From the Guardian 'A recall petition for Peterborough MP Fiona Onasanya will be launched on March 19, Peterborough city council has announced. As the Press Association reports, voters in the constituency will each be allocated to one of 10 signing stations where they can add their names to the petition. A byelection will be triggered if 10% of eligible voters - around 7,000 people - sign the petition before it closes at 5pm on 1 May.'
And all the time, she gets to claim her salary and all the privileges that come with being MP.
This process is too slow.
Prison time should equal kicked out of Parliament - simple as that. The one year limit is arbitrary and too generous to criminal MPs.
I agree with recall petitions as a principle - but not for removing MPs under these circumstances. And certainly not with this extended time period (but ludicrously limited opening hours - 9 to 5, Monday to Friday excludes too many potential signatories.)
Use them for other egregious behaviour - but any MP who serves prison time should be out. Immediately. End of.
If someone has posted an explanation as to why the Act that set the period of 12 months did so I do not recall it. I can understand the aspect about, for instance, recall procedures not kicking in until appeals are exhausted, but like you I would think any prison time makes it reasonable that someone loses their seat, and yet when the Act was first brought in a long time ago now they decided 11 months 30 days in prison was fine for a sitting MP. Why? And if there was a reason that was felt to be a good call, does it still apply?
I wonder if it's a legacy of the old distinction between felonies and misdemeanours?
How are we going to remain after all the bad faith on both sides?
Unharmoniously.
But if our MPs won't vote to leave, that's where we'll find ourselves so we'll need to suck it up.
How many times?
They have already voted to leave. It will happen automatically without further votes.
It's only if our MPs actively vote to Remain before the 29th March that that changes. And they are as unable to do that as to do anything else.
I am assuming an extension will ultimately lead to remain, probably via a referendum. I am very confident an extension will happen simply because so many don't want no deal but so many also don't want deal, and yet there probably are not enough to referendum or revoke, meaning can kicking will occur. It's a question of how they justify it without a reason beyond faffing about and if the EU accepts that.
They have to vote for an extension and the EU has to agree to it.
Therefore I consider your assumption to be a bold one.
Energetic action is required to avert calamity, and we haven't any politicians who might manage it.
How are we going to remain after all the bad faith on both sides?
Unharmoniously.
But if our MPs won't vote to leave, that's where we'll find ourselves so we'll need to suck it up.
How many times?
They have already voted to leave. It will happen automatically without further votes.
It's only if our MPs actively vote to Remain before the 29th March that that changes. And they are as unable to do that as to do anything else.
Only, as I keep pointing out, once the relevant parts of the EUWA, have been commenced. Until that happens, Brexit can be cancelled by the government notifying the European Council that they are revoking the UK's notification of invocation of Article 50.
Once commencement takes place, you will be correct, it would then require a repeal or amendment of the EUWA as well as a revocation of A50.
How are we going to remain after all the bad faith on both sides?
Unharmoniously.
But if our MPs won't vote to leave, that's where we'll find ourselves so we'll need to suck it up.
How many times?
They have already voted to leave. It will happen automatically without further votes.
Only, as I keep pointing out, once the relevant parts of the EUWA, have been commenced. Until that happens, Brexit can be cancelled by the government notifying the European Council that they are revoking the UK's notification of invocation of Article 50.
Once commencement takes place, you will be correct, it would then require a repeal or amendment of the EUWA as well as a revocation of A50.
But to revoke, we would need at least a vote in Parliament. Still not happening.
We are leaving with no deal, and every MP should lose their jobs.
(a) it is central to or otherwise arises out of their political world view. This was a point made by Siobhan McDonagh yesterday; _____________________________________
Sort of mentioned this in the other thread, Some Jewish people were not happy about them being linked to capitalism or that their left wing views are suddenly anti semitic.
If she was a Corbyn supporting MP and made comments like that regarding Jews she would be suspended and hounded for it.
Also goes against actual research into the area but hey who doesn't love a good conspiracy theory.
https://cst.org.uk/public/data/file/7/4/JPR.2017.Antisemitism in contemporary Great Britain.pdf _______________________________________ Levels of antisemitism among those on the left-wing of the political spectrum, including the far-left, are indistinguishable from those found in the general population. Yet, all parts of those on the left of the political spectrum – including the ‘slightly left-of-centre,’ the ‘fairly left-wing’ and the ‘very left-wing’ – exhibit higher levels of anti-Israelism than average. The most antisemitic group on the political spectrum consists of those who identify as very right-wing: _________________________________________
Anti-semitism is not confined to the left. It is virulent on the right as well. And it should be condemned wherever it arises. There are many different strands to it. But to deny that there is a part of the Far Left, whose views give rise to anti-semitism is to deny reality.
How does this fit with the arbitration panel as discussed here that if they say the EU acts in bad faith we can abrogate?
I can only conclude that the ERG believes as it has EU representatives on it it will never agree the EU is acting in bad faith. But that in itself is an issue as it would if they push for it mean ripping up pretty much the entire WA (which is perhaps is a more likely reason for this silliness).
There are two reasons why they are not shutting it down: (a) it is central to or otherwise arises out of their political world view. This was a point made by Siobhan McDonagh yesterday; (b) they are concerned that to do so would end up pointing the finger at Corbyn. How can a Labour Party criticise others for their reaction to anti-semitic murals without also criticising their own leader, etc.
But, fundamentally, I think they don't care about the reaction of the Jewish community or those appalled by what's happened. They reckon that this is of no interest to the vast majority of voters, that those who are appalled are unlikely to be Labour voters anyway and that, even if they were, they will probably be outnumbered by those attracted to Labour because of its anti-Jewish stance.
It is the same cynical - and utterly amoral - stance as that taken by those who used those posters in the Leave campaign. And in taking such a cynical stance, their calculation as to its electoral effect is probably correct. The moral compasses of political parties, of political campaigns have not featured highly in our public discourse. If we get amoral politicians cynically using hatred of minorities for political gain it is because the public don't care about this - or not enough.
I don't think that anti-semitism is popular. I think it costs Labour three constituencies, and gains them none. And, I think it's hurting the party with a lot of swing voters. I don't see any electoral advantage from it.
The leadership may not think like this, though. They may calculate that 300,000 Jews don't mean a hill of beans, electorally, they can afford to lose 3 constituencies if it keeps others on board and keeps the Corbyn fans happy. And they look at what the Leave campaign did and think, yeah, people may say they don't like this stuff but in private they'll go along with it.
I agree with you that there is a risk that they may have miscalculated. I hope so. The idea that a party, any party, should deliberately take on a minority group to achieve some other end, as posited here, is really horrible, an utter debasement of our politics. But it is what has happened and not just in recent months.
