Not surprising. Despite their claims to try and get support, more tories voted against the gay marriage laws than for it. They generally don't seem to like voting for good things for people other than their specific donors and MPs.
Kilkrazy wrote: There is an unwritten rule that the government and opposition follow the same line in foreign policy, whatever their domestic disagreements.
Corbyn broke that rule. May is dishing out a consequence. Politics, if you like.
Feth that rule. Corbyn is right to not respect it. Thats how we got the Iraq War.
There is a very good reason for it. Public disagreement on foreign policy is something that can be exploited by foreign powers.
I just looked up one of the votes relating to the Iraq War. If the Conservative party had taken a party stance against the Iraq War and enough of their MP's voted against the motion ("That HM Government should use all means necessary to ensure the disarmament of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction"), the Iraq War might have been prevented.
There were more Labour MP's who voted against the Iraq War (84) and their own Party's Government, than Conservatives (2).
How people vote is irrelevant. The rule is not about preventing voting, its about the leader of the opposition not standing up and publicly criticising points of foreign policy. They can criticise in general. They can vote against it. What they should not be doing is publicly arguing with individual actions, as this is something other governments can exploit. It's not a written rule but a convention, , so it can be broken, but Corbyn has to suffer the consequences. He has no right to the information that is being withheld. The level of information that is being withheld is entirely at the discretion of the PM. It's not withholding anything, it is refusing to share.
How people vote is irrelevant. The rule is not about preventing voting, its about the leader of the opposition not standing up and publicly criticising points of foreign policy. They can criticise in general. They can vote against it. What they should not be doing is publicly arguing with individual actions, as this is something other governments can exploit. It's not a written rule but a convention, , so it can be broken, but Corbyn has to suffer the consequences. He has no right to the information that is being withheld. The level of information that is being withheld is entirely at the discretion of the PM. It's not withholding anything, it is refusing to share.
I would argue quite the opposite. In times of stress and high emotion you want as much challenge as possible. Otherwise you end up making mistakes based on outrage, anger, feelings of impotence and so forth. Having someone less emotionally attached to the situation is much more useful.
You get that by having more people challenge your views and your approach. Just agreeing with the party in power's approach is an excuse to railroad through any old ridiculous notions or approaches that are never going to work.
On an aside it appears that Corbyn was right in questioning links between Tory donations and the Putin Cabinet.
Here we have Boris admitting that there £160k was given to the Tories just to play a tennis match with him. Person that paid the money...the wife of the former deputy finance minister for Putin.
r_squared wrote: I do wonder if David Davis actually understands the meaning of the word "negotiation". It appears he believes it means, "no no no no yes OK then."
I'm not sure at what point he dropped all the cards we apparently once held, but at least it is progress. Now they just have to do the same with NI, and presumably chuck Arlene £5Bn or so to keep quiet.
The Irish border issue is another case of kicking the can a bit farther down the road. The road runs out in October, though.
I think what will happen is that no-one will be able to invent a magic seamless customs system, and eventually NI will end up in a long term customs union with Eire and thereby the EU. In other words, the new border will be the Irish Sea.
Personally I think this is an acceptable situation, and we can hope that in 5-10 years the magic solution will be invented, or else the UK may rejoin the EU anyway. (I expect it to happen in 10-15 years.)
I expect the DUP to be completely alienated by this solution, but May will go with it anyway because it's more important to keep the Tory Party on side.
Kilkrazy wrote: The Irish border issue is another case of kicking the can a bit farther down the road. The road runs out in October, though.
I think what will happen is that no-one will be able to invent a magic seamless customs system, and eventually NI will end up in a long term customs union with Eire and thereby the EU. In other words, the new border will be the Irish Sea.
Personally I think this is an acceptable situation, and we can hope that in 5-10 years the magic solution will be invented, or else the UK may rejoin the EU anyway. (I expect it to happen in 10-15 years.)
I expect the DUP to be completely alienated by this solution, but May will go with it anyway because it's more important to keep the Tory Party on side.
Although I imagine that result will end up with government mired in court as Scotland/Wales/London all challenge the decision to provide a small element of the UK a special status not available to anyone else.
Northern Ireland only gets that special status in light of its un-enforceable land border with the Republic of Ireland. That clearly does not apply to Scotland, Wales and London so their argument is invalid, unless they're proposing to fill in the Irish Sea and create a new land border.
If the Republic of Ireland was not in the EU, NI wouldn't be getting special treatment.
Kilkrazy wrote: The Irish border issue is another case of kicking the can a bit farther down the road. The road runs out in October, though.
I think what will happen is that no-one will be able to invent a magic seamless customs system, and eventually NI will end up in a long term customs union with Eire and thereby the EU. In other words, the new border will be the Irish Sea.
Personally I think this is an acceptable situation, and we can hope that in 5-10 years the magic solution will be invented, or else the UK may rejoin the EU anyway. (I expect it to happen in 10-15 years.)
I expect the DUP to be completely alienated by this solution, but May will go with it anyway because it's more important to keep the Tory Party on side.
I think you're right. It's really the only solution which sees NI remain part of the UK and still satisfy the GFA. It'll mean losing the support of the DUP, but they aren't likely to vote with Labour on anything anyway.
Basically the rest of the UK is highly likely to sell NI down the river in order to make this work, there isn't much sympathy for Unionists in England, and the DUP's image exasperates that. I genuinely believe that Brexit is the first step to a United Ireland, and the more the DUP stamp their feet and make problems, the more likely that is to happen.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: Northern Ireland only gets that special status in light of its un-enforceable land border with the Republic of Ireland. That clearly does not apply to Scotland, Wales and London so their argument is invalid, unless they're proposing to fill in the Irish Sea and create a new land border.
If the Republic of Ireland was not in the EU, NI wouldn't be getting special treatment.
However that doesn't stop legal challenges and it largely depends on the laws and interpretations (which to be fair there probably isn't any so will get tied up in all sorts of challenges).
There is also an equalities angle. Any organisation has to treat all it's employees equally and in particular public bodies have to do this. The question is then the civil service has to treat people equally (statutory law). Therefore if some people are being treated different because of their race (e.g. Northern Irish vs Scottish) then they are being treated unfairly and can be prosecuted for this. It gets even worse for organisations and businesses. If their work spans both NI/Scotland (for example) and because NI is in the EU (effectively) but still in the UK (legally) then they have to treat individuals equally. All of a sudden you have an almighty quagmire if the employees complain that they are being treated differently simply because they are Scottish. How that would play out in tribunals I don't know....
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote: I don't see it as selling NI down the river. I see it as being a huge benefit for them.
Effectively continuing membership of the EU and getting a dark blue passport too!
They'll have the best of both worlds!
Plus 50% of the UK will probably move there to get the same EU benefits...
The UK maintains all sorts of variant legal statuses for various territories like the Channel Islands, Isle of Man, and Gibraltar as well as the NI, Scottish and Welsh assemblies which all have special arrangements and different laws to England.
It won't be hard to set up a new jurisdiction for NI.
It's obviously necessary for NI to have an open border with Eire, and equally obviously impossible to have a closed border between London and the UK, for example.
Kilkrazy wrote: The UK maintains all sorts of variant legal statuses for various territories like the Channel Islands, Isle of Man, and Gibraltar as well as the NI, Scottish and Welsh assemblies which all have special arrangements and different laws to England.
It won't be hard to set up a new jurisdiction for NI.
It's obviously necessary for NI to have an open border with Eire, and equally obviously impossible to have a closed border between London and the UK, for example.
Do you really think the government have thought of this though. And that's the issue. Unless they legislate to make NI a special case (unlike the DUP which is just a basket case) then you invite these types of challenges.
And it's never impossible to have a closed border between two land states, it happens all the time. We could just use the central reservation of the M25 as the starting point... . It's not a case of can't, but more likely won't.
I don't think a significant fraction of the Northern Irish population will agree to effectively being reunited with the Republic of Ireland (which is what you're suggesting - no border between Belfast and Dublin, but a border between Belfast and Edinburgh, Cardiff and London).
In particular, the ten MPs who apparently run the entire UK won't like it.
I think about half will, possibly more once they realise how important the integration between south and north is for their jobs and prosperity. However it doesn't matter because it won't be put to a referendum.
The Tory Party doesn't field candidates in NI anyway, and needn't fear any consequences at the next general election.
May will cut the DUP loose if they get too pissy about it. Her key job is to prevent the "real" Tory party from imploding under the stress. She will find enough allies from the other side of the house ot deliver the vote she needs on this particular issue.
The DUP will still have to vote with the Conservatives on lots of other things where their interests are aligned.
The Tory Party doesn't field candidates in NI anyway, and needn't fear any consequences at the next general election.
We can but hope that the Tories do get punished at the next general election. However a lack of DUP support at a critical vote could bring about the Tory government and a fresh GE.
On an aside there still appears to be a sticking point in the transition deal. Spain is requesting more assurances that it can Veto Gibraltar having access to the single market. So whilst we've focussed on one issue, another one has been forgotten about.
Jacob Rees-Mogg was supposed to board the Brexit fishing boat at Embankment pier. But he's just been told he's not allowed on because no one asked TFL's permission
Jacob Rees-Mogg has abandoned ship - or at least, abandoned the ship he never actually boarded. Apparently he's got to go to a select committee
"Rule Britannia"
Nigel Farage began by throwing a single fish. Then he threw a whole crate of fish. Then he threw a second whole crate of fish
Jacob Rees-Mogg was supposed to board the Brexit fishing boat at Embankment pier. But he's just been told he's not allowed on because no one asked TFL's permission
The sad thing is for the small fisherpeople is just how screwed they are going to get by pulling out. They will never benefit from relaxed quotas and farm fishing. The big businesses certainly will (until the waters are fished to oblivion). The big businesses will just then move elsewhere. The smaller fishing vessels will just have to abandon their careers (though they will probably still blame the EU with no real understanding).
Nigel Farage began by throwing a single fish. Then he threw a whole crate of fish. Then he threw a second whole crate of fish
I wonder if he can be prosecuted for polluting waterways?
Are mods allowed to get away with posting hateful rhetoric about punching politicians in the face? I get that you don't like him, hell if I paid attention to half of what he says I'd probably dislike him too but for feths sake could we please tone it down in the interests of maintaining a civil debate here?
Or should people on the Leave side of the debate here take your example as a green light to start making similar remarks about EU and Remainer politicians?
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:Or should people on the Leave side of the debate here take your example as a green light to start making similar remarks about EU and Remainer politicians?
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:Or should people on the Leave side of the debate here take your example as a green light to start making similar remarks about EU and Remainer politicians?
It was precisely the murder of Jo Cox that I had in mind, actually. Given that a politician was murdered during Brexit, perhaps we should refrain from remarks about violence against any politicians no matter which side of Brexit they're on? (or anyone else for that matter).
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: Given that a politician was murdered during Brexit, perhaps we should refrain from remarks about violence against polticians? (or anyone else for that matter).
Please do. I browse this thread from time to time and find it interesting to follow what is being discussed. I would hate to UK politics become a shuttered topic such as US politics is.
Given as I actually do political stuff and run in elections, I'd like to second the general motion for less threats of physical violence, joking or otherwise.
I'll settle for the metaphorical punch in the knackers for JRM as he watches his dream of a Victorian utopia shattered by coming into hard contact with the real world.
I find myself baffled by the fishermen's overreaction. It's a two year stint whilst we work out things of vastly more importance to the UK and European economy. If it was long term, they'd have something to complain about, but a two year interim period? Sheesh, have some goddam patience.
The firshermen are nervous because in some cases they have come to realise that they are going to lose a lot due to Brexit.
For instance it was Hull, I think, or might have been Grimsby, which having voted solidly to Leave, turned around to ask for special exemptions from the soon to come tariffs because they export so much of their catch to the continent.
Another set who are liable to miss out are small scale coastal fishermen, such as scallop divers. It's mainly the bigger firms who are likely to gain.
Thus when we see the "fishermen up in arms" we are seeing the extreme Brexiteer wing pushing their agenda at the expense of the industry (and the country) as a whole. It's no accident that Rees-Mogg and Farage are the poster boys for this campaign.
"The UK’s fishing industry, whose total contribution to the British economy is slightly smaller than that of the pet insurance sector, would have to toil under the EU’s Common Fisheries Policy for 19 long months more."
IDK if the guy involved is a neo-nazi or just a fething idiot. Does either position justify him posting such videos, which are guaranted to enrage and offend people?
There is a very thoughtful article on this general issue here...
Kilkrazy wrote: Fair points. I shall withdraw my remark on Rees-Mogg.
I’m sure we’ll be back here sooner rather than later.
About the French made passports: isn’t it the EU’s own rules that are doing that? Contracts must go to the lowest bidder with the EU regardless of nationality? No doubt if we broke that agreement you remoaners would be bitching about that too.
Kilkrazy wrote: Fair points. I shall withdraw my remark on Rees-Mogg.
I’m sure we’ll be back here sooner rather than later.
About the French made passports: isn’t it the EU’s own rules that are doing that? Contracts must go to the lowest bidder with the EU regardless of nationality? No doubt if we broke that agreement you remoaners would be bitching about that too.
It's a WTO law -- in other words it'll still apply to us even after we've finished maiming ourselves economically.
.. those same WTO laws that we will, apparently, be better off under outside of the EU.
Note however that we did this deal, saving us £50M or whatever it was whilst in the EU.
Public procurement law aims at non-discrimination.
Procurement decisions should be made on a procurement basis, without favouring domestic firms or shutting out foreign firms.For simple contracts (eg goods), this means procurements should be on a lowest price basis.
For more complex contracts/deals, the tender should be on a "most economically advantageous tender".
This means De La Rue were not awarded the tender because their tender was not the best tender, when assessed on a MEAT basis.
A French firm put forward a better tender.
EU public procurement law is part of the Acquis which the UK has already agreed to accept. accepted during the "transition period".
And, with State aid and competition law, it would be central to an UK-EU trade deal.
Public procurement laws do not force a public authority/similar to put X/Y/Z out to tender if the thing can be done in-house.
Instead, if there is to be a tender exercise, then it has to be "transparent and non-discriminatory"
Note that whatever deals we will, apparently, sign once outside of the EU , they are more than likely to have provisions in them to make it even easier for foreign firms to bid for UK contracts -- as most other countries we'd be looking to make worthwhile deals with are larger and therefore often benefit from economy of scale , things like this will in fact become more commonplace as more and more parts of the Uk are sold/bid off.
Man convicted of causing gross offence for getting his girlfriends dog to do a Nazi salute when he said rather extreme comments.
Thoughts on whether or not this should have been a crime?
Absolutely not.
It's a gross violation of freedom of speech (seriously, we cant joke about Nazis now?)
...completely ignores context (the guy spells out in the actual video that it's simply a prank to annoy his girlfriend)
...and it makes a mockery of British Law.
We should not be convicting people for offensive humour. Humour and offense are subjective, so there is no objective test to decide where the line should be drawn on acceptable and unacceptable speech. The Overton window is constantly shifting, what is considered Politically "Correct" today may not be acceptable tomorrow. What you say today may land you with a conviction tomorrow.
Taking this case as a precedent, anybody can now say anything and if it offends just one person, you can now be convicted for it. Comedians make a living out of being offensive. If you can be convicted for a joke about a Nazi out, then how long will it be until the likes of Frankie Boyle is convicted? He's said plenty of nasty jokes.
Or, more likely, a double standard will be established. Saying "Gas the Jews" as a joke command to your dog will land you with a conviction, but saying "Kill the Whites" will not. This is because of the political climate. There's no political will to prosecute people for anti white racist remarks or jokes, but jokes about Nazis and Jews are an easy target.
This Case was a blatantly political prosecution, a gross misuse of the law and a frivolous waste of court time.
To illustrate my point about the chilling effect on free speech, I could have reported Kilkrazy to the Police for his ill judged remark about punching politicians. Especially in light of the Jo Cox murder.
(I wouldn't, because I acknowledged the context and recognized it as a joke even if it did offend me. But according to this Count Dankula case, context does not matter).
And just to be clear before some idiot ignores context and calls me a Nazi...none of this is in any way an endorsement of what Count Dankula did. I personally didn't find his words funny. It's a "I disagree with what you say, but will defend your right to say it" type of situation.
The UK does not have freedom of speech as a law, right or guarantee. Whether you like it or not, that's how things are.
That's not to say you can be arrested for anything you say on a whim. Cause had to be established that you broke a law with what you said or did, but nowhere is it written down that you have the right to say what you like with freedom from interference by the government, nor that government can not curtail your right to say something.
We ain't got one of them there first amendable thingies.
Man convicted of causing gross offence for getting his girlfriends dog to do a Nazi salute when he said rather extreme comments.
Thoughts on whether or not this should have been a crime?
Absolutely not.
It's a gross violation of freedom of speech (seriously, we cant joke about Nazis now?)
...completely ignores context (the guy spells out in the actual video that it's simply a prank to annoy his girlfriend)
...and it makes a mockery of British Law.
We should not be convicting people for offensive humour. Humour and offense are subjective, so there is no objective test to decide where the line should be drawn on acceptable and unacceptable speech. The Overton window is constantly shifting, what is considered Politically "Correct" today may not be acceptable tomorrow. What you say today may land you with a conviction tomorrow.
Taking this case as a precedent, anybody can now say anything and if it offends just one person, you can now be convicted for it. Comedians make a living out of being offensive. If you can be convicted for a joke about a Nazi out, then how long will it be until the likes of Frankie Boyle is convicted? He's said plenty of nasty jokes.
Or, more likely, a double standard will be established. Saying "Gas the Jews" as a joke command to your dog will land you with a conviction, but saying "Kill the Whites" will not. This is because of the political climate. There's no political will to prosecute people for anti white racist remarks or jokes, but jokes about Nazis and Jews are an easy target.
This Case was a blatantly political prosecution, a gross misuse of the law and a frivolous waste of court time.
To illustrate my point about the chilling effect on free speech, I could have reported Kilkrazy to the Police for his ill judged remark about punching politicians. Especially in light of the Jo Cox murder.
(I wouldn't, because I acknowledged the context and recognized it as a joke even if it did offend me. But according to this Count Dankula case, context does not matter).
And just to be clear before some idiot ignores context and calls me a Nazi...none of this is in any way an endorsement of what Count Dankula did. I personally didn't find his words funny. It's a "I disagree with what you say, but will defend your right to say it" type of situation.
You probably need to read the background and the details of the court case. The whole basis of it was the question of if this was a joke or if saying it was a joke to cover it up. You can’t get away with “oh I was only messing around” unless you are in the school playground. The prosecution based the case on his links to far right groups and apparently convinced the jury and judge that this was not just a joke.
If you are going to bring race polotics in to it your going to have to prove it. When has someone in the UK, with links to radical groups, posted visions on the internet with them saying “kill all whites” and not been charged because “it was a joke”?
Man convicted of causing gross offence for getting his girlfriends dog to do a Nazi salute when he said rather extreme comments.
Thoughts on whether or not this should have been a crime?
Absolutely not.
It's a gross violation of freedom of speech (seriously, we cant joke about Nazis now?)
...completely ignores context (the guy spells out in the actual video that it's simply a prank to annoy his girlfriend)
...and it makes a mockery of British Law.
We should not be convicting people for offensive humour. Humour and offense are subjective, so there is no objective test to decide where the line should be drawn on acceptable and unacceptable speech. The Overton window is constantly shifting, what is considered Politically "Correct" today may not be acceptable tomorrow. What you say today may land you with a conviction tomorrow.
Taking this case as a precedent, anybody can now say anything and if it offends just one person, you can now be convicted for it. Comedians make a living out of being offensive. If you can be convicted for a joke about a Nazi out, then how long will it be until the likes of Frankie Boyle is convicted? He's said plenty of nasty jokes.
Or, more likely, a double standard will be established. Saying "Gas the Jews" as a joke command to your dog will land you with a conviction, but saying "Kill the Whites" will not. This is because of the political climate. There's no political will to prosecute people for anti white racist remarks or jokes, but jokes about Nazis and Jews are an easy target.
This Case was a blatantly political prosecution, a gross misuse of the law and a frivolous waste of court time.
To illustrate my point about the chilling effect on free speech, I could have reported Kilkrazy to the Police for his ill judged remark about punching politicians. Especially in light of the Jo Cox murder.
(I wouldn't, because I acknowledged the context and recognized it as a joke even if it did offend me. But according to this Count Dankula case, context does not matter).
And just to be clear before some idiot ignores context and calls me a Nazi...none of this is in any way an endorsement of what Count Dankula did. I personally didn't find his words funny. It's a "I disagree with what you say, but will defend your right to say it" type of situation.
You probably need to read the background and the details of the court case. The whole basis of it was the question of if this was a joke or if saying it was a joke to cover it up. You can’t get away with “oh I was only messing around” unless you are in the school playground. The prosecution based the case on his links to far right groups and apparently convinced the jury and judge that this was not just a joke.
If you are going to bring race polotics in to it your going to have to prove it. When has someone in the UK, with links to radical groups, posted visions on the internet with them saying “kill all whites” and not been charged because “it was a joke”?
I'm not a judge, but uh...
What part of teaching a dog a Nazi Salute, isn't a joke?
Or does their case center around how he's teaching the dog to be a Nazi so it'll spread the furher's wishes within the general canine population? Or was his plan to set out and offend jewish people on purpose using a dog, as opposed to any other more pratical method?
The bit in which you do it completely seriously in order to post neo-Nazi videos on YouTube with the cover story that it is a joke.
Alternatively, if it really is just a joke, why should anyone be worried about suppressing free speech?
This looks like an argument that we should worry deeply about whether the rights of loon-headed racist tossers, or idiot-brained bigot spankers, to make gak-faced gakker videos, are more important, against a the background of a society in which race hate crime genuinely has increased in the past couple of years in an atmosphere of supposed social leaders encouraging and enabling hate against minorities.
I was planning a YouTube series in which a dead prawn representing the Roman Catholic Church enacts a series of simulated rapes on sea anenomes and mussels, and I am outraged that my freedom of speech should be curtailed merely because millions of decent citizens would be outraged.
Kilkrazy wrote: The bit in which you do it completely seriously in order to post neo-Nazi videos on YouTube with the cover story that it is a joke.
Alternatively, if it really is just a joke, why should anyone be worried about suppressing free speech?
Because this is YOUR free speech on the line, too.
Just a day ago you made a remark about punching politicians in the face. That remark offended me, especially considering the recent murder of a serving MP. Inciting people to violence is a criminal offence, and this Count Dankula conviction shows that context is irrelevant. You have a history of expressing contempt for Conservative politicians, which leads me to believe that the sentiment you expressed was genuine, and any attempt to pass it off as a joke is merely a cover story. That puts your offence in the same category as his offence.
