So we've had reference to "the coup" from Jezziah. What next - that people like me want to lose? Because i hear this a lot. That our MPs councillors and CLP execs are engaged in a conspiracy to lose their own seats just to spite Corbynites. I've sat in angry meetings where angry new members who shout at people like David Baddiel on twitter but do nothing else accuse members who campaign every single week for Labour MPs and councillors actually want us to lose.
But its ok. If we lose we can just declare victory like we did in the general election last year and the locals this year. Shitebox will even produce a nice "info"graphic proving that we did much much better than Blair ever did. Pointing out the basic mathematical and logical fails in such things being definitive proof that you hate Him.
I don't know how you find the time and energy. You must really be committed to the party and its ideals.
I'm a socialist. There are millions of poor bastards out there who haven't been as lucky as I have who no matter how hard they work are still struggling to make a living that pays the bills. The sick and disabled being brutalized by a Tory party utterly uncaring and unmoved by their suffering. I want a Labour government and a Labour council, because even one being distracted by this nonsense is better than any Tory government.
And I agree with Philip Collins Times article - Corbynism isn't offering any radical solutions to the structural failings and growing inequality in our society. The battle isn't "lets renationalise United Utilities" its how do we provide incteasingly expensive care to a population growing more aged by it whilst work incteasingly doesn't pay and is threatened by automation and the internet.
Ironically, renationalising energy will mean even less money for tackling the important problems you mention. The minute utilities are back in public hands, voters will expect to see reductions in their bills.
Do you agree or disagree with Mahmoud Abbas that it was a mistake for the Arabs to reject the 1947 Partition Plan?
Did I answer this post?
Purely in terms of land you would have to say undoubtedly yes, with a simple calculation of what they have now versus what they were offered in the plan.
I would be reluctant to criticise though as I imagine if say a good part of Britain was given away to a foreign people then I imagine British people and probably myself would fight back against that even if that possibly meant we could lose more land by doing so.
I think the subtext of what Sunil is saying is that the Palestinians are responsible for their treatment by the Israelis so don't criticise Israel. That's why he added it to a comment about criticism of Israel.
To give an example it is sort of like a mugger beating you up and taking your wallet and your phone, or instead you freely give him you wallet.
If you know the end result you would give him y
Is this a reasonable analogy?
The Arab countries tried to crush Israel at birth (ie. 1948), but their gamble failed, and in time the Israelis gained territory from them.
The Germans tried to crush Poland in 1939, but their gamble failed, and in time the Poles gained territory from them.
Really ? I seem to think Israel was imposed upon the Palestinians [ interestingly not supported by the British particularly with the terrorist bombing of King David's Hotel ] because of Western guilt associated with WW2.
And then hundreds of thousands of immigrants arrived from Europe who took their land and still does so today. What is the position regarding immigrants in the UK today for many right wing people ?
Jews are as indigenous to Palestine as Arabs are.
What % of the population were they in 1920 ?
How many non-white people in the UK in 1920, Mr Racist?
Do you agree or disagree with Mahmoud Abbas that it was a mistake for the Arabs to reject the 1947 Partition Plan?
Did I answer this post?
Purely in terms of land you would have to say undoubtedly yes, with a simple calculation of what they have now versus what they were offered in the plan.
I would be reluctant to criticise though as I imagine if say a good part of Britain was given away to a foreign people then I imagine British people and probably myself would fight back against that even if that possibly meant we could lose more land by doing so.
I think the subtext of what Sunil is saying is that the Palestinians are responsible for their treatment by the Israelis so don't criticise Israel. That's why he added it to a comment about criticism of Israel.
To give an example it is sort of like a mugger beating you up and taking your wallet and your phone, or instead you freely give him you wallet.
If you know the end result you would give him y
Is this a reasonable analogy?
The Arab countries tried to crush Israel at birth (ie. 1948), but their gamble failed, and in time the Israelis gained territory from them.
The Germans tried to crush Poland in 1939, but their gamble failed, and in time the Poles gained territory from them.
Really ? I seem to think Israel was imposed upon the Palestinians [ interestingly not supported by the British particularly with the terrorist bombing of King David's Hotel ] because of Western guilt associated with WW2.
And then hundreds of thousands of immigrants arrived from Europe who took their land and still does so today. What is the position regarding immigrants in the UK today for many right wing people ?
The Palestinians were the ones having land taken, to use your German Poland example should Poland have ceded territory to Germany and would they only have themselves to blame if they didn't and ended up losing even more land?
Well, Hitler's whole casus belli was that he demanded Poland cede the Polish Corridor. He tried to crush Poland, but eventually had to cede territory to Poland.
Hitler did not cede territory to Poland. The Allied Military Government did after 1945.
(Edit - and that was in partial compensation for the loss of the Polish lands in the East, not the German invasion.)
Yesterday's waffling lead about another GE from our own Nick missed that vital ingredient - a single idea around which Labour could endeavour to build a bigger tent.
As I said here over a year ago, the moment when Labour decides throw its entire weight behind a vote on the final deal will be key.
I think they are headed that way. They don't want to vote for any Tory deal, but I can see them not wanting to vote it down and accidentally lead to no deal either, so just say you back the people to choose.
Labour will back a second vote once the "full information" is out there in the open.
The Arab countries tried to crush Israel at birth (ie. 1948), but their gamble failed, and in time the Israelis gained territory from them.
The Germans tried to crush Poland in 1939, but their gamble failed, and in time the Poles gained territory from them.
Really ? I seem to think Israel was imposed upon the Palestinians [ interestingly not supported by the British particularly with the terrorist bombing of King David's Hotel ] because of Western guilt associated with WW2.
And then hundreds of thousands of immigrants arrived from Europe who took their land and still does so today. What is the position regarding immigrants in the UK today for many right wing people ?
How did the 1948 war start, surby? Who accepted the 1947 plan? Who rejected it?
Ta!
The 1947 "plan" itself was the imposition.
The General Assembly voted, 33-13, in favor of partition, with 10 members, including Britain, abstaining. The six Arab nations in the General Assembly staged a walkout in protest. The New York Times reported: “The walkout of the Arab delegates was taken as a clear indication that the Palestinian Arabs would have nothing to do with the Assembly’s decision. The British have emphasized repeatedly that British troops could not be used to impose a settlement not acceptable to both Jews and Arabs, ...”
Note: Not the Security Council.
So who started the War in 1948?
So you think the Palestinians should not have resisted when their land was being stolen ? Do you think any people should resist if their land was being occupied ?
One thing I will say is that Corbynistas (at least on twitter, anyway) do seem to try to argue that moderate MPs always defend Israel. It’s not true though - those such as Streeting (from what I’ve seen on his twitter feed) have been pretty critical of Netanyahu‘s government.
They attacked David Baddiel over his appearance on Frankie Boyle. They then accused him of writing that Tracey Ullman sketch. They then accused him of being an Israeli stooge. His replies with some very sweary denunciation of Israel only proved his complicity in the conspiracy (false flag...)
All on Twitter.
I remember them going nuts over him appearing on Frankie Boyle. I mean, they can’t accuse Frankie Boyle of being a Blairite....
snip
And we know some Bernie supporters were pretty passionate in defence of their guy as well! I've never quite understood it. I get a certain level of passion in support of a political leader, but sometimes the person who inspires it, and the extent of it, seems so bizarrely over the top. It gets particularly intense when you have people (I'll use Corbynites as an example, but yes others do it too) who are so angry and passionate in defence that they are actually in disagreement with the person they are seeking to defend - like when Corbyn says there has been an issue with anti-semitism and it isn't a smear to say that (though he would surely disagree with the extent and Labour's response being appropriate), and yet some supporters still insist it is all a smear (even Momentum haven't said that).
Interestingly, Theresa May doesn’t seem to have a cult following though (at least as far as I can see).
HYUFD?
He’s now obsessed with the idea that Boris is the saviour of the Conservative Party.
I do hope not. 'JC' and 'Jezziah' have a nice ring to them, but 'BJ' and 'Boriah' don't work for salvation puns.
Although of course 'BJ' stands for one activity Boris has been accused of, and 'Boriah' is quite close to 'pariah,' which is what he has become in the PCP...
In the event of Boris somehow becoming Conservative leader, I wouldn’t be surprised to see HYUFD change his name to ‘TheBoriah.’
One thing I will say is that Corbynistas (at least on twitter, anyway) do seem to try to argue that moderate MPs always defend Israel. It’s not true though - those such as Streeting (from what I’ve seen on his twitter feed) have been pretty critical of Netanyahu‘s government.
They attacked David Baddiel over his appearance on Frankie Boyle. They then accused him of writing that Tracey Ullman sketch. They then accused him of being an Israeli stooge.
All on Twitter.
I remember them going nuts over him appearing on Frankie Boyle. I mean, they can’t accuse Frankie Boyle of being a Blairite....
I found the whole thing with them accusing Baddiel of writing the Ullman sketch bizarre. While Corbynistas among the worst when it comes to anyone criticising their dear leader (alongside Trump supporters) I have noticed that with the rise of social media it seems there are many groups of people deeply sensitive to any criticism of their leader/ideology. Hilary Clinton’s supporters for example seem to act like she’s the second coming of Christ and see anyone who preferred Bernie as some kind of terrible disgrace.
And we know some Bernie supporters were pretty passionate in defence of their guy as well! I've never quite understood it. I get a certain level of passion in support of a political leader, but sometimes the person who inspires it, and the extent of it, seems so bizarrely over the top. It gets particularly intense when you have people (I'll use Corbynites as an example, but yes others do it too) who are so angry and passionate in defence that they are actually in disagreement with the person they are seeking to defend - like when Corbyn says there has been an issue with anti-semitism and it isn't a smear to say that (though he would surely disagree with the extent and Labour's response being appropriate), and yet some supporters still insist it is all a smear (even Momentum haven't said that).
Interestingly, Theresa May doesn’t seem to have a cult following though (at least as far as I can see).
HYUFD?
He’s now obsessed with the idea that Boris is the saviour of the Conservative Party.
The generally held view that Boris has been tested in high office and seen to have failed having passed him by.
Indeed so. Even if he’s up against Anna Soubry he’ll struggle to get my vote.
Thats pretty much the easiest political choice I have ever been offered
Do you agree or disagree with Mahmoud Abbas that it was a mistake for the Arabs to reject the 1947 Partition Plan?
Did I answer this post?
.
I think the subtext of what Sunil is saying is that the Palestinians are responsible for their treatment by the Israelis so don't criticise Israel. That's why he added it to a comment about criticism of Israel.
To give an example it is sort of like a mugger beating you up and taking your wallet and your phone, or instead you freely give him you wallet.
If you know the end result you would give him y
Is this a reasonable analogy?
The Arab countries tried to crush Israel at birth (ie. 1948), but their gamble failed, and in time the Israelis gained territory from them.
The Germans tried to crush Poland in 1939, but their gamble failed, and in time the Poles gained territory from them.
Really ? I seem to think Israel was imposed upon the Palestinians [ interestingly not supported by the British particularly with the terrorist bombing of King David's Hotel ] because of Western guilt associated with WW2.
And then hundreds of thousands of immigrants arrived from Europe who took their land and still does so today. What is the position regarding immigrants in the UK today for many right wing people ?
The Arab countries tried to crush Israel at birth (ie. 1948), but their gamble failed, and in time the Israelis gained territory from them.
The Germans tried to crush Poland in 1939, but their gamble failed, and in time the Poles gained territory from them.
Really ? I seem to think Israel was imposed upon the Palestinians [ interestingly not supported by the British particularly with the terrorist bombing of King David's Hotel ] because of Western guilt associated with WW2.
And then hundreds of thousands of immigrants arrived from Europe who took their land and still does so today. What is the position regarding immigrants in the UK today for many right wing people ?
How did the 1948 war start, surby? Who accepted the 1947 plan? Who rejected it?
Ta!
The 1947 "plan" itself was the imposition.
The General Assembly voted, 33-13, in favor of partition, with 10 members, including Britain, abstaining. The six Arab nations in the General Assembly staged a walkout in protest. The New York Times reported: “The walkout of the Arab delegates was taken as a clear indication that the Palestinian Arabs would have nothing to do with the Assembly’s decision. The British have emphasized repeatedly that British troops could not be used to impose a settlement not acceptable to both Jews and Arabs, ...”
Note: Not the Security Council.
So who started the War in 1948?
So you think the Palestinians should not have resisted when their land was being stolen ? Do you think any people should resist if their land was being occupied ?
The Partition plan would have given them 45% of the Mandate and Jerusalem would have been a neutral zone. Today's West Bank and Gaza are only 22% of the Mandate.
You seem to forget that Mahmoud Abbas himself said the Arabs should have accepted the Plan.
The repeated claims of the far left as somehow the home of anti Semitism is a conspiracy theory, especially when the statistics show it is a false claim.
Also we did actually have a coup there isn't just delusions of Corbyn supporters.
So we start and end with "the coup". Lets set aside that a vocal advocate of annual leadership elections is Jeremy Corbyn and look at the main allegation - a mass conspiracy of "the 172" who resigned on a pre-agreed schedule. Have you ever spoken to any of them? I have. And the reasons for resignation had been brewing for months - shadow ministers being blocked out of conversations with the leader by his personal team, having their brief's policy undermined and in some cases directly contradicted by the leader on one of his lets make it up on the spot moments.
In that first year aside from the 30 or so refusenik MPs everyone else was mucking in, with constructive suggestions about how someone who had never led and had to be arm twisted into running could step up and make the role his. After the 2nd leadership contest most of his presentational issues have been successfully resolved, now its the internal infighting shenanigans that pull us down.
As for the media, the notion that Corbyn has been uniquely attacked is so absurd as to be funny. So are the endless accusations of bias from people who are so biased they think that only pro-Corbyn propaganda would be fair and accurate. Hence the need for #wearehismedia clickbait "news" sites like Shitebox which circulate absolute lies about the party to fuel hatred amongst poorly informed newer members against their own parties.
That isn't a conspiracy. Its policy.
I'm sure Corbyn's yearly leadership race plan didn't involve timing resignations for maximum impact, public statements attacking the leader to get him to resign and court cases to try and ensure the current leader can't stand for reelection. Lets not pretend this was just some nice casual leadership contest to check the membership were still happy a year in.
There were some that mucked in some that weren't interested at all. I'm sure Corbyn wasn't at first, understandably some time is needed to fit into the job. Even often those who who not complete refuseniks would come out and criticise to the media and the leaks were never ending. I wouldn't claim problems with the party are unique to Corbyn, they gave Ed a hell of a time though obviously not quite as bad. Plenty of fault to go round.
TBH I'm surprised you don't think the media went in hard on him, I thought that would be obvious even to someone who isn't a fan.
The Palestinians were the ones having land taken, to use your German Poland example should Poland have ceded territory to Germany and would they only have themselves to blame if they didn't and ended up losing even more land?
Well, Hitler's whole casus belli was that he demanded Poland cede the Polish Corridor. He tried to crush Poland, but eventually had to cede territory to Poland.
Hitler did not cede territory to Poland. The Allied Military Government did after 1945.
(Edit - and that was in partial compensation for the loss of the Polish lands in the East, not the German invasion.)
I changed "Hitler" to "Germany" in a subsequent edit
The repeated claims of the far left as somehow the home of anti Semitism is a conspiracy theory, especially when the statistics show it is a false claim.
Also we did actually have a coup there isn't just delusions of Corbyn supporters.
So we start and end with "the coup". Lets set aside that a vocal advocate of annual leadership elections is Jeremy Corbyn and look at the main allegation - a mass conspiracy of "the 172" who resigned on a pre-agreed schedule. Have you ever spoken to any of them? I have. And the reasons for resignation had been brewing for months - shadow ministers being blocked out of conversations with the leader by his personal team, having their brief's policy undermined and in some cases directly contradicted by the leader on one of his lets make it up on the spot moments.