(a) it is central to or otherwise arises out of their political world view. This was a point made by Siobhan McDonagh yesterday; _____________________________________
Sort of mentioned this in the other thread, Some Jewish people were not happy about them being linked to capitalism or that their left wing views are suddenly anti semitic.
If she was a Corbyn supporting MP and made comments like that regarding Jews she would be suspended and hounded for it.
Also goes against actual research into the area but hey who doesn't love a good conspiracy theory.
https://cst.org.uk/public/data/file/7/4/JPR.2017.Antisemitism in contemporary Great Britain.pdf _______________________________________ Levels of antisemitism among those on the left-wing of the political spectrum, including the far-left, are indistinguishable from those found in the general population. Yet, all parts of those on the left of the political spectrum – including the ‘slightly left-of-centre,’ the ‘fairly left-wing’ and the ‘very left-wing’ – exhibit higher levels of anti-Israelism than average. The most antisemitic group on the political spectrum consists of those who identify as very right-wing: _________________________________________
Anti-semitism is not confined to the left. It is virulent on the right as well. And it should be condemned wherever it arises. There are many different strands to it. But to deny that there is a part of the Far Left, whose views give rise to anti-semitism is to deny reality.
I've never understood the defence that is trotted out that it exists elsewhere too. I'm sure it does and it must be rooted out there too, and if people are not doing a good enough job of doing that they should face castigation for that. But what does that have to do with dealing with it on the left? Are they not able to do try that if it is worse elsewhere or not being tackled enough elsewhere?
And on such a basis, so too will near all of the remaining MPs. Who are the MPs Mr Meeks alludes to in his head that are 'considering their options'? Is not the existence of the Tiggers plus Watson and others 'fighting' on enough to mean they can justify, to themselves, staying no matter what Corbyn does? Because they oppose him, they claim (except in making him PM, and I don't buy the guff about not 'wanting' that when they will still take action to make it happen).
How are we going to remain after all the bad faith on both sides?
Unharmoniously.
But if our MPs won't vote to leave, that's where we'll find ourselves so we'll need to suck it up.
How many times?
They have already voted to leave. It will happen automatically without further votes.
Only, as I keep pointing out, once the relevant parts of the EUWA, have been commenced. Until that happens, Brexit can be cancelled by the government notifying the European Council that they are revoking the UK's notification of invocation of Article 50.
Once commencement takes place, you will be correct, it would then require a repeal or amendment of the EUWA as well as a revocation of A50.
But to revoke, we would need at least a vote in Parliament. Still not happening.
We are leaving with no deal, and every MP should lose their jobs.
Except Fiona Onasanya, who at least has the excuse of not having been able to get to the Commons to vote.
There are two reasons why they are not shutting it down: (a) it is central to or otherwise arises out of their political world view. This was a point made by Siobhan McDonagh yesterday; (b) they are concerned that to do so would end up pointing the finger at Corbyn. How can a Labour Party criticise others for their reaction to anti-semitic murals without also criticising their own leader, etc.
But, fundamentally, I think they don't care about the reaction of the Jewish community or those appalled by what's happened. They reckon that this is of no interest to the vast majority of voters, that those who are appalled are unlikely to be Labour voters anyway and that, even if they were, they will probably be outnumbered by those attracted to Labour because of its anti-Jewish stance.
It is the same cynical - and utterly amoral - stance as that taken by those who used those posters in the Leave campaign. And in taking such a cynical stance, their calculation as to its electoral effect is probably correct. The moral compasses of political parties, of political campaigns have not featured highly in our public discourse. If we get amoral politicians cynically using hatred of minorities for political gain it is because the public don't care about this - or not enough.
I don't think that anti-semitism is popular. I think it costs Labour three constituencies, and gains them none. And, I think it's hurting the party with a lot of swing voters. I don't see any electoral advantage from it.
The leadership may not think like this, though. They may calculate that 300,000 Jews don't mean a hill of beans, electorally, they can afford to lose 3 constituencies if it keeps others on board and keeps the Corbyn fans happy. And they look at what the Leave campaign did and think, yeah, people may say they don't like this stuff but in private they'll go along with it.
I agree with you that there is a risk that they may have miscalculated. I hope so. The idea that a party, any party, should deliberately take on a minority group to achieve some other end, as posited here, is really horrible, an utter debasement of our politics. But it is what has happened and not just in recent months.
How are we going to remain after all the bad faith on both sides?
Unharmoniously.
But if our MPs won't vote to leave, that's where we'll find ourselves so we'll need to suck it up.
How many times?
They have already voted to leave. It will happen automatically without further votes.
Only, as I keep pointing out, once the relevant parts of the EUWA, have been commenced. Until that happens, Brexit can be cancelled by the government notifying the European Council that they are revoking the UK's notification of invocation of Article 50.
Once commencement takes place, you will be correct, it would then require a repeal or amendment of the EUWA as well as a revocation of A50.
But to revoke, we would need at least a vote in Parliament. Still not happening.
We are leaving with no deal, and every MP should lose their jobs.
Except Fiona Onasanya, who at least has the excuse of not having been able to get to the Commons to vote.
How are we going to remain after all the bad faith on both sides?
Unharmoniously.
But if our MPs won't vote to leave, that's where we'll find ourselves so we'll need to suck it up.
How many times?
They have already voted to leave. It will happen automatically without further votes.
Only, as I keep pointing out, once the relevant parts of the EUWA, have been commenced. Until that happens, Brexit can be cancelled by the government notifying the European Council that they are revoking the UK's notification of invocation of Article 50.
Once commencement takes place, you will be correct, it would then require a repeal or amendment of the EUWA as well as a revocation of A50.
But to revoke, we would need at least a vote in Parliament. Still not happening.
We are leaving with no deal, and every MP should lose their jobs.
It doesn't follow that a vote has to be held to authorize a revocation. SCOTUK ruled that Parliament had to authorize invocation as citizens' rights would be extinguished. No rights would be extinguished by a revocation, so why shouldn't it just be a case of the administration exercising the sovereign's executive powers delegated to them as they see fit.
How are we going to remain after all the bad faith on both sides?
Unharmoniously.
But if our MPs won't vote to leave, that's where we'll find ourselves so we'll need to suck it up.
How many times?
They have already voted to leave. It will happen automatically without further votes.
Only, as I keep pointing out, once the relevant parts of the EUWA, have been commenced. Until that happens, Brexit can be cancelled by the government notifying the European Council that they are revoking the UK's notification of invocation of Article 50.
Once commencement takes place, you will be correct, it would then require a repeal or amendment of the EUWA as well as a revocation of A50.
But to revoke, we would need at least a vote in Parliament. Still not happening.