Why should he be convicted for a joke about Nazi's and genocide, but you get away with a joke about violence against politicians? Why should you benefit from a double standard?
(Do you see how context matters now?)
This looks like an argument that we should worry deeply about whether the rights of loon-headed racist tossers, or idiot-brained bigot spankers, to make gak-faced gakker videos, are more important, against a the background of a society in which race hate crime genuinely has increased in the past couple of years in an atmosphere of supposed social leaders encouraging and enabling hate against minorities.
Rights are universal. You don't get to pick and choose who gets to have rights, and who doesn't get to have rights. Either we all have the same rights, or nobody does. Because if you set that precedent, one day somebody will use it against you. Maybe even those same loon-headed racist tossers and idiot-brained bigot spankers.
First they came for the loon-headed racist tossers, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a loon-headed racist tossers.
Then they came for the idiot-brained bigot spankers, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a idiot-brained bigot spankers.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
-Kilkrazy
I was planning a YouTube series in which a dead prawn representing the Roman Catholic Church enacts a series of simulated rapes on sea anenomes and mussels, and I am outraged that my freedom of speech should be curtailed merely because millions of decent citizens would be outraged.
Already been done. I bet you don't care about the gross offence this caused.
Being falsely convicted in a politically motivated case for something that comedians including trendy leftists do every day on television, with disturbing implications for the future freedom of speech of everyone including you and I is very political, yes.
Let me ask everyone here a hypothetical question...Do you believe the Far Right is on the rise as a political force in the UK, and is there a credible risk of the Far Right forming a Government at some point in the near or distant future?
If the answer is yes...
Spoiler:
...Are you sure its wise to...
(A) Reinforce their victim narrative that you are persecuting their rights and freedoms by...persecuting their rights and freedoms? and... (B) Arming them with Court Cases that they can point to as legal precedents that a person can be convicted for merely saying something in a public space that causes gross offence?
Do you not foresee the possibility that in a future where the Far Right has won and taken over the country, that the tables will be turned and it will now be like the likes of YOU on the Left Wing end of the spectrum who are being convicted for saying things that are "grossly offensive" to people of Right Wing leanings?
If you start convicting people for people who cause "gross offence", that WILL turn around and bite you on the arse one day when the political pendulum swings to the Right and the Far Right decides to get revenge following the same example that you set.
The way I see it, cases like this will only be counter productive. You cannot defeat extremism by suppressing and criminalising extremist speech. That just serves to reinforce their victim narrative, drive the rhetoric underground where it is less easily monitored, and drives more people into the arms of extremists. Extremist ideas need to be defeated through open and honest debate, mockery and refutation in the light of day, they should not be permitted to fester in the dark. That goes for all extremism, Far Right, Islamist, Far Left.
You need to discredit the message itself, and you can't do that by locking up the messenger for expressing what he thinks.
The court case and it’s outcome, decided in a British court of law, has far reaching political implications for everyone in Britain. Implications for freedom of thought and speech, and how the law is actually applied. So it does belong in here. If anyone doesn’t like it, maybe they should bugger off to another thread instead of derailing this one by bitching about it.
Do you not foresee the possibility that in a future where the Far Right has won and taken over the country, that the tables will be turned and it will now be like the likes of YOU on the Left Wing end of the spectrum who are being convicted for saying things that are "grossly offensive" to people of Right Wing leanings?
Not going to comment one way or the other on the rest of the debate, but if the Far Right has already taken over a country how does this matter? They'll persecute the hell out of political opponents regardless. It's kinda one of the defining factors of the Far Right.
Do you not foresee the possibility that in a future where the Far Right has won and taken over the country, that the tables will be turned and it will now be like the likes of YOU on the Left Wing end of the spectrum who are being convicted for saying things that are "grossly offensive" to people of Right Wing leanings?
Not going to comment one way or the other on the rest of the debate, but if the Far Right has already taken over a country how does this matter? They'll persecute the hell out of political opponents regardless. It's kinda one of the defining factors of the Far Right.
Not if you have strongly defined legal rights, tradition of civil liberties, seperation of powers and a strong consitution.
Thats one area in which the USA has an advantage over the UK with it's written constitution. If a Far Right party took over, they'd still face an uphill battle to change laws, pass laws, take away rights and amend the constitution.
Has the British political system been manipulated by private interests?
Thats a very silly question with a very obvious and predictable answer.
Yes. Hasn't it always?
And that is a patronising response from someone advocating discussions about a comedian and his pug.
Besides CAs methods are far more sophisticated ad insidious than anything used before, interestingly Leave.EU had used their services during the referendum to target undecided voters.
Kilkrazy wrote: The bit in which you do it completely seriously in order to post neo-Nazi videos on YouTube with the cover story that it is a joke.
Alternatively, if it really is just a joke, why should anyone be worried about suppressing free speech?
This looks like an argument that we should worry deeply about whether the rights of loon-headed racist tossers, or idiot-brained bigot spankers, to make gak-faced gakker videos, are more important, against a the background of a society in which race hate crime genuinely has increased in the past couple of years in an atmosphere of supposed social leaders encouraging and enabling hate against minorities.
I was planning a YouTube series in which a dead prawn representing the Roman Catholic Church enacts a series of simulated rapes on sea anenomes and mussels, and I am outraged that my freedom of speech should be curtailed merely because millions of decent citizens would be outraged.
If I wanted to post Neo Nazi youtube vidoes, I wouldn't need some crazy ploy that involved teaching my dog tricks.
There are like... Hundreds of Neo Nazi youtube videos. I've watched dozens of them while researching WW2, they're not hard to find, they're not camouflaged as people making 'Jokes', they're straightforward. If you think you need to teach your dog tricks in order to be a idiot on youtube and spout flith, then...You're an idiot. But being an idiot shouldn't be illegal, or Dakka would have a lot less posters. British law needs to focus on dealing with serious, and unopinionated crimes. There's enough murder, rape, drug running, assault, and what have you in this country for me not to be thrilled whenever a case like this goes to court and wastes taxpayers money.
Has the British political system been manipulated by private interests?
Thats a very silly question with a very obvious and predictable answer.
Yes. Hasn't it always?
And that is a patronising response from someone advocating discussions about a comedian and his pug.
Besides CAs methods are far more sophisticated ad insidious than anything used before, interestingly Leave.EU had used their services during the referendum to target undecided voters.
You have to access the page from an archive site, because it's been deleted.
I don't see how its a patronising response. I responded directly to the question you posed, "Has the British political system been manipulated by private interests?"
Thats like asking if the Pope is Catholic. Of course it has. Every British election in history has been manipulated by private interests. We have party donors, back handers, politicians rewarding their cronies with peerages, conflict of interest scandals.
If you wanted a more nuanced discussion about whether the sophisticated techniques are more insidious than anything before seen (Yes, I think its very insidious and worrying) then perhaps you should have said that.
The manipulation is extensive and far reaching, the implications are quite profound. A single private entity has potentially illegally acquired data on billions of people in order to directly influence the outcome of two major western democracies.
Brexit and Trump could be a result of the actions of this one firm, and it is a very concerning development for everyone. The consequences are momentous, global and far-reaching.
But obviously not as important for some who enjoy getting wound up about a man and his pug, a decision made in Scotland which sets no legal precedent for the rest of the UK thanks to the way we enjoy a separate legal system.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Future War Cultist wrote: .... Implications for freedom of thought and speech, .... If anyone doesn’t like it, maybe they should bugger off to another thread instead of derailing this one by bitching about it.
Stop trying to fething tell me what I think, R Squared.
I'm very concerned about this Cambridge Analytica scandal. If I don't have very much to say about it at the moment, it's because I don't KNOW very much about it. Its an ongoing story which I've only just heard about like 2 or 3 days ago, and I don't know the details yet and haven't had time to update myself on it yet due to things going on in my personal life. Whereas I've been following the Nazi pug story all week and I simply know more about it.
r_squared wrote: The manipulation is extensive and far reaching, the implications are quite profound. A single private entity has potentially illegally acquired data on billions of people in order to directly influence the outcome of two major western democracies.
Brexit and Trump could be a result of the actions of this one firm, and it is a very concerning development for everyone. The consequences are momentous, global and far-reaching.
That's a load of horse manure...
The outcry is simply because Trump won... when, the previous administration's campaign publicly boasted doing the exact same thing... the punditry swooned over the "cool data analytics" of the process.
Frankly... this is how Facebook makes money. By creating analytics to target a particular audience. Whether it's for targetted Ads... or for political campaigns, it's no different. The crux of the problem is really how cavalier Facebook was in selling these informations.
About the French made passports: isn’t it the EU’s own rules that are doing that? Contracts must go to the lowest bidder with the EU regardless of nationality? No doubt if we broke that agreement you remoaners would be bitching about that too.
Can we not call each other names please. Otherwise we get into a cycle of "remoaner" and "quitler" and so forth. If the only point you can make is by undertaking an attempt at a disparaging remark then in reality you have no argument and deep down know that. Argue your points by all means...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote: Another set who are liable to miss out are small scale coastal fishermen, such as scallop divers. It's mainly the bigger firms who are likely to gain.
Thus when we see the "fishermen up in arms" we are seeing the extreme Brexiteer wing pushing their agenda at the expense of the industry (and the country) as a whole. It's no accident that Rees-Mogg and Farage are the poster boys for this campaign.
This was of course pointed out during the referendum but somehow the argument was won that EU sucks the sea dry of fish for the UK. I would suggest that if, as I suspect, quantities of fish will be deregulated then the best choice will be to buy fish from the EU because at least they try and use scientific evidence to control unsustainable fishing.
Public procurement laws do not force a public authority/similar to put X/Y/Z out to tender if the thing can be done in-house.
Instead, if there is to be a tender exercise, then it has to be "transparent and non-discriminatory"
Note that whatever deals we will, apparently, sign once outside of the EU , they are more than likely to have provisions in them to make it even easier for foreign firms to bid for UK contracts -- as most other countries we'd be looking to make worthwhile deals with are larger and therefore often benefit from economy of scale , things like this will in fact become more commonplace as more and more parts of the Uk are sold/bid off.
The other thing that is missed is that the EU generally runs by the same rules which to some extent balances the playing field for everyone. Once we open the doors to the world that control has gone. Then UK companies (and EU ones) will competing against companies with less stringent controls and can use slave labour to undertake certain aspects (e.g. financial management) under less stringent controls. That will make it very difficult for UK firms to compete. Take the passports for example; they could go to any Asian country and be printed for, likely, pence but at the expense of the social, democratic and environmental considerations.
r_squared wrote: The manipulation is extensive and far reaching, the implications are quite profound. A single private entity has potentially illegally acquired data on billions of people in order to directly influence the outcome of two major western democracies.
Brexit and Trump could be a result of the actions of this one firm, and it is a very concerning development for everyone. The consequences are momentous, global and far-reaching.
That's a load of horse manure...
The outcry is simply because Trump won... when, the previous administration's campaign publicly boasted doing the exact same thing... the punditry swooned over the "cool data analytics" of the process.
Frankly... this is how Facebook makes money. By creating analytics to target a particular audience. Whether it's for targetted Ads... or for political campaigns, it's no different. The crux of the problem is really how cavalier Facebook was in selling these informations.
This isn't about targeted adverts. It's by far more subtle than that. It's about manipulating what people see and influencing people without them recognising that is what is happening. In the UK it is illegal to do this. It's about gathering data of individuals even though it's through friends of friends actions and that you have never authorised the gathering of that data that is then used to target you in subtle and malicious way to influence your views. There's definite evidence that this was undertaken during the Wrexit campaign (he who shall not be named is not an appropriate discussion for this thread). There's less evidence on how this influences people. But given that millions have been poured into it companies like Cambridge Analytica must certainly think it does. However social scientists don't have evidence to this data so public examination of this influence is less publically available.
You never had a problem with posters in here calling brexiteers rascists and morons. You yourself repeatedly use the term Wrexit. So...no.
Actually I have, and at times have pointed that out when others have not. There almost certainly people that voted from either a racist perspective (but that doesn't mean that makes everyone like that) and there are plenty of people on both sides that don't understand what they voted for (and hence is a type of idiocy) but that again isn't everyone. It's individual responses that are important. Do I think enough racist people probably influenced the vote, yes I do (and I put my father in that category).
Wrexit is my term for the effect it will have on the country. It's not referencing individuals and their views. There's clearly a distinct difference.
.. mainly due to his brexit opposition, apparently.
.. TBF one wonders if him running against Corbyn for the leadership might also have had a wee bit to do with it.
meanwhile we're going to see/read about more .... " collusions" ....... between Vote Leave, various firms... where some money came from etc etc this weekend.
.. mainly due to his brexit opposition, apparently.
.. TBF one wonders if him running against Corbyn for the leadership might also have had a wee bit to do with it.
Predictably it's been called a Stalinist purge, but obviously without the actual murdering of political opponents or dissidents. A bit annoying that it was a Labour peer who said the words.
How is it that the conservatives can chop and change as they wish and they are never condemned, however if Corbyn does it, it must be because he craves the iron fist of power and it's a forshadowing of some imagined totalitarian state and thought police.
It's a fething joke.
Especially when you consider the ever rolling conveyor belt of vile tory propoganda that is the right wing press.
As far as I'm concerned, Owen Smith had his chance to get the party behind his vision of the future of the Labour party, and he was rejected. He was offered an olive branch and a chance to exert real influence as a shadow cabinet member and fethed it up. If he loses his cabinet position and goes to the back benches, that's on him.
reds8n wrote: meanwhile we're going to see/read about more .... " collusions" ....... between Vote Leave, various firms... where some money came from etc etc this weekend.
Frankly, I'm not even that bothered about how corrupt the whole campaign was any more. As far as I can see it was a cess pool of lies, self-interest, and corruption anyway. That is wholly evident to anyone with eyes.
The important thing is that we now make sure that the country doesn't go completely belly up before we get a chance to get back into the EU in about 10 years down the line.
.. mainly due to his brexit opposition, apparently.
.. TBF one wonders if him running against Corbyn for the leadership might also have had a wee bit to do with it.
Predictably it's been called a Stalinist purge, but obviously without the actual murdering of political opponents or dissidents. A bit annoying that it was a Labour peer who said the words.
How is it that the conservatives can chop and change as they wish and they are never condemned, however if Corbyn does it, it must be because he craves the iron fist of power and it's a forshadowing of some imagined totalitarian state and thought police.
It's a fething joke.
Especially when you consider the ever rolling conveyor belt of vile tory propoganda that is the right wing press.
As far as I'm concerned, Owen Smith had his chance to get the party behind his vision of the future of the Labour party, and he was rejected. He was offered an olive branch and a chance to exert real influence as a shadow cabinet member and fethed it up. If he loses his cabinet position and goes to the back benches, that's on him.
reds8n wrote: meanwhile we're going to see/read about more .... " collusions" ....... between Vote Leave, various firms... where some money came from etc etc this weekend.
Frankly, I'm not even that bothered about how corrupt the whole campaign was any more. As far as I can see it was a cess pool of lies, self-interest, and corruption anyway. That is wholly evident to anyone with eyes.
The important thing is that we now make sure that the country doesn't go completely belly up before we get a chance to get back into the EU in about 10 years down the line.
Trotskist, Stalinist... all the same.....
Now Comrade Corbyn has a past 'anti semetic' comment coming back to light..
I'm almost certain that the real issue here is in making off the cuff comments on Social media Platforms.
That's about as far from the actual facts that you can get without completely fabricating the whole scenario.
His comment was about the removal of public art and freedom of speech. His claim is that he didn't look carefully at what it was meant to be representing and the implication of it being anti-semetic. What he definitely didn't do was state an anti-semetic comment.
And to be fair the imagery could easily be casually glanced at and miss the background context.
The only thing you can really accuse him of is being a bit naïve and not checking why something was being removed first.
Perhaps I should ask you first - why is the image anti-semetic to see if you understand or whether it is just reaction to the article?
I'm almost certain that the real issue here is in making off the cuff comments on Social media Platforms.
That's about as far from the actual facts that you can get without completely fabricating the whole scenario.
His comment was about the removal of public art and freedom of speech. His claim is that he didn't look carefully at what it was meant to be representing and the implication of it being anti-semetic. What he definitely didn't do was state an anti-semetic comment.
And to be fair the imagery could easily be casually glanced at and miss the background context.
The only thing you can really accuse him of is being a bit naïve and not checking why something was being removed first.
Perhaps I should ask you first - why is the image anti-semetic to see if you understand or whether it is just reaction to the article?
Sorry, my comment was probably to rapid and off the cuff.
The only crime by Glorious Leader Corbyn is not to have checked why the image was to be removed.
I did place quotation marks around the words anti semetic?
I’m tired of accusations of anti-semitism against Corbyn and Labour. They’re no more anti-semitic than the Tories but they seem to get a free pass on all but the worst prejudices. The left wing should stop points scoring against each other about non-issues and start focusing on the roots of labour voters. Traditional labour voters are working class and want support against austerity cuts and eroding employment rights. Instead the left squabble over identity politics of a minority and grandstanding over baseless accusations. No wonder brexit happened.
Howard A Treesong wrote: ...The left wing should stop points scoring against each other about non-issues and start focusing on the roots of labour voters. Traditional labour voters are working class and want support against austerity cuts and eroding employment rights. Instead the left squabble over identity politics of a minority and grandstanding over baseless accusations...
Absolutely right, Labour has effectively alienated portions of the working class through its pre-occupation with identity politics. I wish they'd give it a rest tbh.
Traditional labour voters are working class and want support against austerity cuts and eroding employment rights.
You're right, but I'm not sure austerity is that much of an open goal for Labour at the moment.
As I see it, to fund a increase in public spending you would need to either raise taxes or raise debt levels.
The message that we (as a country) have to live within our means and balance the books has been quite successful in the last few elections, so I will discount the debt option.
Some sort of robin hood tax option fits into the classic railing against corporate fatcat bogeymen, but this sort of speculative 'I can raise x from taxing billionaires' has been tried before and hasn't proved very convincing at the ballet box.
Also doing things to discourage companies or wealthy individuals from working and investing in the UK after Brexit could easily be seen as an attempt to 'sabotage' the project or 'frustrate the will of the people' when Labour are already seen as lukewarm on Brexit.
Frankly, I'm not even that bothered about how corrupt the whole campaign was any more. As far as I can see it was a cess pool of lies, self-interest, and corruption anyway. That is wholly evident to anyone with eyes.
The important thing is that we now make sure that the country doesn't go completely belly up before we get a chance to get back into the EU in about 10 years down the line.
Aye. We knew that sums of money were being twisted into it that shouldn't have been from the minute David Cameron officially deployed the resources of the Government into advertising for one side in particular. It's really a bit late to try and catch that train in any given direction.
Howard A Treesong wrote:I’m tired of accusations of anti-semitism against Corbyn and Labour.
Why? When you get stories like this jumping out on a regular basis:-
It's reached the point now where every time an allegation of anti-semitism comes out, it doesn't even count as news anyone. 'Trick of the right', snorts Len McCluskey. 'We're talking about Israel, not Jews! Don't be silly', says your average Labour councillor. 'It's all fake news and propaganda to drag down the BEST MAN IN THE WORLD', fumes your Momentum campaigner. 'If you can point us to a recording, we'll do something, but until then, we have no comment', dismisses the Labour whip. 'I stood on a stage with all those people saying about horrible things about Jews because it's important to talk to everyone', nods Corbyn.
And yet. One wonders. If there was a genuine low lying anti-semitism in the Labour party, isn't this the exact way you'd try and hide it? Pretend it isn't there, and sweep it all under the rug?
I've given a long and thoroughly substantiated post before (in this thread) as to my reasons as to why I'm quite convinced that it is, indeed, there. And it genuinely worries me that people who are otherwise liberal and left wing seem to have this bizare blind spot where it gets dismissed every time as 'hot air' and 'propaganda' and 'press bias', alongside a healthy dose of whataboutism ('I bet there's as many anti-semites in the Tories!).
There's a been a steady growth in anti-semitism in the UK over the last decade, and it concerns me just how easily people seem to shrug off a reasonably relentless barrage of tiny pebbles with regards to it in the Labour party. And they do it purely because it is the Labour Party. Were it the Tories, I've no doubt the same people would be crowing it from the rooftops. Yet in the name of political partisanship; it gets consigned to a pile marked 'Things that must be devised by The Man to drag down Corbyn', the pile that simply doesn't have to be thought about, that can be instantly dismissed and disregarded so long as no photo of 50 Labour MP's wearing SS outfits surfaces.
Nah, it means nothing. Nothing at all. Change the word 'Jew' for 'Zionist', and it doesn't count anymore. You can say that you're fighting 'Zionism', and talk about those evil 'Zionist bankers controlling the world', or those 'hook nosed Zionists'. Challenged? God, it's just those 'Zionists' trying to shut down debate, and suppress your free speech by mentioning 'anti-semitism.' That's what they do right? After all, you haven't even mentioned Jews once! And thus is any Labour politician or member immediately extricated from any awkward questions. They might be told in your official whitewashed investigation to stop calling people 'Zios', but that's about it. No anti-semitism here. Nothing to see. Just an evil smear by Murdoch/the right/those infernal Je...Zios.
Traditional labour voters are working class and want support against austerity cuts and eroding employment rights.
You're right, but I'm not sure austerity is that much of an open goal for Labour at the moment.
As I see it, to fund a increase in public spending you would need to either raise taxes or raise debt levels.
The message that we (as a country) have to live within our means and balance the books has been quite successful in the last few elections, so I will discount the debt option.
The greatest trick of the right, as they asset strip their countries and steal from taxpayers, is convincing the average voter that national budgets work like household budgets.
The last labour leader was a Jew and beat his own brother to be leader. If there was all this anti semitism in the party you’d think he wouldn’t have much luck or would have used his position to change things. So the Labour Party were happy with either Ed or David Miliband as leader. I don’t think anti semitism is growing in the UK over the last ten years, not to say it doesn’t exist at all, but ‘growing’ isn’t my impression. This continual focus that it’s specifically a Labour problem is nonsense. Suggesting that if the Tories did the same there would be crowing about it, really? The Tories repeatedly display bigotry of various sorts and it just doesn’t get much traction presumably because it’s expected of conservative sorts, but there’s a certain delight when it comes to accusing Corbyn and Labour of being anti semitic. We know that some cases of people like Ken Livingstone can’t open their mouth any more without saying something offensive but that doesn’t mean the labour ranks have endemic anti semitism.
I don’t know if it’s really appropriate for this thread, but I think there is a big issue around where does the line stand between anti-semitism and criticism of Israel. Because whilst I have absolutely no problem with Jews (or any other race or religion). I have a big fething problem with the behaviour of Israel as a political entity.
