I'm not suggesting that and only a moron would twist my words to say so. I do, however, favour democracy over a craven attitude towards violent bullies, even when the electorate makes a daft choice.
The terrorists in NI have no legitimate argument for returning to violence and we should pay the threats implied on their behalf no heed. Theirs is not and should not be a voice in this debate.
David, you might see it in those terms. There is no reason to assume that most respondents did and plenty to assume that they didn't, despite all the Leavesplaining on thread
No one is suggesting that terrorists in Scotland are about to start gun-running across the river Tweed. Yet English Leavers regard Scotland's independence as an acceptable price to pay for Brexit.
These people are maniacs.
As we have discovered from the EU referendum itself, trying to draw detailed conclusions about what the public are thinking and what they want from simple questions like this is not always easy.
The respondents who put leaving the EU ahead of the NI peace process could easily have been thinking any of the following:
1. We don't care about Northern Ireland, let it burn 2. We do care about Northern Ireland, but we're not about to be blackmailed by terrorists and the security services will make short work of them anyway 3. We see no realistic possibility of a return to violence, so of course we're going to jump the way we want to, because the alternative just isn't going to happen
The question itself is also couched in blackmailing terms, of course. It hypothetically holds Northern Ireland to ransom and asks the voters if they are willing to pay up or not. I'm not at all sure that a mode of politics that consists entirely of one group of people using threats to try to force another group into compliance is a road that we want to travel any further down than we have already.
Two more observations:
1. Let us imagine instead that we asked both Leave and Remain voters whether they thought that Britain should jettison Northern Ireland, whether by calving it off as a separate state or giving it to Leo Varadkar as a birthday present. Which segment of the electorate is, on average, more likely to have Irish Republican sympathies and to want to throw the DUP overboard because they detest them? No prizes for guessing on that one. 2. As a general point, it might be best not to drag Scotland into this as well. In the last couple of days we've had Brexit, antisemitism, Israel-Palestine and now Northern Ireland to deal with. I'm afraid that throwing any more combustible material into the mix may result in an uncontrollable blaze.
It won’t fly because the pause would become permanent; we’d never agree what to do and, even if we did, the EU wouldn’t agree either, so we’d default to staying in forever.
The most important step is getting out on reasonable terms. The rest can be fixed later.
So to summarise: the fact that we don’t know what to do isn’t a reason to delay leaving, because no matter how long we delay, we stil won’t know what to do.
If we can’t agree a way to leave through our democratic processes that does introduce a little bit of doubt about whether we should be leaving.
And you confirm all the fears of Leavers with that post.
The one thing all Leavers agree on is that we must Leave and Leave now.
They have zero confidence and trust in the European Union, and for good reason.
Intelligent pro-EU people would do well to reflect on that and consider why that might be.
I think you’re conflating the uses of the term “Leavers” to include “Leave voters” and “Leave-at-all-costers” in order to claim majority support for that view. It seems really unlikely that all Leave voters agree we must leave now, however inadequate our planning, however bad the consequences. And ignoring any other changes since May 2016, only 5% would need to disagree for Leave to fall behind Remain.
Lack of trust in the EUis worth reflecting on, but perhaps calmly, over a period of time. Rather than whilst gazing down at the endless line of parked lorries and wondering how else we can cook cabbage.
A not unreasonable post, somewhat spoilt by your final sentence.
The name of the game here is not engineering Remain to be slightly ahead of Leave here in second vote (which seems to be all Remainers are interested in) but winning a consensus for a sustainable long-term relationship with our European neighbours that wins majority support.
So far, Remainers seem remarkably disinterested in this. They’d prefer revenge and to do unto Leavers what they feel was done to them.
Have you noticed Leavers trying to reach out to build a consensus with erstwhile Remain voters? (Spoiler: they haven't)
Or indeed even listening to reasonable objections?
Leavers own this mess, and will be electorally punished for it in due course.
I think you will find come March that you own precisely as big a stake in brexit as everyone else, and that it is not disclaimable as onerous property.
Also, there is no forthcoming election in which Leave is likely to be a party, nor Banks or Farage a candidate.
As we have discovered from the EU referendum itself, trying to draw detailed conclusions about what the public are thinking and what they want from simple questions like this is not always easy.
The respondents who put leaving the EU ahead of the NI peace process could easily have been thinking any of the following:
1. We don't care about Northern Ireland, let it burn 2. We do care about Northern Ireland, but we're not about to be blackmailed by terrorists and the security services will make short work of them anyway 3. We see no realistic possibility of a return to violence, so of course we're going to jump the way we want to, because the alternative just isn't going to happen
The question itself is also couched in blackmailing terms, of course. It hypothetically holds Northern Ireland to ransom and asks the voters if they are willing to pay up or not. I'm not at all sure that a mode of politics that consists entirely of one group of people using threats to try to force another group into compliance is a road that we want to travel any further down than we have already.
Two more observations:
1. Let us imagine instead that we asked both Leave and Remain voters whether they thought that Britain should jettison Northern Ireland, whether by calving it off as a separate state or giving it to Leo Varadkar as a birthday present. Which segment of the electorate is, on average, more likely to have Irish Republican sympathies and to want to throw the DUP overboard because they detest them? No prizes for guessing on that one. 2. As a general point, it might be best not to drag Scotland into this as well. In the last couple of days we've had Brexit, antisemitism, Israel-Palestine and now Northern Ireland to deal with. I'm afraid that throwing any more combustible material into the mix may result in an uncontrollable blaze.
There is polling on Scotland. English Leavers are entirely happy to throw it to the four winds in order to secure Brexit.
That's my point. Any attempt to claim that the Northern Ireland polling is about the rule of law runs into the separate and clear polling that shows English Leavers will sacrifice either Northern Ireland or Scotland if that is needed for Brexit. So we can dispense with 2 and 3 and go straight to 1.
Weeks , Days , hours since the latest Labour antisemitism scandal...
Perhaps they should just start to list the councillors and CLP chairs who haven't spread a load of neo-nazi nonsense?
Perhaps we should just call them the Labour-Nazi Party - until such times as they take meaningful steps to show they really don't want that tag.....
Given that there are a number of Jewish members of the Labour Party that might not be ideal. It would be good if those members who see their primary goal in politics as being to criticise the state of Israel (or worse) could recognise that might not be compatible with the wider aims of the party, though.
I think the poll just about sums up the short sighted, short memoried, selfish people who call themselves brexiteers (not all I hasten to add....don't want to upset too many).
Slightly related to the question in the header, the Northern Ireland backstop issue is there because the UK government prioritizes divergence from the EU over maintaining a fuzzy border in Ireland. You might argue it is a legitimate trade off to make, but be clear the government is making the choice.
Does the anti sematic attitude within Labour stem from how Corbyn behaves , or has it been around for much longer?
As the Prospect article I linked down thread points out, there has always been a lefty fringe of such views. Many of the exponents were not even in the Labour party, but in SWP etc etc. It is just that now, thanks to the £3 coup, many of the leading fringe exponents of it are leading figures or candidates for things like NEC. Presumably they feel emboldened by Corbyn and his now infamous shrug.
Does the anti sematic attitude within Labour stem from how Corbyn behaves , or has it been around for much longer?
As the Prospect article I linked down thread points out, there has always been a lefty fringe of such views. Many of the exponents were not even in the Labour party, but in SWP etc etc. It is just that now, thanks to the £3 coup, many of the leading fringe exponents of it are leading figures or candidates for things like NEC. Presumably they feel emboldened by Corbyn and his now infamous shrug.
Jeremy Corbyn is not anti semitic, that is libellous. Most Corbyn supporters use zionism as a legitimate criticism of Israeli oppression against Palestinians (or possibly just being right wing at the moment) , what right minded person can disagree with that.
Does the anti sematic attitude within Labour stem from how Corbyn behaves , or has it been around for much longer?
As the Prospect article I linked down thread points out, there has always been a lefty fringe of such views. Many of the exponents were not even in the Labour party, but in SWP etc etc. It is just that now, thanks to the £3 coup, many of the leading fringe exponents of it are leading figures or candidates for things like NEC. Presumably they feel emboldened by Corbyn and his now infamous shrug.
Jeremy Corbyn is not anti semitic, that is libellous. Most Corbyn supporters use zionism as a legitimate criticism of Israeli oppression against Palestinians (or possibly just being right wing at the moment) , what right minded person can disagree with that.
Does the anti sematic attitude within Labour stem from how Corbyn behaves , or has it been around for much longer?
As the Prospect article I linked down thread points out, there has always been a lefty fringe of such views. Many of the exponents were not even in the Labour party, but in SWP etc etc. It is just that now, thanks to the £3 coup, many of the leading fringe exponents of it are leading figures or candidates for things like NEC. Presumably they feel emboldened by Corbyn and his now infamous shrug.
Jeremy Corbyn is not anti semitic, that is libellous. Most Corbyn supporters use zionism as a legitimate criticism of Israeli oppression against Palestinians (or possibly just being right wing at the moment) , what right minded person can disagree with that.
Jeremy Corbyn may or may not be anti-Semitic, but some of his friends definitely are.
There's a case for saying that the real terrorists Ulster were those protestants who refused to accept the 1912 Act on the whole of Ireland being separated from the UK. What sparked off decades of troubles was the British government going back on that.
I find that deeply offensive Mike - Edward Carson was a cousin and close friend of my grandfather. He led a political and legal campaign* to achieve what he believed in from a moral and philosophical stance.
If you want to point the figure it’s Craig who deserves the blame more than anyone else but more for his actions afterwards than for his campaign on partition.
* Apart from Larne. That pushed the boat out a little
Regardless of the fact that he was related to you, it is a fact that Ireland as a whole was united with the rest of Britain in the Act of Union 1801 and over a century later it was the decision of the whole British Parliament that Ireland as a whole should have home rule and it was a minority in Ireland which sought to overturn that decision of the Parliament of the country they professed to revere, and not through parliamentary means. Whether Carson believed it from a moral and philosophical stance is, frankly, irrelevant. Parliamentary democracy suited him and his followers when they were on top and didn't when they realised they could no longer be top dog. So they started a campaign to ensure that they remained top dog. And the political party which supported them then had the brass neck to lecture the remaining inhabitants in the statelet created for the purpose of allowing Craig and co to prance around lording it over others about democracy and the views of the majority and parliaments etc .....
"Ulster will fight and Ulster will be right" was uttered by a Tory not by a Fenian. The Tories - and others - learnt the hard way that it wasn't just Unionists who could and would fight. The Troubles did not just start in 1968, much as it might be convenient for some to think so.
