Skip to content

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Signs that Team Corbyn is stepping back from the brink on anti

SystemSystem Posts: 12,685
edited August 2018 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Signs that Team Corbyn is stepping back from the brink on antisemitism

BREAKING NEWS: Labour drops disciplinary action against Dame @margarethodge https://t.co/eT2PXUwZTo

Read the full story here


«1

Comments

  • PClippPClipp Posts: 2,138
    First
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    They haven't taken the cult with them
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 99,391
    Didn't Nick Palmer or someone predict this earlier this week? The investigation would be dropped and be treated like a concession, so even if Hodge and others are still annoyed, they won't take things further? It's enough of an action, not just words, to get the majority of the agitators to not escalate things any further (because no one in the party wants to be constantly attacking one another), and that will mean it dies down until the next incident or old piece of footage comes up? (That's my take, I don't suggest Nick Palmer would view it so cynically, if indeed it was he who predicted this)
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 99,391
    edited August 2018
    Scott_P said:

    They haven't taken the cult with them

    Isn't that the thing with extreme people in politics though? That their actions and words, when going too far, can be disavowed by the leader they adore (not in my name and all that) and yet it doesn't dent their fervour? So they can keep it up, while the leadership gets points for rolling things back a bit, and even if it is only a little action, it is enough to mollify enough (not all) of those who are mad. They might say enough is enough, but they will always give another chance and more time.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 67,252
    edited August 2018
    kle4 said:

    Didn't Nick Palmer or someone predict this earlier this week? The investigation would be dropped and be treated like a concession, so even if Hodge and others are still annoyed, they won't take things further? It's enough of an action, not just words, to get the majority of the agitators to not escalate things any further (because no one in the party wants to be constantly attacking one another), and that will mean it dies down until the next incident or old piece of footage comes up? (That's my take, I don't suggest Nick Palmer would view it so cynically, if indeed it was he who predicted this)

    I imagine that Corbyn and McDonnell will be under constant media pressure at all their future meetings with some groups
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 99,391
    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    kle4 said:

    Didn't Nick Palmer or someone predict this earlier this week? The investigation would be dropped and be treated like a concession, so even if Hodge and others are still annoyed, they won't take things further? It's enough of an action, not just words, to get the majority of the agitators to not escalate things any further (because no one in the party wants to be constantly attacking one another), and that will mean it dies down until the next incident or old piece of footage comes up? (That's my take, I don't suggest Nick Palmer would view it so cynically, if indeed it was he who predicted this)

    I imagine that Corbyn and McDonnell will be under constant media pressure at all their future meetings with some groups
    Were they not already? As we've heard a million times all their dirty laundry was aired before and during the GE; media conspiracists are loonies, but it is certainly the case their utterances will have been carefully watched and scrutinised for a long time now. We know what will happen if they do say something untoward, or an acquaintance of theirs does - calls to condemn it, half hearted non apologies, then move on.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 67,252
    kle4 said:

    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    kle4 said:

    Didn't Nick Palmer or someone predict this earlier this week? The investigation would be dropped and be treated like a concession, so even if Hodge and others are still annoyed, they won't take things further? It's enough of an action, not just words, to get the majority of the agitators to not escalate things any further (because no one in the party wants to be constantly attacking one another), and that will mean it dies down until the next incident or old piece of footage comes up? (That's my take, I don't suggest Nick Palmer would view it so cynically, if indeed it was he who predicted this)

    I imagine that Corbyn and McDonnell will be under constant media pressure at all their future meetings with some groups
    Were they not already? As we've heard a million times all their dirty laundry was aired before and during the GE; media conspiracists are loonies, but it is certainly the case their utterances will have been carefully watched and scrutinised for a long time now. We know what will happen if they do say something untoward, or an acquaintance of theirs does - calls to condemn it, half hearted non apologies, then move on.
    I was suggesting that all their future meetings will be judged by the company they keep
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    This was predictable and the Labour party hierarchy has at last stopped digging, on this front at least. But there will be other pratfalls.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 99,391
    edited August 2018
    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    kle4 said:

    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    kle4 said:

    Didn't Nick Palmer or someone predict this earlier this week? The investigation would be dropped and be treated like a concession, so even if Hodge and others are still annoyed, they won't take things further? It's enough of an action, not just words, to get the majority of the agitators to not escalate things any further (because no one in the party wants to be constantly attacking one another), and that will mean it dies down until the next incident or old piece of footage comes up? (That's my take, I don't suggest Nick Palmer would view it so cynically, if indeed it was he who predicted this)

    I imagine that Corbyn and McDonnell will be under constant media pressure at all their future meetings with some groups
    Were they not already? As we've heard a million times all their dirty laundry was aired before and during the GE; media conspiracists are loonies, but it is certainly the case their utterances will have been carefully watched and scrutinised for a long time now. We know what will happen if they do say something untoward, or an acquaintance of theirs does - calls to condemn it, half hearted non apologies, then move on.
    I was suggesting that all their future meetings will be judged by the company they keep
    I know, and as I say, were they not being judged by said company before? What has changed as a result of all this?
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 67,252
    kle4 said:

    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    kle4 said:

    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    kle4 said:

    Didn't Nick Palmer or someone predict this earlier this week? The investigation would be dropped and be treated like a concession, so even if Hodge and others are still annoyed, they won't take things further? It's enough of an action, not just words, to get the majority of the agitators to not escalate things any further (because no one in the party wants to be constantly attacking one another), and that will mean it dies down until the next incident or old piece of footage comes up? (That's my take, I don't suggest Nick Palmer would view it so cynically, if indeed it was he who predicted this)

    I imagine that Corbyn and McDonnell will be under constant media pressure at all their future meetings with some groups
    Were they not already? As we've heard a million times all their dirty laundry was aired before and during the GE; media conspiracists are loonies, but it is certainly the case their utterances will have been carefully watched and scrutinised for a long time now. We know what will happen if they do say something untoward, or an acquaintance of theirs does - calls to condemn it, half hearted non apologies, then move on.
    I was suggesting that all their future meetings will be judged by the company they keep
    I know, and as I say, were they not being judged by said company before? What has changed as a result of all this?
    I think it has become much more of an issue and before Corbyn seemed to be able to deflect a lot of it. Not anymore
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 87,629
    Will they be adopting the full internationally recognized definition of antisemitism now?
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 87,629
    edited August 2018
    Problem solved right....oh wait...Left-wing activists mounted a massive social media campaign against him - posting nearly 50,000 tweets calling for him to go and making the hashtag 'ResignWatson' trend on Twitter.

    Labour's deputy leader Tom Watson was last night hit by a massive social media campaign calling for him to quit after he demanded tougher action on anti-Semitism.

    Corbynistas turned on the senior Labour MP after he broke ranks with Jeremy Corbyn to warn that the party faces 'eternal shame' unless it roots out the racism.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6031425/Tom-Watson-hit-Corbynista-campaign-demanding-quit-criticised-party-anti-Semitism.html
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 22,107
    The brink is but a distant memory. Labour stepped over that years ago.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 67,984
    Seems they have even f***ed up their volte face:

    https://twitter.com/margarethodge/status/1026529239951200258
  • TomsToms Posts: 2,478
    edited August 2018
    To say the obvious, it's a start. Now Labour needs to accept the the entire IRHA (International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance) definition:

    https://www.holocaustremembrance.com/working-definition-antisemitism

    But Labour extremists are so consumed by their loathing of Zionism they don't seem to seem to see the logic of not blaming an individual jew for Israel actions.