We are leaving with no deal, and every MP should lose their jobs.
Except Fiona Onasanya, who at least has the excuse of not having been able to get to the Commons to vote.
Agreed. She should not lose her job for that.
For being a criminal, however...
Is it true that her attempted appeal essentially boiled down to 'but I swear I am innocent'?
Very interesting argument. However it seems to me just as likely that a good number of Labour members, including significant ones, really are both nasty and dim and that the anti-Semitism - obvious and horrible - is arising because they are anti-Semitic and honestly but erroneously believe that left wing racism doesn't count.
If the article's argument is right - and it might be - then I would have to draw two more hopeful conclusions: that a Labour party in alliance with this wicked mindset could not win an election in any foreseeable circumstances, and, more importantly, a new left of centre alliance of some sort would be inevitable.
A lot of comment seems to be forgetting that much UK opinion is must firmer than just being opposed to anti-Semitism. Millions of us hold the Jewish community in this country (and elsewhere) in the highest regard for very good reasons, and are offended and hurt, disgusted and outraged by this. And, crucially, we all vote.
Yes, and rather showed, for now at least, the nonsense that was the idea the big two are struggling or that people desperately want a change. No they don't. Or if they do, they want it in familiar branding.
How are we going to remain after all the bad faith on both sides?
Unharmoniously.
But if our MPs won't vote to leave, that's where we'll find ourselves so we'll need to suck it up.
How many times?
They have already voted to leave. It will happen automatically without further votes.
Only, as I keep pointing out, once the relevant parts of the EUWA, have been commenced. Until that happens, Brexit can be cancelled by the government notifying the European Council that they are revoking the UK's notification of invocation of Article 50.
Once commencement takes place, you will be correct, it would then require a repeal or amendment of the EUWA as well as a revocation of A50.
But to revoke, we would need at least a vote in Parliament. Still not happening.
We are leaving with no deal, and every MP should lose their jobs.
It doesn't follow that a vote has to be held to authorize a revocation. SCOTUK ruled that Parliament had to authorize invocation as citizens' rights would be extinguished. No rights would be extinguished by a revocation, so why shouldn't it just be a case of the administration exercising the sovereign's executive powers delegated to them as they see fit.
How are we going to remain after all the bad faith on both sides?
Unharmoniously.
But if our MPs won't vote to leave, that's where we'll find ourselves so we'll need to suck it up.
How many times?
They have already voted to leave. It will happen automatically without further votes.
Only, as I keep pointing out, once the relevant parts of the EUWA, have been commenced. Until that happens, Brexit can be cancelled by the government notifying the European Council that they are revoking the UK's notification of invocation of Article 50.
Once commencement takes place, you will be correct, it would then require a repeal or amendment of the EUWA as well as a revocation of A50.
But to revoke, we would need at least a vote in Parliament. Still not happening.
We are leaving with no deal, and every MP should lose their jobs.
Except Fiona Onasanya, who at least has the excuse of not having been able to get to the Commons to vote.
Agreed. She should not lose her job for that.
For being a criminal, however...
Is it true that her attempted appeal essentially boiled down to 'but I swear I am innocent'?
I don't know. I thought it was going to be 'because I'm awesome and the judge was racist,' so it's good news if she tried something more polite if less convincing.
How are we going to remain after all the bad faith on both sides?
Unharmoniously.
But if our MPs won't vote to leave, that's where we'll find ourselves so we'll need to suck it up.
How many times?
They have already voted to leave. It will happen automatically without further votes.
Only, as I keep pointing out, once the relevant parts of the EUWA, have been commenced. Until that happens, Brexit can be cancelled by the government notifying the European Council that they are revoking the UK's notification of invocation of Article 50.
Once commencement takes place, you will be correct, it would then require a repeal or amendment of the EUWA as well as a revocation of A50.
But to revoke, we would need at least a vote in Parliament. Still not happening.
We are leaving with no deal, and every MP should lose their jobs.
It doesn't follow that a vote has to be held to authorize a revocation. SCOTUK ruled that Parliament had to authorize invocation as citizens' rights would be extinguished. No rights would be extinguished by a revocation, so why shouldn't it just be a case of the administration exercising the sovereign's executive powers delegated to them as they see fit.
Because the EU would not accept it?
If it was in keeping with our own constitutional requirements what would it have to do with whether the EU wanted to accept it or not? I thought it had been ruled that as long as it is not obviously pissing about we can revoke whenever we wish? So while there's a question of whether revocation would requirement parliament or not, if it doesn't, that's that isn;t it?
I’m beginning to think that the Christopher Hope tweet is mischief making .
Not only did May promise those votes but the government itself then voted for the Amendment confirming what had been promised .
Which was carried by over 480 votes . To renege I think would cause such a huge backlash that May will be without a working majority by the end of the day .
How are we going to remain after all the bad faith on both sides?
Unharmoniously.
But if our MPs won't vote to leave, that's where we'll find ourselves so we'll need to suck it up.
How many times?
They have already voted to leave. It will happen automatically without further votes.
Only, as I keep pointing out, once the relevant parts of the EUWA, have been commenced. Until that happens, Brexit can be cancelled by the government notifying the European Council that they are revoking the UK's notification of invocation of Article 50.
Once commencement takes place, you will be correct, it would then require a repeal or amendment of the EUWA as well as a revocation of A50.
But to revoke, we would need at least a vote in Parliament. Still not happening.
We are leaving with no deal, and every MP should lose their jobs.
It doesn't follow that a vote has to be held to authorize a revocation. SCOTUK ruled that Parliament had to authorize invocation as citizens' rights would be extinguished. No rights would be extinguished by a revocation, so why shouldn't it just be a case of the administration exercising the sovereign's executive powers delegated to them as they see fit.
Because the EU would not accept it?
If it was in keeping with our own constitutional requirements what would it have to do with whether the EU wanted to accept it or not? I thought it had been ruled that as long as it is not obviously pissing about we can revoke whenever we wish? So while there's a question of whether revocation would requirement parliament or not, if it doesn't, that's that isn;t it?
Europe has said it would require a vote in Parliament.
How are we going to remain after all the bad faith on both sides?
Unharmoniously.
But if our MPs won't vote to leave, that's where we'll find ourselves so we'll need to suck it up.
How many times?
They have already voted to leave. It will happen automatically without further votes.
It's only if our MPs actively vote to Remain before the 29th March that that changes. And they are as unable to do that as to do anything else.
I am assuming an extension will ultimately lead to remain, probably via a referendum. I am very confident an extension will happen simply because so many don't want no deal but so many also don't want deal, and yet there probably are not enough to referendum or revoke, meaning can kicking will occur. It's a question of how they justify it without a reason beyond faffing about and if the EU accepts that.
