And, unpleasant though he probably is (I never saw the video) it sticks in the craw to have an elected member of the NEC slung off for events that took place before his election. Either you believe in democracy or you don’t.
The new NEC doesn't take office until after the Conference - or at least that is what was said on here yesterday, I think.
Are the Tories running some secret discount scheme on memberships for ex-kippers this month? The fruitcake special?
Will the Conservatives launch an investigation into every new membership applicant to make sure they're not a secret UKIP supporter? That'll be very time consuming.
Mr. Glenn, the backstop agreed covered the whole UK. The backstop Barnier wants is for Northern Ireland only.
No it didn't. That's why paragraph 50 was inserted which gives gives Stormont a veto over any divergence on the part of Great Britain. This refers to regulatory barriers only:
In the absence of agreed solutions, as set out in the previous paragraph, the United Kingdom will ensure that no new regulatory barriers develop between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom, unless, consistent with the 1998 Agreement, the Northern Ireland Executive and Assembly agree that distinct arrangements are appropriate for Northern Ireland. In all circumstances, the United Kingdom will continue to ensure the same unfettered access for Northern Ireland's businesses to the whole of the United Kingdom internal market.
Does Stormont want such regulatory barriers?
It'd be nice if there was someone, anyone, there to ask.
And, unpleasant though he probably is (I never saw the video) it sticks in the craw to have an elected member of the NEC slung off for events that took place before his election. Either you believe in democracy or you don’t.
The new NEC doesn't take office until after the Conference - or at least that is what was said on here yesterday, I think.
Correct. The #JC8 plus Won'tbeallowedsman don't start the new NEC term until October.
Compromise? Might just be some guff emphasising that although Jeremy may have been friends with people who hate the Jews and has said some unfortunate things about Jews and is being supported by people screaming hate about the Jews the Labour Party is clear that Jeremy is a life-long anti-racism campaigner as demonstrated by his life long track record of being friends with people who hate the Jews etc
PM "just to get the job done" - then stand down. Party leadership battle before the next election - but not as a distraction to Brexit. Sounds quite plausible. Party can rally round - as it won't be Boris. Not yet, if at all.
It looks like Theresa May will rue the day she stepped in and took DD away from negotiating a Canada-style deal. As with Cameron before her, I feel she has been badly advised on Brexit by those close to her.
Chris Williamson seems to be on manoeuvres, and he's more Corbynistic than Corbyn. Of course, he's a pretty vile dickhead, from whom voters would run a mile, but such old-fashioned considerations aren't very relevant in the extremist cult which has taken over the Labour Party.
It's a long shot, obv. 100/1 would have been a great bet. I got a few quid on at 66/1, but I wouldn't want to go much lower than that.
I suspect that he is the reason why UKIP did very well in Derby North in this year's local election.
It's worth pointing out that under the proposed boundary changes, Derby gets reconfigured into a safe Labour Derby West (maj 13k) and a marginal Con Derby East (maj 2.5k). Williamson and Beckett would be going head to head for Derby W but at 75 she may retire anyway.
I think Ma Beckett needs to take every step she can to atone for lumbering Labour with Corbyn. Booting out Williamson would be a start.....
Harriet Harman's behaviour as Acting Leader was much more to blame. She opened the door for Corbyn.
And, unpleasant though he probably is (I never saw the video) it sticks in the craw to have an elected member of the NEC slung off for events that took place before his election. Either you believe in democracy or you don’t.
Didn't the story break in the middle of voting? Hence some people may well have voted differently if they had known earlier, but had already voted. It's an interesting edge-case.
Although given the state of Labour's membership atm, anti-Semitic comments would probably have increased his vote ...
PM "just to get the job done" - then stand down. Party leadership battle before the next election - but not as a distraction to Brexit. Sounds quite plausible. Party can rally round - as it won't be Boris. Not yet, if at all.
It looks like Theresa May will rue the day she stepped in and took DD away from negotiating a Canada-style deal. As with Cameron before her, I feel she has been badly advised on Brexit by those close to her.
I think the problem is that DD wasn't negotiating a Canada-style deal, or indeed any other kind of deal. He seems to have got completely bogged down. One gets the impression that Dominic Raab is much more pro-active, and things are now perhaps inching towards a settlement. Theresa May's and Jeremy Hunt's lobbying of the EU27 leaders directly has probably also helped.
PM "just to get the job done" - then stand down. Party leadership battle before the next election - but not as a distraction to Brexit. Sounds quite plausible. Party can rally round - as it won't be Boris. Not yet, if at all.
It looks like Theresa May will rue the day she stepped in and took DD away from negotiating a Canada-style deal. As with Cameron before her, I feel she has been badly advised on Brexit by those close to her.
I think the problem is that DD wasn't negotiating a Canada-style deal, or indeed any other kind of deal. He seems to have got completely bogged down. One gets the impression that Dominic Raab is much more pro-active, and things are now perhaps inching towards a settlement. Theresa May's and Jeremy Hunt's lobbying of the EU27 leaders directly has probably also helped.
Helped encourage Macron to kill off Chequers completely?
PM "just to get the job done" - then stand down. Party leadership battle before the next election - but not as a distraction to Brexit. Sounds quite plausible. Party can rally round - as it won't be Boris. Not yet, if at all.
It looks like Theresa May will rue the day she stepped in and took DD away from negotiating a Canada-style deal. As with Cameron before her, I feel she has been badly advised on Brexit by those close to her.
