What is also clear is that when the wheels of Boris's bus fall off the Conservative MP's and party membership will have nobody to blame but themselves. They went into the upcoming catastrophe fully warned and chose to ignore the evidence.
Under Theresa May they've collapsed to 20-22% and polled 9% in a national election.
They are already in an existential crisis and passed the "nothing left to lose" barrier weeks ago...
The Conservatives are in crisis, largely of May's and the ERG's making. May failed to occupy a consensus position from day one until just before MV3 and the ERG wanted a unicorn BREXIT. However the Tory solution to this nightmare is not to wake up to reality but to continue to sleepwalk into a deeper longer nightmare.
The "nothing to lose" position is being outflanked by TBP and the LibDems with Prime Minister Corbyn heading a minority government or worse.
Continuity May (Hunt) would be out flanked by both the TBP and the Lib Dems. Go down that path and the Tories could be annihilated like the Canadian Tories in 1993. Being exposed on 2 flanks can be disastrous.
Doesn't look like that is the case though. If the Tories choose Boris and if he sticks to his word then they will have the Lib Dems attacking on one flank but they can defend the other flank. It may mean they lose the next election (nothing but Corbyn may prevent that now) but at least the party can survive.
Your solution is for the Tory Party to be more extreme and put a dishonest buffoon in charge. You are a strategic genius.
Yes my solution is for the Tories to occupy an extreme. You can't be outflanked if you are already the most extreme. Out is out, deal or no deal, October 31.
The Tories need to pick 1 extreme: Remain or Leave. Pick one and do it.
Even being extreme won't work. Any brexit failure (and there will be some) will give Farage another entry point and he will use it...
Failure to Brexit will give Farage an entry point. Had we not failed in March then Farage would have remained an historical figure.
Farage isn't going to retire and disappear - is he?
If we leave this year it's difficult to see Farage and the BP hanging around.
As soon as the referendum was won , Ukip went down the drain. Actually leaving is twice as fatal for a one issue party.
So Labour will likely see an uptick - as their opponents fall away.
What is also clear is that when the wheels of Boris's bus fall off the Conservative MP's and party membership will have nobody to blame but themselves. They went into the upcoming catastrophe fully warned and chose to ignore the evidence.
Under Theresa May they've collapsed to 20-22% and polled 9% in a national election.
They are already in an existential crisis and passed the "nothing left to lose" barrier weeks ago...
The er longer nightmare.
The "nothing to lose" position is being outflanked by TBP and the LibDems with Prime Minister Corbyn heading a minority government or worse.
Continuity May (Hunt) would be out flanked by both the TBP and the Lib Dems. Go down that path and the Tories could be annihilated like the Canadian Tories in 1993. Being exposed on 2 flanks can be disastrous.
Doesn't look like that is the case though. If the Tories choose Boris and if he sticks to his word then they will have the Lib Dems attacking on one flank but they can defend the other flank. It may mean they lose the next election (nothing but Corbyn may prevent that now) but at least the party can survive.
Your solution is for the Tory Party to be more extreme and put a dishonest buffoon in charge. You are a strategic genius.
Yes my solution is for the Tories to occupy an extreme. You can't be outflanked if you are already the most extreme. Out is out, deal or no deal, October 31.
The Tories need to pick 1 extreme: Remain or Leave. Pick one and do it.
Even being extreme won't work. Any brexit failure (and there will be some) will give Farage another entry point and he will use it...
Failure to Brexit will give Farage an entry point. Had we not failed in March then Farage would have remained an historical figure.
Do you really think all the preparation that went into the Brexit Party was just done on the off chance there would be a delay? He was planning to do this regardless, and being in transition as a rule taker would be even more fertile ground for him.
Farage is bright enough and cunning enough to have known that at some point the Brexit process would have to collide with reality thus providing ample scope for his betrayal narrative. I expect his planning was done on the assumption of May’s deal or something similar actually getting through.
I think it's hard to argue that Israel isn't a settler state, in the same way that most, if not all, of the Americas are as well as South Africa, Australia and New Zealand.
Not quite true, there were Jews in Israel over 1000 years ago and it is their historic home, there were not whites in the Americas, South Africa, Australia and New Zealand 1000 years ago
Fair enough; Wikipedia says that by the mid-19th century, Turkish sources recorded that 80% of the population of 600,000 was identified as Muslim, 10% as Christian Arab and 5–7% as Jewish. However the massive increase in Jewish population since 1948....... and I sympathise with the reason for it, most especially in the early days, has created a state in which the indigenous population has been marginalised.
And of course, there were no humans at all in New Zealand 1000 years ago!
You may want to think about how all those Muslims got to be there in the first place. Hint: they created a "state" in which the previous population were marginalised.
Of course, so did that population, and the one before it. The Jews got to be there by conquering the Canaanites and Hittites who came before them.
Point is, trying to figure out exactly who the "indigenous" population of Israel are is fraught with difficulty; however, it's beyond doubt that the Jews have the longest standing claim of any currently extant group.
"Settler" is fine (as has already been pointed out). "Colonial" is problematic. And we'd need the context, but if the "money stained with blood" bit is a reference to Jewish bankers* (as is sort of implied) then that's significantly worse.
Edit: *I just watched the clip and that's not at all what she's saying. Sorry about that.
No, I think 'colonial' is reasonable when you consider how modern Israel was formed and developed.