They have to vote for an extension and the EU has to agree to it.
Therefore I consider your assumption to be a bold one.
Energetic action is required to avert calamity, and we haven't any politicians who might manage it.
No! You're forgetting the brave new politics, that breath of fresh air that is the TIGs!
Yes, and rather showed, for now at least, the nonsense that was the idea the big two are struggling or that people desperately want a change. No they don't. Or if they do, they want it in familiar branding.
If you're looking at the "big two" then 2017 is the outlier from a clear upward trend for the LDs + Others.
(a) it is central to or otherwise arises out of their political world view. This was a point made by Siobhan McDonagh yesterday; _____________________________________
Sort of mentioned this in the other thread, Some Jewish people were not happy about them being linked to capitalism or that their left wing views are suddenly anti semitic.
If she was a Corbyn supporting MP and made comments like that regarding Jews she would be suspended and hounded for it.
Also goes against actual research into the area but hey who doesn't love a good conspiracy theory.
https://cst.org.uk/public/data/file/7/4/JPR.2017.Antisemitism in contemporary Great Britain.pdf _______________________________________ Levels of antisemitism among those on the left-wing of the political spectrum, including the far-left, are indistinguishable from those found in the general population. Yet, all parts of those on the left of the political spectrum – including the ‘slightly left-of-centre,’ the ‘fairly left-wing’ and the ‘very left-wing’ – exhibit higher levels of anti-Israelism than average. The most antisemitic group on the political spectrum consists of those who identify as very right-wing: _________________________________________
Anti-semitism is not confined to the left. It is virulent on the right as well. And it should be condemned wherever it arises. There are many different strands to it. But to deny that there is a part of the Far Left, whose views give rise to anti-semitism is to deny reality.
I'd argue that to make up facts to suit your political beliefs that go against the evidence is to deny reality but lots of people like conspiracy theories that appeal to their world view.
If the evidence says the far left aren't any more anti semitic than the left or centre left, which are no more anti semitic than the general population then maybe it is you who is making the dodgy jews = capitalism association rather than your opponents.
How are we going to remain after all the bad faith on both sides?
Unharmoniously.
But if our MPs won't vote to leave, that's where we'll find ourselves so we'll need to suck it up.
How many times?
They have already voted to leave. It will happen automatically without further votes.
It's only if our MPs actively vote to Remain before the 29th March that that changes. And they are as unable to do that as to do anything else.
I am assuming an extension will ultimately lead to remain, probably via a referendum. I am very confident an extension will happen simply because so many don't want no deal but so many also don't want deal, and yet there probably are not enough to referendum or revoke, meaning can kicking will occur. It's a question of how they justify it without a reason beyond faffing about and if the EU accepts that.
They have to vote for an extension and the EU has to agree to it.
Therefore I consider your assumption to be a bold one.
Energetic action is required to avert calamity, and we haven't any politicians who might manage it.
No! You're forgetting the brave new politics, that breath of fresh air that is the TIGs!
How are we going to remain after all the bad faith on both sides?
Unharmoniously.
But if our MPs won't vote to leave, that's where we'll find ourselves so we'll need to suck it up.
How many times?
They have already voted to leave. It will happen automatically without further votes.
Only, as I keep pointing out, once the relevant parts of the EUWA, have been commenced. Until that happens, Brexit can be cancelled by the government notifying the European Council that they are revoking the UK's notification of invocation of Article 50.
Once commencement takes place, you will be correct, it would then require a repeal or amendment of the EUWA as well as a revocation of A50.
But to revoke, we would need at least a vote in Parliament. Still not happening.
We are leaving with no deal, and every MP should lose their jobs.
It doesn't follow that a vote has to be held to authorize a revocation. SCOTUK ruled that Parliament had to authorize invocation as citizens' rights would be extinguished. No rights would be extinguished by a revocation, so why shouldn't it just be a case of the administration exercising the sovereign's executive powers delegated to them as they see fit.
Because the EU would not accept it?
Why wouldn't they? Everyone escapes the upheaval of a no-deal Brexit. The likelihood of any member state leaving or successfully getting any future opt-outs will be massively reduced. Brussels would bite May's arm off!
And it would all be in accordance with the UK's "constitutional requirements". Sometimes not having a written constitution can be very useful.
How are we going to remain after all the bad faith on both sides?
Unharmoniously.
But if our MPs won't vote to leave, that's where we'll find ourselves so we'll need to suck it up.
How many times?
They have already voted to leave. It will happen automatically without further votes.
It's only if our MPs actively vote to Remain before the 29th March that that changes. And they are as unable to do that as to do anything else.
Only, as I keep pointing out, once the relevant parts of the EUWA, have been commenced. Until that happens, Brexit can be cancelled by the government notifying the European Council that they are revoking the UK's notification of invocation of Article 50.
Once commencement takes place, you will be correct, it would then require a repeal or amendment of the EUWA as well as a revocation of A50.
How are we going to remain after all the bad faith on both sides?
Unharmoniously.
But if our MPs won't vote to leave, that's where we'll find ourselves so we'll need to suck it up.
How many times?
They have already voted to leave. It will happen automatically without further votes.
It's only if our MPs actively vote to Remain before the 29th March that that changes. And they are as unable to do that as to do anything else.
Only, as I keep pointing out, once the relevant parts of the EUWA, have been commenced. Until that happens, Brexit can be cancelled by the government notifying the European Council that they are revoking the UK's notification of invocation of Article 50.
Once commencement takes place, you will be correct, it would then require a repeal or amendment of the EUWA as well as a revocation of A50.
Even if you are correct, you'd still need a change of government
(a) it is central to or otherwise arises out of their political world view. This was a point made by Siobhan McDonagh yesterday; _____________________________________
Sort of mentioned this in the other thread, Some Jewish people were not happy about them being linked to capitalism or that their left wing views are suddenly anti semitic.
If she was a Corbyn supporting MP and made comments like that regarding Jews she would be suspended and hounded for it.
Also goes against actual research into the area but hey who doesn't love a good conspiracy theory.
https://cst.org.uk/public/data/file/7/4/JPR.2017.Antisemitism in contemporary Great Britain.pdf _______________________________________ Levels of antisemitism among those on the left-wing of the political spectrum, including the far-left, are indistinguishable from those found in the general population. Yet, all parts of those on the left of the political spectrum – including the ‘slightly left-of-centre,’ the ‘fairly left-wing’ and the ‘very left-wing’ – exhibit higher levels of anti-Israelism than average. The most antisemitic group on the political spectrum consists of those who identify as very right-wing: _________________________________________
Anti-semitism is not confined to the left. It is virulent on the right as well. And it should be condemned wherever it arises. There are many different strands to it. But to deny that there is a part of the Far Left, whose views give rise to anti-semitism is to deny reality.
