The emergence of the internet, and now AI, makes me think we might be heading back to a time where people are more socially prudent. At first these advances in technology encouraged over sharing of personal info, I think in future they will act as a kind of church/school/government/village gossip that shames people into conformity
I don't see how that would work.
If you try to shame me on pb.com then it's relatively easy for me to lie, or I can just stop using pb.com - there are lots of other bits of the internet, or people in real life to mix with.
Social conformity was enforced in the past because there were spaces people almost had to be part of, or they were outcasts already.
A recent change with social media is for it to become more fractured and semi-private, with things like discord, rather than twitter. A lot of people would be in a lot less trouble if sites like twitter didn't keep content for any longer than a month too. Perhaps that's something that will start to happen.
Chair of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee calls for Arms Sales to Israel to be banned.
SKS fans (and Sunak fans if there are any) please explain where has your boys have been for the last 6 months
Apart from cheering on Genocide from the sidelines and ignoring International law Obvs
The call to ban arms to Israel rather sums up the post-Imperial delusions that even those who view themselves as 'anti-imperialists' share. As well as that MPs can be very silly in the name of grandstanding.
We barely sell any arms to Israel, as the annual value of exports wouldn't buy you a top Premier League midfielder. They are also all components in wider defence projects and collaborations. We don't sell them any actual weapons systems.
If wanting to take a moral stance that had some real-world impact you'd be better off banning arms imports from Israel. Though that impact would by and large be on us and contributing to our armed forces falling apart more than they already are.
Which is why the government won't ban exports unilaterally - for the sake of nothing, if reciprocated, we'd be almost entirely damaging ourselves for no gain whatsoever.
Speaking of post-imperial delusions, surely any action of the second most powerful country in the world would make Israel take notice? And isn’t British soft power the envy of the globe?
We could put a fairly big stone in their shoe via the F35 program. Big and Expensive has its fingers in many pies. By withdrawing consent to sales of weapons that have U.K. participation, we could effect even more
See the number of Argentine weapons deals that we have stuffed up since 1982.
The problem is that this gets noted on the international arms market. South Korea is making a killing at the moment, because they have a rep for selling for cash, no questions. As opposed to the Germans, Swiss and others who spent their time equivocating over Ukraine.
I'm not old enough to remember when, admittedly two decades before the Great War, Maxim sold machine-guns to all comers. Including the Imperial Germans. Who found them very useful, and not just on the Hereros in SWA.
I am sure Alan Duncan's comments will have a week of daily headlines, because everyone knows anti-Semitism is treated equally whether you are a Labour or Tory MP.
The emergence of the internet, and now AI, makes me think we might be heading back to a time where people are more socially prudent. At first these advances in technology encouraged over sharing of personal info, I think in future they will act as a kind of church/school/government/village gossip that shames people into conformity
I don't see how that would work.
If you try to shame me on pb.com then it's relatively easy for me to lie, or I can just stop using pb.com - there are lots of other bits of the internet, or people in real life to mix with.
Social conformity was enforced in the past because there were spaces people almost had to be part of, or they were outcasts already.
A recent change with social media is for it to become more fractured and semi-private, with things like discord, rather than twitter. A lot of people would be in a lot less trouble if sites like twitter didn't keep content for any longer than a month too. Perhaps that's something that will start to happen.
It’s not that individuals would shame each other, it’s that behaviours, thoughts, feelings, images are conceivably there for all to see. Things that people used to keep to themselves for fear of being judged have been released into a place where everyone in the world may be able to judge them
I am sure Alan Duncan's comments will have a week of daily headlines, because everyone knows anti-Semitism is treated equally whether you are a Labour or Tory MP.
Alan Duncan rightly criticized Israel's long policies of colonization of Palestinian land. Jeremy Corbyn openly praised murals of money-grabbing, big-nosed Jews crushing the world's poor. What a ridiculous comparison.
The papers gave a lot of attention to a Labour MP that said "fucking Israel".
The emergence of the internet, and now AI, makes me think we might be heading back to a time where people are more socially prudent. At first these advances in technology encouraged over sharing of personal info, I think in future they will act as a kind of church/school/government/village gossip that shames people into conformity
I don't see how that would work.
If you try to shame me on pb.com then it's relatively easy for me to lie, or I can just stop using pb.com - there are lots of other bits of the internet, or people in real life to mix with.
Social conformity was enforced in the past because there were spaces people almost had to be part of, or they were outcasts already.
A recent change with social media is for it to become more fractured and semi-private, with things like discord, rather than twitter. A lot of people would be in a lot less trouble if sites like twitter didn't keep content for any longer than a month too. Perhaps that's something that will start to happen.
The question has often come up 'why vote for the reform party'. Another reason is to register a protest at the conduct of the Civil Service. The way Dominic Raab was bought down by the civil service shows that politicians cannot run anything anymore. A large number of civil servants made allegations against Raab that were not proven in the Inquiry (report linked to below) even on the very low test applied, but faced no adverse consequence at all, were repeatedly praised in the report. However one finding of workplace bullying, a highly subjective test, did Raab in. The whole situation is laughable but it is the conservative government, beholden to its own civil servants, who are presiding over the mess. People keep saying it is impossible to vote for Donald Trump but the situation that exists at the moment has just failed completely and he is offering something different. See also what Dominic Cummings has been saying for years.
I am sure Alan Duncan's comments will have a week of daily headlines, because everyone knows anti-Semitism is treated equally whether you are a Labour or Tory MP.
Alan Duncan rightly criticized Israel's long policies of colonization of Palestinian land. Jeremy Corbyn openly praised murals of money-grabbing, big-nosed Jews crushing the world's poor. What a ridiculous comparison.
The papers gave a lot of attention to a Labour MP that said "fucking Israel".
On Corbyn they had a point.
I don't remember that one. Was that the most offending quote / action of the MP in question?
The emergence of the internet, and now AI, makes me think we might be heading back to a time where people are more socially prudent. At first these advances in technology encouraged over sharing of personal info, I think in future they will act as a kind of church/school/government/village gossip that shames people into conformity
This has been my thesis for several years now. The nation state is founded on the idea that there is such a thing as "us", and that this "us" can be bounded by geography: lines on a map. The internet has made us discover two things: that we have a lot in common with people outside our nation, and little in common with some people within it. So we have created a war of all against all, and are creating a consensus of repression to attempt to impose standards. This repression is termed "cancel culture" when it oppresses the rich, who fight against it until it matches with their views, then stop fighting when it oppresses the right people.
We are going to be constantly looking over our shoulders . And what makes it worse is that we are going to do it to ourselves, and accept it as the price we pay to oppress others. There is no freedom the British prize more than to torment others, and will crawl over broken glass to do it, even at the cost of our own freedom. The social prudence you mention is the price for that.
I am sure Alan Duncan's comments will have a week of daily headlines, because everyone knows anti-Semitism is treated equally whether you are a Labour or Tory MP.
Alan Duncan isn’t a Tory MP.
The Conservative former minister Alan Duncan
Your original quote was about the differing attitudes towards antisemitism between Labour and Tory MPs.
Alan Duncan isn’t a Tory MP, in sharp contrast to Corbyn’s friends in years past, who were very much Labour MPs at the time, and many of them still are.
The emergence of the internet, and now AI, makes me think we might be heading back to a time where people will become more socially prudent. At first these advances in technology encouraged over sharing of personal info, I think in future they will act as a kind of church/school/government/village gossip that shames people into conformity
An interesting thought, but not much sign of social prudence from Mr Wragg and his mates so far.
That’s what prompted my idea. Surely soon people will look at these incidents and think ‘not for me’, before they send such photographs
It used to be that God saw everything and you were judged on your behaviour when you passed away. I used to think of it as a kind of ‘This is Your Life’. If AI and technology can access everything you’ve ever said, every picture you’ve sent, every post you’ve like online or via WhatsApp, they become God, and the whole world your jury whilst you’re still breathing
I am sure Alan Duncan's comments will have a week of daily headlines, because everyone knows anti-Semitism is treated equally whether you are a Labour or Tory MP.
Alan Duncan isn’t a Tory MP.
The Conservative former minister Alan Duncan
Your original quote was about the differing attitudes towards antisemitism between Labour and Tory MPs.
Alan Duncan isn’t a Tory MP, in sharp contrast to Corbyn’s friends in years past, who were very much Labour MPs at the time, and many of them still are.
Those Labour MPs are scum, clearly.
But the way anti-Semitism is reported in the Tories vs Labour is different. Actually forget anti-Semitism, just racism in general, for example Islamophobia.
The emergence of the internet, and now AI, makes me think we might be heading back to a time where people are more socially prudent. At first these advances in technology encouraged over sharing of personal info, I think in future they will act as a kind of church/school/government/village gossip that shames people into conformity
I don't see how that would work.
If you try to shame me on pb.com then it's relatively easy for me to lie, or I can just stop using pb.com - there are lots of other bits of the internet, or people in real life to mix with.
Social conformity was enforced in the past because there were spaces people almost had to be part of, or they were outcasts already.
A recent change with social media is for it to become more fractured and semi-private, with things like discord, rather than twitter. A lot of people would be in a lot less trouble if sites like twitter didn't keep content for any longer than a month too. Perhaps that's something that will start to happen.
Are you saying I am not actually a horse?
I did have an image of a brundlefly version of a battery/horse hybrid lying screaming on the floor in a puddle of molten flesh and electrodes, yes. Is this not actually the case?
I am sure Alan Duncan's comments will have a week of daily headlines, because everyone knows anti-Semitism is treated equally whether you are a Labour or Tory MP.
Alan Duncan rightly criticized Israel's long policies of colonization of Palestinian land. Jeremy Corbyn openly praised murals of money-grabbing, big-nosed Jews crushing the world's poor. What a ridiculous comparison.
The papers gave a lot of attention to a Labour MP that said "fucking Israel".
On Corbyn they had a point.
Sometimes these racist pictures are subtle enough to go over your head unless you are racist in the first place. Often in the case of Jews I am blissfully unaware the person being attacked is Jewish in the first place, whereas an anti-Semite probably will be. That was true for me regarding Howard and Letwin before they were attacked. Didn't cross my mind they were Jewish and didn't care.
However in the case of the Corbyn mural controversy your racist radar would have to be switched off entirely and buried 12 feet underground not to spot that was an attack on Jews.
I am sure Alan Duncan's comments will have a week of daily headlines, because everyone knows anti-Semitism is treated equally whether you are a Labour or Tory MP.
Duncan is alleging that Senior politicians in the Lords and Commons are bidding for an overseas Government. I don't believe he is remotely anti-Semitic but he calls into question domestic corruption.
I am sure Alan Duncan's comments will have a week of daily headlines, because everyone knows anti-Semitism is treated equally whether you are a Labour or Tory MP.
Alan Duncan isn’t a Tory MP.
The Conservative former minister Alan Duncan
Your original quote was about the differing attitudes towards antisemitism between Labour and Tory MPs.
Alan Duncan isn’t a Tory MP, in sharp contrast to Corbyn’s friends in years past, who were very much Labour MPs at the time, and many of them still are.
Those Labour MPs are scum, clearly.
But the way anti-Semitism is reported in the Tories vs Labour is different. Actually forget anti-Semitism, just racism in general, for example Islamophobia.
I don't think that is true. Alan Duncan is currently having completely legitimate criticism of Israel as being anti-Semitic. I don't know about the Labour MP you mentioned, but from your account of it, they were unfairly treated in exactly the same way Duncan is now.
Islamophobia is a separate issue. Islam is not an innate characteristic of people but a belief system. Criticism of its adherents, fair or ugly, should be treated and reported similar to criticism of socialists, nationalists or any other belief system.
As for racism, Diane Abbott remained part of Labour high office for years despite multiple flat-out racist comments.
