I remember when people used to make a distinction between anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism. It wasn't even that long ago.
I think whether there is a meaningful distinction depends to a large extent on how you define Zionism. Does it simply refer to Israel's right to exist as a Jewish haven state? Or does it mean its right to occupy all of the territory which it deems to be Jewish regardless of the rights of others?
Meaningless semantics. Anti-Zionism means you don't want the state of Israel to exist (safe haven or otherwise).
Also known as the Pro-Palestine position. Perfectly rational. It's only really right-wing nutjobs in America (all about the benjamins) who like Israel.
No, anti-Zionism means you don't want Israel to claim all the lands as laid out in the biblical texts as Israel. Not that you don't want the current state of Israel to exist.
You can be pro-Israel while being and anti-Zionist.
That's my view, and the basis on which I was both on the Labour Friends of Israel NEC and a founding member of Labour Friends of Palestine. I saw, and see, no contradiction.
But as Corbyn conceded when he was grappling with the issue, this is the classic definition but the phrase anti-zionism has become adopted by some anti-semites as a convenient cover for being nasty to Jews, so it should be avoided. Conversely, though, it's not true that one has to be a fan of Israel to avoid being anti-semitic.
The question is, just how left wing is Starmer? Is he going to be Corbyn but without the IRA/antisemitism stuff?
More Ed Miliband without the bacon sandwich
Ed Miliband without the bacin sandwich is a winning formula, though. The bacon sandwich wasn't an issue in itself, but it encapsulated the issue of 'this dorky looking beta male doesn't look like a PM'. This doesn't apply to Starmer.
There was alsi the shafting-his-brother issue, which did him no favours.
Starmer looks like a PM but in common with Ed Miliband he doesn't sound much like one. John Major didnt sound like a PM either but then Neil Kinnock did even less so. I wonder if Starmer can get some vocal lessons like Thatcher did.
My theory of Kinnock's downfall (where is Roger when we need him?) is it is the way he was filmed. Kinnock did a lot of public speaking and would move his head around a lot. Unfortunately when filmed in tight close-up, it made him look like a madman as his head bobbed around voters' tellies.
Trivia quiz: who was the 1980s American politician whose run for presidency imploded when he was shown to be plagiarising Neil Kinnock?
Good to see the Conservatives shitting all over the Smith Commission they signed off on.
The Scotland Bill 2016 gave Holyrood more powers as per Smith
Smith also said nothing would stop Scotland becoming independent in the future if it so chose. I didn't see any small print about "unless Boris says No".
The question is, just how left wing is Starmer? Is he going to be Corbyn but without the IRA/antisemitism stuff?
More Ed Miliband without the bacon sandwich
Ed Miliband without the bacin sandwich is a winning formula, though. The bacon sandwich wasn't an issue in itself, but it encapsulated the issue of 'this dorky looking beta male doesn't look like a PM'. This doesn't apply to Starmer.
There was alsi the shafting-his-brother issue, which did him no favours.
Starmer looks like a PM but in common with Ed Miliband he doesn't sound much like one. John Major didnt sound like a PM either but then Neil Kinnock did even less so. I wonder if Starmer can get some vocal lessons like Thatcher did.
My theory of Kinnock's downfall (where is Roger when we need him?) is it is the way he was filmed. Kinnock did a lot of public speaking and would move his head around a lot. Unfortunately when filmed in tight close-up, it made him look like a madman as his head bobbed around voters' tellies.
Trivia quiz: who was the 1980s American politician whose run for presidency imploded when he was shown to be plagiarising Neil Kinnock?
Biden? Who said there weren't any second (or third or fourth) acts in American lives.
The question is, just how left wing is Starmer? Is he going to be Corbyn but without the IRA/antisemitism stuff?
More Ed Miliband without the bacon sandwich
Ed Miliband without the bacin sandwich is a winning formula, though. The bacon sandwich wasn't an issue in itself, but it encapsulated the issue of 'this dorky looking beta male doesn't look like a PM'. This doesn't apply to Starmer.
There was alsi the shafting-his-brother issue, which did him no favours.
Starmer looks like a PM but in common with Ed Miliband he doesn't sound much like one. John Major didnt sound like a PM either but then Neil Kinnock did even less so. I wonder if Starmer can get some vocal lessons like Thatcher did.
My theory of Kinnock's downfall (where is Roger when we need him?) is it is the way he was filmed. Kinnock did a lot of public speaking and would move his head around a lot. Unfortunately when filmed in tight close-up, it made him look like a madman as his head bobbed around voters' tellies.
Trivia quiz: who was the 1980s American politician whose run for presidency imploded when he was shown to be plagiarising Neil Kinnock?
Mike Dukakis?
Jo Biden, if memory serves. He had this speech about how he was the first Biden to go to university even though Bidens had lived in the country for centuries and his ancestors were just as sharp and bright as he was but lacked privilege that others did. Turned out to be almost word for word a Kinnock speech.
My theory of Kinnock's downfall (where is Roger when we need him?) is it is the way he was filmed. Kinnock did a lot of public speaking and would move his head around a lot. Unfortunately when filmed in tight close-up, it made him look like a madman as his head bobbed around voters' tellies.
Interesting point. Because one thing about Starmer which is striking is that his head stays very still indeed when he talks. Quite unusually so.
Instead of rubbing Remainers noses in it why doesn’t this rancid government try and do something positive like throw a few crumbs to half the population to at least show the UK isn’t going to turn into an isolated rock . What we’ve seen so far seems to be a case of the UK shredding every connection with the EU. The despicable voting down of the amendment to continue with the Erasmus programme.
Bozo and the rest of the excrement now inhabiting the cabinet seem intent on doing zip to heal the divisions.
Jesus, the voting down of the Erasmus amendment was so that the UK Government wouldn't have been compelled to make it a priority in negotiations, not banning us from being in it. Your lack of knowledge in this area reflects poorly on your other (already pretty poor) points.
Nope it demonstrates a lot of clear explanation as to the reason it was done.
Now you can blame the Government for that or the media but as with a lot of things it no sane reasoning was given (HS2 is a 20 year old example of exactly that incompetency).
The question is, just how left wing is Starmer? Is he going to be Corbyn but without the IRA/antisemitism stuff?
More Ed Miliband without the bacon sandwich
Ed Miliband without the bacin sandwich is a winning formula, though. The bacon sandwich wasn't an issue in itself, but it encapsulated the issue of 'this dorky looking beta male doesn't look like a PM'. This doesn't apply to Starmer.
There was alsi the shafting-his-brother issue, which did him no favours.
Starmer looks like a PM but in common with Ed Miliband he doesn't sound much like one. John Major didnt sound like a PM either but then Neil Kinnock did even less so. I wonder if Starmer can get some vocal lessons like Thatcher did.
My theory of Kinnock's downfall (where is Roger when we need him?) is it is the way he was filmed. Kinnock did a lot of public speaking and would move his head around a lot. Unfortunately when filmed in tight close-up, it made him look like a madman as his head bobbed around voters' tellies.
Trivia quiz: who was the 1980s American politician whose run for presidency imploded when he was shown to be plagiarising Neil Kinnock?
The question is, just how left wing is Starmer? Is he going to be Corbyn but without the IRA/antisemitism stuff?
More Ed Miliband without the bacon sandwich
Ed Miliband without the bacin sandwich is a winning formula, though. The bacon sandwich wasn't an issue in itself, but it encapsulated the issue of 'this dorky looking beta male doesn't look like a PM'. This doesn't apply to Starmer.
