working harmoniously. The alternative we have created can only fail.
Ken Livingstone's anti-Zionist views are not new, and while he may not have got his facts regarding the 1930s exactly right, there was collusion then between the Zionists and German authorities (the Ha'avara agreement). He lost the 2012 Mayoral election narrowly probably due to the Jewish vote; there was a notable difference between support for the Labour candidate to represent Barnet and Camden on the Greater London Authority and first preference votes for him from that borough.
Regarding Naz Shah, it is not surprising that Muslim MPs share the general views of their co-religionists about the Zionist state - they don't accept its right to exist and regard the whole of the territory of Palestine as Dar-al-Islam. Tel Aviv is considered occupied territory stolen by the Zionists just as much as settlements in the West Bank (historic Judea & Samaria). Sending Jews currently living in Israel/Palestine to the USA (if it would allow them to enter - its doors were barred to Jewish refugees in the 1930s) might actually save them from a future Holocaust.
The current furore is not really about anti-Semitism, which is being deliberately conflated with anti-Zionism by both Zionists and anti-Semites. It is, as a leading union leader Len McCluskey has clearly stated, a deliberate attempt by Jeremy Corbyn's opponents within Labour to undermine his leadership and a cynical attempt to manipulate anti-Semitism for political aims. In essence it is a Blairite conspiracy - one of the leading protagonists is Lord Levy, close friend and confidant of the former PM.
Opposition party leaders were enthusiastically applauded and cheered by the audience during the BBC One Scotland showdown at Hopetoun House near Edinburgh as they took turns to round on the First Minister.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/05/01/nicola-sturgeon-accused-of-being-anti-democratic-over-independen/
If the referendum result, or the mayoral election, is close then that could show a significant influence still ... it's just that it wasn't enough to win on its own.
1) Did they say or write what is reported
2) Are those sort of views acceptable for elected politicians to hold in today's UK
As for the conspiracy ? I think you need a new tiny foil hat tbh, but even if it was true, if they hadn't said and written those things, there would be no case to answer, no scandal, and no crisis.
Normally the press lines up to back one party or another, but in this case almost all of the political parties (or their leadership at least) are in favour of staying in. I suspect some of the more critical press will fall into line as we get closer to the big day. But given the abuse of public finances and institutions so far by the Remain campaign, I really don't think there can be any complaints that the press aren't doing what Remainers would like.
Had they not been bankrupt or not been willing to agree to creditors demands then it wouldn't have happened.
Having administrators appointed is part and parcel of going into bankruptcy related administration. Ask BHS.
Personally I don't think the press directly have much influence at all, you can see the short shrift a lot of people are giving the witterings of people like Matthew Parris/Polly Toynbee. Where I think they have have massive influence is giving currency to an "event", if someone does or says something incredibly stupid, the press make sure the voters know about it. The idea that this is a press conspiracy is idiotic, the press are business there to sell newspapers and/or advertising, politicians being idiots sells. Ultimately the politician is to blame for the event, not the media.
So in essence you believe in democracy, except when you don't.
The bankruptcy administrators were approved democratically by their own Parliament so how does that violate a single principle of democracy?
I am neither a Blairite nor a zionist.
Typical Bank Holiday weather down in London.
Cloud covered sky. Morose, if weather can be called morose, and threatening rain.
So it's a cuppa for me and back to bed in a jiffy.
May I assume that Peebies generally think that JC has handled the issue well, given that all the bile has been directed at Ken (who has deserved all he's got)?
Had the administration been appointed AGAINST the wishes of MPs you'd be right.
You could blow the whistle faintly, and it sounds a bit half hearted
The Mail, of course, is berserk. And the general theme of the thread is right. If the press were still dominant, Goldsmith and Leave would both be well ahead, and it'll be interesting to see if that's still the case.