But, yes, anything alluding to a 'jewish cabal' of capitalists, bankers, all of that Soros nonsense, is slam dunk antisemitism. That's what I look out for - that and holocaust denial or 'context' to Hitler's policies, or any belief that jews are in a malign sense 'different' from 'us' and are always plotting and working together in the interests of other jews or for Israel. That stuff is brain-dead and dangerous.
Over exuberant pro Palestinian and anti Israel sentiment? This does not, for me, belong in the same category.
If we leave this year it's difficult to see Farage and the BP hanging around.
As soon as the referendum was won , Ukip went down the drain. Actually leaving is twice as fatal for a one issue party.
So Labour will likely see an uptick - as their opponents fall away.
Questionable. Labour will be torn between those wanting to move on and make the best of us being out and those campaigning for re-entry. The Lib Dems will campaign unquestionably for re-entry. The Tories by and large will be satisfied with us being out.
That leaves the Lib Dems attacking Labours flank unless Labour adopts a rejoin position.
Israel CAN be argued to be a settler-colonial state. In fact the argument that it is not is perhaps the more challenging to make.
Which country is it a colony of?
She was not saying it was a colony but that it has and is colonising. I can't see what there is to argue with. Even the most fervent Zionists wouldn't (with a straight face) argue that the Golan Heights are part of Greater Isreal.
Yes, they do. At least, the ones who know their Old Testament do. Which is basically all of them.
The Gaza Strip is the tougher one to argue. In any case, giving the Golan Heights back to Syria would do absolutely nothing to help the Palestinians.
It would prevent the Israelis destroying the livelihoods of the olive pickers who have had their centuries old olive groves destroyed by their Israeli neigbours.
Farage is bright enough and cunning enough to have known that at some point the Brexit process would have to collide with reality thus providing ample scope for his betrayal narrative. I expect his planning was done on the assumption of May’s deal or something similar actually getting through.
Had May's deal gone through there would have been no EU elections and we would have been out. It is the DUP who would have been rightly furious not Brexiteers.
"Settler" is fine (as has already been pointed out). "Colonial" is problematic. And we'd need the context, but if the "money stained with blood" bit is a reference to Jewish bankers* (as is sort of implied) then that's significantly worse.
Edit: *I just watched the clip and that's not at all what she's saying. Sorry about that.
No, I think 'colonial' is reasonable when you consider how modern Israel was formed and developed.
But, yes, anything alluding to a 'jewish cabal' of capitalists, bankers, all of that Soros nonsense, is slam dunk antisemitism. That's what I look out for - that and holocaust denial or 'context' to Hitler's policies, or any belief that jews are in a malign sense 'different' from 'us' and are always plotting and working together in the interests of other jews or for Israel. That stuff is brain-dead and dangerous.
Over exuberant pro Palestinian and anti Israel sentiment? This does not, for me, belong in the same category.
That's a reasonable position. But when you support a nakedly anti-semitic Party, that kind of nuance tends to get lost.
You do realise that there was already a Jewish population in situ?
Yes. I know this is not a straightforward matter. My point is simply that to describe Israel as a 'settler-colonial' state is not, of itself, something that ought to cause outrage. Whether you take the 'colonial' as referring to the way that Israel was created or to the way it is behaving now, it is not an unreasonable statement.
"Settler" is fine (as has already been pointed out). "Colonial" is problematic. And we'd need the context, but if the "money stained with blood" bit is a reference to Jewish bankers* (as is sort of implied) then that's significantly worse.
Edit: *I just watched the clip and that's not at all what she's saying. Sorry about that.
No, I think 'colonial' is reasonable when you consider how modern Israel was formed and developed.
But, yes, anything alluding to a 'jewish cabal' of capitalists, bankers, all of that Soros nonsense, is slam dunk antisemitism. That's what I look out for - that and holocaust denial or 'context' to Hitler's policies, or any belief that jews are in a malign sense 'different' from 'us' and are always plotting and working together in the interests of other jews or for Israel. That stuff is brain-dead and dangerous.
Over exuberant pro Palestinian and anti Israel sentiment? This does not, for me, belong in the same category.
That's a reasonable position. But when you support a nakedly anti-semitic Party, that kind of nuance tends to get lost.
The colonialism bit is important, because, in the minds of the hard left, it links back to imperialism and thence to capitalism. One of the newspaper commentators dug all this up a few weeks ago (danny finkelstein?). He has struggled to understand why the Left are so anti-Semitic.
According to some Left thinkers like Murray, Lenin argued that capitalism was only sustained by expanding into new markets through imperialism. Being against imperialism is a way of furthering the fight to dismantle capitalism. And imperialism is also a conspiracy driven by funding from Jewish banking families.
Hopefully I have understood his argument.
So I suspect the use of the word 'colonial' in the context of Israel is at least partly a trigger word for other Hard Left followers.
Edit: Added link to the Danny F piece. Actually a speech:
That's a reasonable position. But when you support a nakedly anti-semitic Party, that kind of nuance tends to get lost.
Well obviously I don't agree that Labour are nakedly anti-semitic. If I did I would not vote for them.
Your perception of them is not the problem. The fact that more or less every Jewish public body in the UK does now view them as either institutionally antisemitic, or having a serious antisemitism issue, however, is.
I think it's hard to argue that Israel isn't a settler state, in the same way that most, if not all, of the Americas are as well as South Africa, Australia and New Zealand.
