@HYUFD represents a substantial strand of Conservative party thinking. I disagree with it strongly, but piling on him doesn't show the site in a good light.
The Jezziah represents a substantial strand of Labour thinking bout I don't see anyone criticising the criticism he gets, which is considerably worse than anything HYUFD gets.
Well quite. And the systematic banning of SNP PBers a few years ago hardly showed the site in a good light either.
Oh I don't know - it was a blessed relief and long overdue a re-run.
Proroguing parliament, silencing opponents; you’ll be burning books and demolishing the Tate Modern next.
"The demolition of the Tate Modern" would be a shoo-in for the Turner Prize.
Haha, very good. It could be the latest work by Tracy Emin
Almost as great a day for British art as the day that Charles Saatchi's warehouse went up in flames.
Whether or not that was a great day for art, it was certainly a great day for art collectors.
You mean, the false stories about him donating to Deir Yassin Remembered, or laying a wreath on a mass murderer's grave and lying about it, or saying the Jews don't get irony, or calling Hamas and Hezbollah his friends, or protesting about a mural being taken down just because it was a piece of Nazi propaganda?
Oh, hold in, those are true, aren't they?
The real issue with Corbyn and Labour more generally is not what their enemies are saying about them, it's what they're actually saying and doing.
Are those the strongest claims of anti semitism against corbyn? There is a reasonable case to be made that the only anti semitism in that list is 'Jews don't get irony'. A stereotype and a completely innacurate onre to boot. The rest are all Israel related.
There is nothing anti semitic about calling Hezbollah friends. I know many very sane Lebanese Christians who would say exactly the same. They have done more for the poor in Lebanon than any other organisation over the last twenty five years. Their crime is that they defended their country from an Israel invasion relatively successfully. As for laying wreaths,,,for God's sake Thathcher had Pinochet home for tea. People dead or alive are multi faceted. If you haven't been you should visit Lebanon. An intelligent population which might give you a mre rounded view of Middle Eastern politics
So you do concede he is antisemitic? Well, it's a start.
And calling any organisation that denies the Holocaust a friend, or worse, giving money to it, is also clearly antisemitic.
As was that mural, which was based on Nazi propaganda, and your feeble attempt to ignore it has not gone unnoticed.
Corbyn may not think he is a racist but his excuses for behaviour which in all any non-Labour politician he would rightly roundly condemn border on the asinine.
And as for the whataboutery with regard to Pinochet - are you really saying he's OK because he's done some things that are comparable to Thatcher? That strikes me as a dangerous argument...
Recognising the mural, which purported to show real bankers, at least two of them not Jewish, as based on Nazi propaganda, surely depends on a knowledge of Nazi propaganda. It seems entirely plausible that Corbyn did not see the connection.
You make a very good point. I saw it for the first time last week and I'm not sure I would have seen it as anti semitic. I know more Jews than most and I don't see them like that. Nor do I see them as bankers. Indeed when I asked my daughter if she thought it anti semitic she had no idea why it should be. If I'd asked her to do a caracature of 'Jews' they'd have beards black hats and curls.
@HYUFD represents a substantial strand of Conservative party thinking. I disagree with it strongly, but piling on him doesn't show the site in a good light.
The Jezziah represents a substantial strand of Labour thinking bout I don't see anyone criticising the criticism he gets, which is considerably worse than anything HYUFD gets.
Well quite. And the systematic banning of SNP PBers a few years ago hardly showed the site in a good light either.
Oh I don't know - it was a blessed relief and long overdue a re-run.
Proroguing parliament, silencing opponents; you’ll be burning books and demolishing the Tate Modern next.
"The demolition of the Tate Modern" would be a shoo-in for the Turner Prize.
Couldn't come soon enough, frankly. Preferably done at the same time as the Serpentine, ideally during the summer party there.
To tory no dealers I know you will disagree with Hammond, and perhaps think little of him, but does him being "terrified" and he doesnt seem one for unnecessary strong language, especially blue on blue, not make you think perhaps it is okay to slow down and think this through a bit more before jumping off the cliff?
Not for a second. This was the debate that was held before the referendum and since then Nothing Has Changed. Leaving the Single Market and Leaving the Customs Union was officially what the Treasury and others said would happen if we voted to Leave the EU. Since he represents the Treasury, what has changed since then from the Treasuries pre-referendum comments?
If that's his opinion it just shows he was the completely wrong person to take charge of the Exchequer after the referendum result and no wonder we're in this mess. Sooner he's on the backbenches or gone completely the better.
The debate at the referendum was leaving with a deal. Hammond is in favour of leaving with a deal.
Incorrect. The Treasury gave leaving without a deal as a very possible outcome actually.
You mean, the false stories about him donating to Deir Yassin Remembered, or laying a wreath on a mass murderer's grave and lying about it, or saying the Jews don't get irony, or calling Hamas and Hezbollah his friends, or protesting about a mural being taken down just because it was a piece of Nazi propaganda?
Oh, hold in, those are true, aren't they?
The real issue with Corbyn and Labour more generally is not what their enemies are saying about them, it's what they're actually saying and doing.
Are those the strongest claims of anti semitism against corbyn? There is a reasonable case to be made that the only anti semitism in that list is 'Jews don't get irony'. A stereotype and a completely innacurate onre to boot. The rest are all Israel related.
There is nothing anti semitic about calling Hezbollah friends. I know many very sane Lebanese Christians who would say exactly the same. They have done sake Thathcher had Pinochet home for tea. People dead or alive are multi faceted. If you haven't been you should visit Lebanon. An intelligent population which might give you a mre rounded view of Middle Eastern politics
So you do concede he is antisemitic? Well, it's a start.
And calling any organisation that denies the Holocaust a friend, or worse, giving money to it, is also clearly antisemitic.
As was that mural, which was based on Nazi propaganda, and your feeble attempt to ignore it has not gone unnoticed.
Corbyn may not think he is a racist but his excuses for behaviour which in all any non-Labour politician he would rightly roundly condemn border on the asinine.
And as for the whataboutery with regard to Pinochet - are you really saying he's OK because he's done some things that are comparable to Thatcher? That strikes me as a dangerous argument...
Recognising the mural, which purported to show real bankers, at least two of them not Jewish, as based on Nazi propaganda, surely depends on a knowledge of Nazi propaganda. It seems entirely plausible that Corbyn did not see the connection.
You make a very good point. I saw it for the first time last week and I'm not sure I would have seen it as anti semitic. I know more Jews than most and I don't see them like that. Nor do I see them as bankers. Indeed when I asked my daughter if she thought it anti semitic she had no idea why it should be. If I'd asked her to do a caracature of 'Jews' they'd have beards black hats and curls.
Yes Roger but you have not been fighting racism all your life. Unlike you-know-who.
To tory no dealers I know you will disagree with Hammond, and perhaps think little of him, but does him being "terrified" and he doesnt seem one for unnecessary strong language, especially blue on blue, not make you think perhaps it is okay to slow down and think this through a bit more before jumping off the cliff?
Not for a second. This was the debate that was held before the referendum and since then Nothing Has Changed. Leaving the Single Market and Leaving the Customs Union was officially what the Treasury and others said would happen if we voted to Leave the EU. Since he represents the Treasury, what has changed since then from the Treasuries pre-referendum comments?
If that's his opinion it just shows he was the completely wrong person to take charge of the Exchequer after the referendum result and no wonder we're in this mess. Sooner he's on the backbenches or gone completely the better.
For those of us at the back who are slow on the uptake, can you explain how making it harder and more expensive to trade with our biggest export market helps the UK?
By better controlling our own laws and destiny which matters far more.
