It's hard to believe West Virginia was a Democratic stronghold till recently. It's no longer even close.
It's hard to think of a less Hillary Clinton friendly state than West Virginia
There are several States, Kentucky, Tennessee, Arkansas, Louisiana, Georgia, West Virginia, that Bill Clinton carried, but which are not in contention now.
Democrats apparently think Georgia could be "in play" this year.
I wish someone would put the Sky coverage up, is the one I watched on the night, that glorious night I edited PB.
So do I - I've listened to the R4 & R5, watched ITV, BBC (just a few times) and even Ch 5 coverage of the night... the Sky election night is the gap in my portfolio!!!!
Trump leads Cuban-Americans by 37 to 31 in Florida. Not that Trump needs them with his strength in Panhandle Florida and amongst NE retirees, according to my sophisticated demographic model.
Almost on topic does anyone have a good feel for how the pollsters are addressing the issue of differential turnout at the referendum? If the polls were showing 39-36 in favour of remain, for example, have these figures been modified to reflect certainty to vote already or do we still need to do this?
If turnout is likely to be something like 60% and no differential has been assumed then I would seriously fancy Leave's chances on numbers like that. If, on the other hand, such a filter has already been applied then it would be wrong to apply it twice.
Without any kind of track record this is a tricky one for the pollsters. I was quite taken by Laura Keunsberg's contribution to the new series "From our Home Correspondent" this morning. She said she was not sure who was winning but she was in no doubt at all who was enjoying themselves the most.
Almost on topic does anyone have a good feel for how the pollsters are addressing the issue of differential turnout at the referendum? If the polls were showing 39-36 in favour of remain, for example, have these figures been modified to reflect certainty to vote already or do we still need to do this?
If turnout is likely to be something like 60% and no differential has been assumed then I would seriously fancy Leave's chances on numbers like that. If, on the other hand, such a filter has already been applied then it would be wrong to apply it twice.
Without any kind of track record this is a tricky one for the pollsters. I was quite taken by Laura Keunsberg's contribution to the new series "From our Home Correspondent" this morning. She said she was not sure who was winning but she was in no doubt at all who was enjoying themselves the most.
Some pollsters use a self certifying turnout filter.
Some like ComRes apply their own strict turnout filter based on demographics.
For some reason, when it comes to Trump, I seem to be back betting with my heart and not my head.
Reckless phenomenon
Only a day or two left on the iplayer.
Preserved for the nation on youtube.
I think there's time for a full run through whilst I do admin in the office all day... I'm off football. Though I might retain an interest in the PB Fantasy Footie if I can motivate myself for one last push..
Almost on topic does anyone have a good feel for how the pollsters are addressing the issue of differential turnout at the referendum? If the polls were showing 39-36 in favour of remain, for example, have these figures been modified to reflect certainty to vote already or do we still need to do this?
If turnout is likely to be something like 60% and no differential has been assumed then I would seriously fancy Leave's chances on numbers like that. If, on the other hand, such a filter has already been applied then it would be wrong to apply it twice.
Without any kind of track record this is a tricky one for the pollsters. I was quite taken by Laura Keunsberg's contribution to the new series "From our Home Correspondent" this morning. She said she was not sure who was winning but she was in no doubt at all who was enjoying themselves the most.
Some pollsters use a self certifying turnout filter.
Some like ComRes apply their own strict turnout filter based on demographics.
Demographics makes sense in the absence of anything better. I seem to remember that self certification proved to have some flaws in the mortgage market!
It is your first paragraph that really sums up my views on the whole thing.
I was genuinely surprised top find that, outside of a defined set of muslim extremists and a tiny and hopefully diminishing BNP, there was any anti-Semitism in the country. Now I will qualify this by saying that I have never lived in a major city so absolutely understand I am probably not well placed to comment on the real situation. But I have always held a strong impression that the events of 70 years ago and the fact we had fought the Germans and then found out the true depths of their depravity under the Nazi regime had effectively made anti Semitism a complete non starter in British society.
I am not in this case talking about being anti-Likud, anti-settler or pro-Palestinian. I believe you can still be all of those things and not be anti-Semitic. I just find it hard to believe that, after all that happened just a few decades ago and all that Britain stood for in that fight, there are still people who can be anti-Jewish.
Anti-Semitism has been around for over 2000 years. Why would it not still survive and mutate? The desire for a scapegoat runs deep in human beings, in human societies and Jews have been the eternal scapegoat.
WW2 is a long time ago. People forget. Holocaust denial and revisionism is still around and peddled by all sorts of people. It is no coincidence that much of the source of anti-Semitism in European society these days emanates from people who come from outside Europe, who did not necessarily view WW2 in the way you describe and who were not confronted with the horror (and, to be fair, this was a European crime). Nor have they ever been confronted by those within their own societies who wished to join the Axis powers in attacking Jews (Amin al-Husseini, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem).
And this works both ways: when Israel recently wanted to include and honour a brave Arab who had saved some Jewish lives in North Africa into the list of the Righteous at Yad Vashem, his family refused. They refused to accept an honour for someone who saved lives, despite all that we are told the Koran says about this, as if they were either ashamed of what he did or hated Israel so much that they did not want their own relative honoured for an act of mercy.
We have to some extent reimported the virus of anti-Semitism: transmuted and altered and triggered by different things (not the classic Christian view of Jews as Christ's killer) with the growth in Muslim communities in Europe.
No - I am not surprised that anti-Jewish feeling is no longer a non-starter in parts of British society.
The polling evidence is that it is strongest in Ukip, then Conservatives/Labour pretty much equally. Hardly tallies with a "Arabs evil, Israelis good" narrative.
What came across to me from Finkelstein's really interesting piece is that the holocaust was truly one of the most evil acts in history. It was and remains profoundly shocking. It is not a play piece for anyone of any description, especially non Jews, and people should respect the dead. I think it is impossible to read that piece and not remember and re-appreciate that.
He thinks that people are playing games with the holocaust finding offence and using it to shut down debate and discussion about the actions of modern day Israel. He finds that morally offensive and it is frankly impossible to disagree after even a moment's reflection.
But that goes a very long way from excusing those who challenge Israel's right to exist, Jews right to exist and their right to play a full part in our society which some have challenged on this site over the last couple of days.
I fear that his left wing views are causing him to cut an excessive amount of slack to those who might hold those views or at least are willing to associate with those who hold those views. He is right that Naz Shah is being manipulated and that is ultimately a gift to anti-Semitism not something that should be encouraged or condoned. Whether he is right about Livingstone's contributions I am far less sure.
It is your first paragraph that really sums up my views on the whole thing.
I was genuinely surprised to find that, outside of a defined set of muslim extremists and a tiny and hopefully diminishing BNP, there was any anti-Semitism in the country. Now I will qualify this by saying that I have never lived in a major city so absolutely understand I am probably not well placed to comment on the real situation. But I have always held a strong impression that the events of 70 years ago and the fact we had fought the Germans and then found out the true depths of their depravity under the Nazi regime had effectively made anti Semitism a complete non starter in British society.
I am not in this case talking about being anti-Likud, anti-settler or pro-Palestinian. I believe you can still be all of those things and not be anti-Semitic. I just find it hard to believe that, after all that happened just a few decades ago and all that Britain stood for in that fight, there are still people who can be anti-Jewish.