Not quite true, there were Jews in Israel over 1000 years ago and it is their historic home, there were not whites in the Americas, South Africa, Australia and New Zealand 1000 years ago
Fair enough; Wikipedia says that by the mid-19th century, Turkish sources recorded that 80% of the population of 600,000 was identified as Muslim, 10% as Christian Arab and 5–7% as Jewish. However the massive increase in Jewish population since 1948....... and I sympathise with the reason for it, most especially in the early days, has created a state in which the indigenous population has been marginalised.
And of course, there were no humans at all in New Zealand 1000 years ago!
You may want to think about how all those Muslims got to be there in the first place. Hint: they created a "state" in which the previous population were marginalised.
Of course, so did that population, and the one before it. The Jews got to be there by conquering the Canaanites and Hittites who came before them.
Point is, trying to figure out exactly who the "indigenous" population of Israel are is fraught with difficulty; however, it's beyond doubt that the Jews have the longest standing claim of any currently extant group.
The Welsh would enjoy your reasoning.
Indeed. Like the Jews, the Welsh are clearly the "indigenous" population, in the sense of having the longest claim of any current extant group.
The comparison is very enlightening. And the respective treatment of the Jews and the Welsh in "their homeland" is very different.
If you believe any action taken by the Jews against the Palestinians is fine, you can check your judgment by seeing if you believe the same action taken by the Welsh against the English would be fine.
Farage is bright enough and cunning enough to have known that at some point the Brexit process would have to collide with reality thus providing ample scope for his betrayal narrative. I expect his planning was done on the assumption of May’s deal or something similar actually getting through.
Had May's deal gone through there would have been no EU elections and we would have been out. It is the DUP who would have been rightly furious not Brexiteers.
Nah, you would still have all whinged and complained about the foreigners. There would have been this grievance or that grievance. It is the extremist raison d'etre. You need to feel victimised by the other lot; you love it. It is why Brexit will never be sorted out, because it would spoil your bizarre idea of fun.
If, upon declaring independence, England, Scotland, Ireland, France, Germany, Holland and Italy attempted to invade Wales then much of their subsequent behaviour and actions would be seen in a particular light.
Israel CAN be argued to be a settler-colonial state. In fact the argument that it is not is perhaps the more challenging to make.
Which country is it a colony of?
I was about to make the same point: it has its own defence and foreign policy and is in charge of its own laws and constitution. Its claim to independent statehood is stronger than, say, Canada (which didn't repatriate its constitution until the eighties)
You do realise that there was already a Jewish population in situ?
Yes. I know this is not a straightforward matter. My point is simply that to describe Israel as a 'settler-colonial' state is not, of itself, something that ought to cause outrage. Whether you take the 'colonial' as referring to the way that Israel was created or to the way it is behaving now, it is not an unreasonable statement.
Many of the Moslems may well be descendants of Jews, Samaritans and other 'indigenous' peoples who converted to Islam.There's apparently evidence that many of the inhabitants of what we now call the UAE and immediate neighbours were Christian for 100-200 years before Islam arrived, and Christianity survived at least for another 300 or so.
Subjected peoples change their religion and their language to conform with their conquerors.
Israel CAN be argued to be a settler-colonial state. In fact the argument that it is not is perhaps the more challenging to make.
Which country is it a colony of?
I was about to make the same point: it has its own defence and foreign policy and is in charge of its own laws and constitution. Its claim to independent statehood is stronger than, say, Canada (which didn't repatriate its constitution until the eighties)
As per previous comments, I'm about 80% sure the reference was to Israel's occupation of the Palestinian Territories, not that it was itself an outpost of Western Capitalism.
I'm basing this off the specific phrase "settler-colonial" which implies to me that both words are meant to relate to Israel's actions - as opposed to "settler-colony" which would imply the reverse. I may be overinterpreting.
I think it's hard to argue that Israel isn't a settler state, in the same way that most, if not all, of the Americas are as well as South Africa, Australia and New Zealand.
Not quite true, there were Jews in Israel over 1000 years ago and it is their historic home, there were not whites in the Americas, South Africa, Australia and New Zealand 1000 years ago
Fair enough; Wikipedia says that by the mid-19th century, Turkish sources recorded that 80% of the population of 600,000 was identified as Muslim, 10% as Christian Arab and 5–7% as Jewish. However the massive increase in Jewish population since 1948....... and I sympathise with the reason for it, most especially in the early days, has created a state in which the indigenous population has been marginalised.
And of course, there were no humans at all in New Zealand 1000 years ago!
You may want to think about how all those Muslims got to be there in the first place. Hint: they created a "state" in which the previous population were marginalised.
Of course, so did that population, and the one before it. The Jews got to be there by conquering the Canaanites and Hittites who came before them.
Point is, trying to figure out exactly who the "indigenous" population of Israel are is fraught with difficulty; however, it's beyond doubt that the Jews have the longest standing claim of any currently extant group.
The Muslim population of Palestine and Israel is, largely, a result of the local population, previously Jewish or Christian, converting to Islam. This is shown by genetic studies: Muslim and Christian Palestinians are very close to the Jewish population. The early Zionists in the middle of the 20th century thought Muslim and Christian Palestinians would be their allies in a shared brotherhood before sectarian tensions destroyed that idea.
You do realise that there was already a Jewish population in situ?
Yes. I know this is not a straightforward matter. My point is simply that to describe Israel as a 'settler-colonial' state is not, of itself, something that ought to cause outrage. Whether you take the 'colonial' as referring to the way that Israel was created or to the way it is behaving now, it is not an unreasonable statement.
Many of the Moslems may well be descendants of Jews, Samaritans and other 'indigenous' peoples who converted to Islam.There's apparently evidence that many of the inhabitants of what we now call the UAE and immediate neighbours were Christian for 100-200 years before Islam arrived, and Christianity survived at least for another 300 or so.