There was alsi the shafting-his-brother issue, which did him no favours.
Starmer looks like a PM but in common with Ed Miliband he doesn't sound much like one. John Major didnt sound like a PM either but then Neil Kinnock did even less so. I wonder if Starmer can get some vocal lessons like Thatcher did.
My theory of Kinnock's downfall (where is Roger when we need him?) is it is the way he was filmed. Kinnock did a lot of public speaking and would move his head around a lot. Unfortunately when filmed in tight close-up, it made him look like a madman as his head bobbed around voters' tellies.
Trivia quiz: who was the 1980s American politician whose run for presidency imploded when he was shown to be plagiarising Neil Kinnock?
Mike Dukakis?
Jo Biden, if memory serves. He had this speech about how he was the first Biden to go to university even though Bidens had lived in the country for centuries and his ancestors were just as sharp and bright as he was but lacked privilege that others did. Turned out to be almost word for word a Kinnock speech.
Indeed it was Biden.
It is probably only me who thought Mayor Pete speaking about being gay in the forces sounded an awful lot like Gordon Brown saving the union.
The question is, just how left wing is Starmer? Is he going to be Corbyn but without the IRA/antisemitism stuff?
More Ed Miliband without the bacon sandwich
Ed Miliband without the bacin sandwich is a winning formula, though. The bacon sandwich wasn't an issue in itself, but it encapsulated the issue of 'this dorky looking beta male doesn't look like a PM'. This doesn't apply to Starmer.
There was alsi the shafting-his-brother issue, which did him no favours.
Starmer looks like a PM but in common with Ed Miliband he doesn't sound much like one. John Major didnt sound like a PM either but then Neil Kinnock did even less so. I wonder if Starmer can get some vocal lessons like Thatcher did.
My theory of Kinnock's downfall (where is Roger when we need him?) is it is the way he was filmed. Kinnock did a lot of public speaking and would move his head around a lot. Unfortunately when filmed in tight close-up, it made him look like a madman as his head bobbed around voters' tellies.
Trivia quiz: who was the 1980s American politician whose run for presidency imploded when he was shown to be plagiarising Neil Kinnock?
It's mentioned in this interesting read about "Irish Joe" and his Kennedy pretensions:
Jess Phillips one of five contenders for the Labour leadership, has insisted if she became her party’s leader it would be “100 per cent committed to the Union”.
The Birmingham MP, who is due to campaign in Glasgow today, said the SNP’s “abject failings” on health and education were a "threat to opportunity and equality" for working people in Scotland.
LOL, where do they dig up these nutters, labour have less support than UKIP in Scotland. Perhaps she should ponder that fact, just another dumbo who will sink back to the bottom soon. PS: Another liar peddling rubbish re NHS and education as well.
I think Jess is unwise to go down the hardcore unionist route. I think a lot of Labour people have come to accept the arguments for Scottish independence.
If shes a passionate unionist theres no real benefit to not being open about it. Attempting to hide it would not mollify those who have come to accept arguments for independence.
'The UK has failed to pass on the details of 75,000 convictions of foreign criminals to their home EU countries and concealed the scandal for fear of damaging Britain’s reputation in Europe’s capitals'
Well, they certainly don't have to worry about damaging Britain’s reputation in Europe’s capitals now.
Bailey is too long, should be decently odds on (I'd say between 1/2 and 4/6, but I'd lean more 1/2). Various reasons:
1. Tories are a large and reliable voting bloc in London, probably the second largest after Labour voters. 2. Khan takes votes from the LDs since he is Remainy and cosmopolitan etc, so they like him and many will 1st pref him. 3. The 3-way split for the vote to the left/cosmopolitan of Khan between Benita/Berry/Stewart makes it even more likely Bailey comes 2nd. 4. Stewart actually has a tough time with Tory voters given his split with Johnson.
The biggest risk to Bailey is Stewart, it's highly unlikely anyone else overtakes him. But it's more likely than not Stewart never goes anywhere and Tory voters remain largely loyal to Bailey. Add some probability that Berry/Benita surges to 2nd place and it's still 50%+ that Bailey is 2nd.
You also should factor in the chance Khan collapses and someone else wins, in which case it could be basically anyone since such a collapse is hard to foresee. Stewart is most likely in that case since he potentially has very broad/unusual appeal but it's an unlikely eventuality. Khan is probably value even at The 1/5 most bookies have him at, he's certainly not obviously too short.
Jess Phillips one of five contenders for the Labour leadership, has insisted if she became her party’s leader it would be “100 per cent committed to the Union”.
The Birmingham MP, who is due to campaign in Glasgow today, said the SNP’s “abject failings” on health and education were a "threat to opportunity and equality" for working people in Scotland.
LOL, where do they dig up these nutters, labour have less support than UKIP in Scotland. Perhaps she should ponder that fact, just another dumbo who will sink back to the bottom soon. PS: Another liar peddling rubbish re NHS and education as well.
I think Jess is unwise to go down the hardcore unionist route. I think a lot of Labour people have come to accept the arguments for Scottish independence.
If shes a passionate unionist theres no real benefit to not being open about it. Attempting to hide it would not mollify those who have come to accept arguments for independence.
Unless I've missed it, Jess has been uncharacteristically reticent on her Unionism until quite recently.
The question is, just how left wing is Starmer? Is he going to be Corbyn but without the IRA/antisemitism stuff?
More Ed Miliband without the bacon sandwich
Ed Miliband without the bacin sandwich is a winning formula, though. The bacon sandwich wasn't an issue in itself, but it encapsulated the issue of 'this dorky looking beta male doesn't look like a PM'. This doesn't apply to Starmer.
There was alsi the shafting-his-brother issue, which did him no favours.
Ed Miliband shafted his brother. Another example of CCHQ's campaigning ruthlessness compared with Labour who, sfaict, made no mischief with Jo Johnson being torn between family loyalty and the national interest.
No, EdM shafting his brother was high profile and obvious long before CCHQ did anything with it. Many people were incredulous at the time - to people with siblings*, tge idea you could decide to stand against your brother for a job was inceedible.
*No personal experience of this being an only child - but my wife found it absolutely unforgiveable.
As a person with multiple brothers the idea he should not stand because his brother should get a go before him was incredible. They were both adults and he thought hed make a better leader. Right or wrong about that, his standing was a ok in my book.
Jess Phillips one of five contenders for the Labour leadership, has insisted if she became her party’s leader it would be “100 per cent committed to the Union”.
The Birmingham MP, who is due to campaign in Glasgow today, said the SNP’s “abject failings” on health and education were a "threat to opportunity and equality" for working people in Scotland.
LOL, where do they dig up these nutters, labour have less support than UKIP in Scotland. Perhaps she should ponder that fact, just another dumbo who will sink back to the bottom soon. PS: Another liar peddling rubbish re NHS and education as well.
I think Jess is unwise to go down the hardcore unionist route. I think a lot of Labour people have come to accept the arguments for Scottish independence.
If shes a passionate unionist theres no real benefit to not being open about it. Attempting to hide it would not mollify those who have come to accept arguments for independence.
Unless I've missed it, Jess has been uncharacteristically reticent on her Unionism until quite recently.
I wouldn't know, but on the principle she shouldnt bring it up so hard I disagree if that is her firm view. If shes been lukewarm on it and the hardline stance is itself a bit phony thats another matter.
Jess Phillips one of five contenders for the Labour leadership, has insisted if she became her party’s leader it would be “100 per cent committed to the Union”.