Recognising the mural, which purported to show real bankers, at least two of them not Jewish, as based on Nazi propaganda, surely depends on a knowledge of Nazi propaganda. It seems entirely plausible that Corbyn did not see the connection.
He's a senior politician, not a Love Island contestant. The defence that he lacked even the most basic knowledge of Nazi propaganda tropes is incredible.
You do know we had a Brexit Secretary who did not know about Dover, and a Northern Ireland Secretary who did not know the distinction between Loyalists and Nationalists?
And while anyone under 40 may have taken the "Tudors and Nazis" history syllabus, older people will not have done.
So yes, it is entirely plausible Corbyn did not recognise it as such.
Even Lutfur Rahman, hardly an apologist for Israel, said instantly that that mural was antisemitic. That's why he had it removed.
The rest of your post is whataboutery again. Raab is thick and Brady is pig ignorant, therefore it doesn't matter that Corbyn is so dim he can't recognise racism?
I'm not saying it does not matter; I am saying it is unsurprising, both in the context of ministers not knowing what most of us would regard as "common knowledge" (or even common sense) but also in the context that you might recognise as a history teacher. These days, Nazi propaganda is taught in schools; in Corbyn's day (and in my day) it was not.
So he's never watched a documentary either?
As I say, he isn't a Love Island contestant, or someone who plainly has no interest in the political history of the 20th century. I'm just incredulous about the idea he is totally oblivious to it all... and if he is, then that's disqualifying in itself.
Full moon last night and I scribbled out some pro-union stuff but I couldn't get it as long as Cyclefree stuff so I thought what's the point. I've scribbled out a better, more playful version though-
Time for the FSB (Federal States of Britain) ?
Nick Timothy, TMay's ex-spad, recently argued for a Federal Britain but I couldn't read it cus apparently the telegraph has some paywalls now.
So here's my attempt-
1 - FSB is mentioned in the re-make of Total Recall. Being based on a book by Philip K Dick I think this is a good omen (although its FSB included parts of France; anyone fancy a territorial war with a weakened EU? Un chance a practiser le francais?)
2- Handily, the four constituent parts of the UK, already have their own parliaments (England kindly letting us share theirs for UK matters.)
3 - Dublin could get in on the act. Why bother with a united Ireland when you can get an enhanced Britain?
4 - FSB would be strong on world stage, at the time of a, perhaps costly, divorce from Europe.
5 - Federal states, such as the US and Germany, have been shown to work. At a time of ever increasing globalisation, unity on the islands of the north atlantic could prove very worthwhile.
To tory no dealers I know you will disagree with Hammond, and perhaps think little of him, but does him being "terrified" and he doesnt seem one for unnecessary strong language, especially blue on blue, not make you think perhaps it is okay to slow down and think this through a bit more before jumping off the cliff?
Not for a second. This was the debate that was held before the referendum and since then Nothing Has Changed. Leaving the Single Market and Leaving the Customs Union was officially what the Treasury and others said would happen if we voted to Leave the EU. Since he represents the Treasury, what has changed since then from the Treasuries pre-referendum comments?
If that's his opinion it just shows he was the completely wrong person to take charge of the Exchequer after the referendum result and no wonder we're in this mess. Sooner he's on the backbenches or gone completely the better.
For those of us at the back who are slow on the uptake, can you explain how making it harder and more expensive to trade with our biggest export market helps the UK?
By better controlling our own laws and destiny which matters far more.
...to swivel eyed nutters who have no constitutional or business understanding. Most of the laws that we currently have due to our membership of the EU will still need to be observed in order to trade with said block.
Labour List is a good bellwether for Labour opinion not tied to any faction, and their self-selecting poll (albeit technically voodoo, i.e. not a balanced panel) are a good sign of the way the wind is blowing. Current one is here:
To tory no dealers I know you will disagree with Hammond, and perhaps think little of him, but does him being "terrified" and he doesnt seem one for unnecessary strong language, especially blue on blue, not make you think perhaps it is okay to slow down and think this through a bit more before jumping off the cliff?
Not for a second. This was the debate that was held before the referendum and since then Nothing Has Changed. Leaving the Single Market and Leaving the Customs Union was officially what the Treasury and others said would happen if we voted to Leave the EU. Since he represents the Treasury, what has changed since then from the Treasuries pre-referendum comments?
If that's his opinion it just shows he was the completely wrong person to take charge of the Exchequer after the referendum result and no wonder we're in this mess. Sooner he's on the backbenches or gone completely the better.
The debate at the referendum was leaving with a deal. Hammond is in favour of leaving with a deal.
Incorrect. The Treasury gave leaving without a deal as a very possible outcome actually.
Another candidate for the Mohammed Saeed al-Sahhaf School of Political Chicanery and Alternative Facts !
To tory no dealers I know you will disagree with Hammond, and perhaps think little of him, but does him being "terrified" and he doesnt seem one for unnecessary strong language, especially blue on blue, not make you think perhaps it is okay to slow down and think this through a bit more before jumping off the cliff?
Not for a second. This was the debate that was held before the referendum and since then Nothing Has Changed. Leaving the Single Market and Leaving the Customs Union was officially what the Treasury and others said would happen if we voted to Leave the EU. Since he represents the Treasury, what has changed since then from the Treasuries pre-referendum comments?
If that's his opinion it just shows he was the completely wrong person to take charge of the Exchequer after the referendum result and no wonder we're in this mess. Sooner he's on the backbenches or gone completely the better.
For those of us at the back who are slow on the uptake, can you explain how making it harder and more expensive to trade with our biggest export market helps the UK?
By better controlling our own laws and destiny which matters far more.
"Britain does not dream of some cosy, isolated existence on the fringes of the European Community. Our destiny is in Europe, as part of the Community."
Full moon last night and I scribbled out some pro-union stuff but I couldn't get it as long as Cyclefree stuff so I thought what's the point. I've scribbled out a better, more playful version though-
Time for the FSB (Federal States of Britain) ?
Nick Timothy, TMay's ex-spad, recently argued for a Federal Britain but I couldn't read it cus apparently the telegraph has some paywalls now.
So here's my attempt-
1 - FSB is mentioned in the re-make of Total Recall. Being based on a book by Philip K Dick I think this is a good omen (although its FSB included parts of France; anyone fancy a territorial war with a weakened EU? Un chance a practiser le francais?)
2- Handily, the four constituent parts of the UK, already have their own parliaments (England kindly letting us share theirs for UK matters.)
3 - Dublin could get in on the act. Why bother with a united Ireland when you can get an enhanced Britain?
4 - FSB would be strong on world stage, at the time of a, perhaps costly, divorce from Europe.
5 - Federal states, such as the US and Germany, have been shown to work. At a time of ever increasing globalisation, unity on the islands of the north atlantic could prove very worthwhile.
Why not expand your horizons a bit and think of the possibilities of Scotland, England, Wales and a united Ireland being part of a wider federal Europe?
On the topic of the British / Israeli states and their constitutional religiosity (or lack thereof) and or racism.
I assume no one disagrees that the UK is constitutionally a Protestant state, even if it's people and governance is mostly secular / pluralist.
The Israeli state, from my understanding, is not constitutionally a Jewish State, although I understand Netanyahu's government has tried to pass legislation of that kind (I am unsure how that panned out).
As for racism, I don't think either state is constitutionally racist, although both are practically racist, in that the British state's policies and the method of enacting said policies seem to disproportionately target and discriminate against ethnic minorities. As for Israel, the current state as governed by Likud are obviously racist, with Bibi often talking about opposition parties bussing in Arab voters and other dog whistle rhetoric, as well as clearly expansionist and aggressive settling policies and disproportionate responses to Palestinians protesting.
