Unfair if she does. The tone had been set by May who clearly looks the nastier piece of work at the moment. Malevolence is always less attractive than mere incompetence.
I'm bemused by your witch-sniffer general capability of detecting nastiness in the Conservatives, but utterly missing it when it occurs in the Labour party. It's quite a skill...
One seems to be about party activists censuring representatives for attending particular meetings. The other is about throwing ordinary people out of their jobs, denying them lifesaving health treatment and exiling them to countries they don't know so politicians can meet a target.
I dunno. But the first gets the outrage on this forum.
+1.
If Marc Wadsworth, a veteran anti-racist campaigner, is an anti-semite, how come his lawyer (Harriet Wistrich) is Jewish? There appears to be a witch hunt against people on the left, such as the distinguished film-maker Ken Loach, who campaign against injustice.
TM, in the use of the phrase "citizens of nowhere", revealed herself as a nasty person in her attitude to alien minorities.
The problem with Ken Loach (and those with similar views) is that their pursuit for justice for groups which they favour leads them to support injustice towards groups they dislike.
While not a party to the evidence against Wadsworth, there doesn't seem to be anything in the public domain by him that is anti Semetic. If there is anything, then I would be interested to see it.
Loach is a different kettle of fish perhaps.
I don't think he was expelled for anti-semitism.
So what was he expelled for?
He accused Smeeth of sharing information with a Telegraph journalist.
Unfair if she does. The tone had been set by May who clearly looks the nastier piece of work at the moment. Malevolence is always less attractive than mere incompetence.
I'm bemused by your witch-sniffer general capability of detecting nastiness in the Conservatives, but utterly missing it when it occurs in the Labour party. It's quite a skill...
One seems to be about party activists censuring representatives for attending particular meetings. The other is about throwing ordinary people out of their jobs, denying them lifesaving health treatment and exiling them to countries they don't know so politicians can meet a target.
I dunno. But the first gets the outrage on this forum.
+1.
If Marc Wadsworth, a veteran anti-racist campaigner, is an anti-semite, how come his lawyer (Harriet Wistrich) is Jewish? There appears to be a witch hunt against people on the left, such as the distinguished film-maker Ken Loach, who campaign against injustice.
TM, in the use of the phrase "citizens of nowhere", revealed herself as a nasty person in her attitude to alien minorities.
The problem with Ken Loach (and those with similar views) is that their pursuit for justice for groups which they favour leads them to support injustice towards groups they dislike.
While not a party to the evidence against Wadsworth, there doesn't seem to be anything in the public domain by him that is anti Semetic. If there is anything, then I would be interested to see it.
Loach is a different kettle of fish perhaps.
I've not followed the story closely either, but I understand that Wadsworth was expelled on the basis of the very general rule about doing something that brings the party into disreupte (at the time of the alleged breaches, there wasn't a specific rule on anti-semitism). Members who go around making extreme statements, attacking sitting MPs in personal terms and generally giving the Mail et al obnoxious stories are regarded as frankly more trouble than they're worth. Parties are voluntary organisations and nobody has an absolute right to be a member.
I've just looked up what I can find about the Wadsworth affair and cant't find anything beyond the rather theatrical walk-out by Ruth Smeeth.
I couldn't see that he did anything wrong and if Labour are going to genuflect to the Guido faction I think they ought to be stopped.
I've therefore just sent £10 to Wadsworth crowd funding appeal and hope this gets tested in court. If I wanted to support a party who paid no regard to natural justice I'd have joined the Tories
Unfair if she does. The tone had been set by May who clearly looks the nastier piece of work at the moment. Malevolence is always less attractive than mere incompetence.
I'm bemused by your witch-sniffer general capability of detecting nastiness in the Conservatives, but utterly missing it when it occurs in the Labour party. It's quite a skill...
One seems to be about party activists censuring representatives for attending particular meetings. The other is about throwing ordinary people out of their jobs, denying them lifesaving health treatment and exiling them to countries they don't know so politicians can meet a target.
I dunno. But the first gets the outrage on this forum.
+1.
If Marc Wadsworth, a veteran anti-racist campaigner, is an anti-semite, how come his lawyer (Harriet Wistrich) is Jewish? There appears to be a witch hunt against people on the left, such as the distinguished film-maker Ken Loach, who campaign against injustice.
TM, in the use of the phrase "citizens of nowhere", revealed herself as a nasty person in her attitude to alien minorities.
The problem with Ken Loach (and those with similar views) is that their pursuit for justice for groups which they favour leads them to support injustice towards groups they dislike.
While not a party to the evidence against Wadsworth, there doesn't seem to be anything in the public domain by him that is anti Semetic. If there is anything, then I would be interested to see it.
Loach is a different kettle of fish perhaps.
I don't think he was expelled for anti-semitism.
So what was he expelled for?
He accused Smeeth of sharing information with a Telegraph journalist.
Is that accusation grounds for expulsion?
Probably. 'Bringing party into disrepute' could cover an awful lot, when a party wants it to.
I'd have thought the death knell for this guy is the claim the leaders office back him, and they say he has lied about that.
In my opinion politicians of all parties shout "Resign" at their opponents rather too frequently these days and usually without good reason. There's a big difference between the false outrage of politicians and the genuine outrage of the public and if the public are not outraged (beyond party lines) then the false outrage of politicians carries little weight. It's not at all clear to me that Amber Rudd has crossed the line into outraging the general public... yet...
Unfair if she does. The tone had been set by May who clearly looks the nastier piece of work at the moment. Malevolence is always less attractive than mere incompetence.
I'm bemused by your witch-sniffer general capability of detecting nastiness in the Conservatives, but utterly missing it when it occurs in the Labour party. It's quite a skill...
One seems to be about party activists censuring representatives for attending particular meetings. The other is about throwing ordinary people out of their jobs, denying them lifesaving health treatment and exiling them to countries they don't know so politicians can meet a target.
I dunno. But the first gets the outrage on this forum.
+1.
If Marc Wadsworth, a veteran anti-racist campaigner, is an anti-semite, how come his lawyer (Harriet Wistrich) is Jewish? There appears to be a witch hunt against people on the left, such as the distinguished film-maker Ken Loach, who campaign against injustice.
TM, in the use of the phrase "citizens of nowhere", revealed herself as a nasty person in her attitude to alien minorities.
The problem with Ken Loach (and those with similar views) is that their pursuit for justice for groups which they favour leads them to support injustice towards groups they dislike.
While not a party to the evidence against Wadsworth, there doesn't seem to be anything in the public domain by him that is anti Semetic. If there is anything, then I would be interested to see it.
Loach is a different kettle of fish perhaps.
I don't think he was expelled for anti-semitism.
So what was he expelled for?
He accused Smeeth of sharing information with a Telegraph journalist.
Is that accusation grounds for expulsion?
I imagine that it is.
Even though Smeeth never contested the truth of the accusation?
You can always be polite and say something like: "My friend, you should not be sharing information with a Telegraph journalist." Apparently he did not.
Besides, Labour turned briefing of journalists - both by the government and backbenchers - into a fine art. It's a bit rich for Labour supporters such as Wadsworth to be complaining about it now ...
Unfair if she does. The tone had been set by May who clearly looks the nastier piece of work at the moment. Malevolence is always less attractive than mere incompetence.
I'm bemused by your witch-sniffer general capability of detecting nastiness in the Conservatives, but utterly missing it when it occurs in the Labour party. It's quite a skill...
One seems to be about party activists censuring representatives for attending particular meetings. The other is about throwing ordinary people out of their jobs, denying them lifesaving health treatment and exiling them to countries they don't know so politicians can meet a target.
I dunno. But the first gets the outrage on this forum.
+1.
If Marc Wadsworth, a veteran anti-racist campaigner, is an anti-semite, how come his lawyer (Harriet Wistrich) is Jewish? There appears to be a witch hunt against people on the left, such as the distinguished film-maker Ken Loach, who campaign against injustice.
TM, in the use of the phrase "citizens of nowhere", revealed herself as a nasty person in her attitude to alien minorities.
The problem with Ken Loach (and those with similar views) is that their pursuit for justice for groups which they favour leads them to support injustice towards groups they dislike.
While not a party to the evidence against Wadsworth, there doesn't seem to be anything in the public domain by him that is anti Semetic. If there is anything, then I would be interested to see it.
Loach is a different kettle of fish perhaps.
I don't think he was expelled for anti-semitism.
So what was he expelled for?
He accused Smeeth of sharing information with a Telegraph journalist.
Is that accusation grounds for expulsion?
Probably. 'Bringing party into disrepute' could cover an awful lot, when a party wants it to.
I'd have thought the death knell for this guy is the claim the leaders office back him, and they say he has lied about that.
Labour does seem to take a very relaxed view about what might bring the party into disrepute. It's almost like they don't give a shit about protecting the brand.
Unfair if she does. The tone had been set by May who clearly looks the nastier piece of work at the moment. Malevolence is always less attractive than mere incompetence.
I'm bemused by your witch-sniffer general capability of detecting nastiness in the Conservatives, but utterly missing it when it occurs in the Labour party. It's quite a skill...
One seems to be about party activists censuring representatives for attending particular meetings. The other is about throwing ordinary people out of their jobs, denying them lifesaving health treatment and exiling them to countries they don't know so politicians can meet a target.
I dunno. But the first gets the outrage on this forum.
It seems that both have got a fair amount of outrage on this forum.
To make it clear: the sickness that has infected Labour is deeper than just 'attending meetings'. And your post rather makes my point.
What is the sickness in concrete terms? By the way, I do accept Labour has a problem with anti-Semitism that is distinct from the discrimination that affects all parties. But compared with Windrush, it looks like a mote to a beam from where I'm standing. I disagree with your equal outrage claim. Labour anti-Semitism gets relentless coverage on this forum, while Windrush is a cock up, a conflation, completely overblown by Labour and the Guardian, unfortunate for the people concerned of course, but the public don't care, so why should we?
I could say your post rather makes MY point?
Labour MP is escorted by 40 other Labour MPs and peers to meeting of Labour NCC where Labour activist is found guilty of breaches of Labour rules and expelled from Labour party, and this is all the doing of the Right?