In that first year aside from the 30 or so refusenik MPs everyone else was mucking in, with constructive suggestions about how someone who had never led and had to be arm twisted into running could step up and make the role his. After the 2nd leadership contest most of his presentational issues have been successfully resolved, now its the internal infighting shenanigans that pull us down.
As for the media, the notion that Corbyn has been uniquely attacked is so absurd as to be funny. So are the endless accusations of bias from people who are so biased they think that only pro-Corbyn propaganda would be fair and accurate. Hence the need for #wearehismedia clickbait "news" sites like Shitebox which circulate absolute lies about the party to fuel hatred amongst poorly informed newer members against their own parties.
That isn't a conspiracy. Its policy.
TBH I'm surprised you don't think the media went in hard on him, I thought that would be obvious even to someone who isn't a fan.
I think he said the idea he had been 'uniquely attacked' was absurd.
Do you agree or disagree with Mahmoud Abbas that it was a mistake for the Arabs to reject the 1947 n?
Funnily enough, the far left only seems to be interested in how Palestinians are treated by the Israelis. There seems to be far less concern for them when they are in other countries. Why is that, do you think?
Maybe people are right and the 'far left' are as racist as everyone makes out and care as little about the Israelis as others do for the Palestinians?
Opponents of the far left on the left tend to be opponents precisely because of the far left’s long history of sharing platforms and marching in solidarity with anti-Semites. It’s really not about nationalising railways.
Opponents of the centrists on the left tend to be opponents precisely because of the centrists long history of occupying and killing Muslims. It's not really about nationalising the railways.
Given that the only significant political force in England opposing the Iraq war was the LibDems, I don't think whatever drove Blair, New Labour and a majority of its MPs to support that war can be blamed on their being centerist.
The Lib Dems were possibly being opportunistic although I don't doubt some genuinely did oppose. The rebellion in the Labour party definitely had a left lean and the support a right, obviously exceptions but the more right wing the more likely to vote for it.
I don't think a more left wing Labour party would have done it.
No, the LibDems were free of the ideological baggage of the right and the personal/political baggage that Blair had lent to Labour and could therefore see that the Iraq war was a flawed solution to a problem that didn't exist. Most people in the country who weren't tied to the Tories or New Labour felt the same.
My point was that you can't tarnish right-wing Labour with being 'centrist' for backing the war. It was the soft left's leader-loyalty and the machine-politics of New Labour that led to them tagging along behind Blair.
The Palestinians were the ones having land taken, to use your German Poland example should Poland have ceded territory to Germany and would they only have themselves to blame if they didn't and ended up losing even more land?
Well, Hitler's whole casus belli was that he demanded Poland cede the Polish Corridor. He tried to crush Poland, but eventually had to cede territory to Poland.
Hitler did not cede territory to Poland. The Allied Military Government did after 1945.
(Edit - and that was in partial compensation for the loss of the Polish lands in the East, not the German invasion.)
If you look at a map of medieval Poland (say 11th cen.) it looks remarkably similar to today's borders.
Do you agree or disagree with Mahmoud Abbas that it was a mistake for the Arabs to reject the 1947 n?
Opponents of the far left on the left tend to be opponents precisely because of the far left’s long history of sharing platforms and marching in solidarity with anti-Semites. It’s really not about nationalising railways.
Opponents of the centrists on the left tend to be opponents precisely because of the centrists long history of occupying and killing Muslims. It's not really about nationalising the railways.
Given that the only significant political force in England opposing the Iraq war was the LibDems, I don't think whatever drove Blair, New Labour and a majority of its MPs to support that war can be blamed on their being centerist.
The Lib Dems were possibly being opportunistic although I don't doubt some genuinely did oppose. The rebellion in the Labour party definitely had a left lean and the support a right, obviously exceptions but the more right wing the more likely to vote for it.
I don't think a more left wing Labour party would have done it.
No, the LibDems were free of the ideological baggage of the right and the personal/political baggage that Blair had lent to Labour and could therefore see that the Iraq war was a solution to a problem that didn't exist. Most people in the country who weren't tied to the Tories or New Labour felt the same.
My point was that you can't tarnish right-wing Labour with being 'centrist' for backing the war. It was the soft left's leader-loyalty and the machine-politics of New Labour that led to them tagging along behind Blair.
TBH it was just a cheap retort to Southams the left do something evil line, my impression of the Lib Dems at the time was actually to the left of Labour, or roughly were the left of Labour was anyway.
The Arab countries tried to crush Israel at birth (ie. 1948), but their gamble failed, and in time the Israelis gained territory from them.
The Germans tried to crush Poland in 1939, but their gamble failed, and in time the Poles gained territory from them.
Really ? I seem to think Israel was imposed upon the Palestinians [ interestingly not supported by the British particularly with the terrorist bombing of King David's Hotel ] because of Western guilt associated with WW2.
And then hundreds of thousands of immigrants arrived from Europe who took their land and still does so today. What is the position regarding immigrants in the UK today for many right wing people ?
How did the 1948 war start, surby? Who accepted the 1947 plan? Who rejected it?
Ta!
The 1947 "plan" itself was the imposition.
The General Assembly voted, 33-13, in favor of partition, with 10 members, including Britain, abstaining. The six Arab nations in the General Assembly staged a walkout in protest. The New York Times reported: “The walkout of the Arab delegates was taken as a clear indication that the Palestinian Arabs would have nothing to do with the Assembly’s decision. The British have emphasized repeatedly that British troops could not be used to impose a settlement not acceptable to both Jews and Arabs, ...”
Note: Not the Security Council.
So who started the War in 1948?
So you think the Palestinians should not have resisted when their land was being stolen ? Do you think any people should resist if their land was being occupied ?
The Partition plan would have given them 45% of the Mandate and Jerusalem would have been a neutral zone. Today's West Bank and Gaza are only 22% of the Mandate.
You seem to forget that Mahmoud Abbas himself said the Arabs should have accepted the Plan.
With hindsight most people can see that they should have accepted the plan. Which doesn't nevertheless justify what has happened since.
That’s a mad idea. There’s only two things that will sort housing, which are building more houses and getting interest rates off the floor. Anything else is just tinkering around the edges, and suggestions such as this that will promote price inflation in housing are actively counter-productive.
The Arab countries tried to crush Israel at birth (ie. 1948), but their gamble failed, and in time the Israelis gained territory from them.
The Germans tried to crush Poland in 1939, but their gamble failed, and in time the Poles gained territory from them.
Really ? I seem to think Israel was imposed upon the Palestinians [ interestingly not supported by the British particularly with the terrorist bombing of King David's Hotel ] because of Western guilt associated with WW2.
And then hundreds of thousands of immigrants arrived from Europe who took their land and still does so today. What is the position regarding immigrants in the UK today for many right wing people ?
How did the 1948 war start, surby? Who accepted the 1947 plan? Who rejected it?
Ta!
The 1947 "plan" itself was the imposition.
The General Assembly voted, 33-13, in favor of partition, with 10 members, including Britain, abstaining. The six Arab nations in the General Assembly staged a walkout in protest. The New York Times reported: “The walkout of the Arab delegates was taken as a clear indication that the Palestinian Arabs would have nothing to do with the Assembly’s decision. The British have emphasized repeatedly that British troops could not be used to impose a settlement not acceptable to both Jews and Arabs, ...”
Note: Not the Security Council.
So who started the War in 1948?
So you think the Palestinians should not have resisted when their land was being stolen ? Do you think any people should resist if their land was being occupied ?
It wasn't the Palestinians who resisted in 1948. Their capacity for resistance had already been severely weakened if not completely destroyed by first the Arab revolt of 1936-39 and then the Jewish revolt of 1944-47. It was the other Arab countries that fought, ostensibly on their behalf, in reality if we are entirely honest as the result of a power struggle within the Arab League over the question of whether to form a pan-Arab union and if so who should lead it.
The irony is of course that had the Israelis and Arabs all accepted the partition plan because of the weakness of the Palestinians there would have been no chance of a war - and therefore the two states could have grown peacefully side by side.
Whether the likes of Yigal Allon would have accepted this, however, or whether they would have found a way to stir up trouble as a pretext for further incursions is however uncertain.
I never knew this.... Seems bizarre to me.. What if only I second is between 1st and 2nd coming up to the last stage ??
" From the BBC"
And with Tour convention dictating the yellow jersey is not challenged on the final stage in Paris, Thomas knows he only has to cross the finish line to become the third Briton to win the race - after Sir Bradley Wiggins in 2012 and Froome's subsequent quartet of wins.
The repeated claims of the far left as somehow the home of anti Semitism is a conspiracy theory, especially when the statistics show it is a false claim.
Also we did actually have a coup there isn't just delusions of Corbyn supporters.
So we start and end with "the coup". Lets set aside that a vocal advocate of annual leadership elections is Jeremy Corbyn and look at the main allegation - a mass conspiracy of "the 172" who resigned on a pre-agreed schedule. Have you ever spoken to any of them? I have. And the reasons for resignation had been brewing for months - shadow ministers being blocked out of conversations with the leader by his personal team, having their brief's policy undermined and in some cases directly contradicted by the leader on one of his lets make it up on the spot moments.
In that first year aside from the 30 or so refusenik MPs everyone else was mucking in, with constructive suggestions about how someone who had never led and had to be arm twisted into running could step up and make the role his. After the 2nd leadership contest most of his presentational issues have been successfully resolved, now its the internal infighting shenanigans that pull us down.
As for the media, the notion that Corbyn has been uniquely attacked is so absurd as to be funny. So are the endless accusations of bias from people who are so biased they think that only pro-Corbyn propaganda would be fair and accurate. Hence the need for #wearehismedia clickbait "news" sites like Shitebox which circulate absolute lies about the party to fuel hatred amongst poorly informed newer members against their own parties.
That isn't a conspiracy. Its policy.
TBH I'm surprised you don't think the media went in hard on him, I thought that would be obvious even to someone who isn't a fan.
I think he said the idea he had been 'uniquely attacked' was absurd.
Difficult for me to argue on it as I don't know what exactly he is defining uniquely attacked as, more so than Ed and others before him certainly if that covers it.
The Palestinians were the ones having land taken, to use your German Poland example should Poland have ceded territory to Germany and would they only have themselves to blame if they didn't and ended up losing even more land?
Well, Hitler's whole casus belli was that he demanded Poland cede the Polish Corridor. He tried to crush Poland, but eventually had to cede territory to Poland.
Hitler did not cede territory to Poland. The Allied Military Government did after 1945.
(Edit - and that was in partial compensation for the loss of the Polish lands in the East, not the German invasion.)
If you look at a map of medieval Poland (say 11th cen.) it looks remarkably similar to today's borders.
And if you look at a map of the Polish-Lithuanian commonwealth in the early eighteenth century before Napoleon and Catherine got to work on it, modern Poland looks tiny.
The Palestinians were the ones having land taken, to use your German Poland example should Poland have ceded territory to Germany and would they only have themselves to blame if they didn't and ended up losing even more land?
Well, Hitler's whole casus belli was that he demanded Poland cede the Polish Corridor. He tried to crush Poland, but eventually had to cede territory to Poland.
Hitler did not cede territory to Poland. The Allied Military Government did after 1945.
(Edit - and that was in partial compensation for the loss of the Polish lands in the East, not the German invasion.)
If you look at a map of medieval Poland (say 11th cen.) it looks remarkably similar to today's borders.
And if you look at a map of the Polish-Lithuanian commonwealth in the early eighteenth century before Napoleon and Catherine got to work on it, modern Poland looks tiny.
I'm specifically drawing your attention to Pomerania and Silesia...
Also it wasn't Napoleon and Catherine, it was the Prussians, Austrians and Russians that partitioned Poland-Lithuania. Napoleon partially resurrected Poland by creating Grand Duchy of Warsaw.
TBH I'm surprised you don't think the media went in hard on him, I thought that would be obvious even to someone who isn't a fan.
I think he said the idea he had been 'uniquely attacked' was absurd.
^ This. Corbyn gets beaten up by the media. As did Ed. Gordon. Blair once Michael Howard was leader and the Tories looked electable again. Kinnock. Foot. Callaghan... You only think Corbyn is uniquely attacked if you think the Labour movement started in 2015 and all before it can be discounted.
In response to Jezziah and "the coup" I once again ask if any actual MPs have been spoken to, any of their interviews BEFORE as well as after "the coup" have been read. Or whether the proof of the conspiracy is "because I read it on Facebook".
I have spoken personally to a couple of MPs who quit before and after. The idea that they quit because someone told them too and at what time is paranoid delusion. They weren't happy. They were increasingly unhappy. Their treatment by the leader's office (NOT the leader) was increasingly untenable. So when Benn was fired several thought "fuck this" and once the avalanche started the pent up frustration made quitting the easier choice.
I do note though that you are a confirmed member of the Kali Ma - these Labour MPs are your enemy. Hence the need for mandatory reselection. Problem for you is that most members in most CLPs don't turn out to vote. They apparently don't drink your Kool Aid. Its the pitiful whine of a small number of entryists amplified by the internet making a lot of noise, but in the real world in most CLPs these "traitor" MPs are rock solid safe supported by the active membership.
Hamas is the joker in the pack here, however. Serious as these problems are, with time and goodwill they could be addressed. The Israelis, who have conceded the principle of compensation in the past without actually conceding the cash, might be persuaded to cough up for some nation building in advance of independence. Jordan has alternative sources of water, and so does Israel itself. An independent co-operation in air traffic might be arranged. However, and this is the punch, Hamas doesn't want any of this. It wants the whole of the old Mandate of Palestine, and no Jews. In fact, therefore, it will not be party to any agreement that nudges Israel and Palestine nearer peace, because that makes such an outcome much less likely. So they continue to fire rockets and attack Israel from Gaza.
And that, of course, means that the Israelis who might negotiate for peace are increasingly marginalised, and the headbangers (Netanyahu and before him, Sharon) are the ones who get popularity. If the Palestinians won't settle for less than wiping us off the map, the Israelis seem to reason, let's use our military strength to get our revenge in first and make a Palestinian state impossible. If Gaza were to become depopulated - and thanks to the Israeli blockade, the Israeli control of the (inadequate) water supply and the Israeli stranglehold on the economy, that is a realistic short-term possibility - the demographic balance sinks heavily away from the Palestinians, and the West Bank will be unviable as a separate state and have to accept full vassalage.
So the two state solution due to the actions of both sides is unfortunately a non-starter.
If I had an alternative solution, I wouldn't be posting on PB, I'd be the UN's leading arbitrator.
You wrote about the depopulation of Gaza by denying them water without the slightest bit of sympathy for the people living there. How cold hearted can you get ?
I'm talking about the fact that the Israeli goal seems to be ethnic cleansing.
And yet you still criticise me?
Yeah Surby that was unfair IMO. He seemed to be writing a quite fair analysis to my eyes.
Hamas is the joker in the pack here, however. Serious as these problems are, with time and goodwill they could be addressed. The Israelis, who have conceded the principle of compensation in the past without actually conceding the cash, might be persuaded to cough up for some nation building in advance of independence. Jordan has alternative sources of water, and so does Israel itself. An independent co-operation in air traffic might be arranged. However, and this is the punch, Hamas doesn't want any of this. It wants the whole of the old Mandate of Palestine, and no Jews. In fact, therefore, it will not be party to any agreement that nudges Israel and Palestine nearer peace, because that makes such an outcome much less likely. So they continue to fire rockets and attack Israel from Gaza.