I think the problem is that DD wasn't negotiating a Canada-style deal, or indeed any other kind of deal. He seems to have got completely bogged down. One gets the impression that Dominic Raab is much more pro-active, and things are now perhaps inching towards a settlement. Theresa May's and Jeremy Hunt's lobbying of the EU27 leaders directly has probably also helped.
Helped encourage Macron to kill off Chequers completely?
Chequers is dead! Long live Chequers!
However, it is believed that the “zero tariffs, zero quota” offer made by Donald Tusk, the European council president, in March, along with fresh thinking on how to facilitate customs checks to reduce friction at the border, could be developed and packaged as a substantive counter-offer. “There is a lot that can be done to minimise checks,” said an EU diplomat. “What is an internal market in goods? A lot of this is semantics.”
PM "just to get the job done" - then stand down. Party leadership battle before the next election - but not as a distraction to Brexit. Sounds quite plausible. Party can rally round - as it won't be Boris. Not yet, if at all.
It looks like Theresa May will rue the day she stepped in and took DD away from negotiating a Canada-style deal. As with Cameron before her, I feel she has been badly advised on Brexit by those close to her.
I think the problem is that DD wasn't negotiating a Canada-style deal, or indeed any other kind of deal. He seems to have got completely bogged down. One gets the impression that Dominic Raab is much more pro-active, and things are now perhaps inching towards a settlement. Theresa May's and Jeremy Hunt's lobbying of the EU27 leaders directly has probably also helped.
Helped encourage Macron to kill off Chequers completely?
Chequers is dead! Long live Chequers!
However, it is believed that the “zero tariffs, zero quota” offer made by Donald Tusk, the European council president, in March, along with fresh thinking on how to facilitate customs checks to reduce friction at the border, could be developed and packaged as a substantive counter-offer. “There is a lot that can be done to minimise checks,” said an EU diplomat. “What is an internal market in goods? A lot of this is semantics.”
I think the name of the game is all about what the Brexit option will be in the second referendum. May wanted it to be a camouflaged BINO, but the EU doesn't like it, so instead we're heading for a vote between a GB-only Canada-style FTA and Remain.
Thats fine. Adopted in full with no exceptions. It doesn't undermine freedom of expression as (a) code says criticism is fine in proportion and (b) criticism not in proportion is not freedom of expression - hence the fuzz now investigating cases
As for inviting others to continue the consultation, that won't be the labour party. Which is the point.
"Multiple sources actually inside the meeting tell the SKWAWKBOX that the meeting is cordial and orderly, Willsman is calm and his position is in no way either attacked or threatened – in fact, he has not been mentioned at all as a topic for discussion."
Yeah, right. Even BJO would struggle to believe *that*.
PM "just to get the job done" - then stand down. Party leadership battle before the next election - but not as a distraction to Brexit. Sounds quite plausible. Party can rally round - as it won't be Boris. Not yet, if at all.
It looks like Theresa May will rue the day she stepped in and took DD away from negotiating a Canada-style deal. As with Cameron before her, I feel she has been badly advised on Brexit by those close to her.
I think the problem is that DD wasn't negotiating a Canada-style deal, or indeed any other kind of deal. He seems to have got completely bogged down. One gets the impression that Dominic Raab is much more pro-active, and things are now perhaps inching towards a settlement. Theresa May's and Jeremy Hunt's lobbying of the EU27 leaders directly has probably also helped.
Helped encourage Macron to kill off Chequers completely?
Chequers is dead! Long live Chequers!
However, it is believed that the “zero tariffs, zero quota” offer made by Donald Tusk, the European council president, in March, along with fresh thinking on how to facilitate customs checks to reduce friction at the border, could be developed and packaged as a substantive counter-offer. “There is a lot that can be done to minimise checks,” said an EU diplomat. “What is an internal market in goods? A lot of this is semantics.”
I think the name of the game is all about what the Brexit option will be in the second referendum. May wanted it to be a camouflaged BINO, but the EU doesn't like it, so instead we're heading for a vote between a GB-only Canada-style FTA and Remain.
Oh dear willliam, how disappointed you’re going to be when British politicians show you how British democracy works. Ask once, do what is asked.
I see people who've been screaming that Labour should adopt the IHRA definition for weeks, are now immediately moving the goalposts as soon as Labour has done just that.
I see people who've been screaming that Labour should adopt the IHRA definition for weeks, are now immediately moving the goalposts as soon as Labour has done just that.
I see people who've been screaming that Labour should adopt the IHRA definition for weeks, are now immediately moving the goalposts as soon as Labour has done just that.
I see people who've been screaming that Labour should adopt the IHRA definition for weeks, are now immediately moving the goalposts as soon as Labour has done just that.
PM "just to get the job done" - then stand down. Party leadership battle before the next election - but not as a distraction to Brexit. Sounds quite plausible. Party can rally round - as it won't be Boris. Not yet, if at all.
It looks like Theresa May will rue the day she stepped in and took DD away from negotiating a Canada-style deal. As with Cameron before her, I feel she has been badly advised on Brexit by those close to her.
I think the problem is that DD wasn't negotiating a Canada-style deal, or indeed any other kind of deal. He seems to have got completely bogged down. One gets the impression that Dominic Raab is much more pro-active, and things are now perhaps inching towards a settlement. Theresa May's and Jeremy Hunt's lobbying of the EU27 leaders directly has probably also helped.
But she has hitched her remaining scant credibility to the Chequers deal. A deal that had Cabinet ministers resigning - because they said it was unworkable. Now the EU say it is unworkable. She doesn't have the wriggle room to make Chequers workable.
