You don't have to be anti semitic to spend your gap year at with the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine in Lebanon as SM claimed he did. I mean, obviously it helps if you are...
That you see the fact of Israel’s creation as a subject for “blame” rather gives your real position away.
It was mainly Europeans that committed genocide on the Jewish people and had mistreated them for hundreds of years.
My real position is the innocent Palestinians should not have had their land taken away as a result of that.
It is similar to my real position that if a Muslim group suffered a terrible genocide in the Middle East at the hands of those in the Middle East and then tried to setup a country here inside Britain then I would oppose that.
Except Israel has been the ancient homeland of the Jews and the only land Jews can truly call their own for thousands of years, just read the Bible.
Palestinians historically came from Jordan
I know all about the ancient Israeli kingdom .
One doesn't have to rely on the Bible, though. There's plenty of evidence that Jews lived in Palestine continuously from Hellenistic times.
In Nineteenth Century Palestine only about 5% of the population of what is now Israel were Jewish. That started to change with the first waves of Zionist settlers in 1881, while still Ottoman.
The Bible is a ludicrous way to argue how land disputes should be settled. You could make the case that either the land should be returned to the Canaanites, or alternatively to the Romans by right of conquest.
Right of conquest is not the same as historic homeland otherwise Italy could have a claim on Britain
Historic homeland is a nonsense. Unless you want to return the entirety of Australasia and the Americas to their original inhabitants. It is also an intrinsically racist concept as you could make the same case that Ethnic Britons should have more rights to their homeland on these isles than more recent arrivals.
We cannot undo history, and I support the existence of Israel as a state, but I do so because of 20th Century realities, not because of the Old Testament.
I don't see it as a nonsense. After all, many Jews did see Palestine as home, in a way they that they did not see Stalin's Jewish Oblast in Central Asia as home.
FWIW my opinion is that both Milne and Corbyn hate Israel as they see it as an extreme example of western imperialism backed fairly unconditionally by the US. They support the likes of Hamas because they see them as freedom fighters against oppression and the left has a long history of not looking under the fingernails of such organisations to see whether their own behaviour is morally clean.
I don't think this makes them anti-semitic per se but it does mean that they spend a lot of time with people who are and sit on platforms listening to their anger and frustration. But it means no more to them than supporting the likes of Chavez in Venezuela or Castro in Cuba. It is enough that these groups all fight against western and in particular US dominance.
If you look in detail then it becomes more complicated, but I think there is some truth in this.
Back in the day the Trotskyist left had a slogan: "neither Washington nor Moscow, but International Socialism." This position of not taking sides in the cold war differentiated them from Stalinists who were apologists for the Soviet Union. This also meant that, to an extent, there was space for them to be critical of some anti US imperialists.
The collapse of the Soviet Union, and the earlier collapse of Stalinist parties in the West changed this. The slogan is in practice reduced to the first clause and critical thinking is extinguished.
I just don’t see how the Labour party thinks it has the moral authority to tell Jews what constitutes anti-Semitism given its recent track record, as acknowledged by its leader.
I think you are confused, Labour isn't telling Jews what constitutes anti-semitism.
It is telling its members what they can be kicked out for as anti semitism.
Are you really suggesting that Labour is explicitly saying that some forms of anti-Semitism are acceptable?
No I am saying people can believe whatever they want.
To use Topping's example, if people wanted to believe that saying England should play three up front is racist they could.
Labour rules would not reflect this so it wouldn't be something you could be kicked out the party for but any group which choose to believe that could do so.
So you’re telling Jews what constitutes anti-Semitism.
I think my post above pretty much covers it. Labour can't really tell groups, especially ones that exist mostly outside of it what to think on anything.
What they can do it setup rules that the people in their organisation have to follow.
According to the IRHA definition of anti semitism (and not included in the Labour Party one):
It is anti-semitic to deny “the Jewish people their right to self-determination, eg by claiming that the existence of a state of Israel is a racist endeavour”.
Yet yesterday the Knesset decided that Israel is a racially defined state. So under the IRHA definition the Knesset is anti-semitic!
There is much to admire about Israel and its society, but yesterday it showed its ugly side.
Without wanting this to sound callous my bigger concern is their treatment of the Palestinians, the Israeli Arabs are (I imagine) actually quite well treated for a minority taking all the world's countries into account. By the standards of democracies this new rule must put them well down in the rankings but it is their treatment of the Palestinians that merits the tag apartheid, with Palestine's complete inability to defend itself they almost could be classed as an incredibly badly treated section of Israeli society, far beyond the mistreatment that societies such as South Africa inflicted on its minorities.