I've encountered well-off, well-educated white people (in Radlett and Mill Hill) who dislike Jews intensely. I once had dinner with a West African woman who started ranting about Britain's stupidity in allowing Jews to attain what she considered to be an absurd position of influence in our society (she's a qualified barrister). I have dealings with a Muslim estate agent who frequently refers to Jews in perjorative terms.
My impression is not that most people hate Jews, but I think perhaps 10-15% are more or less hostile to them.
For some reason, when it comes to Trump, I seem to be back betting with my heart and not my head.
Reckless phenomenon
Only a day or two left on the iplayer.
Preserved for the nation on youtube.
I think there's time for a full run through whilst I do admin in the office all day... I'm off football. Though I might retain an interest in the PB Fantasy Footie if I can motivate myself for one last push..
No chance you'll catch me!
My fortune mirror Norwich.
tempted to tweet a lion photo like Harry's but not sure the precedent is good....
Almost on topic does anyone have a good feel for how the pollsters are addressing the issue of differential turnout at the referendum? If the polls were showing 39-36 in favour of remain, for example, have these figures been modified to reflect certainty to vote already or do we still need to do this?
If turnout is likely to be something like 60% and no differential has been assumed then I would seriously fancy Leave's chances on numbers like that. If, on the other hand, such a filter has already been applied then it would be wrong to apply it twice.
Without any kind of track record this is a tricky one for the pollsters. I was quite taken by Laura Keunsberg's contribution to the new series "From our Home Correspondent" this morning. She said she was not sure who was winning but she was in no doubt at all who was enjoying themselves the most.
Some pollsters use a self certifying turnout filter.
Some like ComRes apply their own strict turnout filter based on demographics.
Demographics makes sense in the absence of anything better. I seem to remember that self certification proved to have some flaws in the mortgage market!
Some also apply a filter based on based VI too.
Self certifying is a problem, last week's YouGov London poll had anticipated turnout of 60%
I will eat Paddy Ashdown's hat if it is anywhere near that
We live in counterintuitive times. When aircraft became fast enough to reach the sound barrier, they were confounded by the fact that their controls were reversed: airflow in the transonic region caused vortices that forced the plane in the opposite direction. We have just had an Obama recommendation which counterintuitively helped LEAVE. We have just uncovered an antisemitic HYDRA in Labour's SHIELD, which counterintuitively helped Khan (am I the only one who's noticed this?).
LEAVE's vacating of the economic battlefield and concentrating on its immigration Berchtesgaden has the virtue of honesty and exposes the fight for what it is and always was: immigration vs the economy. Problem is, this is a fight that REMAIN may actually win.
It may not (I genuinely don't know and I hold to my 55% LEAVE/45% REMAIN pred), but at least now each side is playing to its strengths.
Almost on topic does anyone have a good feel for how the pollsters are addressing the issue of differential turnout at the referendum? If the polls were showing 39-36 in favour of remain, for example, have these figures been modified to reflect certainty to vote already or do we still need to do this?
If turnout is likely to be something like 60% and no differential has been assumed then I would seriously fancy Leave's chances on numbers like that. If, on the other hand, such a filter has already been applied then it would be wrong to apply it twice.
Without any kind of track record this is a tricky one for the pollsters. I was quite taken by Laura Keunsberg's contribution to the new series "From our Home Correspondent" this morning. She said she was not sure who was winning but she was in no doubt at all who was enjoying themselves the most.
I presume she means Leave is having more fun. That could be important - things like that do filter through to the voting public and help create background mood for the decision-making process over the vote.
Fear may be the strongest motivator in the short-term, but hope is bester for the long-term. Be interesting to see which wins out.
Having been out on the doorstep most nights recently, there is no doubt that Zak's campaign is polarising people. On the doorsteps tonight there's a personalised leaflet designed to frighten people at the prospect of a Khan win. There are people clearly hearing the whistle, but if you're not a 'dog' then his recent campaign is turning people away. Most LibDem and Green voters aren't 'dogs' hence Zak's declining share of the second preference vote.
Your reply to me last night was very good. But there are people like me who are part Jewish, love the concept of Israel and have spent a lot of time there. What I do not like is Israel's use of disproportionate force against predominantly civilian areas which invariably makes matters worse.
My uncle lost his entire female family who were murdered by the Nazis- his mum, his aunties, his cousins, the whole lot murdered. I don't think in human history there has been an act as appalling. My father's family is Jewish who escaped Soviet tyranny and fled to Britain.
Many people like me would welcome a much moderate Israel. Does that make us anti semite?
Your reply to me last night was very good. But there are people like me who are part Jewish, love the concept of Israel and have spent a lot of time there. What I do not like is Israel's use of disproportionate force against predominantly civilian areas which invariably makes matters worse.
My uncle lost his entire female family who were murdered by the Nazis- his mum, his aunties, his cousins, the whole lot murdered. I don't think in human history there has been an act as appalling. My father's family is Jewish who escaped Soviet tyranny and fled to Britain.
Many people like me would welcome a much moderate Israel. Does that make us anti semite?
Anyone who thinks anti-semitism isn't an issue in the UK today has not been in a situation where the issue of Judaism has come up, whether it is on the terraces, in polite conversation, or, most recently for me, on top of the Cheltenham Festival shuttle bus when it passed the Cheltenham synagogue, which provoked some thoughtful racegoers to make some less than thoughtful comments.
That this is the case, in the West, to a certain extent has its seeds in the original sin of the killing of Jesus Christ, for which, of course, the Jews will never be forgiven, and in the light of which, every action against them can be justified.
As for the problem the left has with Jews, it is ironically the obverse of the one that those on the right had. People, societies even, picked on Jews, historically, because they were weak, and therefore their place in society was always at risk. As such, there was no personal or national existential threat that could arise from being anti-semitic, and, with the Christ thing, there was always an excuse to pick on them.
In the decades since the second world war, the Jews have got less weak and less vulnerable, either through their position in society or, of course, by the often and formidably belligerent state of Israel. We can all remember the asymmetric retaliation to incidents of terrorism throughout the '70s and '80s, which seems to have translated to an asymmetric response to current threats from the Palestinians.
But as far as anti-semitism goes, through strength comes respect.
Unless, of course, you are on the left, when strength means you are no longer a victim worse, even, not only have you become a part of the imperialist problem, but you no longer need the moral and intellectual guidance that only the left believes it is able to impart. You have committed the equally appalling sin of not wanting to be (helped by) a revolutionary socialist.
Sounds like it will be another record breaker for turnout. I am going to go out on a limb and say it won't be on the Democrat side, and it certainly won't be for Hillary.
Think of all the people who dislike Muslims intensely, who think they are too powerful in British society, and it is easy to see how so many people hate Jews. They are a useful outgroup as they have suffered a lot in the past, so if you are vile you can mock them for their suffering. There is also a lot of low-lying bigotry against Catholics; recall that the knight of the realm, Sir Philip Green, noted that one too-observant critic of his BHS dealings "can't read English. Mind you, he's a f***ing Irishman".
Almost on topic does anyone have a good feel for how the pollsters are addressing the issue of differential turnout at the referendum? If the polls were showing 39-36 in favour of remain, for example, have these figures been modified to reflect certainty to vote already or do we still need to do this?
If turnout is likely to be something like 60% and no differential has been assumed then I would seriously fancy Leave's chances on numbers like that. If, on the other hand, such a filter has already been applied then it would be wrong to apply it twice.