I am sure Alan Duncan's comments will have a week of daily headlines, because everyone knows anti-Semitism is treated equally whether you are a Labour or Tory MP.
Alan Duncan rightly criticized Israel's long policies of colonization of Palestinian land. Jeremy Corbyn openly praised murals of money-grabbing, big-nosed Jews crushing the world's poor. What a ridiculous comparison.
The papers gave a lot of attention to a Labour MP that said "fucking Israel".
On Corbyn they had a point.
Sometimes these racist pictures are subtle enough to go over your head unless you are racist in the first place. Often in the case of Jews I am blissfully unaware the person being attacked is Jewish in the first place, whereas an anti-Semite probably will be. That was true for me regarding Howard and Letwin before they were attacked. Didn't cross my mind they were Jewish and didn't care.
However in the case of the Corbyn mural controversy your racist radar would have to be switched off entirely and buried 12 feet underground not to spot that was an attack on Jews.
I do believe Corbyn is anti-Semitic. Having been down the rabbit hole, I am afraid cults are very real.
The emergence of the internet, and now AI, makes me think we might be heading back to a time where people are more socially prudent. At first these advances in technology encouraged over sharing of personal info, I think in future they will act as a kind of church/school/government/village gossip that shames people into conformity
I don't see how that would work.
If you try to shame me on pb.com then it's relatively easy for me to lie, or I can just stop using pb.com - there are lots of other bits of the internet, or people in real life to mix with.
Social conformity was enforced in the past because there were spaces people almost had to be part of, or they were outcasts already.
A recent change with social media is for it to become more fractured and semi-private, with things like discord, rather than twitter. A lot of people would be in a lot less trouble if sites like twitter didn't keep content for any longer than a month too. Perhaps that's something that will start to happen.
Are you saying I am not actually a horse?
I did have an image of a brundlefly version of a battery/horse hybrid lying screaming on the floor in a puddle of molten flesh and electrodes, yes. Is this not actually the case?
It's something like that although I like to re-generate and change things up. Sometimes I am more Horse, sometimes I am more Battery. I am rarely Correct.
I am sure Alan Duncan's comments will have a week of daily headlines, because everyone knows anti-Semitism is treated equally whether you are a Labour or Tory MP.
Alan Duncan isn’t a Tory MP.
The Conservative former minister Alan Duncan
Your original quote was about the differing attitudes towards antisemitism between Labour and Tory MPs.
Alan Duncan isn’t a Tory MP, in sharp contrast to Corbyn’s friends in years past, who were very much Labour MPs at the time, and many of them still are.
Those Labour MPs are scum, clearly.
But the way anti-Semitism is reported in the Tories vs Labour is different. Actually forget anti-Semitism, just racism in general, for example Islamophobia.
I don't think that is true. Alan Duncan is currently having completely legitimate criticism of Israel as being anti-Semitic. I don't know about the Labour MP you mentioned, but from your account of it, they were unfairly treated in exactly the same way Duncan is now.
Islamophobia is a separate issue. Islam is not an innate characteristic of people but a belief system. Criticism of its adherents, fair or ugly, should be treated and reported similar to criticism of socialists, nationalists or any other belief system.
As for racism, Diane Abbott remained part of Labour high office for years despite multiple flat-out racist comments.
But not criticism of Tories? "Scum" is just acceptable knockabout political banter?
The William Wragg story has me gobsmacked. Why anyone sends compromising pictures to strangers goodness knows, but if you are an MP? Honestly. And then when being blackmailed for telephone numbers you think by supplying them it will not make things worse? Really? And then the reaction? Today it is a middling story. Once upon a time this would have been huge. A senior MP succumbing to blackmail. We have reached the point of scandals where this is trivial by comparison.
Your thinking seems to be, "It's very risky, so why do it?" The obvious answer is, "Because it's very risky". Some people get a thrill out of that.
On succumbing to the subsequent blackmail, people often panic and succumb to blackmail - that's why blackmailers do it.
It clearly wasn't wise of William Wragg, but none of it is a particularly deep psychological mystery.
What is a bit of a mystery is how a 36 year old who's been in Parliament nine years, has never had a government job, and announced he'd be standing down at the next election some 18 months ago now, gets described as a "senior MP". The bar on that title has been lowered considerably over the years!
That’s what senior MPs are now.
The job pays about what people get about 5 years into a good job in London.
So that’s what you get.
Maybe we should cast the net for our MPs a little wider than people who consider £90 000 plus allowances a starting salary.
Just a thought...
Given Wragg used to be a primary school teacher and was then an MP's caseworker for a year before election in 2015, I doubt even he does
So where does his interest in maritime commerce in Antigua spring from? Curiouser and curiouser.
Is there a word meaning "shares both a chair and a vice-chair with"? Because if there is, it would apply to the 1922 Committee and the Antigua and Barbuda APPG.
The following may be of interest to those pulling on the Antigua thread:
The emergence of the internet, and now AI, makes me think we might be heading back to a time where people are more socially prudent. At first these advances in technology encouraged over sharing of personal info, I think in future they will act as a kind of church/school/government/village gossip that shames people into conformity
I don't see how that would work.
If you try to shame me on pb.com then it's relatively easy for me to lie, or I can just stop using pb.com - there are lots of other bits of the internet, or people in real life to mix with.
Social conformity was enforced in the past because there were spaces people almost had to be part of, or they were outcasts already.
A recent change with social media is for it to become more fractured and semi-private, with things like discord, rather than twitter. A lot of people would be in a lot less trouble if sites like twitter didn't keep content for any longer than a month too. Perhaps that's something that will start to happen.
Are you saying I am not actually a horse?
Well, that depends. Do you live in Scotland and would you be offended?
I am sure Alan Duncan's comments will have a week of daily headlines, because everyone knows anti-Semitism is treated equally whether you are a Labour or Tory MP.
Alan Duncan isn’t a Tory MP.
The Conservative former minister Alan Duncan
Your original quote was about the differing attitudes towards antisemitism between Labour and Tory MPs.
Alan Duncan isn’t a Tory MP, in sharp contrast to Corbyn’s friends in years past, who were very much Labour MPs at the time, and many of them still are.
Those Labour MPs are scum, clearly.
But the way anti-Semitism is reported in the Tories vs Labour is different. Actually forget anti-Semitism, just racism in general, for example Islamophobia.
I don't think that is true. Alan Duncan is currently having completely legitimate criticism of Israel as being anti-Semitic. I don't know about the Labour MP you mentioned, but from your account of it, they were unfairly treated in exactly the same way Duncan is now.
Islamophobia is a separate issue. Islam is not an innate characteristic of people but a belief system. Criticism of its adherents, fair or ugly, should be treated and reported similar to criticism of socialists, nationalists or any other belief system.
As for racism, Diane Abbott remained part of Labour high office for years despite multiple flat-out racist comments.
Islamophobia is not a separate issue, that is something people that deny it exists. The motivation behind it is clearly racist.
I am sure Alan Duncan's comments will have a week of daily headlines, because everyone knows anti-Semitism is treated equally whether you are a Labour or Tory MP.
Alan Duncan isn’t a Tory MP.
The Conservative former minister Alan Duncan
Your original quote was about the differing attitudes towards antisemitism between Labour and Tory MPs.
Alan Duncan isn’t a Tory MP, in sharp contrast to Corbyn’s friends in years past, who were very much Labour MPs at the time, and many of them still are.
Those Labour MPs are scum, clearly.
But the way anti-Semitism is reported in the Tories vs Labour is different. Actually forget anti-Semitism, just racism in general, for example Islamophobia.
I don't think that is true. Alan Duncan is currently having completely legitimate criticism of Israel as being anti-Semitic. I don't know about the Labour MP you mentioned, but from your account of it, they were unfairly treated in exactly the same way Duncan is now.
Islamophobia is a separate issue. Islam is not an innate characteristic of people but a belief system. Criticism of its adherents, fair or ugly, should be treated and reported similar to criticism of socialists, nationalists or any other belief system.
As for racism, Diane Abbott remained part of Labour high office for years despite multiple flat-out racist comments.
But not criticism of Tories? "Scum" is just acceptable knockabout political banter?
I am sure Alan Duncan's comments will have a week of daily headlines, because everyone knows anti-Semitism is treated equally whether you are a Labour or Tory MP.
Alan Duncan rightly criticized Israel's long policies of colonization of Palestinian land. Jeremy Corbyn openly praised murals of money-grabbing, big-nosed Jews crushing the world's poor. What a ridiculous comparison.
The papers gave a lot of attention to a Labour MP that said "fucking Israel".
On Corbyn they had a point.
Sometimes these racist pictures are subtle enough to go over your head unless you are racist in the first place. Often in the case of Jews I am blissfully unaware the person being attacked is Jewish in the first place, whereas an anti-Semite probably will be. That was true for me regarding Howard and Letwin before they were attacked. Didn't cross my mind they were Jewish and didn't care.
However in the case of the Corbyn mural controversy your racist radar would have to be switched off entirely and buried 12 feet underground not to spot that was an attack on Jews.
I do believe Corbyn is anti-Semitic. Having been down the rabbit hole, I am afraid cults are very real.
@BatteryCorrectHorse - You say you have been down that rabbit hole? Have you? I am fascinated how that happens. People who appear perfectly sane who just flip and fall into cults or conspiracies. I just don't get it, but it happens. We had it here with Plato. David Icke is an extreme example. The Liberals and Greens had near misses with him when he appeared quite sane before he went weird.
I am sure Alan Duncan's comments will have a week of daily headlines, because everyone knows anti-Semitism is treated equally whether you are a Labour or Tory MP.
Alan Duncan isn’t a Tory MP.
The Conservative former minister Alan Duncan
Your original quote was about the differing attitudes towards antisemitism between Labour and Tory MPs.
Alan Duncan isn’t a Tory MP, in sharp contrast to Corbyn’s friends in years past, who were very much Labour MPs at the time, and many of them still are.
Those Labour MPs are scum, clearly.
But the way anti-Semitism is reported in the Tories vs Labour is different. Actually forget anti-Semitism, just racism in general, for example Islamophobia.
I don't think that is true. Alan Duncan is currently having completely legitimate criticism of Israel as being anti-Semitic. I don't know about the Labour MP you mentioned, but from your account of it, they were unfairly treated in exactly the same way Duncan is now.
Islamophobia is a separate issue. Islam is not an innate characteristic of people but a belief system. Criticism of its adherents, fair or ugly, should be treated and reported similar to criticism of socialists, nationalists or any other belief system.
As for racism, Diane Abbott remained part of Labour high office for years despite multiple flat-out racist comments.
Islamophobia is not a separate issue, that is something people that deny it exists. The motivation behind it is clearly racist.
I am sure Alan Duncan's comments will have a week of daily headlines, because everyone knows anti-Semitism is treated equally whether you are a Labour or Tory MP.
Alan Duncan rightly criticized Israel's long policies of colonization of Palestinian land. Jeremy Corbyn openly praised murals of money-grabbing, big-nosed Jews crushing the world's poor. What a ridiculous comparison.
The papers gave a lot of attention to a Labour MP that said "fucking Israel".
On Corbyn they had a point.
Sometimes these racist pictures are subtle enough to go over your head unless you are racist in the first place. Often in the case of Jews I am blissfully unaware the person being attacked is Jewish in the first place, whereas an anti-Semite probably will be. That was true for me regarding Howard and Letwin before they were attacked. Didn't cross my mind they were Jewish and didn't care.
However in the case of the Corbyn mural controversy your racist radar would have to be switched off entirely and buried 12 feet underground not to spot that was an attack on Jews.
I do believe Corbyn is anti-Semitic. Having been down the rabbit hole, I am afraid cults are very real.