The rest is pure whataboutery, and the suggestion that there is such a thing as a tolerable or trivial level of antisemitism, or any other form of racism, is genuinely morally disgusting.
Unfair if she does. The tone had been set by May who clearly looks the nastier piece of work at the moment. Malevolence is always less attractive than mere incompetence.
I'm bemused by your witch-sniffer general capability of detecting nastiness in the Conservatives, but utterly missing it when it occurs in the Labour party. It's quite a skill...
One seems to be about party activists censuring representatives for attending particular meetings. The other is about throwing ordinary people out of their jobs, denying them lifesaving health treatment and exiling them to countries they don't know so politicians can meet a target.
I dunno. But the first gets the outrage on this forum.
I'll add you to my reading list. Very well put
Plenty are outraged, the attempt to pretend only one side is is blatant and phoney. Some are less outraged than others, but that's not universal or representative, as indeed few, not most, we're not concerned about the antisemitism stories.
Whether electorally windrush eill matter is another issue - I think it will - but is irrelevant, since as with the anti semitism stories it's deserving of outrage even if there is no electoral impact.
She's very safe in role. She's a firewall for May apart from anything else.
Secondly, Labour have directly called for her to resign. No way will May do what Labour ask her to do.
Thirdly Windrush is a zero visibility event outside the bubble.
I have to disagree. Even at best the goverment looks incompetent on a major issue.
I have to disagree. Its a lot of hot air emanating from the likes of the hypocrite Abbott and the questionable attitude of her leader. It'll be next months fish and chip paper.
In my opinion politicians of all parties shout "Resign" at their opponents rather too frequently these days and usually without good reason. There's a big difference between the false outrage of politicians and the genuine outrage of the public and if the public are not outraged (beyond party lines) then the false outrage of politicians carries little weight. It's not at all clear to me that Amber Rudd has crossed the line into outraging the general public... yet...
I think the Yougov had 50-50 (among those who had an opinion) on whether Rudd should resign, so she's certainly straddling the outrage line. In those circs I guess the inclination is to tough it out.
Unfair if she does. The tone had been set by May who clearly looks the nastier piece of work at the moment. Malevolence is always less attractive than mere incompetence.
I'm bemused by your witch-sniffer general capability of detecting nastiness in the Conservatives, but utterly missing it when it occurs in the Labour party. It's quite a skill...
One seems to be about party activists censuring representatives for attending particular meetings. The other is about throwing ordinary people out of their jobs, denying them lifesaving health treatment and exiling them to countries they don't know so politicians can meet a target.
I dunno. But the first gets the outrage on this forum.
+1.
If Marc Wadsworth, a veteran anti-racist campaigner, is an anti-semite, how come his lawyer (Harriet Wistrich) is Jewish? There appears to be a witch hunt against people on the left, such as the distinguished film-maker Ken Loach, who campaign against injustice.
TM, in the use of the phrase "citizens of nowhere", revealed herself as a nasty person in her attitude to alien minorities.
The problem with Ken Loach (and those with similar views) is that their pursuit for justice for groups which they favour leads them to support injustice towards groups they dislike.
While not a party to the evidence against Wadsworth, there doesn't seem to be anything in the public domain by him that is anti Semetic. If there is anything, then I would be interested to see it.
Loach is a different kettle of fish perhaps.
I don't think he was expelled for anti-semitism.
So what was he expelled for?
He accused Smeeth of sharing information with a Telegraph journalist.
Is that accusation grounds for expulsion?
Probably. 'Bringing party into disrepute' could cover an awful lot, when a party wants it to.
I'd have thought the death knell for this guy is the claim the leaders office back him, and they say he has lied about that.
Labour does seem to take a very relaxed view about what might bring the party into disrepute. It's almost like they don't give a shit about protecting the brand.
Well, unless it's Russell.
Amusing, but given how strong the labour brand is either they do protect it very well, or the Tory brand, while effective for tories, also does their job for them.
I've just looked up what I can find about the Wadsworth affair and cant't find anything beyond the rather theatrical walk-out by Ruth Smeeth.
I couldn't see that he did anything wrong and if Labour are going to genuflect to the Guido faction I think they ought to be stopped.
I've therefore just sent £10 to Wadsworth crowd funding appeal and hope this gets tested in court. If I wanted to support a party who paid no regard to natural justice I'd have joined the Tories
I'm no expert, but wont a court case be a waste of time? As NickP says Labour is effectively a club, which can determine its own rules and who can be a member. Indeed, I seem to dimly recall this was tested in court a year or two ago in a different situation wrt the NEC.
Unfair if she does. The tone had been set by May who clearly looks the nastier piece of work at the moment. Malevolence is always less attractive than mere incompetence.
I'm bemused by your witch-sniffer general capability of detecting nastiness in the Conservatives, but utterly missing it when it occurs in the Labour party. It's quite a skill...
One seems to be about party activists censuring representatives for attending particular meetings. The other is about throwing ordinary people out of their jobs, denying them lifesaving health treatment and exiling them to countries they don't know so politicians can meet a target.
I dunno. But the first gets the outrage on this forum.
+1.
If Marc Wadsworth, a veteran anti-racist campaigner, is an anti-semite, how come his lawyer (Harriet Wistrich) is Jewish? There appears to be a witch hunt against people on the left, such as the distinguished film-maker Ken Loach, who campaign against injustice.
TM, in the use of the phrase "citizens of nowhere", revealed herself as a nasty person in her attitude to alien minorities.
The problem with Ken Loach (and those with similar views) is that their pursuit for justice for groups which they favour leads them to support injustice towards groups they dislike.
While not a party to the evidence against Wadsworth, there doesn't seem to be anything in the public domain by him that is anti Semetic. If there is anything, then I would be interested to see it.
Loach is a different kettle of fish perhaps.
I've not followed the story closely either, but I understand that Wadsworth was expelled on the basis of the very general rule about doing something that brings the party into disreupte (at the time of the alleged breaches, there wasn't a specific rule on anti-semitism). Members who go around making extreme statements, attacking sitting MPs in personal terms and generally giving the Mail et al obnoxious stories are regarded as frankly more trouble than they're worth. Parties are voluntary organisations and nobody has an absolute right to be a member.
If giving obnoxious stories to the Tory press was grounds for expulsion, then surely a number of MPs are ripe for expulsion under the same rule? Not least Smeeth herself who did not contest Wadsworths accusation?
To me this increasingly is looking like factionalism, using expulsions/deselections as weapons.
Unfair if she does. The tone had been set by May who clearly looks the nastier piece of work at the moment. Malevolence is always less attractive than mere incompetence.
I'm bemused by your witch-sniffer general capability of detecting nastiness in the Conservatives, but utterly missing it when it occurs in the Labour party. It's quite a skill...
One seems to be about party activists censuring representatives for attending particular meetings. The other is about throwing ordinary people out of their jobs, denying them lifesaving health treatment and exiling them to countries they don't know so politicians can meet a target.
I dunno. But the first gets the outrage on this forum.
+1.
If Marc Wadsworth, a veteran anti-racist campaigner, is an anti-semite, how come his lawyer (Harriet Wistrich) is Jewish? There appears to be a witch hunt against people on the left, such as the distinguished film-maker Ken Loach, who campaign against injustice.
TM, in the use of the phrase "citizens of nowhere", revealed herself as a nasty person in her attitude to alien minorities.
The problem with Ken Loach (and those with similar views) is that their pursuit for justice for groups which they favour leads them to support injustice towards groups they dislike.
While not a party to the evidence against Wadsworth, there doesn't seem to be anything in the public domain by him that is anti Semetic. If there is anything, then I would be interested to see it.
Loach is a different kettle of fish perhaps.
I don't think he was expelled for anti-semitism.
So what was he expelled for?
He accused Smeeth of sharing information with a Telegraph journalist.
Is that accusation grounds for expulsion?
Probably. 'Bringing party into disrepute' could cover an awful lot, when a party wants it to.
I'd have thought the death knell for this guy is the claim the leaders office back him, and they say he has lied about that.
Labour does seem to take a very relaxed view about what might bring the party into disrepute. It's almost like they don't give a shit about protecting the brand.
Well, unless it's Russell.
Amusing, but given how strong the labour brand is either they do protect it very well, or the Tory brand, while effective for tories, also does their job for them.
You think the Labour brand is as strong as it was?
In my opinion politicians of all parties shout "Resign" at their opponents rather too frequently these days and usually without good reason. There's a big difference between the false outrage of politicians and the genuine outrage of the public and if the public are not outraged (beyond party lines) then the false outrage of politicians carries little weight. It's not at all clear to me that Amber Rudd has crossed the line into outraging the general public... yet...
True. Like others I'm surprised she was not getting more personal blame on the last thread numbers. Her cocking up has increased the chances of public blame, but other reasons are keeping her on place.
Maybe one more negative revelation will be enough? More of the same and though she looks bad, she might cling on. But the I didn't read it defence always feels a desperate move, true is not. Lord Coe has clung on with the same excuse.
Labour does seem to take a very relaxed view about what might bring the party into disrepute. It's almost like they don't give a shit about protecting the brand.
Well, unless it's Russell.
"He is facing allegations of bringing the Labour Party into disrepute as the antisemitism charge was not originally included in Labour’s rulebook at the time of the alleged offence."
She's very safe in role. She's a firewall for May apart from anything else.
Secondly, Labour have directly called for her to resign. No way will May do what Labour ask her to do.
Thirdly Windrush is a zero visibility event outside the bubble.
I have to disagree. Even at best the goverment looks incompetent on a major issue.
I have to disagree. Its a lot of hot air emanating from the likes of the hypocrite Abbott and the questionable attitude of her leader. It'll be next months fish and chip paper.
Ah yes, Abbott
Diane Abbott on Amber Rudd:
“Who can have confidence in Amber Rudd to make far-reaching changes to the Home Office if she doesn’t seem able to get basic facts right?”
You can always be polite and say something like: "My friend, you should not be sharing information with a Telegraph journalist." Apparently he did not.
Besides, Labour turned briefing of journalists - both by the government and backbenchers - into a fine art. It's a bit rich for Labour supporters such as Wadsworth to be complaining about it now ...