So it is either No Deal - or it is something else she has already tried to scupper. Who in the Parliamentary Party is going to have the confidence in her to deliver a Brexit she has already actively worked to rubbish? Those who want to avoid No Deal (which to be fair is probably the bulk of the Conservative MPs) must be thinking very hard about a DD caretaker PM. He knows the issues, he knows the players - and with the authority that comes with being PM, even pro tem, he could yet deliver something that is better than No Deal.
Thats fine. Adopted in full with no exceptions. It doesn't undermine freedom of expression as (a) code says criticism is fine in proportion and (b) criticism not in proportion is not freedom of expression - hence the fuzz now investigating cases
As for inviting others to continue the consultation, that won't be the labour party. Which is the point.
Isn't the problem that the IHRA definition isn't actually "too draconian" at all - it's actually the opposite.
Contrary to reporting, the definition doesn't say that the working examples are automatically antisemitic. It says that the examples "could" be antisemitic, "taking into account the overall context", without specifying what context would or would not clear the bar. Surely anybody accused of breaching any of the examples would be able to defend themselves (whether in an internal Labour disciplinary procedure, or a court battle) from antisemitism on the basis of any number of "contexts".
I see people who've been screaming that Labour should adopt the IHRA definition for weeks, are now immediately moving the goalposts as soon as Labour has done just that.
It also makes it all rather meaningless, as there will be obvious conflicts between what the IHRA says and what some anti-Semitic sick puppy thinks of as 'freedom of expression'.
I see people who've been screaming that Labour should adopt the IHRA definition for weeks, are now immediately moving the goalposts as soon as Labour has done just that.
But they haven't. They are wrapping up all sorts of caveats and unnecessary 'protections' into some form of 'Code of Conduct'
They are trying everything possible to avoid just adopting the definition and examples and then living by those rules.
PM "just to get the job done" - then stand down. Party leadership battle before the next election - but not as a distraction to Brexit. Sounds quite plausible. Party can rally round - as it won't be Boris. Not yet, if at all.
It looks like Theresa May will rue the day she stepped in and took DD away from negotiating a Canada-style deal. As with Cameron before her, I feel she has been badly advised on Brexit by those close to her.
I think the problem is that DD wasn't negotiating a Canada-style deal, or indeed any other kind of deal. He seems to have got completely bogged down. One gets the impression that Dominic Raab is much more pro-active, and things are now perhaps inching towards a settlement. Theresa May's and Jeremy Hunt's lobbying of the EU27 leaders directly has probably also helped.
But she has hitched her remaining scant credibility to the Chequers deal. A deal that had Cabinet ministers resigning - because they said it was unworkable. Now the EU say it is unworkable. She doesn't have the wriggle room to make Chequers workable.
So it is either No Deal - or it is something else she has already tried to scupper. Who in the Parliamentary Party is going to have the confidence in her to deliver a Brexit she has already actively worked to rubbish? Those who want to avoid No Deal (which to be fair is probably the bulk of the Conservative MPs) must be thinking very hard about a DD caretaker PM. He knows the issues, he knows the players - and with the authority that comes with being PM, even pro tem, he could yet deliver something that is better than No Deal.
And he was utterly useless. TM is going nowhere much as you may hope
I'd never read Skwawkbox before today. It's actually very funny. And a bit scary.
It's simply a propaganda outlet for ultra-Corbynism. And I mean true propaganda in the Pravda mould. One would think it a spoof were it not for the praise heaped upon it by Williamson et al.
The fact the MSM (hate that abbreviation) are then derided as the purveyors of fake news brings the absurdity of the situation into sharp relief.
I see people who've been screaming that Labour should adopt the IHRA definition for weeks, are now immediately moving the goalposts as soon as Labour has done just that.
But they haven't. They are wrapping up all sorts of caveats and unnecessary 'protections' into some form of 'Code of Conduct'
They are trying everything possible to avoid just adopting the definition and examples and then living by those rules.
What caveats? People (yourself included?) have been insisting the IHRA defintion doesn't prohibit freedom of expression on Israel/Palestine. So the issue to Labour also saying that is....?
(Also, as I said before, the IHRA definition itself is caveated)
PM "just to get the job done" - then stand down. Party leadership battle before the next election - but not as a distraction to Brexit. Sounds quite plausible. Party can rally round - as it won't be Boris. Not yet, if at all.
It looks like Theresa May will rue the day she stepped in and took DD away from negotiating a Canada-style deal. As with Cameron before her, I feel she has been badly advised on Brexit by those close to her.
I think the problem is that DD wasn't negotiating a Canada-style deal, or indeed any other kind of deal. He seems to have got completely bogged down. One gets the impression that Dominic Raab is much more pro-active, and things are now perhaps inching towards a settlement. Theresa May's and Jeremy Hunt's lobbying of the EU27 leaders directly has probably also helped.
But she has hitched her remaining scant credibility to the Chequers deal. A deal that had Cabinet ministers resigning - because they said it was unworkable. Now the EU say it is unworkable. She doesn't have the wriggle room to make Chequers workable.
So it is either No Deal - or it is something else she has already tried to scupper. Who in the Parliamentary Party is going to have the confidence in her to deliver a Brexit she has already actively worked to rubbish? Those who want to avoid No Deal (which to be fair is probably the bulk of the Conservative MPs) must be thinking very hard about a DD caretaker PM. He knows the issues, he knows the players - and with the authority that comes with being PM, even pro tem, he could yet deliver something that is better than No Deal.