The Birmingham MP, who is due to campaign in Glasgow today, said the SNP’s “abject failings” on health and education were a "threat to opportunity and equality" for working people in Scotland.
LOL, where do they dig up these nutters, labour have less support than UKIP in Scotland. Perhaps she should ponder that fact, just another dumbo who will sink back to the bottom soon. PS: Another liar peddling rubbish re NHS and education as well.
I think Jess is unwise to go down the hardcore unionist route. I think a lot of Labour people have come to accept the arguments for Scottish independence.
If shes a passionate unionist theres no real benefit to not being open about it. Attempting to hide it would not mollify those who have come to accept arguments for independence.
Unless I've missed it, Jess has been uncharacteristically reticent on her Unionism until quite recently.
It's not really a big issue for a back-bench Midlands MP focused on local matters. Different when you're running for the top job.
Like her or loathe her, agree or disagree, I think the lack of equivocation when answering questions should be applauded.
This is the stupidest fucking thing I've ever seen. I suppose the list of donors will provide an easy way of identifying those who need lifelong disability benefits due to chronic mental impairment.
It is designed to annoy the right Remainery people, and thus please the Brexiteers.
It is clearly quite effective
The Leavers have won lock, stock and barrel. They need to pocket their triumph and move on. Their constant yearning, even now, to grind the Remainers into the dust is unbecoming.
I kind of agree. And yet the Remainers have brought it all on themselves, with their utterly loathsome attempt to subvert democracy.
Emily Maitlis and Jeremy Paxman are absolutely right. In years to come we will look at the various efforts of the Remainers to ditch the first vote and have another vote, or even just Revoke, and we will feel a bewildered horror.
What were they thinking?? Hugh Grant, Jolyon Maugham, all of them.... my God. What a shower of entitled shits.
Well doh! Say "I kind of agree" and then completely and utterly ignore what Stark Dawning says.
Does it not even cross your mind that Remainers may just have the same sort of views about you. It is a disagreement.
It's not hard to understand the nuance
Leavers have won. So, in theory, they should pocket that win and walk away.
HOWEVER the behaviour of Remainers has been so outrageous and anti-democratic there is a valid argument for making them publicly eat crow, so no one ever tries this shit again
It's like the philosophical arguments for the punishment of crime. Sometimes you have to go beyond the cold logic of prevention and rehabilitation, into deterrence. You make an example of a particular offender, pour encourager les autres
The behaviour of the last Parliament and many outside it was profoundly undemocratic and damaging but many of those responsible have paid the price and now I just want to get on.
I trust you're referring to the Prime Minister's attempt to suspend Parliamentary democracy. The price continues to be paid and the rot is firmly set in.
At some point enough Leavers will realise what a shitshow they have been advocating. Until then, the country is going to continue to spiral downwards.
Jess Phillips one of five contenders for the Labour leadership, has insisted if she became her party’s leader it would be “100 per cent committed to the Union”.
The Birmingham MP, who is due to campaign in Glasgow today, said the SNP’s “abject failings” on health and education were a "threat to opportunity and equality" for working people in Scotland.
LOL, where do they dig up these nutters, labour have less support than UKIP in Scotland. Perhaps she should ponder that fact, just another dumbo who will sink back to the bottom soon. PS: Another liar peddling rubbish re NHS and education as well.
I think Jess is unwise to go down the hardcore unionist route. I think a lot of Labour people have come to accept the arguments for Scottish independence.
If shes a passionate unionist theres no real benefit to not being open about it. Attempting to hide it would not mollify those who have come to accept arguments for independence.
Unless I've missed it, Jess has been uncharacteristically reticent on her Unionism until quite recently.
It's not really a big issue for a back-bench Midlands MP focused on local matters. Different when you're running for the top job.
Like her or loathe her, agree or disagree, I think the lack of equivocation when answering questions should be applauded.
There seemed to be no shortage of back-bench Labour mps queuing up to give their Scotch tuppence worth before, during and after 2014. I'm just surprised that I don't remember the Babster being one of them, her being such a strong Unionist and everything.
Edit: I see JP was only elected an MP in 2015, but the same point applies to Lab councillors. One was even up in court for her efforts on an away day trip to Glasgow.
The behaviour of the last Parliament and many outside it was profoundly undemocratic and damaging but many of those responsible have paid the price and now I just want to get on.
I trust you're referring to the Prime Minister's attempt to suspend Parliamentary democracy. The price continues to be paid and the rot is firmly set in.
At some point enough Leavers will realise what a shitshow they have been advocating. Until then, the country is going to continue to spiral downwards.
Bizarrely enough Alastair, I wasn't.
That is bizarre, since it was the standout profoundly undemocratic behaviour not just of the last Parliament but of all of our lifetimes.
The question is, just how left wing is Starmer? Is he going to be Corbyn but without the IRA/antisemitism stuff?
More Ed Miliband without the bacon sandwich
Ed Miliband without the bacin sandwich is a winning formula, though. The bacon sandwich wasn't an issue in itself, but it encapsulated the issue of 'this dorky looking beta male doesn't look like a PM'. This doesn't apply to Starmer.
There was alsi the shafting-his-brother issue, which did him no favours.
Ed Miliband shafted his brother. Another example of CCHQ's campaigning ruthlessness compared with Labour who, sfaict, made no mischief with Jo Johnson being torn between family loyalty and the national interest.
No, EdM shafting his brother was high profile and obvious long before CCHQ did anything with it. Many people were incredulous at the time - to people with siblings*, tge idea you could decide to stand against your brother for a job was inceedible.
*No personal experience of this being an only child - but my wife found it absolutely unforgiveable.
As a person with multiple brothers the idea he should not stand because his brother should get a go before him was incredible. They were both adults and he thought hed make a better leader. Right or wrong about that, his standing was a ok in my book.
Really?! As I said, I don't have siblings. But it struck me as a very strange thing to do. In any case, I suppose it's opeb to question who the real winner is. One gets to live in New York and have a job title which sounds like a superhero. The other gets to stand in a flood in Dinaster North looking sad with Jeremy Corbyn and be remembered as a byword for ineffectiveness.
And you think neither were decisive factors. Suits you!!
I doubt that Labour would have done better if they had stuck to their original policy of Soft Brexit, no Ref2. Risked a great deal worse if anything. Mass Remainer defection to the LDs. It was a forced change in stance. It was unsatisfactory but the best of the bad options available.
So IMO the key factor was not Labour's Brexit policy. The main difference on Brexit compared to 2017 was that by Dec 2019 people were truly sick and tired of the impasse. They wanted it "done" and Johnson successfully positioned a Con majority as the way to ensure that. He framed and timed the GE perfectly. It was top top politics.
I think the key factor was not policy, people or the campaigns. It was Labour and LDs agreeing to a General Election at that time.
LDs agreed for party reasons based on the Euro results (as did the SNP). I think Labour were chickened into it plus hubris from Corbyn who thought he could pull the 2017 trick again. Johnson couldn't believe his luck. From then on it was nailed on (except for my model, sorry about that!).
When it became clear that the LDs and SNP were lining up to support a Dissolution via a single clause to bypass the FTPA Labour effectively had little choice. It had lost its veto on an early election. Doubtless the LDs came to regret shooting themselves in the foot so badly!
I don't really have a position on Jewish people other than highly respecting those who are brave enough to have an Anti-Zionist position.
Edited bit for extra controversy. I'm a little bit anti-black; but it's allowed cus I'm a quadroon. I'm an exoticist when it comes to Azns.
