79% of people in Ireland say the the government should hold out for the backstop even if it leads to no deal.
Almost as if the previously colonised have little sympathy for their previous oppressor; shock indeed.
The UK (although mostly England) needs to realise that this is what leaving the EU will mean. India will tell us what deals they want and we will take them. Greece will ask for the Elgin Marbles back and will have to answer the hard questions. Hundreds of years of extracting wealth from countries all around the world when we were strong will come back to bite us in the arse.
Even if the letter to Juncker was staged, it said something important. For once in modern history the UK have to listen to the Irish and do what they want, not the other way around. Who else is gonna join that line? Spain, Argentina, etc.
They can huff and puff as they like. We don't have to accede to their complaints.
I mean, our diplomatic lines are no longer "send a warship". If some of the largest markets in the world (EU, India, China, Africa) have any feelings of hardship about our imperial past, what can we do about it? Not accede and be poorer? Goodo.
I find the Dan Kawczynski example illuminating. He told what he knew was a deliberate lie, and when he got exposed on all sides, rather than apologising and withdrawing, he doubled down on his lie, and played the victim card, and there were zero consequences for either him or his enablers.
Nobody really cares what you say, as long as you present the correct tribal identity, you will be appluded for it.
The one thing you can never do now is change your mind. Consistency is everything - I saw for instance a snide comment about Siobhan Benita having at one time been pro-Heathrow expansion and now standing as London Mayor for the anti-expansion LDs.
Oh, the hypocrisy, the inconsistency, the flip-flopping that makes her by definition wholly unsuitable for any public office.
Show me someone who has never changed their mind about anything and I'll show you a fool. I changed my mind on EU membership, I changed my mind a number of times on the nuclear deterrent. Being open to persuasion and listening to reasoned argument seems perfectly reasonable - having a single unflinching position on all things seems unnecessarily rigid.
Having an online history means someone can find what you once said and use it as a weapon against you. That is one of the huge negatives about social media.
a) the whole point of Corbyn is that he advocates member-led policy setting b) Brexit is, for many of Corbyn's most dedicated supporters, the single most important political issue of the day c) it's not that he's out of line with the membership; it's that (large sections of) the membership still believes he agrees with them, and will ultimately pivot to supporting a referendum, despite all the evidence against this
TBH, if conference wanted a 2nd ref, they should have voted for a policy that included one. Corbyn has been following the policy adopted by conference. If conference didn't *like* that policy, then why the hell did they vote for it?
They voted for it because it gave the leadership a better chance of enacting its policies, which is what they ultimately want above any individual policies.
The question isn't aimed at me, but Labour really did promise that referendum, I'd be sorely tempted to hold my nose on Corbyn and vote for them. If not or the pledge was woolly (options on table etc, anything with the word 'if' in) then I wouldn't.
And I'm someone who thought I lived in a safe seat till 2017 and now live in a marginal.
Well the Q was aimed at anybody who is both anti Corbyn and anti Brexit. It covers an awful lot of people which is why I find it fascinating.
So, right, you would lend Lab your vote. That is 2 of the 6 who have answered to say that, the other 4 would not. 33%. Small sample, I need quite a few more data points before I can conclude and publish in one of the nationals, but very very interesting.
Congratulations BTW on living in a marginal. My seat (Hampstead & Kilburn) has gone the other way. It used to be an incredibly tight 3 way marginal (almost the only one in the country) but it is now rock solid safe for the Reds.
I know. Thanks to May. The silly cow. I live here too. I enjoyed elections because candidates actually had to do some work. Now they can ignore us again.
But in Cumbria, we live in a marginal. So I shall be able to annoy the local Tory MP there instead.....
i always find it slightly amusing the PBers complain that their vote won't change anything because they live in a rock solid blue/red/yellow/orange seat, when the fact that the vast majority of people vote for their elected member surely shows greater representation of the consituency as a whole in Parliament.
79% of people in Ireland say the the government should hold out for the backstop even if it leads to no deal.
Almost as if the previously colonised have little sympathy for their previous oppressor; shock indeed.