What he said didn't seem particularly impolite to me. Unquestionably it has been damaging to the party though - and so i suppose arguably has brought it into disrepute. If he goes then you'd imagine Ken has no chance.
I've just looked up what I can find about the Wadsworth affair and cant't find anything beyond the rather theatrical walk-out by Ruth Smeeth.
I couldn't see that he did anything wrong and if Labour are going to genuflect to the Guido faction I think they ought to be stopped.
I've therefore just sent £10 to Wadsworth crowd funding appeal and hope this gets tested in court. If I wanted to support a party who paid no regard to natural justice I'd have joined the Tories
What then will you do if the decision to b expel is upheld, given this would mean neither party have regard to natural justice?
You can always be polite and say something like: "My friend, you should not be sharing information with a Telegraph journalist." Apparently he did not.
Besides, Labour turned briefing of journalists - both by the government and backbenchers - into a fine art. It's a bit rich for Labour supporters such as Wadsworth to be complaining about it now ...
What he said didn't seem particularly impolite to me. Unquestionably it has been damaging to the party though - and so i suppose arguably has brought it into disrepute. If he goes then you'd imagine Ken has no chance.
My cynicism has the opposite: Wadsworth may be used as a symbol (fairly or not) that the Labour leadership are doing something, and therefore when it comes to certain other cases, they can acquit and point to Wadsworth to show they are doing something.
I do think Ken is a litmus test. Although that particular stain should have been scrubbed years ago.
She's very safe in role. She's a firewall for May apart from anything else.
Secondly, Labour have directly called for her to resign. No way will May do what Labour ask her to do.
Thirdly Windrush is a zero visibility event outside the bubble.
I have to disagree. Even at best the goverment looks incompetent on a major issue.
I have to disagree. Its a lot of hot air emanating from the likes of the hypocrite Abbott and the questionable attitude of her leader. It'll be next months fish and chip paper.
Ah yes, Abbott
Diane Abbott on Amber Rudd:
“Who can have confidence in Amber Rudd to make far-reaching changes to the Home Office if she doesn’t seem able to get basic facts right?”
I see irony isn't dead
Yes I saw that last night, in fact my brother rang me about it. She makes one feel nauseous.
I've just looked up what I can find about the Wadsworth affair and cant't find anything beyond the rather theatrical walk-out by Ruth Smeeth.
I couldn't see that he did anything wrong and if Labour are going to genuflect to the Guido faction I think they ought to be stopped.
I've therefore just sent £10 to Wadsworth crowd funding appeal and hope this gets tested in court. If I wanted to support a party who paid no regard to natural justice I'd have joined the Tories
I'm no expert, but wont a court case be a waste of time? As NickP says Labour is effectively a club, which can determine its own rules and who can be a member. Indeed, I seem to dimly recall this was tested in court a year or two ago in a different situation wrt the NEC.
It was tested, and had the opposite outcome to what you think it had. Wadsworth would almost certainly be able to get the courts to investigate Roger's claim (based on no evidence which I can see) that the NCC failed to observe the rules of natural justice.
Unfair if she does. The tone had been set by May who clearly looks the nastier piece of work at the moment. Malevolence is always less attractive than mere incompetence.
I'm bemused by your witch-sniffer general capability of detecting nastiness in the Conservatives, but utterly missing it when it occurs in the Labour party. It's quite a skill...
One seems to be about party activists censuring representatives for attending particular meetings. The other is about throwing ordinary people out of their jobs, denying them lifesaving health treatment and exiling them to countries they don't know so politicians can meet a target.
I dunno. But the first gets the outrage on this forum.
+1.
If Marc Wadsworth, a veteran anti-racist campaigner, is an anti-semite, how come his lawyer (Harriet Wistrich) is Jewish? There appears to be a witch hunt against people on the left, such as the distinguished film-maker Ken Loach, who campaign against injustice.
TM, in the use of the phrase "citizens of nowhere", revealed herself as a nasty person in her attitude to alien minorities.
The problem with Ken Loach (and those with similar views) is that their pursuit for justice for groups which they favour leads them to support injustice towards groups they dislike.
While not a party to the evidence against Wadsworth, there doesn't seem to be anything in the public domain by him that is anti Semetic. If there is anything, then I would be interested to see it.
Loach is a different kettle of fish perhaps.
I've not followed the story closely either, but I understand that Wadsworth was expelled on the basis of the very general rule about doing something that brings the party into disreupte (at the time of the alleged breaches, there wasn't a specific rule on anti-semitism). Members who go around making extreme statements, attacking sitting MPs in personal terms and generally giving the Mail et al obnoxious stories are regarded as frankly more trouble than they're worth. Parties are voluntary organisations and nobody has an absolute right to be a member.
Seems reasonable. Some people probably get kicked to the curb a bit harshly by parties, it's a rough old game after all, but for the sake of the party it could have looked bad if he hadn't been expelled. And of course perhaps those who have seen all the details made the right call regardless of the politics of it.
She's very safe in role. She's a firewall for May apart from anything else.
Secondly, Labour have directly called for her to resign. No way will May do what Labour ask her to do.
Thirdly Windrush is a zero visibility event outside the bubble.
I have to disagree. Even at best the goverment looks incompetent on a major issue.
I have to disagree. Its a lot of hot air emanating from the likes of the hypocrite Abbott and the questionable attitude of her leader. It'll be next months fish and chip paper.
Ah yes, Abbott
Diane Abbott on Amber Rudd:
“Who can have confidence in Amber Rudd to make far-reaching changes to the Home Office if she doesn’t seem able to get basic facts right?”
I see irony isn't dead
Its all part of Seamus' cunning plan to keep Rudd in place....demand resignation, then send the Front Bench' serial fluffer after her.....
You can always be polite and say something like: "My friend, you should not be sharing information with a Telegraph journalist." Apparently he did not.
Besides, Labour turned briefing of journalists - both by the government and backbenchers - into a fine art. It's a bit rich for Labour supporters such as Wadsworth to be complaining about it now ...
What he said didn't seem particularly impolite to me. Unquestionably it has been damaging to the party though - and so i suppose arguably has brought it into disrepute. If he goes then you'd imagine Ken has no chance.
My cynicism has the opposite: Wadsworth may be used as a symbol (fairly or not) that the Labour leadership are doing something, and therefore when it comes to certain other cases, they can acquit and point to Wadsworth to show they are doing something.
I do think Ken is a litmus test. Although that particular stain should have been scrubbed years ago.
Ditching Ken, late or not, would be a powerful example. Even though he is yesterday's man, it would at the least appear to send a message, and at best would send a message about taking decisive action.
And on a practical basis no harm asxpredumably Ken and supporters will still vote Labour.
She's very safe in role. She's a firewall for May apart from anything else.
Secondly, Labour have directly called for her to resign. No way will May do what Labour ask her to do.
Thirdly Windrush is a zero visibility event outside the bubble.
I have to disagree. Even at best the goverment looks incompetent on a major issue.
I have to disagree. Its a lot of hot air emanating from the likes of the hypocrite Abbott and the questionable attitude of her leader. It'll be next months fish and chip paper.
Ah yes, Abbott
Diane Abbott on Amber Rudd:
“Who can have confidence in Amber Rudd to make far-reaching changes to the Home Office if she doesn’t seem able to get basic facts right?”
I see irony isn't dead
It is a great example of a key political skill, being able to criticise the other side with no hint of recognition of being guilty of the same sin. The point isn't wrong, but the deliverer is not the best.
Good article, though I could still see Amber Rudd going, and her mishandling of questions has probably killed her chances of the top job for good, assuming Conservative MPs have a memory.
The Windrush affair is very damaging for the Conservatives, not because they will immediately lose vote share (they won’t) but because groups that in due course they will need to make inroads with, younger voters and ethnic minority voters, will see this as a powerful piece of evidence that at best the Conservatives are reckless and at worst that they are actively racist. These groups were already alienated from the Conservatives by Brexit and every new reason that the Conservatives give them to despise them makes the long term task of gaining their votes that much harder.
If the Conservatives wish to terrify themselves, they should look at the voting splits in London among ethnic minority voters. Britain is getting less and less white, and that’s a trend that looks set to continue indefinitely. Demography is not destiny but the Conservatives seem to be doing their damnedest to make it so.
That's a good point on demography. The white working class is much less white than it used to be. It doesn't do that much work any more either.
Can I ask if you are a labour member ? If so,you should be ashamed of yourself with this post.
Everything wrong with this post if you support labour,going against the people labour should represent in the working class and change the white to black working class and you my friend could be in trouble.
First the Jews and now the white working class.
They'll be after the oligarchs next.....
Our government splashed in media they were going after the Oligarchs, at the time I heard Sir Humphrey saying “courageous”. Several weeks later from nowhere was unnecessarily public poisoning in Salisbury. For the moment the move against the Oligarchs seems to have gone a bit quiet, however the US helped us after Putins nerve agent attack on Britain with sanctions against prominent Oligarchs. Except that US now have sanctions against prominent British Oligarch “yacht man” Deripaska and we don’t have the same... as yet.
I've just looked up what I can find about the Wadsworth affair and cant't find anything beyond the rather theatrical walk-out by Ruth Smeeth.
I couldn't see that he did anything wrong and if Labour are going to genuflect to the Guido faction I think they ought to be stopped.
I've therefore just sent £10 to Wadsworth crowd funding appeal and hope this gets tested in court. If I wanted to support a party who paid no regard to natural justice I'd have joined the Tories
I'm no expert, but wont a court case be a waste of time? As NickP says Labour is effectively a club, which can determine its own rules and who can be a member. Indeed, I seem to dimly recall this was tested in court a year or two ago in a different situation wrt the NEC.
If you join a club or party, you have a contractual relationship with that club or party. So, if the latter kicks you out, without following their own disciplinary rules, you can sue for breach of contract. Provided the Labour Party followed its own disciplinary rules, a Court will not overturn the decision.
Talking of giving offence I read this piece in the Telegraph yesterday by Frank Skinner
".........We’re living in the age of new Puritanism. To paraphrase Descartes: I’m offended, therefore I am.
At a show the other day, I decided to talk to an audience member in the front row who was in a wheelchair, I asked her, ‘So what sort of speed can you get?’ and some other woman shouted out, ‘You’re identifying her by her disability!’
