Categories
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Just 19% of LAB voters believe Israel’s more to blame for the
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Just 19% of LAB voters believe Israel’s more to blame for the lack progress on Middle East peace than the Palestinians
Sure the Deltapoll for Prospect finds that three times as many LAB voters than CON ones blame Israel but it is the huge “both equally” numbers that are a surprise. Here as the chart shows there’s really not that much difference between supporters of the two main parties and the whole sample.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Which is a convenient distraction, because otherwise it might just be noticed that they can't remotely agree a coherent position to offer the voters on the biggest domestic issue for forty years.....
Corbyn has taken sides, long ago, and always had desire to weave the Arab/Israeli conflict strongly into his politics. The Arab/Israeli conflict is already growing in British politics, he is not alone in taking a side, this year a Tory cabinet minister was sacked for being ostentatious with her bias. OGH doesn’t hide his either.
Politically, is it risk to speak up for a cause either a silent majority or vociferous minority around you don’t support, Politics being the art of the possible, anything else too revolutionary? Or to do so is in fact courage, leadership? This is the question, and I refer not just to Corbyn but the other two individuals I mentioned in previous paragraph, they are all in it together.
Whilst having a bias Corbyn tries to pass himself off as a peace-monger, in that regard just makes himself look ridiculous.
Instead Corbyn should copy me, and say “I have to recognise race, as its scientific fact, likewise I have to recognise religion, as it is historical and cultural fact, I can ignore all of those aspects though, and just treat people as people.
But I can’t ignore injustice.”
Given only 25% of Labour voters can pick a side in the matter it does seem very far away from the concerns of the average voter. I suspect the activist base has a view that is firmer and less nuanced.
Excellent thread header, nevertheless. Most people don't give a toss, which probably also means this doesn't hurt Corbyn all that much.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2018/08/26/arizona-senate-candidate-suggests-mccain-timed-his-pre-death-announcement-hurt-her-campaign/
While Corbyn is accustomed to talking nonsense, I don’t think that particular bit quite fits with his worldview.
*[not a betrayal, but it’s the only word Leavers understand as a synonym of “inconsistent with the spirit of”]
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_gas_in_the_Gaza_Strip
https://www.theguardian.com/money/2018/aug/27/londoners-selling-up-in-record-numbers-to-move-north
You asked whether the Wars of The Roses were worth it.
My question would be, 'which of the wars are you talking about?'
The first war (1455-64) removed an ineffective and bankrupt monarch from the throne, but at enormous cost and without restoring stability. However the second war (1469-71) resolved many of those issues and saw England returned to peace and prosperity under a vigorous and intelligent king. (He was also a drunken sex maniac, but that didn't make him an ineffective monarch unlike the sober, continent Henry VI.)
To give you some idea of his achievement when Edward IV became King in 1461 there was a deficit of £9000 a year. In 1483 he actually left no debts and a modest cash surplus (unfortunately not quite enough to pay for his funeral). That was some achievement and the country benefitted hugely from the return to prosperity and the end of heavy taxation.
The third war was in every way a disaster. Totally unnecessary, caused solely by Richard III's greed and ambition, it severely damaged the social and political fabric of England, almost destroyed the monarchy and caused thousands of deaths. True, it brought Henry VII to the throne who was an efficient King (although not necessarily more so than Richard would have been had Richard been the rightful king not a usurper) but it also led to Henry VIII who was not a good king and whose achievements were mostly destructive.
So overall, probably not. But the first two did happen not because everyone wanted a fight but because there were no options left for restoring the system of government.
I think, in contrast, his anti-Semitism (which is just a peculiarly unpleasant form of racism) has damaged him somewhat, especially his vile comments about people who had lived here all their lives but still didn't get British irony. This is not about some slightly mad and very violent foreigners, it is about British citizens and implies that they do not belong.
That said, this is a classic demonstration of how the supposed power of social media can be massively overrated. Those who find him contemptible, and I am one, focus on each new demonstration of the same flaw and think surely now all decent people in Labour will disown this wretch. Those who choose to support him regard his own words as an unfair smear and play ever more attenuated word games trying to deny the obvious. They do this because ultimately they don't care and think Corbyn's views on many other matters are more important and need to be supported. Very few change, much sound and fury, very little effect.
I look at America where the Democrats and the Republicans seem to become ever more separate nations with very little in common and contempt for the other. The late John McCain was one who could and did reach out but there are increasingly few.
Your thread header title is very misleading. It should state: "Just 25% of LAB voters take sides on who is to blame for the lack of progress on Middle East peace" That is the key message, and this percentage is little different from those for other parties.
However, of those LAB voters who do take sides, 76% believe Israel is more to blame compared to 24% who believe the Palestinians are more to blame. I suspect that includes many politically engaged activists, and that Corbyn's anti-Zionist stance is popular with Labour members. The LDs show a similar bias, and if Layla Moran becomes their leader, they will also become a target of the Zionist lobby.
Given that most British voters show little concern about this matter, as is evidenced by the lack of impact on Labour's vote share in opinion polls of the attack by the right (including Bliarites) on Corbyn, it would be preferable if there were fewer future threads on this topic.