It does still interest me that antisemitism is only discussed when coming from left wing areas. Much of the anti Soros, New World Order, Farage and Trumpian language is patently antisemitic, but we are spending more time talking about Corbyn and co. Again, during Ed's time as Labour leader it was obvious the party was happy being led by a (culturally) Jewish man, and Ed still seems somewhat popular amongst the members, even Corbyn supporters, and the many antisemitic attacks on him by the mainstream press and Tories were not considered a problem.
The lords trying to use this as a stick to beat Corbyn do a disservice to the issue. They are right he hasn't done enough to deal with the issue. But saying the only thing left he can do to put it right is to resign will immediately have 2/3rds of the Labour membership see this as another attempted stitch up of Corbyn, and treat this issue with less seriousness because of it.
Recognising the mural, which purported to show real bankers, at least two of them not Jewish, as based on Nazi propaganda, surely depends on a knowledge of Nazi propaganda. It seems entirely plausible that Corbyn did not see the connection.
He's a senior politician, not a Love Island contestant. The defence that he lacked even the most basic knowledge of Nazi propaganda tropes is incredible.
You do know we had a Brexit Secretary who did not know about Dover, and a Northern Ireland Secretary who did not know the distinction between Loyalists and Nationalists?
And while anyone under 40 may have taken the "Tudors and Nazis" history syllabus, older people will not have done.
So yes, it is entirely plausible Corbyn did not recognise it as such.
Even Lutfur Rahman, hardly an apologist for Israel, said instantly that that mural was antisemitic. That's why he had it removed.
The rest of your post is whataboutery again. Raab is thick and Brady is pig ignorant, therefore it doesn't matter that Corbyn is so dim he can't recognise racism?
I'm not saying it does not matter; I am saying it is unsurprising, both in the context of ministers not knowing what most of us would regard as "common knowledge" (or even common sense) but also in the context that you might recognise as a history teacher. These days, Nazi propaganda is taught in schools; in Corbyn's day (and in my day) it was not.
So he's never watched a documentary either?
As I say, he isn't a Love Island contestant, or someone who plainly has no interest in the political history of the 20th century. I'm just incredulous about the idea he is totally oblivious to it all... and if he is, then that's disqualifying in itself.
He also went to a school that had boarding, which was dominated by kids of those in the military. Because it is a top school and the demographic of kids, things like the wars have always been extensively covered and the likes of rememberance day (where the list of every ex-pupil who has died in war is read out) are important part of the calendar.
1. There’ll be a No Deal Brexit 2. The Tories will win the next GE 3. Jeremy Corbyn will remain leader even after Labour lose 4. Boris Johnson will be the last Tory PM in my lifetime 5. If I live my three score & 10 I’ll see the UK break-up 6. It’s bleak 7. Flee, you fools
I hope those predictions turn out to be as accurate as those you were confidently making just a few minutes before polls closed on 8th June 2017. Indeed I recall a state of denial continuing for a good 2 hours beyond the Exit Poll!
That would all make perfect sense save that it ignores the key question. Why is it that this problem has arisen and become worse and persistent since Corbyn became leader? If the leader is part of the problem then it is going to be mighty hard to resolve the problem without a change of leadership or a change of mind in the leadership. And there is little sign of the latter.
A lot of members feel it's somewhat concocted, because you literally never hear anyone in party meetings say that they are suspicious about/hostile to Jews, which is what most of us think of as anti-semitism. But clearly Corbyn's pro-Palestinian stance has encouraged people who talk about global Jewish conspiracies to support Israel.
This needs to be separated from people who say things like "The pro-Israel lobby makes the US too ready to accept Netanyahu's policies", which is probably not an anti-semitic view. Since everyone is entitled to due process (and can seek judicial review if they don't get it), the system is overwhelmed with allegations. Add to that the eagerness of the media and some members to segue the issue into attacks on Corbyn, and you get a mess. As with Brexit, I'm not sure there is *any* position that Corbyn can take which won't be attacked by his opponents.
Personally I wish that everyone, including Corbyn and all his critics, took a vow not to express any opinion on the Middle East for the next 12 months, so we could concentrate on stuff we can actually affect. But I can't see that happening.
On the topic of the British / Israeli states and their constitutional religiosity (or lack thereof) and or racism.
I assume no one disagrees that the UK is constitutionally a Protestant state, even if it's people and governance is mostly secular / pluralist.
The Israeli state, from my understanding, is not constitutionally a Jewish State, although I understand Netanyahu's government has tried to pass legislation of that kind (I am unsure how that panned out).
As for racism, I don't think either state is constitutionally racist, although both are practically racist, in that the British state's policies and the method of enacting said policies seem to disproportionately target and discriminate against ethnic minorities. As for Israel, the current state as governed by Likud are obviously racist, with Bibi often talking about opposition parties bussing in Arab voters and other dog whistle rhetoric, as well as clearly expansionist and aggressive settling policies and disproportionate responses to Palestinians protesting.
It does still interest me that antisemitism is only discussed when coming from left wing areas. Much of the anti Soros, New World Order, Farage and Trumpian language is patently antisemitic, but we are spending more time talking about Corbyn and co. Again, during Ed's time as Labour leader it was obvious the party was happy being led by a (culturally) Jewish man, and Ed still seems somewhat popular amongst the members, even Corbyn supporters, and the many antisemitic attacks on him by the mainstream press and Tories were not considered a problem.
The lords trying to use this as a stick to beat Corbyn do a disservice to the issue. They are right he hasn't done enough to deal with the issue. But saying the only thing left he can do to put it right is to resign will immediately have 2/3rds of the Labour membership see this as another attempted stitch up of Corbyn, and treat this issue with less seriousness because of it.
I wouldn't say the UK is a practically racist state, unless one is arguing that every political entity is practically racist.
There's no point in Labour getting rid of Corbyn if they replaced him with another person most voters would regard as very left-wing, like RLB. They need to replace him with a moderate like Yvette Cooper or Tom Watson.
It not hard to criticise Israel on an instance by instance basis, it when you start questioning its its fundamental right to exist and claiming it is a racist nation that you get into dodgy territory.
Now remind me, who wanted that opt out in labours take on IHRA definition of antisemitism?
There's no point in Labour getting rid of Corbyn if they replaced him with another person most voters would regard as very left-wing, like RLB. They need to replace him with a moderate like Yvette Cooper or Tom Watson.
I would agree, but no one else comes with as much baggage as Jezza. RLB is too young to have accumulated anywhere as much.
To tory no dealers I know you will disagree with Hammond, and perhaps think little of him, but does him being "terrified" and he doesnt seem one for unnecessary strong language, especially blue on blue, not make you think perhaps it is okay to slow down and think this through a bit more before jumping off the cliff?
Not for a second. This was the debate that was held before the referendum and since then Nothing Has Changed. Leaving the Single Market and Leaving the Customs Union was officially what the Treasury and others said would happen if we voted to Leave the EU. Since he represents the Treasury, what has changed since then from the Treasuries pre-referendum comments?
If that's his opinion it just shows he was the completely wrong person to take charge of the Exchequer after the referendum result and no wonder we're in this mess. Sooner he's on the backbenches or gone completely the better.
For those of us at the back who are slow on the uptake, can you explain how making it harder and more expensive to trade with our biggest export market helps the UK?
By better controlling our own laws and destiny which matters far more.
There's no point in Labour getting rid of Corbyn if they replaced him with another person most voters would regard as very left-wing, like RLB. They need to replace him with a moderate like Yvette Cooper or Tom Watson.