And that, of course, means that the Israelis who might negotiate for peace are increasingly marginalised, and the headbangers (Netanyahu and before him, Sharon) are the ones who get popularity. If the Palestinians won't settle for less than wiping us off the map, the Israelis seem to reason, let's use our military strength to get our revenge in first and make a Palestinian state impossible. If Gaza were to become depopulated - and thanks to the Israeli blockade, the Israeli control of the (inadequate) water supply and the Israeli stranglehold on the economy, that is a realistic short-term possibility - the demographic balance sinks heavily away from the Palestinians, and the West Bank will be unviable as a separate state and have to accept full vassalage.
So the two state solution due to the actions of both sides is unfortunately a non-starter.
If I had an alternative solution, I wouldn't be posting on PB, I'd be the UN's leading arbitrator.
You wrote about the depopulation of Gaza by denying them water without the slightest bit of sympathy for the people living there. How cold hearted can you get ?
I'm talking about the fact that the Israeli goal seems to be ethnic cleansing.
And yet you still criticise me?
Yeah Surby that was unfair IMO. He seemed to be writing a quite fair analysis to my eyes.
The Israeli goal is ethnic cleansing? Ah, so I guess that's why 20% of Israeli citizens are Arab?
The Palestinians were the ones having land taken, to use your German Poland example should Poland have ceded territory to Germany and would they only have themselves to blame if they didn't and ended up losing even more land?
Well, Hitler's whole casus belli was that he demanded Poland cede the Polish Corridor. He tried to crush Poland, but eventually had to cede territory to Poland.
Hitler did not cede territory to Poland. The Allied Military Government did after 1945.
(Edit - and that was in partial compensation for the loss of the Polish lands in the East, not the German invasion.)
If you look at a map of medieval Poland (say 11th cen.) it looks remarkably similar to today's borders.
And if you look at a map of the Polish-Lithuanian commonwealth in the early eighteenth century before Napoleon and Catherine got to work on it, modern Poland looks tiny.
I'm specifically drawing your attention to Pomerania and Silesia...
Also it wasn't Napoleon and Catherine, it was the Prussians, Austrians and Russians that partitioned Poland-Lithuania. Napoleon partially resurrected Poland by creating Grand Duchy of Warsaw.
I think that you will find Catherine the Great was (at any rate by adoption) a Russian.
TBH I'm surprised you don't think the media went in hard on him, I thought that would be obvious even to someone who isn't a fan.
I think he said the idea he had been 'uniquely attacked' was absurd.
^ This. Corbyn gets beaten up by the media. As did Ed. Gordon. Blair once Michael Howard was leader and the Tories looked electable again. Kinnock. Foot. Callaghan... You only think Corbyn is uniquely attacked if you think the Labour movement started in 2015 and all before it can be discounted.
In response to Jezziah and "the coup" I once again ask if any actual MPs have been spoken to, any of their interviews BEFORE as well as after "the coup" have been read. Or whether the proof of the conspiracy is "because I read it on Facebook".
I have spoken personally to a couple of MPs who quit before and after. The idea that they quit because someone told them too and at what time is paranoid delusion. They weren't happy. They were increasingly unhappy. Their treatment by the leader's office (NOT the leader) was increasingly untenable. So when Benn was fired several thought "fuck this" and once the avalanche started the pent up frustration made quitting the easier choice.
I do note though that you are a confirmed member of the Kali Ma - these Labour MPs are your enemy. Hence the need for mandatory reselection. Problem for you is that most members in most CLPs don't turn out to vote. They apparently don't drink your Kool Aid. Its the pitiful whine of a small number of entryists amplified by the internet making a lot of noise, but in the real world in most CLPs these "traitor" MPs are rock solid safe supported by the active membership.
If you dont think the Chicken Coup was coordinated and that some MPs quit to timetabled order you are the deluded one my friend, and yes i have that from one of the quitters.
I’ll believe Labour moderates will break away when I see it....In other words, it’s like a duplicate version of the LDs atm.
However...
Those ideas don’t seem particularly new, they sound like reheated 1990s social democracy, which is my point.
For reasons of space I didn't detail, but it would be something like putting large sums of investment and powers back to the North West in an attempt to develop it in the long term as a business alternative to London and offering businesses incentives to locate there and in other strategic zones. Instead of spending billions on abolishing tuition fees you'd fund technical and adult education - with links to Job Centres to enable people to retrain. An old idea, but finally put in place a proper Social Care Service that can reduce the pressure on the NHS. A lot of this of course, would depend on abandoning Brexit and reallocating funding away from the costs it would impose - but you can see the outline - spend money either where socially necessary long where it will save you headaches and cash long-term or in transformative ways to rebalance and regenerate the economy - an activist state, but one trying to increase the opportunity for people to flourish rather than pessimistic Corbynista control.
As for griping, I see your point - but why I compared it to Brexit is the Micawberish aspect of human nature. Lots have believed the worst about Corbyn for a long time, but as with Brexit, it's in our nature to say "well it might be ok" even if we know (or believe we know) in our heart of hearts it's only ending one way. It's only when you reach an inflection point that all of a sudden the dam breaks and people say "no, sorry I can't do this to myself any more" and make their stand. And we underestimate the upheaval to people's lives doing so would mean - it means breaking with lifelong friends, disavowing something that's a part of your identity and putting your entire career (not just as an MP but within the party) on the line. They've also felt a duty to stay relatively loyal as a split would potentially deliver Britain into the hands of a Tory Party in the midst of its own bout of insanity. It builds up and builds up until reality intrudes.
I think although we're not quite there yet, we're getting there with Corbyn - several MPs are now prepared to take an unequivocal stand and martyr themselves to make it clear to others that Corbyn and his acolytes won't let them keep their heads down with any dignity - it's bend the knee or fight.
Hamas is the joker in the pack here, however. Serious as these problems are, with time and goodwill they could be addressed. The Israelis, who have conceded the principle of compensation in the past without actually conceding the cash, might be persuaded to cough up for some nation building in advance of independence. Jordan has alternative sources of water, and so does Israel itself. An independent co-operation in air traffic might be arranged. However, and this is the punch, Hamas doesn't want any of this. It wants the whole of the old Mandate of Palestine, and no Jews. In fact, therefore, it will not be party to any agreement that nudges Israel and Palestine nearer peace, because that makes such an outcome much less likely. So they continue to fire rockets and attack Israel from Gaza.
And that, of course, means that the Israelis who might negotiate for peace are increasingly marginalised, and the headbangers (Netanyahu and before him, Sharon) are the ones who get popularity. If the Palestinians won't settle for less than wiping us off the map, the Israelis seem to reason, let's use our military strength to get our revenge in first and make a Palestinian state impossible. If Gaza were to become depopulated - and thanks to the Israeli blockade, the Israeli control of the (inadequate) water supply and the Israeli stranglehold on the economy, that is a realistic short-term possibility - the demographic balance sinks heavily away from the Palestinians, and the West Bank will be unviable as a separate state and have to accept full vassalage.
So the two state solution due to the actions of both sides is unfortunately a non-starter.
If I had an alternative solution, I wouldn't be posting on PB, I'd be the UN's leading arbitrator.
You wrote about the depopulation of Gaza by denying them water without the slightest bit of sympathy for the people living there. How cold hearted can you get ?
I'm talking about the fact that the Israeli goal seems to be ethnic cleansing.
And yet you still criticise me?
Yeah Surby that was unfair IMO. He seemed to be writing a quite fair analysis to my eyes.
The Israeli goal is ethnic cleansing? Ah, so I guess that's why 20% of Israeli citizens are Arab?
And those 20% are now officially second class citizens in their own country.
Ethnic cleansing and illegal occupation of land, as well as annexation of vital water supplies are commonplaces on the West Bank.
Absolutely. Very much like the pre-2008 mortgage loans offered at >100% of the value of the property, encouraging people to rack up unsustainable debts which then go pop at the first sign of a recession. The resultant mess, of course, being left to the general taxpayer to clean up.
Other ominous signs recently that Government has learned little from the last crisis. Apparently household debt levels are now the highest on record - although, mind you, that's also no wonder when the BoE insists on making emergency low interest rates a permanent feature of the economic landscape.
What is required, above everything, to help to stabilise the economy and improve people's standard of living is an enormous, state co-ordinated house building program. What we actually have are private companies that take advantage of lax building regulations to construct horrible, tiny shoebox homes and then flog them for ludicrous sums of money. Keeping the supply choked off helps to maximise prices and therefore profits, of course, although I dare say that excessively tight green belt regulations and nimbyism play their part as well.
What is needed is for one political party or another to come along and propose a new version of the post-War new towns, to deal with the immediate problem afflicting London and the South East - although this time I would simply propose extending the boundaries of Greater London to the M25 and carpeting every suitable square inch of land within the newly-enclosed area with properly planned high-density housing, with the necessary transport and other infrastructure developed in parallel so that we don't end up with dormitory neighbourhoods bereft of community facilities. If this is done at the same time as offering incentives such as tax reliefs to more deprived areas further North, so as to encourage economic activity up there and try to redistribute the demand for housing a bit more evenly, then we might finally get to the point where house prices become more affordable and less of people's wealth and income is locked up in property. This ought, for different reasons, to be an absolute priority for those on both sides of the political divide.
Of course, what we actually have is a disastrous situation in which the governing party is not only consumed by the complexities of Brexit but also seems to have little or no idea of what it wants to do afterwards, and an opposition whose main preoccupations seem to be shouting at everybody on Twitter and scratching each others' eyes out in internecine battles over religious minorities.
I’ll believe Labour moderates will break away when I see it....In other words, it’s like a duplicate version of the LDs atm.
However...
Those ideas don’t seem particularly new, they sound like reheated 1990s social democracy, which is my point.
For reasons of space I didn't detail, but it would be something like putting large sums of investment and powers back to the North West in an attempt to develop it in the long term as a business alternative to London and offering businesses incentives to locate there and in other strategic zones. Instead of spending billions on abolishing tuition fees you'd fund technical and adult education - with links to Job Centres to enable people to retrain. An old idea, but finally put in place a proper Social Care Service that can reduce the pressure on the NHS. A lot of this of course, would depend on abandoning Brexit and reallocating funding away from the costs it would impose - but you can see the outline - spend money either where socially necessary long where it will save you headaches and cash long-term or in transformative ways to rebalance and regenerate the economy - an activist state, but one trying to increase the opportunity for people to flourish rather than pessimistic Corbynista control.
As for griping, I see your point - but why I compared it to Brexit is the Micawberish aspect of human nature. Lots have believed the worst about Corbyn for a long time, but as with Brexit, it's in our nature to say "well it might be ok" even if we know (or believe we know) in our heart of hearts it's only ending one way. It's only when you reach an inflection point that all of a sudden the dam breaks and people say "no, sorry I can't do this to myself any more" and make their stand. And we underestimate the upheaval to people's lives doing so would mean - it means breaking with lifelong friends, disavowing something that's a part of your identity and putting your entire career (not just as an MP but within the party) on the line. They've also felt a duty to stay relatively loyal as a split would potentially deliver Britain into the hands of a Tory Party in the midst of its own bout of insanity. It builds up and builds up until reality intrudes.
I think although we're not quite there yet, we're getting there with Corbyn - several MPs are now prepared to take an unequivocal stand and martyr themselves to make it clear to others that Corbyn and his acolytes won't let them keep their heads down with any dignity - it's bend the knee or fight.
In what strange world is calling Jezza a fucking antisemite and racist or shouting in the lobby that the Party Chair was a wanker and a fucking bastard keeping your head down?
Hamas is the joker in the pack here, however. Serious as these problems are, with time and goodwill they could be addressed. The Israelis, who have conceded the principle of compensation in the past without actually conceding the cash, might be persuaded to cough up for some nation building in advance of independence. Jordan has alternative sources of water, and so does Israel itself. An independent co-operation in air traffic might be arranged. However, and this is the punch, Hamas doesn't want any of this. It wants the whole of the old Mandate of Palestine, and no Jews. In fact, therefore, it will not be party to any agreement that nudges Israel and Palestine nearer peace, because that makes such an outcome much less likely. So they continue to fire rockets and attack Israel from Gaza.
And that, of course, means that the Israelis who might negotiate for peace are increasingly marginalised, and the headbangers (Netanyahu and before him, Sharon) are the ones who get popularity. If the Palestinians won't settle for less than wiping us off the map, the Israelis seem to reason, let's use our military strength to get our revenge in first and make a Palestinian state impossible. If Gaza were to become depopulated - and thanks to the Israeli blockade, the Israeli control of the (inadequate) water supply and the Israeli stranglehold on the economy, that is a realistic short-term possibility - the demographic balance sinks heavily away from the Palestinians, and the West Bank will be unviable as a separate state and have to accept full vassalage.
So the two state solution due to the actions of both sides is unfortunately a non-starter.
If I had an alternative solution, I wouldn't be posting on PB, I'd be the UN's leading arbitrator.
You wrote about the depopulation of Gaza by denying them water without the slightest bit of sympathy for the people living there. How cold hearted can you get ?
I'm talking about the fact that the Israeli goal seems to be ethnic cleansing.
And yet you still criticise me?
Yeah Surby that was unfair IMO. He seemed to be writing a quite fair analysis to my eyes.
The Israeli goal is ethnic cleansing? Ah, so I guess that's why 20% of Israeli citizens are Arab?
And those 20% are now officially second class citizens in their own country.
The Palestinians were the ones having land taken, to use your German Poland example should Poland have ceded territory to Germany and would they only have themselves to blame if they didn't and ended up losing even more land?
Well, Hitler's whole casus belli was that he demanded Poland cede the Polish Corridor. He tried to crush Poland, but eventually had to cede territory to Poland.
Hitler did not cede territory to Poland. The Allied Military Government did after 1945.
(Edit - and that was in partial compensation for the loss of the Polish lands in the East, not the German invasion.)
If you look at a map of medieval Poland (say 11th cen.) it looks remarkably similar to today's borders.
And if you look at a map of the Polish-Lithuanian commonwealth in the early eighteenth century before Napoleon and Catherine got to work on it, modern Poland looks tiny.
I'm specifically drawing your attention to Pomerania and Silesia...
Also it wasn't Napoleon and Catherine, it was the Prussians, Austrians and Russians that partitioned Poland-Lithuania. Napoleon partially resurrected Poland by creating Grand Duchy of Warsaw.
I think that you will find Catherine the Great was (at any rate by adoption) a Russian.
You wrote "Napoleon and Catherine". France wasn't involved in partitioning Poland. Of course I knew Catherine was Russian
The Palestinians were the ones having land taken, to use your German Poland example should Poland have ceded territory to Germany and would they only have themselves to blame if they didn't and ended up losing even more land?
Well, Hitler's whole casus belli was that he demanded Poland cede the Polish Corridor. He tried to crush Poland, but eventually had to cede territory to Poland.
Hitler did not cede territory to Poland. The Allied Military Government did after 1945.
(Edit - and that was in partial compensation for the loss of the Polish lands in the East, not the German invasion.)
If you look at a map of medieval Poland (say 11th cen.) it looks remarkably similar to today's borders.
And if you look at a map of the Polish-Lithuanian commonwealth in the early eighteenth century before Napoleon and Catherine got to work on it, modern Poland looks tiny.
I'm specifically drawing your attention to Pomerania and Silesia...
Also it wasn't Napoleon and Catherine, it was the Prussians, Austrians and Russians that partitioned Poland-Lithuania. Napoleon partially resurrected Poland by creating Grand Duchy of Warsaw.
I think that you will find Catherine the Great was (at any rate by adoption) a Russian.
You wrote "Napoleon and Catherine". France wasn't involved in partitioning Poland. Of course I knew Catherine was Russian
But she wasn't. Except by subsequent self-identification.
The Palestinians were the ones having land taken, to use your German Poland example should Poland have ceded territory to Germany and would they only have themselves to blame if they didn't and ended up losing even more land?