Two weeks on the Continent loads of locals talked to, the B word not mentioned once.
On here, and the press, project raving fear jacked up to eleven on a scale of ten. A few dozen possible, terrorists (who surely were supposed to give all their weapons up years ago) are to be appeased by 17 million votes in the ballot box? Yeah right. Also no food, no drugs, no industry, no planes. However, I shall not be worrying in the slightest about any of that because if I believe all I read my genitals will have been eaten by a Brexit super clap.
It’s just ridiculous. The sun will rise whatever in March 30th.
Does the anti sematic attitude within Labour stem from how Corbyn behaves , or has it been around for much longer?
As the Prospect article I linked down thread points out, there has always been a lefty fringe of such views. Many of the exponents were not even in the Labour party, but in SWP etc etc. It is just that now, thanks to the £3 coup, many of the leading fringe exponents of it are leading figures or candidates for things like NEC. Presumably they feel emboldened by Corbyn and his now infamous shrug.
Jeremy Corbyn is not anti semitic, that is libellous. Most Corbyn supporters use zionism as a legitimate criticism of Israeli oppression against Palestinians (or possibly just being right wing at the moment) , what right minded person can disagree with that.
I don't think Corbyn is an anti-semite, but I do think he's inhabited by some unfortunate "good Jew/bad Jew" stereotypes.
Seumas Milne, however? He's a grade A jew-hater of the first water. Prove me wrong.
It won’t fly because the pause would become permanent; we’d never agree what to do and, even if we did, the EU wouldn’t agree either, so we’d default to staying in forever.
The most important step is getting out on reasonable terms. The rest can be fixed later.
So to summarise: the fact that we don’t know what to do isn’t a reason to delay leaving, because no matter how long we delay, we stil won’t know what to do.
If we can’t agree a way to leave through our democratic processes that does introduce a little bit of doubt about whether we should be leaving.
And you confirm all the fears of Leavers with that post.
The one thing all Leavers agree on is that we must Leave and Leave now.
They have zero confidence and trust in the European Union, and for good reason.
Intelligent pro-EU people would do well to reflect on that and consider why that might be.
Lack of trust in the EUis worth reflecting on, but perhaps calmly, over a period of time. Rather than whilst gazing down at the endless line of parked lorries and wondering how else we can cook cabbage.
A not unreasonable post.
So far, Remainers seem remarkably disinterested in this. They’d prefer revenge and to do unto Leavers what they feel was done to them.
Have you noticed Leavers trying to reach out to build a consensus with erstwhile Remain voters? (Spoiler: they haven't)
Or indeed even listening to reasonable objections?
Leavers own this mess, and will be electorally punished for it in due course.
I think you will find come March that you own precisely as big a stake in brexit as everyone else, and that it is not disclaimable as onerous property.
Also, there is no forthcoming election in which Leave is likely to be a party, nor Banks or Farage a candidate.
Not a problem for me in March. I am in the safest of safe jobs including a bullet proof pension, and my own investments have been deployed as to benefit from Brexit. I have had two years to prepare, and even the prospect of an Australian passport, so sitting pretty. Fear not for Foxy, I am pretty good at looking after myself and kin.
Electorally, the Tories own Brexit and will be punished accordingly. Indeed the destruction of the Tory party is about the only clear benefit of Brexit IMO.
There is polling on Scotland. English Leavers are entirely happy to throw it to the four winds in order to secure Brexit.
That's my point. Any attempt to claim that the Northern Ireland polling is about the rule of law runs into the separate and clear polling that shows English Leavers will sacrifice either Northern Ireland or Scotland if that is needed for Brexit. So we can dispense with 2 and 3 and go straight to 1.
No you can't. Scotland and Northern Ireland are different cases and, in any event, it doesn't follow that people don't care for something because you present them with artificial forced choices like this. It's like holding two pistols to the heads of a puppy and a kitten and asking the distraught owner of both which one they would like to live. If they choose the kitten and the puppy is executed, does this mean that they don't give a you-know-what about dogs?
Now, let's reverse this silly question and ask what a panel of Remainers would do if confronted with the following scenario: Leave the EU as per the vote, or Remain - at the cost of thirty or so hardcore Europhobes taking up arms and trying to start a civil war. Are you seriously suggesting that 100% of them would say: "Oh, fine then. We never really liked Jean-Claude that much anyway." Because that is basically the same type of question that is being asked in the meaningless poll at the top of this thread. Firstly, Northern Ireland is not a powder-keg about to go off if Leave voters don't give in to what you would like - and they are entitled to view the question in those terms - and secondly, they are also entitled not to give in to blackmail.
Does the anti sematic attitude within Labour stem from how Corbyn behaves , or has it been around for much longer?
As the Prospect article I linked down thread points out, there has always been a lefty fringe of such views. Many of the exponents were not even in the Labour party, but in SWP etc etc. It is just that now, thanks to the £3 coup, many of the leading fringe exponents of it are leading figures or candidates for things like NEC. Presumably they feel emboldened by Corbyn and his now infamous shrug.
Jeremy Corbyn is not anti semitic, that is libellous. Most Corbyn supporters use zionism as a legitimate criticism of Israeli oppression against Palestinians (or possibly just being right wing at the moment) , what right minded person can disagree with that.
I don't think Corbyn is an anti-semite, but I do think he's inhabited by some unfortunate "good Jew/bad Jew" stereotypes.
Seumas Milne, however? He's a grade A jew-hater of the first water. Prove me wrong.
Does the anti sematic attitude within Labour stem from how Corbyn behaves , or has it been around for much longer?
As the Prospect article I linked down thread points out, there has always been a lefty fringe of such views. Many of the exponents were not even in the Labour party, but in SWP etc etc. It is just that now, thanks to the £3 coup, many of the leading fringe exponents of it are leading figures or candidates for things like NEC. Presumably they feel emboldened by Corbyn and his now infamous shrug.
Jeremy Corbyn is not anti semitic, that is libellous. Most Corbyn supporters use zionism as a legitimate criticism of Israeli oppression against Palestinians (or possibly just being right wing at the moment) , what right minded person can disagree with that.
IMO he is a 'passive' anti-Semite. He does not think of himself as one, as he has been anti-racist all his life, and wouldn't dream of saying this sort of thing himself. Yet somehow he has got himself - and his party - into this mess. If the people had been making similar comments against the disabled, women, blacks, or Muslims, he would have been up in arms. But not Jews.
Does the anti sematic attitude within Labour stem from how Corbyn behaves , or has it been around for much longer?
As the Prospect article I linked down thread points out, there has always been a lefty fringe of such views. Many of the exponents were not even in the Labour party, but in SWP etc etc. It is just that now, thanks to the £3 coup, many of the leading fringe exponents of it are leading figures or candidates for things like NEC. Presumably they feel emboldened by Corbyn and his now infamous shrug.
Jeremy Corbyn is not anti semitic, that is libellous. Most Corbyn supporters use zionism as a legitimate criticism of Israeli oppression against Palestinians (or possibly just being right wing at the moment) , what right minded person can disagree with that.
There is polling on Scotland. English Leavers are entirely happy to throw it to the four winds in order to secure Brexit.
That's my point. Any attempt to claim that the Northern Ireland polling is about the rule of law runs into the separate and clear polling that shows English Leavers will sacrifice either Northern Ireland or Scotland if that is needed for Brexit. So we can dispense with 2 and 3 and go straight to 1.
No you can't. Scotland and Northern Ireland are different cases and, in any event, it doesn't follow that people don't care for something because you present them with artificial forced choices like this. It's like holding two pistols to the heads of a puppy and a kitten and asking the distraught owner of both which one they would like to live. If they choose the kitten and the puppy is executed, does this mean that they don't give a you-know-what about dogs?
Now, let's reverse this silly question and ask what a panel of Remainers would do if confronted with the following scenario: Leave the EU as per the vote, or Remain - at the cost of thirty or so hardcore Europhobes taking up arms and trying to start a civil war. Are you seriously suggesting that 100% of them would say: "Oh, fine then. We never really liked Jean-Claude that much anyway." Because that is basically the same type of question that is being asked in the meaningless poll at the top of this thread. Firstly, Northern Ireland is not a powder-keg about to go off if Leave voters don't give in to what you would like - and they are entitled to view the question in those terms - and secondly, they are also entitled not to give in to blackmail.
There was similar polling about Northern Ireland. English Leavers were very willing to sacrifice it for Brexit. This polling has nothing to do with hostility to terrorism. Far too many Leavers just don’t care, so long as Brexit is achieved. There is absolutely no warrant for reading in the type of excuses that you are giving. The polling should be taken at face value.
Does the anti sematic attitude within Labour stem from how Corbyn behaves , or has it been around for much longer?
As the Prospect article I linked down thread points out, there has always been a lefty fringe of such views. Many of the exponents were not even in the Labour party, but in SWP etc etc. It is just that now, thanks to the £3 coup, many of the leading fringe exponents of it are leading figures or candidates for things like NEC. Presumably they feel emboldened by Corbyn and his now infamous shrug.
Jeremy Corbyn is not anti semitic, that is libellous. Most Corbyn supporters use zionism as a legitimate criticism of Israeli oppression against Palestinians (or possibly just being right wing at the moment) , what right minded person can disagree with that.
There's a case for saying that the real terrorists Ulster were those protestants who refused to accept the 1912 Act on the whole of Ireland being separated from the UK. What sparked off decades of troubles was the British government going back on that.
I find that deeply offensive Mike - Edward Carson was a cousin and close friend of my grandfather. He led a political and legal campaign* to achieve what he believed in from a moral and philosophical stance.
If you want to point the figure it’s Craig who deserves the blame more than anyone else but more for his actions afterwards than for his campaign on partition.
* Apart from Larne. That pushed the boat out a little
Regardless of the fact that he was related to you, it is a fact that Ireland as a whole was united with the rest of Britain in the Act of Union 1801 and over a century later it was the decision of the whole British Parliament that Ireland as a whole should have home rule and it was a minority in Ireland which sought to overturn that decision of the Parliament of the country they professed to revere, and not through parliamentary means. Whether Carson believed it from a moral and philosophical stance is, frankly, irrelevant. Parliamentary democracy suited him and his followers when they were on top and didn't when they realised they could no longer be top dog. So they started a campaign to ensure that they remained top dog. And the political party which supported them then had the brass neck to lecture the remaining inhabitants in the statelet created for the purpose of allowing Craig and co to prance around lording it over others about democracy and the views of the majority and parliaments etc .....