I would agree, but no one else comes with as much baggage as Jezza. RLB is too young to have accumulated anywhere as much.
She is almost certainly too young to recognise age-old anti-semitic tropes.
1. There’ll be a No Deal Brexit 2. The Tories will win the next GE 3. Jeremy Corbyn will remain leader even after Labour lose 4. Boris Johnson will be the last Tory PM in my lifetime 5. If I live my three score & 10 I’ll see the UK break-up 6. It’s bleak 7. Flee, you fools
I see all the great PB predictors are out today. But from one to another isn't there a logical flaw in your no 4 following no 2?
On topic, I agree with Mike that 29% is just about value on Corbyn going, given that there are several routes to this happening.
One he doesn't mention (I assume it has been downthread but haven't had time to read), is the high possibility of a GE and the consequent risk of Lab losing and Corbyn resigning.
Add in the chances of him either being pushed out, throwing the towel in, or going on health grounds and I think there's a little value there (though not much).
Corbyn will not resign if Labour lose the next election. He will stay until there is a far left alternative to him that can be confident of winning a leadership election.
Until recently, I'd assumed that too but his standing has surely been hit within the Party by his Brexit stance and would be tarnished still further if Labour lost again. I get that for the likes of McClusky and Milne, controlling the Party machine matters more than winning an election but wouldn't by that point it be safer for the far left to dump their failure on Corbyn personally and risk an election with a candidate of their choice, than face another challenge from the centre which they might lose against Corbyn?
And I do think he's beginning to look old. Is he really up for another 5+ years?
But Labour's polling position in relation to the Tories is nothing like as dire as was the case at the outset of the 2017 election. Corbyn massively outperfprmed expectations then - and might do so again. I say this as a non-Corbynite.
He was shouting over the noise in the Chamber. It is hard to judge from home because of the BBC microphones that pick him up anyway. That is why shouting is a mistake. But if you look at Theresa May, who is only a few feet away, she has to lean back to hear Corbyn via the speakers built into the benches.
There's no point in Labour getting rid of Corbyn if they replaced him with another person most voters would regard as very left-wing, like RLB. They need to replace him with a moderate like Yvette Cooper or Tom Watson.
I would agree, but no one else comes with as much baggage as Jezza. RLB is too young to have accumulated anywhere as much.
She is almost certainly too young to recognise age-old anti-semitic tropes.
True, it's only since Corbyn became Labour leader that age-old anti-semitic tropes have started reappearing in Britain to a significant degree.
He was shouting over the noise in the Chamber. It is hard to judge from home because of the BBC microphones that pick him up anyway. That is why shouting is a mistake. But if you look at Theresa May, who is only a few feet away, she has to lean back to hear Corbyn via the speakers built into the benches.
Nope he was speaking sotto voce with a quake on his voice.
There's no point in Labour getting rid of Corbyn if they replaced him with another person most voters would regard as very left-wing, like RLB. They need to replace him with a moderate like Yvette Cooper or Tom Watson.
I would agree, but no one else comes with as much baggage as Jezza. RLB is too young to have accumulated anywhere as much.
She is almost certainly too young to recognise age-old anti-semitic tropes.
True, it's only since Corbyn became Labour leader that age-old anti-semitic tropes have started reappearing in Britain to a significant degree.
Anyone who calls Corbyn racist but won’t call Trump racist doesn’t have the credibility to launch a powerful attack on him. That’s fair to say isn’t it?
Anyone who calls Corbyn racist but won’t call Trump racist doesn’t have the credibility to launch a powerful attack on him. That’s fair to say isn’t it?
True enough. Very difficult though for our head of state to call the American head of state a racist. Personally, if I was PM, I would, but that's probably why I would never make it up the greasy pole.
Anyone who calls Corbyn racist but won’t call Trump racist doesn’t have the credibility to launch a powerful attack on him. That’s fair to say isn’t it?
TM called Trump out as recognised by Ian Blackford
To tory no dealers I know you will disagree with Hammond, and perhaps think little of him, but does him being "terrified" and he doesnt seem one for unnecessary strong language, especially blue on blue, not make you think perhaps it is okay to slow down and think this through a bit more before jumping off the cliff?
Not for a second. This was the debate that was held before the referendum and since then Nothing Has Changed. Leaving the Single Market and Leaving the Customs Union was officially what the Treasury and others said would happen if we voted to Leave the EU. Since he represents the Treasury, what has changed since then from the Treasuries pre-referendum comments?
If that's his opinion it just shows he was the completely wrong person to take charge of the Exchequer after the referendum result and no wonder we're in this mess. Sooner he's on the backbenches or gone completely the better.
For those of us at the back who are slow on the uptake, can you explain how making it harder and more expensive to trade with our biggest export market helps the UK?
By better controlling our own laws and destiny which matters far more.
Oh good. We can legislate ourselves poor. Our Glorious Brexit Future. People with more money and mobility than me telling me that money and mobility don't matter whilst making me poorer and less mobile. Yay. Lucky me.
To tory no dealers I know you will disagree with Hammond, and perhaps think little of him, but does him being "terrified" and he doesnt seem one for unnecessary strong language, especially blue on blue, not make you think perhaps it is okay to slow down and think this through a bit more before jumping off the cliff?
Not for a second. This was the debate that was held before the referendum and since then Nothing Has Changed. Leaving the Single Market and Leaving the Customs Union was officially what the Treasury and others said would happen if we voted to Leave the EU. Since he represents the Treasury, what has changed since then from the Treasuries pre-referendum comments?
If that's his opinion it just shows he was the completely wrong person to take charge of the Exchequer after the referendum result and no wonder we're in this mess. Sooner he's on the backbenches or gone completely the better.
For those of us at the back who are slow on the uptake, can you explain how making it harder and more expensive to trade with our biggest export market helps the UK?
By better controlling our own laws and destiny which matters far more.
To win fairly not fraudulently, that line should have been on the side of the bus, that sentiment front and centre of the campaign, then?
1. There’ll be a No Deal Brexit 2. The Tories will win the next GE 3. Jeremy Corbyn will remain leader even after Labour lose 4. Boris Johnson will be the last Tory PM in my lifetime 5. If I live my three score & 10 I’ll see the UK break-up 6. It’s bleak 7. Flee, you fools
I hope those predictions turn out to be as accurate as those you were confidently making just a few minutes before polls closed on 8th June 2017. Indeed I recall a state of denial continuing for a good 2 hours beyond the Exit Poll!
Yes Southam is not one to watch on predictions. Day after day he told us Mitt Romney was going to win.
Anyone who calls Corbyn racist but won’t call Trump racist doesn’t have the credibility to launch a powerful attack on him. That’s fair to say isn’t it?
TM called Trump out as recognised by Ian Blackford
Anyone who calls Corbyn racist but won’t call Trump racist doesn’t have the credibility to launch a powerful attack on him. That’s fair to say isn’t it?
True enough. Very difficult though for our head of state to call the American head of state a racist. Personally, if I was PM, I would, but that's probably why I would never make it up the greasy pole.
Well I’m not calling Trump a racist. He’s gone far beyond that. The politics he is practicing with this is fascism.
There's no point in Labour getting rid of Corbyn if they replaced him with another person most voters would regard as very left-wing, like RLB. They need to replace him with a moderate like Yvette Cooper or Tom Watson.
I would agree, but no one else comes with as much baggage as Jezza. RLB is too young to have accumulated anywhere as much.
She is almost certainly too young to recognise age-old anti-semitic tropes.
True, it's only since Corbyn became Labour leader that age-old anti-semitic tropes have started reappearing in Britain to a significant degree.
The mural was 2012, before Corbyn was leader.