Well, Hitler's whole casus belli was that he demanded Poland cede the Polish Corridor. He tried to crush Poland, but eventually had to cede territory to Poland.
Hitler did not cede territory to Poland. The Allied Military Government did after 1945.
(Edit - and that was in partial compensation for the loss of the Polish lands in the East, not the German invasion.)
If you look at a map of medieval Poland (say 11th cen.) it looks remarkably similar to today's borders.
And if you look at a map of the Polish-Lithuanian commonwealth in the early eighteenth century before Napoleon and Catherine got to work on it, modern Poland looks tiny.
I'm specifically drawing your attention to Pomerania and Silesia...
Also it wasn't Napoleon and Catherine, it was the Prussians, Austrians and Russians that partitioned Poland-Lithuania. Napoleon partially resurrected Poland by creating Grand Duchy of Warsaw.
I think that you will find Catherine the Great was (at any rate by adoption) a Russian.
You wrote "Napoleon and Catherine". France wasn't involved in partitioning Poland. Of course I knew Catherine was Russian
But she wasn't. Except by subsequent self-identification.
With Corbyn for me it is the first time the left has had a voice, so that is exciting. I imagine for many who have had parties to vote for over the years it does seem strange that people would care about having an option.
Compare it to how despondent those who feel they don't have a choice feel, it is that uplifting to suddenly have a choice.
Also on the Baddiel Ullman sketch writing, the guy who said it meant that the show was so bad it was as if it was written by Baddiel himself, in the same way you claim your football clubs striker is a donkey. Your striker isn't a donkey, just so bad it appears that way, Baddiel didn't write the sketch it was just so bad it appeared that way.
Although obviously it wasn't helped that I think Galloway and maybe some others on the left also took it the wrong way and then spread it, so you had the crazy conspiracy of the left think Baddiel wrote Ullmans sketch just because he is a Jew take hold which is then used as proof of the whole anti semitism story. It gets a little tiring having to find out the truth behind all the smears...
Ironically, I am NOT a Corbynista. I have had two opportunities to vote for him and I did not do so in either. In 2015, my first preference was Cooper followed by Burnham. I did not put down a 3 or 4.
In the second leadership election, I did not vote at all. That was not so much about Corbyn, more my complete disrespect for Owen Smith. I didn't even know who he was.
But, I will say something about Corbyn. The 2017 election showed us that Labour should not be ashamed about putting forward a Left agenda. It was clearly popular and a lot of demons have been exorcised.
A left agenda which prioritised middle class university students paying fees over people on benefits and which prioritised those set to inherit expensive homes over those without such homes or expectations having to pay more tax to look after those owning those expensive homes.
And those 20% are now officially second class citizens in their own country.
Ethnic cleansing and illegal occupation of land, as well as annexation of vital water supplies are commonplaces on the West Bank.
Don't know what you saw in your time in the West Bank, Foxy. But when I was in Nazareth I stayed with an Arab Christian. He was very gloomy about the prospects for Arabs in Israel. It's hard to buy property, because Israelis offer higher prices. It's hard to get good jobs as the Israelis have a better education system. And therefore the younger Arabs are heading off abroad and the numbers of older ones are dwindling away.
Now it should be said that demographics don't support his views. At 21% the Arabs form a slightly higher proportion of the Israeli population than they did 25 years ago, and that even though fertility rates have gone down that ratio isn't expected to decline. But it was instructive that that was how people felt in Israel's only Arab-majority city.
I would point out as well my comment on 'ethnic cleansing' specifically referred to Gaza. One logical outcome of Israel's current policy is to make it uninhabitable. That would explain the tight blockade of food, medicine and building materials, and he control of drinking water and power generation. It would also make sense for Israel from a strategic point of view. With Gaza's population no longer present Palestine would cease to be a viable state, and the West Bank would more or less have to accept the sort of status under Israel that Northern Ireland had in the UK in the 1920s.
I used the word 'seems.' It is possible they are not intending anything so brutal. They might, for example, be trying to provoke a revolution that would cause the destruction of Hamas - although if so their policy has been about as counter-productive as is humanly possible. Or they might be secretly negotiating with Egypt to resume it, so the Egyptian army would be the ones shooting Hamas militants rather than the IDF. Or of course, a possibility not to be discounted, they are simply grossly incompetent and have no actual end goal in mind.
But I think their actions are to put it mildly suggestive. At the same time, even allowing for that, what is happening in Gaza falls very far short of the death camps, the concentration camps or even the ghettos, and I will continue to criticise those who claim otherwise. Apart from anything else, it disguises the real sufferings of both the Palestinians in Gaza and the Jews under the Nazis by bringing in extraneous points to distract attention.
Absolutely. Very much like the pre-2008 mortgage loans offered at >100% of the value of the property, encouraging people to rack up unsustainable debts which then go pop at the first sign of a recession. The resultant mess, of course, being left to the general taxpayer to clean up.
Other ominous signs recently that Government has learned little from the last crisis. Apparently household debt levels are now the highest on record - although, mind you, that's also no wonder when the BoE insists on making emergency low interest rates a permanent feature of the economic landscape.
What is required, above everything, to help to stabilise the economy and improve people's standard of living is an enormous, state co-ordinated house building program. What we actually have are private companies that take advantage of lax building regulations to construct horrible, tiny shoebox homes and then flog them for ludicrous sums of money. Keeping the supply choked off helps to maximise prices and therefore profits, of course, although I dare say that excessively tight green belt regulations and nimbyism play their part as well.
What is needed is for one political party or another to come along and propose a new version of the post-War new towns, to deal with the immediate problem afflicting London and the South East - although this time I would simply propose extending the boundaries of Greater London to the M25 and carpeting every suitable square inch of land within the newly-enclosed area with properly planned high-density housing, with the necessary transport and other infrastructure developed in parallel so that we don't end up with dormitory neighbourhoods bereft of community facilities. If this is done at the same time as offering incentives such as tax reliefs to more deprived areas further North, so as to encourage economic activity up there and try to redistribute the demand for housing a bit more evenly, then we might finally get to the point where house prices become more affordable and less of people's wealth and income is locked up in property. This ought, for different reasons, to be an absolute priority for those on both sides of the political divide.
Of course, what we actually have is a disastrous situation in which the governing party is not only consumed by the complexities of Brexit but also seems to have little or no idea of what it wants to do afterwards, and an opposition whose main preoccupations seem to be shouting at everybody on Twitter and scratching each others' eyes out in internecine battles over religious minorities.
+1 A number of new towns are needed in the South, along with a big free zone or two in the North with concessions on employer NI, business rates and corporation tax.
With Corbyn for me it is the first time the left has had a voice, so that is exciting. I imagine for many who have had parties to vote for over the years it does seem strange that people would care about having an option.
Compare it to how despondent those who feel they don't have a choice feel, it is that uplifting to suddenly have a choice.
Also on the Baddiel Ullman sketch writing, the guy who said it meant that the show was so bad it was as if it was written by Baddiel himself, in the same way you claim your football clubs striker is a donkey. Your striker isn't a donkey, just so bad it appears that way, Baddiel didn't write the sketch it was just so bad it appeared that way.
Although obviously it wasn't helped that I think Galloway and maybe some others on the left also took it the wrong way and then spread it, so you had the crazy conspiracy of the left think Baddiel wrote Ullmans sketch just because he is a Jew take hold which is then used as proof of the whole anti semitism story. It gets a little tiring having to find out the truth behind all the smears...
Ironically, I am NOT a Corbynista. I have had two opportunities to vote for him and I did not do so in either. In 2015, my first preference was Cooper followed by Burnham. I did not put down a 3 or 4.
In the second leadership election, I did not vote at all. That was not so much about Corbyn, more my complete disrespect for Owen Smith. I didn't even know who he was.
But, I will say something about Corbyn. The 2017 election showed us that Labour should not be ashamed about putting forward a Left agenda. It was clearly popular and a lot of demons have been exorcised.
A left agenda which prioritised middle class university students paying fees over people on benefits and which prioritised those set to inherit expensive homes over those without such homes or expectations having to pay more tax to look after those owning those expensive homes.
That left agenda??
You forgot about free education and free school meals for millionaires' children paid for by higher borrowing transferring money from the poor to the rich.
That's not what he intended but it's what his policies would have led to.
Really ? I seem to think Israel was imposed upon the Palestinians [ interestingly not supported by the British particularly with the terrorist bombing of King David's Hotel ] because of Western guilt associated with WW2.
And then hundreds of thousands of immigrants arrived from Europe who took their land and still does so today. What is the position regarding immigrants in the UK today for many right wing people ?
How did the 1948 war start, surby? Who accepted the 1947 plan? Who rejected it?
Ta!
The 1947 "plan" itself was the imposition.
The General Assembly voted, 33-13, in favor of partition, with 10 members, including Britain, abstaining. The six Arab nations in the General Assembly staged a walkout in protest. The New York Times reported: “The walkout of the Arab delegates was taken as a clear indication that the Palestinian Arabs would have nothing to do with the Assembly’s decision. The British have emphasized repeatedly that British troops could not be used to impose a settlement not acceptable to both Jews and Arabs, ...”
Note: Not the Security Council.
So who started the War in 1948?
So you think the Palestinians should not have resisted when their land was being stolen ? Do you think any people should resist if their land was being occupied ?
It wasn't the Palestinians who resisted in 1948. Their capacity for resistance had already been severely weakened if not completely destroyed by first the Arab revolt of 1936-39 and then the Jewish revolt of 1944-47. It was the other Arab countries that fought, ostensibly on their behalf, in reality if we are entirely honest as the result of a power struggle within the Arab League over the question of whether to form a pan-Arab union and if so who should lead it.
The irony is of course that had the Israelis and Arabs all accepted the partition plan because of the weakness of the Palestinians there would have been no chance of a war - and therefore the two states could have grown peacefully side by side.
Whether the likes of Yigal Allon would have accepted this, however, or whether they would have found a way to stir up trouble as a pretext for further incursions is however uncertain.
And it was the Jordanians who took the land which was allocated to the Palestinians by the UN in 1947. How many people campaigned between 1948 and 1967 for those occupied territories to be given to the Palestinians as had been intended?
The row over Austin outlines the dilemma facing the party’s Corbynsceptic MPs.
Corbynsceptic MPs recognize that if you tell another member of Parliament in your own party, that they are a “fucking bastard” and “wanker” in front of lots of witnesses, then you can reasonably expect to be the subject of disciplinary action.
But they cant politically resist supporting him because of their realisation that Corbyn has them all on ignore.
Same with Hodge completely unacceptable language and she cries victim when called out
The Palestinians were the ones having land taken, to use your German Poland example should Poland have ceded territory to Germany and would they only have themselves to blame if they didn't and ended up losing even more land?
Well, Hitler's whole casus belli was that he demanded Poland cede the Polish Corridor. He tried to crush Poland, but eventually had to cede territory to Poland.
Hitler did not cede territory to Poland. The Allied Military Government did after 1945.
(Edit - and that was in partial compensation for the loss of the Polish lands in the East, not the German invasion.)
If you look at a map of medieval Poland (say 11th cen.) it looks remarkably similar to today's borders.
And if you look at a map of the Polish-Lithuanian commonwealth in the early eighteenth century before Napoleon and Catherine got to work on it, modern Poland looks tiny.
I'm specifically drawing your attention to Pomerania and Silesia...
Also it wasn't Napoleon and Catherine, it was the Prussians, Austrians and Russians that partitioned Poland-Lithuania. Napoleon partially resurrected Poland by creating Grand Duchy of Warsaw.
I think that you will find Catherine the Great was (at any rate by adoption) a Russian.
You wrote "Napoleon and Catherine". France wasn't involved in partitioning Poland. Of course I knew Catherine was Russian
Napoleon's Grand Duchy actually was the killer punch for Polish independence, though. Not only did it establish that Poland was much smaller than before, a fact usefully exploited by Russia and Prussia in 1814, but his military demands wrecked any hope of its being able to survive on its own.
Really ? I seem to think Israel was imposed upon the Palestinians [ interestingly not supported by the British particularly with the terrorist bombing of King David's Hotel ] because of Western guilt associated with WW2.
And then hundreds of thousands of immigrants arrived from Europe who took their land and still does so today. What is the position regarding immigrants in the UK today for many right wing people ?
How did the 1948 war start, surby? Who accepted the 1947 plan? Who rejected it?
Ta!
The 1947 "plan" itself was the imposition.
The General Assembly voted, 33-13, in favor of partition, with 10 members, including Britain, abstaining. The six Arab nations in the General Assembly staged a walkout in protest. The New York Times reported: “The walkout of the Arab delegates was taken as a clear indication that the Palestinian Arabs would have nothing to do with the Assembly’s decision. The British have emphasized repeatedly that British troops could not be used to impose a settlement not acceptable to both Jews and Arabs, ...”
Note: Not the Security Council.
So who started the War in 1948?
So you think the Palestinians should not have resisted when their land was being stolen ? Do you think any people should resist if their land was being occupied ?
It wasn't the Palestinians who resisted in 1948. Their capacity for resistance had already been severely weakened if not completely destroyed by first the Arab revolt of 1936-39 and then the Jewish revolt of 1944-47. It was the other Arab countries that fought, ostensibly on their behalf, in reality if we are entirely honest as the result of a power struggle within the Arab League over the question of whether to form a pan-Arab union and if so who should lead it.
The irony is of course that had the Israelis and Arabs all accepted the partition plan because of the weakness of the Palestinians there would have been no chance of a war - and therefore the two states could have grown peacefully side by side.
Whether the likes of Yigal Allon would have accepted this, however, or whether they would have found a way to stir up trouble as a pretext for further incursions is however uncertain.
And it was the Jordanians who took the land which was allocated to the Palestinians by the UN in 1947. How many people campaigned between 1948 and 1967 for those occupied territories to be given to the Palestinians as had been intended?
The idea is simple. Take a run-down area and offer tax incentives for companies to move there while relaxing planning laws so new buildings can be built quickly. Public funds for clearing derelict land and improving transport are also part of the mix.
One of the reasons why populist left and right parties are gaining traction is because the centre left and centre right’s solutions to problems seems to voters to be more of the same.’ When people are dissatisfied by the status quo, they often turn to things which aren’t the status quo. Any new centre left bid would therefore, IMHO not simply introduce a ‘status quo’ platform.
Re a Social Care Service - are you referring to the idea Burnham had back in 2015? If so, I think that would be a good idea, and would help a centre left platform not be seen as status quo 2.0.
I also think if all these ideas are reliant on stopping Brexit, then that is a dead end. While a soft Brexit position is viable for a centre left party, Stop Brexit is not. There are few people who want to not commit to the referendum result.
I also don’t see the comparison with Brexit re Labour MPs and Corbyn. Despite all of what we’ve heard about Brexit, few people have changed their positions since 2016. The people who want to Stop Brexit, have mostly always wanted to. The people who want a Hard Brexit have mostly always wanted that. The people who want a Soft Brexit mostly always wanted that as well. I haven’t seen tons of people who were prepared to go along with Brexit, and now all of sudden aren’t and want to end the whole thing. Labour MPs have always wanted to get rid of Corbyn somehow, it’s just their strategies haven’t worked out. Walking away from the shadow cabinet, a leadership challenge, attempting to make Corbyn have to get 35 MPs to nominate him again, hoping that he’ll get destroyed in a general election - it’s all not worked. It remains to be seen - if it happens - whether a breakaway force would be anymore successful in this regard.
The row over Austin outlines the dilemma facing the party’s Corbynsceptic MPs.
Corbynsceptic MPs recognize that if you tell another member of Parliament in your own party, that they are a “fucking bastard” and “wanker” in front of lots of witnesses, then you can reasonably expect to be the subject of disciplinary action.