Which isn't to say I do not want the best for Israeli Arabs, or all human beings but in reference to Israel it is their treatment of the Palestinians and our (partial) endorsement of it that is the bigger complaint for me.
Seamas Milne’s anti-Semitism is more about his public support for Hamas and his proclivity to campaign alongside people who wish death on all Jews.
I've never understood from a propaganda point of view why people don't make more of the left's support for anti apartheid terrorists who would kill white people, like their support of Palestinian terrorist groups shows their racist hatred of Jewish people their support of South African terrorist groups shows their racist hatred of White people...
But there are a lot more white voters!
Some people will try and make the silly claim that the lefts support wasn't racist against whites but considering we know their support for Hamas in similar circumstances is based on racism then it must be that....
'Labour’s Emily Thornberry has categorically ruled out backing a second Brexit referendum, declaring a Jeremy Corbyn government would have to “do as instructed” by the British people in the 2016 EU vote. In her strongest remarks yet on the issue, the Shadow Foreign Secretary told a private meeting in Islington that the party had to uphold the Leave vote “as much as it breaks our heart”. Thornberry also said she disagreed with former Cabinet minister Justine Greening, who this week called for a ‘People’s Vote’ with three options -approving the Government’s Chequers plan, a ‘no deal’ Brexit and staying in the EU.'
Highly reminiscent of May's denial this week, and possibly with the same, reverse significance.
She ‘s being disingenuous. She may be unhappy but Corbyn isn’t. If he really were unhappy with the result he would find a way towards a second referendum. Corbyn has been anti-EU all his political life and, helpfully, the Tories are implementing one part of Labour’s 1983 manifesto for him.
If he becomes PM he will be freer to do the things he wants to do than he would otherwise have been. If this happens, the level of wailing from Tories when they realise they no longer have protections under EU law against some Corbyn idiocy will be a sight to behold.
Well considering the standard was implying he was and that was the best they could come out with.
It is sort of a default, if I meet someone I won't think their racist until I have proof otherwise.
Milne, together with Corbyn, have presided over a political Party wherein anti-semites feel emboldened. Milne and Corbyn have made the Labour Party a Party which British Jews view with suspicion, and feel is hostile to them.
The Labour Party today is currently embroiled not in a work and pensions scandal, not in a Scottish devolution scandal, not in a European Single Market scandal, but in an anti-semitic scandal.
Now, if you want to say move along, nothing to see here, that is of course your prerogative. If you want to say all the Jews have got it wrong, don't they realise, look at that comment or this article, that is also your right. But at some point you will have to face up to the reality that the very fact that we are having this conversation shows that there is an anti-semitic problem in your Labour Party and Milne and Corbyn are its leaders.
Do you have a link to the ethnic origins at Israel's foundation?
Did try have a quick look but couldn't find it myself, weak google skills!
I am sure an opponent of the left would find it elegant to sum up a left wingers views as anti Semitic but it does require more than that for me personally.
Not sure what the name drop of Naz Shah is about but she supported Yvette Cooper for the leadership.
That you see the fact of Israel’s creation as a subject for “blame” rather gives your real position away.
It was mainly Europeans that committed genocide on the Jewish people and had mistreated them for hundreds of years.
My real position is the innocent Palestinians should not have had their land taken away as a result of that.
It is similar to my real position that if a Muslim group suffered a terrible genocide in the Middle East at the hands of those in the Middle East and then tried to setup a country here inside Britain then I would oppose that.
What if the Muslims had been in Britain 5,000 years ago and continuously since as a settled community?
Then I would still oppose them setting up a country inside Britain because they had been mistreated on another continent....
Set up a new country on another continent where people already live probably isn't a good goto first option...
Do you have a link to the ethnic origins at Israel's foundation?
Did try have a quick look but couldn't find it myself, weak google skills!
I am sure an opponent of the left would find it elegant to sum up a left wingers views as anti Semitic but it does require more than that for me personally.
Not sure what the name drop of Naz Shah is about but she supported Yvette Cooper for the leadership.
That you see the fact of Israel’s creation as a subject for “blame” rather gives your real position away.
It was mainly Europeans that committed genocide on the Jewish people and had mistreated them for hundreds of years.
My real position is the innocent Palestinians should not have had their land taken away as a result of that.
It is similar to my real position that if a Muslim group suffered a terrible genocide in the Middle East at the hands of those in the Middle East and then tried to setup a country here inside Britain then I would oppose that.
What if the Muslims had been in Britain 5,000 years ago and continuously since as a settled community?
Then I would still oppose them setting up a country inside Britain because they had been mistreated on another continent....
Set up a new country on another continent where people already live probably isn't a good goto first option...