I said, ‘that’s the reason why most comedians don’t talk to people in wheelchairs; in case someone like you yells at them’.
Then I turned to the woman in the wheelchair and said, ‘I won’t be speaking to you again, you’re trouble'. Then I addressed the audience saying, ‘I don’t know who to talk to next’ and this middle-aged woman pipes up, ‘I’m a lesbian, if that helps?’"
Unfair if she does. The tone had been set by May who clearly looks the nastier piece of work at the moment. Malevolence is always less attractive than mere incompetence.
I'm bemused by your witch-sniffer general capability of detecting nastiness in the Conservatives, but utterly missing it when it occurs in the Labour party. It's quite a skill...
One seems to be about party activists censuring representatives for attending particular meetings. The other is about throwing ordinary people out of their jobs, denying them lifesaving health treatment and exiling them to countries they don't know so politicians can meet a target.
I dunno. But the first gets the outrage on this forum.
+1.
If Marc Wadsworth, a veteran anti-racist campaigner, is an anti-semite, how come his lawyer (Harriet Wistrich) is Jewish? There appears to be a witch hunt against people on the left, such as the distinguished film-maker Ken Loach, who campaign against injustice.
TM, in the use of the phrase "citizens of nowhere", revealed herself as a nasty person in her attitude to alien minorities.
The problem with Ken them to support injustice towards groups they dislike.
While not a party to the evidence against Wadsworth, there doesn't seem to be anything in the public domain by him that is anti Semetic. If there is anything, then I would be interested to see it.
Loach is a different kettle of fish perhaps.
I don't think he was expelled for anti-semitism.
So what was he expelled for?
He accused Smeeth of sharing information with a Telegraph journalist.
Is that accusation grounds for expulsion?
Probably. 'Bringing party into disreputes guy is the claim the leaders office back him, and they say he has lied about that.
Labour does seem to take a very nd.
Well, unless it's Russell.
Amusing, but given how strong the labour brand is either they do protect it very well, or the Tory brand, while effective for tories, also does their job for them.
You think the Labour brand is as strong as it was?
I think not.
I think being at 40% give or take show's it remains pretty strong. That even when some thought they were facing a historic drubbing no serious thoughts of leaving were seen shows how deep the attachment goes.
It may not be as strong as it could be, but yes, i do think it is very strong.
In my opinion politicians of all parties shout "Resign" at their opponents rather too frequently these days and usually without good reason. There's a big difference between the false outrage of politicians and the genuine outrage of the public and if the public are not outraged (beyond party lines) then the false outrage of politicians carries little weight. It's not at all clear to me that Amber Rudd has crossed the line into outraging the general public... yet...
True. Like others I'm surprised she was not getting more personal blame on the last thread numbers. Her cocking up has increased the chances of public blame, but other reasons are keeping her on place.
Maybe one more negative revelation will be enough? More of the same and though she looks bad, she might cling on. But the I didn't read it defence always feels a desperate move, true is not. Lord Coe has clung on with the same excuse.
It is surprising just how few blame Rudd, though entirely fair, as its very clear that any responsibility lies with May. Rudd’s problem is her clear incompetence (I had thought she might be better than that) - but she seems unlikely now to pay the price for that, as doing so would expose May... and in any event clear incompetence is obviously no bar to cabinet office.
If this expelled guy lied about Corbyn's office giving him backing, then sounds like he'd be ready for a fresh charge of bringing the party into disreupte even were the expulsion reversed somehow.
Unfair if she does. The tone had been set by May who clearly looks the nastier piece of work at the moment. Malevolence is always less attractive than mere incompetence.
I'm bemused by your witch-sniffer general capability of detecting nastiness in the Conservatives, but utterly missing it when it occurs in the Labour party. It's quite a skill...
One seems to be about party activists censuring representatives for attending particular meetings. The other is about throwing ordinary people out of their jobs, denying them lifesaving health treatment and exiling them to countries they don't know so politicians can meet a target.
I dunno. But the first gets the outrage on this forum.
+1.
If Marc Wadsworth, a veteran anti-racist campaigner, is an anti-semite, how come his lawyer (Harriet Wistrich) is Jewish? There appears to be a witch hunt against people on the left, such as the distinguished film-maker Ken Loach, who campaign against injustice.
TM, in the use of the phrase "citizens of nowhere", revealed herself as a nasty person in her attitude to alien minorities.
The problem with Ken Loach (and those with similar views) is that their pursuit for justice for groups which they favour leads them to support injustice towards groups they dislike.
While not a party to the evidence against Wadsworth, there doesn't seem to be anything in the public domain by him that is anti Semetic. If there is anything, then I would be interested to see it.
Loach is a different kettle of fish perhaps.
I've not followed the story closely either, but I understand that Wadsworth was expelled on the ember.
If giving obnoxious stories to the Tory press was grounds for expulsion, then surely a number of MPs are ripe for expulsion under the same rule? Not least Smeeth herself who did not contest Wadsworths accusation?
To me this increasingly is looking like factionalism, using expulsions/deselections as weapons.
You seem more outraged than many actual labour members.
Frankly, I'd imagine many mps are technically guilty of bringing parties into disrepute . But disciplining mps like that causes more problems than it solves for a party. Sacrificing a pawn, however, does not. He can rest easy that his expulsion may help the party .
Edit: of course, they may genuinely think he did wrong, I don't mean to imply only politics will have been at play
In my opinion politicians of all parties shout "Resign" at their opponents rather too frequently these days and usually without good reason. There's a big difference between the false outrage of politicians and the genuine outrage of the public and if the public are not outraged (beyond party lines) then the false outrage of politicians carries little weight. It's not at all clear to me that Amber Rudd has crossed the line into outraging the general public... yet...
True. Like others I'm surprised she was not getting more personal blame on the last thread numbers. Her cocking up has increased the chances of public blame, but other reasons are keeping her on place.
Maybe one more negative revelation will be enough? More of the same and though she looks bad, she might cling on. But the I didn't read it defence always feels a desperate move, true is not. Lord Coe has clung on with the same excuse.
It is surprising just how few blame Rudd, though entirely fair, as its very clear that any responsibility lies with May. Rudd’s problem is her clear incompetence (I had thought she might be better than that) - but she seems unlikely now to pay the price for that, as doing so would expose May... and in any event clear incompetence is obviously no bar to cabinet office.
Hang on! What clear incompetence? Stop going with the herd you nerd. All this Amber bashing for being incompetent is clearly missing the point of the real cause of all her pain? Does Britain currently have an immigration policy or not? Is the policy working? Does that policy include targets for removing illegal immigrants or not? I think she is saying the right thing in wanting Home Office to focus on individual cases, rather than driven by targets. I think she is right, if that was Home Office approach for last 21 years we wouldn’t have a Windrush Scandal. if she is being bashed for incompetence failing to maintain pretence of a muddled policy, she inherited and asked to continue, that’s unfair. Unfair of you, who is doing that. Take a good look at yourselves, what policy are you actually defending with these attacks on the lady?
Unfair if she does. The tone had been set by May who clearly looks the nastier piece of work at the moment. Malevolence is always less attractive than mere incompetence.
I'm bemused by your witch-sniffer general capability of detecting nastiness in the Conservatives, but utterly missing it when it occurs in the Labour party. It's quite a skill...
One seems to be about party activists censuring representatives for attending particular meetings. The other is about throwing ordinary people out of their jobs, denying them lifesaving health treatment and exiling them to countries they don't know so politicians can meet a target.
I dunno. But the first gets the outrage on this forum.
+1.
If Marc Wadsworth, a veteran anti-racist campaigner, is an anti-semite, how come his lawyer (Harriet Wistrich) is Jewish? There appears to be a witch hunt against people on the left, such as the distinguished film-maker Ken Loach, who campaign against injustice.
TM, in the use of the phrase "citizens of nowhere", revealed herself as a nasty person in her attitude to alien minorities.
The problem with Ken Loach (and those with similar views) is that their pursuit for justice for groups which they favour leads them to support injustice towards groups they dislike.
While not a party to the evidence against Wadsworth, there doesn't seem to be anything in the public domain by him that is anti Semetic. If there is anything, then I would be interested to see it.
Loach is a different kettle of fish perhaps.
I don't think he was expelled for anti-semitism.
So what was he expelled for?
He accused Smeeth of sharing information with a Telegraph journalist.
Is that accusation grounds for expulsion?
I'm not a Labour Party member, so it's not my circus, not my monkey. But if I were a party manager I'd take the view that you have to do things in a way that supports the party's objectives. So making the accusation is fine in a party meeting, but not at a press conference with the cameras rolling. A political party is a practical project not a debating chamber.
Edited extra bit: you're also neglecting that everyone I've seen here, from all sides, has condemned the Windrush scandal.
We're all opposed to anti-semitism. In my opinion the people who are using accusations of anti-semitism for party advantage are the ones who need to look at themselves in the mirror.
In my opinion politicians of all parties shout "Resign" at their opponents rather too frequently these days and usually without good reason. There's a big difference between the false outrage of politicians and the genuine outrage of the public and if the public are not outraged (beyond party lines) then the false outrage of politicians carries little weight. It's not at all clear to me that Amber Rudd has crossed the line into outraging the general public... yet...
True. Like others I'm surprised she was not getting more personal blame on the last thread numbers. Her cocking up has increased the chances of public blame, but other reasons are keeping her on place.
Maybe one more negative revelation will be enough? More of the same and though she looks bad, she might cling on. But the I didn't read it defence always feels a desperate move, true is not. Lord Coe has clung on with the same excuse.
Hang on! What clear incompetence? Stop going with the herd you nerd. All this Amber bashing for being incompetent is clearly missing the point of the real cause of all her pain? Does Britain currently have an immigration policy or not? Is the policy working? Does that policy include targets for removing illegal immigrants or not? I think she is saying the right thing in wanting Home Office to focus on individual cases, rather than driven by targets. I think she is right, if that was Home Office approach for last 21 years we wouldn’t have a Windrush Scandal. if she is being bashed for incompetence failing to maintain pretence of a muddled policy, she inherited and asked to continue, that’s unfair. Unfair of you, who is doing that. Take a good look at yourselves, what policy are you actually defending with these attacks on the lady?