The UK (although mostly England) needs to realise that this is what leaving the EU will mean. India will tell us what deals they want and we will take them. Greece will ask for the Elgin Marbles back and will have to answer the hard questions. Hundreds of years of extracting wealth from countries all around the world when we were strong will come back to bite us in the arse.
Even if the letter to Juncker was staged, it said something important. For once in modern history the UK have to listen to the Irish and do what they want, not the other way around. Who else is gonna join that line? Spain, Argentina, etc.
They can huff and puff as they like. We don't have to accede to their complaints.
I mean, our diplomatic lines are no longer "send a warship". If some of the largest markets in the world (EU, India, China, Africa) have any feelings of hardship about our imperial past, what can we do about it? Not accede and be poorer? Goodo.
We don't need to send a warship in order to trade with them. I doubt if we'll be facing economic sanctions from the rest of the world. They trade with us, not out of the kindness of their hearts, but for mutual benefit.
And very tempting it is too ... to offer a remark, I mean, not so much the article itself ... but with no 'edit' button to remove mortifying mistakes I have decided not to risk it.
I really have a very difficult decision at the next election. I had been assuming I'd be abstaining, but the more I think about the fact that my MP is Bernard Jenkin, the more I feel I need to vote against him. But I have huge difficulty voting for the nearest challenger party, Labour, while Jeremy Corbyn is leader of the opposition. I think I still abstain. Maybe I vote Lib Dem.
Hmm.
What you need is an erudite local candidate - possibly one with a passing resemblance to popular billionaire Jeff Bezos - who can unite the opposition to the incumbent.
I have a feeling that if I weee to stand one or two things I’ve said in the past on pb might be quoted out of context against me. Crazy, I know.
The late Plato sent clippings of what I said on PB to the Conservatives to use against me, which they had a feeble attempt at doing. I never met a Broxtowe voter who mentioned it, so as far as I know it met a collective meh. It's the upside of voter lack of interest in the detail of politics - you have to say something really outrageous for people to pay attention, and you have to keep doing it (like Ken Livingstone going on and on about Hitler) or they just forget.
Ah, but you are always sensible and polite in what you say! Some of the rest of us... not so much!
And if she is approved as the suggested party's candidate it might throw a very large spanner into the country's political works. It's also quite likely that campaigning against her will be restricted due to Thailand's strict lèse-majesté laws.
a) the whole point of Corbyn is that he advocates member-led policy setting b) Brexit is, for many of Corbyn's most dedicated supporters, the single most important political issue of the day c) it's not that he's out of line with the membership; it's that (large sections of) the membership still believes he agrees with them, and will ultimately pivot to supporting a referendum, despite all the evidence against this
TBH, if conference wanted a 2nd ref, they should have voted for a policy that included one. Corbyn has been following the policy adopted by conference. If conference didn't *like* that policy, then why the hell did they vote for it?
I thought they did vote for one? Policy was, "try for a GE, if that doesn't work, explore various other options, if all else fails, then support a 2nd referendum." Which seems from their point of view like a sensible compromise. Problem is, all other options have now effectively failed and the leadership still isn't supporting a second referendum.
I find the Dan Kawczynski example illuminating. He told what he knew was a deliberate lie, and when he got exposed on all sides, rather than apologising and withdrawing, he doubled down on his lie, and played the victim card, and there were zero consequences for either him or his enablers.
Nobody really cares what you say, as long as you present the correct tribal identity, you will be appluded for it.
The one thing you can never do now is change your mind. Consistency is everything - I saw for instance a snide comment about Siobhan Benita having at one time been pro-Heathrow expansion and now standing as London Mayor for the anti-expansion LDs.
Oh, the hypocrisy, the inconsistency, the flip-flopping that makes her by definition wholly unsuitable for any public office.
Show me someone who has never changed their mind about anything and I'll show you a fool. I changed my mind on EU membership, I changed my mind a number of times on the nuclear deterrent. Being open to persuasion and listening to reasoned argument seems perfectly reasonable - having a single unflinching position on all things seems unnecessarily rigid.
Having an online history means someone can find what you once said and use it as a weapon against you. That is one of the huge negatives about social media.
Has she changed her mind? The comment you refer to implied more that her personal position on a key issue clashes somewhat with that of her new political home. In the same way as Tim Farron didn't "change his mind" on certain of his beliefs, just because he became Lib Dem leader - a circle he ultimately failed to square satisfactorily.