I think you were being quite controversial (!) already without throwing in "a little bit anti-black".
But I'm guessing you mean that in a kind of not-very-racist sort of way.
You've had your fun Zionist prick - go back to your prattling long posts that I don't bother reading.
PB Moderator: I know people arguing about politics, as opposed to strictly discussing the likelihood of outcomes/betting, is the norm here and while I wish it wasn't I appreciate it is largely inevitable. But the personal abuse seems a bit strong these days, is there any chance of a tighter line being drawn?
Everyone else: This will probably just get abuse directed at me instead but can we chill out a bit? The endless arguments over Brexit/Corbyn/Etc don't convince anyone of much and seem a waste of time too, but that's just my opinion. This site can be a really valuable resource at times, it would be a shame for it to slide away.
Para 1 excellent point
Para 2 good point, but our insect overlords dictate the subject of the thread, and Corbyn postmortems are very relevant to bettable outcomes while the lab leadership contest is afoot.
I don't really have a position on Jewish people other than highly respecting those who are brave enough to have an Anti-Zionist position.
Edited bit for extra controversy. I'm a little bit anti-black; but it's allowed cus I'm a quadroon. I'm an exoticist when it comes to Azns.
I think you were being quite controversial (!) already without throwing in "a little bit anti-black".
But I'm guessing you mean that in a kind of not-very-racist sort of way.
You've had your fun Zionist prick - go back to your prattling long posts that I don't bother reading.
PB Moderator: I know people arguing about politics, as opposed to strictly discussing the likelihood of outcomes/betting, is the norm here and while I wish it wasn't I appreciate it is largely inevitable. But the personal abuse seems a bit strong these days, is there any chance of a tighter line being drawn?
Everyone else: This will probably just get abuse directed at me instead but can we chill out a bit? The endless arguments over Brexit/Corbyn/Etc don't convince anyone of much and seem a waste of time too, but that's just my opinion. This site can be a really valuable resource at times, it would be a shame for it to slide away.
Para 1 excellent point
Para 2 good point, but our insect overlords dictate the subject of the thread, and Corbyn postmortems are very relevant to bettable outcomes while the lab leadership contest is afoot.
I think my point with Para 2 is that the line between debating politics to understand betting outcomes and just arguing in circles is a fine one, but as per my 'inevitability' comment in Para 1 I do appreciate your point and why it will always result in some just general arguing.
I remember when people used to make a distinction between anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism. It wasn't even that long ago.
I think whether there is a meaningful distinction depends to a large extent on how you define Zionism. Does it simply refer to Israel's right to exist as a Jewish haven state? Or does it mean its right to occupy all of the territory which it deems to be Jewish regardless of the rights of others?
Meaningless semantics. Anti-Zionism means you don't want the state of Israel to exist (safe haven or otherwise).
Also known as the Pro-Palestine position. Perfectly rational. It's only really right-wing nutjobs in America (all about the benjamins) who like Israel.
The anti-Zionism nonsense just harms efforts to stop the oppression of Palestinians. A few years ago, it was possible to speak out and get a hearing, and even have some hope of exerting significant moral pressure on policy-makers. Now it isn't. Why do you think that is?
The right-wing media? No. They were just as powerful and just as mendacious a few years ago.
Changes in Israel and Palestine? No. If anything, things are getting worse.
The reason is because of people who are either undeniably anti-Semitic, or who have to dance on pinheads to argue that they're not anti-Semitic, who deflect attention from everything the Israeli government is doing wrong.
Even if anti-Zionism as you have defined it were justifiable (and it most definitely isn't), it is so obviously counter-productive that anyone who genuinely cared about the Palestinian people would have stopped a long time ago.
I think the topic is misleading, yougov found that the top reasons why people disliked Corbyn was his Brexit stance.
So it was Brexit that caused the collapse of Corbyn's leadership numbers and Labour's, which is mirrored in the polling collapse of the spring of 2019.
Basically Brexit destroyed both May and Corbyn at the same time, people really didn't like what they did in March 2019.
Bailey is too long, should be decently odds on (I'd say between 1/2 and 4/6, but I'd lean more 1/2). Various reasons:
1. Tories are a large and reliable voting bloc in London, probably the second largest after Labour voters. 2. Khan takes votes from the LDs since he is Remainy and cosmopolitan etc, so they like him and many will 1st pref him. 3. The 3-way split for the vote to the left/cosmopolitan of Khan between Benita/Berry/Stewart makes it even more likely Bailey comes 2nd. 4. Stewart actually has a tough time with Tory voters given his split with Johnson.
The biggest risk to Bailey is Stewart, it's highly unlikely anyone else overtakes him. But it's more likely than not Stewart never goes anywhere and Tory voters remain largely loyal to Bailey. Add some probability that Berry/Benita surges to 2nd place and it's still 50%+ that Bailey is 2nd.
You also should factor in the chance Khan collapses and someone else wins, in which case it could be basically anyone since such a collapse is hard to foresee. Stewart is most likely in that case since he potentially has very broad/unusual appeal but it's an unlikely eventuality. Khan is probably value even at The 1/5 most bookies have him at, he's certainly not obviously too short.
All great points, I'll bet bailey 11-10 through the week.
Belated happy new year to everyone. I've been steering clear of all things political but inevitably getting drawn in..
I've never seen Starmer on TV defending any aspect of policy apart from the shifting sands of Labour's Brexit policy. Would his heart be in it and would he be convincing promoting something like the last manifesto?
My belief is that giving "leadership" as the reason for not voting labour mainly translates into rejecting the overall ideological position of the party leadership not simply Corbyn. Unless a process of developing coherent policies and dropping shibboleths occurs any leader will struggle - unless we have a full scale economic crisis.
Labour need to establish internal critical evaluation of policy and there is no sign of that at present. Notice the weak criticism of the manifesto as "lacking focus" (true enough) rather than "too many half-baked and stupid ideas that wouldn't work". There were numerous examples of policies that attempted to address real issues but which wouldn't have lasted 10 seconds in a critical review. Two examples from memory are the 10% equity grab for companies with more than 250 employees and full (and greatly increased) minimum wage for young workers.
I'm still hoping for a split and realignment of the centre left, probably in vain.
I remember when people used to make a distinction between anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism. It wasn't even that long ago.
I think whether there is a meaningful distinction depends to a large extent on how you define Zionism. Does it simply refer to Israel's right to exist as a Jewish haven state? Or does it mean its right to occupy all of the territory which it deems to be Jewish regardless of the rights of others?
Meaningless semantics. Anti-Zionism means you don't want the state of Israel to exist (safe haven or otherwise).
Also known as the Pro-Palestine position. Perfectly rational. It's only really right-wing nutjobs in America (all about the benjamins) who like Israel.
The anti-Zionism nonsense just harms efforts to stop the oppression of Palestinians. A few years ago, it was possible to speak out and get a hearing, and even have some hope of exerting significant moral pressure on policy-makers. Now it isn't. Why do you think that is?
The right-wing media? No. They were just as powerful and just as mendacious a few years ago.
Changes in Israel and Palestine? No. If anything, things are getting worse.
The reason is because of people who are either undeniably anti-Semitic, or who have to dance on pinheads to argue that they're not anti-Semitic, who deflect attention from everything the Israeli government is doing wrong.
Even if anti-Zionism as you have defined it were justifiable (and it most definitely isn't), it is so obviously counter-productive that anyone who genuinely cared about the Palestinian people would have stopped a long time ago.
