politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Javid now back as favourite to succeed TMay

And the first shall the last ....

Whatever happened to Javid's attempt to negotiate a trade deal with India? He's long on headlines and short on delivery.

https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/07/government-grabbing-brexit-bull-horns/

Our new Foreign Secretary is following our old Foreign Secretary's lead by getting his wife's nationality wrong, but if Jeremy Hunt can in the next few weeks leap over the the low bar set by Boris, he'd be the other main contender.

It still looks like Hunt vs Javid with Hammond as a dark horse as real Brexit converges with what the Chancellor said (or, less kindly, read from a Treasury brief) at the beginning. JRM is a joke; no-one likes Gove and more importantly, no-one trusts him. Boris is ruled out by his past (see previous notes on parallels with Corbyn).

No runner better than 12% - remarkable, but good news for punters...

Ishmael_Z said:

Sandpit said:

rottenborough said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

rottenborough said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

rottenborough said:

https://twitter.com/TheRedRoar/status/1023955534997794817

Sqwawkbox is only marginally behind Novara media in their attempt at becoming the Corbynista equivalent of InfoWars....

Their existence feeds into the myth that journalism is corrupted and the media lie all the time.

Dangerous times.

In all seriousness it really is shocking, I have no idea what Sky News are doing having one of their people on as a regular contributor. It is totally different to having say somebody from the New Statesman.

I pointed out numerous times on here about in particular Sqwawkbox in the past.

We need a Royal Commission or some such on the role of new media in our democracy, before it eats our democracy.

Not sure what channel it will be on in the U.K., but John Oliver’s HBO show did a very cutting spoof of Facebook’s ‘apology’ advert yesterday.

As we also saw with the C4 News manager’s tweet about medicines, the fake news is getting pervasive and it’s becoming a serious problem that threatens to undermine democracy (and even the rule of law) if not tackled. India currently has a problem with lynch mobs responding to social media posts by killing people.

Did we not have lies, rumours and misinformation before Tim Berners-Lee? It's particularly ironic that "fake news" is itself an internet meme deployed by its main proponent to discredit inconvenient but true news about him put out by the likes of CNN. I sort of see what you mean, but "tackling it" means censorship - or it means nothing. And you are apparently proposing new powers to regulate the ouput of proper news sources like Channel 4, so not limiting it to foreign bots or anything. Dangerous stuff.

The one thing worse than having 'fake news' flying about everywhere would be some theoretically independent regulator trying to fact check everything and impose censorship (even if, in this day and age, that were possible without having a Chinese-style national security state with very intrusive surveillance and strong controls over the flow of data.) The prejudices of said regulator would inevitably corrupt the whole process. We would probably end up with people only being able to access information and opinions that a panel of upper-middle class, North London left-liberal types were willing to tolerate.

A little social news, and a small beg. My wife "Braved the Shave" last weekend, in support of Macmillan. I'm told that her hair will go to make a wig for children, presumably for those undergoing or having undergone chemotherapy.

You can donate here

https://bravetheshave.macmillan.org.uk/shavers/jenny-herdson

The Hunt brain-melt over wife's name, has become a bit of an Internet meme. People swapping equal or worse mess-ups. This one is good

https://twitter.com/court_govern/status/1024003490014740482

rcs1000 said:

Stark_Dawning said:

williamglenn said:

Whatever happened to Javid's attempt to negotiate a trade deal with India? He's long on headlines and short on delivery.

https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/07/government-grabbing-brexit-bull-horns/

Wasn’t a trade deal with India always fanciful - protectionist, logistical problems and they don’t go for our brands anyway?

FTAs, ex-EU (by order of ease):

EFTA
South Korea
The "White" Commonwealth
(small gap)
China

(big gap)

The US
India

In terms of favourability China would be down with the US IMO. What's the point of a trade deal which requires third countries to hand over IP to local subsidiaries that are Chinese majority owned? Trump is right to tackle them on this and hopefully takes us along for the ride.

Ishmael_Z said:

Sandpit said:

rottenborough said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

rottenborough said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

rottenborough said:

https://twitter.com/TheRedRoar/status/1023955534997794817

Sqwawkbox is only marginally behind Novara media in their attempt at becoming the Corbynista equivalent of InfoWars....

Their existence feeds into the myth that journalism is corrupted and the media lie all the time.

Dangerous times.

In all seriousness it really is shocking, I have no idea what Sky News are doing having one of their people on as a regular contributor. It is totally different to having say somebody from the New Statesman.