Jadenim wrote: I don’t know if it’s really appropriate for this thread, but I think there is a big issue around where does the line stand between anti-semitism and criticism of Israel. Because whilst I have absolutely no problem with Jews (or any other race or religion). I have a big fething problem with the behaviour of Israel as a political entity.
Tangentially Radio 4 did a nice piece a few weeks ago on the lefts issues with race and religion. Israel/Judaism wasn't mentioned but focused on problems of selection of female muslim candidates and the lack of voices decrying 'negative cultural and societal norms' within minority communities.
Jadenim wrote: I don’t know if it’s really appropriate for this thread, but I think there is a big issue around where does the line stand between anti-semitism and criticism of Israel. Because whilst I have absolutely no problem with Jews (or any other race or religion). I have a big fething problem with the behaviour of Israel as a political entity.
Both sides have blurred the line so much, I doubt if there's a line left anymore.
Legitimate criticism of Israel is often attacked as being anti-Semitic.
On the other side, Jews/Israel are seen as being one and the same, so you get the nonsense of the 'Jewish lobby' controlling the world's media, pulling the strings of the US government etc etc etc
My advice is what it's been for a long, long time: stay the feth away from the Middle East. Jews, Arabs, Sunnis, Shia, Christians, Vulcans, Persians, Romulans, Harkonnen, whatever.
If they want to wipe each other out, good luck to them.
For as long as I live, I do not want to see another British man or woman (it's usually the working classes that get sacrificed) pull on a uniform and die in the Middle East.
Jadenim wrote: I don’t know if it’s really appropriate for this thread, but I think there is a big issue around where does the line stand between anti-semitism and criticism of Israel. Because whilst I have absolutely no problem with Jews (or any other race or religion). I have a big fething problem with the behaviour of Israel as a political entity.
Tangentially Radio 4 did a nice piece a few weeks ago on the lefts issues with race and religion. Israel/Judaism wasn't mentioned but focused on problems of selection of female muslim candidates and the lack of voices decrying 'negative cultural and societal norms' within minority communities.
This is the logical conclusion of the poison of identity politics.
Jadenim wrote: I don’t know if it’s really appropriate for this thread, but I think there is a big issue around where does the line stand between anti-semitism and criticism of Israel. Because whilst I have absolutely no problem with Jews (or any other race or religion). I have a big fething problem with the behaviour of Israel as a political entity.
Tangentially Radio 4 did a nice piece a few weeks ago on the lefts issues with race and religion. Israel/Judaism wasn't mentioned but focused on problems of selection of female muslim candidates and the lack of voices decrying 'negative cultural and societal norms' within minority communities.
To some extent we are all racist and bigoted at an instinctual level. It's an evolved trait to protect resources. It is our own higher understanding that fights against this trend. We all have the tendency to put groups of people into bins as it is easier for our brains to compartmentalise rather than consider people as individuals. We are more sensitive to anti-Semitism because of recent history, however there are plenty of other genocides and ethnic cleansing (Egypt, Turkey, Rohinya, Yemen and so forth) that has nowhere near the same level of impact and is less politicised. Hence there is a tendency to over-react when there is any association with those principles. For example Ketara fell into the trap that because they are funding organisations where individuals have been shown to be anti-Semetic that this should be condemned. But it just places everyone into the bin in that Palestinian organisation as anti-Semitic which is just as bad. Yes there are people there that are anti-Semitic, but that isn't helped by the Israeli governments approach to ethnically cleansing areas with Palestinians. That frustration and anger then becomes directed at the populace at a whole because the actions of that government are binned as the actions of a population (which is incorrect but is an evolved trait).
You cannot however solves the problems by avoiding anyone that is bigoted/racist by avoiding and not engaging with them. That is the Tory way (lock them up) etc, which solves nothing because it just generates more distrust, frustration and anger that then gets binned into being against the population as whole. This just perpetuates the cycle. On the other hand providing support to try and get across another view and fund areas where this type of sentiment is prevalent allows people to put forward another view. It is the carrot and stick approach. You provide funding to support a media organisation because the funding becomes the carrot and its withdrawal the stick. That allows you to start influencing the organisations agenda and hence the population and providing an alternative view of the causes of their suppression. The disadvantage to this is that you have to sit side by side by some rather obnoxious people, this is more aligned to Labour/Corbyn's approach. However that does not make that individual anti-Semetic/bigoted/racist and so forth despite what the Tories (and their gutter press) would like us to believe.
We can see this in how NI was taken forward. For years the Tories used stick/arrests/walls/border checks to solve a problem but it only exacerbated the situation. Only when people took the potentially unfavourable view of sitting down with such people that things were moved forward.
The problem being that the left has issues with being unwilling to condone or investigate issues which may directly stem from cultural or racial issues or tradition.
The problem with organisations and groups supporting Palestine is that they have tended to ignore real issues within Palestine regarding the treatment of women, children and LGBTQ peoples. 'Tradition' 'We don't understand their values' 'BUT ISRAEL!'.
In the UK we have issues with a hands off approach to areas in the North and deselection of women councillors where 'cultural traditions should be respected'. That should never be tolerated.
Howard A Treesong wrote: The last labour leader was a Jew and beat his own brother to be leader. If there was all this anti semitism in the party you’d think he wouldn’t have much luck or would have used his position to change things.So the Labour Party were happy with either Ed or David Miliband as leader....This continual focus that it’s specifically a Labour problem is nonsense. Suggesting that if the Tories did the same there would be crowing about it, really? The Tories repeatedly display bigotry of various sorts and it just doesn’t get much traction presumably because it’s expected of conservative sorts, but there’s a certain delight when it comes to accusing Corbyn and Labour of being anti semitic. We know that some cases of people like Ken Livingstone can’t open their mouth any more without saying something offensive but that doesn’t mean the labour ranks have endemic anti semitism.
I'm going to copy-paste some of what I've written in here before, because it very specifically addresses most of what you're saying. I'll spoiler it so as not to bore the masses who've seen it before though.
Spoiler:
I think (and this is speculation below) )that when it comes to anti-semitism in British politics, the left wing are far more susceptible to it these days (i.e. the last thirty/forty odd years)
The right wing used to be terribly anti-semitic, but it was tied in quite inextricably to the disdain the aristocratic classes had for 'the Jew'. I quite regularly read stories about the pre-war upper classes laughing at a Jewish banker falling off a horse, scorning Kind Edward's 'Jewish bankers', or even referring to ones they liked in anti-semitic terms ('He's a Jew but one of the good ones. If you want to negotiate with him though, make sure to get your own lawyer so he doesn't out-Jew you!')
After Hitlerite Germany, the deliberate boosting of Israel as a proxy to oppose the Soviet Union, the purging of Jewish influence from the communist movements, and the seizure of the Conservative party by the middle classes though, the Tories have more or less let go of their institutionalised anti-semitism. They're also more prone to play politics according to realpolitik, and the Israelis have significant military power and the only developed economy in the Middle-East. Human rights concerns are also less of a concern for them. Plus the American Jewish lobby is monied and powerful, and it makes no sense to hack them off.
So whilst you might find some dregs of the old aristocratic anti-semitic disdain in the corners, it's not particularly evident.
The hard left wing in Britain on the other hand, has never lost their historical anti-semitic edge, which has been substantially buoyed in turn by other regional (traditionally anti-semitic) Middle-Eastern powers being very free with cash for anti-Israeli promotional purposes. This has allowed the creation of something of a media juggernaut for attacking the Israeli state; its persistent, unrelenting, and documents everything bad the Israelis do (and invents stuff when they don't). This constant limelight of the Israeli/Palestinian affair (as opposed to most negative stories about human rights, which sink out the news after a week) in turn makes it highly visible to young politically aware types looking for a cause to champion. And those aforementioned regional powers are all too happy to splash the cash a bit to fund rallies and promotional materials.
The result, I think, is that when those younger types grow up a bit and go on to join the left wing parties, they take that mentality with them. Most of them aren't actively anti-semitic, and would be vastly offended if you called them such. But they do treat Israel that little bit differently to all the other human rights offenders, and it sinks into their politics and vocabulary. It's why so often you get left wing politicians getting jumped on for a very badly phrased statement. When you put that next to the more persistent hard left anti-semitic tendencies (who have ideological reasons revolving around Jewish bankers and various such things)?
The result is what you see. There's little in the way of deliberate 'Kill the Jews' stuff, but there is a slightly anti-semitic cultural by-product that has filtered into the left-wing political atmosphere that most aren't even aware of. And it is quite pervasive in that regard. The Lib Dems are just as susceptible to it as Labour; the difference is that the hard left edge isn't present to spur it on. When New Labour was in ascendancy under Blair and the mid to hard left were out in the cold, the more anti-semitic aspects were frozen out along with them. With the rise of Corbyn however, and the movement back to the left wing?
Well, the answer is what you see. People like Galloway (who really are anti-semites) suddenly find that they have allies in the heart of the party once again. And that's a concerning development; one which hasn't been helped by Corbyn doing his level best to suppress anything relating to it and whitewashing the only investigation which took place.
Spoiler:
So. Evidence of a lightly anti-semitic atmosphere pervading the Labour Party. I'll do more than a handful of blog posts or news articles, too (which are all ultimately opinion pieces).
1. Shami Chakrabarti was appointed to lead an enquiry into it recently. Generally considered to be a whitewash on account of the fact that she joined the Labour Party halfway through and then got a job immediately afterwards, her own report actually literally used the phrase 'an occasionally toxic atmosphere' with regards to anti-semitism in Labour, and "too much clear evidence... of ignorant attitudes". The report actually had to recommend that members refrain from using such appealing terms as 'Zio' in everyday discourse and communication. Most organisations don't usually have to actively recommend that sort of thing, you know?
2. The former Head of the Oxford Labour Club (which raises many prominent Labour politicians), upon ceasing to hold his post, said that many members 'have some kind of a problem with Jews'. No less than 32 former chairs and committee members signed an open letter opposing the OULC's decision to engage in a series of anti-apartheid rallies against Israel, describing them as ' little more than a gathering of propagandists seeking to dismantle the only majority-Jewish member-state of the United Nations.'
http://labourlist.org/2016/02/race-row-engulfs-oxford-university-labour-club/
"While the Labour Leader has a proud record of campaigning against many types of racism, based on the evidence we have received, we are not persuaded that he fully appreciates the distinct nature of post-Second World War antisemitism. Unlike other forms of racism, antisemitic abuse often paints the victim as a malign and controlling force rather than as an inferior object of derision, making it perfectly possible for an ‘anti-racist campaigner’ to express antisemitic views. Jewish Labour MPs have been subject to appalling levels of abuse, including antisemitic death threats from individuals purporting to be supporters of Mr Corbyn. Clearly, the Labour Leader is not directly responsible for abuse committed in his name, but we believe that his lack of consistent leadership on this issue, and his reluctance to separate antisemitism from other forms of racism, has created what some have referred to as a ‘safe space’ for those with vile attitudes towards Jewish people. This situation has been further exacerbated by the Party’s demonstrable incompetence at dealing with members accused of antisemitism, as illustrated by the saga involving the suspension, re-admittance and re-suspension of Jackie Walker."
Not quite so complimentary of the Labour Party when you actually read the thing, eh? They very actively state that Corbyn's leadership has led to the creation of a 'safe space' for anti-semitism to flourish.
4. Evidence submitted to the above enquiry included an ESRC research council funded set of polls of the Labour membership. 1031 members was the sample size. Of that, 52% agreed that anti-semitism was a problem in Labour. This fell by about 7% after the party was opened up to Corbyn's newcomers on the £3 vote scheme, and most Labour members thought it was just as bad in other parties.Most of them also believed that it was a tool being used to batter Corbyn with, but the fact remains that about half the party members initially polled thought that there was a real issue with anti-semitism within Labour.
https://esrcpartymembersprojectorg.files.wordpress.com/2015/09/balewebbpolettisubmission4chakrabarti3rdjune2016-1.pdf
5. The endless exposes of Labour activists or appointees suddenly revealed as holding horribly anti-semitic views. I won't bother with names or links, because I could literally spend an hour compiling a long list. Google is there for you if you want it that badly. Start with Ken Livingstone and Naz Shah, as previously stated, and work your down to the low fry like Jackie Walker.
6. Here's the testimony of the Chairman of the Parliamentary Labour Party and NEC:-
"Mr Cryer, Labour MP for Leyton and Wanstead, described a "seeping poison" and warned that future generations might not realise that when it came to Nazism, "we were right and they were wrong".
As chairman of the Parliamentary Labour Party, he sits on the disputes panel of the National Executive Committee, which rules on what members have "said, written or tweeted", he told the audience.
"I have seen some of the tweets from paid up Labour Party members and I am not kidding you, it makes your hair stand up," he said.
Some Labour members dismiss reports of anti-Semitism as a myth, he said.
"But you don't have to look very far before you see it's not a myth...and there's no place in the Labour Party for stuff like that."
Another MP, Wes Streeting, said a "rump" of anti-Semites in Labour should be "driven out" of the party.
"It isn't anti-Semitic to criticise the Israeli government," he said.
"Unfortunately we see too many people examples of anti-Semitic language being used in order to do so."
8. I'm afraid that I will repeat the statement of John Mann, MP and chairperson of the All Party group on anti-semitism, that "Labour has a problem with anti-semitism that must be challenged". It's literally his job to keep an eye on these things, and just attempting to brush it off as party politics doesn't quite fly when seen next to all the other evidence above. If you want an interview where he discusses his personal motivations, try this on for size:-
https://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/john-mann-interview-1.432418 Not quite "rahrah down with Corbyn", is it now? Especially given that he's been doing it since 2005, long before Corbyn's ascendancy was anything more one man's dream in a comfy bed after a good fish supper in Islington.
I also provided another link just yesterday about two Labour Councillors driven out by anti-semitic taunts, and the complete ignoring of their reports by a Labour whip (who in turn is known for retweeting stuff comparing Gaza to the Holocaust).
The sources above involve multiple MP's and people who have been intimately involved with the Labour Party over the last few years. Please browse and consult them before dismissing the whole thing as 'nonsense'.
I don’t think anti semitism is growing in the UK over the last ten years, not to say it doesn’t exist at all, but ‘growing’ isn’t my impression.
By every recorded measure currently in place, it has been on the rise over the last five years or so. Everything from hate speech and crime figures, through to the actual conclusions by at least two Parliamentary Committees set up to investigate the topic.
https://antisemitism.uk/crime/
Howard A Treesong wrote: The last labour leader was a Jew and beat his own brother to be leader. If there was all this anti semitism in the party you’d think he wouldn’t have much luck or would have used his position to change things.So the Labour Party were happy with either Ed or David Miliband as leader....This continual focus that it’s specifically a Labour problem is nonsense. Suggesting that if the Tories did the same there would be crowing about it, really? The Tories repeatedly display bigotry of various sorts and it just doesn’t get much traction presumably because it’s expected of conservative sorts, but there’s a certain delight when it comes to accusing Corbyn and Labour of being anti semitic. We know that some cases of people like Ken Livingstone can’t open their mouth any more without saying something offensive but that doesn’t mean the labour ranks have endemic anti semitism.
I'm going to copy-paste some of what I've written in here before, because it very specifically addresses most of what you're saying. I'll spoiler it so as not to bore the masses who've seen it before though.
Spoiler:
I think (and this is speculation below) )that when it comes to anti-semitism in British politics, the left wing are far more susceptible to it these days (i.e. the last thirty/forty odd years)
The right wing used to be terribly anti-semitic, but it was tied in quite inextricably to the disdain the aristocratic classes had for 'the Jew'. I quite regularly read stories about the pre-war upper classes laughing at a Jewish banker falling off a horse, scorning Kind Edward's 'Jewish bankers', or even referring to ones they liked in anti-semitic terms ('He's a Jew but one of the good ones. If you want to negotiate with him though, make sure to get your own lawyer so he doesn't out-Jew you!')
After Hitlerite Germany, the deliberate boosting of Israel as a proxy to oppose the Soviet Union, the purging of Jewish influence from the communist movements, and the seizure of the Conservative party by the middle classes though, the Tories have more or less let go of their institutionalised anti-semitism. They're also more prone to play politics according to realpolitik, and the Israelis have significant military power and the only developed economy in the Middle-East. Human rights concerns are also less of a concern for them. Plus the American Jewish lobby is monied and powerful, and it makes no sense to hack them off.
So whilst you might find some dregs of the old aristocratic anti-semitic disdain in the corners, it's not particularly evident.
The hard left wing in Britain on the other hand, has never lost their historical anti-semitic edge, which has been substantially buoyed in turn by other regional (traditionally anti-semitic) Middle-Eastern powers being very free with cash for anti-Israeli promotional purposes. This has allowed the creation of something of a media juggernaut for attacking the Israeli state; its persistent, unrelenting, and documents everything bad the Israelis do (and invents stuff when they don't). This constant limelight of the Israeli/Palestinian affair (as opposed to most negative stories about human rights, which sink out the news after a week) in turn makes it highly visible to young politically aware types looking for a cause to champion. And those aforementioned regional powers are all too happy to splash the cash a bit to fund rallies and promotional materials.
The result, I think, is that when those younger types grow up a bit and go on to join the left wing parties, they take that mentality with them. Most of them aren't actively anti-semitic, and would be vastly offended if you called them such. But they do treat Israel that little bit differently to all the other human rights offenders, and it sinks into their politics and vocabulary. It's why so often you get left wing politicians getting jumped on for a very badly phrased statement. When you put that next to the more persistent hard left anti-semitic tendencies (who have ideological reasons revolving around Jewish bankers and various such things)?
The result is what you see. There's little in the way of deliberate 'Kill the Jews' stuff, but there is a slightly anti-semitic cultural by-product that has filtered into the left-wing political atmosphere that most aren't even aware of. And it is quite pervasive in that regard. The Lib Dems are just as susceptible to it as Labour; the difference is that the hard left edge isn't present to spur it on. When New Labour was in ascendancy under Blair and the mid to hard left were out in the cold, the more anti-semitic aspects were frozen out along with them. With the rise of Corbyn however, and the movement back to the left wing?
Well, the answer is what you see. People like Galloway (who really are anti-semites) suddenly find that they have allies in the heart of the party once again. And that's a concerning development; one which hasn't been helped by Corbyn doing his level best to suppress anything relating to it and whitewashing the only investigation which took place.
Spoiler:
So. Evidence of a lightly anti-semitic atmosphere pervading the Labour Party. I'll do more than a handful of blog posts or news articles, too (which are all ultimately opinion pieces).
1. Shami Chakrabarti was appointed to lead an enquiry into it recently. Generally considered to be a whitewash on account of the fact that she joined the Labour Party halfway through and then got a job immediately afterwards, her own report actually literally used the phrase 'an occasionally toxic atmosphere' with regards to anti-semitism in Labour, and "too much clear evidence... of ignorant attitudes". The report actually had to recommend that members refrain from using such appealing terms as 'Zio' in everyday discourse and communication. Most organisations don't usually have to actively recommend that sort of thing, you know?
2. The former Head of the Oxford Labour Club (which raises many prominent Labour politicians), upon ceasing to hold his post, said that many members 'have some kind of a problem with Jews'. No less than 32 former chairs and committee members signed an open letter opposing the OULC's decision to engage in a series of anti-apartheid rallies against Israel, describing them as ' little more than a gathering of propagandists seeking to dismantle the only majority-Jewish member-state of the United Nations.'
http://labourlist.org/2016/02/race-row-engulfs-oxford-university-labour-club/
"While the Labour Leader has a proud record of campaigning against many types of racism, based on the evidence we have received, we are not persuaded that he fully appreciates the distinct nature of post-Second World War antisemitism. Unlike other forms of racism, antisemitic abuse often paints the victim as a malign and controlling force rather than as an inferior object of derision, making it perfectly possible for an ‘anti-racist campaigner’ to express antisemitic views. Jewish Labour MPs have been subject to appalling levels of abuse, including antisemitic death threats from individuals purporting to be supporters of Mr Corbyn. Clearly, the Labour Leader is not directly responsible for abuse committed in his name, but we believe that his lack of consistent leadership on this issue, and his reluctance to separate antisemitism from other forms of racism, has created what some have referred to as a ‘safe space’ for those with vile attitudes towards Jewish people. This situation has been further exacerbated by the Party’s demonstrable incompetence at dealing with members accused of antisemitism, as illustrated by the saga involving the suspension, re-admittance and re-suspension of Jackie Walker."
Not quite so complimentary of the Labour Party when you actually read the thing, eh? They very actively state that Corbyn's leadership has led to the creation of a 'safe space' for anti-semitism to flourish.
4. Evidence submitted to the above enquiry included an ESRC research council funded set of polls of the Labour membership. 1031 members was the sample size. Of that, 52% agreed that anti-semitism was a problem in Labour. This fell by about 7% after the party was opened up to Corbyn's newcomers on the £3 vote scheme, and most Labour members thought it was just as bad in other parties.Most of them also believed that it was a tool being used to batter Corbyn with, but the fact remains that about half the party members initially polled thought that there was a real issue with anti-semitism within Labour.
https://esrcpartymembersprojectorg.files.wordpress.com/2015/09/balewebbpolettisubmission4chakrabarti3rdjune2016-1.pdf
5. The endless exposes of Labour activists or appointees suddenly revealed as holding horribly anti-semitic views. I won't bother with names or links, because I could literally spend an hour compiling a long list. Google is there for you if you want it that badly. Start with Ken Livingstone and Naz Shah, as previously stated, and work your down to the low fry like Jackie Walker.
6. Here's the testimony of the Chairman of the Parliamentary Labour Party and NEC:-
"Mr Cryer, Labour MP for Leyton and Wanstead, described a "seeping poison" and warned that future generations might not realise that when it came to Nazism, "we were right and they were wrong".
As chairman of the Parliamentary Labour Party, he sits on the disputes panel of the National Executive Committee, which rules on what members have "said, written or tweeted", he told the audience.
"I have seen some of the tweets from paid up Labour Party members and I am not kidding you, it makes your hair stand up," he said.
Some Labour members dismiss reports of anti-Semitism as a myth, he said.
"But you don't have to look very far before you see it's not a myth...and there's no place in the Labour Party for stuff like that."
Another MP, Wes Streeting, said a "rump" of anti-Semites in Labour should be "driven out" of the party.
"It isn't anti-Semitic to criticise the Israeli government," he said.
"Unfortunately we see too many people examples of anti-Semitic language being used in order to do so."
8. I'm afraid that I will repeat the statement of John Mann, MP and chairperson of the All Party group on anti-semitism, that "Labour has a problem with anti-semitism that must be challenged". It's literally his job to keep an eye on these things, and just attempting to brush it off as party politics doesn't quite fly when seen next to all the other evidence above. If you want an interview where he discusses his personal motivations, try this on for size:-
https://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/john-mann-interview-1.432418 Not quite "rahrah down with Corbyn", is it now? Especially given that he's been doing it since 2005, long before Corbyn's ascendancy was anything more one man's dream in a comfy bed after a good fish supper in Islington.