"Ulster will fight and Ulster will be right" was uttered by a Tory not by a Fenian. The Tories - and others - learnt the hard way that it wasn't just Unionists who could and would fight. The Troubles did not just start in 1968, much as it might be convenient for some to think so.
There’s a perfectly reasonable case to make against Carson (although I’d argue that he was stitched up by Craig - Cardon viewed partition as illogical and tried to use Ulster as a tool to keep Ireland in the Union... hmmh).
But that’s a long way from saying he is the “real terrorist”.
He was a member of the Cabinet, Solicitor-General for Ireland and one of the few non royals in history to have been given a full State funeral in the U.K. That alone suggests he wasn’t perceived as a terrorist by the U.K.
Does the anti sematic attitude within Labour stem from how Corbyn behaves , or has it been around for much longer?
As the Prospect article I linked down thread points out, there has always been a lefty fringe of such views. Many of the exponents were not even in the Labour party, but in SWP etc etc. It is just that now, thanks to the £3 coup, many of the leading fringe exponents of it are leading figures or candidates for things like NEC. Presumably they feel emboldened by Corbyn and his now infamous shrug.
Jeremy Corbyn is not anti semitic, that is libellous. Most Corbyn supporters use zionism as a legitimate criticism of Israeli oppression against Palestinians (or possibly just being right wing at the moment) , what right minded person can disagree with that.
I’ve just read this again and I can’t actually work out what you are trying to say in the second sentence. Are you saying Corbyn supporters are Zionists?
Does the anti sematic attitude within Labour stem from how Corbyn behaves , or has it been around for much longer?
As the Prospect article I linked down thread points out, there has always been a lefty fringe of such views. Many of the exponents were not even in the Labour party, but in SWP etc etc. It is just that now, thanks to the £3 coup, many of the leading fringe exponents of it are leading figures or candidates for things like NEC. Presumably they feel emboldened by Corbyn and his now infamous shrug.
Jeremy Corbyn is not anti semitic, that is libellous. Most Corbyn supporters use zionism as a legitimate criticism of Israeli oppression against Palestinians (or possibly just being right wing at the moment) , what right minded person can disagree with that.
I’ve just read this again and I can’t actually work out what you are trying to say in the second sentence. Are you saying Corbyn supporters are Zionists?
I'm baffled why anyone posting to PB for the first time would think there are any right minded people on here.
Does the anti sematic attitude within Labour stem from how Corbyn behaves , or has it been around for much longer?
As the Prospect article I linked down thread points out, there has always been a lefty fringe of such views. Many of the exponents were not even in the Labour party, but in SWP etc etc. It is just that now, thanks to the £3 coup, many of the leading fringe exponents of it are leading figures or candidates for things like NEC. Presumably they feel emboldened by Corbyn and his now infamous shrug.
Jeremy Corbyn is not anti semitic, that is libellous. Most Corbyn supporters use zionism as a legitimate criticism of Israeli oppression against Palestinians (or possibly just being right wing at the moment) , what right minded person can disagree with that.
IMO he is a 'passive' anti-Semite. He does not think of himself as one, as he has been anti-racist all his life, and wouldn't dream of saying this sort of thing himself. Yet somehow he has got himself - and his party - into this mess. If the people had been making similar comments against the disabled, women, blacks, or Muslims, he would have been up in arms. But not Jews.
How do you explain it?
A combination of the influence of the Israel lobby similar to AIPAC in the US smearing pro palestinian protesters. Israel is not oppressed and is led by an extremely right wing gvt. It is right wingers who are trying to wrongly mix anti semitism and anti zionism.
I fear this tedious identity politics is the future and it has ruined pb. Let's get back to talking about how brexit will do more economic damage to the UK more than Corbyn could.
Does the anti sematic attitude within Labour stem from how Corbyn behaves , or has it been around for much longer?
As the Prospect article I linked down thread points out, there has always been a lefty fringe of such views. Many of the exponents were not even in the Labour party, but in SWP etc etc. It is just that now, thanks to the £3 coup, many of the leading fringe exponents of it are leading figures or candidates for things like NEC. Presumably they feel emboldened by Corbyn and his now infamous shrug.
Jeremy Corbyn is not anti semitic, that is libellous. Most Corbyn supporters use zionism as a legitimate criticism of Israeli oppression against Palestinians (or possibly just being right wing at the moment) , what right minded person can disagree with that.
Corbyn may not be anti-semitic but if he were to bring a libel case on that basis I for one would pay good money to watch that case. Google the Dering case, for instance, to see what I mean.
Little wonder McDonnell reportedly wants the disciplinary action against Mrs Hodge called off. If the lawyers stay involved there is so much material about all the people Corbyn has allied with, spoken with, attended rallies with, invited to Parliament, travelled on foreign trips with etc who are anti-semitic, virulently so in some cases, that Mrs Hodge could use to justify her comments against Corbyn that it would be deeply embarrassing, at best, even for Corbyn and his fans.
There is polling on Scotland. English Leavers are entirely happy to throw it to the four winds in order to secure Brexit.
That's my point. Any attempt to claim that the Northern Ireland polling is about the rule of law runs into the separate and clear polling that shows English Leavers will sacrifice either Northern Ireland or Scotland if that is needed for Brexit. So we can dispense with 2 and 3 and go straight to 1.
No you can't. Scotland and Northern Ireland are different cases and, in any event, it doesn't follow that people don't care for something because you present them with artificial forced choices like this. It's like holding two pistols to the heads of a puppy and a kitten and asking the distraught owner of both which one they would like to live. If they choose the kitten and the puppy is executed, does this mean that they don't give a you-know-what about dogs?
Now, let's reverse this silly question and ask what a panel of Remainers would do if confronted with the following scenario: Leave the EU as per the vote, or Remain - at the cost of thirty or so hardcore Europhobes taking up arms and trying to start a civil war. Are you seriously suggesting that 100% of them would say: "Oh, fine then. We never really liked Jean-Claude that much anyway." Because that is basically the same type of question that is being asked in the meaningless poll at the top of this thread. Firstly, Northern Ireland is not a powder-keg about to go off if Leave voters don't give in to what you would like - and they are entitled to view the question in those terms - and secondly, they are also entitled not to give in to blackmail.
There was similar polling about Northern Ireland. English Leavers were very willing to sacrifice it for Brexit. This polling has nothing to do with hostility to terrorism. Far too many Leavers just don’t care, so long as Brexit is achieved. There is absolutely no warrant for reading in the type of excuses that you are giving. The polling should be taken at face value.
The question is couched in terms of blackmail. Therefore, the excuses are valid. The answers to the question tell us nothing useful.
As we have discovered from the EU referendum itself, trying to draw detailed conclusions about what the public are thinking and what they want from simple questions like this is not always easy.
The respondents who put leaving the EU ahead of the NI peace process could easily have been thinking any of the following:
1. We don't care about Northern Ireland, let it burn 2. We do care about Northern Ireland, but we're not about to be blackmailed by terrorists and the security services will make short work of them anyway 3. We see no realistic possibility of a return to violence, so of course we're going to jump the way we want to, because the alternative just isn't going to happen
The question itself is also couched in blackmailing terms, of course. It hypothetically holds Northern Ireland to ransom and asks the voters if they are willing to pay up or not. I'm not at all sure that a mode of politics that consists entirely of one group of people using threats to try to force another group into compliance is a road that we want to travel any further down than we have already.
Two more observations:
1. Let us imagine instead that we asked both Leave and Remain voters whether they thought that Britain should jettison Northern Ireland, whether by calving it off as a separate state or giving it to Leo Varadkar as a birthday present. Which segment of the electorate is, on average, more likely to have Irish Republican sympathies and to want to throw the DUP overboard because they detest them? No prizes for guessing on that one. 2. As a general point, it might be best not to drag Scotland into this as well. In the last couple of days we've had Brexit, antisemitism, Israel-Palestine and now Northern Ireland to deal with. I'm afraid that throwing any more combustible material into the mix may result in an uncontrollable blaze.
There is polling on Scotland. English Leavers are entirely happy to throw it to the four winds in order to secure Brexit.
That's my point. Any attempt to claim that the Northern Ireland polling is about the rule of law runs into the separate and clear polling that shows English Leavers will sacrifice either Northern Ireland or Scotland if that is needed for Brexit. So we can dispense with 2 and 3 and go straight to 1.
Do you think the English should care? Remember, the Scots had a referendum of their own. Had Yes won that, we'd be in a far more difficult position than we our now.
Does the anti sematic attitude within Labour stem from how Corbyn behaves , or has it been around for much longer?
As the Prospect article I linked down thread points out, there has always been a lefty fringe of such views. Many of the exponents were not even in the Labour party, but in SWP etc etc. It is just that now, thanks to the £3 coup, many of the leading fringe exponents of it are leading figures or candidates for things like NEC. Presumably they feel emboldened by Corbyn and his now infamous shrug.
Jeremy Corbyn is not anti semitic, that is libellous. Most Corbyn supporters use zionism as a legitimate criticism of Israeli oppression against Palestinians (or possibly just being right wing at the moment) , what right minded person can disagree with that.
IMO he is a 'passive' anti-Semite. He does not think of himself as one, as he has been anti-racist all his life, and wouldn't dream of saying this sort of thing himself. Yet somehow he has got himself - and his party - into this mess. If the people had been making similar comments against the disabled, women, blacks, or Muslims, he would have been up in arms. But not Jews.
How do you explain it?
As I said the other day one of Corbyn's defining characteristics is being anti western in general and anti US in particular. He will support anyone, anywhere who opposes them. He sees Israel as an agent of American imperialism in the ME and therefore holds them to completely different standards than those that oppose them. He is willing to share platforms and call friends all those who oppose them and will tolerate all that they say on the basis that it is justified by their rage and oppression.
Does this make him an anti-semite? Possibly, if only be default. But the leader of a major party in the UK and candidate for the office of PM really should not be as narrow minded, ignorant and stupid as to behave like this. He is not fit to hold the office that he does and Labour really should be ashamed of itself.
Does the anti sematic attitude within Labour stem from how Corbyn behaves , or has it been around for much longer?
The default socialist mindset is to see the world (people) as a collection of interest groups, and to divide those into ones to be supported and ones to be opposed. Muslims as a group are clearly in the former category given their numbers and loyalty to Labour.
Does the anti sematic attitude within Labour stem from how Corbyn behaves , or has it been around for much longer?