@BatteryCorrectHorse - You say you have been down that rabbit hole? Have you? I am fascinated how that happens. People who appear perfectly sane who just flip and fall into cults or conspiracies. I just don't get it, but it happens. We had it here with Plato. David Icke is an extreme example. The Liberals and Greens had near misses with him when he appeared quite sane before he went weird.
How does it happen?
I think it is horribly easy if someone has health problems or hits 'a bump in the road' in their personal or professional. There are also an unlimited number of folk out there who will lead you down the primrose path because it pays them to do so
I am sure Alan Duncan's comments will have a week of daily headlines, because everyone knows anti-Semitism is treated equally whether you are a Labour or Tory MP.
Alan Duncan isn’t a Tory MP.
The Conservative former minister Alan Duncan
Your original quote was about the differing attitudes towards antisemitism between Labour and Tory MPs.
Alan Duncan isn’t a Tory MP, in sharp contrast to Corbyn’s friends in years past, who were very much Labour MPs at the time, and many of them still are.
Those Labour MPs are scum, clearly.
But the way anti-Semitism is reported in the Tories vs Labour is different. Actually forget anti-Semitism, just racism in general, for example Islamophobia.
I don't think that is true. Alan Duncan is currently having completely legitimate criticism of Israel as being anti-Semitic. I don't know about the Labour MP you mentioned, but from your account of it, they were unfairly treated in exactly the same way Duncan is now.
Islamophobia is a separate issue. Islam is not an innate characteristic of people but a belief system. Criticism of its adherents, fair or ugly, should be treated and reported similar to criticism of socialists, nationalists or any other belief system.
As for racism, Diane Abbott remained part of Labour high office for years despite multiple flat-out racist comments.
Islamophobia is not a separate issue, that is something people that deny it exists. The motivation behind it is clearly racist.
The test of whether it is racist or not is whether the critics still have a problem when people leave the religion. Anti-semites still despise Jews when they no longer follow Judaism. "Islamophobes" typically celebrate black and brown former Muslims. The criticism is all to do with the beliefs.
The question has often come up 'why vote for the reform party'. Another reason is to register a protest at the conduct of the Civil Service. The way Dominic Raab was bought down by the civil service shows that politicians cannot run anything anymore. A large number of civil servants made allegations against Raab that were not proven in the Inquiry (report linked to below) even on the very low test applied, but faced no adverse consequence at all, were repeatedly praised in the report. However one finding of workplace bullying, a highly subjective test, did Raab in. The whole situation is laughable but it is the conservative government, beholden to its own civil servants, who are presiding over the mess. People keep saying it is impossible to vote for Donald Trump but the situation that exists at the moment has just failed completely and he is offering something different. See also what Dominic Cummings has been saying for years.
I am sure Alan Duncan's comments will have a week of daily headlines, because everyone knows anti-Semitism is treated equally whether you are a Labour or Tory MP.
Alan Duncan isn’t a Tory MP.
The Conservative former minister Alan Duncan
Your original quote was about the differing attitudes towards antisemitism between Labour and Tory MPs.
Alan Duncan isn’t a Tory MP, in sharp contrast to Corbyn’s friends in years past, who were very much Labour MPs at the time, and many of them still are.
Those Labour MPs are scum, clearly.
But the way anti-Semitism is reported in the Tories vs Labour is different. Actually forget anti-Semitism, just racism in general, for example Islamophobia.
I don't think that is true. Alan Duncan is currently having completely legitimate criticism of Israel as being anti-Semitic. I don't know about the Labour MP you mentioned, but from your account of it, they were unfairly treated in exactly the same way Duncan is now.
Islamophobia is a separate issue. Islam is not an innate characteristic of people but a belief system. Criticism of its adherents, fair or ugly, should be treated and reported similar to criticism of socialists, nationalists or any other belief system.
As for racism, Diane Abbott remained part of Labour high office for years despite multiple flat-out racist comments.
Islamophobia is not a separate issue, that is something people that deny it exists. The motivation behind it is clearly racist.
The test of whether it is racist or not is whether the critics still have a problem when people leave the religion. Anti-semites still despise Jews when they no longer follow Judaism. "Islamophobes" typically celebrate black and brown former Muslims. The criticism is all to do with the beliefs.
I strongly disagree. Do you believe that the comments about Sadiq Khan were made because of religious reasons or because he's not white? I think it's pretty obvious they were racially motivated.
The William Wragg story has me gobsmacked. Why anyone sends compromising pictures to strangers goodness knows, but if you are an MP? Honestly. And then when being blackmailed for telephone numbers you think by supplying them it will not make things worse? Really? And then the reaction? Today it is a middling story. Once upon a time this would have been huge. A senior MP succumbing to blackmail. We have reached the point of scandals where this is trivial by comparison.
Your thinking seems to be, "It's very risky, so why do it?" The obvious answer is, "Because it's very risky". Some people get a thrill out of that.
On succumbing to the subsequent blackmail, people often panic and succumb to blackmail - that's why blackmailers do it.
It clearly wasn't wise of William Wragg, but none of it is a particularly deep psychological mystery.
What is a bit of a mystery is how a 36 year old who's been in Parliament nine years, has never had a government job, and announced he'd be standing down at the next election some 18 months ago now, gets described as a "senior MP". The bar on that title has been lowered considerably over the years!
That’s what senior MPs are now.
The job pays about what people get about 5 years into a good job in London.
So that’s what you get.
Maybe we should cast the net for our MPs a little wider than people who consider £90 000 plus allowances a starting salary.
Just a thought...
Given Wragg used to be a primary school teacher and was then an MP's caseworker for a year before election in 2015, I doubt even he does
In the interests of party political balance, shouldn't someone post the Grindr picture of Bryant in his pants?
Here is something suitable for all sorts of occasions.
Dog. For scale.
Apparently doing the Osborne power stance.
A border collie - Blea (after Blea Tarn) - on one of the hills outside my home. Always stands like that because he is waiting for a ball, stick, any object at all, to be thrown. Catching things is his favourite hobby. He will do it for hours if you let him.
Not for sale. But is used for breeding so puppies may be available.
Electoral calculus says this gives 500 labour seats. 55 tory seats and ZERO Reform seats.... that is nuts
EC was never intended as anything other than the crudest of benchmarks, but it is a rough guide of sorts and when you have polling leads of this size, the message is clear.
If you are thinking of placing bets on this, you need to consider the likely impact of two large probabilities - swingback and tactical voting. They work in opposite directions, and you could get both, or neither, or one without the other. The difference they make is likely to be huge. I would say that at the extremes the Tories could be down to 25 seats, or finish on a relatively satisfactory 175.
The Betfair betting markets appear by and large to have factored this in.
Having spent my 62 years under mainly Conservative administrations I cannot imagine the Conservatives on 25 seats. A bad night for me would be Cons on 175 which is at the top of your range and a good night with a 25 seat majority.
The evidence points to your scenario, but that is so unbelievable I can't countenance it. Even when catastrophe looms they pull something out of the hat. Take last years locals, poor, but not the disaster forecast.
No one has voted yet and of those who vote most are not doing terribly badly, so in the privacy of the voting booth won't we reflect on our palatial home our prestige cars and Labour's VAT on school fees and think, nah, I'll give Rishi another punt.
In this election, I think for the first time, the number of Millenials registered to vote exceeds the number of Boomers. Turnout will be key, but Millenials have not trended Tory over time in the way that previous generations did. I see this with my own son, now 30, engaged, and a homeowner with a professional career. He is doing well and in previous generations would likely be trending Tory, but absolutely no sign of that happening at all. He is appalled at the Culture War stuff.
Even Cameron lost under 35s in 2015.
The Conservatives are now more likely to win white working class Leavers than middle class Remainers too
Looking at the Data tables I don't think that true.
Lab have a comfortable lead in C2DE as well as ABC1, and are not far behind in 2016 Leavers, with only 34% of 2016 Leavers supporting Con in the latest YouGov.
It is true.
Yougov has the Tories on 22% with C2DEs but 21% with ABC1s.
The Conservatives as you say are on 34% with Leavers but just 12% with Remainers.
So Brexit vote is a far bigger determinant of voting intention now than class, indeed if anything the Conservatives now do at least as well if not better with working class than middle class voters
Yes, the Tories are doing less badly with Leavers than Remainers, but that is just polishing a turd. They are doing badly with both!
ABC1 voters are more likely to turn out to vote too.
If the 34% the Tories are on with Leavers was their national rating we would be heading for a hung parliament potentially.
It is the Conservatives dire rating with Remainers which will give Starmer a majority.
Working class pensioners are also more likely to vote than middle class under 30s
That is the Tories problem in a nutshell. Their vote is a declining demographic of retired C2DE Leavers. A demographic that is not philosophically sympathetic to a libertarian freebooting change in direction.
If the Conservatives want to win back voters who are interested in free enterprise, dynamic business, personal responsibility and freedom then there is a potential pool of voters. It isn't one that combines with its current Brexit nativism.
Free market libertarian non Brexit supporting voters are probably even fewer, less than 10% of the electorate certainly.
How a likely Labour government performs on the economy will in any case affect the Tory voteshare in opposition far more than what they decide to do in opposition
I think the rejoin project looks like this:
1) kick out the tories and the right and realign, join erasmus and other secondary programmes 2) customs union and security agreement, 3) single market for 10 years beginning in labour's second term, as old age thins out the eu hating boomer cohort and make a reversion impossible, 4) rejoin - probably in around 15 years.
Will the eu loving millenial cohort taking centre stage in this period, I don't see how anybody can prevent this. If Trump becomes president, it might go even faster.
Erasmus was down to an absurd demand for contributions.
The EU didn’t want us in the secondary programs - they made that quite clear.
I think nobody in europe will give the tories an easy ride. That party is not trusted in europe after the way they negotiated brexit. I suspect the eu will lavish labour with sweet deals. The eu has an interest in a pro-eu stance improving life for Brits.
There isn’t a “sweet deal” to be had. The reality is that the deal we’ve got is already good.
It's shite and you know it. It's just better than Johnson's dog's dinner was.
In global terms it’s a very close trading relationship.
Tell that to the EU drivers I passed queueing in Operation Stack last Friday.
Brexit isn’t responsible for our geography, and Operation Stack goes back 20 years.
That's cobblers, there are significantly more documentary checks at Dover than there ever were.
If the net effect of more border friction ends up stimulating the domestic economy, would that be a bad thing? Why are our manufacturing PMIs better than France or Germany?
So there is more border friction? I thought you just said there wasn't.
Maybe there isn’t enough. Should we have given the EU tariff-free access to our domestic market?
Ah, we're back to 'WTO Terms'. That's a blast from the past!
How would the Tories be polling under Esther McVey?
I am sure Alan Duncan's comments will have a week of daily headlines, because everyone knows anti-Semitism is treated equally whether you are a Labour or Tory MP.
Alan Duncan isn’t a Tory MP.
The Conservative former minister Alan Duncan
Your original quote was about the differing attitudes towards antisemitism between Labour and Tory MPs.
Alan Duncan isn’t a Tory MP, in sharp contrast to Corbyn’s friends in years past, who were very much Labour MPs at the time, and many of them still are.
Those Labour MPs are scum, clearly.
But the way anti-Semitism is reported in the Tories vs Labour is different. Actually forget anti-Semitism, just racism in general, for example Islamophobia.
I don't think that is true. Alan Duncan is currently having completely legitimate criticism of Israel as being anti-Semitic. I don't know about the Labour MP you mentioned, but from your account of it, they were unfairly treated in exactly the same way Duncan is now.
Islamophobia is a separate issue. Islam is not an innate characteristic of people but a belief system. Criticism of its adherents, fair or ugly, should be treated and reported similar to criticism of socialists, nationalists or any other belief system.
As for racism, Diane Abbott remained part of Labour high office for years despite multiple flat-out racist comments.