I also provided another link just yesterday about two Labour Councillors driven out by anti-semitic taunts, and the complete ignoring of their reports by a Labour whip (who in turn is known for retweeting stuff comparing Gaza to the Holocaust).
The sources above involve multiple MP's and people who have been intimately involved with the Labour Party over the last few years. Please browse and consult them before dismissing the whole thing as 'nonsense'.
I don’t think anti semitism is growing in the UK over the last ten years, not to say it doesn’t exist at all, but ‘growing’ isn’t my impression.
By every recorded measure currently in place, it has been on the rise over the last five years or so. Everything from hate speech and crime figures, through to the actual conclusions by at least two Parliamentary Committees set up to investigate the topic.
https://antisemitism.uk/crime/
Your argument would have much more traction if you didn't focus solely on the Left.
But the partisanship of the evidence you have presented in that regard means that you are much more willing to overlook or completely ignore inherent racism, bigotry and anti-semitism which is the hall mark of the right wing.
Desperately trying to conflate anti-Israeli sentiment with outright racism, which might not be great but is a whole level different from the active and numerous racist parties that abound within the Right wing of politics.
To quote the old adage, "First remove the beam out of your own eye, and then you can see clearly to remove the speck out of your brother's eye."
I'm not sure, 'Hey, someone else anti-semitic too' is quite the robust defence you think it is. Saying, 'there's no anti-semitism in the Labour Party', and then when multiple well placed sources are presented which would indicate it is, responding, 'Well, it's elsewhere too' isn't addressing anything I'm saying. It's a sidestepping, a changing of the subject, an attempt to shift the focus of the topic in question. Whether it's true or not (I couldn't say, I've not seen much to support it, but that doesn't mean I've seen anything to disprove it either), it's really not got a lot to do with the question of 'Is there a subtle and soft pervasion of anti-semitism within the Labour Party currently?'
Even Jon Lansman, the founder of Momentum, one of the most prominent Corbynites right now said 'There is antisemitism in the Labour Party...There’s the antisemitism that arrives from the Israel-Palestine conflict. We all understand that when that conflict heats up, it results in dreadful antisemitism. It shouldn’t result in that, but it does....there is a lot of denial of antisemitism”. He also said that they should 'stamp it out, oppose it, make clear it is unacceptable. It has to be dealt with.' That's the sort of words and action that I would expect and respect from any moral Labour member, the desire to seek out such things and eliminate them. Not just dismissing and ignoring them on the basis of 'Well, the Tories do it too, leave Corbyn alone!' Which sadly, is how much of the dialogue goes.
Ketara wrote: I'm not sure, 'Hey, someone else anti-semitic too' is quite the robust defence you think it is. Saying, 'there's no anti-semitism in the Labour Party', and then when multiple well placed sources are presented which would indicate it is, responding, 'Well, it's elsewhere too' isn't addressing anything I'm saying. It's a sidestepping, a changing of the subject, an attempt to shift the focus of the topic in question. Whether it's true or not (I couldn't say, I've not seen much to support it, but that doesn't mean I've seen anything to disprove it either), it's really not got a lot to do with the question of 'Is there a subtle and soft pervasion of anti-semitism within the Labour Party currently?'
Even Jon Lansman, the founder of Momentum, one of the most prominent Corbynites right now said 'There is antisemitism in the Labour Party...There’s the antisemitism that arrives from the Israel-Palestine conflict. We all understand that when that conflict heats up, it results in dreadful antisemitism. It shouldn’t result in that, but it does....there is a lot of denial of antisemitism”. He also said that they should 'stamp it out, oppose it, make clear it is unacceptable. It has to be dealt with.' That's the sort of words and action that I would expect and respect from any moral Labour member, the desire to seek out such things and eliminate them. Not just dismissing and ignoring them on the basis of 'Well, the Tories do it too, leave Corbyn alone!' Which sadly, is how much of the dialogue goes.
I'm not saying ignore racism on the left, I'm challenging you to acknowledge that it exists on the right. The only overt racist political parties are right wing, but you're so obsessed with Corbyn and the Labour party you're ignoring the racism in the establishment on the right as well. If you truly were seeking a balanced argument you'd be making the case that all this is terrible and should be dealt with. But according to your argument only Labour and the left have a problem.
If Labour truly has a problem with racism, then it's hardly being swept under the carpet is it? I'm sure that the recent expulsions of members like Tony Greenstein who is accused of anti-semitism will prove that the Labour party is not refusing to do anything, but is rather actively attempting to deal with this issue. Many of the investigations into anti-semitism in parliament have had Labour members either taking part or leading them, so its not true to say that Labour as a movement is ignoring the issue.
However, I also believe that the is an element of over exaggeration for many of these "offences" and that is politically motivated by people whose interests lie in trying to use any means to smear the left and the labour party.
Just like Brexiteers are tired of being accused of racism because racists voted in the referendum, I too am tired of being accused, or having the accusation levelled at Labour, that we are racist or anti-semites in denial who refuse to even deal with it when that is patently untrue, especially whilst everyone else is given a free pass.
Perhaps I should ask you first - why is the image anti-semetic to see if you understand or whether it is just reaction to the article?
Why is it anti Semitic? I don't know much about the subject and I don't see anything obvious.
It basically infers rich Jewish stereotypical bankers are supressing the masses whilst they play games. It is a lot more subtle than the types national front put forward etc. It can easily be construed as rich people playing games with the lives of the majority instead at first glance.
I'm not saying ignore racism on the left, I'm challenging you to acknowledge that it exists on the right. The only overt racist political parties are right wing, but you're so obsessed with Corbyn and the Labour party you're ignoring the racism in the establishment on the right as well. If you truly were seeking a balanced argument you'd be making the case that all this is terrible and should be dealt with. But according to your argument only Labour and the left have a problem.
It could be argued that Labour are dealing with it much more openly than other parties. The likelihood is that all parties have some issues in this regard. By being open and transparent about the argument it allows higher viligence and early identification. On the other hand we never hear about it from the Tories yet in all probability the problem will just be prevalent there. If they either bury it or ignore it (so it is never in the public realm) then that is by far worse because the behaviour is never challenged and it can take root because it isn't dealt with.
I'd prefer regularly open investigations on the issue to cut out the infection even if it makes a party look worse; than a hidden issue that can grow cancerous because it is ignored. The unfortunate side effect is that the cancerous agent is given free attacks on the group that is investigating any growths. However I'd agree that there is definitely a partisanship attack over the last couple of pages.
I'm not saying ignore racism on the left, I'm challenging you to acknowledge that it exists on the right.
Well, yeah. Neo-nazis are usually pretty right wing. But that isn't really what you want me to say, is it?
The only overt racist political parties are right wing, but you're so obsessed with Corbyn and the Labour party you're ignoring the racism in the establishment on the right as well.
I'm also ignoring it in the Liberal Democrats and Putin's party in Russia, as well as global warming, the Japanese defence policy, and many other subjects. I'm referring to something specific (anti-semitism within the Labour party). I'm not talking about an affiliated topic, or a more general spread. I am (believe it or not) permitted to write down my concerns regarding anti-semitism within the Labour party without spending an equivalent amount of time on the Green party. I'm not the BBC, and I'm not making any pretence about dealing with 'anti-semitism in British politics generally' as of this moment. I'm talking about the Labour Party right now. In the same way when I talk about Conservative economic policy, I don't feel the need to start considering SNP economic policy.
I mean, if you want to twist the subject in a wider direction, and kvetch about how other parties are anti-semitic as a related topic, and link in loads of evidence about Jewish Tory or Lib Dem or SNP councillors getting driven out and stuff like that, I'd be cool with that. It'd be interesting! Always happy to learn more. But if that's what you want, you need to stump up and bring some stuff to the table, not just toss off lines about the Tories being as bad. Put a case about the Tories together for me to read, then we can all sit here and complain about anti-semitism in British politics more generally. I have no problem with that.
But according to your argument only Labour and the left have a problem.
Not accurate. I think Labour has the largest problem out of the four largest parties; that most likely it's there to a level I've not heard of in the Tories or Liberal Democrat or SNP. I am however (as stated in my last post) perfectly happy to be proven wrong there.
If Labour truly has a problem with racism, then it's hardly being swept under the carpet is it?
I do have concerns in that direction, and so do very many senior Labour and ex-Labour politicians. The trend seems to be that when overt completely undeniable stuff comes out with a mountain of proof, action is taken. But that's very different to actively seeking out these things and uprooting them, to attempting to initiate a change in the corporate culture (so to speak). That's something I do lay at Corbyn's door personally, I'm afraid. Goes with the 'Labour Party Leader' hat. I don't think he's an anti-semite himself, but I do think that he's quite happy to ignore/look past them in a way that the New Labour lot (to add to their very small pile of credits) was not, and favour people who do hold anti-semitic tendencies because they ally with him on other views he holds.
Just like Brexiteers are tired of being accused of racism because racists voted in the referendum, I too am tired of being accused, or having the accusation levelled at Labour, that we are racist or anti-semites in denial who refuse to even deal with it when that is patently untrue, especially whilst everyone else is given a free pass.
And that's why you always tilt your lance at me whenever I mention it. You always jump between dismissing it as exaggeration or a smear, before indulging in a bout of whataboutism. You perceive it as a personal attack on you and your party to be vociferously counter-attacked, when in reality? I'm just drawing attention to it because it's anti-semitism. If I had the list of evidence as thick and as strong about the Tories right now, I'd have the exact same problem with them. If it was flagrant racism towards Germans by the SNP, or sexism from Greens, my outlook would be the same.
I suspect this is because of a more general perception you have of me as being right wing or always ragging on labour more generally. Which isn't actually accurate; I just tend not to bother commenting on the (many) flaws of the Tories because yourself and several other consistent posters engage in it so regularly that there's really little need for me to jump on the wagon. There aren't so many people pushing back the other way though; so it tends to look like I go for Labour specifically (when I really have no particular political inclination or preference). I'm naturally a Labour voter if anything at all.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Whirlwind wrote: [ However I'd agree that there is definitely a partisanship attack over the last couple of pages.
Make that the last fifty pages and the Tory party.
I mean, seriously, if I insisted on Labour's inadequacies getting mentioned every time someone slagged off the Tories, this thread would need to have another hundred pages added.
Let's make sure we stay on topic and don't just whine about the other politics topics that have been banned, I don't want to have to delete any more posts. Thanks
Ketara wrote: ... I'm not talking about an affiliated topic, or a more general spread. I am (believe it or not) permitted to write down my concerns regarding anti-semitism within the Labour party without spending an equivalent amount of time on the Green party. I'm not the BBC, and I'm not making any pretence about dealing with 'anti-semitism in British politics generally' as of this moment. I'm talking about the Labour Party right now...
The anti-semitism that is being levelled at many members of the Labour party appears to be due to some of their long held opposition to some policies and actions of the Israeli state. Is being opposed to the Israeli State the same as anti-semitism, some people are arguing that it is and attempting to conflate it to appear so. I think it is entirely possible to oppose Israel, and not be a racist.
It would appear according to the evidence that you have presented that some members of the Labour party are very much against some of the policies of the Israeli state and have used language deemed offensive by some people which I won't repeat here. But suffice to say I had not heard of at least one term and had no idea that another phrase could even be construed as anti-semitic. That is being dealt with, as I mentioned before, by expulsions from the party.
As to racism in the conservative party I would suggest that it is at least as equally prevalent and probably more so than any racism in the Labour party or on the left. For example, Anne Marie Morris' use of the N word during a speech, or her partner ascribing the education crisis to a high birth rate amongst immigrants, or Boris Johnson referring to flag-waving picanninnies or Douglas Ross’ divisive comments pertaining to Gypsy and Traveller communities , Alistair Majury’s tweet using an offensive term for Catholic people suggesting that all Catholics sexually abuse children, and Councillor Robert Davies posting a series of tweets alongside black and white photographs of a group of black people beside a cargo plane, with comments such as “keep your loin cloths with you at all times. Spears go in the overhead locker”.
I found those after only a couple of seconds searching, it not hard to start building a case that any political party has a "problem" and when it is repeated ad-nauseum as in the case of supposed anti-semitism in the Labour party it becomes a convenient stick to beat the party with.
Howard A Treesong wrote: The last labour leader was a Jew and beat his own brother to be leader. If there was all this anti semitism in the party you’d think he wouldn’t have much luck or would have used his position to change things. So the Labour Party were happy with either Ed or David Miliband as leader. I don’t think anti semitism is growing in the UK over the last ten years, not to say it doesn’t exist at all, but ‘growing’ isn’t my impression. This continual focus that it’s specifically a Labour problem is nonsense. Suggesting that if the Tories did the same there would be crowing about it, really? The Tories repeatedly display bigotry of various sorts and it just doesn’t get much traction presumably because it’s expected of conservative sorts, but there’s a certain delight when it comes to accusing Corbyn and Labour of being anti semitic. We know that some cases of people like Ken Livingstone can’t open their mouth any more without saying something offensive but that doesn’t mean the labour ranks have endemic anti semitism.
Good point. Are there rogue elements in the Labour party who are anti-Semitic? Absolutely, and they should be ran out of town.
But given the prominent positions Ed and David Miliband have had in the Labour party over the years, I'm not buying this idea that the Labour party is a hotbed of anti-Semitism.
As I've said before, If Labour are getting a hard time in the British press over anti-Semitism, then the free pass that the Tories got when it came to backing the apartheid regime in South Africa, should also end.
Our current speaker of the House of Commons being a prime example.
The anti-semitism that is being levelled at many members of the Labour party appears to be due to some of their long held opposition to some policies and actions of the Israeli state. Is being opposed to the Israeli State the same as anti-semitism, some people are arguing that it is and attempting to conflate it to appear so. I think it is entirely possible to oppose Israel, and not be a racist.
By all means. As I posted some time back, there's nothing with opposing the Israeli state. I'm certainly no fan. I don't like the blatant racism against their arabic population inculcated in their state apparatus, I'm not a big fan of the degree to which religion mixes into their government generally, and I think they have a real problem with regards to leniency towards certain Jewish fanatical citizens who break the law with regards to house settlements. I also think they are too quick to brutal counterstrikes (but at the same time, I recognise historically why the chain of hatred makes that the case, and also that they are not alone in that in the region).
The weird thing is though, I managed to state all that with ever mentioning the word 'Zionism' or a single comparison to the Holocaust. If you look into the dossier I posted earlier on that Palestine Live organisation; you'll see no such delicacy. It's just screenshot of page after page of links and articles being shared about evil Zionists controlling the media, out to take over the world, committing the sorts of atrocities normally associated with WW1 propaganda of Germany, and so on. And that's the sort of material that floats about the left wing quite extensively; I've certainly heard of a few cases of the Lib Dems getting nailed on that regard along with the Labour Party.
I read one chap who put it perfectly. I'll paraphrase (I'm going from memory), but he essentially said, 'Lots of people challenged over anti-semitic remarks immediately start attacking on the basis that such accusations prevent legitimate criticism of Israel. But that's starting from a completely imaginary premise; nobody ever said you can't criticise Israel.' And he's right. It is the standard defence of anti-semitism, because it allows you to hide behind a cloak of 'Look at me being persecuted for expressing my freedom of speech!' There are a bare handful of people who use the same terminology with legitimate complaints; but the vast majority I have ever seen or heard of are simply converting the word 'Jew' into 'Zionist'. Therein lies the problem.
It would appear according to the evidence that you have presented that some members of the Labour party are very much against some of the policies of the Israeli state and have used language deemed offensive by some people which I won't repeat here. But suffice to say I had not heard of at least one term and had no idea that another phrase could even be construed as anti-semitic. That is being dealt with, as I mentioned before, by expulsions from the party.
I don't think it's sufficient action; and I think that the more subtle 'swap the word Jew for Zio and we're good' kind is currently flourishing because the incumbent leader is happy to turn a blind eye to any case which involves any form of deniability. Given that that was the conclusion reached even by his own enquiry, I don't think that's too unreasonable a view.
As to racism in the conservative party I would suggest that it is at least as equally prevalent and probably more so than any racism in the Labour party or on the left. For example, Anne Marie Morris' use of the N word during a speech, or her partner ascribing the education crisis to a high birth rate amongst immigrants, or Boris Johnson referring to flag-waving picanninnies or Douglas Ross’ divisive comments pertaining to Gypsy and Traveller communities , Alistair Majury’s tweet using an offensive term for Catholic people suggesting that all Catholics sexually abuse children, and Councillor Robert Davies posting a series of tweets alongside black and white photographs of a group of black people beside a cargo plane, with comments such as “keep your loin cloths with you at all times. Spears go in the overhead locker”.
I have no difficulty in believing that more general 'racism' in the Conservative party would be more prevalent than in the Labour party. I've seen some Tories come out with some nasty stuff over the years.
I am interested though, as to whether or not anti-semitism specifically is prevalent there; given the context of this specific conversation. I actually just did some digging, and the worst I could find was one immediately dropped Conservative candidate called Obaid Khan back in 2013/14, and one comment by Tory MP Andrew Bridgen:
Have you got anything you could add? Because given that you asserted the Tories are just as bad on the issue of anti-semitism specifically, I am having difficulty finding much material to support that conclusion.
Again - this is not defending anti-Semitism of any stripe. Simply pointing out the ridiculous hypocrisy here.
Yes, yes. And discussing female rape without mentioning male rape in the same breath, is of course, hypocrisy of the exact same level. Or ever discussing right wing terrorism without Islamic terrorism. etcetc
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: If you know your British history, then you'll know that in 1940, the then defence minster, was forced out of office for being Jewish.
To the best of my knowledge, I don't think a similar scenario has ever happened in the Labour party.
Happy to be corrected if I'm wrong.
We're talking about the last thirty years or so (contemporary politics). By all means, if we're going to start raking up what the Lib Dems thought in 1910 or suchlike, I have no idea what might fall out of the sack.
Have to agree with Ketara that it's a bit weak to bring up the Tories when the discussion is explicitly on anti-Semitism in the Labour Party. It's blatant Whataboutism.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: If you know your British history, then you'll know that in 1940, the then defence minster, was forced out of office for being Jewish.
To the best of my knowledge, I don't think a similar scenario has ever happened in the Labour party.
Happy to be corrected if I'm wrong.
We're talking about the last thirty years or so (contemporary politics). By all means, if we're going to start raking up what the Lib Dems thought in 1910 or suchlike, I have no idea what might fall out of the sack.
Let me say that I don't give two hoots for the Labour party or the Tories. Secondly, Anti-Semitism should be ran out of town.
But what annoys me is the double standards, hence the historical example.
If people are going to rake over what Corbyn said in the 1980s with regard to Israel, East Germany, IRA, Soviet union, Hezbollah, or whatever, then it's only fair that the Tories should be reminded of their support in the 1980s for Chilean dictators, Saddam Hussein, and Apartheid South Africa.
Fair is fair, but we don't get that in the media. Remember the Daily Mail and Ed Miliband's father?
Errr....okay? I asked you for your stuff on current Tory anti-semitism, which you mentioned in a manner as if there was no doubt about it and piles of evidence. I'm actually interested, so I'm mildly surprised that you want to end the conversation there.
I have no problem with anti-Semites getting the boot, but IMO, I think the problem of anti-Semitism being a major issue in Britain is off the mark.
If we look at the facts:
1. Ed Miliband and David Miliband. Pretty self-explanatory there.
2. The 2015 UK general election. Labour got 9.3 million votes. For argument's sake, let's say 30% of Labour voters voted for Labour because of their local MP, rather than their leader. So that leaves us with 6.5 million voters casting a vote for an openly Jewish political leader. I'm sure somebody else can do the math(s) but that a pretty solid chunk of the votes.
Some people would have us believe that Britain is morphing into the Third Reich, when the evidence shows that anti-Semitism is practiced by a tiny percentage of crackpots and racists.
Errr....okay? I asked you for your stuff on current Tory anti-semitism, which you mentioned in a manner as if there was no doubt about it and piles of evidence. I'm actually interested, so I'm mildly surprised that you want to end the conversation there.
Guys you have a user here very clearly and very patiently trying to discuss a specific mindset within a specific party. The whataboutism, random off topic tangents to the 40s, none of that is really showing the politeness that his effort should be rewarded with. If you don't want to discuss his topic then don't discuss it, but please dont just reference it, quote him expecting a response but then not engage with him at all . It's just not cricket.
Again - this is not defending anti-Semitism of any stripe. Simply pointing out the ridiculous hypocrisy here.
Yes, yes. And discussing female r*pe without mentioning male r*pe in the same breath, is of course, hypocrisy of the exact same level. Or ever discussing right wing terrorism without Islamic terrorism. etcetc
A brave attempt at false equivalency there. But ultimately flawed.
Seeing the right wing press get out of their pram over anti-Semitism, whilst continuing to demonise Islam day in, day out. That is the hypocrisy.
That's nowhere near what you've tried to portray it as. It's more akin to criticising Islamic Terrorism, whilst claiming the IRA weren't in fact terrorists but just mentally ill freedom fighters who actually had a point etc etc.
Anti-Semitism needs to be opposed. So does Islamophobia. You cannot promote the latter and oppose the former.
Again - this is not defending anti-Semitism of any stripe. Simply pointing out the ridiculous hypocrisy here.
Yes, yes. And discussing female r*pe without mentioning male r*pe in the same breath, is of course, hypocrisy of the exact same level. Or ever discussing right wing terrorism without Islamic terrorism. etcetc
A brave attempt at false equivalency there. But ultimately flawed.
Seeing the right wing press get out of their pram over anti-Semitism, whilst continuing to demonise Islam day in, day out. That is the hypocrisy.
That's nowhere near what you've tried to portray it as. It's more akin to criticising Islamic Terrorism, whilst claiming the IRA weren't in fact terrorists but just mentally ill freedom fighters who actually had a point etc etc.
Anti-Semitism needs to be opposed. So does Islamophobia. You cannot promote the latter and oppose the former.
You can, it just might not be ethical, and reflective of beliefs held by the individual. It's certainly not impossible.
A brave attempt at false equivalency there. But ultimately flawed.
Seeing the right wing press get out of their pram over anti-Semitism, whilst continuing to demonise Islam day in, day out. That is the hypocrisy.
I'm afraid that as I'm not 'the right wing press', your answer really has very little to do with me. If I worked for the Daily Mail and regularly penned articles purely on anti-semitism, you might have a point. As things stand, it's just the literal definition of whataboutism. You're not talking to the right wing press about racism, you're talking to me about anti-semitism in the Labour Party.