The end of WW2 saw global redrawing of boundaries, death, expulsions and a change of the world order. Yet you and the people you have sympathy with seem to only have a hard on for criticizing Jews. It is obvious where your and your party's moral position rests. Still, votes.
Seamas Milne’s anti-Semitism is more about his public support for Hamas and his proclivity to campaign alongside people who wish death on all Jews.
I've never understood from a propaganda point of view why people don't make more of the left's support for anti apartheid terrorists who would kill white people, like their support of Palestinian terrorist groups shows their racist hatred of Jewish people their support of South African terrorist groups shows their racist hatred of White people...
But there are a lot more white voters!
Some people will try and make the silly claim that the lefts support wasn't racist against whites but considering we know their support for Hamas in similar circumstances is based on racism then it must be that....
A couple of little details from this week's employment data were that redundancies dropped below 100k again and that job vacancies reached a new all time high.
For all the many highly publicised job losses in the retail and restaurant sectors they've had very little effect on the overall numbers.
That you see the fact of Israel’s creation as a subject for “blame” rather gives your real position away.
It was mainly Europeans that committed genocide on the Jewish people and had mistreated them for hundreds of years.
My real position is the innocent Palestinians should not have had their land taken away as a result of that.
It is similar to my real position that if a Muslim group suffered a terrible genocide in the Middle East at the hands of those in the Middle East and then tried to setup a country here inside Britain then I would oppose that.
Except Israel has been the ancient homeland of the Jews and the only land Jews can truly call their own for thousands of years, just read the Bible.
Palestinians historically came from Jordan
I know all about the ancient Israeli kingdom .
One doesn't have to rely on the Bible, though. There's plenty of evidence that Jews lived in Palestine continuously from Hellenistic times.
In Nineteenth Century Palestine
Right of conquest is not the same as historic homeland otherwise Italy could have a claim on Britain
Historic
I don't see it as a nonsense. After all, many Jews did see Palestine as home, in a way they that they did not see Stalin's Jewish Oblast in Central Asia as home.
The problem being that Arab Palestinians also saw Palestine legitimately as their home.
Britain's involvement in Palestine between 1917 and 1948 is such that we managed to antagonise both sides in the bitter dispute. As such we should steer clear of further involvement.
I have visited Israel, and with local friends went to some parts of the occupied territories. I found both Israelis and Palestinians quite charming peoples, but both were cursed to have repellent political leaderships. They are not unique in that. I have found that true in many of my travels, including my recent Russia trip. It is pretty true of our own country when we look in the mirror too.
For those interested in the Tesco Strawberry score its been running from five to seven this week.
The only points of interest are that the 1kg cardboard trays have reappeared after an absence of over a month and that British apricots are now on sale.
Well considering the standard was implying he was and that was the best they could come out with.
It is sort of a default, if I meet someone I won't think their racist until I have proof otherwise.
Milne, together with Corbyn, have presided over a political Party wherein anti-semites feel emboldened. Milne and Corbyn have made the Labour Party a Party which British Jews view with suspicion, and feel is hostile to them.
The Labour Party today is currently embroiled not in a work and pensions scandal, not in a Scottish devolution scandal, not in a European Single Market scandal, but in an anti-semitic scandal.
Now, if you want to say move along, nothing to see here, that is of course your prerogative. If you want to say all the Jews have got it wrong, don't they realise, look at that comment or this article, that is also your right. But at some point you will have to face up to the reality that the very fact that we are having this conversation shows that there is an anti-semitic problem in your Labour Party and Milne and Corbyn are its leaders.
So if smoke does equal fire as you are determined to push the logic can you explain the stupid conspiracy about Jewish people being lizards thing, presumably the fact people even have conversations about the matter shows that there is a problem with Jewish people being too lizard like... if we follow your logic....
Obviously I don't follow that logic people say lots of stupid things.
As for your emboldened statistics show that anti semitism has gone down under Corbyn and is higher in the Conservative party.
Apartheid in Israel. Who would have guessed? You can understand why Jeremy might find it easier to walk through the eye of a needle than comment on Netanyahu's Likud government and stay on the right side of the IRHA's definition of antisemitism
Well I will risk it. This new law is an utter disgrace. I am all for Israel being a homeland for Jews but to downgrade the 20% of the population who are not Jews, to treat them as less worthy of being citizens in their home, to downgrade Arabic is utterly wrong. Both wrong and stupid. What an utterly foolish and immoral thing for Israel to do.
And no I am not being anti-semitic in saying this and, yes, the IRHA’s definition does not prohibit this criticism.
I agree with all you've said except the last line. The IRHA says
*"Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.
*Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation."
Though one could put up a defence in a court of law I would be very surprised if a Labour tribuneral would be allowed to give a member the benefit of the doubt in today's febrile atmosphere.