I've never understood the defence that is trotted out that it exists elsewhere too. I'm sure it does and it must be rooted out there too, and if people are not doing a good enough job of doing that they should face castigation for that. But what does that have to do with dealing with it on the left? Are they not able to do try that if it is worse elsewhere or not being tackled enough elsewhere?
It was in direct reply to nonsense about anti semitism being central to the left wings worldview.
If the evidence shows that the left is no more anti semitic than the general population doesn't that show the original proposition to be false?
If someone was to say murder was central to being a British person and someone pointed out that actually lots of countries have worse murder rates and a bigger problem with murder would your response be to criticise the person for defending British murder?
Because that seems to be your approach here.
Murder is bad but someone claiming murder is central to being British is obviously wrong and should be corrected. This doesn't mean that British people murdering people is not a bad thing or shouldn't be stopped.
If May pulls the no deal and extension votes there will be all out war in the Tory party.
After promising these votes to avoid the Cooper Letwin amendment going through to renege on that will likely cause a host of resignations and would cause a huge backlash .
The Cooper Letwin amendment did through though to ensure the promise was kept
I think the Guardian has lots of articles saying Left wing x good, right-wing x bad. There is an assumption that they are better people so it must be right.
My wish would be for a referendum, not simple revocation.
Also, does that link say what you think it does? I cannot see where it says it would require a vote in parliament, only that several sides think it would and it would probably be the case. You made a point about the EU not accepting a revocation, and yet it says that 'No approval from any EU institution or member state is needed' so it was entirely correct to say it is not to do with what they would or would not accept. I happen to think that given initiating A50 required parliament it is likely it would be needed to revoke as well, and certainly our courts would be asked the question if the government attempted to revoke without parliament. But as the linked article points out 'However, neither of these strong indications actually make it law'. I'd remind you that both sides in the A50 case accepted A50 could not be revoked, and they were wrong, so agreeing on that point doesn't make it fact.
So what about me saying that 'if' revocation is acceptable under our law then it has nothing to do with what the EU will accept is incorrect? If that link is right then it doesn't matter if Europe thinks we need parliament to revoke, if our courts disagree (not that I think they would).
There are two reasons why they are not shutting it down: (a) it is central to or otherwise arises out of their political world view. This was a point made by Siobhan McDonagh yesterday; (b) they are concerned that to do so would end up pointing the finger at Corbyn. How can a Labour Party criticise others for their reaction to anti-semitic murals without also criticising their own leader, etc.
But, fundamentally, I think they don't care about the reaction of the Jewish community or those appalled by what's happened. They reckon that this is of no interest to the vast majority of voters, that those who are appalled are unlikely to be Labour voters anyway and that, even if they were, they will probably be outnumbered by those attracted to Labour because of its anti-Jewish stance.
It is the same cynical - and utterly amoral - stance as that taken by those who used those posters in the Leave campaign. And in taking such a cynical stance, their calculation as to its electoral effect is probably correct. The moral compasses of political parties, of political campaigns have not featured highly in our public discourse. If we get amoral politicians cynically using hatred of minorities for political gain it is because the public don't care about this - or not enough.
I don't think that anti-semitism is popular. I think it costs Labour three constituencies, and gains them none. And, I think it's hurting the party with a lot of swing voters. I don't see any electoral advantage from it.
The leadership may not think like this, though. They may calculate that 300,000 Jews don't mean a hill of beans, electorally, they can afford to lose 3 constituencies if it keeps others on board and keeps the Corbyn fans happy. And they look at what the Leave campaign did and think, yeah, people may say they don't like this stuff but in private they'll go along with it.
I agree with you that there is a risk that they may have miscalculated. I hope so. The idea that a party, any party, should deliberately take on a minority group to achieve some other end, as posited here, is really horrible, an utter debasement of our politics. But it is what has happened and not just in recent months.
The really clever bit is the way the Corbyn team, after figuring out anti semitism was popular managed to get all the people who claim they really don't like Corbyn and don't want him to succeed into spreading the idea that Corbyn's Labour liked/supported anti semitism.
The Sun and the Mail secretly working for Corbyn spreading his message... I love a good conspiracy theory.
If May pulls the no deal and extension votes there will be all out war in the Tory party.
After promising these votes to avoid the Cooper Letwin amendment going through to renege on that will likely cause a host of resignations and would cause a huge backlash .
The Cooper Letwin amendment did through though to ensure the promise was kept
No that one got pulled , the one that had legal force . What went through was another one which simply stated what May had promised . The government accepted that and it would have got nodded through but an ERG nutjob decided to shout no which forced a vote which went through by 480 votes .
It was in direct reply to nonsense about anti semitism being central to the left wings worldview.
If the evidence shows that the left is no more anti semitic than the general population doesn't that show the original proposition to be false?
If someone was to say murder was central to being a British person and someone pointed out that actually lots of countries have worse murder rates and a bigger problem with murder would your response be to criticise the person for defending British murder?
Because that seems to be your approach here.
Murder is bad but someone claiming murder is central to being British is obviously wrong and should be corrected. This doesn't mean that British people murdering people is not a bad thing or shouldn't be stopped.
Do you really not see the difference?
I was not referring to your comment, but the point that is often made - and while this example was a version of left wing whataboutery it is not something confined to the left by any means - that bad things in side X are not that important because side Y is worse, the direct implication of which is it is not a big deal.
And the way you phrase it is not the way many do, since they do claim that it is all smears and nonsense and that it is so much worse elsewhere, so are saying that it doesn't need to be stopped on the left.
There is a difference between 'We have a problem but others have it worse' and 'We don't have a problem the other side is terrible' and while you may go with the former, plenty go with the latter.
We know this because plenty of Corbyn supporters call Corbyn a liar when they contradict his comments about there being a problem and that it is not all a weapon against him.
So while I understand your frustration at feeling the situation is being magnified more than is warranted, to the exclusion of serious problems elsewhere which must also be tackled, there are ample examples of people trying to avoid action by making such comments, rather than take action and make comments about being proportionate.
How are we going to remain after all the bad faith on both sides?
Unharmoniously.
But if our MPs won't vote to leave, that's where we'll find ourselves so we'll need to suck it up.
How many times?
They have already voted to leave. It will happen automatically without further votes.
Only, as I keep pointing out, once the relevant parts of the EUWA, have been commenced. Until that happens, Brexit can be cancelled by the government notifying the European Council that they are revoking the UK's notification of invocation of Article 50.
Once commencement takes place, you will be correct, it would then require a repeal or amendment of the EUWA as well as a revocation of A50.