You underestimate the powers of politicians to fudge things. 'Chequers' is short hand for a trade deal which includes zero tariffs, very low-impact bureaucracy on moving goods across the channel, no Irish hard boder, no automatic Freedom of Movement commitment, and minimal oversight by the ECJ, but with some theoretical ability to strike our own trade deals elsewhere. If she comes back with a deal which more or less implements that, she'll with sufficient justification be able to claim that it's a deal based on Chequers.
What's more, contrary to the fears of the nutjobs, we seem to be moving towards marginally less close-coupling with the EU than in the original Chequers text. Is that bad, within the Conservative Party?
Caveat: Of course we're only going on the odd leak and public posturing, so to a large extent everything is speculation.
I don't see a route to a 2nd referendum, I don't see the Commons accepting No Deal, I don't see the EU (or the Commons) accepting Chequers, I don't see the EU offering a Chequers-lite which will get the support of MPs or MEPs.
It has to be Norway? Maybe? Fuck knows.
That's the crazy thing about where we are. Something has to happen that seems completely implausible now. The only question is what.
I see people who've been screaming that Labour should adopt the IHRA definition for weeks, are now immediately moving the goalposts as soon as Labour has done just that.
But they haven't. They are wrapping up all sorts of caveats and unnecessary 'protections' into some form of 'Code of Conduct'
They are trying everything possible to avoid just adopting the definition and examples and then living by those rules.
What caveats? People (yourself included?) have been insisting the IHRA defintion doesn't prohibit freedom of expression on Israel/Palestine. So the issue to Labour also saying that is....?
(Also, as I said before, the IHRA definition itself is caveatted)
In the end if the Jewish community keep saying 'labour for the many not the Jew' it will not have gone away.
Thats fine. Adopted in full with no exceptions. It doesn't undermine freedom of expression as (a) code says criticism is fine in proportion and (b) criticism not in proportion is not freedom of expression - hence the fuzz now investigating cases
As for inviting others to continue the consultation, that won't be the labour party. Which is the point.
Isn't the problem that the IHRA definition isn't actually "too draconian" at all - it's actually the opposite.
Contrary to reporting, the definition doesn't say that the working examples are automatically antisemitic. It says that the examples "could" be antisemitic, "taking into account the overall context", without specifying what context would or would not clear the bar. Surely anybody accused of breaching any of the examples would be able to defend themselves (whether in an internal Labour disciplinary procedure, or a court battle) from antisemitism on the basis of any number of "contexts".
The Guardian quoted a lawyer that said the Labour party had improved on the examples, not watered them down as generally reported, but if that is true then they managed to epically mishandle the whole thing by not involving Jewish groups in the process.
I see people who've been screaming that Labour should adopt the IHRA definition for weeks, are now immediately moving the goalposts as soon as Labour has done just that.
But they haven't. They are wrapping up all sorts of caveats and unnecessary 'protections' into some form of 'Code of Conduct'
They are trying everything possible to avoid just adopting the definition and examples and then living by those rules.
What caveats? People (yourself included?) have been insisting the IHRA defintion doesn't prohibit freedom of expression on Israel/Palestine. So the issue to Labour also saying that is....?
That is the issue. There has never been a need for caveats or further explanation. But Labour has created a situation where they feel it necessary to add them.
They are just making the situation worse for themselves. And failing to satisfy their internal critics.
It's simply a propaganda outlet for ultra-Corbynism. And I mean true propaganda in the Pravda mould. One would think it a spoof were it not for the praise heaped upon it by Williamson et al.
The fact the MSM (hate that abbreviation) are then derided as the purveyors of fake news brings the absurdity of the situation into sharp relief.
If someone was talking about Fake News, say 18 months ago or so, you could assume they were talking about BS spread by idiots on social media. That assumption has changed very rapidly, the charge of Fake News is now usually directed at real news from established papers and broadcasters.
You almost need to say something like Real Fake News (for the nonsense) to separate it from what the likes of Trump call Fake News (truth published in newspapers of record).
PM "just to get the job done" - then stand down. Party leadership battle before the next election - but not as a distraction to Brexit. Sounds quite plausible. Party can rally round - as it won't be Boris. Not yet, if at all.
It looks like Theresa May will rue the day she stepped in and took DD away from negotiating a Canada-style deal. As with Cameron before her, I feel she has been badly advised on Brexit by those close to her.
I think the problem is that DD wasn't negotiating a Canada-style deal, or indeed any other kind of deal. He seems to have got completely bogged down. One gets the impression that Dominic Raab is much more pro-active, and things are now perhaps inching towards a settlement. Theresa May's and Jeremy Hunt's lobbying of the EU27 leaders directly has probably also helped.
But she has hitched her remaining scant credibility to the Chequers deal. A deal that had Cabinet ministers resigning - because they said it was unworkable. Now the EU say it is unworkable. She doesn't have the wriggle room to make Chequers workable.
So it is either No Deal - or it is something else she has already tried to scupper. Who in the Parliamentary Party is going to have the confidence in her to deliver a Brexit she has already actively worked to rubbish? Those who want to avoid No Deal (which to be fair is probably the bulk of the Conservative MPs) must be thinking very hard about a DD caretaker PM. He knows the issues, he knows the players - and with the authority that comes with being PM, even pro tem, he could yet deliver something that is better than No Deal.
And he was utterly useless. TM is going nowhere much as you may hope
Theresa May is working her notice. Her end date hasn't yet been decided, but the EU rejecting Chequers has hastened her end.