Islamophobia is not a separate issue, that is something people that deny it exists. The motivation behind it is clearly racist.
It's sectarian not racist
I think it is more complicated than that. Clearly, strictly speaking, it is sectarian, but I am sure a lot of it is racist as well because the person is brown. Nish Kumar comments on the amount of anti islamic abuse he gets and he is a hindu. Admittedly this is probably mistaken identity but the abusers probably don't care because he is brown anyway and white followers of islam probably get off scott free, again mainly due to their lack of identity but I suspect the colour of their skin has something to do with it as well.
It’s time to retire the word “racist”. It’s lost whatever original meaning it once had and is now freely applied, often as a straightforward attempt to “cancel” or delegitimise someone or something.
I now prefer the word “prejudiced”. One can be prejudiced against black people, white people, Muslims, Scotsmen, accordion-players, Tory MPs, and Cheshire-based PB posters.
We are all, in fact, somewhat prejudiced. It is a human failing against which we must constantly check ourselves. Being “prejudiced” therefore is a hopefully temporary state of sin, capable of correction, whereas “racist” is used now to significantly a permanent state of moral perdition.
I am sure Alan Duncan's comments will have a week of daily headlines, because everyone knows anti-Semitism is treated equally whether you are a Labour or Tory MP.
Alan Duncan isn’t a Tory MP.
The Conservative former minister Alan Duncan
Your original quote was about the differing attitudes towards antisemitism between Labour and Tory MPs.
Alan Duncan isn’t a Tory MP, in sharp contrast to Corbyn’s friends in years past, who were very much Labour MPs at the time, and many of them still are.
Those Labour MPs are scum, clearly.
But the way anti-Semitism is reported in the Tories vs Labour is different. Actually forget anti-Semitism, just racism in general, for example Islamophobia.
I don't think that is true. Alan Duncan is currently having completely legitimate criticism of Israel as being anti-Semitic. I don't know about the Labour MP you mentioned, but from your account of it, they were unfairly treated in exactly the same way Duncan is now.
Islamophobia is a separate issue. Islam is not an innate characteristic of people but a belief system. Criticism of its adherents, fair or ugly, should be treated and reported similar to criticism of socialists, nationalists or any other belief system.
As for racism, Diane Abbott remained part of Labour high office for years despite multiple flat-out racist comments.
Islamophobia is not a separate issue, that is something people that deny it exists. The motivation behind it is clearly racist.
The test of whether it is racist or not is whether the critics still have a problem when people leave the religion. Anti-semites still despise Jews when they no longer follow Judaism. "Islamophobes" typically celebrate black and brown former Muslims. The criticism is all to do with the beliefs.
I strongly disagree. Do you believe that the comments about Sadiq Khan were made because of religious reasons or because he's not white? I think it's pretty obvious they were racially motivated.
For religious reasons. I have not heard equivalent for non-white non-Muslim Labour leaders such as Paul Boateng or Vaughn Gething.
I am sure Alan Duncan's comments will have a week of daily headlines, because everyone knows anti-Semitism is treated equally whether you are a Labour or Tory MP.
Alan Duncan rightly criticized Israel's long policies of colonization of Palestinian land. Jeremy Corbyn openly praised murals of money-grabbing, big-nosed Jews crushing the world's poor. What a ridiculous comparison.
The papers gave a lot of attention to a Labour MP that said "fucking Israel".
On Corbyn they had a point.
Sometimes these racist pictures are subtle enough to go over your head unless you are racist in the first place. Often in the case of Jews I am blissfully unaware the person being attacked is Jewish in the first place, whereas an anti-Semite probably will be. That was true for me regarding Howard and Letwin before they were attacked. Didn't cross my mind they were Jewish and didn't care.
However in the case of the Corbyn mural controversy your racist radar would have to be switched off entirely and buried 12 feet underground not to spot that was an attack on Jews.
I do believe Corbyn is anti-Semitic. Having been down the rabbit hole, I am afraid cults are very real.
@BatteryCorrectHorse - You say you have been down that rabbit hole? Have you? I am fascinated how that happens. People who appear perfectly sane who just flip and fall into cults or conspiracies. I just don't get it, but it happens. We had it here with Plato. David Icke is an extreme example. The Liberals and Greens had near misses with him when he appeared quite sane before he went weird.
How does it happen?
Well people can go through my accounts here and read what I used to say. I have had a fairly traumatic life so I wonder if that has played a part although that is not an excuse.
I think what happened to me with Corbyn is that initially I did sincerely believe he was a decent man and I liked his policies. But I think as time went on and the racism things came out I found it very hard to square that with the good man I thought I was watching so it was much easier to find people that thought it was all a conspiracy - no doubt social media has made this worse. And when you go down that path then it is hard to get out. The outrider groups and so on convince you are right and they tell you everyone else is wrong. The things I defended and ignored give me a deep sense of shame.
When Corbyn lost that was a pretty big blow and shattered what was ultimately keeping me in, which is that I really did think he would become PM. Once that went it all started to fall apart.
It did take me several months and much introspection to actually get myself out. I had to delete my Twitter account and block a lot of it out.
I've had my fair share of mental health issues so I do wonder if I am somehow more susceptible to it than others. Anyway, I am very much aware of what to look for now and my opinions are very much my own. I'm glad to have got back to my centre left home which is where I've always stood really.
Corbynism was undoubtedly a cult. No getting away from it.
I am sure Alan Duncan's comments will have a week of daily headlines, because everyone knows anti-Semitism is treated equally whether you are a Labour or Tory MP.
Alan Duncan isn’t a Tory MP.
The Conservative former minister Alan Duncan
Your original quote was about the differing attitudes towards antisemitism between Labour and Tory MPs.
Alan Duncan isn’t a Tory MP, in sharp contrast to Corbyn’s friends in years past, who were very much Labour MPs at the time, and many of them still are.
Those Labour MPs are scum, clearly.
But the way anti-Semitism is reported in the Tories vs Labour is different. Actually forget anti-Semitism, just racism in general, for example Islamophobia.
So where is the Tory MP who has a problem with antisemitism?
I am sure Alan Duncan's comments will have a week of daily headlines, because everyone knows anti-Semitism is treated equally whether you are a Labour or Tory MP.
Alan Duncan isn’t a Tory MP.
The Conservative former minister Alan Duncan
Your original quote was about the differing attitudes towards antisemitism between Labour and Tory MPs.
Alan Duncan isn’t a Tory MP, in sharp contrast to Corbyn’s friends in years past, who were very much Labour MPs at the time, and many of them still are.
Those Labour MPs are scum, clearly.
But the way anti-Semitism is reported in the Tories vs Labour is different. Actually forget anti-Semitism, just racism in general, for example Islamophobia.
So where is the Tory MP who has a problem with antisemitism?
Well I sincerely believed Alan Duncan was still a Tory MP but I was wrong. Former MP then. For what it's worth, I am not saying Duncan is anti-Semitic, I don't think he is. More that his comments are given a fair hearing compared to MPs from other parties.
But the Tories clearly have problems with racism of their own, which is as bad in my view, as the anti-Semitism in Labour.
I am sure Alan Duncan's comments will have a week of daily headlines, because everyone knows anti-Semitism is treated equally whether you are a Labour or Tory MP.
Alan Duncan rightly criticized Israel's long policies of colonization of Palestinian land. Jeremy Corbyn openly praised murals of money-grabbing, big-nosed Jews crushing the world's poor. What a ridiculous comparison.
The papers gave a lot of attention to a Labour MP that said "fucking Israel".
On Corbyn they had a point.
Sometimes these racist pictures are subtle enough to go over your head unless you are racist in the first place. Often in the case of Jews I am blissfully unaware the person being attacked is Jewish in the first place, whereas an anti-Semite probably will be. That was true for me regarding Howard and Letwin before they were attacked. Didn't cross my mind they were Jewish and didn't care.
However in the case of the Corbyn mural controversy your racist radar would have to be switched off entirely and buried 12 feet underground not to spot that was an attack on Jews.
I do believe Corbyn is anti-Semitic. Having been down the rabbit hole, I am afraid cults are very real.
@BatteryCorrectHorse - You say you have been down that rabbit hole? Have you? I am fascinated how that happens. People who appear perfectly sane who just flip and fall into cults or conspiracies. I just don't get it, but it happens. We had it here with Plato. David Icke is an extreme example. The Liberals and Greens had near misses with him when he appeared quite sane before he went weird.
How does it happen?
I cannot speak for other posters but would say that it is some variant of the familiar problem of looking for simple answers to a complex world. The complexity of the world is really too much for us to process and handle. It drives people towards extreme positions that seem to provide an answer to everything. Being educated or intelligent won't save you from this fate. There are lots of examples of people who have started out trying to find an answer to issues with 'woke' then ending up as Trump supporters. Similarly this can be evidenced by the enthusiasm sometimes expressed for the regime in El Salvador which has imprisoned 40,000 people without any process or trial in a 'war on crime'. It is really just people 'losing their minds'.
It’s time to retire the word “racist”. It’s lost whatever original meaning it once had and is now freely applied, often as a straightforward attempt to “cancel” or delegitimise someone or something.
I now prefer the word “prejudiced”. One can be prejudiced against black people, white people, Muslims, Scotsmen, accordion-players, Tory MPs, and Cheshire-based PB posters.
We are all, in fact, somewhat prejudiced. It is a human failing against which we must constantly check ourselves. Being “prejudiced” therefore is a hopefully temporary state of sin, capable of correction, whereas “racist” is used now to significantly a permanent state of moral perdition.
On a pedantic note, adverse opinions about accordion players are not based on prejudice but are judgments with a firm empirical base. See also bagpipers.
I am sure Alan Duncan's comments will have a week of daily headlines, because everyone knows anti-Semitism is treated equally whether you are a Labour or Tory MP.
Alan Duncan isn’t a Tory MP.
The Conservative former minister Alan Duncan
Your original quote was about the differing attitudes towards antisemitism between Labour and Tory MPs.
Alan Duncan isn’t a Tory MP, in sharp contrast to Corbyn’s friends in years past, who were very much Labour MPs at the time, and many of them still are.
Those Labour MPs are scum, clearly.
But the way anti-Semitism is reported in the Tories vs Labour is different. Actually forget anti-Semitism, just racism in general, for example Islamophobia.
I don't think that is true. Alan Duncan is currently having completely legitimate criticism of Israel as being anti-Semitic. I don't know about the Labour MP you mentioned, but from your account of it, they were unfairly treated in exactly the same way Duncan is now.
Islamophobia is a separate issue. Islam is not an innate characteristic of people but a belief system. Criticism of its adherents, fair or ugly, should be treated and reported similar to criticism of socialists, nationalists or any other belief system.
As for racism, Diane Abbott remained part of Labour high office for years despite multiple flat-out racist comments.
Islamophobia is not a separate issue, that is something people that deny it exists. The motivation behind it is clearly racist.
It's sectarian not racist
I think it is more complicated than that. Clearly, strictly speaking, it is sectarian, but I am sure a lot of it is racist as well because the person is brown. Nish Kumar comments on the amount of anti islamic abuse he gets and he is a hindu. Admittedly this is probably mistaken identity but the abusers probably don't care because he is brown anyway and white followers of islam probably get off scott free, again mainly due to their lack of identity but I suspect the colour of their skin has something to do with it as well.
Why not just ignore all of this crap and treat people like people ?
The emergence of the internet, and now AI, makes me think we might be heading back to a time where people are more socially prudent. At first these advances in technology encouraged over sharing of personal info, I think in future they will act as a kind of church/school/government/village gossip that shames people into conformity
I don't see how that would work.
If you try to shame me on pb.com then it's relatively easy for me to lie, or I can just stop using pb.com - there are lots of other bits of the internet, or people in real life to mix with.