Roger: I think you are wrong re my last line. I do not deny Jews their right to self-determination nor do I claim that the existence of Israel is a racist endeavour. So - no I am not being anti-semitic under the IRHA definition. I do think this law is quite wrong and foolish.
So it is possible to criticise Israel in very harsh terms without using Nazi terms, which is what Labour’s new definition would allow them to do.
A couple of little details from this week's employment data were that redundancies dropped below 100k again and that job vacancies reached a new all time high.
For all the many highly publicised job losses in the retail and restaurant sectors they've had very little effect on the overall numbers.
I've said this before so bear with me . We tend to talk about the UK as the #5 or #6 economy in passing, usually with some gloomy prognostication attached as Johnny Foreigner overtakes us. However, I'm still impressed by the sheer scale of the UK economy.
For example, the ONS publishes occasional business demography reports, the latest of which only covers up to 2016. Back then there were over 400k business startups p.a. (over 300k deaths though). Even in the slump there were over 250k business births.
We're more entrepreneurial than we give ourselves credit for.
Absolutely mega borrowing figures for the government, again. Implies 1.8% YoY growth from my back of the fag packet calculation.
I'd say quite good rather than mega.
But lets remember the OBR's March 2018 borrowing prediction for the year ending March 2018 was £45.2bn compared with actual borrowing of £39.4bn.
The OBR's borrowing predicting of £37.1bn for 2018/19 looks like it could be about £8bn too high as well.
Down £5.4bn YTD is mega. That run rate implies a drop in borrowing of over £21bn this year which would bring the deficit down to around £18-19bn. I don't think that's going to happen, however, I think we can pencil in a £12-13bn drop which would bring the deficit down to around £27bn or around 1.4% of GDP.
Also, the OBR have proven themselves to be completely shit at this stuff. I stick with the City consensus now, the OBR projections aren't worth anything.
Seamas Milne’s anti-Semitism is more about his public support for Hamas and his proclivity to campaign alongside people who wish death on all Jews.
I've never understood from a propaganda point of view why people don't make more of the left's support for anti apartheid terrorists who would kill white people, like their support of Palestinian terrorist groups shows their racist hatred of Jewish people their support of South African terrorist groups shows their racist hatred of White people...
But there are a lot more white voters!
Some people will try and make the silly claim that the lefts support wasn't racist against whites but considering we know their support for Hamas in similar circumstances is based on racism then it must be that....
It was mainly Europeans that committed genocide on the Jewish people and had mistreated them for hundreds of years.
My real position is the innocent Palestinians should not have had their land taken away as a result of that.
It is similar to my real position that if a Muslim group suffered a terrible genocide in the Middle East at the hands of those in the Middle East and then tried to setup a country here inside Britain then I would oppose that.
What if the Muslims had been in Britain 5,000 years ago and continuously since as a settled community?
Then I would still oppose them setting up a country inside Britain because they had been mistreated on another continent....
Set up a new country on another continent where people already live probably isn't a good goto first option...
The end of WW2 saw global redrawing of boundaries, death, expulsions and a change of the world order. Yet you and the people you have sympathy with seem to only have a hard on for criticizing Jews. It is obvious where your and your party's moral position rests. Still, votes.
You seem to only advocate setting up the country where lots of innocent brown Muslims lived who would likely suffer because of it. You and the people you have sympathy with seem to only have a hard on for suffering Muslims. It is obvious where your and your party's moral position rests. Still, votes
Absolutely mega borrowing figures for the government, again. Implies 1.8% YoY growth from my back of the fag packet calculation.
Yeah, we're only borrowing as much as Gordon did pre-crash. Go Hammond. In other news, I see the OBR's stellar record for shit forecasting continues.
I think less than that by the end of this year, also don't forget the trajectory and inherited economy. Gordon had a golden legacy, we got a pile of shit with more shit on top and shit for desert. It's good to see we are finally getting to the end of it.
Apartheid in Israel. Who would have guessed? You can understand why Jeremy might find it easier to walk through the eye of a needle than comment on Netanyahu's Likud government and stay on the right side of the IRHA's definition of antisemitism
Well I will risk it. This new law is an utter disgrace. I am all for Israel being a homeland for Jews but to downgrade the 20% of the population who are not Jews, to treat them as less worthy of being citizens in their home, to downgrade Arabic is utterly wrong. Both wrong and stupid. What an utterly foolish and immoral thing for Israel to do.
And no I am not being anti-semitic in saying this and, yes, the IRHA’s definition does not prohibit this criticism.
I agree with all you've said except the last line. The IRHA says
*"Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.
*Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation."