Without any kind of track record this is a tricky one for the pollsters. I was quite taken by Laura Keunsberg's contribution to the new series "From our Home Correspondent" this morning. She said she was not sure who was winning but she was in no doubt at all who was enjoying themselves the most.
Some pollsters are hedging their bets, by publishing figures for all voters, and then weighting by turnout. Ipsos MORI, eg, have 49/39 among all voters, 50/44 Remain, weighted by turnout.
How many people do you know Sean who do not like Muslims?
It is your first paragraph that really sums up my views on the whole thing.
I was genuinely surprised to find that, outside of a defined set of muslim extremists and a tiny and hopefully diminishing BNP, there was any anti-Semitism in the country. Now I will qualify this by saying that I have never lived in a major city so absolutely understand I am probably not well placed to comment on the real situation. But I have always held a strong impression that the events of 70 years ago and the fact we had fought the Germans and then found out the true depths of their depravity under the Nazi regime had effectively made anti Semitism a complete non starter in British society.
I am not in this case talking about being anti-Likud, anti-settler or pro-Palestinian. I believe you can still be all of those things and not be anti-Semitic. I just find it hard to believe that, after all that happened just a few decades ago and all that Britain stood for in that fight, there are still people who can be anti-Jewish.
I've encountered well-off, well-educated white people (in Radlett and Mill Hill) who dislike Jews intensely. I once had dinner with a West African woman who started ranting about Britain's stupidity in allowing Jews to attain what she considered to be an absurd position of influence in our society (she's a qualified barrister). I have dealings with a Muslim estate agent who frequently refers to Jews in perjorative terms.
My impression is not that most people hate Jews, but I think perhaps 10-15% are more or less hostile to them.
It is your first paragraph that really sums up my views on the whole thing.
I was genuinely surprised top find that, outside of a defined set of muslim extremists and a tiny and hopefully diminishing BNP, there was any anti-Semitism in the country. Now I will qualify this by saying that I have never lived in a major city so absolutely understand I am probably not well placed to comment on the real situation. But I have always held a strong impression that the events of 70 years ago and the fact we had fought the Germans and then found out the true depths of their depravity under the Nazi regime had effectively made anti Semitism a complete non starter in British society.
I am not in this case talking about being anti-Likud, anti-settler or pro-Palestinian. I believe you can still be all of those things and not be anti-Semitic. I just find it hard to believe that, after all that happened just a few decades ago and all that Britain stood for in that fight, there are still people who can be anti-Jewish.
Anti-Semitism has been around for over 2000 years. Why would it not still survive and mutate? The desire for a scapegoat runs deep in human beings, in human societies and Jews have been the eternal scapegoat. act of mercy.
We have to some extent reimported the virus of anti-Semitism: transmuted and altered and triggered by different things (not the classic Christian view of Jews as Christ's killer) with the growth in Muslim communities in Europe.
No - I am not surprised that anti-Jewish feeling is no longer a non-starter in parts of British society.
Absolutely. If anyone remains in any doubt that large sections of the British Muslim population are seriously antisemitic, let them read this New Statesman piece, from 2013, by... Mehdi Hasan. And there the debate concludes.
Without any kind of track record this is a tricky one for the pollsters.
We had a Scottish referendum in 2014, a UK referendum in 2011, others in Wales and Northern Ireland, there are more referenda in Ireland than you can shake a stick at, God love us we've just had a referendum in the bloody Netherlands! All these people use known techniques and their errors can be calculated and plotted. Lord above, those who have eyes to see let them see, those who have ears to hear let them hear...
Anyone who thinks anti-semitism isn't an issue in the UK today has not been in a situation where the issue of Judaism has come up, whether it is on the terraces, in polite conversation, or, most recently for me, on top of the Cheltenham Festival shuttle bus when it passed the Cheltenham synagogue, which provoked some thoughtful racegoers to make some less than thoughtful comments.
That this is the case, in the West, to a certain extent has its seeds in the original sin of the killing of Jesus Christ, for which, of course, the Jews will never be forgiven, and in the light of which, every action against them can be justified.
As for the problem the left has with Jews, it is ironically the obverse of the one that those on the right had. People, societies even, picked on Jews, historically, because they were weak, and therefore their place in society was always at risk. As such, there was no personal or national existential threat that could arise from being anti-semitic, and, with the Christ thing, there was always an excuse to pick on them.
In the decades since the second world war, the Jews have got less weak and less vulnerable, either through their position in society or, of course, by the often and formidably belligerent state of Israel. We can all remember the asymmetric retaliation to incidents of terrorism throughout the '70s and '80s, which seems to have translated to an asymmetric response to current threats from the Palestinians.
But as far as anti-semitism goes, through strength comes respect.
Unless, of course, you are on the left, when strength means you are no longer a victim worse, even, not only have you become a part of the imperialist problem, but you no longer need the moral and intellectual guidance that only the left believes it is able to impart. You have committed the equally appalling sin of not wanting to be (helped by) a revolutionary socialist.
A very enjoyable post and one of the very few written by someone with the knowledge to speak on the subject
We have to some extent reimported the virus of anti-Semitism: transmuted and altered and triggered by different things (not the classic Christian view of Jews as Christ's killer) with the growth in Muslim communities in Europe.
No - I am not surprised that anti-Jewish feeling is no longer a non-starter in parts of British society.
------------------
But the extraordinary thing is it hasn't stayed in those 'imported' places but has filtered into left-wing opinion among the native population.
This is a strange and complex phenomenon. It seems to reflect a mixture of -
1. the middle class left's weird tendency to worship the supposed attributes of the voters they are chasing after - once they did this with working class voters too (not any more of course).
2. the need to find a new hate figure to replace Apartheid South Africa. Israel has enough superficial similarities to fit the bill
3. cynical vote chasing (as opposed to the strange mind-melding of point 1.)
How many people do you know Sean who do not like Muslims?
It is your first paragraph that really sums up my views on the whole thing.
I was genuinely surprised to find that, outside of a defined set of muslim extremists and a tiny and hopefully diminishing BNP, there was any anti-Semitism in the country. Now I will qualify this by saying that I have never lived in a major city so absolutely understand I am probably not well placed to comment on the real situation. But I have always held a strong impression that the events of 70 years ago and the fact we had fought the Germans and then found out the true depths of their depravity under the Nazi regime had effectively made anti Semitism a complete non starter in British society.
I am not in this case talking about being anti-Likud, anti-settler or pro-Palestinian. I believe you can still be all of those things and not be anti-Semitic. I just find it hard to believe that, after all that happened just a few decades ago and all that Britain stood for in that fight, there are still people who can be anti-Jewish.
I've encountered well-off, well-educated white people (in Radlett and Mill Hill) who dislike Jews intensely. I once had dinner with a West African woman who started ranting about Britain's stupidity in allowing Jews to attain what she considered to be an absurd position of influence in our society (she's a qualified barrister). I have dealings with a Muslim estate agent who frequently refers to Jews in perjorative terms.
My impression is not that most people hate Jews, but I think perhaps 10-15% are more or less hostile to them.
It's hard to know how representative one's circle of acquaintances is. I think that among my wide circle of acquaintances, a great many people are fearful of Muslims, and afraid of what they would do if they were in positions of power.
We have to some extent reimported the virus of anti-Semitism: transmuted and altered and triggered by different things (not the classic Christian view of Jews as Christ's killer) with the growth in Muslim communities in Europe.
No - I am not surprised that anti-Jewish feeling is no longer a non-starter in parts of British society.