No-one, I think objects to persons who are here illegaly being removed, although there could well be a discussion about our immigration policy and requirments. What has happened is that the ‘responsible’ authorities have picked on people who are here legally, but, for one (good) reason or another do not have the multiplicity of documentation that those authorities deem necessary. And as a result gross injustice has been done to decent British citzens.
Mr. Recidivist, not in Labour myself, but my concern would be focused on those threatening Jewish Labour MPs and their friends, such as John Mann (and his family).
Edited extra bit: you're also neglecting that everyone I've seen here, from all sides, has condemned the Windrush scandal.
We're all opposed to anti-semitism. In my opinion the people who are using accusations of anti-semitism for party advantage are the ones who need to look at themselves in the mirror.
No we aren't. I know I am. I don't know if you are, but I know that many people in your party aren't (and I know that because Corbyn has admitted it), so you might very well not be. I also know I am not using accusations of anti-semitism for party advantage, because I was exactly as appalled by the antics of Aidan Burley as I am by those of your fellow party members. It may become legitimate in a couple of years time for you to complain that people keep harping on about Labour's former antisemitism problem, but there ain't nothing former about it at the moment. So suck it up, deal with it and stop whining.
Edited extra bit: you're also neglecting that everyone I've seen here, from all sides, has condemned the Windrush scandal.
We're all opposed to anti-semitism. In my opinion the people who are using accusations of anti-semitism for party advantage are the ones who need to look at themselves in the mirror.
Are we?
Words are cheap - lets see some real action from Labour
I've just looked up what I can find about the Wadsworth affair and cant't find anything beyond the rather theatrical walk-out by Ruth Smeeth.
I couldn't see that he did anything wrong and if Labour are going to genuflect to the Guido faction I think they ought to be stopped.
I've therefore just sent £10 to Wadsworth crowd funding appeal and hope this gets tested in court. If I wanted to support a party who paid no regard to natural justice I'd have joined the Tories
What then will you do if the decision to b expel is upheld, given this would mean neither party have regard to natural justice?
Then I'll accept there was more to it than met the eye. I'm just a bit fed up with these kafkaesque times we live in where everything is nods innuendo and whispers. I've read three articles on Wadsworth from the depths of the Mail to the uplifting heights of the Guardian and all give roughly the same facts which are none.Just a nasty slant in the Mail. It was all done in secret.
Unfair if she does. The tone had been set by May who clearly looks the nastier piece of work at the moment. Malevolence is always less attractive than mere incompetence.
I'm bemused by your witch-sniffer general capability of detecting nastiness in the Conservatives, but utterly missing it when it occurs in the Labour party. It's quite a skill...
If Marc Wadsworth, a veteran anti-racist campaigner, is an anti-semite, how come his lawyer (Harriet Wistrich) is Jewish? There appears to be a witch hunt against people on the left, such as the distinguished film-maker Ken Loach, who campaign against injustice.
.
I've not followed the story closely either, but I understand that Wadsworth was expelled on the basis of the very general rule about doing something that brings the party into disreupte (at the time of the alleged breaches, there wasn't a specific rule on anti-semitism). Members who go around making extreme statements, attacking sitting MPs in personal terms and generally giving the Mail et al obnoxious stories are regarded as frankly more trouble than they're worth. Parties are voluntary organisations and nobody has an absolute right to be a member.
Seems reasonable. Some people probably get kicked to the curb a bit harshly by parties, it's a rough old game after all, but for the sake of the party it could have looked bad if he hadn't been expelled. And of course perhaps those who have seen all the details made the right call regardless of the politics of it.
Nonsense. Not even remotely reasonable. The party is facing eruption in the media that it is anti Semitic, one of the least racist members in the party is thrown into the volcano. Why would anyone want to join and voluntarily work hard for a party who is going to do that to you?
The real problem as Herdson explains in the header is the political incompetence of the leaders at the top and the teams they have built around them.
“You are being painted as racists, how are you going to rebut this?” Shrug. “I’m not remotely racist, I don’t need to do anything to rebut this nonsense.”
Edited extra bit: you're also neglecting that everyone I've seen here, from all sides, has condemned the Windrush scandal.
We're all opposed to anti-semitism. In my opinion the people who are using accusations of anti-semitism for party advantage are the ones who need to look at themselves in the mirror.
"We're all opposed to anti-semitism."
No. The problem is people like to think they're opposed to anti-semitism, whilst the reality is somewhat different and nuanced.
Corbyn's found himself in difficulties because he's a deeply ideological person. One strand of that ideology is to help those who are less fortunate than ourselves, and because ethnic minorities are often less fortunate, anti-racism is part of that ideology.
But when it comes to Judaism, we have an ethnic grouping who are not, in general, less fortunate than ourselves. As a whole, they have done quite well for themselves - and good on them. Because of this, they cannot be part of the oppressed, and therefore must be oppressors - and you're not being racist, you're attacking the oppressors. This is, naturally enough, accentuated by the situation in the Middle East.
It's barmy and stupid, but backed up by some of the sh*t being written by so-called Labour supporters on t'Internet.
Edited extra bit: you're also neglecting that everyone I've seen here, from all sides, has condemned the Windrush scandal.
We're all opposed to anti-semitism. In my opinion the people who are using accusations of anti-semitism for party advantage are the ones who need to look at themselves in the mirror.
No we aren't. I know I am. I don't know if you are, but I know that many people in your party aren't (and I know that because Corbyn has admitted it), so you might very well not be. I also know I am not using accusations of anti-semitism for party advantage, because I was exactly as appalled by the antics of Aidan Burley as I am by those of your fellow party members. It may become legitimate in a couple of years time for you to complain that people keep harping on about Labour's former antisemitism problem, but there ain't nothing former about it at the moment. So suck it up, deal with it and stop whining.
Labour isn't my party. I've just spotted that this whole anti-semitism thing is being orchestrated by their enemies.
Edited extra bit: you're also neglecting that everyone I've seen here, from all sides, has condemned the Windrush scandal.
We're all opposed to anti-semitism. In my opinion the people who are using accusations of anti-semitism for party advantage are the ones who need to look at themselves in the mirror.
No we aren't. I know I am. I don't know if you are, but I know that many people in your party aren't (and I know that because Corbyn has admitted it), so you might very well not be. I also know I am not using accusations of anti-semitism for party advantage, because I was exactly as appalled by the antics of Aidan Burley as I am by those of your fellow party members. It may become legitimate in a couple of years time for you to complain that people keep harping on about Labour's former antisemitism problem, but there ain't nothing former about it at the moment. So suck it up, deal with it and stop whining.
Labour isn't my party. I've just spotted that this whole anti-semitism thing is being orchestrated by their enemies.
Edited extra bit: you're also neglecting that everyone I've seen here, from all sides, has condemned the Windrush scandal.
We're all opposed to anti-semitism. In my opinion the people who are using accusations of anti-semitism for party advantage are the ones who need to look at themselves in the mirror.
No we aren't. I know I am. I don't know if you are, but I know that many people in your party aren't (and I know that because Corbyn has admitted it), so you might very well not be. I also know I am not using accusations of anti-semitism for party advantage, because I was exactly as appalled by the antics of Aidan Burley as I am by those of your fellow party members. It may become legitimate in a couple of years time for you to complain that people keep harping on about Labour's former antisemitism problem, but there ain't nothing former about it at the moment. So suck it up, deal with it and stop whining.
Labour isn't my party. I've just spotted that this whole anti-semitism thing is being orchestrated by their enemies.
No, the evidence that it is real is overwhelming. There is Corbyn's admission, for starters. Yes, other factions in the Labour party and others outside it are treating it as a point-and-laugh opportunity, but so what? If you put antisemitism, and taking party political advantage of antisemitism, in the same moral ballpark, I'm very happy to put you down as an antisemite.
Talking of giving offence I read this piece in the Telegraph yesterday by Frank Skinner
".........We’re living in the age of new Puritanism. To paraphrase Descartes: I’m offended, therefore I am.
At a show the other day, I decided to talk to an audience member in the front row who was in a wheelchair, I asked her, ‘So what sort of speed can you get?’ and some other woman shouted out, ‘You’re identifying her by her disability!’
I said, ‘that’s the reason why most comedians don’t talk to people in wheelchairs; in case someone like you yells at them’.
Then I turned to the woman in the wheelchair and said, ‘I won’t be speaking to you again, you’re trouble'. Then I addressed the audience saying, ‘I don’t know who to talk to next’ and this middle-aged woman pipes up, ‘I’m a lesbian, if that helps?’"
What show are you doing Roger? Getting good reviews I hope.
Edited extra bit: you're also neglecting that everyone I've seen here, from all sides, has condemned the Windrush scandal.
We're all opposed to anti-semitism. In my opinion the people who are using accusations of anti-semitism for party advantage are the ones who need to look at themselves in the mirror.
No we aren't. I know I am. I don't know if you are, but I know that many people in your party aren't (and I know that because Corbyn has admitted it), so you might very well not be. I also know I am not using accusations of anti-semitism for party advantage, because I was exactly as appalled by the antics of Aidan Burley as I am by those of your fellow party members. It may become legitimate in a couple of years time for you to complain that people keep harping on about Labour's former antisemitism problem, but there ain't nothing former about it at the moment. So suck it up, deal with it and stop whining.
Labour isn't my party. I've just spotted that this whole anti-semitism thing is being orchestrated by their enemies.
Are you really so thick that you don’t understand that this is what political enemies do?
These are the rules of the game, pretty much worldwide.
Your political enemies find the weakest spot and attack. Your job is to defend your week flank.
It would have been easy for Labour to deal with this in April 2016 with a proper report . They prevaricated. They screwed up.
The Tories are not my party, but if they allow the Windrush Affair to drag on for two years, they will be screwed.
Unfair if she does. The tone had been set by May who clearly looks the nastier piece of work at the moment. Malevolence is always less attractive than mere incompetence.
I'm bemused by your witch-sniffer general capability of detecting nastiness in the Conservatives, but utterly missing it when it occurs in the Labour party. It's quite a skill...
One seems to be about party activists censuring representatives for attending particular meetings. The other is about throwing ordinary people out of their jobs, denying them lifesaving health treatment and exiling them to countries they don't know so politicians can meet a target.