But they cant politically resist supporting him because of their realisation that Corbyn has them all on ignore.
Same with Hodge completely unacceptable language and she cries victim when called out
As I recall Alistair Darling (incredible though that seems) and John Prescott both called Brown far worse than that in front of witnesses. C-words were flung about freely.
And it should also be noted that Hodge at least has flatly denied claims she swore at a Corbyn. Bluntly, it's Hodge and I don't trust her far. However, it's also Corbyn and I don't trust him either.
The row over Austin outlines the dilemma facing the party’s Corbynsceptic MPs.
Corbynsceptic MPs recognize that if you tell another member of Parliament in your own party, that they are a “fucking bastard” and “wanker” in front of lots of witnesses, then you can reasonably expect to be the subject of disciplinary action.
But they cant politically resist supporting him because of their realisation that Corbyn has them all on ignore.
Same with Hodge completely unacceptable language and she cries victim when called out
Yes. Blame the victims of racism for getting angry about it. It's utterly shameful what Corbynism has done to Labour. Turned a good, caring party into a poisonous sewer where racism and bullying of dissenters is fine, but any calling out of that is clamped down upon. Appalling - history will not look kindly on those who've done this.
The Palestinians were the ones having land taken, to use your German Poland example should Poland have ceded territory to Germany and would they only have themselves to blame if they didn't and ended up losing even more land?
Well, Hitler's whole casus belli was that he demanded Poland cede the Polish Corridor. He tried to crush Poland, but eventually had to cede territory to Poland.
Hitler did not cede territory to Poland. The Allied Military Government did after 1945.
(Edit - and that was in partial compensation for the loss of the Polish lands in the East, not the German invasion.)
If you look at a map of medieval Poland (say 11th cen.) it looks remarkably similar to today's borders.
And if you look at a map of the Polish-Lithuanian commonwealth in the early eighteenth century before Napoleon and Catherine got to work on it, modern Poland looks tiny.
I'm specifically drawing your attention to Pomerania and Silesia...
Also it wasn't Napoleon and Catherine, it was the Prussians, Austrians and Russians that partitioned Poland-Lithuania. Napoleon partially resurrected Poland by creating Grand Duchy of Warsaw.
I think that you will find Catherine the Great was (at any rate by adoption) a Russian.
You wrote "Napoleon and Catherine". France wasn't involved in partitioning Poland. Of course I knew Catherine was Russian
Napoleon's Grand Duchy actually was the killer punch for Polish independence, though. Not only did it establish that Poland was much smaller than before, a fact usefully exploited by Russia and Prussia in 1814, but his military demands wrecked any hope of its being able to survive on its own.
One of Nap's biggest mistakes, not to have re-established an independent Poland prior to invading Russia
A left agenda which prioritised middle class university students paying fees over people on benefits and which prioritised those set to inherit expensive homes over those without such homes or expectations having to pay more tax to look after those owning those expensive homes.
That left agenda??
The single most astonishing moment of the whole 2017 election debacle was outfits like the Socialist Worker wailing about the dementia tax. If the economy were structured how they wanted then families wouldn't have to pay the dementia tax - because their elderly relatives' property would already have been confiscated by the state, as part of the general nationalisation of everything.
Seriously, that Labour manifesto - rail nationalisation (i.e. fare capping for season ticket holders,) elderly care funded through tax regardless of ability to pay, the abolition of student fees - amounted to the biggest middle-class bribe in British electoral history. If so many people weren't already wise to the fact that, as Mrs T said, socialists always end up running out of other people's money, Labour would've won easily.
If the Opposition had really been bothered about targeting help at those most in need then it would've prioritised stitching threadbare bus services back together rather than throwing bundles of cash at commuters (disproportionately wealthy and concentrated in the South East of England,) backed using some of the property riches of the well-off to pay for their expensive care (either through something like the dementia tax or higher IHT,) and offering the restoration of grants to poor students, rather than abolishing fees for everyone (which has already been shown in Scotland to favour middle-class access over that for the least well-off.)
But they weren't really that arsed about the poor, were they?
The row over Austin outlines the dilemma facing the party’s Corbynsceptic MPs.
Corbynsceptic MPs recognize that if you tell another member of Parliament in your own party, that they are a “fucking bastard” and “wanker” in front of lots of witnesses, then you can reasonably expect to be the subject of disciplinary action.
But they cant politically resist supporting him because of their realisation that Corbyn has them all on ignore.
Same with Hodge completely unacceptable language and she cries victim when called out
Yes. Blame the victims of racism for getting angry about it. It's utterly shameful what Corbynism has done to Labour. Turned a good, caring party into a poisonous sewer where racism and bullying of dissenters is fine, but any calling out of that is clamped down upon. Appalling - history will not look kindly on those who've done this.
If it's as appalling as many are claiming, why the **** have the decent Labour MPs not left the party?
After the 1967 war there was a journalist, James Cameron (a very good journalist) who did a wonderful piece to camera saying that Israel, having won the war and taken the West Bank, should now offer it back to the Palestinians so that they could form their state. He felt that only a generous gesture like this would have some chance of unblocking the poison in the region and start the process of having two viable and friendly states in the region. Perhaps he was being idealistic but I think that he was more right than wrong.
Unfortunately, Israel did not do that and has treated the Arabs in the West Bank in a way which has exacerbated bitterness and division and which bodes very ill for the future. Ultimately the West Bank of the Jordan is going to have to be given up (including the settlements established there) if Israel is to remain a primarily Jewish and democratic state and have peace. If it continues as now, the logic points inexorably to them no longer being democratic or no longer being Jewish and certainly no peace. The law which the Knesset has recently passed is so very troubling precisely because it seems to suggest that there is no place in Israel for its Arab citizens.
On the Arab side, those representing the Palestinians need to unequivocally accept that Israel will continue - and has a right to - exist as a Jewish homeland and that their dream of having a Palestinian state occupying the land of Israel and with no Jews in it is simply wrong and unacceptable. Neither the PLO nor Hamas have done this.
Until both sides makes these changes it is hard to see how peace can happen. Once (if they do) then there will be hope.
I have no problem with politicians here taking an interest in this issue. I think they vastly overstate what Britain can do and vastly underestimate the extent to which Britain, for various reasons (some of them historical) is not trusted by the various regional parties. What I take strong exception to is those politicians who do take an interest refusing to understand the full historical and current complexities of the issue, refusing to speak with one side and allying themselves with those who have absolutely no interest in peace and who do wish to kill all Jews, remove Israel from the map, indulge in Holocaust denial and anti-semitism etc.
When you start giving a voice and credibility to people who would previously have skulked in the darkest recesses of the BNP or Neo-Nazi parties you lose all credibility, both moral and political, and cannot seriously be considered as any sort of honest broker in what is a very difficult issue. It is not Corbyn's support for Palestinians which is the problem. It is how he has gone about it and the fact that he has indulged, given cover to, praised and spoken up for the sorts of people whose natural home is with neo-Nazis or the BNP or similar that is the problem. And those of his supporters who do not see the distinction are doing the Labour Party no favours whatsoever. Today the World at One on Radio 4 devoted pretty much most of its problem to Labour's anti-semitism problem. Is that really how Labour want to be presented to the public?
The row over Austin outlines the dilemma facing the party’s Corbynsceptic MPs.
Corbynsceptic MPs recognize that if you tell another member of Parliament in your own party, that they are a “fucking bastard” and “wanker” in front of lots of witnesses, then you can reasonably expect to be the subject of disciplinary action.
But they cant politically resist supporting him because of their realisation that Corbyn has them all on ignore.
Same with Hodge completely unacceptable language and she cries victim when called out
Yes. Blame the victims of racism for getting angry about it. It's utterly shameful what Corbynism has done to Labour. Turned a good, caring party into a poisonous sewer where racism and bullying of dissenters is fine, but any calling out of that is clamped down upon. Appalling - history will not look kindly on those who've done this.
You think that if you tell another member of Parliament in your own party, that they are a “fucking bastard” and “wanker” in front of lots of witnesses, then you can reasonably expect to be the subject of disciplinary action?
You think if you scream in your Party leaders face that he is a fucking antisemite and racist in front of witnesses and then repeat the allegation and pretend to be the victim then you can reasonably expect to be the subject of disciplinary action?
On the Arab side, those representing the Palestinians need to unequivocally accept that Israel will continue - and has a right to - exist as a Jewish homeland and that their dream of having a Palestinian state occupying the land of Israel and with no Jews in it is simply wrong and unacceptable. Neither the PLO nor Hamas have done this.
After the 1967 war there was a journalist, James Cameron (a very good journalist) who did a wonderful piece to camera saying that Israel, having won the war and taken the West Bank, should now offer it back to the Palestinians so that they could form their state. He felt that only a generous gesture like this would have some chance of unblocking the poison in the region and start the process of having two viable and friendly states in the region. Perhaps he was being idealistic but I think that he was more right than wrong.
Unfortunately, Israel did not do that and has treated the Arabs in the West Bank in a way which has exacerbated bitterness and division and which bodes very ill for the future. Ultimately the West Bank of the Jordan is going to have to be given up (including the settlements established there) if Israel is to remain a primarily Jewish and democratic state and have peace. If it continues as now, the logic points inexorably to them no longer being democratic or no longer being Jewish and certainly no peace. The law which the Knesset has recently passed is so very troubling precisely because it seems to suggest that there is no place in Israel for its Arab citizens.
On the Arab side, those representing the Palestinians need to unequivocally accept that Israel will continue - and has a right to - exist as a Jewish homeland and that their dream of having a Palestinian state occupying the land of Israel and with no Jews in it is simply wrong and unacceptable. Neither the PLO nor Hamas have done this.
Until both sides makes these changes it is hard to see how peace can happen. Once (if they do) then there will be hope.
What's at issue is not whether left-wing anti-Semitism is a thing - it clearly is, as Labour and Corbyn admit. The issue is whether Corbyn's actions and politics have worsened and spread those toxic views - something which it's perfectly possible for Jewish people to disagree over, but which has become a major issue for the majority of British Jews and their leaders because of the way earlier complaints were mishandled and ignored.
It is a conspiracy theory because it is made up rubbish not based on fact, the far left, the left and Corbyn supporters are no more anti semitic than other groups.
Anti-semitism is a thing across all politics, there does seem to be some kind of strange centrist thought process these days that claims all racism must exist in the crazy people to the right and left of them whilst the centre is racism free. Racism is everywhere.
_____________________________________________ In 2015, 16% of Labour voters agreed with the statement that ‘Jews hold too much power in the media’, compared to 11% in 2017.
This compares with 17% of Conservative voters agreeing with the statement in 2015, with a 2% reduction to 15% in 2017.
In 2015, 11% of Labour voters agreed with the statement that ‘Jews talk about the Holocaust too much in order to get sympathy’, declining to 8% in 2017.
This decline from Labour voters is in stark contrast to Tory voters who actually saw a rise in their supporters agreeing in this statement – with 12% agreeing with it in 2015 compared to 13% in 2017. _______________________________________________
Here are the links to the data sets from yougov so you can look for yourself
The row over Austin outlines the dilemma facing the party’s Corbynsceptic MPs.
Corbynsceptic MPs recognize that if you tell another member of Parliament in your own party, that they are a “fucking bastard” and “wanker” in front of lots of witnesses, then you can reasonably expect to be the subject of disciplinary action.
But they cant politically resist supporting him because of their realisation that Corbyn has them all on ignore.
Same with Hodge completely unacceptable language and she cries victim when called out
As I recall Alistair Darling (incredible though that seems) and John Prescott both called Brown far worse than that in front of witnesses. C-words were flung about freely.
And it should also be noted that Hodge at least has flatly denied claims she swore at a Corbyn. Bluntly, it's Hodge and I don't trust her far. However, it's also Corbyn and I don't trust him either.
I recall the offence which was taken when Nye Bevan said that 'as far as he was concerned Tories were lower than vermin’.
Can I advise everyone that whatever else you delete, it's vital to delete the 'block quote' bits at the top of the post?
Normally when I'm culling I cull it to one only, because then it's easy - just delete everything except the first username and everything between the two last block quotes.
The row over Austin outlines the dilemma facing the party’s Corbynsceptic MPs.
Corbynsceptic MPs recognize that if you tell another member of Parliament in your own party, that they are a “fucking bastard” and “wanker” in front of lots of witnesses, then you can reasonably expect to be the subject of disciplinary action.
But they cant politically resist supporting him because of their realisation that Corbyn has them all on ignore.
Same with Hodge completely unacceptable language and she cries victim when called out
As I recall Alistair Darling (incredible though that seems) and John Prescott both called Brown far worse than that in front of witnesses. C-words were flung about freely.
And it should also be noted that Hodge at least has flatly denied claims she swore at a Corbyn. Bluntly, it's Hodge and I don't trust her far. However, it's also Corbyn and I don't trust him either.
I recall the offence which was taken when Nye Bevan said that 'as far as he was concerned Tories were lower than vermin’.
Probably be considered praise nowadays.
In fairness, most if not all of them probably felt the same way about him.
The row over Austin outlines the dilemma facing the party’s Corbynsceptic MPs.
Corbynsceptic MPs recognize that if you tell another member of Parliament in your own party, that they are a “fucking bastard” and “wanker” in front of lots of witnesses, then you can reasonably expect to be the subject of disciplinary action.
But they cant politically resist supporting him because of their realisation that Corbyn has them all on ignore.
Same with Hodge completely unacceptable language and she cries victim when called out
Yes. Blame the victims of racism for getting angry about it. It's utterly shameful what Corbynism has done to Labour. Turned a good, caring party into a poisonous sewer where racism and bullying of dissenters is fine, but any calling out of that is clamped down upon. Appalling - history will not look kindly on those who've done this.
You think that if you tell another member of Parliament in your own party, that they are a “fucking bastard” and “wanker” in front of lots of witnesses, then you can reasonably expect to be the subject of disciplinary action?
You think if you scream in your Party leaders face that he is a fucking antisemite and racist in front of witnesses and then repeat the allegation and pretend to be the victim then you can reasonably expect to be the subject of disciplinary action?
Call me old fashioned
If he is a fucking antisemite and racist, then yes, perhaps they should be able to.
And I'm unsure that Labour supporters who call Tony Blair a 'war criminal' should necessarily be the ones to talk about moderating the language within the party ...
The Palestinians were the ones having land taken, to use your German Poland example should Poland have ceded territory to Germany and would they only have themselves to blame if they didn't and ended up losing even more land?
Well, Hitler's whole casus belli was that he demanded Poland cede the Polish Corridor. He tried to crush Poland, but Germany eventually had to cede territory to Poland.
So you are saying that Poland were right to resist another countries attempt to take land from them even if there was a possibility they could have lost even more land as a result of this resistance?
It is a risky strategy as we have seen with the Palestinians but I think it is the natural human response.
The row over Austin outlines the dilemma facing the party’s Corbynsceptic MPs.
Corbynsceptic MPs recognize that if you tell another member of Parliament in your own party, that they are a “fucking bastard” and “wanker” in front of lots of witnesses, then you can reasonably expect to be the subject of disciplinary action.
But they cant politically resist supporting him because of their realisation that Corbyn has them all on ignore.
Same with Hodge completely unacceptable language and she cries victim when called out
Yes. Blame the victims of racism for getting angry about it. It's utterly shameful what Corbynism has done to Labour. Turned a good, caring party into a poisonous sewer where racism and bullying of dissenters is fine, but any calling out of that is clamped down upon. Appalling - history will not look kindly on those who've done this.
If it's as appalling as many are claiming, why the **** have the decent Labour MPs not left the party?