Wonga 'considering all options' as compensation claims surge
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-45313958
I do wonder if part of the Lib Dem struggle is down to the fact that Corbyn in some ways is a tricky leader for them to combat. His foreign policy views on things like Iraq, the UN, human rights etc. must match with a significant subset of their voters.
In seeking such a compromise deal the government is indeed seeking to address the concerns of those who wanted to remain and are apprehensive about what we would lose by our departure. The fact that you and a few others simply cannot be reconciled to the decision that has been taken does not depart from that. There will be more in the current deal for most remainers than there will be for most leavers but it will hopefully attract a majority made up of both camps and allow us to move on.
Going forward, it will be up to successive governments and electorates to decide if we want to move even closer to the EU or to move away. As this has become party politicised to some extent, Corbyn apart, we might find ourselves going back and forward in the way we used to privatise and nationalise the steel industry. But I suspect that our political class will be faced with high walls of indifference either way.
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/16600536.mark-smith-the-uncomfortable-truths-weve-learned-from-the-alex-salmond-claims/
And, from my own experience of representing a London ward for over twenty years, I know both anecdotally and from our own data records, which I analysed each year for the new register, that those dropping off the register (deaths only accounting for about 10%) were disproportionately Tory or LibDem leaning home owners and those arriving turned out to be Labour-leaning tenants. Indeed in my own ward (c. 5,000 addresses) between the 2001 and 2011 censuses one property shifted from owner-occupied to tenanted on average every three days or so.
What I find interesting is the position of Nicola. She has known and worked with this man for decades and must have a detailed knowledge of any foibles that he might have exhibited. She is taking her role as FM very seriously and playing this by the book. Whilst that is the correct thing to do her lack of character witness support for him is very telling.
https://twitter.com/AmberRuddHR/status/1033972918190047233
I think, though, it would be hilarious to change the rules and Swinson or whoever ends up winning anyway.
For instance, say I was accused of touching person B's bottom at a party. I may not have seen the evidence against me, but I might know that the complaint was patently ridiculous because I know I was not even at the party.
You don't need to see the evidence to know the complaint is untrue.
The Tory party usually gets into serious trouble when it falls pray to absolutists not pragmatists.
The nessecary due process in these investigations can be quite Kafkaesque. The broad thrust of the charges may be known without having had sight of all the details.
I have no knowledge as to whether there is truth to the allegations or not, but these investigations are difficult enough even without the light of publicity or political axes being ground. It should be kept confidential until completion.
https://twitter.com/EliDFriedman/status/1033754179947429889
Perhaps a silver lining might be that politicians begin to understand the situation ordinary people face if accused, whether guilty or not.
Edit: I see Ishmael_Z beat me to it.
Let it never be said that I'm backward on the petty, lowdown front..
We are a democratic party and while I am sure that the idea of widening the franchise is worth debating, it is far from certain that the Members will vote to dilute our own influence.
This country is full of half witted cretins nowadays, it is hard to explain how it can have gone downhill to the cesspit full of morons it is in such a short time.
PS: Unionist media have him tarred and feathered already.
She, Hammond et al may have done so believing it was their publ;ic duty but it could be argued that, back in 2016 they placed personal ambition..... to be PM, to be in Government.... before their beliefs.
They may argue that they are trying to mitihgate the effects of a poor decision but that still smacks of putting Party interests before those of the nation.
I would not deny that had had a Leaver become PM, and the Tory Remainers stood aside from Government our country might well have been in a worse state than it is now, but at least those at the top of Government would have been honest.
Unless Bojo had been PM, of course!
The Leave result was barely carried after a dishonest campaign. It probably wouldn't have got through if it had been honest. Mrs May is left having to deliver the undeliverable. She obviously isn't going to tell the electorate you were lied to. She has to maintain the fiction of a decent result while reality points the other way. For the same reason Brexiteers decline all responsibility for the Brexit outcome.
The EU has little incentive to quickly agree an end state arrangement unless the UK comes up with an offer it can't refuse. This is partly tactical - EU member states can take advantage of our uncertainty and it will probably get a better deal later. But also because the UK is clearly in no position to make any deal stick. The ultimate deal won't be much like Chequers, which only serves to indicate that compromise will happen. The Brexit poison will continue to infect the body politic.
Though for all I know outside the EU issue she might not be a fan of the LDs.
I do think that newspapers should qualify opinion writers’ articles with a list of their previous opinions so one can judge their accuracy.
If the organisers of a fringe meeting at Conference have invited Gina Miller to attend and speak, fine, no problem whatsoever. Her insight and perspective would be welcome and if she wants to join the party she'd be very welcome but I don't detect that as likely.
A little nit of mischief-making from the currant bun and kle4 on this - my feeling, speaking to LD members, is any move to broaden the franchise will be rejected though there's little issue with the notion of "registered supporters" and I imagine the more active areas will have something like that in place.
Let the investigation continue and come up with a result.
I do think Sturgeon has handled this well - and that she didn't have much alternative. It's also terrible for Salmond if the accusations are untrue; then again, it was also horrible for all the other MPs who have had accusations made against them that have been proved untrue.
Tories blame the Palestinians more and Labour and LD voters blame Israel is more but a majority of both their voters and a plurality of Labour voters agree that blame must be equally shared by both sides.
More seriously, accurately calling events is, I suspect, not a primary part of the role.
Politicians! Politicians! No apostrophe!
Write out 100 times...