I pointed out numerous times on here about in particular Sqwawkbox in the past.

We need a Royal Commission or some such on the role of new media in our democracy, before it eats our democracy.

Not sure what channel it will be on in the U.K., but John Oliver’s HBO show did a very cutting spoof of Facebook’s ‘apology’ advert yesterday.

As we also saw with the C4 News manager’s tweet about medicines, the fake news is getting pervasive and it’s becoming a serious problem that threatens to undermine democracy (and even the rule of law) if not tackled. India currently has a problem with lynch mobs responding to social media posts by killing people.

Did we not have lies, rumours and misinformation before Tim Berners-Lee? It's particularly ironic that "fake news" is itself an internet meme deployed by its main proponent to discredit inconvenient but true news about him put out by the likes of CNN. I sort of see what you mean, but "tackling it" means censorship - or it means nothing. And you are apparently proposing new powers to regulate the ouput of proper news sources like Channel 4, so not limiting it to foreign bots or anything. Dangerous stuff.

I think the priority needs to be education rather than censorship, but it certainly requires people to exercise restraint and understand how what they post online is public and permanent. This applies especially to those who work for established media organisations or who have a high profile.

If the current escalation of people talking about Brexit being the apocalypse continue to the point where it’s inciting public disorder, then the line of free speech has been crossed. Comments about availability of medicines are already bloody close to that line, especially when they seek to form part of a wider narrative.

The recent problems in India of social-media-related murders are very real, and originators of fake and inciteful comments are being prosecuted.

david_herdson said:

A little social news, and a small beg. My wife "Braved the Shave" last weekend, in support of Macmillan. I'm told that her hair will go to make a wig for children, presumably for those undergoing or having undergone chemotherapy.

You can donate here

https://bravetheshave.macmillan.org.uk/shavers/jenny-herdson

Well done Jenny!

I said a week or so back that Javid had to be the favourite: he’s on manoeuvres to position himself as a moderate Cameroon style leader but one who backs Brexit.

I can see Javid PM, Gove Chancellor, Hunt staying at the foreign office. Not sure about the replacement at the Home Office but that looks to me a likely top team.

AndyJS said:

numbertwelve said:

I said a week or so back that Javid had to be the favourite: he’s on manoeuvres to position himself as a moderate Cameroon style leader but one who backs Brexit.

I can see Javid PM, Gove Chancellor, Hunt staying at the foreign office. Not sure about the replacement at the Home Office but that looks to me a likely top team.

Javid isn't a brilliant politician but he could reach the top if everyone else knocks themselves out and he's the only one left outside the fray so-to-speak.

A bit like May did. Or Major for that matter.

david_herdson said:

A little social news, and a small beg. My wife "Braved the Shave" last weekend, in support of Macmillan. I'm told that her hair will go to make a wig for children, presumably for those undergoing or having undergone chemotherapy.

You can donate here

https://bravetheshave.macmillan.org.uk/shavers/jenny-herdson

Very brave thing for her to do. Well worth a donation!

MarqueeMark said:

david_herdson said:

A little social news, and a small beg. My wife "Braved the Shave" last weekend, in support of Macmillan. I'm told that her hair will go to make a wig for children, presumably for those undergoing or having undergone chemotherapy.

You can donate here

https://bravetheshave.macmillan.org.uk/shavers/jenny-herdson

Very brave thing for her to do. Well worth a donation!

Great charity, but were not McMillan feeding questions to the Labour leader of the day in the HOC , or was it another charity??..

rottenborough said:

numbertwelve said:

I said a week or so back that Javid had to be the favourite: he’s on manoeuvres to position himself as a moderate Cameroon style leader but one who backs Brexit.

I can see Javid PM, Gove Chancellor, Hunt staying at the foreign office. Not sure about the replacement at the Home Office but that looks to me a likely top team.

I dunno. Who would Javid face in the final two run-off? If it is Boris or the Mogg, then can we be sure the tory membership won't go for the purity?

No. It's hard to imagine the old, white, male, Brexit-obsessed Tory activists electing anyone who has ever equivocated on the subject.

TheJezziah said:

rottenborough said:

TheJezziah said:

rottenborough said:

It just gets better and better in the Labour party. NEC candidate:

https://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/bombshell-recording-proves-corbyn-ally-blamed-jewish-trump-fantatics-for-false-antisemitism-clai-1.467802

We are having a discussion over on the other thread about it.