As I wrote below - because for those who've spent their lives in politics leaving your party, and particularly Labour - whose members and MPs tend to have more of an emotional tie to - is like leaving your family. You'll make every excuse not to, and tell yourself things will get better, or it's not that bad. The other point is that rightly or wrongly, some argue that they have a duty to stay and fight to preserve Labour and the good people in the party from the gang of unpleasant hard left frauds in control of it. The argument is that if all the decent people leave en masse you leave a major political party in the hands of people with very bad motives and ideas and effectively turn it over to the anti-Semites, conspiracists and zealots. There comes a point where that no longer holds up - perhaps it is soon.
On the Arab side, those representing the Palestinians need to unequivocally accept that Israel will continue - and has a right to - exist as a Jewish homeland and that their dream of having a Palestinian state occupying the land of Israel and with no Jews in it is simply wrong and unacceptable. Neither the PLO nor Hamas have done this.
Whether that still holds good following the breakdown of talks and the rise of Abbas I will admit I don't know.
(This was at the root of my comments that the chief stumbling block, admittedly among many, is Hamas.)
The PLO tend to say different things to different audiences. Their maps of the region show no Israel, they talk about having a Palestinian state going from Jordan to the sea - which would mean no Israel, etc.
But all Palestinian representatives need to be utterly unequivocal over this. No-one can be expected to give up territory or make peace with someone who wants to kill you.
The trouble is the longer Israel continues on its present path - and its recent law is utterly unhelpful and wrong - the more difficult it is to get the other side to do anything. Both sides need heads banging together and better leadership.
After the 1967 war there was a journalist, James Cameron (a very good journalist) who did a wonderful piece to camera saying that Israel, having won the war and taken the West Bank, should now offer it back to the Palestinians so that they could form their state. He felt that only a generous gesture like this would have some chance of unblocking the poison in the region and start the process of having two viable and friendly states in the region. Perhaps he was being idealistic but I think that he was more right than wrong.
Unfortunately, Israel did not do that and has treated the Arabs in the West Bank in a way which has exacerbated bitterness and division and which bodes very ill for the future. Ultimately the West Bank of the Jordan is going to have to be given up (including the settlements established there) if Israel is to remain a primarily Jewish and democratic state and have peace. If it continues as now, the logic points inexorably to them no longer being democratic or no longer being Jewish and certainly no peace. The law which the Knesset has recently passed is so very troubling precisely because it seems to suggest that there is no place in Israel for its Arab citizens.
On the Arab side, those representing the Palestinians need to unequivocally accept that Israel will continue - and has a right to - exist as a Jewish homeland and that their dream of having a Palestinian state occupying the land of Israel and with no Jews in it is simply wrong and unacceptable. Neither the PLO nor Hamas have done this.
Until both sides makes these changes it is hard to see how peace can happen. Once (if they do) then there will be hope.
It wasn't me that said that
No - it was me. (I may have messed up the block quotes. Apologies.)
The row over Austin outlines the dilemma facing the party’s Corbynsceptic MPs.
Corbynsceptic MPs recognize that if you tell another member of Parliament in your own party, that they are a “fucking bastard” and “wanker” in front of lots of witnesses, then you can reasonably expect to be the subject of disciplinary action.
But they cant politically resist supporting him because of their realisation that Corbyn has them all on ignore.
Same with Hodge completely unacceptable language and she cries victim when called out
Yes. Blame the victims of racism for getting angry about it. It's utterly shameful what Corbynism has done to Labour. Turned a good, caring party into a poisonous sewer where racism and bullying of dissenters is fine, but any calling out of that is clamped down upon. Appalling - history will not look kindly on those who've done this.
You think that if you tell another member of Parliament in your own party, that they are a “fucking bastard” and “wanker” in front of lots of witnesses, then you can reasonably expect to be the subject of disciplinary action?
You think if you scream in your Party leaders face that he is a fucking antisemite and racist in front of witnesses and then repeat the allegation and pretend to be the victim then you can reasonably expect to be the subject of disciplinary action?
Call me old fashioned
Putting aside the fact that the exact wording of the allegations are disputed, coarse language is not exactly unheard of between MPs and rarely ever raises an eyebrow, and the swiftness relatively minor indiscretions by moderates seem to be swiftly dealt with when the party ignores infractions by loyalists. A "wanker" is a mild term for Lavery given the way he's bled sick miners dry and I don't know, but if I was a party leader it was clear some of my MPs and most of the Jewish community thought I was being racist towards them I might look at my own conduct rather than disciplining those who lost their temper about it.
But of course Saint Jez is irreproachable, even when he's caught propagating conspiracy theories about Israel on Iranian TV. Not anti-Semitic at all, no Siree.
So we've had reference to "the coup" from Jezziah. What next - that people like me want to lose? Because i hear this a lot. That our MPs councillors and CLP execs are engaged in a conspiracy to lose their own seats just to spite Corbynites. I've sat in angry meetings where angry new members who shout at people like David Baddiel on twitter but do nothing else accuse members who campaign every single week for Labour MPs and councillors actually want us to lose.
But its ok. If we lose we can just declare victory like we did in the general election last year and the locals this year. Shitebox will even produce a nice "info"graphic proving that we did much much better than Blair ever did. Pointing out the basic mathematical and logical fails in such things being definitive proof that you hate Him.
I get the feeling you are not so much interested in debating me the real person but some crazy unreasonable version of a Corbyn supporter you have in your head.
I disagree with the imaginary Corbyn supporter you keep going on about with the various things he believes or wants almost as much as I disagree with you.
Appreciate the work you do for the Labour party though so keep fighting those demons if it's part of the process.
I never knew this.... Seems bizarre to me.. What if only I second is between 1st and 2nd coming up to the last stage ??
" From the BBC"
And with Tour convention dictating the yellow jersey is not challenged on the final stage in Paris, Thomas knows he only has to cross the finish line to become the third Briton to win the race - after Sir Bradley Wiggins in 2012 and Froome's subsequent quartet of wins.
It's a flat stage so it finishes in bunch sprint so it's mpossible for a GC contender (who is never going to be a specialist sprinter) to gain even a few seconds over a rival. Although who knows what mad human chemistry experiment will emerge from Sky or Sunweb next.
The row over Austin outlines the dilemma facing the party’s Corbynsceptic MPs.
Corbynsceptic MPs recognize that if you tell another member of Parliament in your own party, that they are a “fucking bastard” and “wanker” in front of lots of witnesses, then you can reasonably expect to be the subject of disciplinary action.
But they cant politically resist supporting him because of their realisation that Corbyn has them all on ignore.
Same with Hodge completely unacceptable language and she cries victim when called out
Yes. Blame the victims of racism for getting angry about it. It's utterly shameful what Corbynism has done to Labour. Turned a good, caring party into a poisonous sewer where racism and bullying of dissenters is fine, but any calling out of that is clamped down upon. Appalling - history will not look kindly on those who've done this.
If it's as appalling as many are claiming, why the **** have the decent Labour MPs not left the party?
As I wrote below - because for those who've spent their lives in politics leaving your party, and particularly Labour - whose members and MPs tend to have more of an emotional tie to - is like leaving your family. You'll make every excuse not to, and tell yourself things will get better, or it's not that bad. The other point is that rightly or wrongly, some argue that they have a duty to stay and fight to preserve Labour and the good people in the party from the gang of unpleasant hard left frauds in control of it. The argument is that if all the decent people leave en masse you leave a major political party in the hands of people with very bad motives and ideas and effectively turn it over to the anti-Semites, conspiracists and zealots. There comes a point where that no longer holds up - perhaps it is soon.
I find it hard to have too much sympathy for the moderates. They tolerated the likes of Corbyn to stay as backbench MPs when the moderates were running the show.
As has been said before, the crucial figure is 131 (or thereabouts). Get more than half the PLP to move and they become the official opposition.
Hamas is the joker in the pack here, however. Serious as these problems are, with time and goodwill they could be addressed. The Israelis, who have conceded the principle of compensation in the past without actually conceding the cash, might be persuaded to cough up for some nation building in advance of independence. Jordan has alternative sources of water, and so does Israel itself. An independent co-operation in air traffic might be arranged. However, and this is the punch, Hamas doesn't want any of this. It wants the whole of the old Mandate of Palestine, and no Jews. In fact, therefore, it will not be party to any agreement that nudges Israel and Palestine nearer peace, because that makes such an outcome much less likely. So they continue to fire rockets and attack Israel from Gaza.
And that, of course, means that the Israelis who might negotiate for peace are increasingly marginalised, and the headbangers (Netanyahu and before him, Sharon) are the ones who get popularity. If the Palestinians won't settle for less than wiping us off the map, the Israelis seem to reason, let's use our military strength to get our revenge in first and make a Palestinian state impossible. If Gaza were to become depopulated - and thanks to the Israeli blockade, the Israeli control of the (inadequate) water supply and the Israeli stranglehold on the economy, that is a realistic short-term possibility - the demographic balance sinks heavily away from the Palestinians, and the West Bank will be unviable as a separate state and have to accept full vassalage.
So the two state solution due to the actions of both sides is unfortunately a non-starter.
If I had an alternative solution, I wouldn't be posting on PB, I'd be the UN's leading arbitrator.
You wrote about the depopulation of Gaza by denying them water without the slightest bit of sympathy for the people living there. How cold hearted can you get ?
I'm talking about the fact that the Israeli goal seems to be ethnic cleansing.
And yet you still criticise me?
Yeah Surby that was unfair IMO. He seemed to be writing a quite fair analysis to my eyes.
The Israeli goal is ethnic cleansing? Ah, so I guess that's why 20% of Israeli citizens are Arab?
And those 20% are now officially second class citizens in their own country.
How so?
Because the Nation State law says that (Clause 1C)...
"The exercise of the right to national self-determination in the State of Israel is exclusive to the Jewish people."
So we've had reference to "the coup" from Jezziah. What next - that people like me want to lose? Because i hear this a lot. That our MPs councillors and CLP execs are engaged in a conspiracy to lose their own seats just to spite Corbynites. I've sat in angry meetings where angry new members who shout at people like David Baddiel on twitter but do nothing else accuse members who campaign every single week for Labour MPs and councillors actually want us to lose.
But its ok. If we lose we can just declare victory like we did in the general election last year and the locals this year. Shitebox will even produce a nice "info"graphic proving that we did much much better than Blair ever did. Pointing out the basic mathematical and logical fails in such things being definitive proof that you hate Him.
I get the feeling you are not so much interested in debating me the real person but some crazy unreasonable version of a Corbyn supporter you have in your head.
I disagree with the imaginary Corbyn supporter you keep going on about with the various things he believes or wants almost as much as I disagree with you.
Appreciate the work you do for the Labour party though so keep fighting those demons if it's part of the process.
Did Labour do badly last election and lose for the third election in a row despite losing by less than what the media forecast?
Did Labour do well last election with a storming triumph?
The Palestinians were the ones having land taken, to use your German Poland example should Poland have ceded territory to Germany and would they only have themselves to blame if they didn't and ended up losing even more land?
Well, Hitler's whole casus belli was that he demanded Poland cede the Polish Corridor. He tried to crush Poland, but Germany eventually had to cede territory to Poland.
So you are saying that Poland were right to resist another countries attempt to take land from them even if there was a possibility they could have lost even more land as a result of this resistance?
It is a risky strategy as we have seen with the Palestinians but I think it is the natural human response.
If Hitler had said to Britain in 1940 'Give me the counties along the south coast and you can keep the rest', I don't think we'd have been minded to agree.
The row over Austin outlines the dilemma facing the party’s Corbynsceptic MPs.
Corbynsceptic MPs recognize that if you tell another member of Parliament in your own party, that they are a “fucking bastard” and “wanker” in front of lots of witnesses, then you can reasonably expect to be the subject of disciplinary action.
But they cant politically resist supporting him because of their realisation that Corbyn has them all on ignore.
Same with Hodge completely unacceptable language and she cries victim when called out
Yes. Blame the victims of racism for getting angry about it. It's utterly shameful what Corbynism has done to Labour. Turned a good, caring party into a poisonous sewer where racism and bullying of dissenters is fine, but any calling out of that is clamped down upon. Appalling - history will not look kindly on those who've done this.
You think that if you tell another member of Parliament in your own party, that they are a “fucking bastard” and “wanker” in front of lots of witnesses, then you can reasonably expect to be the subject of disciplinary action?
You think if you scream in your Party leaders face that he is a fucking antisemite and racist in front of witnesses and then repeat the allegation and pretend to be the victim then you can reasonably expect to be the subject of disciplinary action?
Call me old fashioned
Putting aside the fact that the exact wording of the allegations are disputed, coarse language is not exactly unheard of between MPs and rarely ever raises an eyebrow, and the swiftness relatively minor indiscretions by moderates seem to be swiftly dealt with when the party ignores infractions by loyalists. A "wanker" is a mild term for Lavery given the way he's bled sick miners dry and I don't know, but if I was a party leader it was clear some of my MPs and most of the Jewish community thought I was being racist towards them I might look at my own conduct rather than disciplining those who lost their temper about it.
But of course Saint Jez is irreproachable, even when he's caught propagating conspiracy theories about Israel on Iranian TV. Not anti-Semitic at all, no Siree.
Do you call your colleagues fucking bastards, wankers fucking anti semites and racists?
On the Arab side, those representing the Palestinians need to unequivocally accept that Israel will continue - and has a right to - exist as a Jewish homeland and that their dream of having a Palestinian state occupying the land of Israel and with no Jews in it is simply wrong and unacceptable. Neither the PLO nor Hamas have done this.
Whether that still holds good following the breakdown of talks and the rise of Abbas I will admit I don't know.
(This was at the root of my comments that the chief stumbling block, admittedly among many, is Hamas.)
The PLO tend to say different things to different audiences. Their maps of the region show no Israel, they talk about having a Palestinian state going from Jordan to the sea - which would mean no Israel, etc.
But all Palestinian representatives need to be utterly unequivocal over this. No-one can be expected to give up territory or make peace with someone who wants to kill you.
The trouble is the longer Israel continues on its present path - and its recent law is utterly unhelpful and wrong - the more difficult it is to get the other side to do anything. Both sides need heads banging together and better leadership.
That is of course a fair point re the PLO. However, the key difficulty is that their views change with time as well, hence my comment about Abbas (who is also of course a Holocaust denier). Given the Israelis are hardly models of consistency or integrity, they also have every excuse and indeed reason to change their views.
As I said, I cannot think of any solution. Those moderates I worked with in Jerusalem trying to found a non-sectarian state including both areas were lovely, charming, well-meaning and utterly without hope of success. The Arabs in the north were essentially defeatist. The Israelis are determined to cling on to what they have, and their government is hell-bent on adding to it. The only effectual Palestinian leadership are fundamentalist fanatics bent on genocide, only being stopped by the sheer power of the IDF.
I do sometimes fear it will end in full genocide - by one side or the other. It's obviously not what anyone sane would want, but I would not say the leadership of either side is noted for its rationality and balance.
The Palestinians were the ones having land taken, to use your German Poland example should Poland have ceded territory to Germany and would they only have themselves to blame if they didn't and ended up losing even more land?
So we've had reference to "the coup" from Jezziah. What next - that people like me want to lose? Because i hear this a lot. That our MPs councillors and CLP execs are engaged in a conspiracy to lose their own seats just to spite Corbynites. I've sat in angry meetings where angry new members who shout at people like David Baddiel on twitter but do nothing else accuse members who campaign every single week for Labour MPs and councillors actually want us to lose.
But its ok. If we lose we can just declare victory like we did in the general election last year and the locals this year. Shitebox will even produce a nice "info"graphic proving that we did much much better than Blair ever did. Pointing out the basic mathematical and logical fails in such things being definitive proof that you hate Him.