As the Prospect article I linked down thread points out, there has always been a lefty fringe of such views. Many of the exponents were not even in the Labour party, but in SWP etc etc. It is just that now, thanks to the £3 coup, many of the leading fringe exponents of it are leading figures or candidates for things like NEC. Presumably they feel emboldened by Corbyn and his now infamous shrug.
Jeremy Corbyn is not anti semitic, that is libellous. Most Corbyn supporters use zionism as a legitimate criticism of Israeli oppression against Palestinians (or possibly just being right wing at the moment) , what right minded person can disagree with that.
IMO he is a 'passive' anti-Semite. He does not think of himself as one, as he has been anti-racist all his life, and wouldn't dream of saying this sort of thing himself. Yet somehow he has got himself - and his party - into this mess. If the people had been making similar comments against the disabled, women, blacks, or Muslims, he would have been up in arms. But not Jews.
How do you explain it?
A combination of the influence of the Israel lobby similar to AIPAC in the US smearing pro palestinian protesters. Israel is not oppressed and is led by an extremely right wing gvt. It is right wingers who are trying to wrongly mix anti semitism and anti zionism.
I fear this tedious identity politics is the future and it has ruined pb. Let's get back to talking about how brexit will do more economic damage to the UK more than Corbyn could.
Does the anti sematic attitude within Labour stem from how Corbyn behaves , or has it been around for much longer?
As the Prospect article I linked down thread points out, there has always been a lefty fringe of such views. Many of the exponents were not even in the Labour party, but in SWP etc etc. It is just that now, thanks to the £3 coup, many of the leading fringe exponents of it are leading figures or candidates for things like NEC. Presumably they feel emboldened by Corbyn and his now infamous shrug.
Jeremy Corbyn is not anti semitic, that is libellous. Most Corbyn supporters use zionism as a legitimate criticism of Israeli oppression against Palestinians (or possibly just being right wing at the moment) , what right minded person can disagree with that.
Does the anti sematic attitude within Labour stem from how Corbyn behaves , or has it been around for much longer?
As the Prospect article I linked down thread points out, there has always been a lefty fringe of such views. Many of the exponents were not even in the Labour party, but in SWP etc etc. It is just that now, thanks to the £3 coup, many of the leading fringe exponents of it are leading figures or candidates for things like NEC. Presumably they feel emboldened by Corbyn and his now infamous shrug.
Jeremy Corbyn is not anti semitic, that is libellous. Most Corbyn supporters use zionism as a legitimate criticism of Israeli oppression against Palestinians (or possibly just being right wing at the moment) , what right minded person can disagree with that.
IMO he is a 'passive' anti-Semite. He does not think of himself as one, as he has been anti-racist all his life, and wouldn't dream of saying this sort of thing himself. Yet somehow he has got himself - and his party - into this mess. If the people had been making similar comments against the disabled, women, blacks, or Muslims, he would have been up in arms. But not Jews.
How do you explain it?
As I said the other day one of Corbyn's defining characteristics is being anti western in general and anti US in particular. He will support anyone, anywhere who opposes them. He sees Israel as an agent of American imperialism in the ME and therefore holds them to completely different standards than those that oppose them. He is willing to share platforms and call friends all those who oppose them and will tolerate all that they say on the basis that it is justified by their rage and oppression.
Does this make him an anti-semite? Possibly, if only be default. But the leader of a major party in the UK and candidate for the office of PM really should not be as narrow minded, ignorant and stupid as to behave like this. He is not fit to hold the office that he does and Labour really should be ashamed of itself.
Does the anti sematic attitude within Labour stem from how Corbyn behaves , or has it been around for much longer?
As the Prospect article I linked down thread points out, there has always been a lefty fringe of such views. Many of the exponents were not even in the Labour party, but in SWP etc etc. It is just that now, thanks to the £3 coup, many of the leading fringe exponents of it are leading figures or candidates for things like NEC. Presumably they feel emboldened by Corbyn and his now infamous shrug.
Jeremy Corbyn is not anti semitic, that is libellous. Most Corbyn supporters use zionism as a legitimate criticism of Israeli oppression against Palestinians (or possibly just being right wing at the moment) , what right minded person can disagree with that.
IMO he is a 'passive' anti-Semite. He does not think of himself as one, as he has been anti-racist all his life, and wouldn't dream of saying this sort of thing himself. Yet somehow he has got himself - and his party - into this mess. If the people had been making similar comments against the disabled, women, blacks, or Muslims, he would have been up in arms. But not Jews.
How do you explain it?
A combination of the influence of the Israel lobby similar to AIPAC in the US smearing pro palestinian protesters. Israel is not oppressed and is led by an extremely right wing gvt. It is right wingers who are trying to wrongly mix anti semitism and anti zionism.
I fear this tedious identity politics is the future and it has ruined pb. Let's get back to talking about how brexit will do more economic damage to the UK more than Corbyn could.
I fear that tedious identity politics is here to stay and is only going to get worse.
Perhaps if a leading figure in the Labour Party said something racist against another minority ethnic group it would take the spotlight away from anti-semitism.
Does the anti sematic attitude within Labour stem from how Corbyn behaves , or has it been around for much longer?
As the Prospect article I linked down thread points out, there has always been a lefty fringe of such views. Many of the exponents were not even in the Labour party, but in SWP etc etc. It is just that now, thanks to the £3 coup, many of the leading fringe exponents of it are leading figures or candidates for things like NEC. Presumably they feel emboldened by Corbyn and his now infamous shrug.
Jeremy Corbyn is not anti semitic, that is libellous. Most Corbyn supporters use zionism as a legitimate criticism of Israeli oppression against Palestinians (or possibly just being right wing at the moment) , what right minded person can disagree with that.
IMO he is a 'passive' anti-Semite. He does not think of himself as one, as he has been anti-racist all his life, and wouldn't dream of saying this sort of thing himself. Yet somehow he has got himself - and his party - into this mess. If the people had been making similar comments against the disabled, women, blacks, or Muslims, he would have been up in arms. But not Jews.
How do you explain it?
As I said the other day one of Corbyn's defining characteristics is being anti western in general and anti US in particular. He will support anyone, anywhere who opposes them. He sees Israel as an agent of American imperialism in the ME and therefore holds them to completely different standards than those that oppose them. He is willing to share platforms and call friends all those who oppose them and will tolerate all that they say on the basis that it is justified by their rage and oppression.
Does this make him an anti-semite? Possibly, if only be default. But the leader of a major party in the UK and candidate for the office of PM really should not be as narrow minded, ignorant and stupid as to behave like this. He is not fit to hold the office that he does and Labour really should be ashamed of itself.
As the Prospect article points out, there has always been a lefty fringe of such views. Many of the exponents were not even in the Labour party, but in SWP etc etc. It is just that now, thanks to the £3 coup, many of the leading fringe exponents of it are leading figures or candidates for things like NEC. Presumably they feel emboldened by Corbyn and his now infamous shrug.
Jeremy Corbyn is not anti semitic, that is libellous. Most Corbyn supporters use zionism as a legitimate criticism of Israeli oppression against Palestinians (or possibly just being right wing at the moment) , what right minded person can disagree with that.
Welcome to PB Jeremy, we've been expecting you.
There are three strains of anti-semitism which are making this a particular problem: (1) the first is the Israel-Palestine issue where some on the Palestinian side are anti-semitic, whether because of religion or because of what they think of Israel or both; (2) the second, which is being overlooked, is that amongst the far Left there is a belief that the evils of capitalism are not down to structural issues re how societies/economies are run/organised but down to individuals or groups of individuals who are oppressors. Jews are seen as capitalists (an echo of the "Jews are usurers" trope familiar to everyone from the Middle Ages on) and oppressors and therefore this analysis of anti-capitalism very easily shades into anti-semitic tropes of evil oppressing bankers - the infamous mural is an example of this; (3) Jews are seen as Western and white and cosmopolitan and too allied with America and modernity. Some of this also comes from Russian, specifically Soviet opposition to the West and America and Jews. This is a particular strain of far Left thinking which took inspiration from the Soviet view of the world and has not moved on. If you are against the West and America it is not hard to find yourself including Jews in your general group of people to oppose.
Corbyn and his followers to a greater or lesser extent share all three of these views. They have spent all their political lives amongst groups and people who think like this. That is why when they see a mural like the one which recently caused Corbyn so much trouble they literally cannot see the anti-semitism, the anti-Jewishness contained within it. To them this is normal political discourse. This is the political world they have been living in all their political lives. This is their normality. They are right. Everyone else must be wrong. And from that point, it is not hard for people who live in a conspiratorial world, to see conspiracies against them, Jewish conspiracies to do them - they who are so good (in their own minds) - down. It cannot be otherwise.
Does the anti sematic attitude within Labour stem from how Corbyn behaves , or has it been around for much longer?
As the Prospect article I linked down thread points out, there has always been a lefty fringe of such views. Many of the exponents were not even in the Labour party, but in SWP etc etc. It is just that now, thanks to the £3 coup, many of the leading fringe exponents of it are leading figures or candidates for things like NEC. Presumably they feel emboldened by Corbyn and his now infamous shrug.
Jeremy Corbyn is not anti semitic, that is libellous. Most Corbyn supporters use zionism as a legitimate criticism of Israeli oppression against Palestinians (or possibly just being right wing at the moment) , what right minded person can disagree with that.
IMO he is a 'passive' anti-Semite. He does not think of himself as one, as he has been anti-racist all his life, and wouldn't dream of saying this sort of thing himself. Yet somehow he has got himself - and his party - into this mess. If the people had been making similar comments against the disabled, women, blacks, or Muslims, he would have been up in arms. But not Jews.
How do you explain it?
A combination of the influence of the Israel lobby similar to AIPAC in the US smearing pro palestinian protesters. Israel is not oppressed and is led by an extremely right wing gvt. It is right wingers who are trying to wrongly mix anti semitism and anti zionism.
I fear this tedious identity politics is the future and it has ruined pb. Let's get back to talking about how brexit will do more economic damage to the UK more than Corbyn could.
So it's all a Jewish conspiracy? Really?
I didn't know that their influence was such that it made so many of Corbyn's friends and followers say anti-Semitic shit.
It's perfectly possible to criticise Israel and not be anti-Semitic. The fact so many are going the wrong side of the line - sometimes massively over - is a problem with them, not anyone or anything external. It is their malaise.
Perhaps if a leading figure in the Labour Party said something racist against another minority ethnic group it would take the spotlight away from anti-semitism.