So trying to get rid of “the disruptive Zionist” is okay?
How’s about “the disruptive ni***r”, said of a black MP?
I don't think that comparison quite works.
'Yid' would perhaps be closer.
Zionist is clearly meant to be pejorative, when used of Jews outside Israel. Even worse is the truncation: Zio, which many Corbynites happily spew up, on a daily basis.
However, I agree it isn't as offensive as the N word. I'd maybe put it on a par with "negro", or "half caste" - i.e. not designed to be a boo-word, but now carries so many ugly connotations that you have to question the attitude of those who would use it.
So trying to get rid of “the disruptive Zionist” is okay?
How’s about “the disruptive ni***r”, said of a black MP?
I don't think that comparison quite works.
'Yid' would perhaps be closer.
Zionist is clearly meant to be pejorative, when used of Jews outside Israel. Even worse is the truncation: Zio, which many Corbynites happily spew up, on a daily basis.
However, I agree it isn't as offensive as the N word. I'd maybe put it on a par with "negro", or "half caste" - i.e. not designed to be a boo-word, but now carries so many ugly connotations that you have to question the attitude of those who would use it.
It isn't as strong as the N word but would be directly comparable to calling some the first four letters of Pakistani.
So trying to get rid of “the disruptive Zionist” is okay?
How’s about “the disruptive ni***r”, said of a black MP?
I don't think that comparison quite works.
'Yid' would perhaps be closer.
Zionist is clearly meant to be pejorative, when used of Jews outside Israel. Even worse is the truncation: Zio, which many Corbynites happily spew up, on a daily basis.
However, I agree it isn't as offensive as the N word. I'd maybe put it on a par with "negro", or "half caste" - i.e. not designed to be a boo-word, but now carries so many ugly connotations that you have to question the attitude of those who would use it.
I can't see why Zionist is pejorative. I'm 'not at all keen' on the further of expansion of Israel; certainly not without much more equitable treatment of the Palestinian, and therefore wouldn't espouse Zionism, but I wouldn't consider any holding Zionist views as being anything other than deluded. The same view as I have of Little Englanders.
So trying to get rid of “the disruptive Zionist” is okay?
How’s about “the disruptive ni***r”, said of a black MP?
I don't think that comparison quite works.
'Yid' would perhaps be closer.
Zionist is clearly meant to be pejorative, when used of Jews outside Israel. Even worse is the truncation: Zio, which many Corbynites happily spew up, on a daily basis.
However, I agree it isn't as offensive as the N word. I'd maybe put it on a par with "negro", or "half caste" - i.e. not designed to be a boo-word, but now carries so many ugly connotations that you have to question the attitude of those who would use it.
Zionism is an ideology.
And there are people, even non Jews, happy to describe themselves as such. Perhaps the only similarity with the N word is that Zionists are the only people allowed to use the term.
So trying to get rid of “the disruptive Zionist” is okay?
How’s about “the disruptive ni***r”, said of a black MP?
I don't think that comparison quite works.
'Yid' would perhaps be closer.
Zionist is clearly meant to be pejorative, when used of Jews outside Israel. Even worse is the truncation: Zio, which many Corbynites happily spew up, on a daily basis.
However, I agree it isn't as offensive as the N word. I'd maybe put it on a par with "negro", or "half caste" - i.e. not designed to be a boo-word, but now carries so many ugly connotations that you have to question the attitude of those who would use it.
Zionism is an ideology.
And there are people, even non Jews, happy to describe themselves as such. Perhaps the only similarity with the N word is that Zionists are the only people allowed to use the term.
Context matters, even the most uptight people on the word could see a scenario where you could ask a Jewish person if they are a Zionist (conversation went that way) without it being offensive
I can't quite see how you could do this with many of the racial insults mentioned here as comparisons.
So trying to get rid of “the disruptive Zionist” is okay?
How’s about “the disruptive ni***r”, said of a black MP?
I don't think that comparison quite works.
'Yid' would perhaps be closer.
Zionist is clearly meant to be pejorative, when used of Jews outside Israel. Even worse is the truncation: Zio, which many Corbynites happily spew up, on a daily basis.