I dunno. But the first gets the outrage on this forum.
+1.
If Marc Wadsworth, a veteran anti-racist campaigner, is an anti-semite, how come his lawyer (Harriet Wistrich) is Jewish? There appears to be a witch hunt against people on the left, such as the distinguished film-maker Ken Loach, who campaign against injustice.
TM, in the use of the phrase "citizens of nowhere", revealed herself as a nasty person in her attitude to alien minorities.
The problem with Ken Loach (and those with similar views) is that their pursuit for justice for groups which they favour leads them to support injustice towards groups they dislike.
While not a party to the evidence against Wadsworth, there doesn't seem to be anything in the public domain by him that is anti Semetic. If there is anything, then I would be interested to see it.
Loach is a different kettle of fish perhaps.
I've not followed the story closely either, but I understand that Wadsworth was expelled on the ember.
If giving obnoxious stories to the Tory press was grounds for expulsion, then surely a number of MPs are ripe for expulsion under the same rule? Not least Smeeth herself who did not contest Wadsworths accusation?
To me this increasingly is looking like factionalism, using expulsions/deselections as weapons.
You seem more outraged than many actual labour members.
Frankly, I'd imagine many mps are technically guilty of bringing parties into disrepute . But disciplining mps like that causes more problems than it solves for a party. Sacrificing a pawn, however, does not. He can rest easy that his expulsion may help the party .
Edit: of course, they may genuinely think he did wrong, I don't mean to imply only politics will have been at play
I left Labour about 15 years ago, but I do find this factionalism on both sides and rulebook lawyers depressing.
Edited extra bit: you're also neglecting that everyone I've seen here, from all sides, has condemned the Windrush scandal.
We're all opposed to anti-semitism. In my opinion the people who are using accusations of anti-semitism for party advantage are the ones who need to look at themselves in the mirror.
No we aren't. I know I am. I don't know if you are, but I know that many people in your party aren't (and I know that because Corbyn has admitted it), so you might very well not be. I also know I am not using accusations of anti-semitism for party advantage, because I was exactly as appalled by the antics of Aidan Burley as I am by those of your fellow party members. It may become legitimate in a couple of years time for you to complain that people keep harping on about Labour's former antisemitism problem, but there ain't nothing former about it at the moment. So suck it up, deal with it and stop whining.
Labour isn't my party. I've just spotted that this whole anti-semitism thing is being orchestrated by their enemies.
It would have been easy for Labour to deal with this in April 2016 with a proper report . They prevaricated. They screwed up.
You missed 'They ennobled someone' (indeed the only person Corbyn has ennobled...)
I am reminded of an Italian colleagues' contemptuous dismissal of British pizza - 'That's not pizza - that's round food'.....
Hawaiian pizza fans are most likely to be young, female and slightly right-wing. Their hobbies include watching films, reading non-fiction and spending time with their partner. Melania Trump was spotted carrying a carefully wrapped Hawaiian pizza into the White House and once told the Pope that she fed it to her husband.
Retail workers, fashion designers and translators rank top in the professions most likely to order the increasingly popular dish. YouGov found that 84 per cent of Britons liked pizza and 82 per cent liked pineapple but only 53 per cent said they liked the two together.
Unfair if she does. The tone had been set by May who clearly looks the nastier piece of work at the moment. Malevolence is always less attractive than mere incompetence.
I'm bemused by your witch-sniffer general capability of detecting nastiness in the Conservatives, but utterly missing it when it occurs in the Labour party. It's quite a skill...
One seems to be about party activists censuring representatives for attending particular meetings. The other is about throwing ordinary people out of their jobs, denying them lifesaving health treatment and exiling them to countries they don't know so politicians can meet a target.
I dunno. But the first gets the outrage on this forum.
+1.
If Marc Wadsworth, a veteran anti-racist campaigner, is an anti-semite, how come his lawyer (Harriet Wistrich) is Jewish? There appears to be a witch hunt against people on the left, such as the distinguished film-maker Ken Loach, who campaign against injustice.
TM, in the use of the phrase "citizens of nowhere", revealed herself as a nasty person in her attitude to alien minorities.
While not a party to the evidence against Wadsworth, there doesn't seem to be anything in the public domain by him that is anti Semetic. If there is anything, then I would be interested to see it.
Loach is a different kettle of fish perhaps.
I've not followed the story closely either, but I understand that Wadsworth was expelled on the ember.
If giving obnoxious stories to the Tory press was grounds for expulsion, then surely a number of MPs are ripe for expulsion under the same rule? Not least Smeeth herself who did not contest Wadsworths accusation?
To me this increasingly is looking like factionalism, using expulsions/deselections as weapons.
You seem more outraged than many actual labour members.
Frankly, I'd imagine many mps are technically guilty of bringing parties into disrepute . But disciplining mps like that causes more problems than it solves for a party. Sacrificing a pawn, however, does not. He can rest easy that his expulsion may help the party .
Edit: of course, they may genuinely think he did wrong, I don't mean to imply only politics will have been at play
I left Labour about 15 years ago, but I do find this factionalism on both sides and rulebook lawyers depressing.
I left long before that, but I was thinking of rejoining. However, from ‘find' I totally agree.
In my opinion politicians of all parties shout "Resign" at their opponents rather too frequently these days and usually without good reason. There's a big difference between the false outrage of politicians and the genuine outrage of the public and if the public are not outraged (beyond party lines) then the false outrage of politicians carries little weight. It's not at all clear to me that Amber Rudd has crossed the line into outraging the general public... yet...
True. Like others I'm surprised she was not getting more personal blame on the last thread numbers. Her cocking up has increased the chances of public blame, but other reasons are keeping her on place.
Maybe one more negative revelation will be enough? More of the same and though she looks bad, she might cling on. But the I didn't read it defence always feels a desperate move, true is not. Lord Coe has clung on with the same excuse.
It is surprising just how few blame Rudd, though entirely fair, as its very clear that any responsibility lies with May. Rudd’s problem is her clear incompetence (I had thought she might be better than that) - but she seems unlikely now to pay the price for that, as doing so would expose May... and in any event clear incompetence is obviously no bar to cabinet office.
Hang on! What clear incompetence? Stop going with the herd you nerd. All this Amber bashing for being incompetent is clearly missing the point of the real cause of all her pain? Does Britain currently have an immigration policy or not? Is the policy working? Does that policy include targets for removing illegal immigrants or not? I think she is saying the right thing in wanting Home Office to focus on individual cases, rather than driven by targets. I think she is right, if that was Home Office approach for last 21 years we wouldn’t have a Windrush Scandal. if she is being bashed for incompetence failing to maintain pretence of a muddled policy, she inherited and asked to continue, that’s unfair. Unfair of you, who is doing that. Take a good look at yourselves, what policy are you actually defending with these attacks on the lady?
Spending over half a year in office unaware of how immigration policy actually operates.
My fellow PBers, with all of this talk of antisemitism and Windrush we are losing sight of what really matters. The local elections are under a week away. This is the season of dog muck and potholes.
I am reminded of an Italian colleagues' contemptuous dismissal of British pizza - 'That's not pizza - that's round food'.....
Hawaiian pizza fans are most likely to be young, female and slightly right-wing. Their hobbies include watching films, reading non-fiction and spending time with their partner. Melania Trump was spotted carrying a carefully wrapped Hawaiian pizza into the White House and once told the Pope that she fed it to her husband.
Retail workers, fashion designers and translators rank top in the professions most likely to order the increasingly popular dish. YouGov found that 84 per cent of Britons liked pizza and 82 per cent liked pineapple but only 53 per cent said they liked the two together.
Best pizza we ever had was in Slovenia some years ago.
Been to Hawaii, but never felt tempted to order pizza there.
Edited extra bit: you're also neglecting that everyone I've seen here, from all sides, has condemned the Windrush scandal.
We're all opposed to anti-semitism. In my opinion the people who are using accusations of anti-semitism for party advantage are the ones who need to look at themselves in the mirror.
"We're all opposed to anti-semitism."
No. The problem is people like to think they're opposed to anti-semitism, whilst the reality is somewhat different and nuanced.
Corbyn's found himself in difficulties because he's a deeply ideological person. One strand of that ideology is to help those who are less fortunate than ourselves, and because ethnic minorities are often less fortunate, anti-racism is part of that ideology.
But when it comes to Judaism, we have an ethnic grouping who are not, in general, less fortunate than ourselves. As a whole, they have done quite well for themselves - and good on them. Because of this, they cannot be part of the oppressed, and therefore must be oppressors - and you're not being racist, you're attacking the oppressors. This is, naturally enough, accentuated by the situation in the Middle East.
It's barmy and stupid, but backed up by some of the sh*t being written by so-called Labour supporters on t'Internet.
So anti-semitism is something so subtle and nuanced that can only be recognised by ones political opponents? I thought it was just disliking Jews. Thanks for educating me.
CBI not holding back anymore. Serious doubts on Fox:
"Britain's leading business group has "serious doubts" that the UK government will be able to fulfil its promise to roll-over Britain's 40 existing free trade deals with non-EU countries in time for Brexit, telling Business Insider that failure to do so could "wipe out" entire sectors of the economy.
UK International Trade Secretary Liam Fox has promised to roll-over Britain's existing deals with non-EU countries, as part of its EU membership, the "second after" Brexit.
However, the Confederation of British Industry has told BI that this is very unlikely to be possible, potentially leaving entire sectors of the economy on a "cliff-edge" after Brexit."
Edited extra bit: you're also neglecting that everyone I've seen here, from all sides, has condemned the Windrush scandal.
We're all opposed to anti-semitism. In my opinion the people who are using accusations of anti-semitism for party advantage are the ones who need to look at themselves in the mirror.
No we aren't. I know I am. I don't know if you are, but I know that many people in your party aren't (and I know that because Corbyn has admitted it), so you might very well not be. I also know I am not using accusations of anti-semitism for party advantage, because I was exactly as appalled by the antics of Aidan Burley as I am by those of your fellow party members. It may become legitimate in a couple of years time for you to complain that people keep harping on about Labour's former antisemitism problem, but there ain't nothing former about it at the moment. So suck it up, deal with it and stop whining.