    While this nonsense continues I, for one, am seriously pissed off at Labour. Seriously.
  • SlackbladderSlackbladder Posts: 9,818
    Toms said:

    To say the obvious, it's a start. Now Labour needs to accept the the entire IRHA (International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance) definition:

    https://www.holocaustremembrance.com/working-definition-antisemitism

    But Labour extremists are so consumed by their loathing of Zionism they don't seem to seem to see the logic of not blaming an individual jew for Israel actions.

    While this nonsense continues I, for one, am seriously pissed off at Labour. Seriously.

    They can't, because of 'the implication'.
  • surbysurby Posts: 1,227
    FrancisUrquhart said:

    Will they be adopting the full internationally recognized definition of antisemitism now?

    Who decides what is "full internationally recognised" ?
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 67,984
    No idea what this bollx means, but I suspect it is nasty:

    https://twitter.com/AaronBastani/status/1026561754049007616
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 53,189
    FrancisUrquhart said:

    Will they be adopting the full internationally recognized definition of antisemitism now?

    They have already, it is the illustrative examples that Labour currently differ on, notably defining it as anti-semitic to compare Nazi Germany and Israel.

    I agree that to do so is fatuous, factually wrong and deliberately insulting, but is it inevitably anti-semitic? After all, nearly everything on the internet gets to be compared with Nazism at some point, from the EU, to misplaced apostrophes. Is it reasonable to compare Israel with other land grabs, such as Russia in the Donbass, or to use an older example the enclave of Kaliningrad? Perhaps comparing to the USA vs the Sioux, or the British in Rhodesia or Kenya?
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 87,629
    edited August 2018
    Foxy said:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    Will they be adopting the full internationally recognized definition of antisemitism now?

    They have already, it is the illustrative examples that Labour currently differ on, notably defining it as anti-semitic to compare Nazi Germany and Israel.

    I agree that to do so is fatuous, factually wrong and deliberately insulting, but is it inevitably anti-semitic? After all, nearly everything on the internet gets to be compared with Nazism at some point, from the EU, to misplaced apostrophes. Is it reasonable to compare Israel with other land grabs, such as Russia in the Donbass, or to use an older example the enclave of Kaliningrad? Perhaps comparing to the USA vs the Sioux, or the British in Rhodesia or Kenya?
    Well the likes of Margaret Hodges don't think they have and that they should be doing so.

    They could save themselves loads of trouble if they had just done and copy and paste job in the first place, rather than doing a ctrl-c / ctrl-p on yet another Jezza non-apology.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    https://twitter.com/jjouvenal/status/1026572532424605696
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 87,629
    edited August 2018
    Scott_P said:

    https://twitter.com/jjouvenal/status/1026572532424605696

    Its like some terrible 80s soap opera. The terrible choice in fashion, alleged tax dodging, in house stealing etc.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 67,984
    A thing of beauty:

    https://twitter.com/PolhomeEditor/status/1026547519122067457
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 55,936
    surby said:

    HYUFD said:

    surby said:

    brendan16 said:

    HYUFD said:

    williamglenn said:

    https://twitter.com/SenatorMarkDaly/status/1026221639908970497

    Over Protestant majority Counties Antrim and Down's dead body
    And assuming - as the poll quoted does - that over 45s will not be allowed to vote in the referendum on a united Ireland!

    It may be a while yet!

    Very good article. The irony being that "loyal" Brits are hastening the day of a united Ireland.

    As the article observes: "The theocracy that it was rightly or wrongly perceived to be under
    de Valera, which frightened many in the north, is long past. Now under an openly gay Taoiseach of mixed race background, a new modern, self-confident and inclusive Ireland is flourishing in its society as in its economy. Meanwhile it’s the north under the DUP where illiberalism and prejudice are not just rampant but enshrined, all with the support of the Tory Government.
    Actually it just shows the toughest most stubborn and faith driven people in the British Isles and Ireland are now Protestants in Ulster, the Republic of Ireland is increasingly just as largely secular and liberal meterosexual as most of us on the mainland UK are and they are not going to be able to tell the former what to do
    Equally the former of Armagh, Antrim and Down cannot tell everyone else what to do either.
    Armagh is majority Catholic.
  • MJWMJW Posts: 2,021
    kle4 said:

    Didn't Nick Palmer or someone predict this earlier this week? The investigation would be dropped and be treated like a concession, so even if Hodge and others are still annoyed, they won't take things further? It's enough of an action, not just words, to get the majority of the agitators to not escalate things any further (because no one in the party wants to be constantly attacking one another), and that will mean it dies down until the next incident or old piece of footage comes up? (That's my take, I don't suggest Nick Palmer would view it so cynically, if indeed it was he who predicted this)

    There are still so many potential flashpoints though that this won't do much to deescalate the situation. Firstly the Ian Austin stuff has not been dropped - and may be more difficult for the more conciliatory minded around Corbyn's team to convince those who clearly wanted to pick a fight to let go as it involves Lavery (so it's less high risk to take on - and he may demand an apology) and he's obviously less tooled up than Hodge, an experienced lawyer who went straight to the firm who defended Deborah Lipstadt and was always two steps of the fairly shoddy machine politics attempt to do her in - that might of worked with a less experienced MP. Then there's the IHRA vote at the PLP and Corbyn still refusing to implement in full. Plus, another one in the potential re-election of Peter Willsman - which would surprise no one as large parts of the hard left refused to drop him and the recording only came out after many had voted. That'll spark another stand-off over the failure to boot him off rather than just have Momentum tweet a few disavowals. That's not to mention inevitable additional cases including some locally prominent Corbynistas.

    What also potentially escalates things is that Hodge has now broken a taboo. A lot of MPs who privately have long believed Corbyn to be personally, pretty much functionally anti-Semitic, due to his actions have shied away from saying so and have instead couched their complaints as institutional - he's too slow to act, or letting procedure get in the way, he has a blindspot. Now they know they can express that anger within reason, and not face sanction. The next time Corbyn screws up someone in the PLP can call him a racist and know that they won't face sanction. Especially as Hodge is evidently still fuming and likely to help anyone who ends up in a similar position.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    surby said:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    Will they be adopting the full internationally recognized definition of antisemitism now?

    Who decides what is "full internationally recognised" ?
    The IHRA and the fact that internationally it has been adopted within Europe by every single major party in Europe with only two exceptions: Jeremy Corbyn's party and Viktor Orban's party.
  • OchEyeOchEye Posts: 1,469
    surby said:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    Will they be adopting the full internationally recognized definition of antisemitism now?

    Who decides what is "full internationally recognised" ?
    Likud
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 55,936
    Philip_Thompson said:

    surby said:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    Will they be adopting the full internationally recognized definition of antisemitism now?