Social conformity was enforced in the past because there were spaces people almost had to be part of, or they were outcasts already.
A recent change with social media is for it to become more fractured and semi-private, with things like discord, rather than twitter. A lot of people would be in a lot less trouble if sites like twitter didn't keep content for any longer than a month too. Perhaps that's something that will start to happen.
Are you saying I am not actually a horse?
Well, that depends. Do you live in Scotland and would you be offended?
It’s time to retire the word “racist”. It’s lost whatever original meaning it once had and is now freely applied, often as a straightforward attempt to “cancel” or delegitimise someone or something.
I now prefer the word “prejudiced”. One can be prejudiced against black people, white people, Muslims, Scotsmen, accordion-players, Tory MPs, and Cheshire-based PB posters.
We are all, in fact, somewhat prejudiced. It is a human failing against which we must constantly check ourselves. Being “prejudiced” therefore is a hopefully temporary state of sin, capable of correction, whereas “racist” is used now to significantly a permanent state of moral perdition.
On a pedantic note, adverse opinions about accordion players are not based on prejudice but are judgments with a firm empirical base. See also bagpipers.
I would direct discerning readers to Radio 3, where the lunchtime concerts last week included Bach Organ Fugues (and others) played on a classical accordion...
I am sure Alan Duncan's comments will have a week of daily headlines, because everyone knows anti-Semitism is treated equally whether you are a Labour or Tory MP.
Alan Duncan isn’t a Tory MP.
The Conservative former minister Alan Duncan
Your original quote was about the differing attitudes towards antisemitism between Labour and Tory MPs.
Alan Duncan isn’t a Tory MP, in sharp contrast to Corbyn’s friends in years past, who were very much Labour MPs at the time, and many of them still are.
Those Labour MPs are scum, clearly.
But the way anti-Semitism is reported in the Tories vs Labour is different. Actually forget anti-Semitism, just racism in general, for example Islamophobia.
I don't think that is true. Alan Duncan is currently having completely legitimate criticism of Israel as being anti-Semitic. I don't know about the Labour MP you mentioned, but from your account of it, they were unfairly treated in exactly the same way Duncan is now.
Islamophobia is a separate issue. Islam is not an innate characteristic of people but a belief system. Criticism of its adherents, fair or ugly, should be treated and reported similar to criticism of socialists, nationalists or any other belief system.
As for racism, Diane Abbott remained part of Labour high office for years despite multiple flat-out racist comments.
But not criticism of Tories? "Scum" is just acceptable knockabout political banter?
I call people on both sides scum.
Perhaps engaging with arguments, rather than personalities, is a better way of doing politics?
Everyone who goes into politics wants to make the world a better place. If we all agree that we use Parliamentary language, then we can look at the issues rather than the personalities involved.
For religious reasons. I have not heard equivalent for non-white non-Muslim Labour leaders such as Paul Boateng or Vaughn Gething.
Again I strongly disagree. I think Lee Anderson's comments were at the best dog whistles.
I think there is legitimate criticism of Islam - but I think a lot of it is covers for actual racism.
What moral distinction are you trying to make here? Anderson’s comments were designed to stoke ignorant bigotry, and were rightly condemned.
Khan is still an absolute waste of time, though.
I do not think the coverage Islamophobia receives is proportional to the coverage anti-Semitism receives. To me they are equivalent, both vile racism.
But on Khan, I think he's been perfectly adequate. Nothing amazing but a lot better than Johnson and much better than Hall would be.
I'd rather somebody else but I will vote for him again.
He is not perfectly adequate. He’s a bed-blocker for someone who actually believes in London and is willing to use the admittedly-limited powers available to advance its cause.
That he is better than Hall is no recommendation.
In my darker moments, I fear that Starmer could be a kind of national Khan.
I am sure Alan Duncan's comments will have a week of daily headlines, because everyone knows anti-Semitism is treated equally whether you are a Labour or Tory MP.
Alan Duncan isn’t a Tory MP.
The Conservative former minister Alan Duncan
Your original quote was about the differing attitudes towards antisemitism between Labour and Tory MPs.
Alan Duncan isn’t a Tory MP, in sharp contrast to Corbyn’s friends in years past, who were very much Labour MPs at the time, and many of them still are.
Those Labour MPs are scum, clearly.
But the way anti-Semitism is reported in the Tories vs Labour is different. Actually forget anti-Semitism, just racism in general, for example Islamophobia.
I don't think that is true. Alan Duncan is currently having completely legitimate criticism of Israel as being anti-Semitic. I don't know about the Labour MP you mentioned, but from your account of it, they were unfairly treated in exactly the same way Duncan is now.
Islamophobia is a separate issue. Islam is not an innate characteristic of people but a belief system. Criticism of its adherents, fair or ugly, should be treated and reported similar to criticism of socialists, nationalists or any other belief system.
As for racism, Diane Abbott remained part of Labour high office for years despite multiple flat-out racist comments.
But not criticism of Tories? "Scum" is just acceptable knockabout political banter?
I call people on both sides scum.
Perhaps engaging with arguments, rather than personalities, is a better way of doing politics?
Everyone who goes into politics wants to make the world a better place. If we all agree that we use Parliamentary language, then we can look at the issues rather than the personalities involved.
It was slightly tongue in cheek. But if people are scum, then I call them as such.
I think the anti-Semites in Labour are scum of the Earth.
I am sure Alan Duncan's comments will have a week of daily headlines, because everyone knows anti-Semitism is treated equally whether you are a Labour or Tory MP.
Alan Duncan rightly criticized Israel's long policies of colonization of Palestinian land. Jeremy Corbyn openly praised murals of money-grabbing, big-nosed Jews crushing the world's poor. What a ridiculous comparison.
The papers gave a lot of attention to a Labour MP that said "fucking Israel".
On Corbyn they had a point.
Sometimes these racist pictures are subtle enough to go over your head unless you are racist in the first place. Often in the case of Jews I am blissfully unaware the person being attacked is Jewish in the first place, whereas an anti-Semite probably will be. That was true for me regarding Howard and Letwin before they were attacked. Didn't cross my mind they were Jewish and didn't care.
However in the case of the Corbyn mural controversy your racist radar would have to be switched off entirely and buried 12 feet underground not to spot that was an attack on Jews.
I do believe Corbyn is anti-Semitic. Having been down the rabbit hole, I am afraid cults are very real.
@BatteryCorrectHorse - You say you have been down that rabbit hole? Have you? I am fascinated how that happens. People who appear perfectly sane who just flip and fall into cults or conspiracies. I just don't get it, but it happens. We had it here with Plato. David Icke is an extreme example. The Liberals and Greens had near misses with him when he appeared quite sane before he went weird.
How does it happen?
I think it is horribly easy if someone has health problems or hits 'a bump in the road' in their personal or professional. There are also an unlimited number of folk out there who will lead you down the primrose path because it pays them to do so
Many decades ago I was waiting for a girlfriend on Tottenham Court Road and I was very early. I was approached by someone and asked to take part in a survey and as I had time to kill I said yes. I did the survey which was innocent enough and it was followed by an interview and it became blindingly obvious where this was going. I went along with it for a bit to see what happened before giving them both barrels and made it quite clear what I thought of them very loudly as I left slowly.
I was furious and was so angry I didn't actually find out what cult it was. I told this story here before and several posters said Scientologists operated there. I think I was also furious with myself for not spotting it earlier. It did strike me that you have to be very gullible to fall for the patter, although I suspect if you have low esteem at that point in time it might be possible as that was what they worked on in the interview.
It’s time to retire the word “racist”. It’s lost whatever original meaning it once had and is now freely applied, often as a straightforward attempt to “cancel” or delegitimise someone or something.
I now prefer the word “prejudiced”. One can be prejudiced against black people, white people, Muslims, Scotsmen, accordion-players, Tory MPs, and Cheshire-based PB posters.
We are all, in fact, somewhat prejudiced. It is a human failing against which we must constantly check ourselves. Being “prejudiced” therefore is a hopefully temporary state of sin, capable of correction, whereas “racist” is used now to significantly a permanent state of moral perdition.
Previously I would disagree with something like this as I'd see it as an attempt to use language to minimise racism. But I really like the way you've stated your case and I think I might be convinced.
I think the distinction you draw is really important. We should want to give people - like Frank Hester, say - the opportunity to learn from past mistakes. But too often the accusation of racism is used to categorise someone indelibly as a racist who is beyond redemption.
I'm interested in changing things to make them better, and that can't happen unless people are willing to admit to mistakes and do things differently - and that can't happen unless people are allowed to err without being damned by society for ever.
It’s time to retire the word “racist”. It’s lost whatever original meaning it once had and is now freely applied, often as a straightforward attempt to “cancel” or delegitimise someone or something.
I now prefer the word “prejudiced”. One can be prejudiced against black people, white people, Muslims, Scotsmen, accordion-players, Tory MPs, and Cheshire-based PB posters.
We are all, in fact, somewhat prejudiced. It is a human failing against which we must constantly check ourselves. Being “prejudiced” therefore is a hopefully temporary state of sin, capable of correction, whereas “racist” is used now to significantly a permanent state of moral perdition.
Terms like prejudice, unconscious bias, and all that are dealing with a biologically and culturally evolved aspect of the human condition. In nature we do not deal with wolves, lions, tigers, snakes or even rats by attending awareness courses, and attending to our unconscious reactions. Action or evasion is required now and instantly on the basis of the slightest of indications.
He is not perfectly adequate. He’s a bed-blocker for someone who actually believes in London and is willing to use the admittedly-limited powers available to advance its cause.
That he is better than Hall is no recommendation.
In my darker moments, I fear that Starmer could be a kind of national Khan.
It’s time to retire the word “racist”. It’s lost whatever original meaning it once had and is now freely applied, often as a straightforward attempt to “cancel” or delegitimise someone or something.
I now prefer the word “prejudiced”. One can be prejudiced against black people, white people, Muslims, Scotsmen, accordion-players, Tory MPs, and Cheshire-based PB posters.
We are all, in fact, somewhat prejudiced. It is a human failing against which we must constantly check ourselves. Being “prejudiced” therefore is a hopefully temporary state of sin, capable of correction, whereas “racist” is used now to significantly a permanent state of moral perdition.
For religious reasons. I have not heard equivalent for non-white non-Muslim Labour leaders such as Paul Boateng or Vaughn Gething.
Again I strongly disagree. I think Lee Anderson's comments were at the best dog whistles.
I think there is legitimate criticism of Islam - but I think a lot of it is covers for actual racism.
What moral distinction are you trying to make here? Anderson’s comments were designed to stoke ignorant bigotry, and were rightly condemned.
Khan is still an absolute waste of time, though.
I do not think the coverage Islamophobia receives is proportional to the coverage anti-Semitism receives. To me they are equivalent, both vile racism.
But on Khan, I think he's been perfectly adequate. Nothing amazing but a lot better than Johnson and much better than Hall would be.
I'd rather somebody else but I will vote for him again.
He is not perfectly adequate. He’s a bed-blocker for someone who actually believes in London and is willing to use the admittedly-limited powers available to advance its cause.
That he is better than Hall is no recommendation.
In my darker moments, I fear that Starmer could be a kind of national Khan.
I don't have high hopes for Starmer, but surely he won't be that bad?
He is not perfectly adequate. He’s a bed-blocker for someone who actually believes in London and is willing to use the admittedly-limited powers available to advance its cause.
That he is better than Hall is no recommendation.
In my darker moments, I fear that Starmer could be a kind of national Khan.
So who would you like to be Mayor?
Personally I would have voted for Rory Stewart.
Livingstone (First Term) and Johnson (First Term) were pretty good.
You want someone with a bit of urban passion who is willing to use the bully pulpit to influence broader stakeholders.