Anti-Zionism (1920): "Why would we want to move to Palestine when we're doing OK here in Warsaw, Budapest, Berlin, Paris...."
Anti-Zionism (2020): "Israel should be wiped off the face of the earth."
The meaning has changed. You can draw a line between them through 20th century history, pausing to argue at every twist and turn, but "Anti-Zionism" in the current age means a belief that Israel should cease to exist, and everything else that flows from that belief, including "disrespect" for those who think differently and indifference to the inevitable human consequences.
It's wholly different from criticism of the Israeli government. Heaven knows, there's plenty enough to work on there.
It's not really a big issue for a back-bench Midlands MP focused on local matters. Different when you're running for the top job.
Like her or loathe her, agree or disagree, I think the lack of equivocation when answering questions should be applauded.
Well Labour has the stigma of being unpatriotic at a time when the country is perceived as being in danger by the hated (it really is hated outside of Scotland) SNP or the EU (though less now that the Brexit deal passed).
So of course the easiest way is to bash the SNP, because Labour's pro-europeanism makes it difficult to bash Brussels.
Bailey is too long, should be decently odds on (I'd say between 1/2 and 4/6, but I'd lean more 1/2). Various reasons:
1. Tories are a large and reliable voting bloc in London, probably the second largest after Labour voters. 2. Khan takes votes from the LDs since he is Remainy and cosmopolitan etc, so they like him and many will 1st pref him. 3. The 3-way split for the vote to the left/cosmopolitan of Khan between Benita/Berry/Stewart makes it even more likely Bailey comes 2nd. 4. Stewart actually has a tough time with Tory voters given his split with Johnson.
The biggest risk to Bailey is Stewart, it's highly unlikely anyone else overtakes him. But it's more likely than not Stewart never goes anywhere and Tory voters remain largely loyal to Bailey. Add some probability that Berry/Benita surges to 2nd place and it's still 50%+ that Bailey is 2nd.
You also should factor in the chance Khan collapses and someone else wins, in which case it could be basically anyone since such a collapse is hard to foresee. Stewart is most likely in that case since he potentially has very broad/unusual appeal but it's an unlikely eventuality. Khan is probably value even at The 1/5 most bookies have him at, he's certainly not obviously too short.
All great points, I'll bet bailey 11-10 through the week.
I suspected Stewart, unless he finds an angle is going to be down among the also rans.
Belated happy new year to everyone. I've been steering clear of all things political but inevitably getting drawn in..
I've never seen Starmer on TV defending any aspect of policy apart from the shifting sands of Labour's Brexit policy. Would his heart be in it and would he be convincing promoting something like the last manifesto?
My belief is that giving "leadership" as the reason for not voting labour mainly translates into rejecting the overall ideological position of the party leadership not simply Corbyn. Unless a process of developing coherent policies and dropping shibboleths occurs any leader will struggle - unless we have a full scale economic crisis.
Labour need to establish internal critical evaluation of policy and there is no sign of that at present. Notice the weak criticism of the manifesto as "lacking focus" (true enough) rather than "too many half-baked and stupid ideas that wouldn't work". There were numerous examples of policies that attempted to address real issues but which wouldn't have lasted 10 seconds in a critical review. Two examples from memory are the 10% equity grab for companies with more than 250 employees and full (and greatly increased) minimum wage for young workers.
I'm still hoping for a split and realignment of the centre left, probably in vain.
Happened once in the recent past. Unlikely to happen again.
Bailey is too long, should be decently odds on (I'd say between 1/2 and 4/6, but I'd lean more 1/2). Various reasons:
1. Tories are a large and reliable voting bloc in London, probably the second largest after Labour voters. 2. Khan takes votes from the LDs since he is Remainy and cosmopolitan etc, so they like him and many will 1st pref him. 3. The 3-way split for the vote to the left/cosmopolitan of Khan between Benita/Berry/Stewart makes it even more likely Bailey comes 2nd. 4. Stewart actually has a tough time with Tory voters given his split with Johnson.
The biggest risk to Bailey is Stewart, it's highly unlikely anyone else overtakes him. But it's more likely than not Stewart never goes anywhere and Tory voters remain largely loyal to Bailey. Add some probability that Berry/Benita surges to 2nd place and it's still 50%+ that Bailey is 2nd.
You also should factor in the chance Khan collapses and someone else wins, in which case it could be basically anyone since such a collapse is hard to foresee. Stewart is most likely in that case since he potentially has very broad/unusual appeal but it's an unlikely eventuality. Khan is probably value even at The 1/5 most bookies have him at, he's certainly not obviously too short.
All great points, I'll bet bailey 11-10 through the week.
Btw where is this on the Ladbrokes site? I can't see it in UK Politics.
Bailey is too long, should be decently odds on (I'd say between 1/2 and 4/6, but I'd lean more 1/2). Various reasons:
1. Tories are a large and reliable voting bloc in London, probably the second largest after Labour voters. 2. Khan takes votes from the LDs since he is Remainy and cosmopolitan etc, so they like him and many will 1st pref him. 3. The 3-way split for the vote to the left/cosmopolitan of Khan between Benita/Berry/Stewart makes it even more likely Bailey comes 2nd. 4. Stewart actually has a tough time with Tory voters given his split with Johnson.
The biggest risk to Bailey is Stewart, it's highly unlikely anyone else overtakes him. But it's more likely than not Stewart never goes anywhere and Tory voters remain largely loyal to Bailey. Add some probability that Berry/Benita surges to 2nd place and it's still 50%+ that Bailey is 2nd.
You also should factor in the chance Khan collapses and someone else wins, in which case it could be basically anyone since such a collapse is hard to foresee. Stewart is most likely in that case since he potentially has very broad/unusual appeal but it's an unlikely eventuality. Khan is probably value even at The 1/5 most bookies have him at, he's certainly not obviously too short.
All great points, I'll bet bailey 11-10 through the week.
Btw where is this on the Ladbrokes site? I can't see it in UK Politics.
It was there last night, they've removed it.
That's why I dislike Ladbrokes, they remove things too often.
The question is, just how left wing is Starmer? Is he going to be Corbyn but without the IRA/antisemitism stuff?
More Ed Miliband without the bacon sandwich
Ed Miliband without the bacin sandwich is a winning formula, though. The bacon sandwich wasn't an issue in itself, but it encapsulated the issue of 'this dorky looking beta male doesn't look like a PM'. This doesn't apply to Starmer.
There was alsi the shafting-his-brother issue, which did him no favours.
Ed Miliband shafted his brother. Another example of CCHQ's campaigning ruthlessness compared with Labour who, sfaict, made no mischief with Jo Johnson being torn between family loyalty and the national interest.
No, EdM shafting his brother was high profile and obvious long before CCHQ did anything with it. Many people were incredulous at the time - to people with siblings*, tge idea you could decide to stand against your brother for a job was inceedible.
*No personal experience of this being an only child - but my wife found it absolutely unforgiveable.
As a person with multiple brothers the idea he should not stand because his brother should get a go before him was incredible. They were both adults and he thought hed make a better leader. Right or wrong about that, his standing was a ok in my book.
Really?! As I said, I don't have siblings. But it struck me as a very strange thing to do.
Absolutely. Brothers are rivals a lot of the time anyway, and if he didn't think his brother was best he shouldnt lie and say so, anymore than Jo could continue to serve under Boris.
t's not really a big issue for a back-bench Midlands MP focused on local matters. Different when you're running for the top job.
Like her or loathe her, agree or disagree, I think the lack of equivocation when answering questions should be applauded.