I'm not sure it is anti-Semitic to say that some Jewish people are Trump fanatics.

It is certainly true of white people.

How many UK jews are "Trump fanatics"?

Bonkers on stilts.

I tend not to use the words fanatics, cultists or fanboy as they are usually just an insulting way of saying supporters, it is kinda rude but many people do it. For example how many Corbyn supporters are "cultists"

To suggest its anti-Semitic is indeed bonkers on stilts.

If you single out 'jews' as 'trump fanatics' then you're an anti-Semite and seek to defend those which are. No if's and buts

FPT @TheJezziah

I listened to the tape. I'm not confused one little bit - you appear to be - or I hope you are for your sake.

He literally says (and I transcribe): "Some of these people in the Jewish community support Trump, they're Trump fanatics. So I'm not going to be lectured to by Trump fanatics making up false information without any evidence at all. So I think we should ask the 70 rabbis where is your evidence?"

Now, if you want to tie yourself in knots, there probably are Jews that support Trump. Although as I said, they're rare given Jews' understandable aversion to anyone with a whiff of the fascist about them. If you look hard enough you can find a few members of any community who support anything. Using that as a general smear to cast aspersions on rabbis from across the Jewish community and those who've made complaints as "making up false information" due to some hidden Trumpian agenda (especially when many are on record as despising the great orange halfwit) is clearly anti-Semitic, as I point out, for the same reason accusing a group of Muslims reasonably setting out their complaints racism they've faced of acting in bad faith because some Muslims happen to support very bad people.

It's so obviously racist I can't believe you're trying to argue otherwise. Corbyn really has blackenned hearts and maddened heads. It's just so poisonous.

Just a thought but if it weren't for Brexit, this thread would be about who would take over from David Cameron as he prepares to step down after eight years as prime minister, to let his successor bed in before the 2020 general election.

TheJezziah said:

Slackbladder said:

TheJezziah said:

rottenborough said:

TheJezziah said:

rottenborough said:

We are having a discussion over on the other thread about it.

I'm not sure it is anti-Semitic to say that some Jewish people are Trump fanatics.

It is certainly true of white people.

How many UK jews are "Trump fanatics"?

Bonkers on stilts.

I tend not to use the words fanatics, cultists or fanboy as they are usually just an insulting way of saying supporters, it is kinda rude but many people do it. For example how many Corbyn supporters are "cultists"

To suggest its anti-Semitic is indeed bonkers on stilts.

If you single out 'jews' as 'trump fanatics' then you're an anti-Semite and seek to defend those which are. No if's and buts

I completely agree.

That isn't what he did.

I can only assume you're sadly defending anti-semites for some reason too.

MaxPB said:

AlastairMeeks said:

SeanT said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Beverley_C said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

OblitusSumMe said:

One of the reasons the web encourages trolls is that people choose to pointlessly engage with the most shocking statements made rather than people who might be interested in a more fruitful debate.

Don't Feed The Trolls.

Before Brexit, it was very common on PB to have some really interesting discussions.

There is no one left to chat to about shoes since Plato got banned. Even cooking feels like a no-no

It is Brexit, Brexit, Brexit....

As it happens, shoes are a very controversial subject chez Meeks. When we were in the process of shifting some of our clothes from London to our new house, my secret shoe stash was discovered. There were scenes.

You've entirely moved out of London?!

No. Actually tonight I’m in the London flat. But selling it is high on the agenda now.

FPT - probably a good time to get out of the London market. Anecdotally the discount rate is increasing. Asking prices are stubbornly high but buyers are becoming more brazen with asking for discounts. It's definitely a buyer's market in London.

I’m spending more and more time in Town again. Time to work out if I can buy a 1 bedroom pied a tere yet....

FT following PB?

see bottom left

https://twitter.com/FinancialTimes/status/1024023335196418051?s=19

TheJezziah said:

MJW said:

FPT @TheJezziah

I listened to the tape. I'm not confused one little bit - you appear to be - or I hope you are for your sake.

He literally says (and I transcribe): "Some of these people in the Jewish community support Trump, they're Trump fanatics. So I'm not going to be lectured to by Trump fanatics making up false information without any evidence at all. So I think we should ask the 70 rabbis where is your evidence?"