Worth a try. We haven't heard Diane Abbott's wisdom for a while.
Surely the only way to be certain that he didn't break the rules would be to have a proper investigation.
Or does that only apply when it isn't one of your mates?
They really can't see how bad this makes them look, can they?
Having just watched the BBC news for the first time in months, it hardly received the prominence there that it might have among politics aficionados. The calculation that losing some Jewish votes is worthwhile for the wider electoral benefits is probably the correct one from a vote harvesting perspective. If not from a party that is a moral crusade or nothing. Although again one could take the view that the leadership are not of or with that party.
Does the anti sematic attitude within Labour stem from how Corbyn behaves , or has it been around for much longer?
As the Prospect article I linked down thread points out, there has always been a lefty fringe of such views. Many of the exponents were not even in the Labour party, but in SWP etc etc. It is just that now, thanks to the £3 coup, many of the leading fringe exponents of it are leading figures or candidates for things like NEC. Presumably they feel emboldened by Corbyn and his now infamous shrug.
Jeremy Corbyn is not anti semitic, that is libellous. Most Corbyn supporters use zionism as a legitimate criticism of Israeli oppression against Palestinians (or possibly just being right wing at the moment) , what right minded person can disagree with that.
IMO he is a 'passive' anti-Semite. He does not think of himself as one, as he has been anti-racist all his life, and wouldn't dream of saying this sort of thing himself. Yet somehow he has got himself - and his party - into this mess. If the people had been making similar comments against the disabled, women, blacks, or Muslims, he would have been up in arms. But not Jews.
How do you explain it?
A combination of the influence of the Israel lobby similar to AIPAC in the US smearing pro palestinian protesters. Israel is not oppressed and is led by an extremely right wing gvt. It is right wingers who are trying to wrongly mix anti semitism and anti zionism.
I fear this tedious identity politics is the future and it has ruined pb. Let's get back to talking about how brexit will do more economic damage to the UK more than Corbyn could.
I fear that tedious identity politics is here to stay and is only going to get worse.
I find that deeply offensive Mike - Edward Carson was a cousin and close friend of my grandfather. He led a political and legal campaign* to achieve what he believed in from a moral and philosophical stance.
Regardless of the fact that he was related to you, it is a fact that Ireland as a whole was united with the rest of Britain in the Act of Union 1801 and over a century later it was the decision of the whole British Parliament that Ireland as a whole should have home rule and it was a minority in Ireland which sought to overturn that decision of the Parliament of the country they professed to revere, and not through parliamentary means. Whether Carson believed it from a moral and philosophical stance is, frankly, irrelevant. Parliamentary democracy suited him and his followers when they were on top and didn't when they realised they could no longer be top dog. So they started a campaign to ensure that they remained top dog. And the political party which supported them then had the brass neck to lecture the remaining inhabitants in the statelet created for the purpose of allowing Craig and co to prance around lording it over others about democracy and the views of the majority and parliaments etc .....
"Ulster will fight and Ulster will be right" was uttered by a Tory not by a Fenian. The Tories - and others - learnt the hard way that it wasn't just Unionists who could and would fight. The Troubles did not just start in 1968, much as it might be convenient for some to think so.
There’s a perfectly reasonable case to make against Carson (although I’d argue that he was stitched up by Craig - Cardon viewed partition as illogical and tried to use Ulster as a tool to keep Ireland in the Union... hmmh).
But that’s a long way from saying he is the “real terrorist”.
He was a member of the Cabinet, Solicitor-General for Ireland and one of the few non royals in history to have been given a full State funeral in the U.K. That alone suggests he wasn’t perceived as a terrorist by the U.K.
How he was perceived by the UK tells you about how he was perceived by the UK. It does not tell you whether his actions were similar to that of a terrorist. Others in Ireland might well view all the pomp accorded to him as no more than the traditional British hypocrisy in honouring someone who did their dirty work for them, at the expense of other citizens of Britain less valued by the government.
The Unionists, so prone to take the moral high ground against Fenians and then the IRA, do not have clean hands, going all the way back to over a century ago. That is Mr Smithson's point - and it is a good one, regardless of the relative merits of Carson over Craig.
Does the anti sematic attitude within Labour stem from how Corbyn behaves , or has it been around for much longer?
As the Prospect article I linked down thread points out, there has always been a lefty fringe of such views. Many of the exponents were not even in the Labour party, but in SWP etc etc. It is just that now, thanks to the £3 coup, many of the leading fringe exponents of it are leading figures or candidates for things like NEC. Presumably they feel emboldened by Corbyn and his now infamous shrug.
Jeremy Corbyn is not anti semitic, that is libellous. Most Corbyn supporters use zionism as a legitimate criticism of Israeli oppression against Palestinians (or possibly just being right wing at the moment) , what right minded person can disagree with that.
IMO he is a 'passive' anti-Semite. He does not think of himself as one, as he has been anti-racist all his life, and wouldn't dream of saying this sort of thing himself. Yet somehow he has got himself - and his party - into this mess. If the people had been making similar comments against the disabled, women, blacks, or Muslims, he would have been up in arms. But not Jews.
How do you explain it?
A combination of the influence of the Israel lobby similar to AIPAC in the US smearing pro palestinian protesters. Israel is not oppressed and is led by an extremely right wing gvt. It is right wingers who are trying to wrongly mix anti semitism and anti zionism.
I fear this tedious identity politics is the future and it has ruined pb. Let's get back to talking about how brexit will do more economic damage to the UK more than Corbyn could.
I fear that tedious identity politics is here to stay and is only going to get worse.
Does the anti sematic attitude within Labour stem from how Corbyn behaves , or has it been around for much longer?
As the Prospect article I linked down thread points out, there has always been a lefty fringe of such views. Many of the exponents were not even in the Labour party, but in SWP etc etc. It is just that now, thanks to the £3 coup, many of the leading fringe exponents of it are leading figures or candidates for things like NEC. Presumably they feel emboldened by Corbyn and his now infamous shrug.
Jeremy Corbyn is not anti semitic, that is libellous. Most Corbyn supporters use zionism as a legitimate criticism of Israeli oppression against Palestinians (or possibly just being right wing at the moment) , what right minded person can disagree with that.
IMO he is a 'passive' anti-Semite. He does not think of himself as one, as he has been anti-racist all his life, and wouldn't dream of saying this sort of thing himself. Yet somehow he has got himself - and his party - into this mess. If the people had been making similar comments against the disabled, women, blacks, or Muslims, he would have been up in arms. But not Jews.
How do you explain it?
A combination of the influence of the Israel lobby similar to AIPAC in the US smearing pro palestinian protesters. Israel is not oppressed and is led by an extremely right wing gvt. It is right wingers who are trying to wrongly mix anti semitism and anti zionism.
I fear this tedious identity politics is the future and it has ruined pb. Let's get back to talking about how brexit will do more economic damage to the UK more than Corbyn could.
I fear that tedious identity politics is here to stay and is only going to get worse.
Brexit means Brexit, and is full fat identity politics. I am sure it is here to stay.
Does the anti sematic attitude within Labour stem from how Corbyn behaves , or has it been around for much longer?
As the Prospect article I linked down thread points out, there has always been a lefty fringe of such views. Many of the exponents were not even in the Labour party, but in SWP etc etc. It is just that now, thanks to the £3 coup, many of the leading fringe exponents of it are leading figures or candidates for things like NEC. Presumably they feel emboldened by Corbyn and his now infamous shrug.
Jeremy Corbyn is not anti semitic, that is libellous. Most Corbyn supporters use zionism as a legitimate criticism of Israeli oppression against Palestinians (or possibly just being right wing at the moment) , what right minded person can disagree with that.
Corbyn may not be anti-semitic but if he were to bring a libel case on that basis I for one would pay good money to watch that case. Google the Dering case, for instance, to see what I mean.
Little wonder McDonnell reportedly wants the disciplinary action against Mrs Hodge called off. If the lawyers stay involved there is so much material about all the people Corbyn has allied with, spoken with, attended rallies with, invited to Parliament, travelled on foreign trips with etc who are anti-semitic, virulently so in some cases, that Mrs Hodge could use to justify her comments against Corbyn that it would be deeply embarrassing, at best, even for Corbyn and his fans.
Indeed. If he sued for libel he'd lose as Hodge or anyone else could use fair comment (or honest opinion, as I think it's now known) as a defence and they could just list all the times he's either supported obvious anti-Semites or nodded along with anti-Semitic statements on PressTV to demonstrate that a fair minded person could well think he was an anti-Semite on the basis of the available evidence.
Does the anti sematic attitude within Labour stem from how Corbyn behaves , or has it been around for much longer?
As the Prospect article I linked down thread points out, there has always been a lefty fringe of such views. Many of the exponents were not even in the Labour party, but in SWP etc etc. It is just that now, thanks to the £3 coup, many of the leading fringe exponents of it are leading figures or candidates for things like NEC. Presumably they feel emboldened by Corbyn and his now infamous shrug.
Jeremy Corbyn is not anti semitic, that is libellous. Most Corbyn supporters use zionism as a legitimate criticism of Israeli oppression against Palestinians (or possibly just being right wing at the moment) , what right minded person can disagree with that.
IMO he is a 'passive' anti-Semite. He does not think of himself as one, as he has been anti-racist all his life, and wouldn't dream of saying this sort of thing himself. Yet somehow he has got himself - and his party - into this mess. If the people had been making similar comments against the disabled, women, blacks, or Muslims, he would have been up in arms. But not Jews.
How do you explain it?
A combination of the influence of the Israel lobby similar to AIPAC in the US smearing pro palestinian protesters. Israel is not oppressed and is led by an extremely right wing gvt. It is right wingers who are trying to wrongly mix anti semitism and anti zionism.
I fear this tedious identity politics is the future and it has ruined pb. Let's get back to talking about how brexit will do more economic damage to the UK more than Corbyn could.
I fear that tedious identity politics is here to stay and is only going to get worse.
Brexit means Brexit, and is full fat identity politics. I am sure it is here to stay.
The tragedy is that identity politics was first weaponised by people who thought it would grant them an advantage over their political opponents. But, like everything else in life, it's only a matter of time before one's opponents start to use it themselves. Funny how people never see that coming, isn't it.
Surely the only way to be certain that he didn't break the rules would be to have a proper investigation.
Or does that only apply when it isn't one of your mates?
They really can't see how bad this makes them look, can they?