But to revoke, we would need at least a vote in Parliament. Still not happening.
We are leaving with no deal, and every MP should lose their jobs.
Except Fiona Onasanya, who at least has the excuse of not having been able to get to the Commons to vote.
Agreed. She should not lose her job for that.
For being a criminal, however...
Is it true that her attempted appeal essentially boiled down to 'but I swear I am innocent'?
Yes, one of the appeal judges had to point out to her that this wasn't a valid ground for appeal, and that as a solicitor she should know that.
MPs wouldn’t have a problem with that , there’s no need for two votes on separate days . LK making a drama over nothing .
MPs have debated all the permutations over Brexit for bloody months, even with 15 minutes to take a vote what would be the problem doing both of those in a day? That MPs wouldn't have had time to consider things properly? My arse.
I don't think it's hypocritical for people who hate Muslims to accuse other people of being prejudiced against Jews.
It would be hypocritical only if they accepted that it was wrong to hate people on the basis of race and/or religion.
In my experience, bigots don't accept that prejudice is wrong. They just think their sets of prejudices are right, and they hate people who don't share those prejudices almost as much as they hate the people they're prejudiced against in the first place.
(a) it is central to or otherwise arises out of their political world view. This was a point made by Siobhan McDonagh yesterday; _____________________________________
Sort of mentioned this in the other thread, Some Jewish people were not happy about them being linked to capitalism or that their left wing views are suddenly anti semitic.
If she was a Corbyn supporting MP and made comments like that regarding Jews she would be suspended and hounded for it.
Also goes against actual research into the area but hey who doesn't love a good conspiracy theory.
https://cst.org.uk/public/data/file/7/4/JPR.2017.Antisemitism in contemporary Great Britain.pdf _______________________________________ Levels of antisemitism among those on the left-wing of the political spectrum, including the far-left, are indistinguishable from those found in the general population. Yet, all parts of those on the left of the political spectrum – including the ‘slightly left-of-centre,’ the ‘fairly left-wing’ and the ‘very left-wing’ – exhibit higher levels of anti-Israelism than average. The most antisemitic group on the political spectrum consists of those who identify as very right-wing: _________________________________________
Anti-semitism is not confined to the left. It is virulent on the right as well. And it should be condemned wherever it arises. There are many different strands to it. But to deny that there is a part of the Far Left, whose views give rise to anti-semitism is to deny reality.
I'd argue that to make up facts to suit your political beliefs that go against the evidence is to deny reality but lots of people like conspiracy theories that appeal to their world view.
If the evidence says the far left aren't any more anti semitic than the left or centre left, which are no more anti semitic than the general population then maybe it is you who is making the dodgy jews = capitalism association rather than your opponents.
It is Labour MPs who are making the association. Oh and experts on the Left and anti-semitism such as David Rich, David Hirsh and Deborah Lipstadt.
But knock yourself out coming out with your ludicrous conspiracy theories, denying what the Labour leadership have said (see John McDonnell this weekend) and accusing others, wrongly, of making up facts.
(a) it is central to or otherwise arises out of their political world view. This was a point made by Siobhan McDonagh yesterday; _____________________________________
Sort of mentioned this in the other thread, Some Jewish people were not happy about them being linked to capitalism or that their left wing views are suddenly anti semitic.
If she was a Corbyn supporting MP and made comments like that regarding Jews she would be suspended and hounded for it.
Also goes against actual research into the area but hey who doesn't love a good conspiracy theory.
https://cst.org.uk/public/data/file/7/4/JPR.2017.Antisemitism in contemporary Great Britain.pdf _______________________________________ Levels of antisemitism among those on the left-wing of the political spectrum, including the far-left, are indistinguishable from those found in the general population. Yet, all parts of those on the left of the political spectrum – including the ‘slightly left-of-centre,’ the ‘fairly left-wing’ and the ‘very left-wing’ – exhibit higher levels of anti-Israelism than average. The most antisemitic group on the political spectrum consists of those who identify as very right-wing: _________________________________________
Anti-semitism is not confined to the left. It is virulent on the right as well. And it should be condemned wherever it arises. There are many different strands to it. But to deny that there is a part of the Far Left, whose views give rise to anti-semitism is to deny reality.
I'd argue that to make up facts to suit your political beliefs that go against the evidence is to deny reality but lots of people like conspiracy theories that appeal to their world view.
If the evidence says the far left aren't any more anti semitic than the left or centre left, which are no more anti semitic than the general population then maybe it is you who is making the dodgy jews = capitalism association rather than your opponents.
It is Labour MPs who are making the association. Oh and experts on the Left and anti-semitism such as David Rich, David Hirsh and Deborah Lipstadt.
But knock yourself out coming out with your ludicrous conspiracy theories, denying what the Labour leadership have said (see John McDonnell this weekend) and accusing others, wrongly, of making up facts.
If you don't like the evidence because it doesn't fit your theory best just to ignore it then, like a conspiracy theorist.
(a) it is central to or otherwise arises out of their political world view. This was a point made by Siobhan McDonagh yesterday; _____________________________________
Sort of mentioned this in the other thread, Some Jewish people were not happy about them being linked to capitalism or that their left wing views are suddenly anti semitic.
If she was a Corbyn supporting MP and made comments like that regarding Jews she would be suspended and hounded for it.
Also goes against actual research into the area but hey who doesn't love a good conspiracy theory.
https://cst.org.uk/public/data/file/7/4/JPR.2017.Antisemitism in contemporary Great Britain.pdf _______________________________________ Levels of antisemitism among those on the left-wing of the political spectrum, including the far-left, are indistinguishable from those found in the general population. Yet, all parts of those on the left of the political spectrum – including the ‘slightly left-of-centre,’ the ‘fairly left-wing’ and the ‘very left-wing’ – exhibit higher levels of anti-Israelism than average. The most antisemitic group on the political spectrum consists of those who identify as very right-wing: _________________________________________
Anti-semitism is not confined to the left. It is virulent on the right as well. And it should be condemned wherever it arises. There are many different strands to it. But to deny that there is a part of the Far Left, whose views give rise to anti-semitism is to deny reality.
I'd argue that to make up facts to suit your political beliefs that go against the evidence is to deny reality but lots of people like conspiracy theories that appeal to their world view.
If the evidence says the far left aren't any more anti semitic than the left or centre left, which are no more anti semitic than the general population then maybe it is you who is making the dodgy jews = capitalism association rather than your opponents.
It is Labour MPs who are making the association. Oh and experts on the Left and anti-semitism such as David Rich, David Hirsh and Deborah Lipstadt.
But knock yourself out coming out with your ludicrous conspiracy theories, denying what the Labour leadership have said (see John McDonnell this weekend) and accusing others, wrongly, of making up facts.