Now, if you want to tie yourself in knots, there probably are Jews that support Trump. Although as I said, they're rare given Jews' understandable aversion to anyone with a whiff of the fascist about them. If you look hard enough you can find a few members of any community who support anything. Using that as a general smear to cast aspersions on rabbis from across the Jewish community and those who've made complaints as "making up false information" due to some hidden Trumpian agenda (especially when many are on record as despising the great orange halfwit) is clearly anti-Semitic, as I point out, for the same reason accusing a group of Muslims reasonably setting out their complaints racism they've faced of acting in bad faith because some Muslims happen to support very bad people.

It's so obviously racist I can't believe you're trying to argue otherwise. Corbyn really has blackenned hearts and maddened heads. It's just so poisonous.

I don't see how I am tying myself in knots by suggesting there are Jewish people that support Trump because obviously there are.

Jonathan Arkush congratulated Trump on becoming president, there are actually some Jewish people that support Trump. Claiming that a true statement that some Jewish people support Trump is actually a racist statement is pretty stupid.

Shouting racist at true statements just demeans the word racist.

That's not the only thing he said though, is it? His argument was that some Jews are Trump fanatics "and all the rest of it", therefore the people making accusations of antisemitism in Labour are Trump fanatics who make things up without evidence and from whom he is not going to take any lectures...

Foxy said:

FT following PB?

see bottom left

https://twitter.com/FinancialTimes/status/1024023335196418051?s=19

You're either in front of PB, or behind!

OchEye said:

MJW said:

FPT @TheJezziah

I listened to the tape. I'm not confused one little bit - you appear to be - or I hope you are for your sake.

He literally says (and I transcribe): "Some of these people in the Jewish community support Trump, they're Trump fanatics. So I'm not going to be lectured to by Trump fanatics making up false information without any evidence at all. So I think we should ask the 70 rabbis where is your evidence?"

Now, if you want to tie yourself in knots, there probably are Jews that support Trump. Although as I said, they're rare given Jews' understandable aversion to anyone with a whiff of the fascist about them. If you look hard enough you can find a few members of any community who support anything. Using that as a general smear to cast aspersions on rabbis from across the Jewish community and those who've made complaints as "making up false information" due to some hidden Trumpian agenda (especially when many are on record as despising the great orange halfwit) is clearly anti-Semitic, as I point out, for the same reason accusing a group of Muslims reasonably setting out their complaints racism they've faced of acting in bad faith because some Muslims happen to support very bad people.

It's so obviously racist I can't believe you're trying to argue otherwise. Corbyn really has blackenned hearts and maddened heads. It's just so poisonous.

I really have no comment to make on this article, published by Haaretz, I believe a weekly magazine but updated daily on their website. Checked on Wikipedia and discovered it was started in 1918 by the British. It has a leftwing stance, and does seem to like getting it up Bibi.

https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/netanyahu-absolves-hitler-of-guilt-1.5411578

But with the Druze getting very annoyed with Bibi, along with a lot of others from all sides for the "One Nation Jewish State" policy, which can only be thought of as a version of Apartheid, expect fun.

Yes, I mentioned Netanyahu's controversial take on history the other day, and you could see a parallel with Ken's take on zionism before Hitler went a bit mad. This is an old story though.

TheJezziah said:

williamglenn said:

TheJezziah said:

MJW said:

I don't see how I am tying myself in knots by suggesting there are Jewish people that support Trump because obviously there are.

Jonathan Arkush congratulated Trump on becoming president, there are actually some Jewish people that support Trump. Claiming that a true statement that some Jewish people support Trump is actually a racist statement is pretty stupid.

Shouting racist at true statements just demeans the word racist.

That's not the only thing he said though, is it? His argument was that some Jews are Trump fanatics "and all the rest of it", therefore the people making accusations of antisemitism in Labour are Trump fanatics who make things up without evidence and from whom he is not going to take any lectures...

You can't call someone anti-Semitic for saying some Jewish people are Trump supporters.

Because it is plainly true!

He's inferring that the Jews who talk about antisemitism in the Labour party are also Trump supporters, which is plainly a strange leap.

ralphmalph said:

Acorn_Antiques said:

rcs1000 said:

Stark_Dawning said:

williamglenn said:

Whatever happened to Javid's attempt to negotiate a trade deal with India? He's long on headlines and short on delivery.

https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/07/government-grabbing-brexit-bull-horns/

Wasn’t a trade deal with India always fanciful - protectionist, logistical problems and they don’t go for our brands anyway?