    Who decides what is "full internationally recognised" ?
    The IHRA and the fact that internationally it has been adopted within Europe by every single major party in Europe with only two exceptions: Jeremy Corbyn's party and Viktor Orban's party.
    Jeremy Orban and Victor Corbyn :lol:
  • OchEyeOchEye Posts: 1,469
    FrancisUrquhart said:

    Problem solved right....oh wait...Left-wing activists mounted a massive social media campaign against him - posting nearly 50,000 tweets calling for him to go and making the hashtag 'ResignWatson' trend on Twitter.

    Labour's deputy leader Tom Watson was last night hit by a massive social media campaign calling for him to quit after he demanded tougher action on anti-Semitism.

    Corbynistas turned on the senior Labour MP after he broke ranks with Jeremy Corbyn to warn that the party faces 'eternal shame' unless it roots out the racism.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6031425/Tom-Watson-hit-Corbynista-campaign-demanding-quit-criticised-party-anti-Semitism.html

    Tom Watson is mistrusted by all sides of the PLP, let alone the members. As the Self Appointed "King-maker" in the party, it has long been considered, as per the old LBJ adage, that it was better to have him inside the tent, pissing out, than the reverse. Unfortunately, sometimes he forgets which way the wind is blowing....
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    edited August 2018
    Foxy said:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    Will they be adopting the full internationally recognized definition of antisemitism now?

    They have already, it is the illustrative examples that Labour currently differ on, notably defining it as anti-semitic to compare Nazi Germany and Israel.

    I agree that to do so is fatuous, factually wrong and deliberately insulting, but is it inevitably anti-semitic? After all, nearly everything on the internet gets to be compared with Nazism at some point, from the EU, to misplaced apostrophes. Is it reasonable to compare Israel with other land grabs, such as Russia in the Donbass, or to use an older example the enclave of Kaliningrad? Perhaps comparing to the USA vs the Sioux, or the British in Rhodesia or Kenya?
    Just because something happens a lot doesn't make it right especially when there is a history of historic abuse.

    Would you call a black person the n-word? Or would you not do so due to the historical connotations and how offensive it is.

    After what the Jews went through at the hands of the Nazis calling a Jew a Nazi is akin to using the n-word against a black person. They are extraordinarily offensive.

    The fact you might call your white friend the n-word too doesn't make it more OK to use it with those to whom it is so offensive for historic reasons.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 22,107
    The Labour Party is completely and utterly broken. What we have today is two tribes that hate each other. There is almost no way back. Certainly none under this leader.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 99,391
    MJW said:

    kle4 said:

    Di)

    There are still so many potential flashpoints though that this won't do much to deescalate the situation. Firstly the Ian Austin stuff has not been dropped - and may be more difficult for the more conciliatory minded around Corbyn's team to convince those who clearly wanted to pick a fight to let go as it involves Lavery (so it's less high risk to take on - and he may demand an apology) and he's obviously less tooled up than Hodge, an experienced lawyer who went straight to the firm who defended Deborah Lipstadt and was always two steps of the fairly shoddy machine politics attempt to do her in - that might of worked with a less experienced MP. Then there's the IHRA vote at the PLP and Corbyn still refusing to implement in full. Plus, another one in the potential re-election of Peter Willsman - which would surprise no one as large parts of the hard left refused to drop him and the recording only came out after many had voted. That'll spark another stand-off over the failure to boot him off rather than just have Momentum tweet a few disavowals. That's not to mention inevitable additional cases including some locally prominent Corbynistas.

    What also potentially escalates things is that Hodge has now broken a taboo. A lot of MPs who privately have long believed Corbyn to be personally, pretty much functionally anti-Semitic, due to his actions have shied away from saying so and have instead couched their complaints as institutional - he's too slow to act, or letting procedure get in the way, he has a blindspot. Now they know they can express that anger within reason, and not face sanction. The next time Corbyn screws up someone in the PLP can call him a racist and know that they won't face sanction. Especially as Hodge is evidently still fuming and likely to help anyone who ends up in a similar position.
    I'm not entirely convinced, but you do raise the interesting point that in the most recent outbreak of this issue it did seem to be the first time some quite high profile people were saying that not only was Corbyn part of the problem, but that he was actually being racist. It doesn't feel like that is a majority view even among his critics, and I've no doubt people have said it before, but it did seem to crop up as an accusation more now.

    That, however, those same people are content to serve within a party whose leader they believe to be a racist, and whom the membership backs, does still rather suggest it is not a move in tone that makes much difference. He's a racist but I still want him to be PM is not the greatest rallying cry.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    OchEye said:

    surby said:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    Will they be adopting the full internationally recognized definition of antisemitism now?

    Who decides what is "full internationally recognised" ?
    Likud
    Viktor Orban is your idol?
  • MJWMJW Posts: 2,021
    Foxy said:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    Will they be adopting the full internationally recognized definition of antisemitism now?

    They have already, it is the illustrative examples that Labour currently differ on, notably defining it as anti-semitic to compare Nazi Germany and Israel.

    I agree that to do so is fatuous, factually wrong and deliberately insulting, but is it inevitably anti-semitic? After all, nearly everything on the internet gets to be compared with Nazism at some point, from the EU, to misplaced apostrophes. Is it reasonable to compare Israel with other land grabs, such as Russia in the Donbass, or to use an older example the enclave of Kaliningrad? Perhaps comparing to the USA vs the Sioux, or the British in Rhodesia or Kenya?
    That's a characterisation of the IHRA examples - which only say that they 'could be' anti-Semitic - depending on context - so it would be up to a disciplinary panel (or a court, if challenged) to decide if the context was justified. Also, if it's deliberately insulting by targeting their ethnic background, is that not anti-Semitic? If we say something that's deliberately insulting to a black or Asian person, that's usually regarded as racist.

    The problem with the Labour version is that it raises the burden of proof required hugely in that to be anti-Semitic you have to prove "anti-Semitic intent" - which is of course almost impossible to do unless the person has flouted the rules in another way. It looks an awful lot like a giant loophole which can let off anyone the far left regards as sound and therefore well meaning in their comparison.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 99,391
    Jonathan said:

    The Labour Party is completely and utterly broken. What we have today is two tribes that hate each other. There is almost no way back. Certainly none under this leader.

    Two tribes who hate each other could of course apply to some other parties, on different issues. What a world we live in.
  • MJWMJW Posts: 2,021
    MJW said:

    kle4 said:

    Didn't Nick Palmer or someone predict this earlier this week? The investigation would be dropped and be treated like a concession, so even if Hodge and others are still annoyed, they won't take things further? It's enough of an action, not just words, to get the majority of the agitators to not escalate things any further (because no one in the party wants to be constantly attacking one another), and that will mean it dies down until the next incident or old piece of footage comes up? (That's my take, I don't suggest Nick Palmer would view it so cynically, if indeed it was he who predicted this)

    There are still so many potential flashpoints though that this won't do much to deescalate the situation. Firstly the Ian Austin stuff has not been dropped - and may be more difficult for the more conciliatory minded around Corbyn's team to convince those who clearly wanted to pick a fight to let go as it involves Lavery (so it's less high risk to take on - and he may demand an apology) and he's obviously less tooled up than Hodge, an experienced lawyer who went straight to the firm who defended Deborah Lipstadt and was always two steps of the fairly shoddy machine politics attempt to do her in - that might of worked with a less experienced MP. Then there's the IHRA vote at the PLP and Corbyn still refusing to implement in full. Plus, another one in the potential re-election of Peter Willsman - which would surprise no one as large parts of the hard left refused to drop him and the recording only came out after many had voted. That'll spark another stand-off over the failure to boot him off rather than just have Momentum tweet a few disavowals. That's not to mention inevitable additional cases including some locally prominent Corbynistas.