------------------
But the extraordinary thing is it hasn't stayed in those 'imported' places but has filtered into left-wing opinion among the native population.
This is a strange and complex phenomenon. It seems to reflect a mixture of -
1. the middle class left's weird tendency to worship the supposed attributes of the voters they are chasing after - once they did this with working class voters too (not any more of course).
2. the need to find a new hate figure to replace Apartheid South Africa. Israel has enough superficial similarities to fit the bill
3. cynical vote chasing (as opposed to the strange mind-melding of point 1.)
It's more likely to me that antisemites are represented roughly in line with their prevalence among the population in every party, or possibly in line with their prevalence in their party's supporters, but that most politicians are too clever/not crass enough to get caught saying that sort of thing.
If antisemitism is 7-10 per cent across every party, as suggested, it means that either there are about 50 antisemites in the House of Commons, or there are strong selection mechanisms to exclude even unspoken antisemites from winnable seats. I honestly think the former is more likely.
To compare anti-Semitism with 'Islamophobia' is completely spurious. The first is based on a dislike of people based on their ethnicity--secular Jews are targeted as much as religious ones--while the second is based on opposition to beliefs. Dislike of Muslims is more like dislike of communists or dislike of fascists. It goes too far in focusing on the individuals rather than the belief system itself, but it is not racism.
It is your first paragraph that really sums up my views on the whole thing.
I was genuinely surprised top find that, outside of a defined set of muslim extremists and a
Anti-Semitism has been around for over 2000 years. Why would it not still survive and mutate? The desire for a scapegoat runs deep in human beings, in human societies and Jews have been the eternal scapegoat.
WW2 is a long time ago. People forget. Holocaust denial and revisionism is still around and peddled by all sorts of people. It is no coincidence that much of the source of anti-Semitism in European society these days emanates from people who come from outside Europe, who did not necessarily view WW2 in the way you describe and who were not confronted with the horror (and, to be fair, this was a European crime). Nor have they ever been confronted by those within their own societies who wished to join the Axis powers in attacking Jews (Amin al-Husseini, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem).
And this works both ways: when Israel recently wanted to include and honour a brave Arab who had saved some Jewish lives in North Africa into the list of the Righteous at Yad Vashem, his family refused. They refused to accept an honour for someone who saved lives, despite all that we are told the Koran says about this, as if they were either ashamed of what he did or hated Israel so much that they did not want their own relative honoured for an act of mercy.
We have to some extent reimported the virus of anti-Semitism: transmuted and altered and triggered by different things (not the classic Christian view of Jews as Christ's killer) with the growth in Muslim communities in Europe.
No - I am not surprised that anti-Jewish feeling is no longer a non-starter in parts of British society.
The polling evidence is that it is strongest in Ukip, then Conservatives/Labour pretty much equally. Hardly tallies with a "Arabs evil, Israelis good" narrative.
So why do all the offensive anti-semitic tweets come from Labour councillors/MPs with islamic names or nutters like Livingstone?
EPG: The polling evidence is that it is strongest in Ukip, then Conservatives/Labour pretty much equally. Hardly tallies with a "Arabs evil, Israelis good" narrative.
LewisDuckworth: So why do all the offensive anti-semitic tweets come from Labour councillors/MPs with islamic names or nutters like Livingstone?
Often seanT I have to check myself to not go down the line of Islamaphobia. It can come quite easy- the misogyny, their approach to human rights, belief in doctrine, sending kids to Madrassas, silly dress sense, approach to birth control, backward thinking, views about animals, meat obsessed diet- there are a million and one reasons for someone like me to take a dislike to Muslims.
But I really try not to because I firmly believe that any negative thoughts makes matters worse in the grand scheme of things. Muslims are human beings who are brought up in a closed doctrinal ideology with little possibility to think outside the box. I feel sorry for them.
The polling evidence is that it is strongest in Ukip, then Conservatives/Labour pretty much equally. Hardly tallies with a "Arabs evil, Israelis good" narrative.
So why do all the offensive anti-semitic tweets come from Labour councillors/MPs with islamic names or nutters like Livingstone?
On the tweets, the obvious answer is that the website which has publicised them so far is looking at Labour councillors. The mini-Godfrey Blooms on England's councils are probably not on Twitter unlike the young and callow mongerers of antisemitic tropes in the Labour Party.
(Sorry, I don't know what happened to blockquotes.)
This is one of the crazier stories I've seen for a while. Warning -it's from the National Enquirer.
Republican presidential candidate Ted Cruz’s Cuban-born dad was caught on camera in New Orleans — alongside Lee Harvey Oswald — just three months before the assassin killed President John F. Kennedy!
EPG: The polling evidence is that it is strongest in Ukip, then Conservatives/Labour pretty much equally. Hardly tallies with a "Arabs evil, Israelis good" narrative.
LewisDuckworth: So why do all the offensive anti-semitic tweets come from Labour councillors/MPs with islamic names or nutters like Livingstone?
To compare anti-Semitism with 'Islamophobia' is completely spurious. The first is based on a dislike of people based on their ethnicity--secular Jews are targeted as much as religious ones--while the second is based on opposition to beliefs. Dislike of Muslims is more like dislike of communists or dislike of fascists. It goes too far in focusing on the individuals rather than the belief system itself, but it is not racism.
Erm, the tropes that people list out in litanies about Muslims tend to be more about inherited cultural markers (i.e. ethnicity) than religious beliefs. So this is an attempt to split hairs. Of course both antisemitism and anti-Muslim feeling are partly religious and partly ethnic/cultural.
"I don't care about burkas but I strongly object to the hajj" - nah, you don't hear that.
But Muslims look different and dress differently. That is why Islamaphobia can be construed as racism rather than a battle of ideas.
Hard core lefties like Corbyn are not anti Jew, they just pick causes like Palestine. The problem is they get themselves in a right old tiswis when they find themselves siding with the likes of Hamas and Hezbollah which are vile.
To compare anti-Semitism with 'Islamophobia' is completely spurious. The first is based on a dislike of people based on their ethnicity--secular Jews are targeted as much as religious ones--while the second is based on opposition to beliefs. Dislike of Muslims is more like dislike of communists or dislike of fascists. It goes too far in focusing on the individuals rather than the belief system itself, but it is not racism.
This is one of the crazier stories I've seen for a while. Warning -it's from the National Enquirer.
Republican presidential candidate Ted Cruz’s Cuban-born dad was caught on camera in New Orleans — alongside Lee Harvey Oswald — just three months before the assassin killed President John F. Kennedy!
To compare anti-Semitism with 'Islamophobia' is completely spurious. The first is based on a dislike of people based on their ethnicity--secular Jews are targeted as much as religious ones--while the second is based on opposition to beliefs. Dislike of Muslims is more like dislike of communists or dislike of fascists. It goes too far in focusing on the individuals rather than the belief system itself, but it is not racism.
Erm, the tropes that people list out in litanies about Muslims tend to be more about inherited cultural markers (i.e. ethnicity) than religious beliefs. So this is an attempt to split hairs. Of course both antisemitism and anti-Muslim feeling are partly religious and partly ethnic/cultural.
"I don't care about burkas but I strongly object to the hajj" - nah, you don't hear that.
Because burkas aren't cultural they're a matter of belief. A belief that women are second class citizens that need to be covered up.