FPT - my sense is Israel won't take the gloves off until all the hostages are released and Hamas are destroyed. And since the hostages are basically the only leverage Hamas still has they won't release them.
Israel is (still) very, very angry. They have little respect for the Palestinians anyway - who they probably hold collectively culpable for Hamas being ensconced in Gaza in the first place - and it blinds them to any recklessness in their actions. And they don't care because they don't think they should have been there in the first place, and now they've attacked them they will experience their full unchained wrath in all its hideous glory and any amd all consequences are entirely on them.
Unfortunately, this has now gotten so severe that it's changed my mind on the issue. Dropping targeted ordinance on aid workers on a safe route and engineering famine as a weapon of war is not ok. And I talk as someone who holds no candle whatsoever for the Palestinians or the assortment of Islamists, Marxists and socialist workers who associate with them. They've lost their sense of proportion. They've lost their friends. Yes, there is antisemitism around but that's not a free pass to rebut any and all criticism of their state policy and military actions, particularly when it comes from their friends.
Israel might not care but they need to be made to care for their own sake: when you have clear splits at the top of the Tory party, Biden dropping ultimatums and calling for a ceasefire and even Trump telling you to pack it in you know you have a problem.
I still find it difficult to believe that an aid convoy of foreign nationals would be deliberately targeted by the Israelis at the top level, precisely because of the international reaction they would know it would bring.
I’m sure there have also been a number of war crimes committed by Ukranians in the last couple of years, but it doesn’t mean their overall aims are not just or that we should stop supporting them.
War is horrible, but also something that thankfully few of us in the West have experienced in our lives. But for some people in the world, most obviously the Ukranians and Israelis at the moment, it’s an existential threat.
Of course, it might just be that the Israelis have ceased to care what anyone else thinks, and are going to make life utter Hell for Hamas-controlled areas until they surrender and hand over their hostages and weapons. We already know that the Russians and Hamas don’t care what the rest of the world thinks about their behaviour, and see local civilians as fair game in their wars despite international agreements and understandings on such things.
I am not convinced that the primary goals of the attack are to recover the hostages, or to destroy Hamas's fighting ability. Their approach seems to be counterproductive to the first goal, and very slow about doing the second. It seems to me to be aimed a lot more at making life unpleasant for the citizens of Gaza.
I am sure Alan Duncan's comments will have a week of daily headlines, because everyone knows anti-Semitism is treated equally whether you are a Labour or Tory MP.
Alan Duncan isn’t a Tory MP.
The Conservative former minister Alan Duncan
Your original quote was about the differing attitudes towards antisemitism between Labour and Tory MPs.
Alan Duncan isn’t a Tory MP, in sharp contrast to Corbyn’s friends in years past, who were very much Labour MPs at the time, and many of them still are.
Those Labour MPs are scum, clearly.
But the way anti-Semitism is reported in the Tories vs Labour is different. Actually forget anti-Semitism, just racism in general, for example Islamophobia.
I don't think that is true. Alan Duncan is currently having completely legitimate criticism of Israel as being anti-Semitic. I don't know about the Labour MP you mentioned, but from your account of it, they were unfairly treated in exactly the same way Duncan is now.
Islamophobia is a separate issue. Islam is not an innate characteristic of people but a belief system. Criticism of its adherents, fair or ugly, should be treated and reported similar to criticism of socialists, nationalists or any other belief system.
As for racism, Diane Abbott remained part of Labour high office for years despite multiple flat-out racist comments.
Islamophobia is not a separate issue, that is something people that deny it exists. The motivation behind it is clearly racist.
It's sectarian not racist
I think it is more complicated than that. Clearly, strictly speaking, it is sectarian, but I am sure a lot of it is racist as well because the person is brown. Nish Kumar comments on the amount of anti islamic abuse he gets and he is a hindu. Admittedly this is probably mistaken identity but the abusers probably don't care because he is brown anyway and white followers of islam probably get off scott free, again mainly due to their lack of identity but I suspect the colour of their skin has something to do with it as well.
Why not just ignore all of this crap and treat people like people ?
Couldn't agree more. See my post earlier on the jewish topic. I just don't care if someone is jewish or not and usually I don't know anyway. It only becomes apparent when they are attacked for being jews that I become aware.
However that is easy for me as I am a white anglo saxon man. I don't care what religion or race anyone is and being a white anglo saxon man I don't get targeted. However I were Nish Kumar or Oliver Letwin I might feel differently and I can and do have sympathy for the racism or sectarian abuse they get.
For religious reasons. I have not heard equivalent for non-white non-Muslim Labour leaders such as Paul Boateng or Vaughn Gething.
Again I strongly disagree. I think Lee Anderson's comments were at the best dog whistles.
I think there is legitimate criticism of Islam - but I think a lot of it is covers for actual racism.
What moral distinction are you trying to make here? Anderson’s comments were designed to stoke ignorant bigotry, and were rightly condemned.
Khan is still an absolute waste of time, though.
I do not think the coverage Islamophobia receives is proportional to the coverage anti-Semitism receives. To me they are equivalent, both vile racism.
But on Khan, I think he's been perfectly adequate. Nothing amazing but a lot better than Johnson and much better than Hall would be.
I'd rather somebody else but I will vote for him again.
He is not perfectly adequate. He’s a bed-blocker for someone who actually believes in London and is willing to use the admittedly-limited powers available to advance its cause.
That he is better than Hall is no recommendation.
In my darker moments, I fear that Starmer could be a kind of national Khan.
I don't have high hopes for Starmer, but surely he won't be that bad?
I said darker moments. I’m a big believer in Rachel Reeves. Resting a lot of my hopes there.
I am sure Alan Duncan's comments will have a week of daily headlines, because everyone knows anti-Semitism is treated equally whether you are a Labour or Tory MP.
Alan Duncan rightly criticized Israel's long policies of colonization of Palestinian land. Jeremy Corbyn openly praised murals of money-grabbing, big-nosed Jews crushing the world's poor. What a ridiculous comparison.
The papers gave a lot of attention to a Labour MP that said "fucking Israel".
On Corbyn they had a point.
Sometimes these racist pictures are subtle enough to go over your head unless you are racist in the first place. Often in the case of Jews I am blissfully unaware the person being attacked is Jewish in the first place, whereas an anti-Semite probably will be. That was true for me regarding Howard and Letwin before they were attacked. Didn't cross my mind they were Jewish and didn't care.
However in the case of the Corbyn mural controversy your racist radar would have to be switched off entirely and buried 12 feet underground not to spot that was an attack on Jews.
I do believe Corbyn is anti-Semitic. Having been down the rabbit hole, I am afraid cults are very real.
@BatteryCorrectHorse - You say you have been down that rabbit hole? Have you? I am fascinated how that happens. People who appear perfectly sane who just flip and fall into cults or conspiracies. I just don't get it, but it happens. We had it here with Plato. David Icke is an extreme example. The Liberals and Greens had near misses with him when he appeared quite sane before he went weird.
How does it happen?
There's a Cult in America that has about 30 million members - pretty worrying given a common characteristic of people who succumb to Cults is some sort of mental infirmity.
It’s time to retire the word “racist”. It’s lost whatever original meaning it once had and is now freely applied, often as a straightforward attempt to “cancel” or delegitimise someone or something.
I now prefer the word “prejudiced”. One can be prejudiced against black people, white people, Muslims, Scotsmen, accordion-players, Tory MPs, and Cheshire-based PB posters.
We are all, in fact, somewhat prejudiced. It is a human failing against which we must constantly check ourselves. Being “prejudiced” therefore is a hopefully temporary state of sin, capable of correction, whereas “racist” is used now to significantly a permanent state of moral perdition.
On a pedantic note, adverse opinions about accordion players are not based on prejudice but are judgments with a firm empirical base. See also bagpipers.
I would direct discerning readers to Radio 3, where the lunchtime concerts last week included Bach Organ Fugues (and others) played on a classical accordion...
No doubt Radio 3 are even now preparing a series of programmes where Wagner's Ring Cycle is performed by a group of bagpipers with Lulu as Brunnhilde.
It’s time to retire the word “racist”. It’s lost whatever original meaning it once had and is now freely applied, often as a straightforward attempt to “cancel” or delegitimise someone or something.
I now prefer the word “prejudiced”. One can be prejudiced against black people, white people, Muslims, Scotsmen, accordion-players, Tory MPs, and Cheshire-based PB posters.
We are all, in fact, somewhat prejudiced. It is a human failing against which we must constantly check ourselves. Being “prejudiced” therefore is a hopefully temporary state of sin, capable of correction, whereas “racist” is used now to significantly a permanent state of moral perdition.
Good post, you've convinced me.
Could we pension off the term "woke" as well? It doesn't mean what originally meant, and is just a term of abuse now.
It’s time to retire the word “racist”. It’s lost whatever original meaning it once had and is now freely applied, often as a straightforward attempt to “cancel” or delegitimise someone or something.
I now prefer the word “prejudiced”. One can be prejudiced against black people, white people, Muslims, Scotsmen, accordion-players, Tory MPs, and Cheshire-based PB posters.
We are all, in fact, somewhat prejudiced. It is a human failing against which we must constantly check ourselves. Being “prejudiced” therefore is a hopefully temporary state of sin, capable of correction, whereas “racist” is used now to significantly a permanent state of moral perdition.
Good post, you've convinced me.
Could we pension off the term "woke" as well? It doesn't mean what originally meant, and is just a term of abuse now.
I was going to comment much the same. I said a few days back we need a new word.
I am sure Alan Duncan's comments will have a week of daily headlines, because everyone knows anti-Semitism is treated equally whether you are a Labour or Tory MP.
Duncan is alleging that Senior politicians in the Lords and Commons are bidding for an overseas Government. I don't believe he is remotely anti-Semitic but he calls into question domestic corruption.
I agree with this. His comments are criticising the Nethanyahu regime and our govts closeness to it which is fair comment. There may be other stuff he has said that was not quoted but from what I have seen I think this issue is artificial offence.
Of course we have the Israeli ultras here who think any criticism of Israel and its govt is also anti semitic.
It’s time to retire the word “racist”. It’s lost whatever original meaning it once had and is now freely applied, often as a straightforward attempt to “cancel” or delegitimise someone or something.
I now prefer the word “prejudiced”. One can be prejudiced against black people, white people, Muslims, Scotsmen, accordion-players, Tory MPs, and Cheshire-based PB posters.
We are all, in fact, somewhat prejudiced. It is a human failing against which we must constantly check ourselves. Being “prejudiced” therefore is a hopefully temporary state of sin, capable of correction, whereas “racist” is used now to significantly a permanent state of moral perdition.
On a pedantic note, adverse opinions about accordion players are not based on prejudice but are judgments with a firm empirical base. See also bagpipers.
I would direct discerning readers to Radio 3, where the lunchtime concerts last week included Bach Organ Fugues (and others) played on a classical accordion...
No doubt Radio 3 are even now preparing a series of programmes where Wagner's Ring Cycle is performed by a group of bagpipers with Lulu as Brunnhilde.
I am sure Alan Duncan's comments will have a week of daily headlines, because everyone knows anti-Semitism is treated equally whether you are a Labour or Tory MP.
Duncan is alleging that Senior politicians in the Lords and Commons are bidding for an overseas Government. I don't believe he is remotely anti-Semitic but he calls into question domestic corruption.
I agree with this. His comments are criticising the Nethanyahu regime and our govts closeness to it which is fair comment. There may be other stuff he has said that was not quoted but from what I have seen I think this issue is artificial offence.
Of course we have the Israeli ultras here who think any criticism of Israel and its govt is also anti semitic.
Duncan's comments as reported are completely spot on.