    What also potentially escalates things is that Hodge has now broken a taboo. A lot of MPs who privately have long believed Corbyn to be personally, pretty much functionally anti-Semitic, due to his actions have shied away from saying so and have instead couched their complaints as institutional - he's too slow to act, or letting procedure get in the way, he has a blindspot. Now they know they can express that anger within reason, and not face sanction. The next time Corbyn screws up someone in the PLP can call him a racist and know that they won't face sanction. Especially as Hodge is evidently still fuming and likely to help anyone who ends up in a similar position.
    Mischaracterisation obviously.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 55,898
    rottenborough said:

    A thing of beauty:

    https://twitter.com/PolhomeEditor/status/1026547519122067457

    Jennie Formby should be out on her ear for that disastrous attempt at spin.

    I'd call Labour pond-scum - but I fear pond-scum would be consulting Mischon de Reya with a view to a libel claim......
  • ExiledInScotlandExiledInScotland Posts: 1,540
    Sunil_Prasannan said:

    Philip_Thompson said:

    surby said:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    Will they be adopting the full internationally recognized definition of antisemitism now?

    Who decides what is "full internationally recognised" ?
    The IHRA and the fact that internationally it has been adopted within Europe by every single major party in Europe with only two exceptions: Jeremy Corbyn's party and Viktor Orban's party.
    Jeremy Orban and Victor Corbyn :lol:
    Imagine the Sitcom:
    Enter grumpy Victor Corbyn (for it is he): "Ken can't be Anti-Semitic! I don't believe it!"
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 67,984
    https://twitter.com/EL4JC/status/1026579729376309248
  • The_ApocalypseThe_Apocalypse Posts: 7,831
    Jonathan said:

    The Labour Party is completely and utterly broken. What we have today is two tribes that hate each other. There is almost no way back. Certainly none under this leader.

    That’s been the case for three years now.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 55,936
    Jonathan said:

    The Labour Party is completely and utterly broken. What we have today is two tribes that hate each other. There is almost no way back. Certainly none under this leader.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SXWVpcypf0w
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    "Europe Elects
    ‏ @EuropeElects
    3h3 hours ago

    Germany, INSA poll:

    CDU/CSU-EPP: 30% (+1)
    SPD-S&D: 17% (-1)
    AfD-EFDD: 17% (-1)
    GRÜNE-G/EFA: 13% (+1)
    LINKE-LEFT: 11%
    FDP-ALDE: 9%

    Field work: 3/08/18 – 6/08/18
    Sample size: 2,096"
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 67,984
    MarqueeMark said:

    rottenborough said:

    A thing of beauty:

    https://twitter.com/PolhomeEditor/status/1026547519122067457

    Jennie Formby should be out on her ear for that disastrous attempt at spin.

    I'd call Labour pond-scum - but I fear pond-scum would be consulting Mischon de Reya with a view to a libel claim......
    In some ways it is disappointing. My popcorn supplier was hoping for a court case, at which JC would have to explain Zionism.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 67,984
    Jonathan said:

    The Labour Party is completely and utterly broken. What we have today is two tribes that hate each other. There is almost no way back. Certainly none under this leader.

    And yet bobbing along at 38-40% in polls.

    It is beyond me.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 55,898
    Sunil_Prasannan said:

    Philip_Thompson said:

    surby said:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    Will they be adopting the full internationally recognized definition of antisemitism now?

    Who decides what is "full internationally recognised" ?
    The IHRA and the fact that internationally it has been adopted within Europe by every single major party in Europe with only two exceptions: Jeremy Corbyn's party and Viktor Orban's party.
    Jeremy Orban and Victor Corbyn :lol:
    There's a vacancy now for a new Chuckle Brothers.....
  • SlackbladderSlackbladder Posts: 9,818
    rottenborough said:

    https://twitter.com/EL4JC/status/1026579729376309248

    There may be trouble ahead....
  • David_EvershedDavid_Evershed Posts: 6,506
    rottenborough said:

    https://twitter.com/EL4JC/status/1026579729376309248

    Not so secret?
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 53,189
    MJW said:

    Foxy said:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    Will they be adopting the full internationally recognized definition of antisemitism now?

    They have already, it is the illustrative examples that Labour currently differ on, notably defining it as anti-semitic to compare Nazi Germany and Israel.

    I agree that to do so is fatuous, factually wrong and deliberately insulting, but is it inevitably anti-semitic? After all, nearly everything on the internet gets to be compared with Nazism at some point, from the EU, to misplaced apostrophes. Is it reasonable to compare Israel with other land grabs, such as Russia in the Donbass, or to use an older example the enclave of Kaliningrad? Perhaps comparing to the USA vs the Sioux, or the British in Rhodesia or Kenya?
    That's a characterisation of the IHRA examples - which only say that they 'could be' anti-Semitic - depending on context - so it would be up to a disciplinary panel (or a court, if challenged) to decide if the context was justified. Also, if it's deliberately insulting by targeting their ethnic background, is that not anti-Semitic? If we say something that's deliberately insulting to a black or Asian person, that's usually regarded as racist.

    The problem with the Labour version is that it raises the burden of proof required hugely in that to be anti-Semitic you have to prove "anti-Semitic intent" - which is of course almost impossible to do unless the person has flouted the rules in another way. It looks an awful lot like a giant loophole which can let off anyone the far left regards as sound and therefore well meaning in their comparison.
    I would say that the comparison of Israel to Nazi Germany was deliberately insulting to Israel, but not to Jews. Unless you make the anti semitic assumption that all Jews are responsible for the actions of Israel.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 67,984
    Almost funny:

    https://twitter.com/paulmasonnews/status/1026579572056354816
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 55,898
    rottenborough said:

    MarqueeMark said:

    rottenborough said:

    A thing of beauty:

    https://twitter.com/PolhomeEditor/status/1026547519122067457

    Jennie Formby should be out on her ear for that disastrous attempt at spin.

    I'd call Labour pond-scum - but I fear pond-scum would be consulting Mischon de Reya with a view to a libel claim......
    In some ways it is disappointing. My popcorn supplier was hoping for a court case, at which JC would have to explain Zionism.
    He won't be able to make any media appearences without it being the first question.

    And then he'll get angry. And look very much the embodiment of every nasty dark fear you have about the guy when he does.

    So basically, Labour now has a leader who can't appear on the media.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,716
    David_Evershed said:

    rottenborough said:

    https://twitter.com/EL4JC/status/1026579729376309248

    Not so secret?
    Aw, I missed the tweet before it was deleted. What was it?
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 56,314
    In case you think Hague might be begging, he's threatening France with horrors such as opening freeports and cutting payments to the budget (err, isn't that a non-negotiable part of Brexit anyway?) if we don't get a good deal. An utterly pathetic spectacle.

    https://twitter.com/Telegraph/status/1026576203300458499
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 67,984
    williamglenn said:

    In case you think Hague might be begging, he's threatening France with horrors such as opening freeports and cutting payments to the budget (err, isn't that a non-negotiable part of Brexit anyway?) if we don't get a good deal. An utterly pathetic spectacle.

    https://twitter.com/Telegraph/status/1026576203300458499

    The smell of desperation as thinking Tories stare into the abyss of being out of power for a generation on the back of a mad, crash-out, Moggster Brexit where shelves are empty and Kent is a vast lorry park would be funny, if it wasn't real.