FTAs, ex-EU (by order of ease):

EFTA
South Korea
The "White" Commonwealth
(small gap)
China

(big gap)

The US
India

Might it not just be easier to do away with these negotiations and declare a policy of unilateral free trade?

Tariffs could be held in reserve purely to deal with dumping and other unfair practices. The potential savings for consumers from cheap goods (and for many producers from being able to source cut-price raw materials) would probably more than pay for the costs of subsidising or nationalising any domestic producers for which the extra competition might cause difficulties, but which we felt it essential to retain for national security or other reasons (e.g. the remaining steel plants.)

After all, the bulk of the UK economy is domestic, and much of what we do export is in the form of high-end manufactured products, and services. Reducing the cost of imports might well even help to reduce the balance of trade deficit?

I have often thought about this. When I look at the subsidies the govt has to dole out. We support the farmers, the chemical industry, the auto, the aerospace. Is there any sector that does not need taxpayer cash. What is so great economically about being in the EU when it seems to just require taxpayer cash to keep it here?

Unfortunately, businesses are highly mobile (in the medium term), and if incentives are offered elsewhere we have to match them; or use tarifs to deter imports, but we know where that gets us.

TheJezziah said:

Slackbladder said:

TheJezziah said:

Slackbladder said:

TheJezziah said:

rottenborough said:

TheJezziah said:

rottenborough said:

We are having a discussion over on the other thread about it.

I'm not sure it is anti-Semitic to say that some Jewish people are Trump fanatics.

It is certainly true of white people.

How many UK jews are "Trump fanatics"?

Bonkers on stilts.

I tend not to use the words fanatics, cultists or fanboy as they are usually just an insulting way of saying supporters, it is kinda rude but many people do it. For example how many Corbyn supporters are "cultists"

To suggest its anti-Semitic is indeed bonkers on stilts.

If you single out 'jews' as 'trump fanatics' then you're an anti-Semite and seek to defend those which are. No if's and buts

I completely agree.

That isn't what he did.

I can only assume you're sadly defending anti-semites for some reason too.

Not according to the definition you gave.

Some Jewish people are Trump supporters is not an anti-Semitic statement, no matter how biased or partisan you are that is pretty simple to figure out.

But he then went on to say, because of that, these rabbis were all Trump supporters.

To break it down to a syllogism:

Some Trump supporters may be Jews (note - he doesn't give any examples).
These rabbis are Jews.
Therefore, these rabbis are Trump supporters.

That seems racist to me. It is, for example, similar to things David Irving said after his famous libel defeat (again: The Jews hate me. The media hate me. Therefore the media is controlled by Jews).

Moreover, the initial assumption is that Jews will automatically support Trump, which is also (a) stereotyping (b) totally incorrect - Jews supported Clinton by a three to one margin (71-24). I can only conclude that's based on an equation of Jews = big business = Donald Trump, which in itself is a racially motivated sentiment.

In any case the signatories to the letter were not Americans, represented a wide array of political, religious and indeed diplomatic views and would normally disagree on what the weather was like. Them coming together is extraordinary, but so is Labour's current nervous breakdown. We don't need conspiracy theories to explain one in light of the other.

This as far as I can judge is a perfectly fair cop.

Peter Willsman is on the Momentum slate for NEC.

As this account constantly reminds people:

https://twitter.com/PeoplesMomentum/status/1023974570376810498

Labour 2018.

rottenborough said:

TheJezziah said:

Slackbladder said:

TheJezziah said:

Slackbladder said:

TheJezziah said:

rottenborough said:

TheJezziah said:

rottenborough said:

We are having a discussion over on the other thread about it.

I'm not sure it is anti-Semitic to say that some Jewish people are Trump fanatics.

It is certainly true of white people.

How many UK jews are "Trump fanatics"?

Bonkers on stilts.

I tend not to use the words fanatics, cultists or fanboy as they are usually just an insulting way of saying supporters, it is kinda rude but many people do it. For example how many Corbyn supporters are "cultists"

To suggest its anti-Semitic is indeed bonkers on stilts.

If you single out 'jews' as 'trump fanatics' then you're an anti-Semite and seek to defend those which are. No if's and buts

I completely agree.

That isn't what he did.

I can only assume you're sadly defending anti-semites for some reason too.

Not according to the definition you gave.

Some Jewish people are Trump supporters is not an anti-Semitic statement, no matter how biased or partisan you are that is pretty simple to figure out.