I mean, I'd assume that you were just attempting to start a separate and entirely legitimate thread of discussion (racism in politics), but you keep quoting to me for some reason; as if me discussing one specific issue (anti-semitism within the Labour Party) is somehow invalidated by me not simultaneously discussing a related but far wider, more general subject (racism in politics). Which is clearly utterly ludicrous. By that exact same logic, I could easily respond that by focusing purely on racism, you're excluding sexism/ageism/many other isms to do with hatred/bias in politics more generally, and therefore dub your stance 'ridiculous hypocrisy'.
But that method of discussion is really very silly. And given that I regularly scroll past posts of you laying into the Tories on specific issues with no equivalent interest or focus on other parties/broader themes at the same time; it is quite clear that this is a somewhat one sided approach that you're taking to political chat.
In that case, I'll rest assured that your posts had nothing to do with me, and neither did your statement regarding hypocrisy.
My whole point is that the gutter press are busy trying to smear Corbyn, when it's clear they're not afraid to demonise A.N.Other.
The Cross-Party Committee appointed to look into the matter concluded that 'the Labour Leader is not directly responsible for abuse committed in his name, but we believe that his lack of consistent leadership on this issue, and his reluctance to separate antisemitism from other forms of racism, has created what some have referred to as a ‘safe space’ for those with vile attitudes towards Jewish people.'
Having assessed the evidence previously presented, there would certainly appear to be merit to that conclusion. I would like Mr Corbyn to proactively acknowledge these problems exist, and then tell me what he intends to do about them. That would be the correct and strong course of action to take, one worthy of the long line of Labour fighters against race problems. The longer that he prevaricates, only taking action when his hand is forced by widespread press scrutiny? The more concerned I become.
I wasn't criticising you personally. It was a statement about the ridiculous media hoo-ha.
As for Corbyn saying something, I'm guessing you missed his press release about the issue?
Which one? All the last ones I'd heard of were mealy mouthed fudges. This has been going on for some time, after all.
If he's recently appointed a taskforce to root it out, condemned all attempts to conceal anti-semitism behind 'anti-zionism', and taken action against the various people mentioned recently (say for example, the Labour whip who was mentioned as refusing to acknowledge the problem in that Jewish Chronicle I linked yesterday), no, I haven't heard about it yet. I'd be glad to hear that he has. Do you have a link?
EDIT:- Just found it's come up in the news over the last few days. Which is funny really, I haven't actually been paying attention (busy caring for my girlfriend's mother back from the hospital).
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-43535710 I'm happy to see Corbyn actually saying he's going to try and do something about it whilst condemning it in unequivocal terms. I'm mildly disheartened that it took another furore to make him do it though, it makes me question his sincerity and wonder if it's just political expediency. I'll guess we'll just have to wait and see if action follows the words.
Make that the last fifty pages and the Tory party.
I mean, seriously, if I insisted on Labour's inadequacies getting mentioned every time someone slagged off the Tories, this thread would need to have another hundred pages added.
I don't disagree, but then people are open about it (I'm quite happy to say we should have anything but the Tories and UKIP leading the country). However it's when it gets put across as a non-partisan view - that is different.
Anyway moving on to a different topic.
It appears the Government are again shocked that we won't be part of the Galilieo scheme in the future.
So I can think we can conclude that Tory MPs memories last less than a year. But then they are mostly old and senile so really shouldn't be a surprise. They really shouldn't be shocked however. All nations protect their own interest when it comes to space safety (to put it into context the US have stated they will shoot down Galileo in a war if there is any chance an enemy can use it). However at least we can be assured that they UK build its own in such circumstances...
The UK is hence proud to announce the replacement satellite system instead of galileo.
I'm happy to see Corbyn actually saying he's going to try and do something about it whilst condemning it in unequivocal terms. I'm mildly disheartened that it took another furore to make him do it though, it makes me question his sincerity and wonder if it's just political expediency. I'll guess we'll just have to wait and see if action follows the words.
You could hope for the former but reality says that its the latter. I have always thought with the bar being so fething low for our politicians that JC is far more popular than he should be.
Make that the last fifty pages and the Tory party.
I mean, seriously, if I insisted on Labour's inadequacies getting mentioned every time someone slagged off the Tories, this thread would need to have another hundred pages added.
I don't disagree, but then people are open about it (I'm quite happy to say we should have anything but the Tories and UKIP leading the country). However it's when it gets put across as a non-partisan view - that is different.
Anyway moving on to a different topic.
It appears the Government are again shocked that we won't be part of the Galilieo scheme in the future.
So I can think we can conclude that Tory MPs memories last less than a year. But then they are mostly old and senile so really shouldn't be a surprise. They really shouldn't be shocked however. All nations protect their own interest when it comes to space safety (to put it into context the US have stated they will shoot down Galileo in a war if there is any chance an enemy can use it). However at least we can be assured that they UK build its own in such circumstances...
The UK is hence proud to announce the replacement satellite system instead of galileo.
The UK are the only country to have had satellite launch capability that have gone on to do nothing with it or cancel those programmes.
Still, we have some agreement over some understanding of brexit or some such. Are we still not out out of the EU?
I don't disagree, but then people are open about it (I'm quite happy to say we should have anything but the Tories and UKIP leading the country). However it's when it gets put across as a non-partisan view - that is different.
I'm quite curious - this statement implies you believe the opposite to be true (namely, that my arguments are 'partisan' or strongly representative of a specific cause or party). What allegiance do you think it is I represent but am secretly hiding in having this discussion?
Errr....okay? I asked you for your stuff on current Tory anti-semitism, which you mentioned in a manner as if there was no doubt about it and piles of evidence. I'm actually interested, so I'm mildly surprised that you want to end the conversation there.
I've replied with examples of racism in the Tory party. What difference does it make if it's anti-semitism or more general racism, I'm struggling to understand why you are insisting on the distinction, unless it is purely to attack Labour.
In order to do you the courtesy of searching for evidence of conservative party specific anti-semitism, I've looked and you're correct, there isnt much that I can find about conservative antisemitism, they seem to have a robust and well defined policy about that one particular type of racism, whilst seeming to have difficulty dealing with all the other types.
Apart from here;
https://antisemitism.uk/politics/conservatives/
So what does that prove? That the Tories are actually ok but not perfect at dealing with, or hiding anti-semitiism, but are utterly gak at dealing with all other types.
However, I am pleased that Jeremy Corby issued the recent statement;
"I recognise that anti-Semitism has surfaced within the Labour Party, and has too often been dismissed as simply a matter of a few bad apples.
"This has caused pain and hurt to Jewish members of our party and to the wider Jewish community in Britain. I am sincerely sorry for the pain which has been caused, and pledge to redouble my efforts to bring this anxiety to an end."
"newer forms of anti-Semitism have been woven into criticism of Israeli governments".
"Criticism of Israel, particularly in relation to the continuing dispossession of the Palestinian people, cannot be avoided," he said.
"Nevertheless, comparing Israel or the actions of Israeli governments to the Nazis, attributing criticisms of Israel to Jewish characteristics or to Jewish people in general and using abusive phraseology about supporters of Israel such as 'Zio' all constitute aspects of contemporary anti-Semitism.
"And Jewish people must not be held responsible or accountable for the actions of the Israeli government."
He has pledged that the party will have a zero -tolerance policy on anti-semitism and that there will be an educational programme brought forward in the party to deal with it.
I'm positive that those are not empty words. You maybe more sceptical but I'm happy to wait on the results.
I've replied with examples of racism in the Tory party. What difference does it make if it's anti-semitism or more general racism, I'm struggling to understand why you are insisting on the distinction, unless it is purely to attack Labour.
Because....I was having a conversation about anti-semitism within the Labour party at the time? I mean, like I said to MDG, I don't mind having a separate conversation about racism more generally, or about anti-semitism in both major parties. Those are totally legit topics. But instead of engaging with me on the topic, you jumped straight to 'the partisanship of the evidence', and ignored it due to my apparent capability 'to overlook or completely ignore inherent racism, bigotry and anti-semitism which is the hall mark of the right wing.'
You very literally accused me personally of being right wing and brought in racism of other parties as a deflecting point, in order to dismiss the evidence I'd presented on the very specific topic of anti-semitism within the Labour Party. You then accused me of being 'obsessed with Corbyn', and meandered off into talking about how these things were 'exaggerated... by people whose interests lie in trying to use any means to smear the left and the labour party. '
In order to do you the courtesy of searching for evidence of conservative party specific anti-semitism, I've looked and you're correct, there isnt much that I can find about conservative antisemitism, they seem to have a robust and well defined policy about that one particular type of racism, whilst seeming to have difficulty dealing with all the other types.
So what does that prove? That the Tories are actually ok but not perfect at dealing with, or hiding anti-semitiism, but are utterly gak at dealing with all other types.
Just that. No more, no less at the moment. Which sparks the follow up question as to why you automatically assumed that they just had to be just as anti-semitic as the Labour party, given you had no evidence for that belief.
I mean, they may still be (I've no idea and no evidence one way or the other). But that's why I have no real opinion either way.
However, I am pleased that Jeremy Corby issued the recent statement;
He has pledged that the party will have a zero -tolerance policy on anti-semitism and that there will be an educational programme brought forward in the party to deal with it.
I'm positive that those are not empty words. You maybe more sceptical but I'm happy to wait on the results.
I am curious. Given that many times now over the course of this thread, you have either denied the problem existed, dismissed it as smears, or a right wing myth, how does that jibe with the Labour leader himself now 'recognis[ing] that antisemitism has surfaced within the Labour Party and has too often been dismissed as simply a matter of a few bad apples'?
I don't disagree, but then people are open about it (I'm quite happy to say we should have anything but the Tories and UKIP leading the country). However it's when it gets put across as a non-partisan view - that is different.
I'm quite curious - this statement implies you believe the opposite to be true (namely, that my arguments are 'partisan' or strongly representative of a specific cause or party). What allegiance do you think it is I represent but am secretly hiding in having this discussion?
Because on this issue you seem to take time to provide very detailed attacks on the Labour party whereas other similar cases of bigotry/racism etc. you don't (such as in the Tory party). That would imply some form of partisanship because of the discontinuity in the two approaches. What that is I am unsure...perhaps you are a Genestealer Magus trying to welcome our Tyranid overmasters....
Eh. The way it works is that when I have some time spare and something piques my interest, I do a bit more in depth research than usual (often in the process of debating something on here) and put together a mini-essay with my findings. I've done it before on immigration/crime relations, the impact of Brexit on the financial sector, Keynesian economics, various obscure points of history, and so on. I like educating myself, and am quite happy to be proven wrong, partially or fully (for example, I discovered that having more immigrants in an area does not add additional strain to school or medical places as you'd think, but does on fostering services). It's why I'm more than happy for someone to throw a load of facts about anti-semitism in the Tory party at me.
It doesn't happen much the Tories, mainly because you guys tend to have that angle covered for me (as said before), and partially because frankly, the Tories ARE heartless gits for the most part. It's part of their policy, and in the name ('Conservatives'). It doesn't require much research to uncloak the latest statement about 'The NHS having more funding than ever before' as looking at the physical amount rather than calculating with inflation/population increase. I don't need to be so interrogative, because it's often so flaming obvious.
But once I've done my research, I tend to remember it; so when I get fobbed off on the basis that I'm just making partisan style attacks for the hell of it (and I mean, come on, even Corbyn himself is now agreeing with what I've said it turns out), it irritates me enough to redeploy those findings. I'm far more interested in knowing and communicating what's actually the case than any crass party lines or allegiances. If the Labour Party had made an independent concerted effort to change things since we last discussed it, I'd be happy for someone to point that out. But....they haven't. Until now, apparently.
So I'll see what Labour come up with. I'm not hopeful, but benefit of the doubt and all that.
I don’t think Corbyn is anti Semitic and anything he’s done that can be tied to anti semitism by proxy, I think he wasn’t aware of or is showing some political naivety. I’m not even a Corbyn supporter, I’m not quite his brand of left wing. I don’t agree with so much of what he says, I’m only economically left wing, the rest I’m skeptical on.
I think a lot of claims of anti semitism are stirred up by the right wing media. Maybe these are present in labour, but they’re in other parties too: they get highlighted in labour because there’s a political agenda in parts of the media to attack the left wing. The Tories must be laughing to see Labour constantly fending off accusations of anti semitism considering some of the scum in their ranks. This barrage is politically motivated, and even if accurate, the focus is disproportionate. People in the media are scared of Corbyn because unlike Blair and Cameron he isn’t in their pocket sucking the dick of the likes of Murdoch to get good publicity. Watch them go on the offensive because some they can’t control someone edging nearer government.
I've replied with examples of racism in the Tory party. What difference does it make if it's anti-semitism or more general racism, I'm struggling to understand why you are insisting on the distinction, unless it is purely to attack Labour.
Because....I was having a conversation about anti-semitism within the Labour party at the time? I mean, like I said to MDG, I don't mind having a separate conversation about racism more generally, or about anti-semitism in both major parties. Those are totally legit topics. But instead of engaging with me on the topic, you jumped straight to 'the partisanship of the evidence', and ignored it due to my apparent capability 'to overlook or completely ignore inherent racism, bigotry and anti-semitism which is the hall mark of the right wing.'
You very literally accused me personally of being right wing and brought in racism of other parties as a deflecting point, in order to dismiss the evidence I'd presented on the very specific topic of anti-semitism within the Labour Party. You then accused me of being 'obsessed with Corbyn', and meandered off into talking about how these things were 'exaggerated... by people whose interests lie in trying to use any means to smear the left and the labour party. '
A couple of things, I've reviewed my posts over the last couple of pages, and I don't see where I literally accused you specifaclly of being right wing? If you're referrring to the comment that I felt your post was partisan in nature purely because it was solely focused on the Labour party, I apologise if you took that to mean I ascribed you as being right wing politically. For all I know you're a Blairite.
In order to do you the courtesy of searching for evidence of conservative party specific anti-semitism, I've looked and you're correct, there isnt much that I can find about conservative antisemitism, they seem to have a robust and well defined policy about that one particular type of racism, whilst seeming to have difficulty dealing with all the other types.
So what does that prove? That the Tories are actually ok but not perfect at dealing with, or hiding anti-semitiism, but are utterly gak at dealing with all other types.
Just that. No more, no less at the moment. Which sparks the follow up question as to why you automatically assumed that they just had to be just as anti-semitic as the Labour party, given you had no evidence for that belief.
I mean, they may still be (I've no idea and no evidence one way or the other). But that's why I have no real opinion either way.
Why did you delete the link which, as you requested, gave recent examples of anti-semitism in the conservative party? It clearly shows that 50% of the cases of anti-semitism in the party had unsatisfactory outcomes.
However, I am pleased that Jeremy Corby issued the recent statement;
He has pledged that the party will have a zero -tolerance policy on anti-semitism and that there will be an educational programme brought forward in the party to deal with it.
I'm positive that those are not empty words. You maybe more sceptical but I'm happy to wait on the results.
I am curious. Given that many times now over the course of this thread, you have either denied the problem existed, dismissed it as smears, or a right wing myth, how does that jibe with the Labour leader himself now 'recognis[ing] that antisemitism has surfaced within the Labour Party and has too often been dismissed as simply a matter of a few bad apples'?
Again, please point out where I specifically denied the problem existed, or dismissed it completely as smears or a right wing myth? I'm pretty sure every post I made had a reference to some action being taken against anti-semitism in the party, expulsions etc. I also stated quite clearly that there were members who had used innapropriate and racist language, but was also trying to make the point that there is probably a case that the right wing press is over egging the pudding.
TBH, I tried to bow out gracefully earlier, and I've responded to your points, and provided examples when asked but after you've had your final retort, I'm moving on.
I don't believe that antisemitism is on the rise in the Labour party, there are cases of antisemitism that need to be dealt with, and the party needs to provide comprehensive, clear rules and guidlines on anti-semitism and they should be robustly enforced. My hope is that they will, for the simple fact that once they are in place, Labour can focus on its actual political aims and take the fight to the Tories.
Howard A Treesong wrote: I don’t think Corbyn is anti Semitic and anything he’s done that can be tied to anti semitism by proxy, I think he wasn’t aware of or is showing some political naivety. I’m not even a Corbyn supporter, I’m not quite his brand of left wing. I don’t agree with so much of what he says, I’m only economically left wing, the rest I’m skeptical on.
I think a lot of claims of anti semitism are stirred up by the right wing media. Maybe these are present in labour, but they’re in other parties too: they get highlighted in labour because there’s a political agenda in parts of the media to attack the left wing. The Tories must be laughing to see Labour constantly fending off accusations of anti semitism considering some of the scum in their ranks. This barrage is politically motivated, and even if accurate, the focus is disproportionate. People in the media are scared of Corbyn because unlike Blair and Cameron he isn’t in their pocket sucking the dick of the likes of Murdoch to get good publicity. Watch them go on the offensive because some they can’t control someone edging nearer government.
I am sure this is all true, however Corbyn's problem is that he has allowed the drip-drip of anti-semitism in the party carry on.
One of Corbyn's drawbacks as a leader is that he only seems to be interested in addressing that things that he is interested in. The plus of that is he seems genuine and unaffected, the minus is that he hasn't got any policy or fire in other areas, such as anti-semitism, to show the public he cares.
The way for Corbyn to see off these media attacks is to lance the boil. This would have the added benefit of actually reducing anti-semitism in the Labour Party.
I just want to say, as a jew, that the recent criminalisation of count Dankula makes me terrified. With two words that judge brought far more nazism into the UK than the pug could ever have done or did. Also given the details of the case, the precedent has been set that context doesn't matter. Just by typing 'gas the jews' here I'm breaking Scottish law if not UK law, I'm not sure how much exactly crosses over. Either way, that judge is an authoritarian crackpot, and given that and the ridiculous level of nanny state going on I'm afraid.
Oh and also I have no doubt a corbyn government would be pretty bad for the Jewish community given how much genuine antisemitism can be found on the left.
Indeed, this law allows the government, be it corbyn or may, to shut down criticism. Its now illegal to make jokes that a judge deems offensive kids. A completely subjective thing is now illegal. Let's all just bask for a moment in the continual ruination of our once free country.
If it is determined that Vote Leave broke the law, does this cast the referendum into doubt? What would be the best solution?
The referendum? Would that be the non-binding referendum, that Remain spent the last two years telling us was non-binding?
Who cares about non-binding referendums? Not me
The irony of Remain being hoist by its own petard.
Parliamentary sovereignty and Acts of Parliament are the only game in town, now. Yes, The Commons could reverse the whole process, but
a) they haven't got the guts
b) Brexit is so far advanced, and the EU has been so cheesed off by Britain, that Brexit is set in stone.
As people have gleefully pointed out on these pages, EU agencies are leaving/have left London for other EU countries.
Can anybody see a French politician telling the French people sorry lads, Britain has reversed Brexit, let's hand those old jobs back to Britain.
Never going to happen. We're past the point of no return.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
CREEEEEEEEED wrote: I just want to say, as a jew, that the recent criminalisation of count Dankula makes me terrified. With two words that judge brought far more nazism into the UK than the pug could ever have done or did. Also given the details of the case, the precedent has been set that context doesn't matter. Just by typing 'gas the jews' here I'm breaking Scottish law if not UK law, I'm not sure how much exactly crosses over. Either way, that judge is an authoritarian crackpot, and given that and the ridiculous level of nanny state going on I'm afraid.
Oh and also I have no doubt a corbyn government would be pretty bad for the Jewish community given how much genuine antisemitism can be found on the left.
Indeed, this law allows the government, be it corbyn or may, to shut down criticism. Its now illegal to make jokes that a judge deems offensive kids. A completely subjective thing is now illegal. Let's all just bask for a moment in the continual ruination of our once free country.
Didn't the Met Police say on twitter the other day that people could be arrested for a crime, even if no crime had happened, on the basis that somebody might have been offended, even if they haven't been offended?
The referendum is the only reason we're forging ahead with it; if it becomes illegitimate that might give May of getting out whilst claiming to be following the will of the people. But realistically it won't be delegitimised and it won't be voided. Nothing was done about it being based on lies, and nothing is ever done about the funding frauds. I doubt anyone will get their hands slapped or care too much since the campaigns were so dreadful anyway.
It's also absolutely not set in stone. True huge damage has already been done but we can still remain a full member of the eu.
We won't get the agencies back, and will have made ourselves look foolish, but it's still by far the best option.
Herzlos wrote: The referendum is the only reason we're forging ahead with it; if it becomes illegitimate that might give May of getting out whilst claiming to be following the will of the people.
It's also absolutely not set in stone. True huge damage has already been done but we can still remain a full member of the eu.
We won't get the agencies back, and will have made ourselves look foolish, but it's still by far the best option.
Let's say for argument's sake that you're right and the referendum was tainted.
The Act of Parliament that activated Article 50 was however, not tainted. That was a fair vote. As were the dozens of amendments that Parliament voted through.
In this hypothetical scenario, it was based on dodgy evidence, but as we say, if Parliament gets fooled, or won't stand up for itself, then why should anybody else?
They could reverse it, but that requires political will and guts. The British people wouldn't be happy, because they will see the Remain camp being full of dodgy characters and dodgy money as well, true or not. Politicians of al sides are not highly regarded in this nation, as you know.
It's al perception now. Too much water under the bridge for Brexit to be reversed.
You are entirely correct. However the people are going to be unhappy either way; most leavers won't get the leave they want and thus feel betrayed and disenfranchised. Few remains will get the leave they want.
So staying in order to keep the people happy makes no sense at all. I think it's being dragged out until May can find a suitable exit strategy for her and her party.
I'm watching this Cambridge Analytical hearing as it unfolds, and in the long run, IMO, it is probably the worst thing that could ever happen to Remain supporters.
Why? Because instead of taking a long hard look at why Remain lost, the easy option is there for them to blame the Russians/North Korea/ stupid leave voters/space monkeys from Planet Zog, North Korea, Accrington Stanley, racist leave voters etc etc etc etc
There will be no introspection, no did we run a gak campaign moment. And if you read 'All out War' then Remain did run a gak campaign.
The Remain campaign can be summed up as thus:
Osborne: we could lose this. We need to up our game
Cameron: It will be alright on the night. Trust me.
Osborne: we need a strategy.
Cameron. Just handle it George. I don't need this hassle. Got a lunch date to go to. Some dodgy millionaire will donate £60,000 to the Tory party if me and Sam Cam have lunch with him and his wife.
Osborne: We need Strategy, good PR, sound arguments, the press on board.
Cameron: There's my driver now. Bye. ..
It will be somebody else's fault, and when they adopt this mindset, and I say when if the last two years is anything to go by, they will keep on losing. And losing, and losing.
Remain had all the advanatges of big business support, a sympathetic media (the BBC being a prime example) and most of the British establishment on board.
Sure Remain ran a fairly bad campaign, but when everything was written off as being "sick of experts" and when fighting that level of disinformation it's always a losing proposition. There was also a lot of complaceny since Remain was the obviously sensible choice.