Having just watched the BBC news for the first time in months, it hardly received the prominence there that it might have among politics aficionados. The calculation that losing some Jewish votes is worthwhile for the wider electoral benefits is probably the correct one from a vote harvesting perspective. If not from a party that is a moral crusade or nothing. Although again one could take the view that the leadership are not of or with that party.
General point I was making yesterday: most voters probably haven't noticed any of the whole antisemitism brouhaha, and most of the ones who have would probably effect to care about it if asked by a journalist or a pollster (just so that they can make themselves appear righteous to a stranger) when in fact they aren't bothered one way or another. Of the remainder, it's probable that more people either approve of Jew baiting, or don't but think it's just a smear, than are actually put off Labour by all of this. These events may even have helped rather than hindered Labour's electoral prospects.
People typically vote for things that they feel will affect them or their loved ones. There aren't that many Jews in Britain: they're not even half of one percent of the population, and consequently most of the rest of the electorate has no Jewish relatives or close friends, either. So most voters don't really notice Jews or care about them. Or am I just being overly cynical again?
Does the anti sematic attitude within Labour stem from how Corbyn behaves , or has it been around for much longer?
As the Prospect article I linked down thread points out, there has always been a lefty fringe of such views. Many of the exponents were not even in the Labour party, but in SWP etc etc. It is just that now, thanks to the £3 coup, many of the leading fringe exponents of it are leading figures or candidates for things like NEC. Presumably they feel emboldened by Corbyn and his now infamous shrug.
Jeremy Corbyn is not anti semitic, that is libellous. Most Corbyn supporters use zionism as a legitimate criticism of Israeli oppression against Palestinians (or possibly just being right wing at the moment) , what right minded person can disagree with that.
Corbyn may not be anti-semitic but if he were to bring a libel case on that basis I for one would pay good money to watch that case. Google the Dering case, for instance, to see what I mean.
Little wonder McDonnell reportedly wants the disciplinary action against Mrs Hodge called off. If the lawyers stay involved there is so much material about all the people Corbyn has allied with, spoken with, attended rallies with, invited to Parliament, travelled on foreign trips with etc who are anti-semitic, virulently so in some cases, that Mrs Hodge could use to justify her comments against Corbyn that it would be deeply embarrassing, at best, even for Corbyn and his fans.
Indeed. If he sued for libel he'd lose as Hodge or anyone else could use fair comment (or honest opinion, as I think it's now known) as a defence and they could just list all the times he's either supported obvious anti-Semites or nodded along with anti-Semitic statements on PressTV to demonstrate that a fair minded person could well think he was an anti-Semite on the basis of the available evidence.
He's not going to sue for libel (or he'd be bloody stupid to). But the disciplinary action against Hodge could have the same practical effect. That's why I think McDonnell, who is no fool, and has been careful to make it known that he's distancing himself from Corbyn on this issue, wants to get it shut down. He can see the risks even if Corbyn can't or won't.
Does the anti sematic attitude within Labour stem from how Corbyn behaves , or has it been around for much longer?
As the Prospect article I linked down thread points out, there has always been a lefty fringe of such views. Many of the exponents were not even in the Labour party, but in SWP etc etc. It is just that now, thanks to the £3 coup, many of the leading fringe exponents of it are leading figures or candidates for things like NEC. Presumably they feel emboldened by Corbyn and his now infamous shrug.
Jeremy Corbyn is not anti semitic, that is libellous. Most Corbyn supporters use zionism as a legitimate criticism of Israeli oppression against Palestinians (or possibly just being right wing at the moment) , what right minded person can disagree with that.
IMO he is a 'passive' anti-Semite. He does not think of himself as one, as he has been anti-racist all his life, and wouldn't dream of saying this sort of thing himself. Yet somehow he has got himself - and his party - into this mess. If the people had been making similar comments against the disabled, women, blacks, or Muslims, he would have been up in arms. But not Jews.
How do you explain it?
A combination of the influence of the Israel lobby similar to AIPAC in the US smearing pro palestinian protesters. Israel is not oppressed and is led by an extremely right wing gvt. It is right wingers who are trying to wrongly mix anti semitism and anti zionism.
I fear this tedious identity politics is the future and it has ruined pb. Let's get back to talking about how brexit will do more economic damage to the UK more than Corbyn could.
I fear that tedious identity politics is here to stay and is only going to get worse.
Shutting down twitter for a week might help!
I wouldn't have any objections to shutting down Twitter for a few weeks.
Does the anti sematic attitude within Labour stem from how Corbyn behaves , or has it been around for much longer?
As the Prospect article I linked down thread points out, there has always been a lefty fringe of such views. Many of the exponents were not even in the Labour party, but in SWP etc etc. It is just that now, thanks to the £3 coup, many of the leading fringe exponents of it are leading figures or candidates for things like NEC. Presumably they feel emboldened by Corbyn and his now infamous shrug.
Jeremy Corbyn is not anti semitic, that is libellous. Most Corbyn supporters use zionism as a legitimate criticism of Israeli oppression against Palestinians (or possibly just being right wing at the moment) , what right minded person can disagree with that.
IMO he is a 'passive' anti-Semite. He does not think of himself as one, as he has been anti-racist all his life, and wouldn't dream of saying this sort of thing himself. Yet somehow he has got himself - and his party - into this mess. If the people had been making similar comments against the disabled, women, blacks, or Muslims, he would have been up in arms. But not Jews.
How do you explain it?
A combination of the influence of the Israel lobby similar to AIPAC in the US smearing pro palestinian protesters. Israel is not oppressed and is led by an extremely right wing gvt. It is right wingers who are trying to wrongly mix anti semitism and anti zionism.
I fear this tedious identity politics is the future and it has ruined pb. Let's get back to talking about how brexit will do more economic damage to the UK more than Corbyn could.
So it's all a Jewish conspiracy? Really?
Who said anything about a jewish conspiracy? The issue is complicated and anti zionism and anti semitism are not the same thing. Zionism is problematic because of the idea that anyone of a certain religion has the right to move to Israel and illegal occupy palestinian land. This is not just about Judaism anyway, the largest no. of zionists in the world are probably evangelical Christians in the US alone. There isn't much more to say about the issue in Labour beyond this point as long as a small no. of actual semites in Labour like that nutter in Bognor Regis being dealt with. Everything else is just usual Labour factionalism. Fabian Hamilton who is Jewish thought Margaret Hodge's conduct was out of order.
Surely the only way to be certain that he didn't break the rules would be to have a proper investigation.
Or does that only apply when it isn't one of your mates?
They really can't see how bad this makes them look, can they?
Having just watched the BBC news for the first time in months, it hardly received the prominence there that it might have among politics aficionados. The calculation that losing some Jewish votes is worthwhile for the wider electoral benefits is probably the correct one from a vote harvesting perspective. If not from a party that is a moral crusade or nothing. Although again one could take the view that the leadership are not of or with that party.
General point I was making yesterday: most voters probably haven't noticed any of the whole antisemitism brouhaha, and most of the ones who have would probably effect to care about it if asked by a journalist or a pollster (just so that they can make themselves appear righteous to a stranger) when in fact they aren't bothered one way or another. Of the remainder, it's probable that more people either approve of Jew baiting, or don't but think it's just a smear, than are actually put off Labour by all of this. These events may even have helped rather than hindered Labour's electoral prospects.
People typically vote for things that they feel will affect them or their loved ones. There aren't that many Jews in Britain: they're not even half of one percent of the population, and consequently most of the rest of the electorate has no Jewish relatives or close friends, either. So most voters don't really notice Jews or care about them. Or am I just being overly cynical again?
I think you’re being overly cynical. I think it could significantly depress turnout of idealistic younger voters who wouldn’t dream of voting Tory.
Having just watched the BBC news for the first time in months, it hardly received the prominence there that it might have among politics aficionados. The calculation that losing some Jewish votes is worthwhile for the wider electoral benefits is probably the correct one from a vote harvesting perspective. If not from a party that is a moral crusade or nothing. Although again one could take the view that the leadership are not of or with that party.
General point I was making yesterday: most voters probably haven't noticed any of the whole antisemitism brouhaha, and most of the ones who have would probably effect to care about it if asked by a journalist or a pollster (just so that they can make themselves appear righteous to a stranger) when in fact they aren't bothered one way or another. Of the remainder, it's probable that more people either approve of Jew baiting, or don't but think it's just a smear, than are actually put off Labour by all of this. These events may even have helped rather than hindered Labour's electoral prospects.
People typically vote for things that they feel will affect them or their loved ones. There aren't that many Jews in Britain: they're not even half of one percent of the population, and consequently most of the rest of the electorate has no Jewish relatives or close friends, either. So most voters don't really notice Jews or care about them. Or am I just being overly cynical again?
You're not being overly cynical. But there is such a thing as morality - even in politics. Becoming anti-semitic as an electoral tactic is abhorrent. Or it should be - in a decent society. The fact that Labour sees value in behaving like this shames it but it also shames our society. Just as, as I am sure AlistairMeeks would say, using Nazi-style posters against immigration to win the Brexit vote, shamed the Leave campaign and our society.
Put it another way, if there were an electoral benefit to a party to call black British people "niggers", "coons" and other offensive terms and to say that they ought to leave if they don't like it and that it's their fault if the leader of that party feels that way because they haven't reached out properly and to justify it on the basis of how black Zimbabweans have treated white farmers who had their land stolen and were beaten and killed and to say that Zimbabwe's claim that whites should leave is racist, would it be OK to do this?
And if not - as I would hope Labour would say (though one simply cannot be sure these days) - why treat Jews differently?
Edited: this comment is mine (not Acorn Antiques'). Problem with the blockquote system. Sorry.
Does the anti sematic attitude within Labour stem from how Corbyn behaves , or has it been around for much longer?
As the Prospect article I linked down thread points out, there has always been a lefty fringe of such views. Many of the exponents were not even in the Labour party, but in SWP etc etc. It is just that now, thanks to the £3 coup, many of the leading fringe exponents of it are leading figures or candidates for things like NEC. Presumably they feel emboldened by Corbyn and his now infamous shrug.
Jeremy Corbyn is not anti semitic, that is libellous. Most Corbyn supporters use zionism as a legitimate criticism of Israeli oppression against Palestinians (or possibly just being right wing at the moment) , what right minded person can disagree with that.
Many right minded people disagree with Zionism. Especially of course if they are far right minded.
On the subject of the poll, if I were feeling mischievous I would ask if the Labour one spoke to 42 normal Labour voters and then asked Corbyn 58 times.