I am sure Alan Duncan's comments will have a week of daily headlines, because everyone knows anti-Semitism is treated equally whether you are a Labour or Tory MP.
Alan Duncan rightly criticized Israel's long policies of colonization of Palestinian land. Jeremy Corbyn openly praised murals of money-grabbing, big-nosed Jews crushing the world's poor. What a ridiculous comparison.
The papers gave a lot of attention to a Labour MP that said "fucking Israel".
On Corbyn they had a point.
Sometimes these racist pictures are subtle enough to go over your head unless you are racist in the first place. Often in the case of Jews I am blissfully unaware the person being attacked is Jewish in the first place, whereas an anti-Semite probably will be. That was true for me regarding Howard and Letwin before they were attacked. Didn't cross my mind they were Jewish and didn't care.
However in the case of the Corbyn mural controversy your racist radar would have to be switched off entirely and buried 12 feet underground not to spot that was an attack on Jews.
I do believe Corbyn is anti-Semitic. Having been down the rabbit hole, I am afraid cults are very real.
@BatteryCorrectHorse - You say you have been down that rabbit hole? Have you? I am fascinated how that happens. People who appear perfectly sane who just flip and fall into cults or conspiracies. I just don't get it, but it happens. We had it here with Plato. David Icke is an extreme example. The Liberals and Greens had near misses with him when he appeared quite sane before he went weird.
How does it happen?
Well people can go through my accounts here and read what I used to say. I have had a fairly traumatic life so I wonder if that has played a part although that is not an excuse.
I think what happened to me with Corbyn is that initially I did sincerely believe he was a decent man and I liked his policies. But I think as time went on and the racism things came out I found it very hard to square that with the good man I thought I was watching so it was much easier to find people that thought it was all a conspiracy - no doubt social media has made this worse. And when you go down that path then it is hard to get out. The outrider groups and so on convince you are right and they tell you everyone else is wrong. The things I defended and ignored give me a deep sense of shame.
When Corbyn lost that was a pretty big blow and shattered what was ultimately keeping me in, which is that I really did think he would become PM. Once that went it all started to fall apart.
It did take me several months and much introspection to actually get myself out. I had to delete my Twitter account and block a lot of it out.
I've had my fair share of mental health issues so I do wonder if I am somehow more susceptible to it than others. Anyway, I am very much aware of what to look for now and my opinions are very much my own. I'm glad to have got back to my centre left home which is where I've always stood really.
Corbynism was undoubtedly a cult. No getting away from it.
I think you are being much, much too hard on yourself. I don't think Corbynism was a cult. We have a wide range of beliefs here and all you did was be in that spectrum and changed your views to now appear elsewhere in that spectrum of views and are embarrassed by your previous views
That is not cult stuff. Cult stuff is believing in lizard rulers, contrails full of chemicals, etc. Although I think Trumpism is a cult, so where you draw the line is difficult, but people like Corbyn and Johnson for instance are just not the same as Trump..
For religious reasons. I have not heard equivalent for non-white non-Muslim Labour leaders such as Paul Boateng or Vaughn Gething.
Again I strongly disagree. I think Lee Anderson's comments were at the best dog whistles.
I think there is legitimate criticism of Islam - but I think a lot of it is covers for actual racism.
What moral distinction are you trying to make here? Anderson’s comments were designed to stoke ignorant bigotry, and were rightly condemned.
Khan is still an absolute waste of time, though.
I do not think the coverage Islamophobia receives is proportional to the coverage anti-Semitism receives. To me they are equivalent, both vile racism.
But on Khan, I think he's been perfectly adequate. Nothing amazing but a lot better than Johnson and much better than Hall would be.
I'd rather somebody else but I will vote for him again.
He is not perfectly adequate. He’s a bed-blocker for someone who actually believes in London and is willing to use the admittedly-limited powers available to advance its cause.
That he is better than Hall is no recommendation.
In my darker moments, I fear that Starmer could be a kind of national Khan.
I don't have high hopes for Starmer, but surely he won't be that bad?
I said darker moments. I’m a big believer in Rachel Reeves. Resting a lot of my hopes there.
I'm curious why?
I've more hope actually in Starmer himself than Reeves.
Starmer has said some good things to show he might actually get some of the problems facing this country. Whether he'll fix them is another issue, but first step to doing so is acknowledging the problem.
Reeves OTOH just does not. Her comments on National Insurance in particular are very concerning.
I think you are being much, much too hard on yourself. I don't think Corbynism was a cult. We have a wide range of beliefs here and all you did was be in that spectrum and changed your views to now appear elsewhere in that spectrum of views and are embarrassed by your previous views
That is not cult stuff. Cult stuff is believing in lizard rulers, contrails full of chemicals, etc. Although I think Trumpism is a cult, so where you draw the line is difficult, but people like Corbyn and Johnson for instance are just not the same as Trump..
That's kind but I really do think it was a cult. The things that I said and saw, for example that mural I defended it despite it being obviously anti-Semitic.
I do not think all Corbynites were cultists - but I think Corbynism was a cult and I was in a cult.
Whatever you want to call it, I am glad to have got out and returned to having views that I can sincerely hold and argue without shame. For me that is enough.
I am sure Alan Duncan's comments will have a week of daily headlines, because everyone knows anti-Semitism is treated equally whether you are a Labour or Tory MP.
Duncan is alleging that Senior politicians in the Lords and Commons are bidding for an overseas Government. I don't believe he is remotely anti-Semitic but he calls into question domestic corruption.
I agree with this. His comments are criticising the Nethanyahu regime and our govts closeness to it which is fair comment. There may be other stuff he has said that was not quoted but from what I have seen I think this issue is artificial offence.
Of course we have the Israeli ultras here who think any criticism of Israel and its govt is also anti semitic.
Criticism of the Israeli government is entirely legitimate.
Holding them to standards you wouldn't hold any other nation is not.
I am sure Alan Duncan's comments will have a week of daily headlines, because everyone knows anti-Semitism is treated equally whether you are a Labour or Tory MP.
Duncan is alleging that Senior politicians in the Lords and Commons are bidding for an overseas Government. I don't believe he is remotely anti-Semitic but he calls into question domestic corruption.
I agree with this. His comments are criticising the Nethanyahu regime and our govts closeness to it which is fair comment. There may be other stuff he has said that was not quoted but from what I have seen I think this issue is artificial offence.
Of course we have the Israeli ultras here who think any criticism of Israel and its govt is also anti semitic.
Criticism of the Israeli government is entirely legitimate.
Holding them to standards you wouldn't hold any other nation is not.
It’s time to retire the word “racist”. It’s lost whatever original meaning it once had and is now freely applied, often as a straightforward attempt to “cancel” or delegitimise someone or something.
I now prefer the word “prejudiced”. One can be prejudiced against black people, white people, Muslims, Scotsmen, accordion-players, Tory MPs, and Cheshire-based PB posters.
We are all, in fact, somewhat prejudiced. It is a human failing against which we must constantly check ourselves. Being “prejudiced” therefore is a hopefully temporary state of sin, capable of correction, whereas “racist” is used now to significantly a permanent state of moral perdition.
On a pedantic note, adverse opinions about accordion players are not based on prejudice but are judgments with a firm empirical base. See also bagpipers.
I would direct discerning readers to Radio 3, where the lunchtime concerts last week included Bach Organ Fugues (and others) played on a classical accordion...
No doubt Radio 3 are even now preparing a series of programmes where Wagner's Ring Cycle is performed by a group of bagpipers with Lulu as Brunnhilde.
I am sure Alan Duncan's comments will have a week of daily headlines, because everyone knows anti-Semitism is treated equally whether you are a Labour or Tory MP.
Duncan is alleging that Senior politicians in the Lords and Commons are bidding for an overseas Government. I don't believe he is remotely anti-Semitic but he calls into question domestic corruption.
I agree with this. His comments are criticising the Nethanyahu regime and our govts closeness to it which is fair comment. There may be other stuff he has said that was not quoted but from what I have seen I think this issue is artificial offence.
Of course we have the Israeli ultras here who think any criticism of Israel and its govt is also anti semitic.
Criticism of the Israeli government is entirely legitimate.
Holding them to standards you wouldn't hold any other nation is not.
I am sure Alan Duncan's comments will have a week of daily headlines, because everyone knows anti-Semitism is treated equally whether you are a Labour or Tory MP.
Duncan is alleging that Senior politicians in the Lords and Commons are bidding for an overseas Government. I don't believe he is remotely anti-Semitic but he calls into question domestic corruption.
I agree with this. His comments are criticising the Nethanyahu regime and our govts closeness to it which is fair comment. There may be other stuff he has said that was not quoted but from what I have seen I think this issue is artificial offence.
Of course we have the Israeli ultras here who think any criticism of Israel and its govt is also anti semitic.
Criticism of the Israeli government is entirely legitimate.
Holding them to standards you wouldn't hold any other nation is not.
The William Wragg story has me gobsmacked. Why anyone sends compromising pictures to strangers goodness knows, but if you are an MP? Honestly. And then when being blackmailed for telephone numbers you think by supplying them it will not make things worse? Really? And then the reaction? Today it is a middling story. Once upon a time this would have been huge. A senior MP succumbing to blackmail. We have reached the point of scandals where this is trivial by comparison.
It clearly wasn't wise of William Wragg, but none of it is a particularly deep psychological mystery.
What is a bit of a mystery is how a 36 year old who's been in Parliament nine years, has never had a government job, and announced he'd be standing down at the next election some 18 months ago now, gets described as a "senior MP". The bar on that title has been lowered considerably over the years!
Apart from setting me to wonder at what point he picked up expertise in Antiguan shipping, I do wonder why he is nor even contesting his seat. Clearly he sees no future in the PCP.
There are lot standing down, and it looks like a tsunami is about to take out a lot of other experienced MPs. It is likely that the next Parliament will have the least percapita Westminster experience of any in a long time. That may be a good thing of course.
He's 36 so might potentially come back at some stage (although this story clearly makes it less likely). As for this year, he's got a 10% majority over the Lib Dems and is the sole elected Tory in his patch, the last Tory Stockport Borough councillors having been wiped out last May. His chances would be somewhat less than slim if he hung around.
He may also have personal reasons. The scandal he got involved in is, to a degree, rather sad and doesn't speak to a deeply fulfilled and happy character. I genuinely hope getting away from politics will help him personally.
There is a loss of office payment for defeated (rather than retiring) MPs, but it'd be about £5k. That's just not worth it for the effort, and given you make it harder to line up a new job to start promptly after you lose (you can't really accept a new job whilst standing for re-election).
He is not perfectly adequate. He’s a bed-blocker for someone who actually believes in London and is willing to use the admittedly-limited powers available to advance its cause.
That he is better than Hall is no recommendation.
In my darker moments, I fear that Starmer could be a kind of national Khan.
So who would you like to be Mayor?
Personally I would have voted for Rory Stewart.
Livingstone (First Term) and Johnson (First Term) were pretty good.
You want someone with a bit of urban passion who is willing to use the bully pulpit to influence broader stakeholders.
Not sure Rory’s got that either, to be honest.
Andy Birmingham and Andy Manchester both seems to do that pretty well. Who is there who is able (and, more importantly, willing) to do the same for London? Sadiq and Susan are meh-to-awful, but there's no obvious good alternatives that they have blocked.
(Part of Khan's problem is that he's had eight years, he's basically done what he set out to do in ULEZ, but there isn't a plausible successor who could let him retire, even if he wanted to.)
I am sure Alan Duncan's comments will have a week of daily headlines, because everyone knows anti-Semitism is treated equally whether you are a Labour or Tory MP.
Duncan is alleging that Senior politicians in the Lords and Commons are bidding for an overseas Government. I don't believe he is remotely anti-Semitic but he calls into question domestic corruption.