Yes, in those days you had to seek that kind of stuff out, as Corbyn did. Now you just need to follow Corbynistas on Twitter. He's achieved one political goal at least: he's brought anti-semitism to the many, not the few.
You mean, the false stories about him donating to Deir Yassin Remembered,
Oh, hold in, those are true, aren't they?
The real issue with Corbyn and Labour more generally is not what their enemies are saying about them, it's what they're actually saying and doing.
Are those the strongest claims of anti semitism against don't get irony'. A stereotype and a completely innacurate onre to boot. The rest are all Israel related.
There is nothing anti semitic about calling Hezbollah friends. I know many very sane Lebanese Christians who would say exactly the same. They have done more for the poor in view of Middle Eastern politics
So you do concede he is antisemitic? Well, it's a start.
And calling any organisation that denies the Holocaust a friend, or worse, giving money to it, is also clearly antisemitic.
As was that mural, which was based on Nazi propaganda, and your feeble attempt to ignore it has not gone unnoticed.
Corbyn may not think he is a racist but his excuses for behaviour which in all any non-Labour politician he would rightly roundly condemn border on the asinine.
And as for the whataboutery with regard to Pinochet - are you really saying he's OK because he's done some things that are comparable to Thatcher? That strikes me as a dangerous argument...
Recognising the mural, which purported to show real bankers, at least two of them not Jewish, as based on Nazi propaganda, surely depends on a knowledge of Nazi propaganda. It seems entirely plausible that Corbyn did not see the connection.
You make a very good point. I saw it for the first time last week and I'm not sure I would have seen it as anti semitic. I know more Jews than most and I don't see them like that. Nor do I see them as bankers. Indeed when I asked my daughter if she thought it anti semitic she had no idea why it should be. If I'd asked her to do a caracature of 'Jews' they'd have beards black hats and curls.
Except Corbyn's teams defence was he had not looked properly at it, not that it was not obviously anti semitic. They and he appear to accept that it was, they just contend he did not pay due attention to it.
So that defence that it is not obvious falls down because he does not use that defence. If it were not obvious to a lifelong anti racist campaigner he surely would have used that defence, as the alternative was the 'I'm stupid' defence that he commented without properly looking at it. People dont use the I'm stupid defence unless the other options are very weak.
It's always hilarious when people try to defend him on that with a reason he himself does not use. Its implausible and unconvincing.
On topic, I agree with Mike that 29% is just about value on Corbyn going, given that there are several routes to this happening.
One he doesn't mention (I assume it has been downthread but haven't had time to read), is the high possibility of a GE and the consequent risk of Lab losing and Corbyn resigning.
Add in the chances of him either being pushed out, throwing the towel in, or going on health grounds and I think there's a little value there (though not much).
Corbyn will not resign if Labour lose the next election. He will stay until there is a far left alternative to him that can be confident of winning a leadership election.
Until recently, I'd assumed that too but his standing has surely been hit within the Party by his Brexit stance and would be tarnished still further if Labour lost again. I get that for the likes of McClusky and Milne, controlling the Party machine matters more than winning an election but wouldn't by that point it be safer for the far left to dump their failure on Corbyn personally and risk an election with a candidate of their choice, than face another challenge from the centre which they might lose against Corbyn?
And I do think he's beginning to look old. Is he really up for another 5+ years?
There are significant splits at the top, though. Corbyn is what is keeping it all together. That will remain the case. Nick Palmer is an entirely representative Labour member - he will stand with Corbyn until the very end no matter what, but his vote in the next leadership election cannot be taken for granted. Until it can be, there will be no leadership election. The far left has waited so long to gain control of Labour that it will do nothing to risk losing it. That's why Corbyn will carry on regardless, whatever the costs to his health, and why there will never be independent oversight of anti-Semitism complaints (or any other kind).
If Corbyn and Corbynism retains its grip on Labour the likelihood in my view is the LDs will overtake Labour as the main party of the centre left and the Tories' main opponents within the next decade
To tory no dealers I know you will disagree with Hammond, and perhaps think little of him, but does him being "terrified" and he doesnt seem one for unnecessary strong language, especially blue on blue, not make you think perhaps it is okay to slow down and think this through a bit more before jumping off the cliff?
Not for a second. This was the debate that was held before the referendum and since then Nothing Has Changed. Leaving the Single Market and Leaving the Customs Union was officially what the Treasury and others said would happen if we voted to Leave the EU. Since he represents the Treasury, what has changed since then from the Treasuries pre-referendum comments?
If that's his opinion it just shows he was the completely wrong person to take charge of the Exchequer after the referendum result and no wonder we're in this mess. Sooner he's on the backbenches or gone completely the better.
For those of us at the back who are slow on the uptake, can you explain how making it harder and more expensive to trade with our biggest export market helps the UK?
By better controlling our own laws and destiny which matters far more.
Oh good. We can legislate ourselves poor. Our Glorious Brexit Future. People with more money and mobility than me telling me that money and mobility don't matter whilst making me poorer and less mobile. Yay. Lucky me.
There's a trade off to be made between self-government and economic integration, but the UK will remain a wealthy country either inside or outside the EU.
Recognising the mural, which purported to show real bankers, at least two of them not Jewish, as based on Nazi propaganda, surely depends on a knowledge of Nazi propaganda. It seems entirely plausible that Corbyn did not see the connection.
You make a very good point. I saw it for the first time last week and I'm not sure I would have seen it as anti semitic. I know more Jews than most and I don't see them like that. Nor do I see them as bankers. Indeed when I asked my daughter if she thought it anti semitic she had no idea why it should be. If I'd asked her to do a caracature of 'Jews' they'd have beards black hats and curls.
Except Corbyn's teams defence was he had not looked properly at it, not that it was not obviously anti semitic. They and he appear to accept that it was, they just contend he did not pay due attention to it.
So that defence that it is not obvious falls down because he does not use that defence. If it were not obvious to a lifelong anti racist campaigner he surely would have used that defence, as the alternative was the 'I'm stupid' defence that he commented without properly looking at it.
It's always hilarious when people try to defend him on that with a reason he himself does not use. Its implausible and unconvincing.
The two are not contradictory. If it had been self-evident, close examination would not be needed. It is just a different way of saying the same thing.
Anyone who calls Corbyn racist but won’t call Trump racist doesn’t have the credibility to launch a powerful attack on him. That’s fair to say isn’t it?
True enough. Very difficult though for our head of state to call the American head of state a racist. Personally, if I was PM, I would, but that's probably why I would never make it up the greasy pole.
The US House of Representatives voted last night to call Trump racist by a majority vote but it is now controlled by the Democrats, May and Boris might criticise Trump's words like Mitt Romney has but like Romney they will also not go so far as to call him racist
To tory no dealers I know you will disagree with Hammond, and perhaps think little of him, but does him being "terrified" and he doesnt seem one for unnecessary strong language, especially blue on blue, not make you think perhaps it is okay to slow down and think this through a bit more before jumping off the cliff?
Not for a second. This was the debate that was held before the referendum and since then Nothing Has Changed. Leaving the Single Market and Leaving the Customs Union was officially what the Treasury and others said would happen if we voted to Leave the EU. Since he represents the Treasury, what has changed since then from the Treasuries pre-referendum comments?
If that's his opinion it just shows he was the completely wrong person to take charge of the Exchequer after the referendum result and no wonder we're in this mess. Sooner he's on the backbenches or gone completely the better.
For those of us at the back who are slow on the uptake, can you explain how making it harder and more expensive to trade with our biggest export market helps the UK?
By better controlling our own laws and destiny which matters far more.