Think of all the people who dislike Muslims intensely, who think they are too powerful in British society, and it is easy to see how so many people hate Jews. They are a useful outgroup as they have suffered a lot in the past, so if you are vile you can mock them for their suffering. There is also a lot of low-lying bigotry against Catholics; recall that the knight of the realm, Sir Philip Green, noted that one too-observant critic of his BHS dealings "can't read English. Mind you, he's a f***ing Irishman".
Your reference to Sir Philip Green is most unfortunate.
If this board is anything to go by, Labour will still be grappling with an anti-semitism problem in 2020 and repeatedly using the islamaphobia card in attempts to shut down debate.
The polling evidence is that it is strongest in Ukip, then Conservatives/Labour pretty much equally. Hardly tallies with a "Arabs evil, Israelis good" narrative.
See there's the thing. Okay I am only talking about a few regional UKIP sections but I can honestly say I have never heard a single anti-Jewish comment or seen a single anti-Jewish comment from anyone involved in UKIP in more than a decade involved with them. This is one of the things that surprised me so much when this whole thing blew up.
But Muslims look different and dress differently. That is why Islamaphobia can be construed as racism rather than a battle of ideas.
Hard core lefties like Corbyn are not anti Jew, they just pick causes like Palestine. The problem is they get themselves in a right old tiswis when they find themselves siding with the likes of Hamas and Hezbollah which are vile.
To compare anti-Semitism with 'Islamophobia' is completely spurious. The first is based on a dislike of people based on their ethnicity--secular Jews are targeted as much as religious ones--while the second is based on opposition to beliefs. Dislike of Muslims is more like dislike of communists or dislike of fascists. It goes too far in focusing on the individuals rather than the belief system itself, but it is not racism.
In the UK they look very similar racially to most Hindus, who are not disliked. Hare Krishnas dress differently but are not disliked. People do not dislike Muslims because they look differently, but because they are perceived to have unpleasant views.
It's hard to know how representative one's circle of acquaintances is. I think that among my wide circle of acquaintances, a great many people are fearful of Muslims, and afraid of what they would do if they were in positions of power.
As you say, it's hard to know - and also, one's acquaintances may avoid saying things that they suspect will be unwelcome.. For what it's worth, I don't know anyone personally (excluding a few former constituents) who has told me they are fearful of or hostile to Muslims, though there are one or two who I think change the subject to avoid getting into an argument with me. I've never met anyone who admitted to being anti-Jewish and it's many years since I met anyone who was anti-black.
The polls are pretty clear, though - most people aren't too fussed about individuals of any group, but a lot of people worry in a generalised way about the perceived level of immigration.
'On the remain side, we must strain every sinew to persuade people that inside the EU they can have both economic prosperity and managed migration. Whereas, outside, we would be swapping economic security for Farage and Vote Leave’s vision of Britain: closed, inward-looking, intolerant and anti-foreigner. That’s the difference between patriotism – love of your own country – and nationalism: hatred of other people’s countries.
Over the course of the campaign, I hope that the British public will see through the narrow, divisive arguments peddled by the leave campaign. Polling evidence suggests that, if we get our arguments across effectively, economics will trump immigration as the deciding consideration for most voters. That’s why the remain campaign, at this stage in the race, is in a better place than those who would have us leave.' Lord Mandelson
It's absurd to "dislike Muslims". You might as well "dislike clouds", or "dislike words".
We are all human and all individuals and all a rather helpless product of nature and nurture. Most people don't choose to be Muslim. They are born into it. Most that convert do it for perfectly respectable reasons, they find it spiritually nourishing. The few - the tiny tiny few - that convert just so they can suppress women and chop off heads are clearly evil bastards, but they're about 0.001% of Islam.
What is permissible is "disliking Islam". Right now, I dislike Islam, as it hurtles back into the brutal Middle Ages. It is a great faith suffering a mass psychosis.
When did Islam ever leave the Middle Ages? During the founding of Wahabism in the 18th Century? The uprising of the Mad Mahdi in the 19th Century? Or the foundation of the Saudi state in the early 20th Century?
Napoleon found Islam more intellectually appealing because it was less in hoc to supernatural beliefs. No virgin birth. No resurrection. No five fishes and walking on water. No bringing back to life. Essentially Islam constituted a modernised version of the New Testament where we should be nice and all will be well without the supernatural claptrap that pervades throughout the New Testament.
But ultimately Islam should now be suppressed by science and belief in collective human endeavour.
Religious doctrine should all be set within the historical context of the time it is written. Hinduism and buddhism are more transcendent in my opinion and more open to modernity. Paganism isn't that bad either- much more intellectually coherent than Christianity or Islam.
It's absurd to "dislike Muslims". You might as well "dislike clouds", or "dislike words".
We are all human and all individuals and all a rather helpless product of nature and nurture. Most people don't choose to be Muslim. They are born into it. Most that convert do it for perfectly respectable reasons, they find it spiritually nourishing. The few - the tiny tiny few - that convert just so they can suppress women and chop off heads are clearly evil bastards, but they're about 0.001% of Islam.
What is permissible is "disliking Islam". Right now, I dislike Islam, as it hurtles back into the brutal Middle Ages. It is a great faith suffering a mass psychosis.
To compare anti-Semitism with 'Islamophobia' is completely spurious. The first is based on a dislike of people based on their ethnicity--secular Jews are targeted as much as religious ones--while the second is based on opposition to beliefs. Dislike of Muslims is more like dislike of communists or dislike of fascists. It goes too far in focusing on the individuals rather than the belief system itself, but it is not racism.
Much more complicated than that. If you have a Jewish mother you are Jewish. If you have a Jewish mother who has converted (usually in order to marry) you are unlikely to be accepted as Jewish by the Orthodox. If you have a Jewish father and a non Jewish mother no one will recognize you as Jewish. Then it can get messy. Many orthodox wouldn't accept Michael Howard as Jewish for example because he forfeited his identity by marrying a gentile and therefore producing non Jewish children etc etc
Napoleon found Islam more intellectually appealing because it was less in hoc to supernatural beliefs. No virgin birth. No resurrection. No five fishes and walking on water. No bringing back to life. Essentially Islam constituted a modernised version of the New Testament where we should be nice and all will be well without the supernatural claptrap that pervades throughout the New Testament.
It's absurd to "dislike Muslims". You might as well "dislike clouds", or "dislike words".
We are all human and all individuals and all a rather helpless product of nature and nurture. Most people don't choose to be Muslim. They are born into it. Most that convert do it for perfectly respectable reasons, they find it spiritually nourishing. The few - the tiny tiny few - that convert just so they can suppress women and chop off heads are clearly evil bastards, but they're about 0.001% of Islam.
What is permissible is "disliking Islam". Right now, I dislike Islam, as it hurtles back into the brutal Middle Ages. It is a great faith suffering a mass psychosis.
How is Jesus' being ascended to heaven before his death on the cross any less supernatural than a resurrection? Islam believes in Angels and genies being active in this world as a near fundamental of the faith. It is heavily supernatural. Napoleon's kind words about Islam were during the time he was campaigning in Egypt and considered the possibility of carving out a state under his rule.
What it does mean is what I said months ago: his mayoralty will be a continuous prize for Tories, as they slowly unearth more dubious links between Khan and Islamism
I have, inter alia, been called a Paki, a terrorist, a paedo, but the one insult that really fucking pisses me off is getting called an Uncle Tom
To compare anti-Semitism with 'Islamophobia' is completely spurious. The first is based on a dislike of people based on their ethnicity--secular Jews are targeted as much as religious ones--while the second is based on opposition to beliefs. Dislike of Muslims is more like dislike of communists or dislike of fascists. It goes too far in focusing on the individuals rather than the belief system itself, but it is not racism.