Labour isn't my party. I've just spotted that this whole anti-semitism thing is being orchestrated by their enemies.
Catching up after a few days away, and people are *still* talking about this?
What’s going to happen when they expel Ken? Or don’t expel Ken?
It's opp-topic, but you might like to know that Blue Origin will be launching their suborbital rocket tomorrow evening, and will be livestreaming it.
Thanks for that.
Some very good comments from yourself upthread about good and bad people by the way, goes a long way to explaining the Labour party’s antisemitism problem.
Unfair if she does. The tone had been set by May who clearly looks the nastier piece of work at the moment. Malevolence is always less attractive than mere incompetence.
I'm bemused by your witch-sniffer general capability of detecting nastiness in the Conservatives, but utterly missing it when it occurs in the Labour party. It's quite a skill...
One seems to be about party activists censuring representatives for attending particular meetings. The other is about throwing ordinary people out of their jobs, denying them lifesaving health treatment and exiling them to countries they don't know so politicians can meet a target.
I dunno..
+1.
If Marc Wadsworth, a veteran anti-racist campaigner, is an anti-semite, how come his lawyer (Harriet Wistrich) is Jewish? There appears to be a witch hunt against people on the left, such as the distinguished film-maker Ken Loach, who campaign against injustice.
TM, in the use of the phrase "citizens of nowhere", revealed herself as a nasty person in her attitude to alien minorities.
The problem with Ken Loach (and those with similar views) is that their pursuit for justice for groups which they favour leads them to support injustice towards groups they dislike.
While not a party to the evidence against Wadsworth, there doesn't seem to be anything in the public domain by him that is anti Semetic. If there is anything, then I would be interested to see it.
Loach is a different kettle of fish perhaps.
I've not followed the story closely either, but I understand that Wadsworth was expelled on the basis of the very general rule about doing something that brings the party into disreupte (at the time of the alleged breaches, there wasn't a specific rule on anti-semitism). Members who go around making extreme statements, attacking sitting MPs in personal terms and generally giving the Mail et al obnoxious stories are regarded as frankly more trouble than they're worth. Parties are voluntary organisations and nobody has an absolute right to be a member.
Nick, I would have accepted that if it was rigorously implemented. To say no other party member [ of any party ] does not leak or spread stories is frankly laughable.
So far, what I have read is that he accused a [ Jewish ] MP of helping the Tories [ or something like that ]. Would he have been expelled if the MP was not Jewish ?
Unless, I have missed something, there is absolutely nothing anti-Semitic about what he is alleged to have said.
Meanwhile, more Palestinians get shot dead You can hear the condemnation ringing out NOT.
While not a party to the evidence against Wadsworth, there doesn't seem to be anything in the public domain by him that is anti Semetic. If there is anything, then I would be interested to see it.
Nick, I would have accepted that if it was rigorously implemented. To say no other party member [ of any party ] does not leak or spread stories is frankly laughable.
So far, what I have read is that he accused a [ Jewish ] MP of helping the Tories [ or something like that ]. Would he have been expelled if the MP was not Jewish ?
Unless, I have missed something, there is absolutely nothing anti-Semitic about what he is alleged to have said.
I have to say I agree with this. From what is in the public domain, the judgement seems peculiar and harsh.
If there is no more evidence, then Wadsworth would seem to me to have strong case for reinstatement.
Edited extra bit: you're also neglecting that everyone I've seen here, from all sides, has condemned the Windrush scandal.
We're all opposed to anti-semitism. In my opinion the people who are using accusations of anti-semitism for party advantage are the ones who need to look at themselves in the mirror.
"We're all opposed to anti-semitism."
No. The problem is people like to think they're opposed to anti-semitism, whilst the reality is somewhat different and nuanced.
Corbyn's found himself in difficulties because he's a deeply ideological person. One strand of that ideology is to help those who are less fortunate than ourselves, and because ethnic minorities are often less fortunate, anti-racism is part of that ideology.
But when it comes to Judaism, we have an ethnic grouping who are not, in general, less fortunate than ourselves. As a whole, they have done quite well for themselves - and good on them. Because of this, they cannot be part of the oppressed, and therefore must be oppressors - and you're not being racist, you're attacking the oppressors. This is, naturally enough, accentuated by the situation in the Middle East.
It's barmy and stupid, but backed up by some of the sh*t being written by so-called Labour supporters on t'Internet.
So anti-semitism is something so subtle and nuanced that can only be recognised by ones political opponents? I thought it was just disliking Jews. Thanks for educating me.
You do need educating if you think I wrote that!
Besides, lots of people in Labour recognise the party has a problem as well.
Edited extra bit: you're also neglecting that everyone I've seen here, from all sides, has condemned the Windrush scandal.
We're all opposed to anti-semitism. In my opinion the people who are using accusations of anti-semitism for party advantage are the ones who need to look at themselves in the mirror.
No we aren't. I know I am. I don't know if you are, but I know that many people in your party aren't (and I know that because Corbyn has admitted it), so you might very well not be. I also know I am not using accusations of anti-semitism for party advantage, because I was exactly as appalled by the antics of Aidan Burley as I am by those of your fellow party members. It may become legitimate in a couple of years time for you to complain that people keep harping on about Labour's former antisemitism problem, but there ain't nothing former about it at the moment. So suck it up, deal with it and stop whining.
Labour isn't my party. I've just spotted that this whole anti-semitism thing is being orchestrated by their enemies.
Most of the orchestration has been from Labour MPs .
Mr. Borough, the incompetence of Fox is having a seriously detrimental affect upon the national interest.
I'm starting to think that the Tories may be absolutely slaughtered at GE 2022.
Everything at the moment is fluff. Obviously the expectations are low in London, but higher outside the major cities for LE18. But what matters is delivering Brexit and how the deal both is and is perceived.
I didn't realise till that tweet from Hodges that Ruth Smeeth used to work for BICOM. It is becoming more difficult by the day to split claims of antisemitism from the interests of the Israeli government which is really dangerous for Labour.
I am reminded of an Italian colleagues' contemptuous dismissal of British pizza - 'That's not pizza - that's round food'.....
Hawaiian pizza fans are most likely to be young, female and slightly right-wing. Their hobbies include watching films, reading non-fiction and spending time with their partner. Melania Trump was spotted carrying a carefully wrapped Hawaiian pizza into the White House and once told the Pope that she fed it to her husband.
Retail workers, fashion designers and translators rank top in the professions most likely to order the increasingly popular dish. YouGov found that 84 per cent of Britons liked pizza and 82 per cent liked pineapple but only 53 per cent said they liked the two together.
Best pizza we ever had was in Slovenia some years ago.
Been to Hawaii, but never felt tempted to order pizza there.
Hawaiian pizza is possibly the only Canadian contribution to gastronomy.
F1: Sirotkin has crashed. May well be session over. Ferrari looking tasty.
Very difficult session, high winds (20G40 mph) meaning that almost no-one has managed to get a clean lap. Winds are expected to get even higher for the Q session, with a possibility of rain for both today and the race tomorrow.
The F2 race was a demolition derby earlier, as expected, with Bernd Maylander leading for a quarter of the race
My bets are alll going to be small stakes and long odds. Maybe Stroll to make Q3?
In my opinion politicians of all parties shout "Resign" at their opponents rather too frequently these days and usually without good reason. There's a big difference between the false outrage of politicians and the genuine outrage of the public and if the public are not outraged (beyond party lines) then the false outrage of politicians carries little weight. It's not at all clear to me that Amber Rudd has crossed the line into outraging the general public... yet...
True. Like others I'm surprised she was not getting more personal blame on the last thread numbers. Her cocking up has increased the chances of public blame, but other reasons are keeping her on place.
Maybe one more negative revelation will be enough? More of the same and though she looks bad, she might cling on. But the I didn't read it defence always feels a desperate move, true is not. Lord Coe has clung on with the same excuse.
It is surprising just how few blame Rudd, though entirely fair, as its very clear that any responsibility lies with May. Rudd’s problem is her clear incompetence (I had thought she might be better than that) - but she seems unlikely now to pay the price for that, as doing so would expose May... and in any event clear incompetence is obviously no bar to cabinet office.
Hang on! What clear incompetence? Stop going with the herd you nerd. All this Amber bashing for being incompetent is clearly missing the point of the real cause of all her pain? Does Britain currently have an immigration policy or not? Is the policy working? Does that policy include targets for removing illegal immigrants or not? I think she is saying the right thing in wanting Home Office to focus on individual cases, rather than driven by targets. I think she is right, if that was Home Office approach for last 21 years we wouldn’t have a Windrush Scandal. if she is being bashed for incompetence failing to maintain pretence of a muddled policy, she inherited and asked to continue, that’s unfair. Unfair of you, who is doing that. Take a good look at yourselves, what policy are you actually defending with these attacks on the lady?
If the thicko cannot even read her mail she is totally incompetent. How the F*** can she do her job if she does not read the ministerial mail.
Unfair if she does. The tone had been set by May who clearly looks the nastier piece of work at the moment. Malevolence is always less attractive than mere incompetence.
I'm bemused by your witch-sniffer general capability of detecting nastiness in the Conservatives, but utterly missing it when it occurs in the Labour party. It's quite a skill...
I dunno..
+1.
If Marc Wadsworth, a veteran anti-racist campaigner, is an anti-semite, how come his lawyer (Harriet Wistrich) is Jewish? There appears to be a witch hunt against people on the left, such as the distinguished film-maker Ken Loach, who campaign against injustice.
TM, in the use of the phrase "citizens of nowhere", revealed herself as a nasty person in her attitude to alien minorities.
The problem with Ken Loach (and those with similar views) is that their pursuit for justice for groups which they favour leads them to support injustice towards groups they dislike.
While not a party to the evidence against Wadsworth, there doesn't seem to be anything in the public domain by him that is anti Semetic. If there is anything, then I would be interested to see it.
Loach is a different kettle of fish perhaps.
I've not followed the story closely either, but I understand that Wadsworth was expelled on the basis of the very general rule about doing something that brings the party into disreupte (at the time of the alleged breaches, there wasn't a specific rule on anti-semitism). Members who go around making extreme statements, attacking sitting MPs in personal terms and generally giving the Mail et al obnoxious stories are regarded as frankly more trouble than they're worth. Parties are voluntary organisations and nobody has an absolute right to be a member.