PM "just to get the job done" - then stand down. Party leadership battle before the next election - but not as a distraction to Brexit. Sounds quite plausible. Party can rally round - as it won't be Boris. Not yet, if at all.
It looks like Theresa May will rue the day she stepped in and took DD away from negotiating a Canada-style deal. As with Cameron before her, I feel she has been badly advised on Brexit by those close to her.
I think the problem is that DD wasn't negotiating a Canada-style deal, or indeed any other kind of deal. He seems to have got completely bogged down. One gets the impression that Dominic Raab is much more pro-active, and things are now perhaps inching towards a settlement. Theresa May's and Jeremy Hunt's lobbying of the EU27 leaders directly has probably also helped.
But she has hitched her remaining scant credibility to the Chequers deal. A deal that had Cabinet ministers resigning - because they said it was unworkable. Now the EU say it is unworkable. She doesn't have the wriggle room to make Chequers workable.
So it is either No Deal - or it is something else she has already tried to scupper. Who in the Parliamentary Party is going to have the confidence in her to deliver a Brexit she has already actively worked to rubbish? Those who want to avoid No Deal (which to be fair is probably the bulk of the Conservative MPs) must be thinking very hard about a DD caretaker PM. He knows the issues, he knows the players - and with the authority that comes with being PM, even pro tem, he could yet deliver something that is better than No Deal.
And he was utterly useless. TM is going nowhere much as you may hope
Theresa May is working her notice. Her end date hasn't yet been decided, but the EU rejecting Chequers has hastened her end.
Seems she has been working her notice since the last GE. She will see Brexit through but after that I hope she stands down.
I know we don't have a definitive press release confirming what has happened at the NEC today - but it looks like it is a position that is angering all sides:
Surely if you were sensible and serious on this issue that IHRA needs improving (which makes you wonder why so many other organization adopt it) you would immediately adopt it and then say we are putting this out to an independent panel of experts to make recommendations for improvements and we will accept their recommendations in full.
Instead months of dragging it out and now some caveats.
I know we don't have a definitive press release confirming what has happened at the NEC today - but it looks like it is a position that is angering all sides:
I know we don't have a definitive press release confirming what has happened at the NEC today - but it looks like it is a position that is angering all sides:
And BTW, before any of our more addled Labour supporters on here say something:
I fully expect Islamaphobia to rear its ugly head in the Conservative Party in a big way before the next GE. However at least it won't be rotting from its head, at least if May is still PM.
If I were the Conservatives, I'd be looking at the mess Labour have got themselves in and ensuring the rulebook is very clear and is being applied. And the requested inquiry might be a CYA idea as well ...
That is the issue. There has never been a need for caveats or further explanation.
Why does the IHRA definition have the huge caveat of "taking into account the overall context", then?
They are fools.
Just adopt it and no caveats at all, and then expel those who do not comply
Easy isn't it
Their problem is that if they had acted years ago, there would have been no need for this. They probably wouldn't have had to adopt the IHRA definition at all. However the definition has become so totemic, certainly within the Jewish community itself (so I understand), that any weaseling or fudging just feeds the flames.
I know we don't have a definitive press release confirming what has happened at the NEC today - but it looks like it is a position that is angering all sides:
I know we don't have a definitive press release confirming what has happened at the NEC today - but it looks like it is a position that is angering all sides:
And, unpleasant though he probably is (I never saw the video) it sticks in the craw to have an elected member of the NEC slung off for events that took place before his election. Either you believe in democracy or you don’t.
The new NEC doesn't take office until after the Conference - or at least that is what was said on here yesterday, I think.
Yes, but he’s been elected to it.
If they had a problem with him they should have kicked him out of the party before the election
Now the members have voted for him it looks like an old fashioned stitch up
That is the issue. There has never been a need for caveats or further explanation.
Why does the IHRA definition have the huge caveat of "taking into account the overall context", then?
They are fools.
Just adopt it and no caveats at all
So now you're saying that Labour SHOULDN'T include the caveat that the IHRA definition includes? #goalpostmoving
You know what I mean
No I don't. The IHRA definition implicitly says that it's not antisemitic for someone to compare Israeli policy to the Nazis, in certain circumstances, if there is a suitable "context". Do you agree with that?
I know we don't have a definitive press release confirming what has happened at the NEC today - but it looks like it is a position that is angering all sides:
That is the issue. There has never been a need for caveats or further explanation.
Why does the IHRA definition have the huge caveat of "taking into account the overall context", then?
They are fools.
Just adopt it and no caveats at all, and then expel those who do not comply
Easy isn't it
Their problem is that if they had acted years ago, there would have been no need for this. They probably wouldn't have had to adopt the IHRA definition at all. However the definition has become so totemic, certainly within the Jewish community itself (so I understand), that any weaseling or fudging just feeds the flames.
If they had acted years ago, would Corbyn have ever become leader? Or would he have been kicked out for breaking the rules long before he was nominated?
This whole mess centres around protecting the Leader not doing what is right.
And, unpleasant though he probably is (I never saw the video) it sticks in the craw to have an elected member of the NEC slung off for events that took place before his election. Either you believe in democracy or you don’t.
Didn't the story break in the middle of voting? Hence some people may well have voted differently if they had known earlier, but had already voted. It's an interesting edge-case.
Although given the state of Labour's membership atm, anti-Semitic comments would probably have increased his vote ...
4 days after it started I think. But the start second guessing voting patterns looks like special pleading.