Oh good. We can legislate ourselves poor. Our Glorious Brexit Future. People with more money and mobility than me telling me that money and mobility don't matter whilst making me poorer and less mobile. Yay. Lucky me.
Not only that, when the elites voting for Brexit suffer, they get billions in state subsidies!!
To tory no dealers I know you will disagree with Hammond, and perhaps think little of him, but does him being "terrified" and he doesnt seem one for unnecessary strong language, especially blue on blue, not make you think perhaps it is okay to slow down and think this through a bit more before jumping off the cliff?
Not for a second. This was the debate that was held before the referendum and since then Nothing Has Changed. Leaving the Single Market and Leaving the Customs Union was officially what the Treasury and others said would happen if we voted to Leave the EU. Since he represents the Treasury, what has changed since then from the Treasuries pre-referendum comments?
If that's his opinion it just shows he was the completely wrong person to take charge of the Exchequer after the referendum result and no wonder we're in this mess. Sooner he's on the backbenches or gone completely the better.
For those of us at the back who are slow on the uptake, can you explain how making it harder and more expensive to trade with our biggest export market helps the UK?
By better controlling our own laws and destiny which matters far more.
Oh good. We can legislate ourselves poor. Our Glorious Brexit Future. People with more money and mobility than me telling me that money and mobility don't matter whilst making me poorer and less mobile. Yay. Lucky me.
There's a trade off to be made between self-government and economic integration, but the UK will remain a wealthy country either inside or outside the EU.
The territory of the UK may remain relatively wealthy on global terms, but whether you will still be able to call it the UK is very much in doubt.
Anyone who calls Corbyn racist but won’t call Trump racist doesn’t have the credibility to launch a powerful attack on him. That’s fair to say isn’t it?
True enough. Very difficult though for our head of state to call the American head of state a racist. Personally, if I was PM, I would, but that's probably why I would never make it up the greasy pole.
The US House of Representatives voted last night to call Trump racist by a majority vote but it is now controlled by the Democrats, May and Boris might criticise Trump's words like Mitt Romney has but like Romney they will also not go so far as to call him racist
The politics he’s using here is fascism. Call him a fascist.
We stood up to them in the 1930s and 1940s and beat them, we will do so again. There can be no US UK special relationship whilst there is a fascist in the whitehouse, is what the PM should say.
To tory no dealers I know you will disagree with Hammond, and perhaps think little of him, but does him being "terrified" and he doesnt seem one for unnecessary strong language, especially blue on blue, not make you think perhaps it is okay to slow down and think this through a bit more before jumping off the cliff?
Not for a second. This was the debate that was held before the referendum and since then Nothing Has Changed. Leaving the Single Market and Leaving the Customs Union was officially what the Treasury and others said would happen if we voted to Leave the EU. Since he represents the Treasury, what has changed since then from the Treasuries pre-referendum comments?
If that's his opinion it just shows he was the completely wrong person to take charge of the Exchequer after the referendum result and no wonder we're in this mess. Sooner he's on the backbenches or gone completely the better.
The debate at the referendum was leaving with a deal. Hammond is in favour of leaving with a deal.
Incorrect. The Treasury gave leaving without a deal as a very possible outcome actually.
The Treasury do not get to define Leave, otherwise we would indeed have left with a deal. The leave campaign clearly envisioned and sold leaving with not just a deal, but a fantastic one, where we held all the cards and could be negotiated quickly.
See Lib Dems won the Cardiff by election by 30%, in 2017 neck and neck with Conservative. Is this a sign of what will happen up the road at Brecon in a fortnight. Whatever it is it appears to be another one in the eye for "Team Boris"
Anyhoo. I note the kerfuffle about @HYUFD . Whilst I acknowledge that in terms of rhetoric escalation he is about two weeks away from creating the Daleks, and that it is often difficult to separate his headcanon[1] from his analysis, his thesis that Boris will become PM, leave on time (sic) regardless of deal, and that with the Leavers united and the Remainers split between the Libs and the anti-Semites he will win the coming election, is basically sound. It is also supported by the available evidence with Con recovering in the polls, albeit weakly.
I remember 2017 when @Black_Rook was shouted down on PB for her lukewarm assessment of May, and 2016 when Nate Silver was shouted down for his lukewarm assessment of Clinton. Both people were correct, and @HYUFD may also be.
Although I would ask him to tone it down a bit, cos a bit weird at this point...
[1] his assertion that the withdrawal agreement remained extant in a no-deal departure had me throwing my plate at the wall, and others...
Anyone who calls Corbyn racist but won’t call Trump racist doesn’t have the credibility to launch a powerful attack on him. That’s fair to say isn’t it?
True enough. Very difficult though for our head of state to call the American head of state a racist. Personally, if I was PM, I would, but that's probably why I would never make it up the greasy pole.
The US House of Representatives voted last night to call Trump racist by a majority vote but it is now controlled by the Democrats, May and Boris might criticise Trump's words like Mitt Romney has but like Romney they will also not go so far as to call him racist
The politics he’s using here is fascism. Call him a fascist.
We stood up to them in the 1930s and 1940s and beat them, we will do so again. There can be no US UK special relationship whilst there is a fascist in the whitehouse, is what the PM should say.
His comments were clearly racist, and anyone too timid to call them that is pathetic.
As for fascism, you need look no further than ICE's concentration camps. So yes, Trump is a fascist for supporting and overseeing those, but are you willing to say the same about Obama, under whom they were almost as bad?
To tory no dealers I know you will disagree with Hammond, and perhaps think little of him, but does him being "terrified" and he doesnt seem one for unnecessary strong language, especially blue on blue, not make you think perhaps it is okay to slow down and think this through a bit more before jumping off the cliff?
Not for a second. This was the debate that was held before the referendum and since then Nothing Has Changed. Leaving the Single Market and Leaving the Customs Union was officially what the Treasury and others said would happen if we voted to Leave the EU. Since he represents the Treasury, what has changed since then from the Treasuries pre-referendum comments?
If that's his opinion it just shows he was the completely wrong person to take charge of the Exchequer after the referendum result and no wonder we're in this mess. Sooner he's on the backbenches or gone completely the better.
For those of us at the back who are slow on the uptake, can you explain how making it harder and more expensive to trade with our biggest export market helps the UK?
By better controlling our own laws and destiny which matters far more.
Oh good. We can legislate ourselves poor. Our Glorious Brexit Future. People with more money and mobility than me telling me that money and mobility don't matter whilst making me poorer and less mobile. Yay. Lucky me.
There's a trade off to be made between self-government and economic integration, but the UK will remain a wealthy country either inside or outside the EU.
The territory of the UK may remain relatively wealthy on global terms, but whether you will still be able to call it the UK is very much in doubt.
The Treasury do not get to define Leave, otherwise we would indeed have left with a deal. The leave campaign clearly envisioned and sold leaving with not just a deal, but a fantastic one, where we held all the cards and could be negotiated quickly.
Anyone who calls Corbyn racist but won’t call Trump racist doesn’t have the credibility to launch a powerful attack on him. That’s fair to say isn’t it?
True enough. Very difficult though for our head of state to call the American head of state a racist. Personally, if I was PM, I would, but that's probably why I would never make it up the greasy pole.
The US House of Representatives voted last night to call Trump racist by a majority vote but it is now controlled by the Democrats, May and Boris might criticise Trump's words like Mitt Romney has but like Romney they will also not go so far as to call him racist
The politics he’s using here is fascism. Call him a fascist.
We stood up to them in the 1930s and 1940s and beat them, we will do so again. There can be no US UK special relationship whilst there is a fascist in the whitehouse, is what the PM should say.
Maybe I'm reaching here, but I can see a *few* distinctions between the modern USA and Nazi Germany.