  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    MarqueeMark said:

    Jennie Formby should be out on her ear for that disastrous attempt at spin.

    https://twitter.com/jg_ccpress/status/1026541636937867267
  • The_ApocalypseThe_Apocalypse Posts: 7,831
    Re that Express story, I don’t see how only 12 - 20 MPs breaking away at some point (whenever it is) will enable moderates to ‘take back control of the Labour Party.’ In the event that they break away after a hypothetical GE win, depending on how things go Corbyn would likely just want to do a deal with the SNP. Moderates only shot is to find a candidate the membership like and challenge Corbyn again in a leadership contest. And even that seems unlikely.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 67,984
    MarqueeMark said:

    rottenborough said:

    MarqueeMark said:

    rottenborough said:

    A thing of beauty:

    https://twitter.com/PolhomeEditor/status/1026547519122067457

    Jennie Formby should be out on her ear for that disastrous attempt at spin.

    I'd call Labour pond-scum - but I fear pond-scum would be consulting Mischon de Reya with a view to a libel claim......
    In some ways it is disappointing. My popcorn supplier was hoping for a court case, at which JC would have to explain Zionism.
    He won't be able to make any media appearences without it being the first question.

    And then he'll get angry. And look very much the embodiment of every nasty dark fear you have about the guy when he does.

    So basically, Labour now has a leader who can't appear on the media.
    Only if we had decent interviewers rather than the journalistic cowards we get these days (Andrew Neil excepted - which is why JC wont appear on his shows).
  • MJWMJW Posts: 2,021
    kle4 said:

    MJW said:

    kle4 said:

    Di)

    Especially as Hodge is evidently still fuming and likely to help anyone who ends up in a similar position.
    I'm not entirely convinced, but you do raise the interesting point that in the most recent outbreak of this issue it did seem to be the first time some quite high profile people were saying that not only was Corbyn part of the problem, but that he was actually being racist. It doesn't feel like that is a majority view even among his critics, and I've no doubt people have said it before, but it did seem to crop up as an accusation more now.

    That, however, those same people are content to serve within a party whose leader they believe to be a racist, and whom the membership backs, does still rather suggest it is not a move in tone that makes much difference. He's a racist but I still want him to be PM is not the greatest rallying cry.
    Oh indeed. It's absurd - that's politics in 2018. A lot of MPs from both parties privately believe their programmes are likely to be disastrous. But I think what's changed for many is that they hold a private view that they heavily suspect Corbyn to be anti-Semitic, as it's the most rational explanation of his actions but that extraordinary accusations require a greater proof, and now hold that view more firmly than in the past when perhaps they half believed the excuses and were prepared to go along with them. One might have lots of evidence a boss holds unacceptable views and privately believe that to be the case - but you won't openly take it further until you have no other option. Obviously an MP can't say "My party leader's a racist, make him PM". It would be the breaking point where you get an independent grouping.

    My point is that we're one step closer to that still, despite the Hodge climbdown because that taboo has been broken and the next time there's a flashpoint MPs are more likely to air those views privately to Corbyn or other MPs faces and, eventually, publicly. And there are plenty more flashpoints considering the leader and his allies seem pathologically unable to defuse these rows by accepting personal culpability.

  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 22,107
    edited August 2018
    rottenborough said:

    Jonathan said:

    The Labour Party is completely and utterly broken. What we have today is two tribes that hate each other. There is almost no way back. Certainly none under this leader.

    And yet bobbing along at 38-40% in polls.

    It is beyond me.
    The Lib Dems are dead and the Tories have their own problems.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 61,437
    FrancisUrquhart said:

    Will they be adopting the full internationally recognized definition of antisemitism now?

    Yes: they plan on modifying their version of anti-semitism, so there can be no doubt that they are now properly antisemitic.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 67,984
    The tweet I posted from EL4C entitled 'Melt Island' has been deleted.

    In case anyone is wondering why they can't comment on it properly.

    Can't imagine who has had a word.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 55,898
    The_Apocalypse said:

    Re that Express story, I don’t see how only 12 - 20 MPs breaking away at some point (whenever it is) will enable moderates to ‘take back control of the Labour Party.’ In the event that they break away after a hypothetical GE win, depending on how things go Corbyn would likely just want to do a deal with the SNP. Moderates only shot is to find a candidate the membership like and challenge Corbyn again in a leadership contest. And even that seems unlikely.

    "It's a Blairite plot!!!!"

    Well, yeah.....
  • The_ApocalypseThe_Apocalypse Posts: 7,831
    edited August 2018
    Of course Corbyn will appear in the media. This anti semitism scandal (alongside numerous other scandals) has been running for years now, and he’s still been on Marr, been interviewed by Andrew Neil etc.
  • LordOfReasonLordOfReason Posts: 457
    rottenborough said:

    Jonathan said:

    The Labour Party is completely and utterly broken. What we have today is two tribes that hate each other. There is almost no way back. Certainly none under this leader.

    And yet bobbing along at 38-40% in polls.

    It is beyond me.
    Then let me explain it. When asked the question, who do you want to win the next election, Tories or Labour, 38% don’t think Labour are anti semetic. And they are not wrong. The whole party isn’t.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    rottenborough said:

    Jonathan said:

    The Labour Party is completely and utterly broken. What we have today is two tribes that hate each other. There is almost no way back. Certainly none under this leader.

    And yet bobbing along at 38-40% in polls.

    It is beyond me.
    People who hate the Tories more than anything else.
  • The_ApocalypseThe_Apocalypse Posts: 7,831
    MarqueeMark said:

    The_Apocalypse said:

    Re that Express story, I don’t see how only 12 - 20 MPs breaking away at some point (whenever it is) will enable moderates to ‘take back control of the Labour Party.’ In the event that they break away after a hypothetical GE win, depending on how things go Corbyn would likely just want to do a deal with the SNP. Moderates only shot is to find a candidate the membership like and challenge Corbyn again in a leadership contest. And even that seems unlikely.

    "It's a Blairite plot!!!!"

    Well, yeah.....
    I expect them to further push for deselections now.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 67,984
    edited August 2018
    MarqueeMark said:

    The_Apocalypse said:

    Re that Express story, I don’t see how only 12 - 20 MPs breaking away at some point (whenever it is) will enable moderates to ‘take back control of the Labour Party.’ In the event that they break away after a hypothetical GE win, depending on how things go Corbyn would likely just want to do a deal with the SNP. Moderates only shot is to find a candidate the membership like and challenge Corbyn again in a leadership contest. And even that seems unlikely.

    "It's a Blairite plot!!!!"