Subjected peoples change their religion and their language to conform with their conquerors.
Which makes it surprising that there are any Jews left in the world.
Israel CAN be argued to be a settler-colonial state. In fact the argument that it is not is perhaps the more challenging to make.
Which country is it a colony of?
I was about to make the same point: it has its own defence and foreign policy and is in charge of its own laws and constitution. Its claim to independent statehood is stronger than, say, Canada (which didn't repatriate its constitution until the eighties)
As per previous comments, I'm about 80% sure the reference was to Israel's occupation of the Palestinian Territories, not that it was itself an outpost of Western Capitalism.
I'm basing this off the specific phrase "settler-colonial" which implies to me that both words are meant to relate to Israel's actions - as opposed to "settler-colony" which would imply the reverse. I may be overinterpreting.
You do realise that there was already a Jewish population in situ?
Yes. I know this is not a straightforward matter. My point is simply that to describe Israel as a 'settler-colonial' state is not, of itself, something that ought to cause outrage. Whether you take the 'colonial' as referring to the way that Israel was created or to the way it is behaving now, it is not an unreasonable statement.
Many of the Moslems may well be descendants of Jews, Samaritans and other 'indigenous' peoples who converted to Islam.There's apparently evidence that many of the inhabitants of what we now call the UAE and immediate neighbours were Christian for 100-200 years before Islam arrived, and Christianity survived at least for another 300 or so.
Subjected peoples change their religion and their language to conform with their conquerors.
Every person of religion is descended from those of other religions or none.
You do realise that there was already a Jewish population in situ?
Yes. I know this is not a straightforward matter. My point is simply that to describe Israel as a 'settler-colonial' state is not, of itself, something that ought to cause outrage. Whether you take the 'colonial' as referring to the way that Israel was created or to the way it is behaving now, it is not an unreasonable statement.
Many of the Moslems may well be descendants of Jews, Samaritans and other 'indigenous' peoples who converted to Islam.There's apparently evidence that many of the inhabitants of what we now call the UAE and immediate neighbours were Christian for 100-200 years before Islam arrived, and Christianity survived at least for another 300 or so.
Subjected peoples change their religion and their language to conform with their conquerors.
Which makes it surprising that there are any Jews left in the world.
Yes; they're remarkably resilient. Druidism, for example, died out completely.
I think it's hard to argue that Israel isn't a settler state, in the same way that most, if not all, of the Americas are as well as South Africa, Australia and New Zealand.
Not quite true, there were Jews in Israel over 1000 years ago and it is their historic home, there were not whites in the Americas, South Africa, Australia and New Zealand 1000 years ago
Fair enough; Wikipedia says that by the mid-19th century, Turkish sources recorded that 80% of the population of 600,000 was identified as Muslim, 10% as Christian Arab and 5–7% as Jewish. However the massive increase in Jewish population since 1948....... and I sympathise with the reason for it, most especially in the early days, has created a state in which the indigenous population has been marginalised.
And of course, there were no humans at all in New Zealand 1000 years ago!
You may want to think about how all those Muslims got to be there in the first place. Hint: they created a "state" in which the previous population were marginalised.
Of course, so did that population, and the one before it. The Jews got to be there by conquering the Canaanites and Hittites who came before them.
Point is, trying to figure out exactly who the "indigenous" population of Israel are is fraught with difficulty; however, it's beyond doubt that the Jews have the longest standing claim of any currently extant group.
The Muslim population of Palestine and Israel is, largely, a result of the local population, previously Jewish or Christian, converting to Islam. This is shown by genetic studies: Muslim and Christian Palestinians are very close to the Jewish population. The early Zionists in the middle of the 20th century thought Muslim and Christian Palestinians would be their allies in a shared brotherhood before sectarian tensions destroyed that idea.
Early Zionists in the middle of the 20th Century? Did you mean 19th?
Sectarian tensions were running high enough by 1929 for that to be a pipe dream.
I must say I am struggling to see why the Lib Dems are as big as 1.20 for Brecon and Radnorshire. Surely the Labour vote will be nearly fully lent to the Lib Dems?
I oppose anyone proposing such tactics no matter what the issue is. It's an affront to democracy and good goverence, and would set a bad precedent and example.
If party members were acting reasonably this one threat ought to finish off Johnson's campaign.
Farage is bright enough and cunning enough to have known that at some point the Brexit process would have to collide with reality thus providing ample scope for his betrayal narrative. I expect his planning was done on the assumption of May’s deal or something similar actually getting through.
Had May's deal gone through there would have been no EU elections and we would have been out. It is the DUP who would have been rightly furious not Brexiteers.
Nah, you would still have all whinged and complained about the foreigners. There would have been this grievance or that grievance. It is the extremist raison d'etre. You need to feel victimised by the other lot; you love it. It is why Brexit will never be sorted out, because it would spoil your bizarre idea of fun.
Watch that casual usage of the word "you". I have never in my life 'whinged and complained about the foreigners'. I don't "feel victimised by the other lot" and I certainly don't "love it".
Just because you're small-minded about your opposition doesn't mean we are all the same.
I think it's hard to argue that Israel isn't a settler state, in the same way that most, if not all, of the Americas are as well as South Africa, Australia and New Zealand.