Anyhoo. I note the kerfuffle about @HYUFD . Whilst I acknowledge that in terms of rhetoric escalation he is about two weeks away from creating the Daleks, and that it is often difficult to separate his headcanon[1] from his analysis, his thesis that Boris will become PM, leave on time (sic) regardless of deal, and that with the Leavers united and the Remainers split between the Libs and the anti-Semites he will win the coming election, is basically sound. It is also supported by the available evidence with Con recovering in the polls, albeit weakly.
I don't think that last sentence is true. If anything there's been a slight Con -> Lab swing in recent polls, though it's pretty much M.O.E. stuff.
Anyhoo. I note the kerfuffle about @HYUFD . Whilst I acknowledge that in terms of rhetoric escalation he is about two weeks away from creating the Daleks, and that it is often difficult to separate his headcanon[1] from his analysis, his thesis that Boris will become PM, leave on time (sic) regardless of deal, and that with the Leavers united and the Remainers split between the Libs and the anti-Semites he will win the coming election, is basically sound. It is also supported by the available evidence with Con recovering in the polls, albeit weakly.
I remember 2017 when @Black_Rook was shouted down on PB for her lukewarm assessment of May, and 2016 when Nate Silver was shouted down for his lukewarm assessment of Clinton. Both people were correct, and @HYUFD may also be.
Although I would ask him to tone it down a bit, cos a bit weird at this point...
[1] his assertion that the withdrawal agreement remained extant in a no-deal departure had me throwing my plate at the wall, and others...
@HYUFD provides a useful and interesting pov. It is when he starts ascribing views and political homes to other posters that is the issue.
If I took anything from that PMQ's is that between the PM and the LOTO, at least, PMQ's is just two people shouting non-sequiturs at each other as the veins in their foreheads pulse.
If we leave aside the 2015 revelation that Corbyn was a friend and supporter of Paul Eisen, this has now been a constant running sore for over a year.
At what point would a sensible person have got a grip?
If we lived somewhere where Boris's favourite love Island contestant wasn't front page news it would be possible for Corbyn and co to start asking sensible questions whether it is desirable for Israel to describe itslf as a Jewish State' and to question Mark Regev- ex Israeli propaganda chief current Israeli Ambassador to London-'s part in the continuous stories-real and false-about Corbyn's so called 'anti semitism'.
Would you call England a Christian State?
Considering the Church of England is the State religion and in the legislature, sadly yes.
I would also call Iran and Saudi Arabia Islamic states. I wonder whether Corbyn finds it racist for Iran to refer to itself as an Islamic state?
England is in reality largely a secular state now with some strong Christian elements, particularly in the black community or Catholic East Europeans and with a strong Muslim, Hindu or Sikh presence in the Asian community and the small Jewish community is still going too despite Corbyn
1. There’ll be a No Deal Brexit 2. The Tories will win the next GE 3. Jeremy Corbyn will remain leader even after Labour lose 4. Boris Johnson will be the last Tory PM in my lifetime 5. If I live my three score & 10 I’ll see the UK break-up 6. It’s bleak 7. Flee, you fools
I hope those predictions turn out to be as accurate as those you were confidently making just a few minutes before polls closed on 8th June 2017. Indeed I recall a state of denial continuing for a good 2 hours beyond the Exit Poll!
Yes Southam is not one to watch on predictions. Day after day he told us Mitt Romney was going to win.
@SouthamObserver got the Brexit referendum prediction prize though.
Anyhoo. I note the kerfuffle about @HYUFD . Whilst I acknowledge that in terms of rhetoric escalation he is about two weeks away from creating the Daleks, and that it is often difficult to separate his headcanon[1] from his analysis, his thesis that Boris will become PM, leave on time (sic) regardless of deal, and that with the Leavers united and the Remainers split between the Libs and the anti-Semites he will win the coming election, is basically sound. It is also supported by the available evidence with Con recovering in the polls, albeit weakly.
I don't think that last sentence is true. If anything there's been a slight Con -> Lab swing in recent polls, though it's pretty much M.O.E. stuff.
I meant in absolute terms (ie an increase in vote share) rather than relative (ie relative to Lab). If Con can hoover up all the BXP votes, they win.
Anyone who calls Corbyn racist but won’t call Trump racist doesn’t have the credibility to launch a powerful attack on him. That’s fair to say isn’t it?
True enough. Very difficult though for our head of state to call the American head of state a racist. Personally, if I was PM, I would, but that's probably why I would never make it up the greasy pole.
The US House of Representatives voted last night to call Trump racist by a majority vote but it is now controlled by the Democrats, May and Boris might criticise Trump's words like Mitt Romney has but like Romney they will also not go so far as to call him racist
The politics he’s using here is fascism. Call him a fascist.
We stood up to them in the 1930s and 1940s and beat them, we will do so again. There can be no US UK special relationship whilst there is a fascist in the whitehouse, is what the PM should say.
Trump is a Nationalist not a Fascist, if he was a Fascist he would have tried to arrest Nancy Pelosi last night and banned the Democratic Party
See Lib Dems won the Cardiff by election by 30%, in 2017 neck and neck with Conservative. Is this a sign of what will happen up the road at Brecon in a fortnight. Whatever it is it appears to be another one in the eye for "Team Boris"
Cardiff voted Remain, Brecon voted Leave
48% of Brecon voted Remain, and that is the side getting recent swings.
Anyhoo. I note the kerfuffle about @HYUFD . Whilst I acknowledge that in terms of rhetoric escalation he is about two weeks away from creating the Daleks, and that it is often difficult to separate his headcanon[1] from his analysis, his thesis that Boris will become PM, leave on time (sic) regardless of deal, and that with the Leavers united and the Remainers split between the Libs and the anti-Semites he will win the coming election, is basically sound. It is also supported by the available evidence with Con recovering in the polls, albeit weakly.
I don't think that last sentence is true. If anything there's been a slight Con -> Lab swing in recent polls, though it's pretty much M.O.E. stuff.
Only from Tory to Brexit Party which Boris will reverse and more
Anyhoo. I note the kerfuffle about @HYUFD . Whilst I acknowledge that in terms of rhetoric escalation he is about two weeks away from creating the Daleks, and that it is often difficult to separate his headcanon[1] from his analysis, his thesis that Boris will become PM, leave on time (sic) regardless of deal, and that with the Leavers united and the Remainers split between the Libs and the anti-Semites he will win the coming election, is basically sound. It is also supported by the available evidence with Con recovering in the polls, albeit weakly.
I remember 2017 when @Black_Rook was shouted down on PB for her lukewarm assessment of May, and 2016 when Nate Silver was shouted down for his lukewarm assessment of Clinton. Both people were correct, and @HYUFD may also be.
Although I would ask him to tone it down a bit, cos a bit weird at this point...
[1] his assertion that the withdrawal agreement remained extant in a no-deal departure had me throwing my plate at the wall, and others...
@HYUFD provides a useful and interesting pov. It is when he starts ascribing views and political homes to other posters that is the issue.
I think his assessment of Boris is ludicrous, and that he's given the people he hates (liberal elites) power over him by defining himself in opposition to them.
However, his scenario (the one viewcode describes up top), is the only plausible one I can think of in which the Conservative party survives as an electoral force. People here who support other candidates should either explain how they think that will work well for the Conservatives electorally, or just openly admit that they essentially support seppuku- the party committing suicide to preserve its honour.
See Lib Dems won the Cardiff by election by 30%, in 2017 neck and neck with Conservative. Is this a sign of what will happen up the road at Brecon in a fortnight. Whatever it is it appears to be another one in the eye for "Team Boris"
Cardiff voted Remain, Brecon voted Leave
48% of Brecon voted Remain, and that is the side getting recent swings.