    Well, yeah.....
    Blairite is running out of road as a meaningful term. I mean, these nutjobs would probably have said the Michael Foot was a Bairite who sold his party out with that 1983 manifesto.
  • LordOfReasonLordOfReason Posts: 457
    Trump don’t look well today. Has he had some bad news behind the scenes we not aware of yet?
  • The_ApocalypseThe_Apocalypse Posts: 7,831
    AndyJS said:

    rottenborough said:

    Jonathan said:

    The Labour Party is completely and utterly broken. What we have today is two tribes that hate each other. There is almost no way back. Certainly none under this leader.

    And yet bobbing along at 38-40% in polls.

    It is beyond me.
    People who hate the Tories more than anything else.
    Pretty much.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 67,984
    Scott_P said:

    MarqueeMark said:

    Jennie Formby should be out on her ear for that disastrous attempt at spin.

    https://twitter.com/jg_ccpress/status/1026541636937867267
    :lol:

    Labour, 2018
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 61,437
    Philip_Thompson said:

    Foxy said:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    Will they be adopting the full internationally recognized definition of antisemitism now?

    They have already, it is the illustrative examples that Labour currently differ on, notably defining it as anti-semitic to compare Nazi Germany and Israel.

    I agree that to do so is fatuous, factually wrong and deliberately insulting, but is it inevitably anti-semitic? After all, nearly everything on the internet gets to be compared with Nazism at some point, from the EU, to misplaced apostrophes. Is it reasonable to compare Israel with other land grabs, such as Russia in the Donbass, or to use an older example the enclave of Kaliningrad? Perhaps comparing to the USA vs the Sioux, or the British in Rhodesia or Kenya?
    Just because something happens a lot doesn't make it right especially when there is a history of historic abuse.

    Would you call a black person the n-word? Or would you not do so due to the historical connotations and how offensive it is.

    After what the Jews went through at the hands of the Nazis calling a Jew a Nazi is akin to using the n-word against a black person. They are extraordinarily offensive.

    The fact you might call your white friend the n-word too doesn't make it more OK to use it with those to whom it is so offensive for historic reasons.
    Ummm: I don't think you can compare "nigger" and "nazi" like that.

    "Nigger" refers to something a person could not change: their physical being.
    "Nazi" refers to a set of beliefs a person has.

    Furthermore, the set of beliefs are specific. So, if a Jewish person went around demanding Lebensraum in the Middle East, and suggested gassing Palestinians - as they were Untermensch - to get them out the way, then I think it would be perfectly acceptable to compare them to a Nazi.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 56,314
    https://twitter.com/BuzzFeedUKPol/status/1026552090686943232
  • The_ApocalypseThe_Apocalypse Posts: 7,831
    williamglenn said:

    https://twitter.com/BuzzFeedUKPol/status/1026552090686943232

    Didn’t the Telegraph tell us this weeks ago? When will the Conservatives have a leader who isn’t killed off by this issue?
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 67,984
    williamglenn said:

    https://twitter.com/BuzzFeedUKPol/status/1026552090686943232

    "Some believe her departure before March – Thexit, as some are calling it "

    Brilliant
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    edited August 2018
    I can't see how Boris can ever be PM after his ridiculous comments today. Totally unstatesmanlike.
  • grabcocquegrabcocque Posts: 4,234
    edited August 2018
    williamglenn said:

    https://twitter.com/BuzzFeedUKPol/status/1026552090686943232

    Is that one of these "exclusive to all newspapers" revelations?

    Chequers proposal went down like a bucket of cold sick shocker, news at 11.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 61,437
    LordOfReason said:

    Trump don’t look well today. Has he had some bad news behind the scenes we not aware of yet?

    He's a guy approaching his mid-70s in an extremely stressful job, who's overweight, eats poorly and doesn't get enough exercise.

    Add to which he's a congenital liar which - one would think - would be quite stressful in itself.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 99,391
    The_Apocalypse said:

    williamglenn said:

    https://twitter.com/BuzzFeedUKPol/status/1026552090686943232

    Didn’t the Telegraph tell us this weeks ago? When will the Conservatives have a leader who isn’t killed off by this issue?
    No kidding - we've heard how much everyone hated Chequers since the second it was announced. If they want her gone before March there's nothing stopping them from doing so in September, just commit to No deal already or else commit to making a deal of some kind, recognise the base will hate it, and get a new leader in March who will spend 3 years rebuilding support with the base. The idea they would take no hit from a decision is bloody farcical, but clearly this one is more than they anticipated, but if they think it best for the country then they should pay that price and try to recover. If they also think it is bad for the country then take her down now.

    Either way, stop dithering and leaking how unhappy you are - that is not a surprise to anyone, least of all May. Until she is removed what the hell else can she do but keep trying to work toward a deal she knows is doomed?
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 56,314
    rcs1000 said:

    Add to which he's a congenital liar which - one would think - would be quite stressful in itself.

    On the other hand it could make him uniquely well-placed to deal with the stresses of high office.
  • grabcocquegrabcocque Posts: 4,234
    rcs1000 said:

    LordOfReason said:

    Trump don’t look well today. Has he had some bad news behind the scenes we not aware of yet?

    He's a guy approaching his mid-70s in an extremely stressful job, who's overweight, eats poorly and doesn't get enough exercise.

    Add to which he's a congenital liar which - one would think - would be quite stressful in itself.
    Also, he can smell the high crimes and misdemeanors charges on the wind, and it smells like they're coming towards him.

    Still, it'd be a shame if Trump just dies, I'd quite like to see him live long enough to suffer immeasurably.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 99,391
    Scott_P said:

    MarqueeMark said:

    Jennie Formby should be out on her ear for that disastrous attempt at spin.

    https://twitter.com/jg_ccpress/status/1026541636937867267
    Comical. It shouldn't be thatobvious when it is you or your closest allies leaking something.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 67,984
    grabcocque said:

    williamglenn said:

    https://twitter.com/BuzzFeedUKPol/status/1026552090686943232

    Is that one of these "exclusive to all newspapers" revelations?

    Chequers proposal went down like a bucket of cold sick shocker, news at 11.
    Boris in full on 'off the record briefing' mode. But I suspect it is pretty accurate. Chequers is dead as far as activists go.

    Luckily for them, it is dead in Brussels as well.
  • grabcocquegrabcocque Posts: 4,234
    edited August 2018
    kle4 said:


    No kidding - we've heard how much everyone hated Chequers since the second it was announced.

    Oh, Laura Kuenssberg was trailing for weeks before it was announced that everyone was telling her already they were going to hate it.

    It never really stood a chance. That May believed it did is a true testament to both her indefatigablility and ineptitude.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 44,320
    AndyJS said:

    rottenborough said:

    Jonathan said:

    The Labour Party is completely and utterly broken. What we have today is two tribes that hate each other. There is almost no way back. Certainly none under this leader.

    And yet bobbing along at 38-40% in polls.