It sucks that Labour has come to this. But it’s time for any moderates with dignity to leave if they can’t win back control.
That is the issue. There has never been a need for caveats or further explanation.
Why does the IHRA definition have the huge caveat of "taking into account the overall context", then?
They are fools.
Just adopt it and no caveats at all
So now you're saying that Labour SHOULDN'T include the caveat that the IHRA definition includes? #goalpostmoving
You know what I mean
No I don't. The IHRA definition implicitly says that it's not antisemitic for someone to compare Israeli policy to the Nazis, in certain circumstances, if there is a suitable "context". Do you agree with that?
I am not getting drawn into discussing something that seems to be Ken Livingstone's subject
And, unpleasant though he probably is (I never saw the video) it sticks in the craw to have an elected member of the NEC slung off for events that took place before his election. Either you believe in democracy or you don’t.
Didn't the story break in the middle of voting? Hence some people may well have voted differently if they had known earlier, but had already voted. It's an interesting edge-case.
Although given the state of Labour's membership atm, anti-Semitic comments would probably have increased his vote ...
4 days after it started I think. But the start second guessing voting patterns looks like special pleading.
It sucks that Labour has come to this. But it’s time for any moderates with dignity to leave if they can’t win back control.
They will cease to have any mechanism to win back control once the rule changes that are being planned go through.
A new left of centre party is the only hope for Labour moderates. At the moment, it is just lacking potential leaders of real personality, vision and skill - and any real sense of policy direction. Which does make it hard to create a new party. But it still needs to happen.
Richard Angell, director of Progress, the centrist Labour organisation (rightwing in the eyes of its critics, but self-defined as “centre-left”). Angell said:
The Jewish community made it clear and simple to Labour: pass the IHRA definition in full – no caveats, no compromises. Jeremy Corbyn and the Momentum-dominated NEC have just failed the most basic test. A ‘right to be racist’ protection when debating the Middle East is not just wrong, it is harms the cause of peace but it will also continue a culture where Jewish people cannot feel at home in Labour.
Today’s decision is an insult. Labour does not know better than Jewish people about antisemitism.
The four hours it took for today’s retrograde step to appear shows there are committed anti-racists at Labour top table but those apathetic to antisemitism won out, again. The NEC has bought the Labour party into disrepute.
That is the issue. There has never been a need for caveats or further explanation.
Why does the IHRA definition have the huge caveat of "taking into account the overall context", then?
They are fools.
Just adopt it and no caveats at all
So now you're saying that Labour SHOULDN'T include the caveat that the IHRA definition includes? #goalpostmoving
No. I don't get why you are being so obtuse on this.
IHRA and examples are what should have been adopted - as is.
But that is not what has happened.
Labour appears to have adopted them - with an additional caveat about 'freedom of expression'
There is - and has never been - a need for additional caveats beyond the printed IHRA text. But Labour is so special that it needs one.
We're talking about two different caveats here. In that exchange with BigG, I was referring to the caveat in the IHRA's own definition (that their examples only "could" be antisemitic, "taking into account the overall context). In my exchange with you, I was talking about the "caveat" (not really sure it qualifies as a caveat since it's not been directly linked to any other part of the definition, but whatever) that Labour have put in about freedom of expression on Israel/Palestine.
On the latter, you can call me obtuse all you want, but you've still not explained the objection to Labour specifying something that the IHRA themselves have said over and over again.
Richard Angell, director of Progress, the centrist Labour organisation (rightwing in the eyes of its critics, but self-defined as “centre-left”). Angell said:
The Jewish community made it clear and simple to Labour: pass the IHRA definition in full – no caveats, no compromises. Jeremy Corbyn and the Momentum-dominated NEC have just failed the most basic test. A ‘right to be racist’ protection when debating the Middle East is not just wrong, it is harms the cause of peace but it will also continue a culture where Jewish people cannot feel at home in Labour.
Today’s decision is an insult. Labour does not know better than Jewish people about antisemitism.
The four hours it took for today’s retrograde step to appear shows there are committed anti-racists at Labour top table but those apathetic to antisemitism won out, again. The NEC has bought the Labour party into disrepute.
It also shows again what a total moron he is. If he wanted to get that dodgy caveat in, you don't propose it yourself, you get a patsy to do it for you.
Richard Angell, director of Progress, the centrist Labour organisation (rightwing in the eyes of its critics, but self-defined as “centre-left”). Angell said:
The Jewish community made it clear and simple to Labour: pass the IHRA definition in full – no caveats, no compromises. Jeremy Corbyn and the Momentum-dominated NEC have just failed the most basic test. A ‘right to be racist’ protection when debating the Middle East is not just wrong, it is harms the cause of peace but it will also continue a culture where Jewish people cannot feel at home in Labour.
Today’s decision is an insult. Labour does not know better than Jewish people about antisemitism.
The four hours it took for today’s retrograde step to appear shows there are committed anti-racists at Labour top table but those apathetic to antisemitism won out, again. The NEC has bought the Labour party into disrepute.
It is very hard to disagree with Angell's analysis.
Labour is in a very sorry, sorry state.
Two of my close friends (both former Labour council candidates) are in despair and will not vote for Labour going forward. They both see a new party as the only solution. They are not alone.
That is the issue. There has never been a need for caveats or further explanation.
Why does the IHRA definition have the huge caveat of "taking into account the overall context", then?
They are fools.
Just adopt it and no caveats at all
So now you're saying that Labour SHOULDN'T include the caveat that the IHRA definition includes? #goalpostmoving
No. I don't get why you are being so obtuse on this.