If you don't like the evidence because it doesn't fit your theory best just to ignore it then, like a conspiracy theorist.
I leave the conspiracy theories and ignoring of evidence to you.
I was not referring to your comment, but the point that is often made - and while this example was a version of left wing whataboutery it is not something confined to the left by any means - that bad things in side X are not that important because side Y is worse, the direct implication of which is it is not a big deal.
And the way you phrase it is not the way many do, since they do claim that it is all smears and nonsense and that it is so much worse elsewhere, so are saying that it doesn't need to be stopped on the left.
There is a difference between 'We have a problem but others have it worse' and 'We don't have a problem the other side is terrible' and while you may go with the former, plenty go with the latter.
We know this because plenty of Corbyn supporters call Corbyn a liar when they contradict his comments about there being a problem and that it is not all a weapon against him.
So while I understand your frustration at feeling the situation is being magnified more than is warranted, to the exclusion of serious problems elsewhere which must also be tackled, there are ample examples of people trying to avoid action by making such comments, rather than take action and make comments about being proportionate.
Cyclefrees comment that you responded to was in direct response to my comment, who is the imaginary person you were arguing with?
Pointing out the many false or overplayed accusations is not the same as saying any real accusations should not be dealt with. I highly doubt there are many people claiming legitimate cases should not be dealt with because there are issues in other places.
I'm sure there is some left wing moron somewhere that believes a bunch of crazy stuff, but in the same way I don't base the world view of people like you on the craziest leave voting centrist types you shouldn't base the world view on the craziest left wingers.
The percentage actually saying Corbyn is a liar, anti semitism doesn't exist and it's all a weapon can't be any higher than the percentage of your fellow political thinkers who believe in flat earth and think the truth about it is being hidden. Note saying eg anti semitism is being weaponised is not a secret way of making all the above statements, someone who says it my believe all the above statements but it doesn't tell you that.
So it is perfectly correct for people to correct erroneous statements about it being central to the left when it goes against the actual evidence.
(a) it is central to or otherwise arises out of their political world view. This was a point made by Siobhan McDonagh yesterday; _____________________________________
Sort of mentioned this in the other thread, Some Jewish people were not happy about them being linked to capitalism or that their left wing views are suddenly anti semitic.
If she was a Corbyn supporting MP and made comments like that regarding Jews she would be suspended and hounded for it.
Also goes against actual research into the area but hey who doesn't love a good conspiracy theory.
https://cst.org.uk/public/data/file/7/4/JPR.2017.Antisemitism in contemporary Great Britain.pdf _______________________________________ Levels of antisemitism among those on the left-wing of the political spectrum, including the far-left, are indistinguishable from those found in the general population. Yet, all parts of those on the left of the political spectrum – including the ‘slightly left-of-centre,’ the ‘fairly left-wing’ and the ‘very left-wing’ – exhibit higher levels of anti-Israelism than average. The most antisemitic group on the political spectrum consists of those who identify as very right-wing: _________________________________________
Anti-semitism is not confined to the left. It is virulent on the right as well. And it should be condemned wherever it arises. There are many different strands to it. But to deny that there is a part of the Far Left, whose views give rise to anti-semitism is to deny reality.
I'd argue that to make up facts to suit your political beliefs that go against the evidence is to deny reality but lots of people like conspiracy theories that appeal to their world view.
If the evidence says the far left aren't any more anti semitic than the left or centre left, which are no more anti semitic than the general population then maybe it is you who is making the dodgy jews = capitalism association rather than your opponents.
It is Labour MPs who are making the association. Oh and experts on the Left and anti-semitism such as David Rich, David Hirsh and Deborah Lipstadt.
But knock yourself out coming out with your ludicrous conspiracy theories, denying what the Labour leadership have said (see John McDonnell this weekend) and accusing others, wrongly, of making up facts.
If you don't like the evidence because it doesn't fit your theory best just to ignore it then, like a conspiracy theorist.
I leave the conspiracy theories and ignoring of evidence to you.
She says as she completely ignores the actual statistics about left wingers because it doesn't suit her conspiracy theory....
I was not referring to your comment, but the point that is often made - and while this example was a version of left wing whataboutery it is not something confined to the left by any means - that bad things in side X are not that important because side Y is worse, the direct implication of which is it is not a big deal.
And the way you phrase it is not the way many do, since they do claim that it is all smears and nonsense and that it is so much worse elsewhere, so are saying that it doesn't need to be stopped on the left.
There is a difference between 'We have a problem but others have it worse' and 'We don't have a problem the other side is terrible' and while you may go with the former, plenty go with the latter.
We know this because plenty of Corbyn supporters call Corbyn a liar when they contradict his comments about there being a problem and that it is not all a weapon against him.
So while I understand your frustration at feeling the situation is being magnified more than is warranted, to the exclusion of serious problems elsewhere which must also be tackled, there are ample examples of people trying to avoid action by making such comments, rather than take action and make comments about being proportionate.
Cyclefrees comment that you responded to was in direct response to my comment, who is the imaginary person you were arguing with?
I'm sorry, but what a silly comment to make. I wasn't arguing with anyone, I responded to a post by Cyclefree because it prompted me to have a tangential but generic thought.
Not everything is about you, and I wasn't arguing with anyone, the argument you two were having merely led me to my own comment. If that was ambiguous, my follow up has clarified that and you decide to respond by suggesting I was arguing with an imaginary person? How very mature of you.
You've handled a lot of criticism with a pretty reasonable attitude to my mind, but if you are seeing attacks because someone dared to have a general comment in the same area, then you really are just trying to be the victim to your own narrative.
The refs don't follow the handball definition in the rules
Meh, seen them given, seen them not given.
For the sake of reassuring TSE, just because this comment is quoting one which is a reply to a comment he made, that doesn't mean I am arguing with him. Apparently in the mind of Jezziah at least you need to be careful about that sort of thing.
Cool. Can they at least please get the referendum vote approved in principle before the extension is asked for? Surely even the ultra fanatics like the Grievers do not want to get a 21 month extension agreed and then still find they don't have the votes for a referendum?
Cool. Can they at least please get the referendum vote approved in principle before the extension is asked for? Surely even the ultra fanatics like the Grievers do not want to get a 21 month extension agreed and then still find they don't have the votes for a referendum?
Comments
Therefore I consider your assumption to be a bold one.
Energetic action is required to avert calamity, and we haven't any politicians who might manage it.
Once commencement takes place, you will be correct, it would then require a repeal or amendment of the EUWA as well as a revocation of A50.
We are leaving with no deal, and every MP should lose their jobs.
And MPs can amend the meaningful vote anyway and they’ll just put in the Cooper Letwin amendment again.