My take on the Labour antisemitism row is not whether Mr Corbyn is one. It is the never ending feed of the racist comments/opinions/views about Jewish people from labour members, supporters. The Labour base is so called socially aware middle upper classes and the working class. If the socially aware ignore all this and keep voting Labour then the country has an even larger problem. With these views Labour should become a pariah party to these people. Time will tell.
You're not being overly cynical. But there is such a thing as morality - even in politics. Becoming anti-semitic as an electoral tactic is abhorrent. Or it should be - in a decent society. The fact that Labour sees value in behaving like this shames it but it also shames our society. Just as, as I am sure AlistairMeeks would say, using Nazi-style posters against immigration to win the Brexit vote, shamed the Leave campaign and our society.
Put it another way, if there were an electoral benefit to a party to call black British people "niggers", "coons" and other offensive terms and to say that they ought to leave if they don't like it and that it's their fault if the leader of that party feels that way because they haven't reached out properly and to justify it on the basis of how black Zimbabweans have treated white farmers who had their land stolen and were beaten and killed and to say that Zimbabwe's claim that whites should leave is racist, would it be OK to do this?
And if not - as I would hope Labour would say (though one simply cannot be sure these days) - why treat Jews differently?
Edited: this comment is mine (not Acorn Antiques'). Problem with the blockquote system. Sorry.
Yes, it's depressing, isn't it? I guess the situation probably is a symptom of the way society does, or does not, work nowadays. Consider:
1. Information overload: TV news, online news, Facebook and other social media, constantly pumping out thousands and thousands of gallons of stuff 24 hours a day, most of which is crap. It's no wonder that people have short attention spans (and memories) and either don't stop to think about things, or turn the flow of information off and try to ignore it 2. Every controversy is subject to a huge amount of instant "analysis" and spin, often 'whataboutery' in nature. He said this... no he didn't... when she said this she actually meant this... it wasn't nice but whatabout that other thing that X said - it was worse... etc, etc 3. Public opinion of politicians is now so low that virtually any rubbish they can come out with runs the risk of being dismissed with resigned tutting 4. There are so many outlets available to so many people with hair-trigger tempers that anything anyone ever says now is swamped by an instant tidal wave of outrage, whether genuine or concocted - making it more difficult than ever to sift through it all for evidence of what is truly egregious
Who is making secret recordings of NEC meetings? Is that standard procedure? Or just a sign of paranoia?
They're trying to live up to John F. Kennedy, without the rampaging sex life (so far as we know)?
I would have thought, more seriously, that such meetings were recorded in order to allow the more accurate compilation of minutes later. A more interesting question is how Sky got hold of it - and what implications that has for splits on the NEC.
From the point of the Deputy Leader of Welsh Labour, the quarrels over antisemitism are at least ensuring her attempt to frame an innocent women won’t get much public notice.
From the point of the Deputy Leader of Welsh Labour, the quarrels over antisemitism are at least ensuring her attempt to frame an innocent women won’t get much public notice.
Thought I better ask the witch finder general on here.
They are of course free to raise whatever they want. Provided that they understand that others might also want to raise issues about how they treat others - Palestinian Christians, for instance. Or about what they use as teaching materials in their schools. Or about the fact that the Palestinian authorities reward people who kill Jews. About what happens to the money which is paid by many European governments to the Palestinian authorities. And so on. It's not a one-way street, this free speech business.
Who is making secret recordings of NEC meetings? Is that standard procedure? Or just a sign of paranoia?
If they are minuting the meetings then it isn’t uncommon to record meetings, especially with most phones being able to be used as dictaphones.
But would it be common to keep those audio files for 2 years? If you record for minuting purposes, you would surely delete once the minutes have been approved.
Who is making secret recordings of NEC meetings? Is that standard procedure? Or just a sign of paranoia?
If they are minuting the meetings then it isn’t uncommon to record meetings, especially with most phones being able to be used as dictaphones.
But would it be common to keep those audio files for 2 years? If you record for minuting purposes, you would surely delete once the minutes have been approved.
Not if somebody ambitious/powerful is being a twat......
Thought you would have mentioned stabbing his brother in the back trope.
Why? He was a far better leader than his brother would have been, and David Miliband had at least three perfectly good chances to become leader, all of which he spectacularly failed to take.
And in many ways, he was a good leader. He had imagination, although his understanding of the life of 'ordinary' people was rather less good than he thought. His proposals were original, and some of them have been adopted. That's why I felt able to vote for the Labour Party he led with a clear conscience, in a way I couldn't for Corbyn.
However, he did sometimes come across as rather arrogant and patronising, which would have been OK if he'd been knowledgeable as well (he wasn't). It did rile me, the way Bromptonaut can. More importantly, perhaps, given he was up against an unabashed showman in Cameron, he lacked flair. When listening to him speak I never quite got away from the feeling that he was a junior lawyer setting out a basic case, rather than a senior politician enthused with a vision for the country. When he tried to get away from it, did he make matters worse? Hell yes, he made matters worse!
Shallow, I know, but many voters who don't take as much interest in politics as we do will just have seen this last bit, and not everything else. However, compared to what we have at this moment...
I pointed this out a few days ago. The Chakrabati report which Corbyn accepted said that terms such as Zio-Nazis was unacceptable. Corbyn also went on the record saying that Labour would adopt the IRHA code in full. Labour are now resiling from those positions because they have realised that they would need to discipline quite a lot of people, including Seamus Milne and probably also Corbyn himself.
They thought that the Chakrabati report would close matters down. It hasn't and now they've realised that what it recommends and what they accepted limits them in what they can say. Hence all the nonsense now about claiming that calling someone a Zio-Nazi is absolutely fine unless you intend to be anti-semitic and the fact of calling someone that is not, absolutely not, no sirree, no evidence at all of anti-semitic intent.
From the point of the Deputy Leader of Welsh Labour, the quarrels over antisemitism are at least ensuring her attempt to frame an innocent women won’t get much public notice.
Surely the only way to be certain that he didn't break the rules would be to have a proper investigation.
Or does that only apply when it isn't one of your mates?
They really can't see how bad this makes them look, can they?
Having just watched the BBC news for the first time in months, it hardly received the prominence there that it might have among politics aficionados. The calculation that losing some Jewish votes is worthwhile for the wider electoral benefits is probably the correct one from a vote harvesting perspective. If not from a party that is a moral crusade or nothing. Although again one could take the view that the leadership are not of or with that party.
General point I was making yesterday: most voters probably haven't noticed any of the whole antisemitism brouhaha, and most of the ones who have would probably effect to care about it if asked by a journalist or a pollster (just so that they can make themselves appear righteous to a stranger) when in fact they aren't bothered one way or another. Of the remainder, it's probable that more people either approve of Jew baiting, or don't but think it's just a smear, than are actually put off Labour by all of this. These events may even have helped rather than hindered Labour's electoral prospects.
People typically vote for things that they feel will affect them or their loved ones. There aren't that many Jews in Britain: they're not even half of one percent of the population, and consequently most of the rest of the electorate has no Jewish relatives or close friends, either. So most voters don't really notice Jews or care about them. Or am I just being overly cynical again?
The bigger problem is that it's not a news story whose importance and vileness you can explain easily in more than a couple of minutes without some previous grounding in a) the real far, conspiracist left, b) Corbyn's past in that milieu, c) The nature of their animus against Israel and Jews and why it goes beyond being upset about Palestinians and d) Internal Labour politics and all the nonsense that goes with it.
It's just not as easy a story to tell as 'Tory right-winger does a racism' - a type of prejudice that most people are familiar with, and doesn't require a bit of knowledge about why hardcore Marxism has always had a bit of a problem with Jews to work out why the nice old duffer (who may be useless, but probably means well) with the allotment is being accused of allowing and endorsing really nasty racism, to understand.
I pointed this out a few days ago. The Chakrabati report which Corbyn accepted said that terms such as Zio-Nazis was unacceptable. Corbyn also went on the record saying that Labour would adopt the IRHA code in full. Labour are now resiling from those positions because they have realised that they would need to discipline quite a lot of people, including Seamus Milne and probably also Corbyn himself.
They thought that the Chakrabati report would close matters down. It hasn't and now they've realised that what it recommends and what they accepted limits them in what they can say. Hence all the nonsense now about claiming that calling someone a Zio-Nazi is absolutely fine unless you intend to be anti-semitic and the fact of calling someone that is not, absolutely not, no sirree, no evidence at all of anti-semitic intent.
I would say this is when Labour jumped the shark.
But really, they've jumped so many sharks in the last three years it's becoming impossible to keep up. If they started with Jaws, they're now on about Jaws 1,746,243.
From the point of the Deputy Leader of Welsh Labour, the quarrels over antisemitism are at least ensuring her attempt to frame an innocent women won’t get much public notice.
The acquittal means that Carolyn Harris MP lied, and tried to get an innocent woman (or in Carolyn’s words “a dyke”) convicted.
Big questions need to be asked of Welsh Labour. For example, how did such a monster ever become an MP, let alone Deputy Leader?
So, not content with pissing off the Jews, the Labour Party moves onto pissing off the LGBT community.
Still, it will play well with the roof-top chuckers.....
That is an extremely strange story on absolutely every level.
For our legal eagles - is it not an offence to instruct somebody to forge your own signature on financial returns? The reason I ask is because that is what it appears the jury believe Ms Harris has done.
Comments
The respondents who put leaving the EU ahead of the NI peace process could easily have been thinking any of the following:
1. We don't care about Northern Ireland, let it burn
2. We do care about Northern Ireland, but we're not about to be blackmailed by terrorists and the security services will make short work of them anyway
3. We see no realistic possibility of a return to violence, so of course we're going to jump the way we want to, because the alternative just isn't going to happen
The question itself is also couched in blackmailing terms, of course. It hypothetically holds Northern Ireland to ransom and asks the voters if they are willing to pay up or not. I'm not at all sure that a mode of politics that consists entirely of one group of people using threats to try to force another group into compliance is a road that we want to travel any further down than we have already.
Two more observations:
1. Let us imagine instead that we asked both Leave and Remain voters whether they thought that Britain should jettison Northern Ireland, whether by calving it off as a separate state or giving it to Leo Varadkar as a birthday present. Which segment of the electorate is, on average, more likely to have Irish Republican sympathies and to want to throw the DUP overboard because they detest them? No prizes for guessing on that one.