Corbyn is joined at the hip to Ken Livingstone.. and Corbyn couldn't handle anything well. He is the black knight
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zKhEw7nD9C4
What is self-defeating is excusing these sorts of view, it guarantees not getting elected again for the foreseeable future.
90,000 seconds
Do you say the same about all such hatred or only anti-Semitism?
It reads like you mean Jews, but surely that is not what you meant?
Of course people should have the right to express unpleasant and racist views. It's an important part of democracy that extremists should be able to peddle their filth: they serve as a useful safety valve, warning sign and it's a lot easier for the security services to keep tabs as necessary if they're organised publicly.
The question is whether such views are compatible with a mainstream party.
The Mail has a very robust history in supporting exiled Labour figures like Ken Livingstone on anti-semitism. Why you only have to go back to the 1930's when it was shoulder to shoulder with the likes of Oswald Moseley .....
Hhhhmmm ....
IIRC Tony made May 1st a bank holiday, but that's it. He certainly wouldn't been seen dead at it.
I suspect lots of Labour voters who cannot stand Corbyn and co will vote Lib Dem, failing that , its not impossible for a new party to emerge.
I would agree with Nick that the support given to Boris the last time was on a completely different level from anything given to Zac but then Khan is a completely different level of candidate to Ken and the whole election is less visceral as a result. As a result London is reverting to type which is Labour's last stronghold.
On Brexit I think it is clear that the media other than the press are generally supportive of Remain and that is going to significantly outweigh any frothing in the Telegraph or the Express. For me, it is a vote for Brexit that would call into question the power of the media in this country, not the reverse.
Whilst I agree with the theme that the press' power is diminishing, surely Goldsmith losing is because Goldsmith has been rubbish at campaigning?
In my personal experience, anti-Semitic views are held by all segments of the population, and are more likely to be held by those opposed to multi-culturalism. At least this is not Germany, where the rapidly advancing AfD (former ally of the Conservatives in the European parliament) has now espoused an openly anti-Muslim and anti-Semitic platform.
You just stepped over into la-la land. What a shame.
Your earlier post was an exemplar piece of trolling of its type. Cogently argued with a sufficient allowance of juicy junk to tempt the unwary.
Bravo.
Except those who have experienced almost any other healthcare system in the World, that is...
An "interesting" view. I may be misreading you, but it sound like you approve of some of Adolf's actions. I'm sure you'll be a fan of Enver Hoxha. He was a little tinker at times too, and made Stalin look like a big softie..
The same is true with the Muslim vote. Clearly there is the potential for a niche political party to benefit from their votes. That has been seen with George Galloway and Lutfur Rahman. There is nothing wrong with Labour winning elections in these areas, but the danger is that Labour appear to pander to the extreme views held by some in these areas. The worst thing about the Naz Shah situation is that she is the MP for Bradford West. It's unfair to jump to conclusions about what she may or may not have done to win that election, but given that constituency elected George Galloway, it's hard not ask questions.
I see.
Substitute "Muslims" in your formulation. Then perhaps you may be able to see how loathsome your statement sounds.
'Liz Kendall challenges Priti Patel to EU debate at their old school'
We could initiate it this year and call it "European Unity Day"
In particular in London, re; power of The Standard newspaper, which has 2 million readership, it is true that London during the day is Conservative. But 3 million people who work here live outside London. That's why it is always amazing that you meet so many decent people, then a Labour politician, full of idiocy, bigotry and vitriol gets elected.
*See Alexi Sayle on "workshop" www.youtube.com/watch?v=icMP4AlB61I
As far as they're concerned, there are people who can do no wrong, and other groups who can do no right because they are evil and need destroying. There's no middle ground for them. A Jezza view of the world. A good chunk grow up but a lot don't.
The whole affair is politicking at its worst, particularly when there a set of elections on May 5th. Its timing seems to have been deliberately planned to take the heat off Camborne and direct it at Corbyn.
The practical issue is that too many bank holidays are close together on spring Mondays.