Can you honestly think of anything Remain could have done to get you to have voted Remain? This was decided long ago, with the waverers being bought over by threats of immigrants and bribes for the NHS.
Remain could have put some effort to point out that most of the grievances from the Leave side had nothing to do with the EU, and in turn highlight how useless a government they've been, though.
Now some of the lies have been exposed as lies, can you see Leave winning a 2nd time?
Perhaps, but surely the reason those jobs would exist is to satisfy the migrants, right? They come for work, and if they're not going to come, then the jobs won't be done. Either way it's not going to affect us much. The effects to the while economy maybe, but you only need more jobs if the workforce is larger. Estonia (or any small country you like) isn't trying to provide jobs for 2 million people rather than the 1.3 they have. So why would we want more jobs than necessary except to satisfy migrant demand. Which you may think is a good thing, but the point still stands.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: I'm watching this Cambridge Analytical hearing as it unfolds, and in the long run, IMO, it is probably the worst thing that could ever happen to Remain supporters.
Why? Because instead of taking a long hard look at why Remain lost, the easy option is there for them to blame the Russians/North Korea/ stupid leave voters/space monkeys from Planet Zog, North Korea, Accrington Stanley, racist leave voters etc etc etc etc
There will be no introspection, no did we run a gak campaign moment. And if you read 'All out War' then Remain did run a gak campaign.
The Remain campaign can be summed up as thus:
Osborne: we could lose this. We need to up our game
Cameron: It will be alright on the night. Trust me.
Osborne: we need a strategy.
Cameron. Just handle it George. I don't need this hassle. Got a lunch date to go to. Some dodgy millionaire will donate £60,000 to the Tory party if me and Sam Cam have lunch with him and his wife.
Osborne: We need Strategy, good PR, sound arguments, the press on board.
Cameron: There's my driver now. Bye. ..
It will be somebody else's fault, and when they adopt this mindset, and I say when if the last two years is anything to go by, they will keep on losing. And losing, and losing.
Remain had all the advanatges of big business support, a sympathetic media (the BBC being a prime example) and most of the British establishment on board.
And they still lost.
I disagree entirely.
Remain was your mainstream parties. Your Labour, your Conservatives. They both need to watch what election pledges they make, as they both have a genuine shot at winding up running things. Nothing too spectacular, nothing unworkable. And keep the negatives/how you'll pay for the positives on the downlow.
Leave? They had the enviable Lib Dem impression. You're never, ever, EVER going to have to deliver on your promises, so just say whatever you want. It's not actually a big fat lie if you don't win, is it?
Only....Leave did win. And they did so by telling absolute whopping big lies. And look at the aftermath.....
If we flip the situation and imagine that it is Better Together being investigated for breaking the electoral rules, would we argue that they should be let off?
Isn't it important to investigate and prosecute any infringements against ballot law, whatever the actual result of the poll?
To me this is just further reinforcement for a second referendum. Sadly I have to agree with DINLT that just repealing the original result on this basis is politically impractical at best, but there are a whole host of other issues with that campaign (lies, conflicting proposals, lack of detail, key issues totally unconsidered, i.e. Ireland).
So let’s draw a line under that whole mess and allow the British public to have the final say, once the whole deal is visible on the table.
Herzlos wrote: Sure Remain ran a fairly bad campaign, but when everything was written off as being "sick of experts" and when fighting that level of disinformation it's always a losing proposition. There was also a lot of complaceny since Remain was the obviously sensible choice.
Can you honestly think of anything Remain could have done to get you to have voted Remain? This was decided long ago, with the waverers being bought over by threats of immigrants and bribes for the NHS.
Remain could have put some effort to point out that most of the grievances from the Leave side had nothing to do with the EU, and in turn highlight how useless a government they've been, though.
Now some of the lies have been exposed as lies, can you see Leave winning a 2nd time?
They were exposed as lies, but they were shouted down with "We are sick of experts" and "Look at project fear!". Remain were always going to struggle. Just the same as the Scottish referendum. The side that wants to continue can never sell it as a land of milk and honey, all they could ever do was shoot down the oppositions arguments. This was deflected and derided by the leave side in both. In the Scottish referendum remain won. In the EU referendum they lost, and I would argue a big part of that was a targeted savvy campaign that undermined and attacked any questioning. Both were very much campaigns dominated by emotion over fact, and advertising does sway much more than fact, and a sexy story wins over the truth. Just go and look at the conspiracy theory thread or the stuff about the Russian attack on the UK to see how many people will ignore vast swathes of evidence just because it does not fit their world view. This extra, illegal, advertising most probably made the small difference. People like to think they are rational, but they aren't. The most rational people are the ones who admit they act irrationally, but they are still often just irrational but aware of it.
Kilkrazy wrote: True, but let us not allow the sunk costs fallacy to overturn good sense and close off reasonable options.
It’s only a fallacy if you can’t see the benefits in continuing. Clearly there are some even if it doesn’t tip your personal balance on making the deciding to leave.
Tabled deal vs standard World Trade rules. (You know the masses would love to snock a crook at the EU again don’t you?).
Or
The tabled deal vs stay in EU. Which is to say a compete waste of the last 2 years.
Tabled deal vs. standard World Trade rules vs. stay in EU, with the two most popular squaring off in a second round. In practice this'll of course mean that it's either the tabled deal or World Trade rules vs. stay in EU, but it also means that the leave vote isn't unfairly split between the two leave options, and it lets people who are in favour of taking a Tabled deal but would prefer staying in over WTO rules to vote for a more preferred option if WTO rules win the first round.
Kilkrazy wrote: If we flip the situation and imagine that it is Better Together being investigated for breaking the electoral rules, would we argue that they should be let off?
Isn't it important to investigate and prosecute any infringements against ballot law, whatever the actual result of the poll?
Yes, of course. Who wouldn't want to see Boris Johnson in a jail cell?
Kilkrazy wrote: True, but let us not allow the sunk costs fallacy to overturn good sense and close off reasonable options.
It’s only a fallacy if you can’t see the benefits in continuing. Clearly there are some even if it doesn’t tip your personal balance on making the deciding to leave.
Well virtually every bit of post vote evidence shows there is no tangible benefit to leaving the EU and WTO rules would be catastrophic.
Kilkrazy wrote: True, but let us not allow the sunk costs fallacy to overturn good sense and close off reasonable options.
It’s only a fallacy if you can’t see the benefits in continuing. Clearly there are some even if it doesn’t tip your personal balance on making the deciding to leave.
Well virtually every bit of post vote evidence shows there is no tangible benefit to leaving the EU and WTO rules would be catastrophic.
Well if I accepted your post as 100% accurate (I don’t) the virtually does not mean all does it?
UK being governed by Brits, purely in the best interest of UK population/trade and having complete control of its own territorial waters and not paying for the privilege would be a clear and obvious one but we are treading over old ground aren’t we?
Kilkrazy wrote: True, but let us not allow the sunk costs fallacy to overturn good sense and close off reasonable options.
It’s only a fallacy if you can’t see the benefits in continuing. Clearly there are some even if it doesn’t tip your personal balance on making the deciding to leave.
Well virtually every bit of post vote evidence shows there is no tangible benefit to leaving the EU and WTO rules would be catastrophic.
Well if I accepted your post as 100% accurate (I don’t) the virtually does not mean all does it?
UK being governed by Brits, purely in the best interest of UK population/trade and having complete control of its own territorial waters and not paying for the privilege would be a clear and obvious one but we are treading over old ground aren’t we?
We currently are governed by ourselves. And Brexit clearly isn't in the best interest of UK population/trade?
It's a tough one, I think it is pretty clear that Brexit will reduce the total growth numbers for the English economy at this point.
However, I think most people would accept lower overall growth if it is more evenly distributed around the country and the direct benefits of it are more visible. Even when we were posting great growth numbers, many people were not seeing the 'trickle down' effect. So if we must have a Brexit, the best thing it can do for us is help re-orient the economy away from London.
Kilkrazy wrote: True, but let us not allow the sunk costs fallacy to overturn good sense and close off reasonable options.
It’s only a fallacy if you can’t see the benefits in continuing. Clearly there are some even if it doesn’t tip your personal balance on making the deciding to leave.
Well virtually every bit of post vote evidence shows there is no tangible benefit to leaving the EU and WTO rules would be catastrophic.
Well if I accepted your post as 100% accurate (I don’t) the virtually does not mean all does it?
UK being governed by Brits, purely in the best interest of UK population/trade and having complete control of its own territorial waters and not paying for the privilege would be a clear and obvious one but we are treading over old ground aren’t we?
We currently are governed by ourselves. And Brexit clearly isn't in the best interest of UK population/trade?
Within EU parameters arbitrated by EU courts.....so sure we have all the power over ourselves unless Claude et al legislate otherwise.
Kroem wrote: It's a tough one, I think it is pretty clear that Brexit will reduce the total growth numbers for the English economy at this point.
However, I think most people would accept lower overall growth if it is more even distributed around the country and the benefits direct benefits of it are more visible.
Even when we were posting great growth numbers, many people were not seeing the 'trickle down' effect. So if we must have a Brexit, the best thing it can do for us is help re-orient the economy away from London.
Yes, it's a good point.
The problem is that it's the areas currently left behind which look like suffering worse because of Brexit. London will suffer too, of course, but to a lesser degree. And if London suffers, the ability to force a trickle down to the regions is more limited, because there is less money overall to go around.
I feel that while Brexit is a potential opportunity to force the UK to re-orientate itself, this is not the project that was being "sold" to people, and it probably is not what will happen. Lso, that membership of the EU does not prevent the UK from carrying out a self-examination and re-orientation of the economy.
In point of fact, it's the core EU members which have done best in terms of social economy promoting growth and at the same time limiting inequality to a much better degree than the UK.
Yes I was astounded that places like Cornwall and Wales who have been great beneficiaries of EU subsidies were so keen to vote leave. Quite literally biting the hand that feeds you!
I think people don't want charity, and quickly come to resent those who give it. People want to make a success of their own lives not get crumbs of another's table, Boris and his merry men did a good job of convincing people in these areas that it was the EU preventing them from doing that.
Kilkrazy wrote: True, but let us not allow the sunk costs fallacy to overturn good sense and close off reasonable options.
It’s only a fallacy if you can’t see the benefits in continuing. Clearly there are some even if it doesn’t tip your personal balance on making the deciding to leave.
Well virtually every bit of post vote evidence shows there is no tangible benefit to leaving the EU and WTO rules would be catastrophic.
Well if I accepted your post as 100% accurate (I don’t) the virtually does not mean all does it?
UK being governed by Brits, purely in the best interest of UK population/trade and having complete control of its own territorial waters and not paying for the privilege would be a clear and obvious one but we are treading over old ground aren’t we?
We currently are governed by ourselves. And Brexit clearly isn't in the best interest of UK population/trade?
Within EU parameters arbitrated by EU courts.....so sure we have all the power over ourselves unless Claude et al legislate otherwise.
Kroem wrote: Yes I was astounded that places like Cornwall and Wales who have been great beneficiaries of EU subsidies were so keen to vote leave. Quite literally biting the hand that feeds you!
I think people don't want charity, and quickly come to resent those who give it. People want to make a success of their own lives not get crumbs of another's table, Boris and his merry men did a good job of convincing people in these areas that it was the EU preventing them from doing that.
EU money isn't charity though.
1. It comes out of the EU centtral funds that the UK has paid into.
2. It's usually attached to a condition that the recipient government stumps up an equal sum. E.g. if the UK wants to take up the £350M development grant for Cornwall, the UK needs to put in £350M too.
3. In other cases the money comes from loans from the EU Long Term Investment Bank (backed by the UK) and has to be paid back.
All that said, the morning after the referendum, the local government of Cornwall was asking central government if they would replace the EU money that was now going to be lost.
Kilkrazy wrote: True, but let us not allow the sunk costs fallacy to overturn good sense and close off reasonable options.
It’s only a fallacy if you can’t see the benefits in continuing. Clearly there are some even if it doesn’t tip your personal balance on making the deciding to leave.
Well virtually every bit of post vote evidence shows there is no tangible benefit to leaving the EU and WTO rules would be catastrophic.
Well if I accepted your post as 100% accurate (I don’t) the virtually does not mean all does it?
UK being governed by Brits, purely in the best interest of UK population/trade and having complete control of its own territorial waters and not paying for the privilege would be a clear and obvious one but we are treading over old ground aren’t we?
We currently are governed by ourselves. And Brexit clearly isn't in the best interest of UK population/trade?
Within EU parameters arbitrated by EU courts.....so sure we have all the power over ourselves unless Claude et al legislate otherwise.
Rules we agreed to follow.
But cannot directly change...still don’t see the problem?
It's my understanding that the European Arrest Warrant (EAW) was supposed to be for dealing with crime lords, drug barons, war criminals, and not for people voting on self-determination...
The EU's silence on this has been deafening.
Luckily for the politician in question, sedition is not a crime up here, and it's a supreme irony that the law was originally introduced in the first place by Franco back in 1940...
Thank God for the independent Spanish judiciary.
This is one of those rare occasions where I'm glad to see my tax money spent on Scottish judges, courts, and lawyers.
Automatically Appended Next Post: And some good news for Remain supporters.
Worried about dodgy chicken from the USA that's been washed in chlorine?
Fear not. Move to an EU country and get dodgy meat and milk from Brazil instead.
There's no link for this yet, because the farming supplement in my local newspaper came out today, but there's an article on the EU/Mercosur trade talks. And Google has plenty articles on this.
The EU seem to have been turning a blind eye to unhygienic practices in the Brazilian meat and milk sector, because trade deals always trump public health. Right?
On a serious note, I apologise for the earlier tone, but my point is that ordianry people on dakka like us, don't add up to a hill of beans.
Am I worried about chroline chcken from the USA? Absoluetly, but let's not fall into the trap of thinking the EU is any better. Money talks.
Remain. Brexit. Normal people like us are always the last to know, so in a way, it doesn't really matter what side you're on, you're getting screwed anyway.
People seem to forget that we held a very prominent position in the EU and led it to an extent.
Now we're relegated to having to follow those rules with no say whatsoever, all so that we can do things we could have done anyway.
I also understand that people feel the Brexit is a good opportunity for big changes to everything, yet I've seen no hint that any government is even considering moving away from the status quo (beyond the Tories dismantling of human and animal rights).
Outside the EU we will still be subject to all kinds of international rules, such as the features of passports, WTO, and EU legislation on products and services.
We will be able to avoid all that by either not engaging and trading with anyone, or else flouting the rules and using our Imperial power to force others to toe the line we set down.
There's no link for this yet, because the farming supplement in my local newspaper came out today, but there's an article on the EU/Mercosur trade talks. And Google has plenty articles on this.
The EU seem to have been turning a blind eye to unhygienic practices in the Brazilian meat and milk sector, because trade deals always trump public health. Right?
All the Mercosur deal means is that Brazilian or Chilean dairies are free to export to the EU..... As long as they meet the EU standards which they will need to be certified for (much in the same way EU meat and dairy producers need to be cleared by the FDA to export to the US, even if US standards are on the whole more relaxed than those in the EU)
That's why there are inspections and stuff.
The Brexit chlorinated chicken debate is a whole different game, basically lowering your own standards to get the deal going.
Well, on a final note for the day, and apologies to people who might be fed up with Scottish politics...
and I say this with genuine sincerity, but if Remain supporters are hoping for help from the Electoral Commission with regard to dodgy Brexit money and Cambridge Analytica,
then I'm afraid you guys are in for some disappointment.
To cut a long story short, Scotland in Union were formed to fight another Scottish independence referendum and there was concerns over how much money they were taking from undeclared donations. It's over £600,000
one of their donators was a company that once dealt with Saddam Hussein (in violation with UN sanctions at the time)
Despite all this, the Electoral commission have just said nothing to see here, move along. A group formed to fight a referendum, is 100% not political
Utter, utter whitewash...
Again, I say to Remain supporters, don't look to the EC. They are a toothless watchdog.
Well of course if you read papers like the independent you can find doom and gloom. Although I'd recommend never reading the independent, there are better papers of all political bents.
CREEEEEEEEED wrote: Well of course if you read papers like the independent you can find doom and gloom. Although I'd recommend never reading the independent, there are better papers of all political bents.
CREEEEEEEEED wrote: Well of course if you read papers like the independent you can find doom and gloom. Although I'd recommend never reading the independent, there are better papers of all political bents.
So, in response to an article pointing out the still unsolved issues which will take effect after we leave (and after the transition period), your response is articles which say it is okay now?
CREEEEEEEEED wrote: Well of course if you read papers like the independent you can find doom and gloom. Although I'd recommend never reading the independent, there are better papers of all political bents.
Conveniently forgetting brexit hasn't happened yet. You are still part of eu. Article is more of pro-remain. See how well uk is doing as eu member? See what uk is going to lose!
Regards how fine the UK will do under Brexit (as oppose to now), here (in case anyone missed it), in Section 23, are the governments own figures at how fine the various regions will be -
My region, given current likely Brexit outcomes, can probably expect a 10% hit, which means higher council tax and poorer services, generally for those that need those services most. Not really that fine at all.
UK being governed by Brits, purely in the best interest of UK population/trade and having complete control of its own territorial waters and not paying for the privilege would be a clear and obvious one but we are treading over old ground aren’t we?
You would then support another referendum (and continued ones) then? If you support 'Brits' making the decisions then that would include continued referendums on the issue because then that is the 'Brits' deciding to partake in their right to determine whether some laws are delegated to the EU or not. You can't have your cake and eat it both opposing another British vote but then supporting that 'Brits' should make the decision (unless of course what you really mean by 'Brits' is those that agree with me and the rest can take a hike?)
CREEEEEEEEED wrote: Well of course if you read papers like the independent you can find doom and gloom. Although I'd recommend never reading the independent, there are better papers of all political bents.
So, in response to an article pointing out the still unsolved issues which will take effect after we leave (and after the transition period), your response is articles which say it is okay now?
What there articles fail to point out is that we are one of, if not the worst performing countries in terms of growth. Global growth is stronger than expected therefore it is no surprise that we are being dragged along with it. However relatively we are performing worse so on a global relative proportion we are doing worse. If you take out the impact of global growth then the predictions are likely not to be far wrong. The real issue is if this continues because when the next global recession arrives then we will still be trying to recover from the last one and the Wrexit idiocy and being worse off than others as well.
Thankfully they’ve halted the release of this serial rapist. Let him rot inside. I can’t see any justification to let him out whatsoever. 10 years isn’t good enough for the crimes he was convicted of, let alone the hundreds of others unprosecuted.
Thankfully they’ve halted the release of this serial rapist. Let him rot inside. I can’t see any justification to let him out whatsoever. 10 years isn’t good enough for the crimes he was convicted of, let alone the hundreds of others unprosecuted.
And what aspect of British politics are you refering to, here?
Thankfully they’ve halted the release of this serial rapist. Let him rot inside. I can’t see any justification to let him out whatsoever. 10 years isn’t good enough for the crimes he was convicted of, let alone the hundreds of others unprosecuted.
Agreed - the only bad thng is we have to pay for his keep.
Foreigners to net UK fish after Brexit
Overseas firms have already bought much of Britain’s quota and will keep it after we quit the EU
Britain’s fish will still belong to Europe after Brexit — because Spain, Holland and Iceland have bought up nearly 90% of the entire fishing quota of Wales and more than half the quota assigned to England.
Foreign owners of the fishing rights have also set up UK businesses to hold the quota, making meaningful change unlikely after the country leaves the EU.
The revelation is in fishery statistics from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra), run by Michael Gove. The environment secretary’s civil servants were compiling the data at the same time as he was claiming that leaving Europe would let Britain “take back control” of its seas.
The admission follows last week’s transition deal, which will keep the UK in the common fisheries policy for 21 months after departure from the EU. The agreement infuriated many Conservatives, especially the party’s 13 Scottish MPs.
This year foreign owners will land much of Britain’s quota of species such as cod, haddock and whiting in their home countries. It will not touch UK shores or benefit its processing industries.
Defra’s data reveals that Spanish firms have bought permanent control of 88% of the fish quota for Wales, including whiting, hake, pollock and sole.
The quota is used mainly by one vessel, the Armaven Uno, belonging to Armaven (UK), a company whose owners live in Spain. This weekend the 104ft vessel was heading back to the Irish Sea after apparently dropping off a cargo of fish and refuelling in Vigo, Spain.
“Ministers are promising fishers more quota after Brexit,” said Jim Pettipher of the Coastal Producer Organisation, which represents the owners of smaller boats. “But Defra has let fishermen sell most of our quota to foreign firms. The problem is bad management. Brexit won’t change that.”
Under the quota system European waters are divided into sectors with scientists advising on how many tons of each species can be caught per sector without harming long-term viability. The tonnages are then subdivided into quotas that are awarded to each country, based on past catches. Governments distribute the quotas to those who catch the fish. However, unlike France and Ireland, Defra lets fishers sell quotas. This is why much of the English and Welsh quotas is in foreign hands. Scotland has reduced such problems by restricting sales.
A spokesman for Lesley Griffiths, the Welsh environment secretary, said: “Welsh vessel owners — as did Scottish and English — have legitimately sold their boats and quota allocations to UK companies with owners in other EU states.”
Such transactions highlight a key flaw in Gove’s pledge to take back the fishing quota from the EU and give it to UK fishers. Any quota could be sold to foreign-owned firms.
Much of England’s quota has already gone that way. Spanish vessels now control most of the quota from the Bristol Channel to the Scottish border, including vessels operating from the Lancashire port of Fleetwood such as the O Genita and Coyo Tercero, owned by the Vidal family of La Coruña.
On the east coast, Dutch and Icelandic fishing companies dominate. They have created a complex web of firms to own and exploit UK fishing quotas. One ship, the Cornelis Vrolijk, operating from Hull, owns a fifth of England’s entire quota.
The ship belongs to the North Atlantic Fishing Company based in Caterham, Surrey, but that firm, which made more than £5.5m profit in 2016, is Dutch and the vessel lands its 35,000 tons of annual catches in Holland.
Alarm bells rang over foreign companies buying up British quotas five years ago, when Defra’s first register of quota holdings showed how a third of the UK’s fish was being landed overseas.
Defra pledged a review but last week admitted nothing was done; it promised “another review”. A spokeswoman said: “Leaving the EU gives the opportunity to design a new domestic fishing policy.”
Thomas Appleby, a law lecturer at the University of the West of England, said: “England and Wales have mismanaged their fishing quota and Brexit will do nothing to put it right.”
..shocking to consider that Gove might not have been entirely honest
Mr. Burning wrote: Its always best to start from the position that Gove is a liar.
He's a lying sack of gak.