This has now escalated:

https://twitter.com/tom_watson/status/1024007441854423040

Oh the delicious irony of Tom Watson accusing anyone else of being a loud mouthed bully!

TheJezziah said:

MJW said:

FPT @TheJezziah

ICorbyn really has blackenned hearts and maddened heads. It's just so poisonous.

I don't see how I am tying myself in knots by suggesting there are Jewish people that support Trump because obviously there are.

Jonathan Arkush congratulated Trump on becoming president, there are actually some Jewish people that support Trump. Claiming that a true statement that some Jewish people support Trump is actually a racist statement is pretty stupid.

Shouting racist at true statements just demeans the word racist.

You're either monumentally stupid or pretending to be to justify supporting a racist.

You're tying yourself in knots because as I clearly stated that's not the bit that makes it racist. You'll always be able to find someone from any community who hold pretty much any view. Ed Balls found a (now naturalised) Mexican illegal immigrant who voted for Trump the other night. Arkush, whose congratulation of Trump you cite, called his travel ban "unjust" and an example of "evil intent towards Muslims" so he's hardly a "Trump fanatic" as Mr Willsman would have it. But that's by the by - we've established that, for the sake of argument we can find a Jew who supports Trump.

What makes it racist is using the trivial fact that some Jews may support Trump to smear an entire community as acting in bad faith. Which is literally what he did. He said, and I quote again: "So I'm not going to be lectured to by Trump fanatics making up false information without any evidence at all. So I think we should ask the 70 rabbis where is your evidence?"

I'll repeat myself, as you don't seem to have an answer. It's a fact that some Muslims support unpleasant people. How would you, or any reasonable non-racist person react if a group of Muslims complained that an organisation's safeguarding policies were inadequate and an official said "Some Muslims support ISIS. So I'm not going to be lectured by ISIS fanatics making up false information. We should ask these Muslims where is your evidence?"

I hope, anyone would say "that's a bit racist" - so the question to you, if you'd agree is why do you think it's ok for you, Mr Willsman and Jeremy Corbyn, to treat Jews and the racism they face differently?

Betting Post:

https://twitter.com/Lord_Sugar/status/1023976951466352641

Sandpit said:

I think the priority needs to be education rather than censorship, but it certainly requires people to exercise restraint and understand how what they post online is public and permanent. This applies especially to those who work for established media organisations or who have a high profile.

If the current escalation of people talking about Brexit being the apocalypse continue to the point where it’s inciting public disorder, then the line of free speech has been crossed. Comments about availability of medicines are already bloody close to that line, especially when they seek to form part of a wider narrative.

The recent problems in India of social-media-related murders are very real, and originators of fake and inciteful comments are being prosecuted.

Sunshine is the best disinfectant. So I am totally against censorship, even in the name of tackling fake news.

True sunshine in the internet setting would be not allowing people to be anonymous, but to own as their real life selves what they post. But I don't see how we can make that reality either.

rottenborough said:

Betting Post:

https://twitter.com/Lord_Sugar/status/1023976951466352641

It is a bet I've thought about but I can't really see a clear route for her. She does often seem to be the only grown-up in the room but she is not a member of either party. Ivanka would also, while we are on the subject, be the first Jewish president.

DecrepitJohnL said:

rottenborough said:

Betting Post:

https://twitter.com/Lord_Sugar/status/1023976951466352641

It is a bet I've thought about but I can't really see a clear route for her. She does often seem to be the only grown-up in the room but she is not a member of either party. Ivanka would also, while we are on the subject, be the first Jewish president.

You means some Jews are actual Trumps? Why should the Labour party be lectured by Trumps making up information, eh? Where's their evidence?

MJW said:

FPT @TheJezziah

I listened to the tape. I'm not confused one little bit - you appear to be - or I hope you are for your sake.

He literally says (and I transcribe): "Some of these people in the Jewish community support Trump, they're Trump fanatics. So I'm not going to be lectured to by Trump fanatics making up false information without any evidence at all. So I think we should ask the 70 rabbis where is your evidence?"

Now, if you want to tie yourself in knots, there probably are Jews that support Trump. Although as I said, they're rare given Jews' understandable aversion to anyone with a whiff of the fascist about them. If you look hard enough you can find a few members of any community who support anything. Using that as a general smear to cast aspersions on rabbis from across the Jewish community and those who've made complaints as "making up false information" due to some hidden Trumpian agenda (especially when many are on record as despising the great orange halfwit) is clearly anti-Semitic, as I point out, for the same reason accusing a group of Muslims reasonably setting out their complaints racism they've faced of acting in bad faith because some Muslims happen to support very bad people.