IHRA and examples are what should have been adopted - as is.
But that is not what has happened.
Labour appears to have adopted them - with an additional caveat about 'freedom of expression'
There is - and has never been - a need for additional caveats beyond the printed IHRA text. But Labour is so special that it needs one.
We're talking about two different caveats here. In that exchange with BigG, I was referring to the caveat in the IHRA's own definition (that their examples only "could" be antisemitic, "taking into account the overall context). In my exchange with you, I was talking about the "caveat" (not really sure it qualifies as a caveat since it's not been directly linked to any other part of the definition, but whatever) that Labour have put in about freedom of expression on Israel/Palestine.
On the latter, you can call me obtuse all you want, but you've still not explained the objection to Labour specifying something that the IHRA themselves have said over and over again.
When you have to explain you have lost the argument
That is the issue. There has never been a need for caveats or further explanation.
Why does the IHRA definition have the huge caveat of "taking into account the overall context", then?
They are fools.
Just adopt it and no caveats at all
So now you're saying that Labour SHOULDN'T include the caveat that the IHRA definition includes? #goalpostmoving
You know what I mean
No I don't. The IHRA definition implicitly says that it's not antisemitic for someone to compare Israeli policy to the Nazis, in certain circumstances, if there is a suitable "context". Do you agree with that?
I am not getting drawn into discussing something that seems to be Ken Livingstone's subject
Says it all then big g .Regarding free speech is you are frightened cowered into not discussing it. Imo the Gaza strip ghetto , has elements in how it is treated and run.To the Jewish ghettos run by the German Nazi state 1940.
That is the issue. There has never been a need for caveats or further explanation.
Why does the IHRA definition have the huge caveat of "taking into account the overall context", then?
They are fools.
Just adopt it and no caveats at all, and then expel those who do not comply
Easy isn't it
Their problem is that if they had acted years ago, there would have been no need for this. They probably wouldn't have had to adopt the IHRA definition at all. However the definition has become so totemic, certainly within the Jewish community itself (so I understand), that any weaseling or fudging just feeds the flames.
If they had acted years ago, would Corbyn have ever become leader? Or would he have been kicked out for breaking the rules long before he was nominated?
This whole mess centres around protecting the Leader not doing what is right.
Good questions.
They only need to act *because* JC is leader, I believe. The sewer of antisemitic support he attracted was obvious from the very beginning. Momentum, the shadow cabinet, the NEC, the media outriders, and of course JC himself spent a long time in absolute denial. This resulted in a core of ultras who will never accept anything that has been done or said is antisemitic.
This is the atmosphere into which the IHRC partial-adoption was launched, a mealy-mouthed, half-baked attempt to put a line under the issue. It was seen as a nod and a wink to the ultras to carry on as before, as legitimising the conflation of UK Jews with Israel, as legitimising the view that all Jews/Zionists are more loyal to Israel than their home country.
Even now, even after JC has admitted through gritted teeth there is an issue, Twitter and other outlets are chock full of Labour members demanding evidence of antisemitism, because "they have never seen any".
And all because of a reluctance to accept JC had a flaw, of JC's relectance to accept the same, and to simply apologise, act, and move on.
Comments
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-45408351
Let us hear Barnier say that
Compromise? Might just be some guff emphasising that although Jeremy may have been friends with people who hate the Jews and has said some unfortunate things about Jews and is being supported by people screaming hate about the Jews the Labour Party is clear that Jeremy is a life-long anti-racism campaigner as demonstrated by his life long track record of being friends with people who hate the Jews etc
It looks like Theresa May will rue the day she stepped in and took DD away from negotiating a Canada-style deal. As with Cameron before her, I feel she has been badly advised on Brexit by those close to her.
Although given the state of Labour's membership atm, anti-Semitic comments would probably have increased his vote ...
Politics is at play here but I am just not going to change my view that a deal will happen, probably agreed by TM
However, it is believed that the “zero tariffs, zero quota” offer made by Donald Tusk, the European council president, in March, along with fresh thinking on how to facilitate customs checks to reduce friction at the border, could be developed and packaged as a substantive counter-offer. “There is a lot that can be done to minimise checks,” said an EU diplomat. “What is an internal market in goods? A lot of this is semantics.”
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/sep/04/eu27-to-offer-theresa-may-a-carrot-and-stick-approach-to-brexit-chequers-plan-irish-border
As for inviting others to continue the consultation, that won't be the labour party. Which is the point.
https://skwawkbox.org/2018/09/04/nec-attack-on-willsman-is-fake-news-he-hasnt-even-been-discussed/
"Multiple sources actually inside the meeting tell the SKWAWKBOX that the meeting is cordial and orderly, Willsman is calm and his position is in no way either attacked or threatened – in fact, he has not been mentioned at all as a topic for discussion."
Yeah, right. Even BJO would struggle to believe *that*.
So it is either No Deal - or it is something else she has already tried to scupper. Who in the Parliamentary Party is going to have the confidence in her to deliver a Brexit she has already actively worked to rubbish? Those who want to avoid No Deal (which to be fair is probably the bulk of the Conservative MPs) must be thinking very hard about a DD caretaker PM. He knows the issues, he knows the players - and with the authority that comes with being PM, even pro tem, he could yet deliver something that is better than No Deal.