Not quite true, there were Jews in Israel over 1000 years ago and it is their historic home, there were not whites in the Americas, South Africa, Australia and New Zealand 1000 years ago
Fair enough; Wikipedia says that by the mid-19th century, Turkish sources recorded that 80% of the population of 600,000 was identified as Muslim, 10% as Christian Arab and 5–7% as Jewish. However the massive increase in Jewish population since 1948....... and I sympathise with the reason for it, most especially in the early days, has created a state in which the indigenous population has been marginalised.
And of course, there were no humans at all in New Zealand 1000 years ago!
You may want to think about how all those Muslims got to be there in the first place. Hint: they created a "state" in which the previous population were marginalised.
Of course, so did that population, and the one before it. The Jews got to be there by conquering the Canaanites and Hittites who came before them.
Point is, trying to figure out exactly who the "indigenous" population of Israel are is fraught with difficulty; however, it's beyond doubt that the Jews have the longest standing claim of any currently extant group.
The Welsh would enjoy your reasoning.
Indeed. Like the Jews, the Welsh are clearly the "indigenous" population, in the sense of having the longest claim of any current extant group.
The comparison is very enlightening. And the respective treatment of the Jews and the Welsh in "their homeland" is very different.
If you believe any action taken by the Jews against the Palestinians is fine, you can check your judgment by seeing if you believe the same action taken by the Welsh against the English would be fine.
Let's not overcomplicated it - antisemitism is on the rise in Labour as they want to weigh the votes from Islamic wards such as Peterborough.
Can someone please explain to me why Chris Williamson is supposed to be anti-Semitic because he suggested the Labour Party had been “too apologetic”?
I mean, he is clearly a far left scumbag, but all of this anti-Semitic pearl clutching just leaves the average person confused.
I say this at the same time as believing that Labour has a significant anti-Semitism problem under Corbyn.
It's an accumulation of comments and actions over time. If you consistently and brazenly say things that you know are going to upset a specific ethnicity and you continue to do it despite being told consistently by a large majority of that community that your words and actions are causing them hurt and distress, then it is clear that you feel entitled to cause hurt and distress and that such feelings do not matter when suffered by members of that ethnic minority. When the ethnic minority in question is Jewish, that makes you an anti-Semite. Williamson's speech was part of a long-established pattern, it was not a one-off.
Ethnicity or community? I'm ethnically half-Jewish, but I'm not part of a Jewish community in any meaningful way. Not only that but I'm politically very far from many of the people and organisations who are taken to be representatives of the Jewish community, and find myself very alienated from them. The reaction when Corbyn spent passover with Jewdas sent a very clear message to people like me: if you're left wing and critical of Israel, we don't consider you to be a real Jew.
That's why I find it frankly pretty disgusting when conversations here casually conflate criticism of Israel with antisemitism. Blurring that line can only aid genuine antisemitism, something that many regulars here seem to think is a lot less important than having a pop at whoever the Labour hate figure of the day is. And the idea that I have to accept the IHRA's word on what counts as bigotry against my own ethnicity- including opinions on Israel which are a hair's breadth away from my own- seems totally absurd to me.
If you doubt how pernicious this can all be, look at the US, where accusations of antisemitism were used to try to take down Ilhan Omar when she spoke out on the country's dreadful record in South and Central America. Or more recently how it's being used to shut down criticism of ICE's concentration camps
EDIT: By the way if anyone's getting caught up on me only being half-Jewish, a lot of the same could be said of my father. He too isn't really part of a Jewish community, and though his politics are generally quite different to mine also doesn't believe that Corbyn is antisemitic.
I oppose anyone proposing such tactics no matter what the issue is. It's an affront to democracy and good goverence, and would set a bad precedent and example.
If party members were acting reasonably this one threat ought to finish off Johnson's campaign.
Refusing to rule out using Trident isn't tantamount to declaring nuclear war
I oppose anyone proposing such tactics no matter what the issue is. It's an affront to democracy and good goverence, and would set a bad precedent and example.
If party members were acting reasonably this one threat ought to finish off Johnson's campaign.
We have multiple affronts to democracy and good governance ongoing.
When Grieve is playing with fire threatening to trigger a government shutdown and withdraw funding . . . When Bercow is playing with fire tearing up the rule book and rewriting the constitution to suit his whims . . .
Why should it be that much of a shock that the executive thinks "two can play at that game"?
I oppose anyone proposing such tactics no matter what the issue is. It's an affront to democracy and good goverence, and would set a bad precedent and example.
If party members were acting reasonably this one threat ought to finish off Johnson's campaign.
We have multiple affronts to democracy and good governance ongoing.
When Grieve is playing with fire threatening to trigger a government shutdown and withdraw funding . . . When Bercow is playing with fire tearing up the rule book and rewriting the constitution to suit his whims . . .
Why should it be that much of a shock that the executive thinks "two can play at that game"?
It surprises me that leavers didn't pass a budget with no funds for the EU in it beyond a leaving date.
So PM Boris could ask for an extension from the EU if instructed by a remainer Parliament but there would be no membership fees.
I oppose anyone proposing such tactics no matter what the issue is. It's an affront to democracy and good goverence, and would set a bad precedent and example.
If party members were acting reasonably this one threat ought to finish off Johnson's campaign.
Refusing to rule out using Trident isn't tantamount to declaring nuclear war
Indeed. Quite the opposite in fact: hence the term "nuclear deterrent".
"No Deal deterrent"? A version of Mutually Assured Destruction whereby since both sides could inflict No Deal on the other, it is thus assured that neither will?
I must say I am struggling to see why the Lib Dems are as big as 1.20 for Brecon and Radnorshire. Surely the Labour vote will be nearly fully lent to the Lib Dems?