It's so obviously racist I can't believe you're trying to argue otherwise. Corbyn really has blackenned hearts and maddened heads. It's just so poisonous.

Is it racist?

It seems to me that he’s criticising the rabbis accusing him by implying they are Trump supporters. That’s clearly a patheticly obvious swerve to try and avoid answering their challenge but I’m not sure it’s intrinsically racist?

TheJezziah said:

ydoethur said:

TheJezziah said:

ydoethur said:

I think you got confused in your calculations there.

Some Trump supporters may be Jews (note - he doesn't give any examples).
These rabbis are Jews.

The next line is the one I chnged.

Therefore, some rabbis are Trump supporters.

Here is the correct version, note it doesn't end in a racist statement.... maths can be hard sometimes.

Here are his words:

He then says: “And some of these people in the Jewish community support Trump – they are Trump fanatics and all the rest of it. So I am not going to be lectured to by Trump fanatics making up duff information without any evidence at all.

“So I think we should ask the 70 rabbis where is your evidence of severe and widespread antisemitism in this Party?’”

My version on the evidence we have is unfortunately right and yours is wrong. He is clearly leaping from 'Jews support Trump. These people are Jews. Therefore they are Trump supporters.' Which as I noted above is bunkum anyway (although come to honk of it it may be because of Trump's support for Israel and decision to cause utter unnecessary chaos to show he's a man move the US embassy to Jerusalem).

Good night.

You've got it wrong again.

The maths just doesn't work, unless he makes a separate claim somewhere else about all the rabbi's being Trump fans then we have to make an assumption which we have no evidence for.

If x=3 or x =4 (some Jews trump fans or some Jews not)

and any y = x (all rabbis are Jews)

then y = 3 which is Trump fans or y=4 which isn't Trump fans.

The maths just doesn't work the other way.

If change his words, or change the assumptions as you did so y=3 but doesn't =4 then yes it does start to sound racist, but that is true of lots of statements.

Goodnight.

Oh boy....

TheJezziah said:

ydoethur said:

TheJezziah said:

ydoethur said:

I think you got confused in your calculations there.

Some Trump supporters may be Jews (note - he doesn't give any examples).
These rabbis are Jews.

The next line is the one I chnged.

Therefore, some rabbis are Trump supporters.

Here is the correct version, note it doesn't end in a racist statement.... maths can be hard sometimes.

Here are his words:

He then says: “And some of these people in the Jewish community support Trump – they are Trump fanatics and all the rest of it. So I am not going to be lectured to by Trump fanatics making up duff information without any evidence at all.

“So I think we should ask the 70 rabbis where is your evidence of severe and widespread antisemitism in this Party?’”

My version on the evidence we have is unfortunately right and yours is wrong. He is clearly leaping from 'Jews support Trump. These people are Jews. Therefore they are Trump supporters.' Which as I noted above is bunkum anyway (although come to honk of it it may be because of Trump's support for Israel and decision to cause utter unnecessary chaos to show he's a man move the US embassy to Jerusalem).

Good night.

You've got it wrong again.

The maths just doesn't work, unless he makes a separate claim somewhere else about all the rabbi's being Trump fans then we have to make an assumption which we have no evidence for.

If x=3 or x =4 (some Jews trump fans or some Jews not)

and any y = x (all rabbis are Jews)

then y = 3 which is Trump fans or y=4 which isn't Trump fans.

The maths just doesn't work the other way.

If change his words, or change the assumptions as you did so y=3 but doesn't =4 then yes it does start to sound racist, but that is true of lots of statements.

Goodnight.

That's up there with 'Hitler was working with Zionists' levels of logic...are you Ken in disguise.

TheJezziah said:

ydoethur said:

TheJezziah said:

ydoethur said:

I think you got confused in your calculations there.

Some Trump supporters may be Jews (note - he doesn't give any examples).
These rabbis are Jews.

The next line is the one I chnged.

Therefore, some rabbis are Trump supporters.

Here is the correct version, note it doesn't end in a racist statement.... maths can be hard sometimes.

Here are his words:

He then says: “And some of these people in the Jewish community support Trump – they are Trump fanatics and all the rest of it. So I am not going to be lectured to by Trump fanatics making up duff information without any evidence at all.