Contrary to reporting, the definition doesn't say that the working examples are automatically antisemitic. It says that the examples "could" be antisemitic, "taking into account the overall context", without specifying what context would or would not clear the bar. Surely anybody accused of breaching any of the examples would be able to defend themselves (whether in an internal Labour disciplinary procedure, or a court battle) from antisemitism on the basis of any number of "contexts".
It also makes it all rather meaningless, as there will be obvious conflicts between what the IHRA says and what some anti-Semitic sick puppy thinks of as 'freedom of expression'.
Have any other parties added such a clause?
They are trying everything possible to avoid just adopting the definition and examples and then living by those rules.
It's simply a propaganda outlet for ultra-Corbynism. And I mean true propaganda in the Pravda mould. One would think it a spoof were it not for the praise heaped upon it by Williamson et al.
The fact the MSM (hate that abbreviation) are then derided as the purveyors of fake news brings the absurdity of the situation into sharp relief.
(Also, as I said before, the IHRA definition itself is caveated)
What's more, contrary to the fears of the nutjobs, we seem to be moving towards marginally less close-coupling with the EU than in the original Chequers text. Is that bad, within the Conservative Party?
Caveat: Of course we're only going on the odd leak and public posturing, so to a large extent everything is speculation.
https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-conservative-party-rulebook-doesnt-mention-antisemitism
Presumably Jeremy thinks Jeremy can still happily criticise "Zionists" for their lack of understanding of history and English irony?
Furthermore there has to be expulsions
Mr. T, maybe Canada would work.
They are just making the situation worse for themselves. And failing to satisfy their internal critics.
You almost need to say something like Real Fake News (for the nonsense) to separate it from what the likes of Trump call Fake News (truth published in newspapers of record).
As someone said recently about large corporations: "When I see that a corporation has an Ethics Policy, I can't help wondering why they need one".
Labour does have problems with anti-Semitism, and has an anti-Semitic leader.
Labour should get its own house in order.
https://twitter.com/TheRedRoar/status/1037011781556858880
https://twitter.com/_LFI/status/1037014282184130560
They have, from what we know so far, made things worse. And that is saying something.
https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/1037013890805256193
Instead months of dragging it out and now some caveats.
There were enough protections in the IHRA and examples as published. So why does Labour feel the need to add more to it?
https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/1037015926615547904?s=19
Just adopt it and no caveats at all, and then expel those who do not comply
Easy isn't it
https://twitter.com/Steven_Woolfe/status/1016351604767944704
Exactly the wording I used this morning.
I fully expect Islamaphobia to rear its ugly head in the Conservative Party in a big way before the next GE. However at least it won't be rotting from its head, at least if May is still PM.
If I were the Conservatives, I'd be looking at the mess Labour have got themselves in and ensuring the rulebook is very clear and is being applied. And the requested inquiry might be a CYA idea as well ...
If they had a problem with him they should have kicked him out of the party before the election
Now the members have voted for him it looks like an old fashioned stitch up
What a fucking clown troupe.
IHRA and examples are what should have been adopted - as is.
But that is not what has happened.
Labour appears to have adopted them - with an additional caveat about 'freedom of expression'
There is - and has never been - a need for additional caveats beyond the printed IHRA text. But Labour is so special that it needs one.
This whole mess centres around protecting the Leader not doing what is right.
It sucks that Labour has come to this. But it’s time for any moderates with dignity to leave if they can’t win back control.
A new left of centre party is the only hope for Labour moderates. At the moment, it is just lacking potential leaders of real personality, vision and skill - and any real sense of policy direction. Which does make it hard to create a new party. But it still needs to happen.
The Jewish community made it clear and simple to Labour: pass the IHRA definition in full – no caveats, no compromises. Jeremy Corbyn and the Momentum-dominated NEC have just failed the most basic test. A ‘right to be racist’ protection when debating the Middle East is not just wrong, it is harms the cause of peace but it will also continue a culture where Jewish people cannot feel at home in Labour.
Today’s decision is an insult. Labour does not know better than Jewish people about antisemitism.
The four hours it took for today’s retrograde step to appear shows there are committed anti-racists at Labour top table but those apathetic to antisemitism won out, again. The NEC has bought the Labour party into disrepute.
On the latter, you can call me obtuse all you want, but you've still not explained the objection to Labour specifying something that the IHRA themselves have said over and over again.
They are complicit
Labour is in a very sorry, sorry state.
Two of my close friends (both former Labour council candidates) are in despair and will not vote for Labour going forward. They both see a new party as the only solution. They are not alone.
Imo the Gaza strip ghetto , has elements in how it is treated and run.To the Jewish ghettos run by the German Nazi state 1940.
They only need to act *because* JC is leader, I believe. The sewer of antisemitic support he attracted was obvious from the very beginning. Momentum, the shadow cabinet, the NEC, the media outriders, and of course JC himself spent a long time in absolute denial. This resulted in a core of ultras who will never accept anything that has been done or said is antisemitic.
This is the atmosphere into which the IHRC partial-adoption was launched, a mealy-mouthed, half-baked attempt to put a line under the issue. It was seen as a nod and a wink to the ultras to carry on as before, as legitimising the conflation of UK Jews with Israel, as legitimising the view that all Jews/Zionists are more loyal to Israel than their home country.
Even now, even after JC has admitted through gritted teeth there is an issue, Twitter and other outlets are chock full of Labour members demanding evidence of antisemitism, because "they have never seen any".
And all because of a reluctance to accept JC had a flaw, of JC's relectance to accept the same, and to simply apologise, act, and move on.
(although it should be limited to asking those who actually want to Brexit - Remainers might just distort the numbers!)