Agree on the first paragraph. On the second paragraph... some questions need unequivocal answers. Many do not. Most issues are nuanced. On those issues, honesty and lack of equivocation are pretty orthogonal.
I would actually distrust a politician who created a brand out of their lack of equivocation, because no honest person is firmly on one side of every argument.
It's not really a big issue for a back-bench Midlands MP focused on local matters. Different when you're running for the top job.
Like her or loathe her, agree or disagree, I think the lack of equivocation when answering questions should be applauded.
Well Labour has the stigma of being unpatriotic at a time when the country is perceived as being in danger by the hated (it really is hated outside of Scotland) SNP or the EU (though less now that the Brexit deal passed).
So of course the easiest way is to bash the SNP, because Labour's pro-europeanism makes it difficult to bash Brussels.
I keep meaning to ask, in your previous incarnation were you the bloke on here that was always puffing up James Kelly MSP as future leader of SLab?
there is no point in demanding that journalists get out of the “Westminster bubble” or the “East Coast bubble” if they’re still stuck in the Twitter bubble. It is a place where a fox murder is the biggest news of the day, patriotism is racism, and Jess Phillips is a Tory. In other words, it’s nowhere close to reality.
Jess Phillips one of five contenders for the Labour leadership, has insisted if she became her party’s leader it would be “100 per cent committed to the Union”.
The Birmingham MP, who is due to campaign in Glasgow today, said the SNP’s “abject failings” on health and education were a "threat to opportunity and equality" for working people in Scotland.
LOL, where do they dig up these nutters, labour have less support than UKIP in Scotland. Perhaps she should ponder that fact, just another dumbo who will sink back to the bottom soon. PS: Another liar peddling rubbish re NHS and education as well.
I think Jess is unwise to go down the hardcore unionist route. I think a lot of Labour people have come to accept the arguments for Scottish independence.
Most Labour members who are sympathetic towards Scottish Nationalism are Corbynites. The Corbynsceptic wing of the party is much more unionist, and generally holds both the SNP and Sturgeon in contempt. And these NeverCorbyn types are basically Phillips' core support. But the crucial thing to remember is that there are 73 Scottish CLPS, whose active members are going to be 'Duncan Hothersall' types, to which Phillips' SNP bashing will be music to their ears. If she can get around half of those CLPS to nominate her, she'll make it through to the final ballot.
Bailey is too long, should be decently odds on (I'd say between 1/2 and 4/6, but I'd lean more 1/2). Various reasons:
1. Tories are a large and reliable voting bloc in London, probably the second largest after Labour voters. 2. Khan takes votes from the LDs since he is Remainy and cosmopolitan etc, so they like him and many will 1st pref him. 3. The 3-way split for the vote to the left/cosmopolitan of Khan between Benita/Berry/Stewart makes it even more likely Bailey comes 2nd. 4. Stewart actually has a tough time with Tory voters given his split with Johnson.
The biggest risk to Bailey is Stewart, it's highly unlikely anyone else overtakes him. But it's more likely than not Stewart never goes anywhere and Tory voters remain largely loyal to Bailey. Add some probability that Berry/Benita surges to 2nd place and it's still 50%+ that Bailey is 2nd.
You also should factor in the chance Khan collapses and someone else wins, in which case it could be basically anyone since such a collapse is hard to foresee. Stewart is most likely in that case since he potentially has very broad/unusual appeal but it's an unlikely eventuality. Khan is probably value even at The 1/5 most bookies have him at, he's certainly not obviously too short.
"Collapsing" sounds rather dramatic and interesting. This is not Khan.
I was going to say :'fade away" is more likely but even that can be broadly interpreted as being somehow non-passive.
I think the topic is misleading, yougov found that the top reasons why people disliked Corbyn was his Brexit stance.
So it was Brexit that caused the collapse of Corbyn's leadership numbers and Labour's, which is mirrored in the polling collapse of the spring of 2019.
Basically Brexit destroyed both May and Corbyn at the same time, people really didn't like what they did in March 2019.
Jess Phillips one of five contenders for the Labour leadership, has insisted if she became her party’s leader it would be “100 per cent committed to the Union”.
The Birmingham MP, who is due to campaign in Glasgow today, said the SNP’s “abject failings” on health and education were a "threat to opportunity and equality" for working people in Scotland.
LOL, where do they dig up these nutters, labour have less support than UKIP in Scotland. Perhaps she should ponder that fact, just another dumbo who will sink back to the bottom soon. PS: Another liar peddling rubbish re NHS and education as well.
I think Jess is unwise to go down the hardcore unionist route. I think a lot of Labour people have come to accept the arguments for Scottish independence.
Most Labour members who are sympathetic towards Scottish Nationalism are Corbynites. The Corbynsceptic wing of the party is much more unionist, and generally holds both the SNP and Sturgeon in contempt. And these NeverCorbyn types are basically Phillips' core support. But the crucial thing to remember is that there are 73 Scottish CLPS, whose active members are going to be 'Duncan Hothersall' types, to which Phillips' SNP bashing will be music to their ears. If she can get around half of those CLPS to nominate her, she'll make it through to the final ballot.
Blair McDougall is on JP's team which may explain the sudden burst of Unionophillia, or the hatching of the cunning plan to take the Scotch road to the final ballot.
First, activists on Twitter should understand that their opinions, though valid, are not as widely shared as they may believe, even among their own political allies. They should resist the urge to assume that they are representative of mainstream opinion, that they “own” left and liberal parties, or that they have the sole right to rule on what is offensive
It is pro independence blog Wings Over Scotland calling for Sturgeon to go that is significant not the retweeter, signs the nationalist side is heading for civil war on how to respond to Boris while he calmly moves on and leaves them to it having rejected indyref2
Wings Over Scotland’s Twitter account is suspended so god knows where that quote has come from.
The question is, just how left wing is Starmer? Is he going to be Corbyn but without the IRA/antisemitism stuff?
More Ed Miliband without the bacon sandwich
Ed Miliband without the bacin sandwich is a winning formula, though. The bacon sandwich wasn't an issue in itself, but it encapsulated the issue of 'this dorky looking beta male doesn't look like a PM'. This doesn't apply to Starmer.
There was alsi the shafting-his-brother issue, which did him no favours.
Starmer looks like a PM but in common with Ed Miliband he doesn't sound much like one. John Major didnt sound like a PM either but then Neil Kinnock did even less so. I wonder if Starmer can get some vocal lessons like Thatcher did.
My theory of Kinnock's downfall (where is Roger when we need him?) is it is the way he was filmed. Kinnock did a lot of public speaking and would move his head around a lot. Unfortunately when filmed in tight close-up, it made him look like a madman as his head bobbed around voters' tellies.
Trivia quiz: who was the 1980s American politician whose run for presidency imploded when he was shown to be plagiarising Neil Kinnock?
Joe Biden.
An underrated problem Kinnock had was the same one Starmer will have. A noisy group of factions comprising a significant minority of the party who are determined to lock or push the party into unpopular positions. Looney left in the '80s, this time it will be the continuity Corbynistas.
It will be unfair, but won't matter much that a Starmer or a Nandy hold these people in as much contempt as the public, as in headlines all you'll see is it's Labour pushing bonkers stuff or having another civil war, and that whatever you think of Starmer, the party can't be trusted.