Much more complicated than that. If you have a Jewish mother you are Jewish. If you have a Jewish mother who has converted (usually in order to marry) you are unlikely to be accepted as Jewish by the Orthodox. If you have a Jewish father and a non Jewish mother no one will recognize you as Jewish. Then it can get messy. Many orthodox wouldn't accept Michael Howard as Jewish for example because he forfeited his identity by marrying a gentile and therefore producing non Jewish children etc etc
Anti-Semites would not make any of these distinctions. They despise all Jews, whether patrilineal or matrilineal descent.
What it does mean is what I said months ago: his mayoralty will be a continuous prize for Tories, as they slowly unearth more dubious links between Khan and Islamism
I have, inter alia, been called a Paki, a terrorist, a paedo, but the one insult that really fucking pisses me off is getting called an Uncle Tom
And he did it on Iran's Press TV.
JEEZO
Sir Lynton Crosby, master strategist once again.
You can see why the Tories think they can kick lumps out of each other during the referendum.
What it does mean is what I said months ago: his mayoralty will be a continuous prize for Tories, as they slowly unearth more dubious links between Khan and Islamism
Nope! Good effort, but no win. He didn't call anyone an Uncle Tom.
Not like this site where some people call others TRAITOR for voting one way in a referendum. Imagine doing that.
The 'uncle Tom' jibe really puts Khan's issue to a new depth. Turning a blind eye to extremists is one thing, but insulting moderates is revolting. He is not fit to be London Mayor.
What it does mean is what I said months ago: his mayoralty will be a continuous prize for Tories, as they slowly unearth more dubious links between Khan and Islamism
I have, inter alia, been called a Paki, a terrorist, a paedo, but the one insult that really fucking pisses me off is getting called an Uncle Tom
And he did it on Iran's Press TV.
JEEZO
Sir Lynton Crosby, master strategist once again.
You can see why the Tories think they can kick lumps out of each other during the referendum.
It is too late. Unless the Standard or Metro picks it up on the front page, not enough voters will know before the election.
What it does mean is what I said months ago: his mayoralty will be a continuous prize for Tories, as they slowly unearth more dubious links between Khan and Islamism
Labour MPs should be up in arms by the use of this vile derogatory term, they will as usual say nothing however, reserving their outcry for words like swarm or bunch. #crazyworld.
Much of the supernatural gibberish that comes out of Islam comes from the Hadith- the writings of the prophet's followers and there are millions of these- the genies, and angels and all sorts of drug induced nonsense. From my own reading- and yes, I have not read it in ancient Arabic- the Koran is quite straightforward.
I've been to a number of religious services recently for one thing or another. The main thing I try to do is not to laugh because they are so utterly ridiculous.
At the end of the day I am an agnostic because I find the concept that the universe was created by chance from a singularity as preposterous as the angels, virgin births, and whatnot espoused by religious doctrine.
Napoleon found Islam more intellectually appealing because it was less in hoc to supernatural beliefs. No virgin birth. No resurrection. No five fishes and walking on water. No bringing back to life. Essentially Islam constituted a modernised version of the New Testament where we should be nice and all will be well without the supernatural claptrap that pervades throughout the New Testament.
It's absurd to "dislike Muslims". You might as well "dislike clouds", or "dislike words".
We are all human and all individuals and all a rather helpless product of nature and nurture. Most people don't choose to be Muslim. They are born into it. Most that convert do it for perfectly respectable reasons, they find it spiritually nourishing. The few - the tiny tiny few - that convert just so they can suppress women and chop off heads are clearly evil bastards, but they're about 0.001% of Islam.
What is permissible is "disliking Islam". Right now, I dislike Islam, as it hurtles back into the brutal Middle Ages. It is a great faith suffering a mass psychosis.
How is Jesus' being ascended to heaven before his death on the cross any less supernatural than a resurrection? Islam believes in Angels and genies being active in this world as a near fundamental of the faith. It is heavily supernatural. Napoleon's kind words about Islam were during the time he was campaigning in Egypt and considered the possibility of carving out a state under his rule.
What it does mean is what I said months ago: his mayoralty will be a continuous prize for Tories, as they slowly unearth more dubious links between Khan and Islamism
I have, inter alia, been called a Paki, a terrorist, a paedo, but the one insult that really fucking pisses me off is getting called an Uncle Tom
And he did it on Iran's Press TV.
JEEZO
Sir Lynton Crosby, master strategist once again.
You can see why the Tories think they can kick lumps out of each other during the referendum.
It is too late. Unless the Standard or Metro picks it up on the front page, not enough voters will know before the election.
Bbc won't touch this with a bargepole that for certain.
London is a vision of the future of the UK if immigration is not controlled. We know from David Laws that May has not prioritised it at the Home Office. The next Tory PM needs to put someone competent in there that knows what they are doing. Rhetoric is not enough any more.
What it does mean is what I said months ago: his mayoralty will be a continuous prize for Tories, as they slowly unearth more dubious links between Khan and Islamism
Nope! Good effort, but no win. He didn't call anyone an Uncle Tom.
Not like this site where some people call others TRAITOR for voting one way in a referendum. Imagine doing that.
Don't worry yourself. He's still going to win. And his mayoralty will be a continuous open sore for Labour, losing you votes everywhere else.
Who else has he associated with in 25 years of politics? What else has he said?
I don't care, I think Labour winning this one is as bad as Goldsmith. Each party has engaged in nasty bigotry. Nonetheless, I still think he WILL win because nothing has stuck - including tihs one.
Hands up if you have watched the video and can name a person or an organisation he called "Uncle Tom". Sadly PB comments has more than enough people who don't even bother to write (unlike say SeanT) but just use PB to retweet their stream of consciousness from the Guidosphere.
What it does mean is what I said months ago: his mayoralty will be a continuous prize for Tories, as they slowly unearth more dubious links between Khan and Islamism
Yesterday a bombed out bus today this. Anyone would think the Mail had an agenda.
Tyson. 99% of Muslims believe in the major Hadith as a fundamental of their faith. That includes all four major schools of Sunni Islam and the major Shia sects. The Hadith can not be dismissed as not really Islam, because virtually no Muslims believe they are invalid.
Tyson. 99% of Muslims believe in the major Hadith as a fundamental of their faith. That includes all four major schools of Sunni Islam and the major Shia sects. The Hadith can not be dismissed as not really Islam, because virtually no Muslims believe they are invalid.
Both CNN and Fox News reporting that the Cruz team feel 'bummed out' this evening.
He's surely going to quit the race before California and quite likely to do so tonight.
He will stay in until Trump gets over the line, that can only happen with California, Cruz despises Trump, especially after he implied today his father was linked to the JFK assassination
Hands up if you have watched the video and can name a person or an organisation he called "Uncle Tom". Sadly PB comments has more than enough people who don't even bother to write (unlike say SeanT) but just use PB to retweet their stream of consciousness from the Guidosphere.
Both CNN and Fox News reporting that the Cruz team feel 'bummed out' this evening.
He's surely going to quit the race before California and quite likely to do so tonight.
He will stay in until Trump gets over the line, that can only happen with California, Cruz despises Trump, especially after he implied today his father was linked to the JFK assassination
He may drop out. As much as he hates Trump, he loves himself more.