The awful thing is that Gove is one of the best of the current bunch of Tory front benchers. He's certainly the best of the Brexiteers, though to be fair there aren't very many Brexiteers in the front bench. They prefer to operate from behind the scenery.
How long do these quotas last? Is this for the two year transitional period?
"Defra’s data reveals that Spanish firms have bought permanent control of 88% of the fish quota for Wales, including whiting, hake, pollock and sole. "
I'd be very surprised if 'Permanent' meant 'Two Years.'
I bet that’ll cost us. fething tories selling off everything of value.
The satellite is pissing me off too. They can lock us out of it but I bet they won’t be returning the money we put towards it. Funny how it doesn’t work in reverse. Of course, that would have required a pm with a spine. Haven’t had one of those in nearly 30 years.
The satellite is pissing me off too. They can lock us out of it but I bet they won’t be returning the money we put towards it. Funny how it doesn’t work in reverse. Of course, that would have required a pm with a spine. Haven’t had one of those in nearly 30 years.
Whatever you might say about Baroness Thatcher, she most certainly had a spine.
The satellite is pissing me off too. They can lock us out of it but I bet they won’t be returning the money we put towards it. Funny how it doesn’t work in reverse. Of course, that would have required a pm with a spine. Haven’t had one of those in nearly 30 years.
Whatever you might say about Baroness Thatcher, she most certainly had a spine.
Hence, I believe, the "nearly 30 years" comment, considering she was booted out 28 years ago.
The satellite is pissing me off too. They can lock us out of it but I bet they won’t be returning the money we put towards it. Funny how it doesn’t work in reverse. Of course, that would have required a pm with a spine. Haven’t had one of those in nearly 30 years.
Well. You are expecting to get military security related access when you aren't part of us? It's us vs you. For EUUK is now any other random country. Internal security requires not giving access willy nilly to not involved countries. If you want access to it you need to negotiate deal.
It's like if you want to benefit from EU you need to be member of it. Not just cherry pick benefits just because you are UK.
As Thomas Jefferson may or may not have said, “the price of liberty is eternal fiscal vigilance”. We cannot put the spending horse ahead of the growth cart.
...
.. where does she think the horse is supposed to go then ?
Future War Cultist wrote: Here’s another question, how would remaining in the eu have helped with that? If they own it they own it right?
What are the options? Buy them back?
The only restriction the EU place is in summary the amount of fish that each nation can draw from different fisheries. This is based on scientific data on what is sustainable (so we don't have a cod grand banks scenario).
The allocation is udnertaken by thUK and always has been. From what I understand they allocate a large fraction to "Producer Organisations" which are meant to distribute them to their members. The problem being these same POs effectively being the same as the fishing companies. If you are an independent the share of the fisheries you get is basically the scraps off the table as the government process massively favours the big PO involved organisations (and I'm sure their are party donations). The POs aren't bound to ensuring they use UK fleets/vessels so in effect whoever happens to own a large share of the PO massively benefits. In the EU we had to the power to change this. All it requires is a change in the allocation method (no public owned companies needed). However the small fisherpeople have been told a pack of lies that it is the EU allocation system that is at fault rather than our own implementation of these quotas. They have been 'useful fools' for the Leave campaign. Allowing less control to be put in the hands of the POs would quickly help redress some of the balance.
The big concern when we leave (both scientifically and probably in the EU) is that these restrictions will be lifted. Although initially smaller vessels might benefit (because they aren't hamstrung by UK govenrment unfair business practices) it will also lift restrictions on the big PO companies as well. That would result in a massive upswing in unsustainable fishing which would lower prices and make small vessels less viable both here and in the EU. However over 10-20 years, and as fish migrate and don't respect borders, this could result in massive depletion of fisheries which will likely if the early cheap prices haven't already done so probably end the majority of small fishing vessels. The large fleet vessels won't care they will just move on to deeper seas. For the smaller vessels here and in the EU will become rusting wrecks. But of course we don't expect the Tories to care about anything other than the big business donors do we?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Darkjim wrote: The horse will be sold off in one of our new trade deals, and we won't make carts anymore, problem solved.
We won't need them because the UK will do things differently...by inventing new imaginary devices using square wheels that will somehow work...
A rather cynical tradition has developed in recent years in which, in the final days and hours before MPs leave Parliament for an extended break, the government releases a deluge of embarrassing reports, statistics, and statements in an apparently deliberate attempt to bury them.
This Easter has been no different. Here are just some of the inconvenient stories Theresa May's government has tried to bury over the past 24 hours.
When George Osborne was Chancellor he announced a controversial cut to housing benefit which threatened to prevent all people aged between 18-21 from claiming it. The change became a rallying point for campaigners, who accused ministers of attempting to push young people into poverty and homelessness.
As a result the government later introduced a large number of exemptions in an attempt to fight off criticism of the cut. However, so widespread were the exemptions that the policy only ended up affecting a very small number of people once it was eventually introduced. As a result the government today quietly ditched the policy altogether.
"I am today announcing that the Government will amend regulations so that all 18-21 year olds will be entitled to claim support for housing costs in [Universal Credit]" the Work and Pensions Secretary Esther McVey acknowledged in a statement slipped out on parliament's website today.
A damning report slipped out on Wednesday reveals that the government's much-trumpeted border 'exit checks' introduced to keep track of people moving to the UK have completely failed. The study, by the Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration found that as of last summer, there were hundreds of thousands of people whose right to remain in the UK had expired but for whom the government had absolutely no record of having left. Of the 601,000 that slipped through the net, 513,000 did not hold a visa.
Government employees interviewed by the inspectors were damning. "We were initially told that the system would tell us if someone has or has not left the country," one anonymous employee said. "It sounds so simple, but the reality is that there are so many ways in which the data can get muddled and confused. Internally, there was no comprehension at the vast and complicated nature of the data and the patterns we are seeing."
When David Cameron's government resurrected the 'right to buy' scheme they promised to replace any increase in the number of social homes sold, with new homes. However, according to a written statement slipped out on Thursday afternoon that is simply not happening.
According to a statement by the housing minister Dominic Raab, the statistics reveal that "while the number of homes available for social rent has increased, some local authorities have not been building enough Right to Buy replacements to match the pace of their sales,"
Overall, the new statistics show that since the right to buy scheme restarted, there have been around 63,000 sales of social homes as opposed to just 16,000 new builds. This means that four times as many homes have been sold as those that have been built to replace them.
The immigration chief inspector also submitted a damning report on the treatment of child asylum seekers. The report is highly critical of the government's communication, assessment and care for those claiming asylum, stating that the children's "best interests" were not secured by ministers. In conclusion, they found that "there is a considerable amount of work for the Home Office to do. Given the impact the asylum system has on the lives of those children and young people who come into contact with it, I hope that the Home Office can move quickly to make the necessary improvements."
Yet another damning immigration report slipped out over the past 24 hours reveals that the government has failed to properly implement a whole series of official recommendations designed to clamp down on the spread of modern slavery in the UK. The new report found that of the 12 earlier recommendations, five had either not been properly implemented or completed.
TBF the housing benefits idea was always ridiculous and ill thought out.
If , for example, you've been in care your whole life what are you supposed to do when you turn 18 ? Magically inherit a castle or something ?
Deserves to be scrapped and rethought out.
It's a pretty pisspoor state of affairs when a govt. cannot get through their own recommendations with regards to the slave trade though eh ?
Politically edifying exchange of the week :
"There's no policy of indefinite detention. Nobody is held indefinitely" Home Office perm Sec Philip Ruttnam tells MPs
Yvette Cooper: "So what definite date are they given?
Ruttnam: "There is not a policy of giving a definite date"
The registration system for EU nationals is delayed & wont go live until the end of this year. That gives the Govt two years to process 3.5m EU citizens, as well as those who arrive during the transition. That means the Home Office granting one application every 3.75 seconds.
and Leave.EU leap on board the antirascism party :
.. I haven't been so distraught since I learnt that Long Distance Clara wasn't actually married to Hugo the Chef, but they were, apparently, living in sin !
.. I haven't been so distraught since I learnt that Long Distance Clara wasn't actually married to Hugo the Chef, but they were, apparently, living in sin !
Well they are only proving what half the country already thought. That Leave.EU is lead be group of racist, religiously intolerant parts of the population.
At least we have something to point to when people sit around in denial.
It's a real shame that there are not regulations on politicians outright lying to the populace given that there will be less money available to the NHS. Unless of course she means by certainty is that they are definitely going to scrap it?
TL/DR: Brexit is supported more strongly by the older generation, who are inevitably more likely to die. The young generation now moving into voting age, tend to support Remain.
Of course this is based on analysing the voting pattern last time, and there would be different factors in a second referendum. However, if Brexit is not a dynamic success, I believe we will attempt to rejoin the EU in the next 10-15 years.
"What I'm clear about is <Massively vague and ill defined thing that I want>. What I'm unclear about is everything else, like how much it will cost or how it will be achieved"
Future War Cultist wrote: Yep. I believe we would also be required to accept membership of the Schengen zone.
Fact of the day: I have visited Schengen and Maastricht and Brussels as well for that matter
Europe is a wonderful place, full of wonderful people, and if they had kept it as a common market, people like Farage would have been a very minor footnote in history:
Daily Mail page 17 8th August 2005: former city trader done for selling whale meat to North Korea in violation of UN sanctions, or something as equally as daft...
The above would likely have been the sum total of Farage's impact on British history had the EEC stayed the EEC.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Alternatively, if a significant segment of the British public weren't OK with blatantly xenophobic BS he'd have no influence either.
And when most of the stuff he's ranting about are flat out lies, what does it matter what reality is?
It's not a thing of a chunk of the population being "ok with xenophobic BS".
You have to realise that peoples' concerns are genuine and heartfelt, even if they are based on a faulty understanding of the situation. They are not racists.
Back in the 1970s, 2/3rds of the British public voted to join the EEC. A few decades later, we're out...
If a hugely successful business had crashed that bad, or if Man United dropped from the PL to League 2
serious, serious, questions would be asked. Fingers would be pointed day and night...
That's the reality that Remain should be asking themselves. How did they go from people dancing in the streets in 1973, and even the Daily Mail cheering the move, to 2016 and leave?
I'm sorry to say that Remain was at the helm for 40 years, but now they've sent their project to the bottom of the ocean.
That's gross incompetence in my book.
And I keep banging this drum, but from my reading of 'All out War,' if Remain had taken the referendum seriously for even a nano-second, they'd have won, and we wouldn't be having this conversation.
There's half-arsed campaigns, and then there's David Cameron's half-arsed campaign...
A die-hard Brexit supporter like me could have ran a better Remain campaign...
You misunderstand my point about reality. Fact is that Farrage was very far from being truthful. It doesn't necessarily matter what the truth or reality of the matter is as long as people buy into the lies. This was certainly noticeable in a certain topic that is not to be named on DakkaDakka. Certain beliefs just flew in the face of reality/established facts, but that didn't matter when the lies are convincing or what people want to hear.
Even if the EU had barely evolved since the 70's Farrage would have still found something to lie about. Because Farrage is in it for his own gain, not out of any conviction on a certain topic. Farrage was raging against a monster he invented, not the one that actually existed. The EU had/has plenty of faults, but Farrage just chose to plain lie about the EU. Meanwhile he earned a lot of money from the organization he supposedly hates so much.
Kilkrazy wrote: It's not a thing of a chunk of the population being "ok with xenophobic BS".
You have to realise that peoples' concerns are genuine and heartfelt, even if they are based on a faulty understanding of the situation. They are not racists.
I'm going to go with "nope", for several reasons.
1: I didn't call anyone racist. I said that there is a chunk of the UK population that is "ok with xenophobic BS". The continued existance of the Daily Mail, The Sun, the Leave.eu post linked earlier on this very page and a multitude of other instances of blatantly xenophobic BS that gets to continue seemingly supports my claim. The Sun and the Daily Mail would go out of business if people didn't support the absolute rubbish they peddle.
2: Considering the amount of support Farage has enjoyed there clearly is a not insignificant chunk of the population of the UK that is OK with xenophobic BS, because otherwise Nigel Farage would be a fringe loony instead of a loony in the middle of the spotlight. It's not about malice or actively hating "lesser races" or anything like that, it's about apathy and not caring about what the people you (generic you) vote for actually do.
3: I realize that people's concerns are genuine and heartfelt. Now what? Why does that matter in the slightest if that conviction is based on a faulty understanding of the situation. Ignorance is an explanation for xenophobia, but it's not an excuse.
4: The genuineness and heartfeltness of people's concerns are secondary, in that what matters is why people feel worried. If the entire population of Slough woke up tomorrow and started demanding that Parliament seriously start working for a ban on uranium imports from Indonesia, citing anti-nuclear sentiments, the reasonable reaction isn't to go "Sure, we'll get on that. We hear your concerns and are working on a solution!", it's to point out that the problem that Slough is worried about doesn't exist because there already is no import of uranium from Indonesia anyway. This doesn't stop being the case just because Slough starts complaining more loudly. Figure out why Slough argues this way, but don't just accept the Sloughian framing of the problem as the truth.
That last sentence is not one I thought I'd ever write.
Kilkrazy wrote: It's not a thing of a chunk of the population being "ok with xenophobic BS".
You have to realise that peoples' concerns are genuine and heartfelt, even if they are based on a faulty understanding of the situation. They are not racists.
Kilkrazy wrote: It's not a thing of a chunk of the population being "ok with xenophobic BS".
You have to realise that peoples' concerns are genuine and heartfelt, even if they are based on a faulty understanding of the situation. They are not racists.
Have an exalt.
The problem is that there are racists, how widely is uncertain. The leaders of the countries, the politicians should be responsible to answer and challenge incorrect notions before they start rolling out of control. Instead we have politicians and people like Farage and May that are being allowed to feed off these incorrect notions (such as controlling immigration), that grows those same sentiments which these politicians feed off and re-magnify and the cycle repeats getting worse each time.
As a populace we are feeding that treadmill and the politicians in turn do the same, we are all at fault, but it does grow racism in society as a whole. It needs someone to try and break that cycle but none of our current main politicians want to do it because they fear the impact on their party.
The only light is that the younger populace do appear to be more aware that people shouldn't be determined by colour/religion/sexual preference alone. I see Wrexit as the last anguished screams of a beast that is dying and is lashing out in it's death throws. Or I can only hope.
There's his stance on the Rivers of Blood speech, his constant misrepresentation of the Swedish rape statistics, the "breaking point" pro-Brexit poster, and eleventyfive-billion other examples. There's also the little deal with him leading the UKIP while said party took every opportunity no matter how dishonest to complain about how immigration was destroying Great Britain.
Hmm, I know him for being the leader of UKIP, who wanted (and succeeded in) to secede from the Union (who can blam him ?), but not for being a stupid racist, I will take a look
AlmightyWalrus wrote: There's a difference between being "a stupid racist" and being xenophobic.
Besides, I'd never call Farage stupid.
Yes indeed ! But often, I speak to people who don't understand the difference so I assumed you mixed the two, you too. I apologize, my bad ! What is he up to, now that his party reached its goal ?
2: Considering the amount of support Farage has enjoyed there clearly is a not insignificant chunk of the population of the UK that is OK with xenophobic BS, because otherwise Nigel Farage would be a fringe loony instead of a loony in the middle of the spotlight. It's not about malice or actively hating "lesser races" or anything like that, it's about apathy and not caring about what the people you (generic you) vote for actually do.
Perculiar that you imagine that Farage is seen as a serious or relevant politician and this is what you base let’s face it quite ignorant remarks on.
The clue is in the fact that he has never been a UKMP. MEPs really have no relevance here, I couldn’t name any and I doubt many Brits could. That might also be ignorant but it isn’t Xenophobic.
2: Considering the amount of support Farage has enjoyed there clearly is a not insignificant chunk of the population of the UK that is OK with xenophobic BS, because otherwise Nigel Farage would be a fringe loony instead of a loony in the middle of the spotlight. It's not about malice or actively hating "lesser races" or anything like that, it's about apathy and not caring about what the people you (generic you) vote for actually do.
Perculiar that you imagine that Farage is seen as a serious or relevant politician and this is what you base let’s face it quite ignorant remarks on.
The clue is in the fact that he has never been a UKMP. MEPs really have no relevance here, I couldn’t name any and I doubt many Brits could. That might also be ignorant but it isn’t Xenophobic.
If MEP's have no relevance here, why are we worried about the EU?
2: Considering the amount of support Farage has enjoyed there clearly is a not insignificant chunk of the population of the UK that is OK with xenophobic BS, because otherwise Nigel Farage would be a fringe loony instead of a loony in the middle of the spotlight. It's not about malice or actively hating "lesser races" or anything like that, it's about apathy and not caring about what the people you (generic you) vote for actually do.
Perculiar that you imagine that Farage is seen as a serious or relevant politician and this is what you base let’s face it quite ignorant remarks on.
The clue is in the fact that he has never been a UKMP. MEPs really have no relevance here, I couldn’t name any and I doubt many Brits could. That might also be ignorant but it isn’t Xenophobic.
UKIP got almost 4 million votes on the 2015 election. The fact that Farage didn't get a seat was down to the unique British electoral system, not lack of relevance. Serious is a whole different thing, Beppe Grillo might not be a serious politician, but for sure he's been very relevant in Italian politics.
And even before that, UKIP has been disproportionally represented in the media front.
2: Considering the amount of support Farage has enjoyed there clearly is a not insignificant chunk of the population of the UK that is OK with xenophobic BS, because otherwise Nigel Farage would be a fringe loony instead of a loony in the middle of the spotlight. It's not about malice or actively hating "lesser races" or anything like that, it's about apathy and not caring about what the people you (generic you) vote for actually do.
Perculiar that you imagine that Farage is seen as a serious or relevant politician and this is what you base let’s face it quite ignorant remarks on.
The clue is in the fact that he has never been a UKMP. MEPs really have no relevance here, I couldn’t name any and I doubt many Brits could. That might also be ignorant but it isn’t Xenophobic.
The man was a leading figure of the Leave campaign. Come on. I should have been writing in past tense since Farage has stepped back since the vote, but when you're one of the leading figures for something the size of the Brexit vote you're pretty blatantly serious and important.
When notprop said MEPs have no relevance what he meant is that most people in the UK don't bother to vote in EU elections. This doesn't make the EU irrelevant, it makes the people who don't bother to vote, irrelevant.
Farage has stood for parliament and lost seven times. As party leader he of course chose the best chance seat and still failed. This helps show that the 13% of the total votes which UKIP scored in 2010 was spread across the country, because it consists of the same sort of right-wing nationalist base who are present in most European countries, e.g. le Pen in France, Wilders in the Netherlands, and Haider in Austria. It's worth noting that UKIP managed to get a number of local council seats which are contested in much smaller constituencies.
Personally I feel that this large a group does deserve to be represented, even though I disagree with their views. Ironically they are the kind of people who are more likely to have voted against the referendum to bring in the Alternative Vote system.
The disproportionate amount of media attention to UKIP goes some way to redressing the balance. It is a double-edged sword, though, because it has also exposed what a bag of clown shoes the party is on the whole.
However, if Brexit is not a dynamic success, I believe we will attempt to rejoin the EU in the next 10-15 years.
In the unlikely event of that scenario happening, I doubt the EU would forgive and forget, and let us waltz back in as though we had never left.
They would lay down the law to us: no rebate, no opt outs, and the Euro would replace Sterling...
That's a very hard sell to the British public...
A lot of Remain supporters would probably baulk at that.
It's a given there will be a large and vocal group wanting us to re-join the eu within seconds of leaving, though statistically it'll take about 10 years to skew the voting population. So re-joining will be a very real consideration.
You are right about the deal though; we've lost all of our priveledged benefits and opt outs, so we'll be taking the euro, joining shengen and getting no veto or rebate.
But that won't be relevant; we'll be comparing new membership with the status quo and deciding on which is better. If we do re-join on worse terms the generational resentment will be incredible.
There is the possibility that we'll ruin our industries and financial sector enough that it doesn't make sense to go, but we'll suffer for that too.
For us to avoid trying to re-join, Brexit needs to be a roaring success, which means someone needs to figure out the details
2: Considering the amount of support Farage has enjoyed there clearly is a not insignificant chunk of the population of the UK that is OK with xenophobic BS, because otherwise Nigel Farage would be a fringe loony instead of a loony in the middle of the spotlight. It's not about malice or actively hating "lesser races" or anything like that, it's about apathy and not caring about what the people you (generic you) vote for actually do.
Perculiar that you imagine that Farage is seen as a serious or relevant politician and this is what you base let’s face it quite ignorant remarks on.
The clue is in the fact that he has never been a UKMP. MEPs really have no relevance here, I couldn’t name any and I doubt many Brits could. That might also be ignorant but it isn’t Xenophobic.
The man was a leading figure of the Leave campaign. Come on. I should have been writing in past tense since Farage has stepped back since the vote, but when you're one of the leading figures for something the size of the Brexit vote you're pretty blatantly serious and important.
Nigel Farage was not part of of the Official Leave campaign and was effectively a personne non grata most places except the media looking for stories and the Continent who seem to lap it up as you have. You’re woefully informed on the issue it seems.
He may not have been an official part of the campaign but he attached himself to it pretty hard and became an unofficial spokesperson.
He should have been completely ignored but the BBC gave him a disproportionate amount of time to try and appear fair.
So we had this rabble rouser who lied about everything and had no responsibility for his actions, that people felt was a common man sticking up for the little people despite the fact he's a self serving ex banker who'd sell his testicles to be a member of the establishment.
Not officially attached to the campaign but most of the population will assume he led it because he was intertwined so heavily and given so much attention.
A demagogue that everyone focused on who had far more influence than he should have.
A good argument from either side would have been an improvement.
notprop wrote: So not leading or directly involved the campaign then.
A demagogue the remain campaign focused on to try and paint Leavers and influence Undecideds with.
Then as now a convincing argument would have been better.
That's incorrect because there were two Leave campaigns. Vote Leave was supported by the nutcase Tory and Labour MPs that thought damaging the UK economy for some wishful thinking was a good idea. They didn't want to be associated with the Farage. Likely politically more than anything because people like Boris/Gove etc knew they would be overshadowed. Their campaign was based on outright lies and trying to denigrate 'experts'.
The other 'official' campaign was Leave.EU bankrolled by people like Aaron Banks but had a Farage as the figure head. Their approach was much more sinister including facsist style imagery (e.g. Breaking Point). There's no doubt immigration did play it's part in the decision (there was a substantial swing to Leave when immigration figures were released a week before the vote for example). That would indicate the sickening message that Leave.EU presented did sway some (and Vote Leave were quite happy to benefit from it).
Neither were official campaigns as the only government supported one was the Remain campaign.
I still postulate that Wrexit is the death throws of a dying beast and it is lashing out whilst bleeding out.