However, I agree it isn't as offensive as the N word. I'd maybe put it on a par with "negro", or "half caste" - i.e. not designed to be a boo-word, but now carries so many ugly connotations that you have to question the attitude of those who would use it.
Zionism is an ideology.
Quite. Just as negro was (and in some places still is) regarded as the correct scientific word for black people, akin to Caucasian.
But few people would say "negro" now, as it was used by so many racists it is now closely associated with racist attitudes.
The same process is happening right now to "Zionist". It is being used so often by clear anti-Semites, it is becoming horribly entangled with anti-Semitism. I don't think I would ever use the word now, unless I was referring to someone who self-identifies as a Zionist, ideologically.
How do you, Mr T, regard being described as a 'farang' when in Thailand? I don't give a whatsit myself, but when there I have come across expats who regard it as offensive.
So trying to get rid of “the disruptive Zionist” is okay?
How’s about “the disruptive ni***r”, said of a black MP?
I don't think that comparison quite works.
'Yid' would perhaps be closer.
Zionist is clearly meant to be pejorative, when used of Jews outside Israel. Even worse is the truncation: Zio, which many Corbynites happily spew up, on a daily basis.
However, I agree it isn't as offensive as the N word. I'd maybe put it on a par with "negro", or "half caste" - i.e. not designed to be a boo-word, but now carries so many ugly connotations that you have to question the attitude of those who would use it.
Zionism is an ideology.
And there are people, even non Jews, happy to describe themselves as such. Perhaps the only similarity with the N word is that Zionists are the only people allowed to use the term.
Context matters, even the most uptight people on the word could see a scenario where you could ask a Jewish person if they are a Zionist (conversation went that way) without it being offensive
I can't quite see how you could do this with many of the racial insults mentioned here as comparisons.
Context matters. Would any PB-er randomly and casually call a Jewish man or woman a Zionist, just because they are Jewish, and without any evidence of this Jewish person supporting the specific ideology of Zionism?
No. Because, in that context, it is an insult, and it is designed to be insulting. It's code for Yid.
TBH given some of your own racial sensitivities (or lack of) you'd be one of my first guesses to do...
Assuming stuff about someone because of their identity can be insulting depending on the circumstances it doesn't quite put it with the other racial insults that have been mentioned though, zionist is of course insulting in some circumstances...
But the other racial insults are just insulting, I could jokingly with a friend I knew use them but the N word or Pakistani shortened are not ideologies I couldn't label someone as it without it being insulting regardless of their views.
Zionist is clearly meant to be pejorative, when used of Jews outside Israel. Even worse is the truncation: Zio, which many Corbynites happily spew up, on a daily basis.
However, I agree it isn't as offensive as the N word. I'd maybe put it on a par with "negro", or "half caste" - i.e. not designed to be a boo-word, but now carries so many ugly connotations that you have to question the attitude of those who would use it.
'Zio' is bad - it has a nasty whiff about it. I would be immediately suspicious of anybody using it. I would take it as de facto evidence of probable anti-semitism and they would have to put the work in to demonstrate otherwise.
Zionist, I think can be used respectably as a term of disapproval. It can also be used in a way that is not respectable. It depends on who and to whom and in what context.
Language is always fascinating, of course, but particularly so in this area of what is racist and what is not. Like, calling somebody racist versus calling somebody a racist. The latter is stronger, isn't it? The noun carries more clout than the verb.
Ditto anti-semitic versus an anti-semite.
The first has a relatively humdrum feel, whereas latter (the noun) sounds all biblical and primitive and utterly gross and beyond the pale.
Can you be racist but not 'a' racist, I wonder? I think, perhaps strangely, that you can.
The late Plato sent clippings of what I said on PB to the Conservatives to use against me, which they had a feeble attempt at doing. I never met a Broxtowe voter who mentioned it, so as far as I know it met a collective meh. It's the upside of voter lack of interest in the detail of politics - you have to say something really outrageous for people to pay attention, and you have to keep doing it (like Ken Livingstone going on and on about Hitler) or they just forget.