Though one could put up a defence in a court of law I would be very surprised if a Labour tribuneral would be allowed to give a member the benefit of the doubt in today's febrile atmosphere.
Roger: I think you are wrong re my last line. I do not deny Jews their right to self-determination nor do I claim that the existence of Israel is a racist endeavour. So - no I am not being anti-semitic under the IRHA definition. I do think this law is quite wrong and foolish.
So it is possible to criticise Israel in very harsh terms without using Nazi terms, which is what Labour’s new definition would allow them to do.
Though yesterday the Knessett did racially define their state.
The differences between the IHRA definition and the Labour NEC one are actually pretty minimal, and the latter does bar Nazi comparisons if anti-semitic in intent.
Well considering the standard was implying he was and that was the best they could come out with.
It is sort of a default, if I meet someone I won't think their racist until I have proof otherwise.
Milne, together with Corbyn, have presided over a political Party wherein anti-semites feel emboldened. Milne and Corbyn have made the Labour Party a Party which British Jews view with suspicion, and feel is hostile to them.
The Labour Party today is currently embroiled not in a work and pensions scandal, not in a Scottish devolution scandal, not in a European Single Market scandal, but in an anti-semitic scandal.
Now, if you want to say move along, nothing to see here, that is of course your prerogative. If you want to say all the Jews have got it wrong, don't they realise, look at that comment or this article, that is also your right. But at some point you will have to face up to the reality that the very fact that we are having this conversation shows that there is an anti-semitic problem in your Labour Party and Milne and Corbyn are its leaders.
So if smoke does equal fire as you are determined to push the logic can you explain the stupid conspiracy about Jewish people being lizards thing, presumably the fact people even have conversations about the matter shows that there is a problem with Jewish people being too lizard like... if we follow your logic....
Obviously I don't follow that logic people say lots of stupid things.
As for your emboldened statistics show that anti semitism has gone down under Corbyn and is higher in the Conservative party.
Conspiracy about Jewish people being lizards thing = (in the mind of @TheJezziah) the very real issue in the Labour Party concerning anti-semitism.
Or do you not think the Labour Party has an issue with anti-semitism (asking the question in case you are in a cave in Thailand)?
Edit: moving over to the new thread. Geronimo.....
Mr. Jezziah, Judaism and Sikhism (I think) are considered both religions and ethnicities. The same is not true of other religions, that I know of.
Sorry I got cut off half way through my post, although I think you got that bit, a cousin of mine converted.
I was going to go on to say they are based on much the same thing to my mind whilst they aren't the same thing in the case of either Jewish people or Muslims like with say black people there is a significant overlap.
I know all about the ancient Israeli kingdom but I do not support a claim based on a kingdom that ceased to exist thousands of years ago.
Also as an atheist I do not support biblical claims.
Not that I imagine that if said Muslim group had an ancient and religious claim on British land it would make any difference to people's opposition to them setting up a country here.
Edit: I know all about is one the biggest overstatements I have made in my time here. I know of it would be far more accurate.
Every religion has a a place where it is a majority, Christianity in Europe, North and Latin America and Oceania, Islam in the Middle East and North Africa, Hinduism in India, Buddhism in Thailand etc.
Israel is the one place on earth Jews know they can be safe as a majority
There is often lots of good logic behind why the Israelis deserve somewhere particular for them all to live, but very rarely is there any on why many of the Palestinians deserved to lose theirs.
The reason for that, as you well know, is that no-one thought that the Palestinians did deserve to lose a homeland. That was precisely why in UN Resolution 181(ii) the Palestinians were granted a homeland at the same time as Israel. The reason the Palestinians lost it is because they rejected it and chose to go to war instead and lost everything. The land which was earmarked for them was seized by Jordan. Ask the Jordanians why they denied the Palestinians the right to set up a homeland in the land allocated to them by the UN.
They then kept on trying war (Jordan was specifically warned by Israel not to join in the war in 1967 and stupidly ignored the advice thus losing the West Bank thus making the Palestinians’ problems a whole lot worse). Terrorism was tried which, understandably, did not win them many friends.
The Palestinians deserve a homeland. Israel is behaving very badly and foolishly over the Occupied Territories but you are utterly ignoring historical facts in painting the Palestinians and Arabs as entirely innocent parties rather than in part responsible for their own misfortunes as a result, in part, of their own stupid decisions and poor leadership.
They then kept on trying war (Jordan was specifically warned by Israel not to join in the war in 1967 and stupidly ignored the advice thus losing the West Bank thus making the Palestinians’ problems a whole lot worse). Terrorism was tried which, understandably, did not win them many friends.