“So I think we should ask the 70 rabbis where is your evidence of severe and widespread antisemitism in this Party?’”

My version on the evidence we have is unfortunately right and yours is wrong. He is clearly leaping from 'Jews support Trump. These people are Jews. Therefore they are Trump supporters.' Which as I noted above is bunkum anyway (although come to honk of it it may be because of Trump's support for Israel and decision to cause utter unnecessary chaos to show he's a man move the US embassy to Jerusalem).

Good night.

You've got it wrong again.

The maths just doesn't work, unless he makes a separate claim somewhere else about all the rabbi's being Trump fans then we have to make an assumption which we have no evidence for.

If x=3 or x =4 (some Jews trump fans or some Jews not)

and any y = x (all rabbis are Jews)

then y = 3 which is Trump fans or y=4 which isn't Trump fans.

The maths just doesn't work the other way.

If change his words, or change the assumptions as you did so y=3 but doesn't =4 then yes it does start to sound racist, but that is true of lots of statements.

Goodnight.

It's a straightforward logical fallacy to extrapolate from "some Jews are Trump fans" to "some of *these* Jews are Trump fans". As he would say, "Where's the evidence?"

TheJezziah said:

Also you could make a charge of hypocrisy at someone who is supportive of Trump who has supporters marching with torches chanting "Jew will not replace us" claiming Labour is a threat to Jews

Can you name a single individual of whom this is true?

Drip drip drip

https://order-order.com/2018/07/30/jewish-labour-movement-told-hitler-right/

More poison

RobD said:

Stark_Dawning said:

Andy_Cooke said:

Barnesian said:

Foxy said:

FT following PB?

see bottom left

https://twitter.com/FinancialTimes/status/1024023335196418051?s=19

"Barnier warms to May's Brexit plan. Hmm

I'm getting more confident in my prediction that the Withdrawal Agreement will be agreed between the UK and EU and passed by Parliament and we will formally leave the EU on 29 March next year.

The section on the future trade agreement will be very short and ambiguous. "A customs arrangement and a common rule book for goods" with the trade negotiation kicked down the road into the transition period. Brexit will then have happened for everyone except the ideologues. I think May will then hang on for the transition period to ensure it is SM/CU with the support of the majority of her MPs, respecting the referendum result but also ensuring minimum economic damage. Could be an OK outcome for the Tory Party. They'll lose a few to UKIP but not enough to cause serious damage.

It is encouraging.
The trade limitations issue won't faze the majority of people, and it does seem to retain the supply-chain and goods movement flexibility of the current SM, so would avoid the chaos of a No Deal Brexit.
I think it's inferior to what we have today, but it may be the best we're going to get in terms of avoiding No Deal.

Basically, I doubt we'll see a referendum on the Deal, and I'd very much like to avoid the chaos of No Deal.

Of May's red lines, I believe only one is completely unfuzzable: ending Free Movement. I don't like it, but it's undeniable that that's the key driver for a lot of people and very probably the majority of those who voted Leave. Or, at least, those who voted Leave and have strong views about Brexit. Oh, there are certainly a whole chunk of people for whom the ability to strike trade deals, avoiding SM regulations, and so on were important, but while I'd personally hugely prefer an EEA-style Brexit out of all the ones possibly available, I recognise I'm in a minority (and, anyway, I reluctantly voted Remain so can't consider myself representative in any case).

I can't believe that all that was needed was for Barnier to have it quietly explained to him. Have he and Theresaa played a blinder here? Pretend there was deadlock, let the horrors of No Deal seep into the national psyche (food hoarding, insulin shortages, troops on the streets) then pull the coals from the fire at the last minute. Very clever if so.

It's the EU way... fudge.

I have thought for some time that May will go down in history either as a chess-playing genius or (and far more likely imho) the worse PM since Lord North.

rcs1000 said:

Stark_Dawning said:

williamglenn said:

Whatever happened to Javid's attempt to negotiate a trade deal with India? He's long on headlines and short on delivery.

https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/07/government-grabbing-brexit-bull-horns/

Wasn’t a trade deal with India always fanciful - protectionist, logistical problems and they don’t go for our brands anyway?

FTAs, ex-EU (by order of ease):

EFTA
South Korea
The "White" Commonwealth
(small gap)
China

(big gap)

The US
India

They will be on worse terms than those we currently have or would have through the EU but they will happen. There's a potential win with China because the UK won't mind an unequal treaty.