And off go the PB right-wing loons/fruitcakes/bigots on immigration again...
So predictable. Sighs...
If you want to believe, you want to believe. They want to believe that all Muslims no matter how superficially humane are sleeper cell ticking timebombs, the evidence of their eyes and ears be damned. You would think from the Guidosphere that Khan is pointing to, basically, himself and calling himself a TRAITOR. When he is saying that anti-radicalisation efforts work on... radicals, not some other people whom he doesn't even suggest exist.
Both CNN and Fox News reporting that the Cruz team feel 'bummed out' this evening.
He's surely going to quit the race before California and quite likely to do so tonight.
He will stay in until Trump gets over the line, that can only happen with California, Cruz despises Trump, especially after he implied today his father was linked to the JFK assassination
He may drop out. As much as he hates Trump, he loves himself more.
Carly Fiorina will have a place in history as the shortest VP campaign in history.
Both CNN and Fox News reporting that the Cruz team feel 'bummed out' this evening.
He's surely going to quit the race before California and quite likely to do so tonight.
He will stay in until Trump gets over the line, that can only happen with California, Cruz despises Trump, especially after he implied today his father was linked to the JFK assassination
He may drop out. As much as he hates Trump, he loves himself more.
Carly Fiorina will have a place in history as the shortest VP campaign in history.
And the concept of nominating a VP early with it.
Whilst you don't have a VP, people assume you'll pick their dream candidate. Never spoil their bubble.
Both CNN and Fox News reporting that the Cruz team feel 'bummed out' this evening.
He's surely going to quit the race before California and quite likely to do so tonight.
He will stay in until Trump gets over the line, that can only happen with California, Cruz despises Trump, especially after he implied today his father was linked to the JFK assassination
He may drop out. As much as he hates Trump, he loves himself more.
He is not going to drop out, even if he loses this time he wants to be the nominee in 2020 if Trump is defeated in November and will want to milk the publicity for as long as he can
Nice if you're a "moderate Muslim", to know that the likely Labour Mayor of London thinks you're an "Uncle Tom". A traitor to your race.
I wonder if the Mail have deliberately held this back. So it's too late to stop Khan, but sufficient to cripple him?
Whatever way you look at it, this is pretty calamitous for Sadiq
You are manfully striving with all the efforts of the great fiction writer Tremayne, but the allegation is not sticking. You are aware he did not call anyone an Uncle Tom, but that he did call people who spoke to him critical friends.
Most people do not see him as a radical terrorist. PB comments is not a representative sample; it is disproportionately Wildersite. People want to see what they want to see. Fair enough.
I've got to say the Uncle Tom (or Coconut) is a really obnoxious insult- it is kind of something people feel they can get away with whilst punching someone squarely in the bollox.
On a more flippant note, the champagne socialist barb is on the same tangent- well sort of, ish. Just because one has made a few quid and is a lefty doesn't make them a dickhead.
What it does mean is what I said months ago: his mayoralty will be a continuous prize for Tories, as they slowly unearth more dubious links between Khan and Islamism
I have, inter alia, been called a Paki, a terrorist, a paedo, but the one insult that really fucking pisses me off is getting called an Uncle Tom
Comments
Trump leads Cuban-Americans by 37 to 31 in Florida. Not that Trump needs them with his strength in Panhandle Florida and amongst NE retirees, according to my sophisticated demographic model.
If turnout is likely to be something like 60% and no differential has been assumed then I would seriously fancy Leave's chances on numbers like that. If, on the other hand, such a filter has already been applied then it would be wrong to apply it twice.
Without any kind of track record this is a tricky one for the pollsters. I was quite taken by Laura Keunsberg's contribution to the new series "From our Home Correspondent" this morning. She said she was not sure who was winning but she was in no doubt at all who was enjoying themselves the most.
Some like ComRes apply their own strict turnout filter based on demographics.
Only a day or two left on the iplayer.
Preserved for the nation on youtube.
I think there's time for a full run through whilst I do admin in the office all day... I'm off football.
Though I might retain an interest in the PB Fantasy Footie if I can motivate myself for one last push..
No chance you'll catch me!
My fortune mirror Norwich.
I bloody loved them, was an opportunity for me to show I was the cleverest in my class.
My impression is not that most people hate Jews, but I think perhaps 10-15% are more or less hostile to them.
Preserved for the nation on youtube.
I think there's time for a full run through whilst I do admin in the office all day... I'm off football.
Though I might retain an interest in the PB Fantasy Footie if I can motivate myself for one last push..
No chance you'll catch me!
My fortune mirror Norwich.
tempted to tweet a lion photo like Harry's but not sure the precedent is good....
Self certifying is a problem, last week's YouGov London poll had anticipated turnout of 60%
I will eat Paddy Ashdown's hat if it is anywhere near that
We live in counterintuitive times. When aircraft became fast enough to reach the sound barrier, they were confounded by the fact that their controls were reversed: airflow in the transonic region caused vortices that forced the plane in the opposite direction. We have just had an Obama recommendation which counterintuitively helped LEAVE. We have just uncovered an antisemitic HYDRA in Labour's SHIELD, which counterintuitively helped Khan (am I the only one who's noticed this?).
LEAVE's vacating of the economic battlefield and concentrating on its immigration Berchtesgaden has the virtue of honesty and exposes the fight for what it is and always was: immigration vs the economy. Problem is, this is a fight that REMAIN may actually win.
It may not (I genuinely don't know and I hold to my 55% LEAVE/45% REMAIN pred), but at least now each side is playing to its strengths.
Fear may be the strongest motivator in the short-term, but hope is bester for the long-term. Be interesting to see which wins out.
My uncle lost his entire female family who were murdered by the Nazis- his mum, his aunties, his cousins, the whole lot murdered. I don't think in human history there has been an act as appalling. My father's family is Jewish who escaped Soviet tyranny and fled to Britain.
Many people like me would welcome a much moderate Israel. Does that make us anti semite?
That this is the case, in the West, to a certain extent has its seeds in the original sin of the killing of Jesus Christ, for which, of course, the Jews will never be forgiven, and in the light of which, every action against them can be justified.
As for the problem the left has with Jews, it is ironically the obverse of the one that those on the right had. People, societies even, picked on Jews, historically, because they were weak, and therefore their place in society was always at risk. As such, there was no personal or national existential threat that could arise from being anti-semitic, and, with the Christ thing, there was always an excuse to pick on them.
In the decades since the second world war, the Jews have got less weak and less vulnerable, either through their position in society or, of course, by the often and formidably belligerent state of Israel. We can all remember the asymmetric retaliation to incidents of terrorism throughout the '70s and '80s, which seems to have translated to an asymmetric response to current threats from the Palestinians.
But as far as anti-semitism goes, through strength comes respect.
Unless, of course, you are on the left, when strength means you are no longer a victim worse, even, not only have you become a part of the imperialist problem, but you no longer need the moral and intellectual guidance that only the left believes it is able to impart. You have committed the equally appalling sin of not wanting to be (helped by) a revolutionary socialist.
It is your first paragraph that really sums up my views on the whole thing.
I was genuinely surprised to find that, outside of a defined set of muslim extremists and a tiny and hopefully diminishing BNP, there was any anti-Semitism in the country. Now I will qualify this by saying that I have never lived in a major city so absolutely understand I am probably not well placed to comment on the real situation. But I have always held a strong impression that the events of 70 years ago and the fact we had fought the Germans and then found out the true depths of their depravity under the Nazi regime had effectively made anti Semitism a complete non starter in British society.