2. As a general point, it might be best not to drag Scotland into this as well. In the last couple of days we've had Brexit, antisemitism, Israel-Palestine and now Northern Ireland to deal with. I'm afraid that throwing any more combustible material into the mix may result in an uncontrollable blaze.
Also, there is no forthcoming election in which Leave is likely to be a party, nor Banks or Farage a candidate.
https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2018/07/how-brexiteers-can-still-save-brexit/
That's my point. Any attempt to claim that the Northern Ireland polling is about the rule of law runs into the separate and clear polling that shows English Leavers will sacrifice either Northern Ireland or Scotland if that is needed for Brexit. So we can dispense with 2 and 3 and go straight to 1.
I think the poll just about sums up the short sighted, short memoried, selfish people who call themselves brexiteers (not all I hasten to add....don't want to upset too many).
I'd like to know whence that certainty. It's a big claim, and to my mind, supported by nothing more than wishful thinking in May's competence.
"Ulster will fight and Ulster will be right" was uttered by a Tory not by a Fenian. The Tories - and others - learnt the hard way that it wasn't just Unionists who could and would fight. The Troubles did not just start in 1968, much as it might be convenient for some to think so.
Two weeks on the Continent loads of locals talked to, the B word not mentioned once.
On here, and the press, project raving fear jacked up to eleven on a scale of ten. A few dozen possible, terrorists (who surely were supposed to give all their weapons up years ago) are to be appeased by 17 million votes in the ballot box? Yeah right. Also no food, no drugs, no industry, no planes. However, I shall not be worrying in the slightest about any of that because if I believe all I read my genitals will have been eaten by a Brexit super clap.
It’s just ridiculous. The sun will rise whatever in March 30th.
Seumas Milne, however? He's a grade A jew-hater of the first water. Prove me wrong.
Electorally, the Tories own Brexit and will be punished accordingly. Indeed the destruction of the Tory party is about the only clear benefit of Brexit IMO.
Now, let's reverse this silly question and ask what a panel of Remainers would do if confronted with the following scenario: Leave the EU as per the vote, or Remain - at the cost of thirty or so hardcore Europhobes taking up arms and trying to start a civil war. Are you seriously suggesting that 100% of them would say: "Oh, fine then. We never really liked Jean-Claude that much anyway." Because that is basically the same type of question that is being asked in the meaningless poll at the top of this thread. Firstly, Northern Ireland is not a powder-keg about to go off if Leave voters don't give in to what you would like - and they are entitled to view the question in those terms - and secondly, they are also entitled not to give in to blackmail.
Job done, as far as Corbyn's Labour is concerned.
How do you explain it?
But that’s a long way from saying he is the “real terrorist”.
He was a member of the Cabinet, Solicitor-General for Ireland and one of the few non royals in history to have been given a full State funeral in the U.K. That alone suggests he wasn’t perceived as a terrorist by the U.K.
Two separate Guardianista workers at my office today mentioned it (separately) and how it’s ruining people’s lives.
It’s started to cost people their jobs.
I fear this tedious identity politics is the future and it has ruined pb. Let's get back to talking about how brexit will do more economic damage to the UK more than Corbyn could.
Little wonder McDonnell reportedly wants the disciplinary action against Mrs Hodge called off. If the lawyers stay involved there is so much material about all the people Corbyn has allied with, spoken with, attended rallies with, invited to Parliament, travelled on foreign trips with etc who are anti-semitic, virulently so in some cases, that Mrs Hodge could use to justify her comments against Corbyn that it would be deeply embarrassing, at best, even for Corbyn and his fans.
Does this make him an anti-semite? Possibly, if only be default. But the leader of a major party in the UK and candidate for the office of PM really should not be as narrow minded, ignorant and stupid as to behave like this. He is not fit to hold the office that he does and Labour really should be ashamed of itself.
Does that not sound anti-Semitic to you?
There are three strains of anti-semitism which are making this a particular problem:
(1) the first is the Israel-Palestine issue where some on the Palestinian side are anti-semitic, whether because of religion or because of what they think of Israel or both;
(2) the second, which is being overlooked, is that amongst the far Left there is a belief that the evils of capitalism are not down to structural issues re how societies/economies are run/organised but down to individuals or groups of individuals who are oppressors. Jews are seen as capitalists (an echo of the "Jews are usurers" trope familiar to everyone from the Middle Ages on) and oppressors and therefore this analysis of anti-capitalism very easily shades into anti-semitic tropes of evil oppressing bankers - the infamous mural is an example of this;
(3) Jews are seen as Western and white and cosmopolitan and too allied with America and modernity. Some of this also comes from Russian, specifically Soviet opposition to the West and America and Jews. This is a particular strain of far Left thinking which took inspiration from the Soviet view of the world and has not moved on. If you are against the West and America it is not hard to find yourself including Jews in your general group of people to oppose.
Corbyn and his followers to a greater or lesser extent share all three of these views. They have spent all their political lives amongst groups and people who think like this. That is why when they see a mural like the one which recently caused Corbyn so much trouble they literally cannot see the anti-semitism, the anti-Jewishness contained within it. To them this is normal political discourse. This is the political world they have been living in all their political lives. This is their normality. They are right. Everyone else must be wrong. And from that point, it is not hard for people who live in a conspiratorial world, to see conspiracies against them, Jewish conspiracies to do them - they who are so good (in their own minds) - down. It cannot be otherwise.
I didn't know that their influence was such that it made so many of Corbyn's friends and followers say anti-Semitic shit.
It's perfectly possible to criticise Israel and not be anti-Semitic. The fact so many are going the wrong side of the line - sometimes massively over - is a problem with them, not anyone or anything external. It is their malaise.
The Unionists, so prone to take the moral high ground against Fenians and then the IRA, do not have clean hands, going all the way back to over a century ago. That is Mr Smithson's point - and it is a good one, regardless of the relative merits of Carson over Craig.
People typically vote for things that they feel will affect them or their loved ones. There aren't that many Jews in Britain: they're not even half of one percent of the population, and consequently most of the rest of the electorate has no Jewish relatives or close friends, either. So most voters don't really notice Jews or care about them. Or am I just being overly cynical again?
We shouldnt do brexit because the terrorists might come back in Northern Ireland?
The lesson you want to give those that want to leave the eu is really that the gun is more important than the ballot box?
You haven't thought this through have you? Telling 17 odd million people the way to get what they want is to blow people up and shoot people?
There isn't much more to say about the issue in Labour beyond this point as long as a small no. of actual semites in Labour like that nutter in Bognor Regis being dealt with.
Everything else is just usual Labour factionalism.
Fabian Hamilton who is Jewish thought Margaret Hodge's conduct was out of order.
I think it could significantly depress turnout of idealistic younger voters who wouldn’t dream of voting Tory.
The Labour base is so called socially aware middle upper classes and the working class. If the socially aware ignore all this and keep voting Labour then the country has an even larger problem. With these views Labour should become a pariah party to these people. Time will tell.
1. Information overload: TV news, online news, Facebook and other social media, constantly pumping out thousands and thousands of gallons of stuff 24 hours a day, most of which is crap. It's no wonder that people have short attention spans (and memories) and either don't stop to think about things, or turn the flow of information off and try to ignore it
2. Every controversy is subject to a huge amount of instant "analysis" and spin, often 'whataboutery' in nature. He said this... no he didn't... when she said this she actually meant this... it wasn't nice but whatabout that other thing that X said - it was worse... etc, etc
3. Public opinion of politicians is now so low that virtually any rubbish they can come out with runs the risk of being dismissed with resigned tutting
4. There are so many outlets available to so many people with hair-trigger tempers that anything anyone ever says now is swamped by an instant tidal wave of outrage, whether genuine or concocted - making it more difficult than ever to sift through it all for evidence of what is truly egregious
What's the solution? Damned if I know.
I would have thought, more seriously, that such meetings were recorded in order to allow the more accurate compilation of minutes later. A more interesting question is how Sky got hold of it - and what implications that has for splits on the NEC.
https://twitter.com/humanpilot/status/1024367740591779840?s=20
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-politics-45021023
The acquittal means that Carolyn Harris MP lied, and tried to get an innocent woman (or in Carolyn’s words “a dyke”) convicted.
Big questions need to be asked of Welsh Labour. For example, how did such a monster ever become an MP, let alone Deputy Leader?
Is this anti-Semitic ?
Thought I better ask the witch finder general on here.
It's like yearning for that long Edwardian pre-war summer, when there really was still honey for tea!!! *
* I know modern historians are not too keen on this version of pre-war life.
https://twitter.com/OzKaterji/status/1024362778465918977
I mean, who knew?
But now we have audio.
And in many ways, he was a good leader. He had imagination, although his understanding of the life of 'ordinary' people was rather less good than he thought. His proposals were original, and some of them have been adopted. That's why I felt able to vote for the Labour Party he led with a clear conscience, in a way I couldn't for Corbyn.
However, he did sometimes come across as rather arrogant and patronising, which would have been OK if he'd been knowledgeable as well (he wasn't). It did rile me, the way Bromptonaut can. More importantly, perhaps, given he was up against an unabashed showman in Cameron, he lacked flair. When listening to him speak I never quite got away from the feeling that he was a junior lawyer setting out a basic case, rather than a senior politician enthused with a vision for the country. When he tried to get away from it, did he make matters worse? Hell yes, he made matters worse!
Shallow, I know, but many voters who don't take as much interest in politics as we do will just have seen this last bit, and not everything else. However, compared to what we have at this moment...
They thought that the Chakrabati report would close matters down. It hasn't and now they've realised that what it recommends and what they accepted limits them in what they can say. Hence all the nonsense now about claiming that calling someone a Zio-Nazi is absolutely fine unless you intend to be anti-semitic and the fact of calling someone that is not, absolutely not, no sirree, no evidence at all of anti-semitic intent.
Those pre-war summers?
Still, it will play well with the roof-top chuckers.....
It's just not as easy a story to tell as 'Tory right-winger does a racism' - a type of prejudice that most people are familiar with, and doesn't require a bit of knowledge about why hardcore Marxism has always had a bit of a problem with Jews to work out why the nice old duffer (who may be useless, but probably means well) with the allotment is being accused of allowing and endorsing really nasty racism, to understand.
But really, they've jumped so many sharks in the last three years it's becoming impossible to keep up. If they started with Jaws, they're now on about Jaws 1,746,243.
https://twitter.com/perlmutations/status/1024000997868204032
For our legal eagles - is it not an offence to instruct somebody to forge your own signature on financial returns? The reason I ask is because that is what it appears the jury believe Ms Harris has done.