Bailey is too long, should be decently odds on (I'd say between 1/2 and 4/6, but I'd lean more 1/2). Various reasons:
1. Tories are a large and reliable voting bloc in London, probably the second largest after Labour voters. 2. Khan takes votes from the LDs since he is Remainy and cosmopolitan etc, so they like him and many will 1st pref him. 3. The 3-way split for the vote to the left/cosmopolitan of Khan between Benita/Berry/Stewart makes it even more likely Bailey comes 2nd. 4. Stewart actually has a tough time with Tory voters given his split with Johnson.
The biggest risk to Bailey is Stewart, it's highly unlikely anyone else overtakes him. But it's more likely than not Stewart never goes anywhere and Tory voters remain largely loyal to Bailey. Add some probability that Berry/Benita surges to 2nd place and it's still 50%+ that Bailey is 2nd.
You also should factor in the chance Khan collapses and someone else wins, in which case it could be basically anyone since such a collapse is hard to foresee. Stewart is most likely in that case since he potentially has very broad/unusual appeal but it's an unlikely eventuality. Khan is probably value even at The 1/5 most bookies have him at, he's certainly not obviously too short.
"Collapsing" sounds rather dramatic and interesting. This is not Khan.
I was going to say :'fade away" is more likely but even that can be broadly interpreted as being somehow non-passive.
Haha, true. But with this little time until election day and the kind of leads he's got, only a collapse would do.
Two thirds of constituencies in Britain are small town or rural Leave seats.
Labour are kidding themselves if they think the path back to victory is through the commuter belt and bigger cities. They aren't even second in much of the commuter towns. The white working class have a massive disproportionate say in our system of fptp seats, like it or not.
Two thirds of constituencies in Britain are small town or rural Leave seats.
Labour are kidding themselves if they think the path back to victory is through the commuter belt and bigger cities. They aren't even second in much of the commuter towns. The white working class have a massive disproportionate say in our system of fptp seats, like it or not.
Who knows how the culture war will wage over the next 5 years?
Recessions, wars, scandals. We have no idea how things are going to turn out.
Keir Starmer is unthreatening and palatable. He looks Prime Ministerial. Yeah he might be boring but boring might be enough.
It’s impossible to say right now. You’re fighting the previous war.
Two thirds of constituencies in Britain are small town or rural Leave seats.
Labour are kidding themselves if they think the path back to victory is through the commuter belt and bigger cities. They aren't even second in much of the commuter towns. The white working class have a massive disproportionate say in our system of fptp seats, like it or not.
Who knows how the culture war will wage over the next 5 years?
Recessions, wars, scandals. We have no idea how things are going to turn out.
Keir Starmer is unthreatening and palatable. He looks Prime Ministerial. Yeah he might be boring but boring might be enough.
It’s impossible to say right now. You’re fighting the previous war.
You think the cultural outlook amongst the WWC and the general population is going to move in favour of extreme wokeness over the next 5 years? Brave.
If the Tories can make the culture war work for them the way conservatives have across the world in the USA, Russia, Turkey, India, Poland, Austria, the Philippines, Brazil, etc. etc. etc, then landslide will follow upon landslide.
Two thirds of constituencies in Britain are small town or rural Leave seats.
Labour are kidding themselves if they think the path back to victory is through the commuter belt and bigger cities. They aren't even second in much of the commuter towns. The white working class have a massive disproportionate say in our system of fptp seats, like it or not.
Who knows how the culture war will wage over the next 5 years?
Recessions, wars, scandals. We have no idea how things are going to turn out.
Keir Starmer is unthreatening and palatable. He looks Prime Ministerial. Yeah he might be boring but boring might be enough.
It’s impossible to say right now. You’re fighting the previous war.
You think the cultural outlook amongst the WWC and the general population is going to move in favour of extreme wokeness over the next 5 years? Brave.
If the Tories can make the culture war work for them the way conservatives have across the world in the USA, Russia, Turkey, India, Poland, Austria, the Philippines, Brazil, etc. etc. etc, then landslide will follow upon landslide.
I live and have worked with the “WWC” here in the North East for the last 6 years. There is not a huge difference between them and the “woke people of London”. The only difference is priorities. Labour doesn’t need to reign in their values. They just need to prioritize policies that will make lives easier and not harder.
The gulf is exaggerated by those who seek to benefit from it.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-51105266 One in five adults in England and Wales experienced abuse before they were 16 years old, according to a report by the Office for National Statistics (ONS). The research studies emotional, physical and sexual abuse from threats and belittlement to beatings and rape. The ONS estimates that 8.5 million people aged between 18 and 74 were abused or witnessed abuse as children....
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-51103462 Settlements were reached during a two-year inquiry to establish the scale of past abuse at St Paul's school, London. The BBC spoke to victims who revealed their compensation figures. A serious case review found complaints were made by former pupils against 32 staff over several decades, mainly between the 1970s and the 1990s. Five former teachers were convicted over offences committed. The £13,000-a-term independent school, in Barnes, whose former pupils include ex-politicians George Osborne and Dominic Grieve, saw more than 80 individual complaints emerge against 32 of its former staff in the period 2013 and 2015...
For those of you who piled on Steyer because of the SC and Nevada polls, the latest Nevada poll will not make for cheerful reading - he's fifth.
As an aside, the Nevada poll will not make happy reading for any of the candidates. Biden is only a smidgen ahead of Sanders. But both of them are only in the teens. Warren has dropped almost ten points since the last Suffolk University poll. And Buttigieg is in single digits.
Isn't the Head of the Board of Deputies a former Labour MP?
(My CFO used to be the Operations Director at the BoD.)
The chief executive of the Board is Gillian Merron, who represented Labour as Member of Parliament (MP) for Lincoln from 1997 to 2010. From 2009 to 2010 she was Minister of State with responsibility for Public Health at the Department of Health
Question being what will Phillips do if she does not win the leadership? If Starmer, Nandy or Thornberry not much of an issue, but if after being so strong against the Corbynite tendency the continuity corbyn candidate wins, what position does that put her in?
Comments
But as Corbyn conceded when he was grappling with the issue, this is the classic definition but the phrase anti-zionism has become adopted by some anti-semites as a convenient cover for being nasty to Jews, so it should be avoided. Conversely, though, it's not true that one has to be a fan of Israel to avoid being anti-semitic.
https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2020/01/remember-average-labour-member-isn-t-political-you-think
It set no time frame or restriction upon that.
Who said there weren't any second (or third or fourth) acts in American lives.
Now you can blame the Government for that or the media but as with a lot of things it no sane reasoning was given (HS2 is a 20 year old example of exactly that incompetency).
It is probably only me who thought Mayor Pete speaking about being gay in the forces sounded an awful lot like Gordon Brown saving the union.
https://www.nybooks.com/articles/2020/01/16/joe-biden-designated-mourner/
'The UK has failed to pass on the details of 75,000 convictions of foreign criminals to their home EU countries and concealed the scandal for fear of damaging Britain’s reputation in Europe’s capitals'
Well, they certainly don't have to worry about damaging Britain’s reputation in Europe’s capitals now.
Edited bit for extra controversy. I'm a little bit anti-black; but it's allowed cus I'm a quadroon. I'm an exoticist when it comes to Azns.
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/rates-and-allowances-for-air-passenger-duty-historic-rates
On reflection, perhaps I need some fresh air and a nice cup of tea.
1. Tories are a large and reliable voting bloc in London, probably the second largest after Labour voters.
2. Khan takes votes from the LDs since he is Remainy and cosmopolitan etc, so they like him and many will 1st pref him.
3. The 3-way split for the vote to the left/cosmopolitan of Khan between Benita/Berry/Stewart makes it even more likely Bailey comes 2nd.