I get the feeling you are not so much interested in debating me the real person but some crazy unreasonable version of a Corbyn supporter you have in your head.
I disagree with the imaginary Corbyn supporter you keep going on about with the various things he believes or wants almost as much as I disagree with you.
Appreciate the work you do for the Labour party though so keep fighting those demons if it's part of the process.
Did Labour do badly last election and lose for the third election in a row despite losing by less than what the media forecast?
Did Labour do well last election with a storming triumph?
No to both on the assumption a storming triumph would result in Labour forming the government as they both contain no parts, no and yes for the first question and yes and no for the second question, which means no to both.
Also I'm not sure what the 3rd election part has to do with it. Gordon lost the first one and Ed the second one, it wouldn't really make much difference if that was the 2nd election loss or 7th election loss in terms of assessing Corbyn's performance in his one election.
The Palestinians were the ones having land taken, to use your German Poland example should Poland have ceded territory to Germany and would they only have themselves to blame if they didn't and ended up losing even more land?
Well, Hitler's whole casus belli was that he demanded Poland cede the Polish Corridor. He tried to crush Poland, but Germany eventually had to cede territory to Poland.
So you are saying that Poland were right to resist another countries attempt to take land from them even if there was a possibility they could have lost even more land as a result of this resistance?
It is a risky strategy as we have seen with the Palestinians but I think it is the natural human response.
If Hitler had said to Britain in 1940 'Give me the counties along the south coast and you can keep the rest', I don't think we'd have been minded to agree.
I dunno. Substitute 'Czechoslovakia' for 'Britain' and that was essentially the Munich agreeement.
The row over Austin outlines the dilemma facing the party’s Corbynsceptic MPs.
Corbynsceptic MPs recognize that if you tell another member of Parliament in your own party, that they are a “fucking bastard” and “wanker” in front of lots of witnesses, then you can reasonably expect to be the subject of disciplinary action.
But they cant politically resist supporting him because of their realisation that Corbyn has them all on ignore.
Same with Hodge completely unacceptable language and she cries victim when called out
Yes. Blame the victims of racism for getting angry about it. It's utterly shameful what Corbynism has done to Labour. Turned a good, caring party into a poisonous sewer where racism and bullying of dissenters is fine, but any calling out of that is clamped down upon. Appalling - history will not look kindly on those who've done this.
You think that if you tell another member of Parliament in your own party, that they are a “fucking bastard” and “wanker” in front of lots of witnesses, then you can reasonably expect to be the subject of disciplinary action?
You think if you scream in your Party leaders face that he is a fucking antisemite and racist in front of witnesses and then repeat the allegation and pretend to be the victim then you can reasonably expect to be the subject of disciplinary action?
Call me old fashioned
Putting aside the fact that the exact wording of the allegations are disputed, coarse language is not exactly unheard of between MPs and rarely ever raises an eyebrow, and the swiftness relatively minor indiscretions by moderates seem to be swiftly dealt with when the party ignores infractions by loyalists. A "wanker" is a mild term for Lavery given the way he's bled sick miners dry and I don't know, but if I was a party leader it was clear some of my MPs and most of the Jewish community thought I was being racist towards them I might look at my own conduct rather than disciplining those who lost their temper about it.
But of course Saint Jez is irreproachable, even when he's caught propagating conspiracy theories about Israel on Iranian TV. Not anti-Semitic at all, no Siree.
Do you call your colleagues fucking bastards, wankers fucking anti semites and racists?
Is that acceptable behaviour in the workplace?
Clearly you've never worked in a girl's grammar school, BJO...
The Palestinians were the ones having land taken, to use your German Poland example should Poland have ceded territory to Germany and would they only have themselves to blame if they didn't and ended up losing even more land?
Well, Hitler's whole casus belli was that he demanded Poland cede the Polish Corridor. He tried to crush Poland, but Germany eventually had to cede territory to Poland.
So you are saying that Poland were right to resist another countries attempt to take land from them even if there was a possibility they could have lost even more land as a result of this resistance?
It is a risky strategy as we have seen with the Palestinians but I think it is the natural human response.
If Hitler had said to Britain in 1940 'Give me the counties along the south coast and you can keep the rest', I don't think we'd have been minded to agree.
I dunno. Substitute 'Czechoslovakia' for 'Britain' and that was essentially the Munich agreeement.
It is a little easier to give away other people's stuff!
So we've had reference to "the coup" from Jezziah. What next - that people like me want to lose? Because i hear this a lot. That our MPs councillors and CLP execs are engaged in a conspiracy to lose their own seats just to spite Corbynites. I've sat in angry meetings where angry new members who shout at people like David Baddiel on twitter but do nothing else accuse members who campaign every single week for Labour MPs and councillors actually want us to lose.
But its ok. If we lose we can just declare victory like we did in the general election last year and the locals this year. Shitebox will even produce a nice "info"graphic proving that we did much much better than Blair ever did. Pointing out the basic mathematical and logical fails in such things being definitive proof that you hate Him.
I get the feeling you are not so much interested in debating me the real person but some crazy unreasonable version of a Corbyn supporter you have in your head.
I disagree with the imaginary Corbyn supporter you keep going on about with the various things he believes or wants almost as much as I disagree with you.
Appreciate the work you do for the Labour party though so keep fighting those demons if it's part of the process.
Did Labour do badly last election and lose for the third election in a row despite losing by less than what the media forecast?
Did Labour do well last election with a storming triumph?
No to both on the assumption a storming triumph would result in Labour forming the government as they both contain no parts, no and yes for the first question and yes and no for the second question, which means no to both.
Also I'm not sure what the 3rd election part has to do with it. Gordon lost the first one and Ed the second one, it wouldn't really make much difference if that was the 2nd election loss or 7th election loss in terms of assessing Corbyn's performance in his one election.
A seventh consecutive electoral defeat would put Labour with Sinclair in 1945.
The row over Austin outlines the dilemma facing the party’s Corbynsceptic MPs.
Corbynsceptic MPs recognize that if you tell another member of Parliament in your own party, that they are a “fucking bastard” and “wanker” in front of lots of witnesses, then you can reasonably expect to be the subject of disciplinary action.
But they cant politically resist supporting him because of their realisation that Corbyn has them all on ignore.
Same with Hodge completely unacceptable language and she cries victim when called out
not left the party?
There comes a point where that no longer holds up - perhaps it is soon.
I find it hard to have too much sympathy for the moderates. They tolerated the likes of Corbyn to stay as backbench MPs when the moderates were running the show.
As has been said before, the crucial figure is 131 (or thereabouts). Get more than half the PLP to move and they become the official opposition.
Yeah. I think a lot of moderates would agree with you and realise their failings. Too soft on people like Corbyn, and too complacent in ceding radical, transformative policies to the far left in favour of pragmatism.
In mitigation, I'd say they were hardly alone in becoming complacent in the victory of liberal democracy and tolerating or even pandering their own side's radical cranks as harmless or even helpful curiosities who kept activist passions burning while the serious people dealt with the big stuff. Both the Republicans and Conservatives have had their own experience of being captured by their own patronised fringe in Trump and the lunatics intent on forcing the government to pursue the most extreme and damaging version of Brexit.
The row over Austin outlines the dilemma facing the party’s Corbynsceptic MPs.
Corbynsceptic MPs recognize that if you tell another member of Parliament in your own party, that they are a “fucking bastard” and “wanker” in front of lots of witnesses, then you can reasonably expect to be the subject of disciplinary action.
But they cant politically resist supporting him because of their realisation that Corbyn has them all on ignore.
Same with Hodge completely unacceptable language and she cries victim when called out
Yes. Blame the victims of racism for getting angry about it. It's utterly shameful what Corbynism has done to Labour. Turned a good, caring party into a poisonous sewer where racism and bullying of dissenters is fine, but any calling out of that is clamped down upon. Appalling - history will not look kindly on those who've done this.
You think that if you tell another member of Parliament in your own party, that they are a “fucking bastard” and “wanker” in front of lots of witnesses, then you can reasonably expect to be the subject of disciplinary action?
You think if you scream in your Party leaders face that he is a fucking antisemite and racist in front of witnesses and then repeat the allegation and pretend to be the victim then you can reasonably expect to be the subject of disciplinary action?
Call me old fashioned
Putting aside the fact that the exact wording of the allegations are disputed, coarse language is not exactly unheard of between MPs and rarely ever raises an eyebrow, and the swiftness relatively minor indiscretions by moderates seem to be swiftly dealt with when the party ignores infractions by loyalists. A "wanker" is a mild term for Lavery given the way he's bled sick miners dry and I don't know, but if I was a party leader it was clear some of my MPs and most of the Jewish community thought I was being racist towards them I might look at my own conduct rather than disciplining those who lost their temper about it.
But of course Saint Jez is irreproachable, even when he's caught propagating conspiracy theories about Israel on Iranian TV. Not anti-Semitic at all, no Siree.
Do you call your colleagues fucking bastards, wankers fucking anti semites and racists?
The unseasonable weather is unduly affecting the perspicacity of some PB'ers today, it seems?
Trying to solve the Middle East is decidedly quixotic behaviour.
The 'racism is everywhere' seems like a reasonable assertion to me. A proportion of the population are racists, and give around 40% of 'em support each party, they're a fact of life. The challenge is ensuring that peoples' prejudices don't get reified into actual, practical discrimination or (and in kinder days this would not need saying) criminal acts.
On the Arab side, those representing the Palestinians need to unequivocally accept that Israel will continue - and has a right to - exist as a Jewish homeland and that their dream of having a Palestinian state occupying the land of Israel and with no Jews in it is simply wrong and unacceptable. Neither the PLO nor Hamas have done this.
Whether that still holds good following the breakdown of talks and the rise of Abbas I will admit I don't know.
(This was at the root of my comments that the chief stumbling block, admittedly among many, is Hamas.)
The PLO tend to say different things to different audiences. Their maps of the region show no Israel, they talk about having a Palestinian state going from Jordan to the sea - which would mean no Israel, etc.
But all Palestinian representatives need to be utterly unequivocal over this. No-one can be expected to give up territory or make peace with someone who wants to kill you.
The trouble is the longer Israel continues on its present path - and its recent law is utterly unhelpful and wrong - the more difficult it is to get the other side to do anything. Both sides need heads banging together and better leadership.
That is of course a fair point re the PLO. However, the key difficulty is that their views change with time as well, hence my comment about Abbas (who is also of course a Holocaust denier). Given the Israelis are hardly models of consistency or integrity, they also have every excuse and indeed reason to change their views.
As I said, I cannot think of any solution. Those moderates I worked with in Jerusalem trying to found a non-sectarian state including both areas were lovely, charming, well-meaning and utterly without hope of success. The Arabs in the north were essentially defeatist. The Israelis are determined to cling on to what they have, and their government is hell-bent on adding to it. The only effectual Palestinian leadership are fundamentalist fanatics bent on genocide, only being stopped by the sheer power of the IDF...
The only possible solution (possible, but not likely) that I can see is some kind of grand bargain involving massive economic aid to the neighbouring Arab countries in order to offer the Palestinians a new home, incorporating some of the West Bank.
Given the entrenched positions on both sides, it’s a very slim chance (and even slimmer under a Trump presidency), but it could possibly be sold on the basis of compensation for lost land were it sufficiently generous.
The unseasonable weather is unduly affecting the perspicacity of some PB'ers today, it seems?
Israel and Palestine, for those days when Brexit just isn’t quite divisive enough!
Actually with maybe two exceptions I think it's been a civilised and intelligent discussion. It has also shown (I hope!) how you can quite legitimately criticise the Israeli government without being anti-Semitic.
The problem for Labour is too many, I have to say including Corbyn, haven't quite grasped that rather simple skill yet. I'm quite prepared to accuse Israel of policies in Gaza that breach international law, but I don't need to make common cause with Holocaust deniers to do so.
The Palestinians were the ones having land taken, to use your German Poland example should Poland have ceded territory to Germany and would they only have themselves to blame if they didn't and ended up losing even more land?
No they weren't.
You are going to have to explain to me your thinking as I have seen a few angles on this...
There is no country called Palestine!
So much like London if you some people came along and set up a country and replaced the people living there there we would have no problems as London isn't a country.
The British controlled the land (or some slightly more articulate take)!
So much like if Britain were for some reason to fall into civil unrest in the future and we end up under the control of the Chinese if they wanted to set up a country for people in the Middle East in England and Wales but gave us Scotland and N. Ireland we'd all be very happy as we were kicked out of house and home as we now have a share of Scotland and N. Ireland....
Btw, is Ian Austin Jewish as described in the headline? His adoptive parents were, but Judaism is passed via the birth mother and not by adoption. He might be, I don't know, but one does not need to be Jewish to be appalled and offended by antisemitism.
I’ve just read the guardian article
The most disturbing thing about it is theLabour Party spokesman’s defence of Corbyn’s comments.
They conflated an out and out terrorist attack with a error made in the heat of battle and which Israel acknowledged to justify Corbyn’s claim that Israel may have launched an unprovoked asssult on innocent Egyptians.
The row over Austin outlines the dilemma facing the party’s Corbynsceptic MPs.
Corbynsceptic MPs recognize that if you tell another member of Parliament in your own party, that they are a “fucking bastard” and “wanker” in front of lots of witnesses, then you can reasonably expect to be the subject of disciplinary action.
But they cant politically resist supporting him because of their realisation that Corbyn has them all on ignore.
Same with Hodge completely unacceptable language and she cries victim when called out
As I recall Alistair Darling (incredible though that seems) and John Prescott both called Brown far worse than that in front of witnesses. C-words were flung about freely.
And it should also be noted that Hodge at least has flatly denied claims she swore at a Corbyn. Bluntly, it's Hodge and I don't trust her far. However, it's also Corbyn and I don't trust him either.
I recall the offence which was taken when Nye Bevan said that 'as far as he was concerned Tories were lower than vermin’.
Probably be considered praise nowadays.
In fairness, most if not all of them probably felt the same way about him.
Worse; he was not only working class but Welsh. Right outside the pale for upper-middle class English.
"A proportion of the population are racists, and give around 40% of 'em support each party, they're a fact of life."
Probably so, although we could argue about the proportions. However, there's a very true saying about throwing stones when you live in the same glasshouse.
Edit: basically, I'm saying that the left bringing up what-aboutery when it's something they're guilty of too isn't that helpful … "You racist bastards, you're just as bad as us. Shame on you."
Comments
https://unispal.un.org/DPA/DPR/unispal.nsf/0/349B02280A930813052565E90048ED1C
The overwhelming majority of Israelis are at best third generation immigrants.
(Edit - and that was in partial compensation for the loss of the Polish lands in the East, not the German invasion.)
Jess Phillips is paid £300 an hour for a deputy editor position that takes 2 hours a month.
In the event of Boris somehow becoming Conservative leader, I wouldn’t be surprised to see HYUFD change his name to ‘TheBoriah.’
You seem to forget that Mahmoud Abbas himself said the Arabs should have accepted the Plan.
There were some that mucked in some that weren't interested at all. I'm sure Corbyn wasn't at first, understandably some time is needed to fit into the job. Even often those who who not complete refuseniks would come out and criticise to the media and the leaks were never ending. I wouldn't claim problems with the party are unique to Corbyn, they gave Ed a hell of a time though obviously not quite as bad. Plenty of fault to go round.
TBH I'm surprised you don't think the media went in hard on him, I thought that would be obvious even to someone who isn't a fan.
My point was that you can't tarnish right-wing Labour with being 'centrist' for backing the war. It was the soft left's leader-loyalty and the machine-politics of New Labour that led to them tagging along behind Blair.
The irony is of course that had the Israelis and Arabs all accepted the partition plan because of the weakness of the Palestinians there would have been no chance of a war - and therefore the two states could have grown peacefully side by side.