    It is beyond me.
    People who hate the Tories more than anything else.
    Yes it's easy to forget that there remains a significant rump that actively loathes the baby-eating Tories. We have all been diverted because for the past 18 months or so they have simply been incompetent, rather than nasty.
  • The_ApocalypseThe_Apocalypse Posts: 7,831
    kle4 said:

    The_Apocalypse said:

    williamglenn said:

    https://twitter.com/BuzzFeedUKPol/status/1026552090686943232

    Didn’t the Telegraph tell us this weeks ago? When will the Conservatives have a leader who isn’t killed off by this issue?
    No kidding - we've heard how much everyone hated Chequers since the second it was announced. If they want her gone before March there's nothing stopping them from doing so in September, just commit to No deal already or else commit to making a deal of some kind, recognise the base will hate it, and get a new leader in March who will spend 3 years rebuilding support with the base. The idea they would take no hit from a decision is bloody farcical, but clearly this one is more than they anticipated, but if they think it best for the country then they should pay that price and try to recover. If they also think it is bad for the country then take her down now.

    Either way, stop dithering and leaking how unhappy you are - that is not a surprise to anyone, least of all May. Until she is removed what the hell else can she do but keep trying to work toward a deal she knows is doomed?
    I totally agree with you. These ‘Tory activists hate May’ stories are becoming just as predictable as the ‘new centrist party’ and ‘moderates breakaway’ stories. By the end of the year, both May and Corbyn will likely still be in charge of their respective parties. I don’t see either being successfully challenged. Especially in the case of May, as I don’t think any of the potential challengers want to carry the can for Brexit.

  • kle4kle4 Posts: 99,391
    rottenborough said:

    williamglenn said:

    In case you think Hague might be begging, he's threatening France with horrors such as opening freeports and cutting payments to the budget (err, isn't that a non-negotiable part of Brexit anyway?) if we don't get a good deal. An utterly pathetic spectacle.

    https://twitter.com/Telegraph/status/1026576203300458499

    The smell of desperation as thinking Tories stare into the abyss of being out of power for a generation on the back of a mad, crash-out, Moggster Brexit where shelves are empty and Kent is a vast lorry park would be funny, if it wasn't real.

    I know this will be hard for the Tories, but they really need to not panic so much about being out of power for quite some time. Avoid an early GE and they will have had at least 12 years in power, which is a decent run by any standard, albeit in unconventional fashion. Extending that will be hard, no question about it, and will take years of hard work whether we get deal or no deal, and even then might well fail.

    So they really should just vote for what they think is best for the country and then ensure a leader and a direction to try to undo whatever political cost that has. They will have years to try, and the best chance of pulling it off thanks to Corbyn still be weighed down in baggage of his own. If they actually believe even a crap deal is better than no deal, despite their pronouncements, they need to suck it up and take the hit. If they think no deal is better than a crap deal, well, obviously they need to stop pussyfooting about and just do that, then spend 3 years dealing with any fallout.
  • grabcocquegrabcocque Posts: 4,234
    TOPPING said:

    AndyJS said:

    rottenborough said:

    Jonathan said:

    The Labour Party is completely and utterly broken. What we have today is two tribes that hate each other. There is almost no way back. Certainly none under this leader.

    And yet bobbing along at 38-40% in polls.

    It is beyond me.
    People who hate the Tories more than anything else.
    Yes it's easy to forget that there remains a significant rump that actively loathes the baby-eating Tories. We have all been diverted because for the past 18 months or so they have simply been incompetent, rather than nasty.
    They've been incompetent at being nasty. Remember May's various commitments to gratuitous cruelty to terrified mammals?
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 55,898
    AndyJS said:

    I can't see how Boris can ever be PM after his ridiculous comments today. Totally unstatesmanlike.

    And yet, I suspect a significant majority of voters agree with Boris. We don't like overt displays of religion, they make people feel uncomfortable - for security reasons, as a provocative our-religion-is-better-than-yours statement, and simply because it is not the British way to hide your face - but equally, it is not the British way to ban pople who ultimately want to do it.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 99,391
    The_Apocalypse said:

    kle4 said:

    The_Apocalypse said:

    williamglenn said:

    https://twitter.com/BuzzFeedUKPol/status/1026552090686943232

    Didn’t the Telegraph tell us this weeks ago? When will the Conservatives have a leader who isn’t killed off by this issue?
    No kidding - we've heard how much everyone hated Chequers since the second it was announced. If they want her gone before March there's nothing stopping them from doing so in September, just commit to No deal already or else commit to making a deal of some kind, recognise the base will hate it, and get a new leader in March who will spend 3 years rebuilding support with the base. The idea they would take no hit from a decision is bloody farcical, but clearly this one is more than they anticipated, but if they think it best for the country then they should pay that price and try to recover. If they also think it is bad for the country then take her down now.

    Either way, stop dithering and leaking how unhappy you are - that is not a surprise to anyone, least of all May. Until she is removed what the hell else can she do but keep trying to work toward a deal she knows is doomed?
    Especially in the case of May, as I don’t think any of the potential challengers want to carry the can for Brexit.

    Indeed. I think there is a chance that she almost falls by accident, as it were, in that the brinkmanship of her rebels, and Labour piling on the pressure from the other end, could lead to her deal failing and there being literally no option but for her to quit and someone to pursue no deal (this scenario presumes the complicated steps to a GE or referendum do not happen), but I really don't think Boris and co want to take ownership of this. If they did, they'd already have moved to take her down - we've already heard for weeks how much the base hates this move, and plenty are on record saying it is terrible, and I'm supposed to believe they are biding their time until September or October to act for...what reason? To see if even more people hate it? Bollocks.
  • grabcocquegrabcocque Posts: 4,234
    edited August 2018
    MarqueeMark said:

    AndyJS said:

    I can't see how Boris can ever be PM after his ridiculous comments today. Totally unstatesmanlike.

    And yet, I suspect a significant majority of voters agree with Boris. We don't like overt displays of religion, they make people feel uncomfortable - for security reasons, as a provocative our-religion-is-better-than-yours statement, and simply because it is not the British way to hide your face - but equally, it is not the British way to ban pople who ultimately want to do it.
    We don't know what the hard core Send-Back-the-Towelheads vote caps out at in the UK, but we have to assume it's somewhat less than the peak UKIP vote. Not every single UKIP voter is an insane frothing racist nutcase, after all. Just most of them.

    That being the case, what's to gain from the Tories going full Third Reich on Muslims like Boris/Bannon/Robinson/Banks want?
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 99,391
    grabcocque said:

    kle4 said:


    No kidding - we've heard how much everyone hated Chequers since the second it was announced.

    Oh, Laura Kuenssberg was trailing for weeks before it was announced that everyone was telling her already they were going to hate it.

    It never really stood a chance. That May believed it did is a true testament to both her indefatigablility and ineptitude.
    I suspect she thought it had a chance inasmuch as anything could in this fractious parliament, but she felt the need to make the attempt, to show that both her rebels and the EU were not being reasonable. She has been pretty incompetent, I don't think that can be disputed, but she really did try to keep everyone together, she really did try to walk a fine line. It hasn't worked, and we're likely getting no deal now even though not a majority of MPs state they want that, but they are not prepared or capable of doing what is needed for a deal.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 99,391
    AndyJS said:

    I can't see how Boris can ever be PM after his ridiculous comments today. Totally unstatesmanlike.

    Unstatesmanlike people become statesmen all the time.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 55,898
    grabcocque said:

    MarqueeMark said:

    AndyJS said:

    I can't see how Boris can ever be PM after his ridiculous comments today. Totally unstatesmanlike.