4. Stewart actually has a tough time with Tory voters given his split with Johnson.
The biggest risk to Bailey is Stewart, it's highly unlikely anyone else overtakes him. But it's more likely than not Stewart never goes anywhere and Tory voters remain largely loyal to Bailey. Add some probability that Berry/Benita surges to 2nd place and it's still 50%+ that Bailey is 2nd.
You also should factor in the chance Khan collapses and someone else wins, in which case it could be basically anyone since such a collapse is hard to foresee. Stewart is most likely in that case since he potentially has very broad/unusual appeal but it's an unlikely eventuality. Khan is probably value even at The 1/5 most bookies have him at, he's certainly not obviously too short.
EDIT: It's still there. Bet of the year I reckon, honestly nuts.
Like her or loathe her, agree or disagree, I think the lack of equivocation when answering questions should be applauded.
Is our government really going to be so stupid as to allow the Chinese Communist party control over our internet infrastructure?
Edit: I see JP was only elected an MP in 2015, but the same point applies to Lab councillors. One was even up in court for her efforts on an away day trip to Glasgow.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oQe92jJDug8
In any case, I suppose it's opeb to question who the real winner is. One gets to live in New York and have a job title which sounds like a superhero. The other gets to stand in a flood in Dinaster North looking sad with Jeremy Corbyn and be remembered as a byword for ineffectiveness.
But I'm guessing you mean that in a kind of not-very-racist sort of way.
Shitty weather.
Para 2 good point, but our insect overlords dictate the subject of the thread, and Corbyn postmortems are very relevant to bettable outcomes while the lab leadership contest is afoot.
The right-wing media? No. They were just as powerful and just as mendacious a few years ago.
Changes in Israel and Palestine? No. If anything, things are getting worse.
The reason is because of people who are either undeniably anti-Semitic, or who have to dance on pinheads to argue that they're not anti-Semitic, who deflect attention from everything the Israeli government is doing wrong.
Even if anti-Zionism as you have defined it were justifiable (and it most definitely isn't), it is so obviously counter-productive that anyone who genuinely cared about the Palestinian people would have stopped a long time ago.
So it was Brexit that caused the collapse of Corbyn's leadership numbers and Labour's, which is mirrored in the polling collapse of the spring of 2019.
Basically Brexit destroyed both May and Corbyn at the same time, people really didn't like what they did in March 2019.
I've never seen Starmer on TV defending any aspect of policy apart from the shifting sands of Labour's Brexit policy. Would his heart be in it and would he be convincing promoting something like the last manifesto?
My belief is that giving "leadership" as the reason for not voting labour mainly translates into rejecting the overall ideological position of the party leadership not simply Corbyn. Unless a process of developing coherent policies and dropping shibboleths occurs any leader will struggle - unless we have a full scale economic crisis.
Labour need to establish internal critical evaluation of policy and there is no sign of that at present. Notice the weak criticism of the manifesto as "lacking focus" (true enough) rather than "too many half-baked and stupid ideas that wouldn't work". There were numerous examples of policies that attempted to address real issues but which wouldn't have lasted 10 seconds in a critical review. Two examples from memory are the 10% equity grab for companies with more than 250 employees and full (and greatly increased) minimum wage for young workers.
I'm still hoping for a split and realignment of the centre left, probably in vain.
Anti-Zionism (2020): "Israel should be wiped off the face of the earth."
The meaning has changed. You can draw a line between them through 20th century history, pausing to argue at every twist and turn, but "Anti-Zionism" in the current age means a belief that Israel should cease to exist, and everything else that flows from that belief, including "disrespect" for those who think differently and indifference to the inevitable human consequences.
It's wholly different from criticism of the Israeli government. Heaven knows, there's plenty enough to work on there.
So of course the easiest way is to bash the SNP, because Labour's pro-europeanism makes it difficult to bash Brussels.
https://twitter.com/RevStu/status/1217085416811180032?s=20
That's why I dislike Ladbrokes, they remove things too often.
This isn't some amazing volte face.
I would actually distrust a politician who created a brand out of their lack of equivocation, because no honest person is firmly on one side of every argument.
Today...
https://twitter.com/pmdfoster/status/1217058961008013313
https://twitter.com/pmdfoster/status/1217060351117877248
https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2020/01/jeremy-corbyn-labour-twitter-primary/604690/
But the crucial thing to remember is that there are 73 Scottish CLPS, whose active members are going to be 'Duncan Hothersall' types, to which Phillips' SNP bashing will be music to their ears. If she can get around half of those CLPS to nominate her, she'll make it through to the final ballot.
Boris is doing Nicola a favour by refusing her demands and dragging Scotland out of the EU.
Give it 12 months and the SNP should be in a reasonable position to win a referendum.
I was going to say :'fade away" is more likely but even that can be broadly interpreted as being somehow non-passive.
I expect a lightbulb is glowing above https://twitter.com/Rachael_Swindon 's head as we speak.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/09/opinion/sunday/meghan-markle-prince-harry.html
An underrated problem Kinnock had was the same one Starmer will have. A noisy group of factions comprising a significant minority of the party who are determined to lock or push the party into unpopular positions. Looney left in the '80s, this time it will be the continuity Corbynistas.
It will be unfair, but won't matter much that a Starmer or a Nandy hold these people in as much contempt as the public, as in headlines all you'll see is it's Labour pushing bonkers stuff or having another civil war, and that whatever you think of Starmer, the party can't be trusted.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_London_mayoral_election#Opinion_polls
There simply aren't enough of those types of constituencies. Also the libdem vote is not going to go wholesale to Labour anytime soon.
Labour are kidding themselves if they think the path back to victory is through the commuter belt and bigger cities. They aren't even second in much of the commuter towns. The white working class have a massive disproportionate say in our system of fptp seats, like it or not.
Recessions, wars, scandals. We have no idea how things are going to turn out.
Keir Starmer is unthreatening and palatable. He looks Prime Ministerial. Yeah he might be boring but boring might be enough.
It’s impossible to say right now. You’re fighting the previous war.
https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/paedophile-grooming-gang-left-roam-17562300
https://twitter.com/jessphillips/status/1217118818360872961?s=20
If the Tories can make the culture war work for them the way conservatives have across the world in the USA, Russia, Turkey, India, Poland, Austria, the Philippines, Brazil, etc. etc. etc, then landslide will follow upon landslide.
The gulf is exaggerated by those who seek to benefit from it.
(My CFO used to be the Operations Director at the BoD.)
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-51105266
One in five adults in England and Wales experienced abuse before they were 16 years old, according to a report by the Office for National Statistics (ONS).
The research studies emotional, physical and sexual abuse from threats and belittlement to beatings and rape.
The ONS estimates that 8.5 million people aged between 18 and 74 were abused or witnessed abuse as children....
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-51103462
Settlements were reached during a two-year inquiry to establish the scale of past abuse at St Paul's school, London.
The BBC spoke to victims who revealed their compensation figures.
A serious case review found complaints were made by former pupils against 32 staff over several decades, mainly between the 1970s and the 1990s.
Five former teachers were convicted over offences committed.
The £13,000-a-term independent school, in Barnes, whose former pupils include ex-politicians George Osborne and Dominic Grieve, saw more than 80 individual complaints emerge against 32 of its former staff in the period 2013 and 2015...
I confidently predict one day a Conservative Prime Minister will take us back into the European Union.
It will be the equivalent of "only Nixon can go to China" but it will happen.
Don't know when.