The Palestinians deserve a homeland. Israel is behaving very badly and foolishly over the Occupied Territories but you are utterly ignoring historical facts in painting the Palestinians and Arabs as entirely innocent parties rather than in part responsible for their own misfortunes as a result, in part, of their own stupid decisions and poor leadership.
The Palestinians didn't need to be granted a homeland, they were living in it already, the UN resolution was about giving their land away not gifting them the land they were on.
You failed to provide a single reason why Palestinians deserved to lose their homeland, don't worry everyone fails at it, the excuse is always because the Palestinians reacted badly to being occupied and having their lands stolen so it is all justified!
If Britain was attacked by a Muslim group trying to setup a country in England we would defend ourselves. The act of defending ourselves would not justify the theft of the land.
I have plenty of criticisms for the other Arab countries but nobody cares about this views and no accuses me of racism because of them, plenty of Arab nations have used the Palestinian situation for their own benefits without a bit of concern for the Palestinians.
None of this gets the Israeli's off the hook.
The Palestinians are the wronged party, they were certainly the innocent party at the beginning when their land was given away because of the misdeeds of Europeans. After decades of their lands being taken and being treated terribly they reacted as any single group of people would have done.
There are no people in the world who would have not reacted negatively to Israel's treatment of them in the same situation and quite frankly no other people would be expected to just sit there and die quietly whilst their chances of freedom are destroyed.
A couple of little details from this week's employment data were that redundancies dropped below 100k again and that job vacancies reached a new all time high.
For all the many highly publicised job losses in the retail and restaurant sectors they've had very little effect on the overall numbers.
I've said this before so bear with me . We tend to talk about the UK as the #5 or #6 economy in passing, usually with some gloomy prognostication attached as Johnny Foreigner overtakes us. However, I'm still impressed by the sheer scale of the UK economy.
For example, the ONS publishes occasional business demography reports, the latest of which only covers up to 2016. Back then there were over 400k business startups p.a. (over 300k deaths though). Even in the slump there were over 250k business births.
We're more entrepreneurial than we give ourselves credit for.
Enjoy it while it lasts - an unholy alliance of socialists from the labour party and the swivel eyed "fuck business" brexit militias are determined to take our economy through a hellish realignment before we reach the sunlit uplands of their own deranged utopia.
It is an outside chance but hopefully they will destroy themselves and each other in a bout of "People's Front of Judea" infighting and incompetence. (Whoops, sorry Mr Jezziah, inadvertent mention of Judea there!)
Absolutely mega borrowing figures for the government, again. Implies 1.8% YoY growth from my back of the fag packet calculation.
I'd say quite good rather than mega.
But lets remember the OBR's March 2018 borrowing prediction for the year ending March 2018 was £45.2bn compared with actual borrowing of £39.4bn.
The OBR's borrowing predicting of £37.1bn for 2018/19 looks like it could be about £8bn too high as well.
Down £5.4bn YTD is mega. That run rate implies a drop in borrowing of over £21bn this year which would bring the deficit down to around £18-19bn. I don't think that's going to happen, however, I think we can pencil in a £12-13bn drop which would bring the deficit down to around £27bn or around 1.4% of GDP.
Also, the OBR have proven themselves to be completely shit at this stuff. I stick with the City consensus now, the OBR projections aren't worth anything.
The figure for July with the payment of self employed taxes will give us a better idea. I would be interested in how you got from these figures to 1.8% GDP YoY. Tax revenues were up 3% but I think that is nominal so it only matches inflation. What is happening is that government spending is being kept on a very tight leash.
A couple of little details from this week's employment data were that redundancies dropped below 100k again and that job vacancies reached a new all time high.
For all the many highly publicised job losses in the retail and restaurant sectors they've had very little effect on the overall numbers.
I've said this before so bear with me . We tend to talk about the UK as the #5 or #6 economy in passing, usually with some gloomy prognostication attached as Johnny Foreigner overtakes us. However, I'm still impressed by the sheer scale of the UK economy.
For example, the ONS publishes occasional business demography reports, the latest of which only covers up to 2016. Back then there were over 400k business startups p.a. (over 300k deaths though). Even in the slump there were over 250k business births.
We're more entrepreneurial than we give ourselves credit for.
Enjoy it while it lasts - an unholy alliance of socialists from the labour party and the swivel eyed "fuck business" brexit militias are determined to take our economy through a hellish realignment before we reach the sunlit uplands of their own deranged utopia.
It is an outside chance but hopefully they will destroy themselves and each other in a bout of "People's Front of Judea" infighting and incompetence. (Whoops, sorry Mr Jezziah, inadvertent mention of Judea there!)
Perhaps I was unclear. The 2008 crash was the worst I've experienced (6.2% drop in just over a year), and even in the dark days of 2008/9, we created over 250k businesses.