I agree with this. His comments are criticising the Nethanyahu regime and our govts closeness to it which is fair comment. There may be other stuff he has said that was not quoted but from what I have seen I think this issue is artificial offence.
Of course we have the Israeli ultras here who think any criticism of Israel and its govt is also anti semitic.
Criticism of the Israeli government is entirely legitimate.
Holding them to standards you wouldn't hold any other nation is not.
True and neither is giving them a free pass on things you wouldn’t give a free pass to other nations on either.
I am sure Alan Duncan's comments will have a week of daily headlines, because everyone knows anti-Semitism is treated equally whether you are a Labour or Tory MP.
Duncan is alleging that Senior politicians in the Lords and Commons are bidding for an overseas Government. I don't believe he is remotely anti-Semitic but he calls into question domestic corruption.
I agree with this. His comments are criticising the Nethanyahu regime and our govts closeness to it which is fair comment. There may be other stuff he has said that was not quoted but from what I have seen I think this issue is artificial offence.
Of course we have the Israeli ultras here who think any criticism of Israel and its govt is also anti semitic.
Criticism of the Israeli government is entirely legitimate.
Holding them to standards you wouldn't hold any other nation is not.
I don't think anyone here is doing that. Do you?
Yes.
So would you like to name the people?
Well with all due respect, as one example, after the killing of the aid workers you said it was deliberate and that they'd not apologised.
Despite the fact they immediately apologised and said it immediately was a tragic mistake.
They've now not just apologised and promised an investigation, but sacked those behind the mistake.
Do you accept it was a tragic mistake, or do you still insist it was deliberate? We have made mistakes in wars in the past, in the fog of war everyone does.
For religious reasons. I have not heard equivalent for non-white non-Muslim Labour leaders such as Paul Boateng or Vaughn Gething.
Again I strongly disagree. I think Lee Anderson's comments were at the best dog whistles.
I think there is legitimate criticism of Islam - but I think a lot of it is covers for actual racism.
What moral distinction are you trying to make here? Anderson’s comments were designed to stoke ignorant bigotry, and were rightly condemned.
Khan is still an absolute waste of time, though.
I do not think the coverage Islamophobia receives is proportional to the coverage anti-Semitism receives. To me they are equivalent, both vile racism.
But on Khan, I think he's been perfectly adequate. Nothing amazing but a lot better than Johnson and much better than Hall would be.
I'd rather somebody else but I will vote for him again.
He is not perfectly adequate. He’s a bed-blocker for someone who actually believes in London and is willing to use the admittedly-limited powers available to advance its cause.
That he is better than Hall is no recommendation.
In my darker moments, I fear that Starmer could be a kind of national Khan.
I don't have high hopes for Starmer, but surely he won't be that bad?
I said darker moments. I’m a big believer in Rachel Reeves. Resting a lot of my hopes there.
I'm curious why?
I've more hope actually in Starmer himself than Reeves.
Starmer has said some good things to show he might actually get some of the problems facing this country. Whether he'll fix them is another issue, but first step to doing so is acknowledging the problem.
Reeves OTOH just does not. Her comments on National Insurance in particular are very concerning.
Essentially it’s all in the Maes speech. (Just as Sunak’s utter wrong-headedness can also be found in *his* Maes speech.)
I believe (I am not following things so closely) that Reeves NI comments are misinterpreted, she was basically saying that the UK is not in a position to fund tax cuts, which is an analysis I reluctantly concede to be true.
Comments
If you try to shame me on pb.com then it's relatively easy for me to lie, or I can just stop using pb.com - there are lots of other bits of the internet, or people in real life to mix with.
Social conformity was enforced in the past because there were spaces people almost had to be part of, or they were outcasts already.
A recent change with social media is for it to become more fractured and semi-private, with things like discord, rather than twitter. A lot of people would be in a lot less trouble if sites like twitter didn't keep content for any longer than a month too. Perhaps that's something that will start to happen.
http://s400910952.websitehome.co.uk/germancolonialuniforms/hist machine guns.htm
On Corbyn they had a point.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6442539622ef3b000f66f65f/2023.04.20_Investigation_Report_to_the_Prime_Minister.pdf
We are going to be constantly looking over our shoulders . And what makes it worse is that we are going to do it to ourselves, and accept it as the price we pay to oppress others. There is no freedom the British prize more than to torment others, and will crawl over broken glass to do it, even at the cost of our own freedom. The social prudence you mention is the price for that.
Lucky us, eh?
Alan Duncan isn’t a Tory MP, in sharp contrast to Corbyn’s friends in years past, who were very much Labour MPs at the time, and many of them still are.
"Thames Water parent tells creditors it has defaulted on debt"
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2024/apr/05/thames-water-parent-tells-creditors-it-has-defaulted-on-debt
- https://www.wired.com/story/china-social-credit-system-explained/
- https://joinhorizons.com/china-social-credit-system-explained/
They gamified an entire fucking countryBut the way anti-Semitism is reported in the Tories vs Labour is different. Actually forget anti-Semitism, just racism in general, for example Islamophobia.
However in the case of the Corbyn mural controversy your racist radar would have to be switched off entirely and buried 12 feet underground not to spot that was an attack on Jews.
Islamophobia is a separate issue. Islam is not an innate characteristic of people but a belief system. Criticism of its adherents, fair or ugly, should be treated and reported similar to criticism of socialists, nationalists or any other belief system.
As for racism, Diane Abbott remained part of Labour high office for years despite multiple flat-out racist comments.
How does it happen?
Not for sale. But is used for breeding so puppies may be available.
What was this?
NATO’s 75th … a Foreign Ministers’ meeting … and what needs to happen next
https://x.com/david_cameron/status/1775976983203053788?s=46&t=CW4pL-mMpTqsJXCdjW0Z6Q
Next.
It’s lost whatever original meaning it once had and is now freely applied, often as a straightforward attempt to “cancel” or delegitimise someone or something.
I now prefer the word “prejudiced”.
One can be prejudiced against black people, white people, Muslims, Scotsmen, accordion-players, Tory MPs, and Cheshire-based PB posters.
We are all, in fact, somewhat prejudiced.
It is a human failing against which we must constantly check ourselves. Being “prejudiced” therefore is a hopefully temporary state of sin, capable of correction, whereas “racist” is used now to significantly a permanent state of moral perdition.
“So Ted, have you ever been in touch with William Wragg on Grindr?”
I think what happened to me with Corbyn is that initially I did sincerely believe he was a decent man and I liked his policies. But I think as time went on and the racism things came out I found it very hard to square that with the good man I thought I was watching so it was much easier to find people that thought it was all a conspiracy - no doubt social media has made this worse. And when you go down that path then it is hard to get out. The outrider groups and so on convince you are right and they tell you everyone else is wrong. The things I defended and ignored give me a deep sense of shame.
When Corbyn lost that was a pretty big blow and shattered what was ultimately keeping me in, which is that I really did think he would become PM. Once that went it all started to fall apart.
It did take me several months and much introspection to actually get myself out. I had to delete my Twitter account and block a lot of it out.
I've had my fair share of mental health issues so I do wonder if I am somehow more susceptible to it than others. Anyway, I am very much aware of what to look for now and my opinions are very much my own. I'm glad to have got back to my centre left home which is where I've always stood really.
Corbynism was undoubtedly a cult. No getting away from it.
I think there is legitimate criticism of Islam - but I think a lot of it is covers for actual racism.
But the Tories clearly have problems with racism of their own, which is as bad in my view, as the anti-Semitism in Labour.
Anderson’s comments were designed to stoke ignorant bigotry, and were rightly condemned.
Khan is still an absolute waste of time, though.
But on Khan, I think he's been perfectly adequate. Nothing amazing but a lot better than Johnson and much better than Hall would be.
I'd rather somebody else but I will vote for him again.
Slightly frustrating if you are hoping for rate cuts.
Everyone who goes into politics wants to make the world a better place. If we all agree that we use Parliamentary language, then we can look at the issues rather than the personalities involved.
That he is better than Hall is no recommendation.
In my darker moments, I fear that Starmer could be a kind of national Khan.
I think the anti-Semites in Labour are scum of the Earth.
I was furious and was so angry I didn't actually find out what cult it was. I told this story here before and several posters said Scientologists operated there. I think I was also furious with myself for not spotting it earlier. It did strike me that you have to be very gullible to fall for the patter, although I suspect if you have low esteem at that point in time it might be possible as that was what they worked on in the interview.
I still don't get it though. It did seem obvious.
I think the distinction you draw is really important. We should want to give people - like Frank Hester, say - the opportunity to learn from past mistakes. But too often the accusation of racism is used to categorise someone indelibly as a racist who is beyond redemption.
I'm interested in changing things to make them better, and that can't happen unless people are willing to admit to mistakes and do things differently - and that can't happen unless people are allowed to err without being damned by society for ever.
Personally I would have voted for Rory Stewart.
(*so far)
You want someone with a bit of urban passion who is willing to use the bully pulpit to influence broader stakeholders.
Not sure Rory’s got that either, to be honest.
However that is easy for me as I am a white anglo saxon man. I don't care what religion or race anyone is and being a white anglo saxon man I don't get targeted. However I were Nish Kumar or Oliver Letwin I might feel differently and I can and do have sympathy for the racism or sectarian abuse they get.
I’m a big believer in Rachel Reeves. Resting a lot of my hopes there.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-68740332
Jeremy Hunt praises William Wragg for 'courageous' apology after admitting to sharing MPs' phone numbers with dating app contact
https://news.sky.com/story/jeremy-hunt-praises-william-wragg-for-courageous-apology-after-admitting-to-sharing-mps-phone-numbers-with-dating-app-contact-13108320
It's a new definition of 'courage': gives away friends' and colleagues' phone numbers to, er, cover his arse.
Of course we have the Israeli ultras here who think any criticism of Israel and its govt is also anti semitic.
That is not cult stuff. Cult stuff is believing in lizard rulers, contrails full of chemicals, etc. Although I think Trumpism is a cult, so where you draw the line is difficult, but people like Corbyn and Johnson for instance are just not the same as Trump..
I've more hope actually in Starmer himself than Reeves.
Starmer has said some good things to show he might actually get some of the problems facing this country. Whether he'll fix them is another issue, but first step to doing so is acknowledging the problem.
Reeves OTOH just does not. Her comments on National Insurance in particular are very concerning.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/apr/05/apology-benjamin-zephaniah-mural-painted-over-birmingham
I do not think all Corbynites were cultists - but I think Corbynism was a cult and I was in a cult.
Whatever you want to call it, I am glad to have got out and returned to having views that I can sincerely hold and argue without shame. For me that is enough.
Holding them to standards you wouldn't hold any other nation is not.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=buSMq67ng0U
He may also have personal reasons. The scandal he got involved in is, to a degree, rather sad and doesn't speak to a deeply fulfilled and happy character. I genuinely hope getting away from politics will help him personally.
There is a loss of office payment for defeated (rather than retiring) MPs, but it'd be about £5k. That's just not worth it for the effort, and given you make it harder to line up a new job to start promptly after you lose (you can't really accept a new job whilst standing for re-election).
(Part of Khan's problem is that he's had eight years, he's basically done what he set out to do in ULEZ, but there isn't a plausible successor who could let him retire, even if he wanted to.)
Despite the fact they immediately apologised and said it immediately was a tragic mistake.
They've now not just apologised and promised an investigation, but sacked those behind the mistake.
Do you accept it was a tragic mistake, or do you still insist it was deliberate? We have made mistakes in wars in the past, in the fog of war everyone does.
(Just as Sunak’s utter wrong-headedness can also be found in *his* Maes speech.)
I believe (I am not following things so closely) that Reeves NI comments are misinterpreted, she was basically saying that the UK is not in a position to fund tax cuts, which is an analysis I reluctantly concede to be true.