The Labour vote didn't completely collapse in Witney in 2016, though I guess they were in second place at the 2015 GE.
I oppose anyone proposing such tactics no matter what the issue is. It's an affront to democracy and good goverence, and would set a bad precedent and example.
If party members were acting reasonably this one threat ought to finish off Johnson's campaign.
We have multiple affronts to democracy and good governance ongoing.
When Grieve is playing with fire threatening to trigger a government shutdown and withdraw funding . . . When Bercow is playing with fire tearing up the rule book and rewriting the constitution to suit his whims . . .
Why should it be that much of a shock that the executive thinks "two can play at that game"?
The railways (at least passenger operations) appear to be in good health:
"Rail passenger journeys in Great Britain in 2018-19 reached a record high of 1.759 billion. It increased by 3.0% compared to the previous year and was driven by a 3.9% increase in the London and South East sector. Total passenger revenue reached £10.3 billion in 2018-19, with annual revenue growth at its highest (6.1%) since 2014-15."
I am not sure. What I can say is that I have not seen record of him saying any of the 'red flag' things that I look out for when judging somebody to be genuinely antisemitic or not.
However, that I can only go with 'not sure' is not ideal. Clearly there is an issue with some of the individuals who have joined Labour since he took over.
There are 500,000 members, though, remember. It's a tiny fraction we are talking about.
Labour is certainly IMO not 'institutionally antisemitic'.
Many of the Moslems may well be descendants of Jews, Samaritans and other 'indigenous' peoples who converted to Islam.There's apparently evidence that many of the inhabitants of what we now call the UAE and immediate neighbours were Christian for 100-200 years before Islam arrived, and Christianity survived at least for another 300 or so.
Subjected peoples change their religion and their language to conform with their conquerors.
Yes, the Big Picture gives context. However, the Israeli 'colonialism' is relatively recent and ongoing, therefore it looms larger than more distant examples.
I must say I am struggling to see why the Lib Dems are as big as 1.20 for Brecon and Radnorshire. Surely the Labour vote will be nearly fully lent to the Lib Dems?
The Labour vote didn't completely collapse in Witney in 2016, though I guess they were in second place at the 2015 GE.
About a third of Labour voters are Leavers too and would never vote LD even if they would never vote Tory either
36% of voters say they would consider voting Tory under Boris, 32% with Hunt, so expect a Tory bounce whichever wins. Both comfortably beat Corbyn as preferred PM
IPSOS-MORI were the most accurate Euros pollster apparently. Tories + BXP on under 40% should terrify the Johnson cult. The Corbyn cult is past caring about Labour polling, of course. The potential for tactical voting at the next GE is immense. It makes it impossible to Baxter with a straight face.
If, upon declaring independence, England, Scotland, Ireland, France, Germany, Holland and Italy attempted to invade Wales then much of their subsequent behaviour and actions would be seen in a particular light.
The Catalans did declare independence.
They weren't invaded .... but they found few friends Including in the darling EU. You don't have to invade nowadays to scupper independence.
I think if the Welsh tried to declare independence, the settlers would soon find their own Hendrik Verwoerd.
Your perception of them is not the problem. The fact that more or less every Jewish public body in the UK does now view them as either institutionally antisemitic, or having a serious antisemitism issue, however, is.
There certainly is a problem and given the problem is antisemitism (real and perceived) one would expect that Jewish bodies would (quite rightly) be all over it. Labour need to work harder to reassure them.
The challenge is to separate antisemitism from antizionism. It is not so easy.
Anyway, I have to drop off and go out, but the good news is the 'Stereotomy' construct has appeared and they argue this issue much better than me.
As @HYUFD seems to be slow at this one, I plugged it into electoral calculus with this result:
Con 266 Lab 236 LD 73 Gr 1 PC 3 SNP 53 Brexit nil
Conclusion: Nigel Farage will not be Prime Minister,though hard to see who would be!
Corbyn on those seat numbers.
LDs would hold the balance of power and probably refuse to back Corbyn as PM unless he committed to EUref2
Yes it's Corbyn with a second ref on those numbers
But it is the Tories up to 36% with Boris and up to 32% with Hunt in the same poll from 26% under May now so that situation likely only lasts a few weeks
I think it's hard to argue that Israel isn't a settler state, in the same way that most, if not all, of the Americas are as well as South Africa, Australia and New Zealand.
Not quite true, there were Jews in Israel over 1000 years ago and it is their historic home, there were not whites in the Americas, South Africa, Australia and New Zealand 1000 years ago
Fair enough; Wikipedia says that by the mid-19th century, Turkish sources recorded that 80% of the population of 600,000 was identified as Muslim, 10% as Christian Arab and 5–7% as Jewish. However the massive increase in Jewish population since 1948....... and I sympathise with the reason for it, most especially in the early days, has created a state in which the indigenous population has been marginalised.
And of course, there were no humans at all in New Zealand 1000 years ago!
You may want to think about how all those Muslims got to be there in the first place. Hint: they created a "state" in which the previous population were marginalised.
Of course, so did that population, and the one before it. The Jews got to be there by conquering the Canaanites and Hittites who came before them.
Point is, trying to figure out exactly who the "indigenous" population of Israel are is fraught with difficulty; however, it's beyond doubt that the Jews have the longest standing claim of any currently extant group.