Only because the Brexit Party is taking Tory votes, Boris will reverse that
Some of them have become so pro Palestinian they have become anti Israel and anti Jew. It doesn’t matter if they are like a drunk who doesn’t realise they have a drink problem, or that political opponents inside and outside the party are exploiting it for political gain, the racism allegations are justified. To be Jewish is not a choice of religion but a matter of race.
Opponents of Corbyn, having a field day with this, if they truly hate all anti semiticsm and wish it to go away, need to be open about when and how this started. Five years ago the leader of the Labour Party was of Jewish descent, and there was no whiff of anti Semitic when he and his brother mopped up the leadership election votes or through his time in office, was there?
Anyhoo. I note the kerfuffle about @HYUFD . Whilst I acknowledge that in terms of rhetoric escalation he is about two weeks away from creating the Daleks, and that it is often difficult to separate his headcanon[1] from his analysis, his thesis that Boris will become PM, leave on time (sic) regardless of deal, and that with the Leavers united and the Remainers split between the Libs and the anti-Semites he will win the coming election, is basically sound. It is also supported by the available evidence with Con recovering in the polls, albeit weakly.
I remember 2017 when @Black_Rook was shouted down on PB for her lukewarm assessment of May, and 2016 when Nate Silver was shouted down for his lukewarm assessment of Clinton. Both people were correct, and @HYUFD may also be.
Although I would ask him to tone it down a bit, cos a bit weird at this point...
[1] his assertion that the withdrawal agreement remained extant in a no-deal departure had me throwing my plate at the wall, and others...
@HYUFD provides a useful and interesting pov. It is when he starts ascribing views and political homes to other posters that is the issue.
Comments
As I say, he isn't a Love Island contestant, or someone who plainly has no interest in the political history of the 20th century. I'm just incredulous about the idea he is totally oblivious to it all... and if he is, then that's disqualifying in itself.
Time for the FSB (Federal States of Britain) ?
Nick Timothy, TMay's ex-spad, recently argued for a Federal Britain but I couldn't read it cus apparently the telegraph has some paywalls now.
So here's my attempt-
1 - FSB is mentioned in the re-make of Total Recall. Being based on a book by Philip K Dick I think this is a good omen (although its FSB included parts of France; anyone fancy a territorial war with a weakened EU? Un chance a practiser le francais?)
2- Handily, the four constituent parts of the UK, already have their own parliaments (England kindly letting us share theirs for UK matters.)
3 - Dublin could get in on the act. Why bother with a united Ireland when you can get an enhanced Britain?
4 - FSB would be strong on world stage, at the time of a, perhaps costly, divorce from Europe.
5 - Federal states, such as the US and Germany, have been shown to work. At a time of ever increasing globalisation, unity on the islands of the north atlantic could prove very worthwhile.
Global Mags.
In which case will they drown as they're chucked overboard or join chuka by getting off at the next port?
This country has gone stark staring mad.
I assume no one disagrees that the UK is constitutionally a Protestant state, even if it's people and governance is mostly secular / pluralist.
The Israeli state, from my understanding, is not constitutionally a Jewish State, although I understand Netanyahu's government has tried to pass legislation of that kind (I am unsure how that panned out).
As for racism, I don't think either state is constitutionally racist, although both are practically racist, in that the British state's policies and the method of enacting said policies seem to disproportionately target and discriminate against ethnic minorities. As for Israel, the current state as governed by Likud are obviously racist, with Bibi often talking about opposition parties bussing in Arab voters and other dog whistle rhetoric, as well as clearly expansionist and aggressive settling policies and disproportionate responses to Palestinians protesting.
It does still interest me that antisemitism is only discussed when coming from left wing areas. Much of the anti Soros, New World Order, Farage and Trumpian language is patently antisemitic, but we are spending more time talking about Corbyn and co. Again, during Ed's time as Labour leader it was obvious the party was happy being led by a (culturally) Jewish man, and Ed still seems somewhat popular amongst the members, even Corbyn supporters, and the many antisemitic attacks on him by the mainstream press and Tories were not considered a problem.
The lords trying to use this as a stick to beat Corbyn do a disservice to the issue. They are right he hasn't done enough to deal with the issue. But saying the only thing left he can do to put it right is to resign will immediately have 2/3rds of the Labour membership see this as another attempted stitch up of Corbyn, and treat this issue with less seriousness because of it.
This needs to be separated from people who say things like "The pro-Israel lobby makes the US too ready to accept Netanyahu's policies", which is probably not an anti-semitic view. Since everyone is entitled to due process (and can seek judicial review if they don't get it), the system is overwhelmed with allegations. Add to that the eagerness of the media and some members to segue the issue into attacks on Corbyn, and you get a mess. As with Brexit, I'm not sure there is *any* position that Corbyn can take which won't be attacked by his opponents.
Personally I wish that everyone, including Corbyn and all his critics, took a vow not to express any opinion on the Middle East for the next 12 months, so we could concentrate on stuff we can actually affect. But I can't see that happening.
You ain't seen nothin' yet!
Brexit has only had one positive result so far.
It has shown the ugly underbelly of the British people which many including myself had not been aware of.
Yes the country has gone nuts .
Now remind me, who wanted that opt out in labours take on IHRA definition of antisemitism?
Fantastic performance. If you are against anti-semitism, that is of course.
The Labour Party 2019 -
FOR THE NOT SO MANY ESPECIALLY THE JEWS
https://twitter.com/SpaJw/status/1151452385782456320
Day after day he told us Mitt Romney was going to win.
So that defence that it is not obvious falls down because he does not use that defence. If it were not obvious to a lifelong anti racist campaigner he surely would have used that defence, as the alternative was the 'I'm stupid' defence that he commented without properly looking at it. People dont use the I'm stupid defence unless the other options are very weak.
It's always hilarious when people try to defend him on that with a reason he himself does not use. Its implausible and unconvincing.
https://twitter.com/htafcdotcom/status/1151401159011315718
We stood up to them in the 1930s and 1940s and beat them, we will do so again. There can be no US UK special relationship whilst there is a fascist in the whitehouse, is what the PM should say.
I remember 2017 when @Black_Rook was shouted down on PB for her lukewarm assessment of May, and 2016 when Nate Silver was shouted down for his lukewarm assessment of Clinton. Both people were correct, and @HYUFD may also be.
Although I would ask him to tone it down a bit, cos a bit weird at this point...
[1] his assertion that the withdrawal agreement remained extant in a no-deal departure had me throwing my plate at the wall, and others...
As for fascism, you need look no further than ICE's concentration camps. So yes, Trump is a fascist for supporting and overseeing those, but are you willing to say the same about Obama, under whom they were almost as bad?
https://twitter.com/danbloom1/status/1151454577100828672
However, his scenario (the one viewcode describes up top), is the only plausible one I can think of in which the Conservative party survives as an electoral force. People here who support other candidates should either explain how they think that will work well for the Conservatives electorally, or just openly admit that they essentially support seppuku- the party committing suicide to preserve its honour.
Opponents of Corbyn, having a field day with this, if they truly hate all anti semiticsm and wish it to go away, need to be open about when and how this started. Five years ago the leader of the Labour Party was of Jewish descent, and there was no whiff of anti Semitic when he and his brother mopped up the leadership election votes or through his time in office, was there?
Arriving at Cheltenham I said Glos would be all out in half an hour.
The two batsmen not out overnight have now put on 106.
The Middle East is quite keen on Lamb, it is why all NZ Lamb is Halal.