Nick, I would have accepted that if it was rigorously implemented. To say no other party member [ of any party ] does not leak or spread stories is frankly laughable.
So far, what I have read is that he accused a [ Jewish ] MP of helping the Tories [ or something like that ]. Would he have been expelled if the MP was not Jewish ?
Unless, I have missed something, there is absolutely nothing anti-Semitic about what he is alleged to have said.
Meanwhile, more Palestinians get shot dead You can hear the condemnation ringing out NOT.
Nick P is right. Some members are just more trouble than they're worth.
CBI not holding back anymore. Serious doubts on Fox:
"Britain's leading business group has "serious doubts" that the UK government will be able to fulfil its promise to roll-over Britain's 40 existing free trade deals with non-EU countries in time for Brexit, telling Business Insider that failure to do so could "wipe out" entire sectors of the economy.
UK International Trade Secretary Liam Fox has promised to roll-over Britain's existing deals with non-EU countries, as part of its EU membership, the "second after" Brexit.
However, the Confederation of British Industry has told BI that this is very unlikely to be possible, potentially leaving entire sectors of the economy on a "cliff-edge" after Brexit."
Mr. Borough, the incompetence of Fox is having a seriously detrimental affect upon the national interest.
I'm starting to think that the Tories may be absolutely slaughtered at GE 2022.
If Labour had a decent leadership team, that might well be the case.
They would be 20 points ahead under Yvette, but there you go. That boat has long sailed.
Corbyn may win by accident, swept into power by outrage at the mess of Brexit (food rotting at Dover, major companies laying off workers, trouble in NI etc etc).
Mr. Borough, the incompetence of Fox is having a seriously detrimental affect upon the national interest.
I'm starting to think that the Tories may be absolutely slaughtered at GE 2022.
Everything at the moment is fluff. Obviously the expectations are low in London, but higher outside the major cities for LE18. But what matters is delivering Brexit and how the deal both is and is perceived.
If the Tories turn round and say we can’t deliver Brexit because the HoC won’t let us, will that lead to their ‘slaughter’. Not sure, although it depends on how many of my leave voting friends who say ‘why can’t we just leave’ have died. It might energise the rest!
Comments
I couldn't see that he did anything wrong and if Labour are going to genuflect to the Guido faction I think they ought to be stopped.
I've therefore just sent £10 to Wadsworth crowd funding appeal and hope this gets tested in court. If I wanted to support a party who paid no regard to natural justice I'd have joined the Tories
I'd have thought the death knell for this guy is the claim the leaders office back him, and they say he has lied about that.
Besides, Labour turned briefing of journalists - both by the government and backbenchers - into a fine art. It's a bit rich for Labour supporters such as Wadsworth to be complaining about it now ...
Well, unless it's Russell.
The rest is pure whataboutery, and the suggestion that there is such a thing as a tolerable or trivial level of antisemitism, or any other form of racism, is genuinely morally disgusting.
Whether electorally windrush eill matter is another issue - I think it will - but is irrelevant, since as with the anti semitism stories it's deserving of outrage even if there is no electoral impact.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/apr/28/warning-signs-for-tsbs-it-meltdown-were-clear-a-year-ago-insider
Goes back to Gordon Brown’s ill fated strong-arming of Lloyd’s to acquire HBOS - and Lloyd’s in turn seem to have stitched up the Spanish buyer of TSB like a kipper.
To me this increasingly is looking like factionalism, using expulsions/deselections as weapons.
I think not.
Maybe one more negative revelation will be enough?
More of the same and though she looks bad, she might cling on. But the I didn't read it defence always feels a desperate move, true is not. Lord Coe has clung on with the same excuse.
https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/951261/labour-mp-ruth-smeeth-human-shield-protestors-anti-semitism-corbyn-marc-wadsworth
Apols for linking to express, but it was the first thing google came up with; I have seen the point made somewhere more reputable.
Diane Abbott on Amber Rudd:
“Who can have confidence in Amber Rudd to make far-reaching changes to the Home Office if she doesn’t seem able to get basic facts right?”
I see irony isn't dead
Unquestionably it has been damaging to the party though - and so i suppose arguably has brought it into disrepute. If he goes then you'd imagine Ken has no chance.
I do think Ken is a litmus test. Although that particular stain should have been scrubbed years ago.
And on a practical basis no harm asxpredumably Ken and supporters will still vote Labour.
".........We’re living in the age of new Puritanism. To paraphrase Descartes: I’m offended, therefore I am.
At a show the other day, I decided to talk to an audience member in the front row who was in a wheelchair, I asked her, ‘So what sort of speed can you get?’ and some other woman shouted out, ‘You’re identifying her by her disability!’
I said, ‘that’s the reason why most comedians don’t talk to people in wheelchairs; in case someone like you yells at them’.
Then I turned to the woman in the wheelchair and said, ‘I won’t be speaking to you again, you’re trouble'. Then I addressed the audience saying, ‘I don’t know who to talk to next’ and this middle-aged woman pipes up, ‘I’m a lesbian, if that helps?’"
It may not be as strong as it could be, but yes, i do think it is very strong.
Rudd’s problem is her clear incompetence (I had thought she might be better than that) - but she seems unlikely now to pay the price for that, as doing so would expose May... and in any event clear incompetence is obviously no bar to cabinet office.
Frankly, I'd imagine many mps are technically guilty of bringing parties into disrepute . But disciplining mps like that causes more problems than it solves for a party. Sacrificing a pawn, however, does not. He can rest easy that his expulsion may help the party .
Edit: of course, they may genuinely think he did wrong, I don't mean to imply only politics will have been at play
I think she is saying the right thing in wanting Home Office to focus on individual cases, rather than driven by targets. I think she is right, if that was Home Office approach for last 21 years we wouldn’t have a Windrush Scandal. if she is being bashed for incompetence failing to maintain pretence of a muddled policy, she inherited and asked to continue, that’s unfair. Unfair of you, who is doing that. Take a good look at yourselves, what policy are you actually defending with these attacks on the lady?
On race pace yesterday it seems Ferrari and Red Bull were closely matched.
And as a result gross injustice has been done to decent British citzens.
Words are cheap - lets see some real action from Labour
I mean Ken Livingstone is still not expelled ffs
No. The problem is people like to think they're opposed to anti-semitism, whilst the reality is somewhat different and nuanced.
Corbyn's found himself in difficulties because he's a deeply ideological person. One strand of that ideology is to help those who are less fortunate than ourselves, and because ethnic minorities are often less fortunate, anti-racism is part of that ideology.
But when it comes to Judaism, we have an ethnic grouping who are not, in general, less fortunate than ourselves. As a whole, they have done quite well for themselves - and good on them. Because of this, they cannot be part of the oppressed, and therefore must be oppressors - and you're not being racist, you're attacking the oppressors. This is, naturally enough, accentuated by the situation in the Middle East.
It's barmy and stupid, but backed up by some of the sh*t being written by so-called Labour supporters on t'Internet.
http://hurryupharry.org/2018/04/27/corbyn-attended-tiny-rally-in-his-constituency-with-antisemitism-on-display/
These are the rules of the game, pretty much worldwide.
Your political enemies find the weakest spot and attack. Your job is to defend your week flank.
It would have been easy for Labour to deal with this in April 2016 with a proper report . They prevaricated. They screwed up.
The Tories are not my party, but if they allow the Windrush Affair to drag on for two years, they will be screwed.
I am reminded of an Italian colleagues' contemptuous dismissal of British pizza - 'That's not pizza - that's round food'.....
Retail workers, fashion designers and translators rank top in the professions most likely to order the increasingly popular dish. YouGov found that 84 per cent of Britons liked pizza and 82 per cent liked pineapple but only 53 per cent said they liked the two together.
It’s also off-putting. Severely so!
What’s going to happen when they expel Ken? Or don’t expel Ken?
Sad to see the party eat itself to be honest.
Been to Hawaii, but never felt tempted to order pizza there.
https://twitter.com/numanmyname/status/990179963973390337
"Britain's leading business group has "serious doubts" that the UK government will be able to fulfil its promise to roll-over Britain's 40 existing free trade deals with non-EU countries in time for Brexit, telling Business Insider that failure to do so could "wipe out" entire sectors of the economy.
UK International Trade Secretary Liam Fox has promised to roll-over Britain's existing deals with non-EU countries, as part of its EU membership, the "second after" Brexit.
However, the Confederation of British Industry has told BI that this is very unlikely to be possible, potentially leaving entire sectors of the economy on a "cliff-edge" after Brexit."
http://uk.businessinsider.com/cbi-warns-liam-foxs-trade-dealrollover-plan-risks-a-cliff-edge-brexit-2018-4
Some very good comments from yourself upthread about good and bad people by the way, goes a long way to explaining the Labour party’s antisemitism problem.
https://twitter.com/ProfChalmers/status/857873143557492736
So far, what I have read is that he accused a [ Jewish ] MP of helping the Tories [ or something like that ]. Would he have been expelled if the MP was not Jewish ?
Unless, I have missed something, there is absolutely nothing anti-Semitic about what he is alleged to have said.
Meanwhile, more Palestinians get shot dead You can hear the condemnation ringing out NOT.
If there is no more evidence, then Wadsworth would seem to me to have strong case for reinstatement.
Besides, lots of people in Labour recognise the party has a problem as well.
Fox showed earlier he was utterly deficient with such an important role and should've been replaced. Blame for that, of course, lies with May.
But what matters is delivering Brexit and how the deal both is and is perceived.
The F2 race was a demolition derby earlier, as expected, with Bernd Maylander leading for a quarter of the race
My bets are alll going to be small stakes and long odds. Maybe Stroll to make Q3?
When it's done, will aim to have the pre-qualifying ramble up around half past, but depends on what (and when it) pops up on the markets.
Corbyn may win by accident, swept into power by outrage at the mess of Brexit (food rotting at Dover, major companies laying off workers, trouble in NI etc etc).
Not sure, although it depends on how many of my leave voting friends who say ‘why can’t we just leave’ have died. It might energise the rest!