The Muslim population of Palestine and Israel is, largely, a result of the local population, previously Jewish or Christian, converting to Islam. This is shown by genetic studies: Muslim and Christian Palestinians are very close to the Jewish population. The early Zionists in the middle of the 20th century thought Muslim and Christian Palestinians would be their allies in a shared brotherhood before sectarian tensions destroyed that idea.
Early Zionists in the middle of the 20th Century? Did you mean 19th?
Sectarian tensions were running high enough by 1929 for that to be a pipe dream.
AIUI, it was still a belief pre-WWII among many who went on to create Israel. It may have been a foolish idea already by then, of course.
IPSOS-MORI were the most accurate Euros pollster apparently. Tories + BXP on under 40% should terrify the Johnson cult. The Corbyn cult is past caring about Labour polling, of course. The potential for tactical voting at the next GE is immense. It makes it impossible to Baxter with a straight face.
Tories up to 36% under Boris with Ipsos Mori today is actually great news for Boris fans and would deliver a comfortable overall Tory majority
I must say I am struggling to see why the Lib Dems are as big as 1.20 for Brecon and Radnorshire. Surely the Labour vote will be nearly fully lent to the Lib Dems?
First, the Labour party surely will take this by-election seriously. There is clear & present danger for them in letting the LibDems snatch their vote. My guess is that Labour may even prefer a Tory hold to LibDem gain.
Second, Labour are only really strong in the south of the constituency. They have chosen a good candidate from Brecon. They should be able to get their highly localised vote out easily enough.
I think Labour's vote will hold up.
There is also still no confirmation of the Remain parties pact -- which I guess is easier to talk about on pb.com than actually implement in the real world.
As @HYUFD seems to be slow at this one, I plugged it into electoral calculus with this result:
Con 266 Lab 236 LD 73 Gr 1 PC 3 SNP 53 Brexit nil
Conclusion: Nigel Farage will not be Prime Minister,though hard to see who would be!
The Brexit Party looks very out of line with other pollsters - much as I wish it were true.
I think it is much closer to what we would get if there were actually an election next week.
Not sure about next week though I could see them restricted to 14%/15% at the end of a campaign period. The 12% figure looks suspiciously low re- where they are currently - nearer 20% I suspect.
IPSOS-MORI were the most accurate Euros pollster apparently. Tories + BXP on under 40% should terrify the Johnson cult. The Corbyn cult is past caring about Labour polling, of course. The potential for tactical voting at the next GE is immense. It makes it impossible to Baxter with a straight face.
Tories up to 36% under Boris with Ipsos Mori today is actually great news for Boris fans and would deliver a comfortable overall Tory majority
That’s 36% before he’s disappointed anyone and before there’s any tactical voting. It’s a very low maximum, but if you want to see it as great news who am I to stop you?
Guardian still losing money like it is going out of fashion though.
Also, don't really get that article. Daily Rant has been reported as one of the most viewed "news" websites in the world for a number of years.
The Guardian is no longer losing money. It hit breakeven earlier this year.
Fair point, they hit break even in the last set of accounts after they got the begging bowl out asking for reader donations and cut lots of staff. Still piss poor given their web traffic.
"Britain can borrow for half a century at 1.33pc. Nothing like this has ever been seen before."
World to enter recession in early 2020. UK will need radical new form of public investment - big spend on infrastructure, to dig us out deflation hole. AEP
Is Gove the man for the treasury - the only one who can take on their aversion to infrastructure spending?
The Saj is shortening as next Chancellor. 7/4 fav with Shadsy.
7/4 is an odd price. It makes no sense. If Boris has promised Gove the job, then he should be shorter, even if not quite as short as Boris himself. If Boris has made no promise or has pledged it to Liz Truss, then Gove should be longer. But he should not be 7/4.
IPSOS-MORI were the most accurate Euros pollster apparently. Tories + BXP on under 40% should terrify the Johnson cult. The Corbyn cult is past caring about Labour polling, of course. The potential for tactical voting at the next GE is immense. It makes it impossible to Baxter with a straight face.
Tories up to 36% under Boris with Ipsos Mori today is actually great news for Boris fans and would deliver a comfortable overall Tory majority
That’s 36% before he’s disappointed anyone and before there’s any tactical voting. It’s a very low maximum, but if you want to see it as great news who am I to stop you?
Wasn’t it a “would you consider voting Tory if...?” question? That isn’t a VI poll, and HY is being misleading presenting it so.
Comments
As soon as the referendum was won , Ukip went down the drain. Actually leaving is twice as fatal for a one issue party.
So Labour will likely see an uptick - as their opponents fall away.
But, yes, anything alluding to a 'jewish cabal' of capitalists, bankers, all of that Soros nonsense, is slam dunk antisemitism. That's what I look out for - that and holocaust denial or 'context' to Hitler's policies, or any belief that jews are in a malign sense 'different' from 'us' and are always plotting and working together in the interests of other jews or for Israel. That stuff is brain-dead and dangerous.
Over exuberant pro Palestinian and anti Israel sentiment? This does not, for me, belong in the same category.
That leaves the Lib Dems attacking Labours flank unless Labour adopts a rejoin position.
https://twitter.com/joemurphylondon/status/1144193531478794240?s=21
It's like Custer's last stand.
And we know how that ended.
According to some Left thinkers like Murray, Lenin argued that capitalism was only sustained by expanding into new markets through imperialism. Being against imperialism is a way of furthering the fight to dismantle capitalism. And imperialism is also a conspiracy driven by funding from Jewish banking families.
Hopefully I have understood his argument.