I find the Dan Kawczynski example illuminating. He told what he knew was a deliberate lie, and when he got exposed on all sides, rather than apologising and withdrawing, he doubled down on his lie, and played the victim card, and there were zero consequences for either him or his enablers.
Isn't the consequence that he (and by extension his party) is exposed as an arse to more people than previously realised it?
I get that this may have limited *electoral* consequences in a reasonably safe seat (ie most know it and either don't care or are against him already). But I'm not sure we need Ofpol issuing sanctions against people who are shit MPs - that's kinda our job.
(I'm also not sure, in this case, that "he knew it was a deliberate lie", given that would assume a modicum of knowledge)
So trying to get rid of “the disruptive Zionist” is okay?
How’s about “the disruptive ni***r”, said of a black MP?
I don't think that comparison quite works.
'Yid' would perhaps be closer.
Zionist is clearly meant to be pejorative, when used of Jews outside Israel. Even worse is the truncation: Zio, which many Corbynites happily spew up, on a daily basis.
However, I agree it isn't as offensive as the N word. I'd maybe put it on a par with "negro", or "half caste" - i.e. not designed to be a boo-word, but now carries so many ugly connotations that you have to question the attitude of those who would use it.
I can't see why Zionist is pejorative. I'm 'not at all keen' on the further of expansion of Israel; certainly not without much more equitable treatment of the Palestinian, and therefore wouldn't espouse Zionism, but I wouldn't consider any holding Zionist views as being anything other than deluded. The same view as I have of Little Englanders.
In the same way that most words that cause offence are offensive: it's not the words themselves that count, it's that they're intended as an insult or a means to cause social estrangement.
Comments
'Yid' would perhaps be closer.
https://www.bucksfreepress.co.uk/news/17418399.suspended-labour-candidate-israr-rashid-wins-important-election-vote-despite-controversy/
https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1093839523262459904
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-47167378
Oh, the hypocrisy, the inconsistency, the flip-flopping that makes her by definition wholly unsuitable for any public office.
Show me someone who has never changed their mind about anything and I'll show you a fool. I changed my mind on EU membership, I changed my mind a number of times on the nuclear deterrent. Being open to persuasion and listening to reasoned argument seems perfectly reasonable - having a single unflinching position on all things seems unnecessarily rigid.
Having an online history means someone can find what you once said and use it as a weapon against you. That is one of the huge negatives about social media.
Surprisingly name-checked by Nigel F down thread.
And very tempting it is too ... to offer a remark, I mean, not so much the article itself ... but with no 'edit' button to remove mortifying mistakes I have decided not to risk it.
Some of the rest of us... not so much!
It's also quite likely that campaigning against her will be restricted due to Thailand's strict lèse-majesté laws.
I was
https://twitter.com/AdamPerkinsPhD/status/1093819057369952258
Could be 'interesting'.
I can't quite see how you could do this with many of the racial insults mentioned here as comparisons.
'Farang prices' are, of course, offensive!
NEW THREAD
Assuming stuff about someone because of their identity can be insulting depending on the circumstances it doesn't quite put it with the other racial insults that have been mentioned though, zionist is of course insulting in some circumstances...
But the other racial insults are just insulting, I could jokingly with a friend I knew use them but the N word or Pakistani shortened are not ideologies I couldn't label someone as it without it being insulting regardless of their views.
Zionist, I think can be used respectably as a term of disapproval. It can also be used in a way that is not respectable. It depends on who and to whom and in what context.
Language is always fascinating, of course, but particularly so in this area of what is racist and what is not. Like, calling somebody racist versus calling somebody a racist. The latter is stronger, isn't it? The noun carries more clout than the verb.
Ditto anti-semitic versus an anti-semite.
The first has a relatively humdrum feel, whereas latter (the noun) sounds all biblical and primitive and utterly gross and beyond the pale.
Can you be racist but not 'a' racist, I wonder? I think, perhaps strangely, that you can.
I get that this may have limited *electoral* consequences in a reasonably safe seat (ie most know it and either don't care or are against him already). But I'm not sure we need Ofpol issuing sanctions against people who are shit MPs - that's kinda our job.
(I'm also not sure, in this case, that "he knew it was a deliberate lie", given that would assume a modicum of knowledge)