There are other amendments they can add and if she really pisses off more moderate Tory MPs it could get very ugly .
Good policy at the right time
More please
I agree with you that there is a risk that they may have miscalculated. I hope so. The idea that a party, any party, should deliberately take on a minority group to achieve some other end, as posited here, is really horrible, an utter debasement of our politics. But it is what has happened and not just in recent months.
For being a criminal, however...
If the article's argument is right - and it might be - then I would have to draw two more hopeful conclusions: that a Labour party in alliance with this wicked mindset could not win an election in any foreseeable circumstances, and, more importantly, a new left of centre alliance of some sort would be inevitable.
A lot of comment seems to be forgetting that much UK opinion is must firmer than just being opposed to anti-Semitism. Millions of us hold the Jewish community in this country (and elsewhere) in the highest regard for very good reasons, and are offended and hurt, disgusted and outraged by this. And, crucially, we all vote.
Not only did May promise those votes but the government itself then voted for the Amendment confirming what had been promised .
Which was carried by over 480 votes . To renege I think would cause such a huge backlash that May will be without a working majority by the end of the day .
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-cancel-stop-revoke-article-50-explained-remain-stay-eu-latest-parliament-theresa-may-a8690886.html
Don't let wishful thinking cloud your judgement.
If the evidence says the far left aren't any more anti semitic than the left or centre left, which are no more anti semitic than the general population then maybe it is you who is making the dodgy jews = capitalism association rather than your opponents.
Good night.
And it would all be in accordance with the UK's "constitutional requirements". Sometimes not having a written constitution can be very useful.
If the evidence shows that the left is no more anti semitic than the general population doesn't that show the original proposition to be false?
If someone was to say murder was central to being a British person and someone pointed out that actually lots of countries have worse murder rates and a bigger problem with murder would your response be to criticise the person for defending British murder?
Because that seems to be your approach here.
Murder is bad but someone claiming murder is central to being British is obviously wrong and should be corrected. This doesn't mean that British people murdering people is not a bad thing or shouldn't be stopped.
Do you really not see the difference?
Also, does that link say what you think it does? I cannot see where it says it would require a vote in parliament, only that several sides think it would and it would probably be the case. You made a point about the EU not accepting a revocation, and yet it says that 'No approval from any EU institution or member state is needed' so it was entirely correct to say it is not to do with what they would or would not accept. I happen to think that given initiating A50 required parliament it is likely it would be needed to revoke as well, and certainly our courts would be asked the question if the government attempted to revoke without parliament. But as the linked article points out 'However, neither of these strong indications actually make it law'. I'd remind you that both sides in the A50 case accepted A50 could not be revoked, and they were wrong, so agreeing on that point doesn't make it fact.
So what about me saying that 'if' revocation is acceptable under our law then it has nothing to do with what the EU will accept is incorrect? If that link is right then it doesn't matter if Europe thinks we need parliament to revoke, if our courts disagree (not that I think they would).
The Sun and the Mail secretly working for Corbyn spreading his message... I love a good conspiracy theory.
And the way you phrase it is not the way many do, since they do claim that it is all smears and nonsense and that it is so much worse elsewhere, so are saying that it doesn't need to be stopped on the left.
There is a difference between 'We have a problem but others have it worse' and 'We don't have a problem the other side is terrible' and while you may go with the former, plenty go with the latter.
We know this because plenty of Corbyn supporters call Corbyn a liar when they contradict his comments about there being a problem and that it is not all a weapon against him.
So while I understand your frustration at feeling the situation is being magnified more than is warranted, to the exclusion of serious problems elsewhere which must also be tackled, there are ample examples of people trying to avoid action by making such comments, rather than take action and make comments about being proportionate.
It would be hypocritical only if they accepted that it was wrong to hate people on the basis of race and/or religion.
In my experience, bigots don't accept that prejudice is wrong. They just think their sets of prejudices are right, and they hate people who don't share those prejudices almost as much as they hate the people they're prejudiced against in the first place.
But knock yourself out coming out with your ludicrous conspiracy theories, denying what the Labour leadership have said (see John McDonnell this weekend) and accusing others, wrongly, of making up facts.
Pointing out the many false or overplayed accusations is not the same as saying any real accusations should not be dealt with. I highly doubt there are many people claiming legitimate cases should not be dealt with because there are issues in other places.
I'm sure there is some left wing moron somewhere that believes a bunch of crazy stuff, but in the same way I don't base the world view of people like you on the craziest leave voting centrist types you shouldn't base the world view on the craziest left wingers.
The percentage actually saying Corbyn is a liar, anti semitism doesn't exist and it's all a weapon can't be any higher than the percentage of your fellow political thinkers who believe in flat earth and think the truth about it is being hidden. Note saying eg anti semitism is being weaponised is not a secret way of making all the above statements, someone who says it my believe all the above statements but it doesn't tell you that.
So it is perfectly correct for people to correct erroneous statements about it being central to the left when it goes against the actual evidence.
A prominent Tory MP has endorsed a depiction of a prominent Muslim politician being buggered by a pig. And guess what. He's still a prominent Tory MP.
Not that betting book is complaining.
What did the EU think?
Oh. What do you mean they weren’t part of the discussion?
A proposed Labour Party poster depicting the Tory leader Michael Howard in a pose resembling Shakespeare's Shylock has prompted fresh claims of anti-Semitism.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-criticised-for-anti-semitic-howard-poster-488998.html
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/03/06/brexit-deal-will-defeated-100-votes-ministers-believe-talks/
https://order-order.com/2019/03/06/german-economists-no-deal-will-hit-ireland-three-times-harder-uk/
Not everything is about you, and I wasn't arguing with anyone, the argument you two were having merely led me to my own comment. If that was ambiguous, my follow up has clarified that and you decide to respond by suggesting I was arguing with an imaginary person? How very mature of you.
You've handled a lot of criticism with a pretty reasonable attitude to my mind, but if you are seeing attacks because someone dared to have a general comment in the same area, then you really are just trying to be the victim to your own narrative.
https://twitter.com/Steven_Swinford/status/1103416562516664320
For the sake of reassuring TSE, just because this comment is quoting one which is a reply to a comment he made, that doesn't mean I am arguing with him. Apparently in the mind of Jezziah at least you need to be careful about that sort of thing.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/jul/13/tory-mp-apologises-for-tweet-of-sadiq-khan-image-with-pig-balloon
First time ever in European Champions league history a team losing 2 - 0 at home in the first leg have progressed, and lets not forget this PSG
And 10 first teamers missing through injury
I'm surprised too, because I hadn't seem a whisper of it in the press.
I am utterly fed up with his posturing.