So I suspect the use of the word 'colonial' in the context of Israel is at least partly a trigger word for other Hard Left followers.
Edit: Added link to the Danny F piece. Actually a speech:
https://twitter.com/NickBoles/status/1142719100055166976
Indeed. Like the Jews, the Welsh are clearly the "indigenous" population, in the sense of having the longest claim of any current extant group.
The comparison is very enlightening. And the respective treatment of the Jews and the Welsh in "their homeland" is very different.
If you believe any action taken by the Jews against the Palestinians is fine, you can check your judgment by seeing if you believe the same action taken by the Welsh against the English would be fine.
https://twitter.com/ftwestminster/status/1144201682726871042
Subjected peoples change their religion and their language to conform with their conquerors.
I'm basing this off the specific phrase "settler-colonial" which implies to me that both words are meant to relate to Israel's actions - as opposed to "settler-colony" which would imply the reverse. I may be overinterpreting.
Sectarian tensions were running high enough by 1929 for that to be a pipe dream.
If party members were acting reasonably this one threat ought to finish off Johnson's campaign.
Just because you're small-minded about your opposition doesn't mean we are all the same.
Rupa Huq, Keith Vaz etc are on hand to help.
That's why I find it frankly pretty disgusting when conversations here casually conflate criticism of Israel with antisemitism. Blurring that line can only aid genuine antisemitism, something that many regulars here seem to think is a lot less important than having a pop at whoever the Labour hate figure of the day is. And the idea that I have to accept the IHRA's word on what counts as bigotry against my own ethnicity- including opinions on Israel which are a hair's breadth away from my own- seems totally absurd to me.
If you doubt how pernicious this can all be, look at the US, where accusations of antisemitism were used to try to take down Ilhan Omar when she spoke out on the country's dreadful record in South and Central America. Or more recently how it's being used to shut down criticism of ICE's concentration camps
EDIT: By the way if anyone's getting caught up on me only being half-Jewish, a lot of the same could be said of my father. He too isn't really part of a Jewish community, and though his politics are generally quite different to mine also doesn't believe that Corbyn is antisemitic.
When Grieve is playing with fire threatening to trigger a government shutdown and withdraw funding . . .
When Bercow is playing with fire tearing up the rule book and rewriting the constitution to suit his whims . . .
Why should it be that much of a shock that the executive thinks "two can play at that game"?
So PM Boris could ask for an extension from the EU if instructed by a remainer Parliament but there would be no membership fees.
"No Deal deterrent"? A version of Mutually Assured Destruction whereby since both sides could inflict No Deal on the other, it is thus assured that neither will?
https://www.pressgazette.co.uk/mail-overtakes-sun-as-uks-most-read-newsbrand-pamco-readership-figures-show/
The railways (at least passenger operations) appear to be in good health:
"Rail passenger journeys in Great Britain in 2018-19 reached a record high of 1.759 billion. It increased by 3.0% compared to the previous year and was driven by a 3.9% increase in the London and South East sector.
Total passenger revenue reached £10.3 billion in 2018-19, with annual revenue growth at its highest (6.1%) since 2014-15."
https://orr.gov.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0018/41256/passenger-rail-usage-2018-19-q4.pdf
Most noticeably, after two years of falls, passenger journeys in the London and South east sector have risen strongly.
However, that I can only go with 'not sure' is not ideal. Clearly there is an issue with some of the individuals who have joined Labour since he took over.
There are 500,000 members, though, remember. It's a tiny fraction we are talking about.
Labour is certainly IMO not 'institutionally antisemitic'.
Also, don't really get that article. Daily Rant has been reported as one of the most viewed "news" websites in the world for a number of years.
Con 266
Lab 236
LD 73
Gr 1
PC 3
SNP 53
Brexit nil
Conclusion: Nigel Farage will not be Prime Minister,though hard to see who would be!
https://twitter.com/jonlis1/status/1143837721917624320
https://twitter.com/jonlis1/status/1143838575907225600
They weren't invaded .... but they found few friends Including in the darling EU. You don't have to invade nowadays to scupper independence.
I think if the Welsh tried to declare independence, the settlers would soon find their own Hendrik Verwoerd.
The challenge is to separate antisemitism from antizionism. It is not so easy.
Anyway, I have to drop off and go out, but the good news is the 'Stereotomy' construct has appeared and they argue this issue much better than me.
CYL.
Labour - 27% (25%)
Tories - 25% (25%)
Lib Dems - 15% (16%)
Brexit - 16% (18%)
Now it's:
Labour - 24% (20%)
Tories - 26% (22%)
Lib Dems - 22% (19%)
Brexit - 12% (22%)
So YouGov have Brexit up 4 pp in the last six weeks and Ipsos MORI have them down 4 pp.
Second, Labour are only really strong in the south of the constituency. They have chosen a good candidate from Brecon. They should be able to get their highly localised vote out easily enough.
I think Labour's vote will hold up.
There is also still no confirmation of the Remain parties pact -- which I guess is easier to talk about on pb.com than actually implement in the real world.
1: Election before Halloween.
2: Election after Brexit
3: Election after Halloween, before Brexit.
2: BXP is dead. 3 BXP is a major, major threat. 1 it depends upon Tory manifesto for election and why it was triggered.
World to enter recession in early 2020. UK will need radical new form of public investment - big spend on infrastructure, to dig us out deflation hole. AEP
Is Gove the man for the treasury - the only one who can take on their aversion to infrastructure spending?
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2019/06/26/next-tory-leader-does-not-tear-rule-book-spending-corbyn-will/