Whether the likes of Yigal Allon would have accepted this, however, or whether they would have found a way to stir up trouble as a pretext for further incursions is however uncertain.
" From the BBC"
And with Tour convention dictating the yellow jersey is not challenged on the final stage in Paris, Thomas knows he only has to cross the finish line to become the third Briton to win the race - after Sir Bradley Wiggins in 2012 and Froome's subsequent quartet of wins.
Also it wasn't Napoleon and Catherine, it was the Prussians, Austrians and Russians that partitioned Poland-Lithuania. Napoleon partially resurrected Poland by creating Grand Duchy of Warsaw.
In response to Jezziah and "the coup" I once again ask if any actual MPs have been spoken to, any of their interviews BEFORE as well as after "the coup" have been read. Or whether the proof of the conspiracy is "because I read it on Facebook".
I have spoken personally to a couple of MPs who quit before and after. The idea that they quit because someone told them too and at what time is paranoid delusion. They weren't happy. They were increasingly unhappy. Their treatment by the leader's office (NOT the leader) was increasingly untenable. So when Benn was fired several thought "fuck this" and once the avalanche started the pent up frustration made quitting the easier choice.
I do note though that you are a confirmed member of the Kali Ma - these Labour MPs are your enemy. Hence the need for mandatory reselection. Problem for you is that most members in most CLPs don't turn out to vote. They apparently don't drink your Kool Aid. Its the pitiful whine of a small number of entryists amplified by the internet making a lot of noise, but in the real world in most CLPs these "traitor" MPs are rock solid safe supported by the active membership.
As for griping, I see your point - but why I compared it to Brexit is the Micawberish aspect of human nature. Lots have believed the worst about Corbyn for a long time, but as with Brexit, it's in our nature to say "well it might be ok" even if we know (or believe we know) in our heart of hearts it's only ending one way. It's only when you reach an inflection point that all of a sudden the dam breaks and people say "no, sorry I can't do this to myself any more" and make their stand. And we underestimate the upheaval to people's lives doing so would mean - it means breaking with lifelong friends, disavowing something that's a part of your identity and putting your entire career (not just as an MP but within the party) on the line. They've also felt a duty to stay relatively loyal as a split would potentially deliver Britain into the hands of a Tory Party in the midst of its own bout of insanity. It builds up and builds up until reality intrudes.
I think although we're not quite there yet, we're getting there with Corbyn - several MPs are now prepared to take an unequivocal stand and martyr themselves to make it clear to others that Corbyn and his acolytes won't let them keep their heads down with any dignity - it's bend the knee or fight.
Ethnic cleansing and illegal occupation of land, as well as annexation of vital water supplies are commonplaces on the West Bank.
Other ominous signs recently that Government has learned little from the last crisis. Apparently household debt levels are now the highest on record - although, mind you, that's also no wonder when the BoE insists on making emergency low interest rates a permanent feature of the economic landscape.
What is required, above everything, to help to stabilise the economy and improve people's standard of living is an enormous, state co-ordinated house building program. What we actually have are private companies that take advantage of lax building regulations to construct horrible, tiny shoebox homes and then flog them for ludicrous sums of money. Keeping the supply choked off helps to maximise prices and therefore profits, of course, although I dare say that excessively tight green belt regulations and nimbyism play their part as well.
What is needed is for one political party or another to come along and propose a new version of the post-War new towns, to deal with the immediate problem afflicting London and the South East - although this time I would simply propose extending the boundaries of Greater London to the M25 and carpeting every suitable square inch of land within the newly-enclosed area with properly planned high-density housing, with the necessary transport and other infrastructure developed in parallel so that we don't end up with dormitory neighbourhoods bereft of community facilities. If this is done at the same time as offering incentives such as tax reliefs to more deprived areas further North, so as to encourage economic activity up there and try to redistribute the demand for housing a bit more evenly, then we might finally get to the point where house prices become more affordable and less of people's wealth and income is locked up in property. This ought, for different reasons, to be an absolute priority for those on both sides of the political divide.
Of course, what we actually have is a disastrous situation in which the governing party is not only consumed by the complexities of Brexit but also seems to have little or no idea of what it wants to do afterwards, and an opposition whose main preoccupations seem to be shouting at everybody on Twitter and scratching each others' eyes out in internecine battles over religious minorities.
That left agenda??
Now it should be said that demographics don't support his views. At 21% the Arabs form a slightly higher proportion of the Israeli population than they did 25 years ago, and that even though fertility rates have gone down that ratio isn't expected to decline. But it was instructive that that was how people felt in Israel's only Arab-majority city.
I would point out as well my comment on 'ethnic cleansing' specifically referred to Gaza. One logical outcome of Israel's current policy is to make it uninhabitable. That would explain the tight blockade of food, medicine and building materials, and he control of drinking water and power generation. It would also make sense for Israel from a strategic point of view. With Gaza's population no longer present Palestine would cease to be a viable state, and the West Bank would more or less have to accept the sort of status under Israel that Northern Ireland had in the UK in the 1920s.
I used the word 'seems.' It is possible they are not intending anything so brutal. They might, for example, be trying to provoke a revolution that would cause the destruction of Hamas - although if so their policy has been about as counter-productive as is humanly possible. Or they might be secretly negotiating with Egypt to resume it, so the Egyptian army would be the ones shooting Hamas militants rather than the IDF. Or of course, a possibility not to be discounted, they are simply grossly incompetent and have no actual end goal in mind.
But I think their actions are to put it mildly suggestive. At the same time, even allowing for that, what is happening in Gaza falls very far short of the death camps, the concentration camps or even the ghettos, and I will continue to criticise those who claim otherwise. Apart from anything else, it disguises the real sufferings of both the Palestinians in Gaza and the Jews under the Nazis by bringing in extraneous points to distract attention.
A number of new towns are needed in the South, along with a big free zone or two in the North with concessions on employer NI, business rates and corporation tax.
That's not what he intended but it's what his policies would have led to.
Corbynsceptic MPs recognize that if you tell another member of Parliament in your own party, that they are a “fucking bastard” and “wanker” in front of lots of witnesses, then you can reasonably expect to be the subject of disciplinary action.
But they cant politically resist supporting him because of their realisation that Corbyn has them all on ignore.
Same with Hodge completely unacceptable language and she cries victim when called out
The idea is simple. Take a run-down area and offer tax incentives for companies to move there while relaxing planning laws so new buildings can be built quickly. Public funds for clearing derelict land and improving transport are also part of the mix.
One of the reasons why populist left and right parties are gaining traction is because the centre left and centre right’s solutions to problems seems to voters to be more of the same.’ When people are dissatisfied by the status quo, they often turn to things which aren’t the status quo. Any new centre left bid would therefore, IMHO not simply introduce a ‘status quo’ platform.
Re a Social Care Service - are you referring to the idea Burnham had back in 2015? If so, I think that would be a good idea, and would help a centre left platform not be seen as status quo 2.0.
I also think if all these ideas are reliant on stopping Brexit, then that is a dead end. While a soft Brexit position is viable for a centre left party, Stop Brexit is not. There are few people who want to not commit to the referendum result.
I also don’t see the comparison with Brexit re Labour MPs and Corbyn. Despite all of what we’ve heard about Brexit, few people have changed their positions since 2016. The people who want to Stop Brexit, have mostly always wanted to. The people who want a Hard Brexit have mostly always wanted that. The people who want a Soft Brexit mostly always wanted that as well. I haven’t seen tons of people who were prepared to go along with Brexit, and now all of sudden aren’t and want to end the whole thing. Labour MPs have always wanted to get rid of Corbyn somehow, it’s just their strategies haven’t worked out. Walking away from the shadow cabinet, a leadership challenge, attempting to make Corbyn have to get 35 MPs to nominate him again, hoping that he’ll get destroyed in a general election - it’s all not worked. It remains to be seen - if it happens - whether a breakaway force would be anymore successful in this regard.
And it should also be noted that Hodge at least has flatly denied claims she swore at a Corbyn. Bluntly, it's Hodge and I don't trust her far. However, it's also Corbyn and I don't trust him either.
(OK, bit geekish.)
Seriously, that Labour manifesto - rail nationalisation (i.e. fare capping for season ticket holders,) elderly care funded through tax regardless of ability to pay, the abolition of student fees - amounted to the biggest middle-class bribe in British electoral history. If so many people weren't already wise to the fact that, as Mrs T said, socialists always end up running out of other people's money, Labour would've won easily.
If the Opposition had really been bothered about targeting help at those most in need then it would've prioritised stitching threadbare bus services back together rather than throwing bundles of cash at commuters (disproportionately wealthy and concentrated in the South East of England,) backed using some of the property riches of the well-off to pay for their expensive care (either through something like the dementia tax or higher IHT,) and offering the restoration of grants to poor students, rather than abolishing fees for everyone (which has already been shown in Scotland to favour middle-class access over that for the least well-off.)
But they weren't really that arsed about the poor, were they?
When you start giving a voice and credibility to people who would previously have skulked in the darkest recesses of the BNP or Neo-Nazi parties you lose all credibility, both moral and political, and cannot seriously be considered as any sort of honest broker in what is a very difficult issue. It is not Corbyn's support for Palestinians which is the problem. It is how he has gone about it and the fact that he has indulged, given cover to, praised and spoken up for the sorts of people whose natural home is with neo-Nazis or the BNP or similar that is the problem. And those of his supporters who do not see the distinction are doing the Labour Party no favours whatsoever. Today the World at One on Radio 4 devoted pretty much most of its problem to Labour's anti-semitism problem. Is that really how Labour want to be presented to the public?
You think if you scream in your Party leaders face that he is a fucking antisemite and racist in front of witnesses and then repeat the allegation and pretend to be the victim then you can reasonably expect to be the subject of disciplinary action?
Call me old fashioned
https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/israel-palestinian-letters-of-mutual-recognition-september-1993
Whether that still holds good following the breakdown of talks and the rise of Abbas I will admit I don't know.
(This was at the root of my comments that the chief stumbling block, admittedly among many, is Hamas.)
Anti-semitism is a thing across all politics, there does seem to be some kind of strange centrist thought process these days that claims all racism must exist in the crazy people to the right and left of them whilst the centre is racism free. Racism is everywhere.
https://evolvepolitics.com/yougov-polls-show-anti-semitism-in-labour-has-actually-reduced-dramatically-since-jeremy-corbyn-became-leader/
_____________________________________________
In 2015, 16% of Labour voters agreed with the statement that ‘Jews hold too much power in the media’, compared to 11% in 2017.
This compares with 17% of Conservative voters agreeing with the statement in 2015, with a 2% reduction to 15% in 2017.
In 2015, 11% of Labour voters agreed with the statement that ‘Jews talk about the Holocaust too much in order to get sympathy’, declining to 8% in 2017.
This decline from Labour voters is in stark contrast to Tory voters who actually saw a rise in their supporters agreeing in this statement – with 12% agreeing with it in 2015 compared to 13% in 2017.
_______________________________________________
Here are the links to the data sets from yougov so you can look for yourself
This is 2015
https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/921pn4p2fh/CampaignAgainstAntisemitismResults_MergedFile_W.pdf
This is 2017
https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/bs0i5dmt7s/CampaignAgainstAntisemitismResults_170803_JewishOpinions.pdf
https://antisemitism.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/Antisemitism-Barometer-2017.pdf
Endorsed at least one anti Semitic statement
Conservative 40%
Labour 32%
Lib Dem 30%
UKIP 39%
Racism (or more specifically anti-semitism which I see as the same thing) is everywhere.
Probably be considered praise nowadays.
Normally when I'm culling I cull it to one only, because then it's easy - just delete everything except the first username and everything between the two last block quotes.
And I'm unsure that Labour supporters who call Tony Blair a 'war criminal' should necessarily be the ones to talk about moderating the language within the party ...
It is a risky strategy as we have seen with the Palestinians but I think it is the natural human response.
But all Palestinian representatives need to be utterly unequivocal over this. No-one can be expected to give up territory or make peace with someone who wants to kill you.
The trouble is the longer Israel continues on its present path - and its recent law is utterly unhelpful and wrong - the more difficult it is to get the other side to do anything. Both sides need heads banging together and better leadership.
But of course Saint Jez is irreproachable, even when he's caught propagating conspiracy theories about Israel on Iranian TV. Not anti-Semitic at all, no Siree.
I disagree with the imaginary Corbyn supporter you keep going on about with the various things he believes or wants almost as much as I disagree with you.
Appreciate the work you do for the Labour party though so keep fighting those demons if it's part of the process.
As has been said before, the crucial figure is 131 (or thereabouts). Get more than half the PLP to move and they become the official opposition.
"The exercise of the right to national self-determination in the State of Israel is exclusive to the Jewish people."
https://avidichter.co.il/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/leom_law_en_press_18.7.18.pdf
Did Labour do well last election with a storming triumph?
Is that acceptable behaviour in the workplace?
As I said, I cannot think of any solution. Those moderates I worked with in Jerusalem trying to found a non-sectarian state including both areas were lovely, charming, well-meaning and utterly without hope of success. The Arabs in the north were essentially defeatist. The Israelis are determined to cling on to what they have, and their government is hell-bent on adding to it. The only effectual Palestinian leadership are fundamentalist fanatics bent on genocide, only being stopped by the sheer power of the IDF.
I do sometimes fear it will end in full genocide - by one side or the other. It's obviously not what anyone sane would want, but I would not say the leadership of either side is noted for its rationality and balance.
Also I'm not sure what the 3rd election part has to do with it. Gordon lost the first one and Ed the second one, it wouldn't really make much difference if that was the 2nd election loss or 7th election loss in terms of assessing Corbyn's performance in his one election.
Racism (or more specifically anti-semitism which I see as the same thing) is everywhere."
But that can't be right. The Jezzarites call the Tories 'racists'. Surely, they're not guilty of rank hypocrisy as well as racism?
https://twitter.com/antisemitism/status/1023346337079873536
If they get to that stage we're all in trouble.
(I'm amused that Vercrashen has finally failed to finish for a reason that didn't involve behaving like a Dodgems driver.)
One didn't surprise me as it's his tribe no matter what they do.
But others ....... really, really should have known better.
The 'racism is everywhere' seems like a reasonable assertion to me. A proportion of the population are racists, and give around 40% of 'em support each party, they're a fact of life. The challenge is ensuring that peoples' prejudices don't get reified into actual, practical discrimination or (and in kinder days this would not need saying) criminal acts.
Given the entrenched positions on both sides, it’s a very slim chance (and even slimmer under a Trump presidency), but it could possibly be sold on the basis of compensation for lost land were it sufficiently generous.
The problem for Labour is too many, I have to say including Corbyn, haven't quite grasped that rather simple skill yet. I'm quite prepared to accuse Israel of policies in Gaza that breach international law, but I don't need to make common cause with Holocaust deniers to do so.
There is no country called Palestine!
So much like London if you some people came along and set up a country and replaced the people living there there we would have no problems as London isn't a country.
The British controlled the land (or some slightly more articulate take)!
So much like if Britain were for some reason to fall into civil unrest in the future and we end up under the control of the Chinese if they wanted to set up a country for people in the Middle East in England and Wales but gave us Scotland and N. Ireland we'd all be very happy as we were kicked out of house and home as we now have a share of Scotland and N. Ireland....
Or another take....?
Sick to the core
"A proportion of the population are racists, and give around 40% of 'em support each party, they're a fact of life."
Probably so, although we could argue about the proportions. However, there's a very true saying about throwing stones when you live in the same glasshouse.
Edit: basically, I'm saying that the left bringing up what-aboutery when it's something they're guilty of too isn't that helpful … "You racist bastards, you're just as bad as us. Shame on you."