I am not in this case talking about being anti-Likud, anti-settler or pro-Palestinian. I believe you can still be all of those things and not be anti-Semitic. I just find it hard to believe that, after all that happened just a few decades ago and all that Britain stood for in that fight, there are still people who can be anti-Jewish.
I've encountered well-off, well-educated white people (in Radlett and Mill Hill) who dislike Jews intensely. I once had dinner with a West African woman who started ranting about Britain's stupidity in allowing Jews to attain what she considered to be an absurd position of influence in our society (she's a qualified barrister). I have dealings with a Muslim estate agent who frequently refers to Jews in perjorative terms.
My impression is not that most people hate Jews, but I think perhaps 10-15% are more or less hostile to them.
We have to some extent reimported the virus of anti-Semitism: transmuted and altered and triggered by different things (not the classic Christian view of Jews as Christ's killer) with the growth in Muslim communities in Europe.
No - I am not surprised that anti-Jewish feeling is no longer a non-starter in parts of British society.
------------------
But the extraordinary thing is it hasn't stayed in those 'imported' places but has filtered into left-wing opinion among the native population.
This is a strange and complex phenomenon. It seems to reflect a mixture of -
1. the middle class left's weird tendency to worship the supposed attributes of the voters they are chasing after - once they did this with working class voters too (not any more of course).
2. the need to find a new hate figure to replace Apartheid South Africa. Israel has enough superficial similarities to fit the bill
3. cynical vote chasing (as opposed to the strange mind-melding of point 1.)
I was genuinely surprised to find that, outside of a defined set of muslim extremists and a tiny and hopefully diminishing BNP, there was any anti-Semitism in the country. Now I will qualify this by saying that I have never lived in a major city so absolutely understand I am probably not well placed to comment on the real situation. But I have always held a strong impression that the events of 70 years ago and the fact we had fought the Germans and then found out the true depths of their depravity under the Nazi regime had effectively made anti Semitism a complete non starter in British society.
I am not in this case talking about being anti-Likud, anti-settler or pro-Palestinian. I believe you can still be all of those things and not be anti-Semitic. I just find it hard to believe that, after all that happened just a few decades ago and all that Britain stood for in that fight, there are still people who can be anti-Jewish.
I've encountered well-off, well-educated white people (in Radlett and Mill Hill) who dislike Jews intensely. I once had dinner with a West African woman who started ranting about Britain's stupidity in allowing Jews to attain what she considered to be an absurd position of influence in our society (she's a qualified barrister). I have dealings with a Muslim estate agent who frequently refers to Jews in perjorative terms.
My impression is not that most people hate Jews, but I think perhaps 10-15% are more or less hostile to them.
It's hard to know how representative one's circle of acquaintances is. I think that among my wide circle of acquaintances, a great many people are fearful of Muslims, and afraid of what they would do if they were in positions of power.
If antisemitism is 7-10 per cent across every party, as suggested, it means that either there are about 50 antisemites in the House of Commons, or there are strong selection mechanisms to exclude even unspoken antisemites from winnable seats. I honestly think the former is more likely.
LewisDuckworth: So why do all the offensive anti-semitic tweets come from Labour councillors/MPs with islamic names or nutters like Livingstone?
But I really try not to because I firmly believe that any negative thoughts makes matters worse in the grand scheme of things. Muslims are human beings who are brought up in a closed doctrinal ideology with little possibility to think outside the box. I feel sorry for them.
(Sorry, I don't know what happened to blockquotes.)
Republican presidential candidate Ted Cruz’s Cuban-born dad was caught on camera in New Orleans — alongside Lee Harvey Oswald — just three months before the assassin killed President John F. Kennedy!
http://www.nationalenquirer.com/celebrity/ted-cruz-scandal-father-jfk-assassination/
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/05/03/chief-rabbi-labour-has-a-severe-problem-with-anti-semitism/
"I don't care about burkas but I strongly object to the hajj" - nah, you don't hear that.
Hard core lefties like Corbyn are not anti Jew, they just pick causes like Palestine. The problem is they get themselves in a right old tiswis when they find themselves siding with the likes of Hamas and Hezbollah which are vile.
Even if true, what would it matter?
On balance he probably wants out and on balance he must be a negative for the side he supports.
I will wake up to @realDonaldTrump as the Republican nominee for President. Tomorrow will be a good day #Trump2016
The polls are pretty clear, though - most people aren't too fussed about individuals of any group, but a lot of people worry in a generalised way about the perceived level of immigration.
Over the course of the campaign, I hope that the British public will see through the narrow, divisive arguments peddled by the leave campaign. Polling evidence suggests that, if we get our arguments across effectively, economics will trump immigration as the deciding consideration for most voters. That’s why the remain campaign, at this stage in the race, is in a better place than those who would have us leave.' Lord Mandelson
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/may/03/brexit-camp-immigration-economic-vote-leave
But ultimately Islam should now be suppressed by science and belief in collective human endeavour.
Religious doctrine should all be set within the historical context of the time it is written. Hinduism and buddhism are more transcendent in my opinion and more open to modernity. Paganism isn't that bad either- much more intellectually coherent than Christianity or Islam.
Especially having recently said the phrase itself is racist. https://t.co/SDkT0bikhV
Jason Groves
Sadiq Khan in race row after describing moderate Muslims as 'Uncle Toms'. Not a great look: https://t.co/445sSLeMxM
EDIT: about 55 mins to go.
You can see why the Tories think they can kick lumps out of each other during the referendum.
Not like this site where some people call others TRAITOR for voting one way in a referendum. Imagine doing that.
I've been to a number of religious services recently for one thing or another. The main thing I try to do is not to laugh because they are so utterly ridiculous.
At the end of the day I am an agnostic because I find the concept that the universe was created by chance from a singularity as preposterous as the angels, virgin births, and whatnot espoused by religious doctrine.
Trump 56%
Cruz 29%
Kasich 12%
http://edition.cnn.com/election/primaries/states/in/Rep
Dems
Clinton 61%
Sanders 39%
http://edition.cnn.com/election/primaries/states/in/Dem
59% want a non-establishment candidate.
Looks like a Trump win, not a landslide.
Sadly PB comments has more than enough people who don't even bother to write (unlike say SeanT) but just use PB to retweet their stream of consciousness from the Guidosphere.
Cruz 29.3%
Kasitch 11.9%
So predictable. Sighs...
Along with my fishing trip, 3lb the least.
They want to believe that all Muslims no matter how superficially humane are sleeper cell ticking timebombs, the evidence of their eyes and ears be damned.
You would think from the Guidosphere that Khan is pointing to, basically, himself and calling himself a TRAITOR. When he is saying that anti-radicalisation efforts work on... radicals, not some other people whom he doesn't even suggest exist.
Whilst you don't have a VP, people assume you'll pick their dream candidate. Never spoil their bubble.
Most people do not see him as a radical terrorist. PB comments is not a representative sample; it is disproportionately Wildersite. People want to see what they want to see. Fair enough.
On a more flippant note, the champagne socialist barb is on the same tangent- well sort of, ish. Just because one has made a few quid and is a lefty doesn't make them a dickhead.
*I'm not religious at all but the EDL/Britain First would hate me on sight alone.