I'm in my late 50s, and can't help but note that despite endless Jeremiads, this country, and the world in general, is vastly more prosperous than it was in the 1960s.
Just read this that was quite interesting, funnily enough wrote before the recent furore but actually contains mention of the IHRA definition of anti semitism and the problems with it as well but goes into various parts of the topic.
FWIW my opinion is that both Milne and Corbyn hate Israel as they see it as an extreme example of western imperialism backed fairly unconditionally by the US. They support the likes of Hamas because they see them as freedom fighters against oppression and the left has a long history of not looking under the fingernails of such organisations to see whether their own behaviour is morally clean.
I don't think this makes them anti-semitic per se but it does mean that they spend a lot of time with people who are and sit on platforms listening to their anger and frustration. But it means no more to them than supporting the likes of Chavez in Venezuela or Castro in Cuba. It is enough that these groups all fight against western and in particular US dominance.
This I think is right as regards their personal views - although Milne has gone further than Corbyn in this regard. The problem is that as those in charge of a political party they aren't just responsible for their personal views but the culture within that party and can be judged as anti-Semitic if they respond to Jewish complaints about prejudice and abuse that they have been subjected to differently to anyone else's. This is what they're doing and have done and are judged accordingly as willingly presiding over a culture that's institutionally anti-Semitic and so are guilty themselves.
A major reason the MacPherson report was revolutionary is that it explained how people could be racist without actually intending to be. For example, a police chief who is blind to his officers' prejudice towards black suspects and ignores complaints about it is being racist because he himself is acting with prejudice in turning a blind eye to it and failing in the duty he owes to all citizens as regards a specific group. With Corbyn it's the same situation - he's presided over and promoted a culture that has made Jews feel unsafe within the Labour Party and time and time again has failed to listen to them about the actions they believe would solve the issue. It's impossible to believe any other minority would be treated like this, so he's an anti-Semite - whether he thinks that's what he's doing or not.
I just don’t see how the Labour party thinks it has the moral authority to tell Jews what constitutes anti-Semitism given its recent track record, as acknowledged by its leader.
I think you are confused, Labour isn't telling Jews what constitutes anti-semitism.
It is telling its members what they can be kicked out for as anti semitism.
Are you really suggesting that Labour is explicitly saying that some forms of anti-Semitism are acceptable?
No I am saying people can believe whatever they want.
To use Topping's example, if people wanted to believe that saying England should play three up front is racist they could.
Labour rules would not reflect this so it wouldn't be something you could be kicked out the party for but any group which choose to believe that could do so.
If they could find three that could kick a ball in right direction though
Comments
Back in the day the Trotskyist left had a slogan: "neither Washington nor Moscow, but International Socialism." This position of not taking sides in the cold war differentiated them from Stalinists who were apologists for the Soviet Union. This also meant that, to an extent, there was space for them to be critical of some anti US imperialists.
The collapse of the Soviet Union, and the earlier collapse of Stalinist parties in the West changed this. The slogan is in practice reduced to the first clause and critical thinking is extinguished.
The enemy of your enemy is not your friend.
Which isn't to say I do not want the best for Israeli Arabs, or all human beings but in reference to Israel it is their treatment of the Palestinians and our (partial) endorsement of it that is the bigger complaint for me.
Not that it justifies blowing things up.
Israel was founded by similar terrorists*, such as the bombing of the British Embassy in Rome in 1946:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1946_British_Embassy_bombing
*Terrorists is a loaded term, interchangeable with freedom fighters or even founding fathers depending on your politics.
If he becomes PM he will be freer to do the things he wants to do than he would otherwise have been. If this happens, the level of wailing from Tories when they realise they no longer have protections under EU law against some Corbyn idiocy will be a sight to behold.
The Labour Party today is currently embroiled not in a work and pensions scandal, not in a Scottish devolution scandal, not in a European Single Market scandal, but in an anti-semitic scandal.
Now, if you want to say move along, nothing to see here, that is of course your prerogative. If you want to say all the Jews have got it wrong, don't they realise, look at that comment or this article, that is also your right. But at some point you will have to face up to the reality that the very fact that we are having this conversation shows that there is an anti-semitic problem in your Labour Party and Milne and Corbyn are its leaders.
Set up a new country on another continent where people already live probably isn't a good goto first option...
"Somebody said: 'Here's a Spitfire - fly it, and if you break it there will be bloody hell to pay'."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cornwall-44895703
But lets remember the OBR's March 2018 borrowing prediction for the year ending March 2018 was £45.2bn compared with actual borrowing of £39.4bn.