    And yet, I suspect a significant majority of voters agree with Boris. We don't like overt displays of religion, they make people feel uncomfortable - for security reasons, as a provocative our-religion-is-better-than-yours statement, and simply because it is not the British way to hide your face - but equally, it is not the British way to ban pople who ultimately want to do it.
    We don't know what the hard core Send-Back-the-Towelheads vote caps out at in the UK, but we have to assume it's somewhat less than the peak UKIP vote. Not every single UKIP voter is an insane frothing racist nutcase, after all. Just most of them.

    That being the case, what's to gain from the Tories going full Third Reich on Muslims like Boris/Bannon/Robinson/Banks want?
    But that is exactly not what Boris said. He said he does not support the bans on the burqa that other supposedly more enlightened European countries are putting in place.
  • The_ApocalypseThe_Apocalypse Posts: 7,831
    kle4 said:

    The_Apocalypse said:

    kle4 said:

    The_Apocalypse said:

    williamglenn said:

    https://twitter.com/BuzzFeedUKPol/status/1026552090686943232

    Didn’t the Telegraph tell us this weeks ago? When will the Conservatives have a leader who isn’t killed off by this issue?
    No kidding - we've heard how much everyone hated Chequers since the second it was announced. If they want her gone before March there's nothing stopping them from doing so in September, just commit to No deal already or else commit to making a deal of some kind, recognise the base will hate it, and get a new leader in March who will spend 3 years rebuilding support with the base. The idea they would take no hit from a decision is bloody farcical, but clearly this one is more than they anticipated, but if they think it best for the country then they should pay that price and try to recover. If they also think it is bad for the country then take her down now.

    Either way, stop dithering and leaking how unhappy you are - that is not a surprise to anyone, least of all May. Until she is removed what the hell else can she do but keep trying to work toward a deal she knows is doomed?
    Especially in the case of May, as I don’t think any of the potential challengers want to carry the can for Brexit.

    Indeed. I think there is a chance that she almost falls by accident, as it were, in that the brinkmanship of her rebels, and Labour piling on the pressure from the other end, could lead to her deal failing and there being literally no option but for her to quit and someone to pursue no deal (this scenario presumes the complicated steps to a GE or referendum do not happen), but I really don't think Boris and co want to take ownership of this. If they did, they'd already have moved to take her down - we've already heard for weeks how much the base hates this move, and plenty are on record saying it is terrible, and I'm supposed to believe they are biding their time until September or October to act for...what reason? To see if even more people hate it? Bollocks.
    Yes, I don’t see what reasons they would have to strike the autumn that they didn’t have last month. I remember when TMay was supposed to face a confidence vote - I was pretty cynical that that was going to happen as well.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 99,391
    MarqueeMark said:

    Sunil_Prasannan said:

    Philip_Thompson said:

    surby said:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    Will they be adopting the full internationally recognized definition of antisemitism now?

    Who decides what is "full internationally recognised" ?
    The IHRA and the fact that internationally it has been adopted within Europe by every single major party in Europe with only two exceptions: Jeremy Corbyn's party and Viktor Orban's party.
    Jeremy Orban and Victor Corbyn :lol:
    There's a vacancy now for a new Chuckle Brothers.....
    Love it!
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 53,189
    rcs1000 said:

    Philip_Thompson said:

    Foxy said:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    Will they be adopting the full internationally recognized definition of antisemitism now?

    They have already, it is the illustrative examples that Labour currently differ on, notably defining it as anti-semitic to compare Nazi Germany and Israel.

    I agree that to do so is fatuous, factually wrong and deliberately insulting, but is it inevitably anti-semitic? After all, nearly everything on the internet gets to be compared with Nazism at some point, from the EU, to misplaced apostrophes. Is it reasonable to compare Israel with other land grabs, such as Russia in the Donbass, or to use an older example the enclave of Kaliningrad? Perhaps comparing to the USA vs the Sioux, or the British in Rhodesia or Kenya?
    Just because something happens a lot doesn't make it right especially when there is a history of historic abuse.

    Would you call a black person the n-word? Or would you not do so due to the historical connotations and how offensive it is.

    After what the Jews went through at the hands of the Nazis calling a Jew a Nazi is akin to using the n-word against a black person. They are extraordinarily offensive.

    The fact you might call your white friend the n-word too doesn't make it more OK to use it with those to whom it is so offensive for historic reasons.
    Ummm: I don't think you can compare "nigger" and "nazi" like that.

    "Nigger" refers to something a person could not change: their physical being.
    "Nazi" refers to a set of beliefs a person has.

    Furthermore, the set of beliefs are specific. So, if a Jewish person went around demanding Lebensraum in the Middle East, and suggested gassing Palestinians - as they were Untermensch - to get them out the way, then I think it would be perfectly acceptable to compare them to a Nazi.
    So is it reasonable to compare this Israeli politician to a Nazi?

    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/israel-gaza-conflict-right-wing-israeli-politician-calls-for-gazans-to-be-concentrated-in-camps-and-9649103.html
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 55,936
    TOPPING said:

    AndyJS said:

    rottenborough said:

    Jonathan said:

    The Labour Party is completely and utterly broken. What we have today is two tribes that hate each other. There is almost no way back. Certainly none under this leader.

    And yet bobbing along at 38-40% in polls.

    It is beyond me.
    People who hate the Tories more than anything else.
    Yes it's easy to forget that there remains a significant rump that actively loathes the baby-eating Tories. We have all been diverted because for the past 18 months or so they have simply been incompetent, rather than nasty.
    Some vegetarian baby-substitute for me. please :)
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 55,898
    kle4 said:

    we're likely getting no deal now even though not a majority of MPs state they want that, but they are not prepared or capable of doing what is needed for a deal.

    And to be fair, the EU don't have the vision to prevent it happening either.

    I suspect no deal is now the outcome we will get, even though it will be in breach of the EUs obligation under Article 50. The Government and Brussels will grub around to find a way to keep food and planes and medicines on the move, for as much of the forty billion as they can extract. But that will be the extent of it.

    It will be THE textbook case of How Not To Negotiate.

  • kle4kle4 Posts: 99,391
    MarqueeMark said:

    kle4 said:

    we're likely getting no deal now even though not a majority of MPs state they want that, but they are not prepared or capable of doing what is needed for a deal.

    And to be fair, the EU don't have the vision to prevent it happening either.

    Yes, they have the stronger hand and are going all or nothing, even though nothing is not what they want either. Personally I think that's an error on their part (to go with plenty on ours) but clearly they are set on the stance they have and pleading and persuading hasn't worked, and grubbing around is where we all soon shall be.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 67,984
    kle4 said:

    Scott_P said:

    MarqueeMark said:

    Jennie Formby should be out on her ear for that disastrous attempt at spin.

    https://twitter.com/jg_ccpress/status/1026541636937867267
    Comical. It shouldn't be thatobvious when it is you or your closest allies leaking something.
    Pure Labour would be comical, of it wasn't so close to power.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,751
    rottenborough said:

    A thing of beauty:

    https://twitter.com/PolhomeEditor/status/1026547519122067457

    Those Mishcon de Reya lawyers must be gutted that they can’t continue writing such letters. It’s not often you can have so much fun putting the boot in.
This discussion has been closed.

© Vanilla Keystone Theme 2025