The OBR's borrowing predicting of £37.1bn for 2018/19 looks like it could be about £8bn too high as well.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMIA_bombing
For all the many highly publicised job losses in the retail and restaurant sectors they've had very little effect on the overall numbers.
Britain's involvement in Palestine between 1917 and 1948 is such that we managed to antagonise both sides in the bitter dispute. As such we should steer clear of further involvement.
I have visited Israel, and with local friends went to some parts of the occupied territories. I found both Israelis and Palestinians quite charming peoples, but both were cursed to have repellent political leaderships. They are not unique in that. I have found that true in many of my travels, including my recent Russia trip. It is pretty true of our own country when we look in the mirror too.
The only points of interest are that the 1kg cardboard trays have reappeared after an absence of over a month and that British apricots are now on sale.
Obviously I don't follow that logic people say lots of stupid things.
As for your emboldened statistics show that anti semitism has gone down under Corbyn and is higher in the Conservative party.
So it is possible to criticise Israel in very harsh terms without using Nazi terms, which is what Labour’s new definition would allow them to do.
The attached is quite interesting on the origins of political anti-semitism - http://hurryupharry.org/2018/07/18/understanding-labour-and-antisemitism/.
For example, the ONS publishes occasional business demography reports, the latest of which only covers up to 2016. Back then there were over 400k business startups p.a. (over 300k deaths though). Even in the slump there were over 250k business births.
We're more entrepreneurial than we give ourselves credit for.
Also, the OBR have proven themselves to be completely shit at this stuff. I stick with the City consensus now, the OBR projections aren't worth anything.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/stories-44862029/i-survived-the-bombing-of-the-king-david-hotel
The differences between the IHRA definition and the Labour NEC one are actually pretty minimal, and the latter does bar Nazi comparisons if anti-semitic in intent.
Or do you not think the Labour Party has an issue with anti-semitism (asking the question in case you are in a cave in Thailand)?
Edit: moving over to the new thread. Geronimo.....
I was going to go on to say they are based on much the same thing to my mind whilst they aren't the same thing in the case of either Jewish people or Muslims like with say black people there is a significant overlap.
They then kept on trying war (Jordan was specifically warned by Israel not to join in the war in 1967 and stupidly ignored the advice thus losing the West Bank thus making the Palestinians’ problems a whole lot worse). Terrorism was tried which, understandably, did not win them many friends.
The Palestinians deserve a homeland. Israel is behaving very badly and foolishly over the Occupied Territories but you are utterly ignoring historical facts in painting the Palestinians and Arabs as entirely innocent parties rather than in part responsible for their own misfortunes as a result, in part, of their own stupid decisions and poor leadership.
You failed to provide a single reason why Palestinians deserved to lose their homeland, don't worry everyone fails at it, the excuse is always because the Palestinians reacted badly to being occupied and having their lands stolen so it is all justified!
If Britain was attacked by a Muslim group trying to setup a country in England we would defend ourselves. The act of defending ourselves would not justify the theft of the land.
I have plenty of criticisms for the other Arab countries but nobody cares about this views and no accuses me of racism because of them, plenty of Arab nations have used the Palestinian situation for their own benefits without a bit of concern for the Palestinians.
None of this gets the Israeli's off the hook.
The Palestinians are the wronged party, they were certainly the innocent party at the beginning when their land was given away because of the misdeeds of Europeans. After decades of their lands being taken and being treated terribly they reacted as any single group of people would have done.
There are no people in the world who would have not reacted negatively to Israel's treatment of them in the same situation and quite frankly no other people would be expected to just sit there and die quietly whilst their chances of freedom are destroyed.
It is an outside chance but hopefully they will destroy themselves and each other in a bout of "People's Front of Judea" infighting and incompetence. (Whoops, sorry Mr Jezziah, inadvertent mention of Judea there!)
I'm in my late 50s, and can't help but note that despite endless Jeremiads, this country, and the world in general, is vastly more prosperous than it was in the 1960s.
Just read this that was quite interesting, funnily enough wrote before the recent furore but actually contains mention of the IHRA definition of anti semitism and the problems with it as well but goes into various parts of the topic.
A major reason the MacPherson report was revolutionary is that it explained how people could be racist without actually intending to be. For example, a police chief who is blind to his officers' prejudice towards black suspects and ignores complaints about it is being racist because he himself is acting with prejudice in turning a blind eye to it and failing in the duty he owes to all citizens as regards a specific group. With Corbyn it's the same situation - he's presided over and promoted a culture that has made Jews feel unsafe within the Labour Party and time and time again has failed to listen to them about the actions they believe would solve the issue. It's impossible to believe any other minority would be treated like this, so he's an anti-Semite - whether he thinks that's what he's doing or not.