Vote Leave was the lead campaign designated by the Electoral Commission. This gave it certain legal advantages, such as a higher spending limit.
We are now in a process of discovery over whether Leave.EU broke the law by giving extra money to one of their subsidiary campaigns.
The designated lead Remain campaign was not the official government campaign. While HMG's view was that Remain was the better choice, the rules around "purdah" prevented the exploitation of actual government resources once the official campaigning period began.
notprop wrote: So not leading or directly involved the campaign then.
A demagogue the remain campaign focused on to try and paint Leavers and influence Undecideds with.
Then as now a convincing argument would have been better.
That's incorrect because there were two Leave campaigns. Vote Leave was supported by the nutcase Tory and Labour MPs that thought damaging the UK economy for some wishful thinking was a good idea. They didn't want to be associated with the Farage. Likely politically more than anything because people like Boris/Gove etc knew they would be overshadowed. Their campaign was based on outright lies and trying to denigrate 'experts'.
The other 'official' campaign was Leave.EU bankrolled by people like Aaron Banks but had a Farage as the figure head. Their approach was much more sinister including facsist style imagery (e.g. Breaking Point). There's no doubt immigration did play it's part in the decision (there was a substantial swing to Leave when immigration figures were released a week before the vote for example). That would indicate the sickening message that Leave.EU presented did sway some (and Vote Leave were quite happy to benefit from it).
Neither were official campaigns as the only government supported one was the Remain campaign.
I still postulate that Wrexit is the death throws of a dying beast and it is lashing out whilst bleeding out.
How apt that even now opinion is cast as fact.
The Electorial Commission nominated one campaign on each side. Farage was in neither.
Was or was Nigel Farage not a prominent political figure arguing in favour of Brexit during the run-up to the referendum? If yes, is it fair to say that. Nigel Farage was a prominent proponent of the Leave side?
It's not exactly rocket science. You've gotten hung up on my usage of the word "campaign.
The point being your painting of a sizable chunk of the U.K. population as Xenophobic because you mistakenly see him as relevant is both false and insulting to them and their countrymen.
But he wasn't outside the Leave campaign. he was outside the Vote Leave campaign, but Leave.EU was still part of the total leave campaign.
And many people do think Farage is relevant, or at least they think the views and arguments he puts forth are relevant. If they didn't, the tories wouldn't have adopted those arguments and views out of fear of losing voter share.
The point being your painting of a sizable chunk of the U.K. population as Xenophobic because you mistakenly see him as relevant is both false and insulting to them and their countrymen.
Firstly, UKIP was the third most popular party in the UK in 2015. More than 13% of votes is hardly "fringe".
Secondly, as has been noted, being outside the official campaign doesn't mean that he wasn't part of the Leave campaign as a whole. You're arguing semantics; no, Farage wasn't part of the official Leave campaign, but he was part of the Leave campaign, understood as the total sum of people working in public to convince people to vote in favour of Brexit. In this whole, Farage was prominent. Ergo, he's not part of the fringe, he's a leading figure for one of the two alternatives of the referendum.
Thirdly, I didn't say that a sizable chunk of the UK was xenophobic, I said that:
AlmightyWalrus wrote: there clearly is a not insignificant chunk of the population of the UK that is OK with xenophobic BS
Being OK with xenophobic BS doesn't make people xenophobes, it makes them apathetic to xenophobic BS. Stop making strawmen and acting all outraged over things I haven't been saying.
For what it's worth I'd make the same argument regarding voter apathy in Sweden, except I'd replace "xenophobia" with "racism". This isn't something unique to the UK, but we're currently in a thread discussing UK politics.
The Electorial Commission nominated one campaign on each side. Farage was in neither.
Come on feller you can try harder than that.
No they didn't. They designated it as the lead campaign. Others also submitted to be this as well. They all however have to register as formal campaigners. The only thing that designated means is that they get the following benefits:-
A higher spending limit of £7 million
One free distribution of information to voters
The use of certain public rooms
Referendum campaign broadcasts
A grant of up to £600,000 to be used for certain spending including the administration costs associated with setting up and running a referendum campaign and the costs associated with the TV broadcasts and free mailing to voters that they are entitled to as lead campaigners
In addition to these statutory benefits, lead campaign groups can have:
A dedicated page in the Commission’s public information booklet which will be distributed to all households in the UK (in both English language and bilingual English/Welsh language versions)
The inclusion in the booklet of a link to a page on the campaigner’s website, which should include their opinion on what will happen in the event of either referendum result
It doesn't however mean that it was the 'official' campaign. Just the one recognised as taking the lead role. The only officially government sponsored one was the Remain campaign. However all campaigns and campaigners that register are recognised as official by the electoral commission (and hence have to meet certain rules). Fortunately I checked my facts before I posted...
So you are saying the mass employment of tens of thousands of people is a laughing matter....? The impact it will have on their families and children...?
Regardless of your view of people's worth, I hardly think laughing at other people's misfortune because of idiotic political decisions is appropriate? Good to see the empathy is strong...
They are one of the jobs that are going to have the hardest time with workload increases post Brexit. I know it sounds like a joke job but they play an important role in any company that deals with tangible stuff.
By the end, hardly anyone in the Soviet ruling class believed in communism. People mouthed slogans like “dictatorship of the proletariat” knowing it was all nonsense. These days, Vladimir Putin’s Russia has its own two-faced ruling class, writes Peter Pomerantsev in his 2014 book Nothing Is True and Everything Is Possible. Television producers pump out propaganda, then switch on opposition radio after work. “ ‘Orthodox’ oligarchs sing hymns to Russian religious conservatism — and keep their money and families in London.” These people have a public self, and a private one. Pomerantsev finally fled the falsehoods for London, “where you don’t have to split yourself up into little bits. Where words mean things.”
He may now regret moving. Brexit has created a two-faced ruling class in London too. Very few British politicians, civil servants, business leaders or even many Brexit-cheerleading journalists believe the official state ideology of Brexit. They just mouth the slogans. The populist policy of Brexit has made the populist claim come true: Britain’s elite lies. And this will worsen after Brexit.
It wasn’t so bad at first. After Brits voted for Brexit in 2016, many establishment Remainers thought: “Well, it’s what the people want and maybe they’re right. I’ll try to make it work.” The elite at that point had lost confidence in its own instincts. Why not pursue global trade deals, cut immigration and fund the NHS instead of Brussels? People like Theresa May did their best to love Big Brother.
But after 21 months of attempting Brexit, they have given up. May never says she would vote for Brexit now. Asked recently if Brexit was worth it, she waffled. Singling her out is unfair. Most senior Conservative and Labour politicians are biting their tongues. To make things worse, most also can’t admit they oppose their own party leaders. Only a few powerless rebels such as Anna Soubry and Chuka Umunna are free to live in truth.
Even many Brexiters believe their own ideology in theory but not in detail. Brexit hasn’t unfolded as they expected. When Daniel Hannan said during the referendum campaign that obviously Brexit Britain would stay in the single market, and Michael Gove that it would “hold all the cards” in negotiations, they probably believed it. Now they are stuck. These people aren’t naive. They are the educated elite, merely masquerading as anti-expert populists. I suspect they quietly believe the Treasury’s assessment that global trade won’t replace lost European trade.
Caught between fantasy and reality, Brexiters become tempted to deceive. In December, Brexit minister David Davis suggested a freshly agreed divorce deal with the EU wasn’t “legally enforceable”. That reduced European trust, already strained daily by Boris Johnson. The old saying “An Englishman’s word is his bond” is becoming hilarious.
Meanwhile, I’ve yet to meet a civil servant who admits to believing in the biggest project of their careers. One diplomat told me years ago that the one thing that could ever get him to resign from public service was Brexit. Today he is helping drive it. It used to be said British diplomats were sent to lie abroad for their country. Now they lie for Conservative party unity.
Many business leaders fear that a hard Brexit will damage their companies but keep quiet to avoid upsetting ministers or consumers. Paul Drechsler, president of the Confederation of British Industry, recently implored them: “Tell your story. The real risk is to say nothing — and reap the blame later for our silence now.”
In the media, the BBC curtails the instincts of its mostly Remainer journalists. A colleague at one big Brexit-supporting newspaper told me “95 per cent” of its journalists oppose Brexit. Another friend puts the figure at his pro-Brexit paper at “80 to 90 per cent”. He tries to switch his mind off Brexit. At least Remoaners like me believe the stuff we write, pointless as it is.
If Brexit ever happens, and British officials start chasing trade deals, the dissembling will get worse. We’ll then mostly be courting autocrats: Gulf states, China, Russia. Trade isn’t their priority, but they like other British assets: the “light-touch regulation” City of London (meaning a laundry for dirty money); the British-gentleman fantasy (starting with a place at boarding school); Britain’s ruling party (the wife of one of Putin’s former ministers paid the Tories £160,000 to play a tennis match with Johnson and David Cameron); elections (as well as Cambridge Analytica, many foreign outfits want to meddle); and media (the UK’s loud global voice is worth buying).
For universities losing European research grants, autocrat donors stand ready. Oxford already has the Blavatnik School of Government, funded by the Ukraine-born tycoon who is Britain’s richest man (and a Trump donor). Gulf money finances Islamic studies at several universities. Foreigners have learnt the UK is for sale.
Britain’s ruling class hasn’t prepared the population for pain from Brexit, notes Alan Finlayson of the University of East Anglia. Any hardship will further dent trust in government. The backlash could be either extreme nationalist or extreme left, while the ruling class whines: “But we never believed the silly idea to start with!”
European media follow the Brexit debate closely, but appear unconcerned about the United Kingdom leaving the European Union.
A study of media coverage over the past six months reveals those living outside the UK do not believe Brexit will drive the EU apart. It also found European Brexit reporting was predominantly fact-based. Most (78%) analysed news items took no position in relation to Brexit. Only 22% conveyed a clear opinion.
These are preliminary findings of a comparative content analysis of media coverage in eight European countries.
Findings:
1. Media outlets in most countries have adopted a neutral position when reporting Brexit negotiations. Only one in ten reports, on average, covered the issue from a perspective of national self-interest. However there was a notable variation between countries. French media reported Brexit as more of a challenge for the United Kingdom rather than for the French or the EU; interest in the future of the EU was highest in Sweden and Greece. Spanish and Irish media in particular expressed a strong view against Brexit, while Italian and French media were slightly closer to presenting a mixture of arguments.
2. Coverage in Ireland indicated the country’s close involvement in the Brexit process: reporting in Irish media appeared divided equally between the Irish and the British perspectives.
3. The study’s findings reveal a general lack of anxiety about the future of the EU and the impact of Brexit on Europe, or on individual EU countries - with the exception of Ireland. If Irish coverage is excluded, most (68%) of the European news items reflected on the British situation, while slightly less than one in five articles (19%) discussed implications for the EU.
4. Freedom of movement and the rights of EU citizens living in the UK occupied little space in the coverage (7% of news items). This figure decreased to 4% when news articles about the impact of Brexit on Ireland were left out.
5. Excluding any generic references to Brexit, nearly half (42%) of reporting across all studied countries covered progress and setbacks in the Brexit negotiations.
6. The remaining coverage (58%) focused on more specific issues. Of these, half concerned the economy, business and trade.
7. Coverage of EU bureaucracy, standards and regulations played a role in only a small proportion (3%) of content studied.
Which Politicians Drive the Agenda?
Politicians from other EU countries were rarely quoted on Brexit issues. This contrasts with the impression sometimes given in British media coverage that European politicians ‘meddle’ in British affairs. Instead it fits the image of a ‘united front’ promoted by the EU during in the negotiations.
When protagonists were quoted, the tone of the debate was set mainly by UK Conservatives (12.4%) and EU institutions (10.4%). UK Labour politicians played a negligible role: they were quoted in only 3% of news items, while vocal Leave campaigners, such as Nigel Farage and UKIP, were even less present (combined share of 0.3%).
French, German or other EU national politicians were barely quoted (in fewer than 1% of reports). The most quoted person of all protagonists was British Prime Minister, Theresa May, with EU chief negotiator Michel Barnier following some way behind.
The Irish Media and Brexit
A disproportionately large number of articles and news pieces in the sample stemmed from Irish outlets (1290 items - or 37% of the total). This finding can be explained by the particularly complicated relationship between the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland following the Brexit Referendum.
Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland share a land border and a common travel area between the UK, and the Republic allows for the free movement of goods and people. Both sides hope to avoid a return to a “hard border” although how this could be achieved is still being debated. For this reason the topic has featured prominently in Brexit negotiations and has strongly influenced the Irish news coverage.
Fact-based reporting
Contrary to popular assumptions that news media are biased and opinionated, the study found that European Brexit coverage was predominantly fact-based. Most (78%) analysed news items took no position in relation to Brexit. Only 22% conveyed a clear opinion. Of these, nearly three quarters (74%) argued against Brexit.
from kent online with regards to Dover and border controls
80% think Corbyn is doing "well" as leader of the Labour party (up from 50% a year ago) and 19% badly (down from 49%) - what a difference a general election makes
uh huh.
I still think Corbyn has, so to speak, "peaked" but then again I'm not a party member...
Corbyn’s ratings are doing well despite being assailed daily by this anti-semitism stuff which is being stoked up by the right wing media who are enabled by the way Corbyn’s opponents within the party are using it to undermine him. Now the press can report that people in his own party are on their side, which means they can hide their own partisan reporting of this matter. Further it suits the right wing media and government to fill the papers with this because it’s a distraction from the gak show that is brexit and the way they are mismanaging this country.
Howard A Treesong wrote: Corbyn’s ratings are doing well despite being assailed daily by this anti-semitism stuff which is being stoked up by the right wing media who are enabled by the way Corbyn’s opponents within the party are using it to undermine him. Now the press can report that people in his own party are on their side, which means they can hide their own partisan reporting of this matter. Further it suits the right wing media and government to fill the papers with this because it’s a distraction from the gak show that is brexit and the way they are mismanaging this country.
The Labour Party has an element of anti-semitism because British society has an element of anti-semitism. (Thankfully a pretty small one.) The right-wing press (a lot of them anti-semitic themselves) have seized the chance to take a shot at Labour over this.
The core problem is that Labour leadership, and Corbyn in particular, has not come out strongly against it and lanced the boil.
I actually am a Labour Party member. I joined late last year. I'm not a Corbynista; at that time I felt Corbyn had a great opportunity to kick the gak out of the Tories over austerity, the Grenfell Tower, and the unfolding Brexit disaster.
He has had some good moments, but I am coming to feel he is incapable of getting the job done. He's pissed away a number of opportunities and now is mired in a lacklustre response to the nerve agent attack, and the anti-semitism row.
Howard A Treesong wrote: Corbyn’s ratings are doing well despite being assailed daily by this anti-semitism stuff which is being stoked up by the right wing media who are enabled by the way Corbyn’s opponents within the party are using it to undermine him. Now the press can report that people in his own party are on their side, which means they can hide their own partisan reporting of this matter. Further it suits the right wing media and government to fill the papers with this because it’s a distraction from the gak show that is brexit and the way they are mismanaging this country.
No, it’s daft to claim any large organisation is free from prejudice of any sort. I’ve no doubt that there are anti Semitic people in Labour. But I think it’s been overstated and exploited for political gain, by the right wing and those opposed to Corbyn within the party, who are working very hard to characterise Labour as especially having a problem with anti-semitism. Further it suits people in the government and their supporters to keep this rolling so as to bury far more relevant stories, such as the possible corruption involving Cambridge Analytica, our government and the Russian government.
I mean we could talk about anti semitism in people associated with labour... or we could talk about the blatant homophobia exhibited when one of the PM’s personal staff outed a whistleblower, putting his family and friends at risk, in an attempt to gag him from speaking about the corruption with Cambridge Analytica. It’s very suspect to me that Labour are getting all this continual attention filling the news for comments made about murals painted years ago and the like when there’s very real corruption in the government right now with people being put in danger.
Nonetheless, Corbyn needs to put his own house in order.
That would be a fairly simple project to set up, could be done very well with transparency and the cooperation of the Jewish community, the Human Rights commission and so on. At the same time a code of conduct for all anti-ism could be developed for the party. Come out of the wash looking squeaky clean and in fine fettle to stick it to the Tories.
Doing this would not occupy the full energies of the party, so there's no reason Corbyn can't sharpen up the Oppostion on other matters of state.
TL/DR: Japan says trade deal with EU is a greater priority than deal with UK.
This should really not come as a surprise to anyone really. Any country is always going to prioritise a deal with a union of 450m people compared to a small, and increasingly politically introverted, country of 65m. There is just so much more potential in that business arrangement.
It might have higher priority but negotiations with us will be more straightforward. It’s not a binary thing, you can negotiate several deals at the same time. I’d be surprised if saying the EU has greater priority means they won’t do a deal with us simultaneously given the huge number of Japanese products that come here.
Saying the EU has priority reflects the size of the market and the drawn out complexity of dealing with 27 nations trying to agree with each other, we’ll probably still get a deal earlier unless our politicians make a mess of it - probably the biggest issue.
TL/DR: Japan says trade deal with EU is a greater priority than deal with UK.
Japanese companies have used the UK as a gateway the wider EU market. Japan is signaling pretty clearly that the continued presence of those companies depends on access to the common market.
Howard A Treesong wrote: It might have higher priority but negotiations with us will be more straightforward. It’s not a binary thing, you can negotiate several deals at the same time. I’d be surprised if saying the EU has greater priority means they won’t do a deal with us simultaneously given the huge number of Japanese products that come here.
Saying the EU has priority reflects the size of the market and the drawn out complexity of dealing with 27 nations trying to agree with each other, we’ll probably still get a deal earlier unless our politicians make a mess of it - probably the biggest issue.
That may be, but then it isn't comparing like-for-like. I'm sure both the Japan/EU would also be able to agree a limited agreement (lets say cars for caviar) and in that case the priority is still likely to be with the EU compared to a similar UK deal. A wide ranging free trade is still likely to take significant time and resources for which the resource priority will likely be for the EU.
Always profitable doing business with people who obviously need to make a deal rather than those who merely want one.
That's how pawnbrokering works.
The problem that this trade deal would in itself guarantee a hard border with Ireland/EU as how would the EU otherwise protect from cheaper imports of this 'contaminated' food? It would also be difficult to see how UK beef farmers would compete unless they too were allowed to start the same practices?
Howard A Treesong wrote: It might have higher priority but negotiations with us will be more straightforward. It’s not a binary thing, you can negotiate several deals at the same time. I’d be surprised if saying the EU has greater priority means they won’t do a deal with us simultaneously given the huge number of Japanese products that come here.
Saying the EU has priority reflects the size of the market and the drawn out complexity of dealing with 27 nations trying to agree with each other, we’ll probably still get a deal earlier unless our politicians make a mess of it - probably the biggest issue.
In the article the Japanese minister says that Japan wants to complete the deal with the EU first.
He thinks it will be relatively easy to complete a similar deal with the UK after the EU deal is done.
Corbyn goes to an event run by a Jewish organisation. Gets accused of undermining opposition to anti-semitism. How so? Oh, they’re the wrong sort of Jews, they’re left wing Jews critical of Israel ergo he doesn’t take anti-semitism seriously.
Corbyn goes to an event run by a Jewish organisation. Gets accused of undermining opposition to anti-semitism. How so? Oh, they’re the wrong sort of Jews, they’re left wing Jews critical of Israel ergo he doesn’t take anti-semitism seriously.
It does demonstrate a weakness of Corbyn. He only hangs out with like minded people. Throughout his career he’s displayed a reluctance (or even unwillingness) to speak to those who don’t share his views. In Northern Ireland for example he was always happy to hang around with the Republicans in the name of ‘peace’ but if I recall correctly he never found the time to talk to the unionist side. In this example, wouldn’t it have been a better idea to speak to a Jewish group who have been challenging him and who back Israel instead of meeting up with his fellow travellers? That way he could at least showed without question that he’s taking this seriously.
It just looks bad that he visibly aligned himself with an anti-Israel Jewish organisation when he could have embraced all Jews, or embraced the ones who criticised him last week, or embraced none of them for the moment and done something else like put the issue in the hands of a working party.
A guest on Radio 4 put it well: with Corbyn there is always a "but."
Uh-huh, And if he'd done that, the msm would be having a go at him for flip-flopping and demonstrating poor leadership and a lack of fitness for the role.
This is all a red herring to distract from brexit and Cambridge analytic. And sadly, it's working.
There actually is a strong suspicion that he is a poor leader and lacks fitness for the role, due to things like that and this anti-semitism problem.
Let's be clear that there is a degree of anti-semitism in the Labour Party, and of course the Tories and right-wing press want to exploit that to attack Corbyn. That doesn't excuse Corbyn from doing nothing, though. It makes it all the more important for him to set Labour's house in order.
"Seize the nettle firmly and it will become a stick with which to beat your enemies."
Kilkrazy wrote: It just looks bad that he visibly aligned himself with an anti-Israel Jewish organisation when he could have embraced all Jews, or embraced the ones who criticised him last week, or embraced none of them for the moment and done something else like put the issue in the hands of a working party.
A guest on Radio 4 put it well: with Corbyn there is always a "but."
Corbyn is strongly against anti-semitism, but...
But he's being consistent since he disagrees with a lot of Israeli policy. This just exposes the well known secret that the accusations of anti-Semitism are anti Israeli state, which is a distinct thing.
Corbyn goes to an event run by a Jewish organisation. Gets accused of undermining opposition to anti-semitism. How so? Oh, they’re the wrong sort of Jews, they’re left wing Jews critical of Israel ergo he doesn’t take anti-semitism seriously.
It does demonstrate a weakness of Corbyn. He only hangs out with like minded people. Throughout his career he’s displayed a reluctance (or even unwillingness) to speak to those who don’t share his views. In Northern Ireland for example he was always happy to hang around with the Republicans in the name of ‘peace’ but if I recall correctly he never found the time to talk to the unionist side. In this example, wouldn’t it have been a better idea to speak to a Jewish group who have been challenging him and who back Israel instead of meeting up with his fellow travellers? That way he could at least showed without question that he’s taking this seriously.
Why would he support a pro-Israel group if he himself is not pro-Israel?
There actually is a strong suspicion that he is a poor leader and lacks fitness for the role, due to things like that and this anti-semitism problem.
Let's be clear that there is a degree of anti-semitism in the Labour Party, and of course the Tories and right-wing press want to exploit that to attack Corbyn. That doesn't excuse Corbyn from doing nothing, though. It makes it all the more important for him to set Labour's house in order.
"Seize the nettle firmly and it will become a stick with which to beat your enemies."
Those same people are going to have those suspicions no matter what he does, short of becoming a Tory , so why should he bother?
Because that's not the issue. He is a poor leader who seems to ignore anyone who is not 100% aligned with him, a weak politician and, frankly, I agree with the feeling that he is still a student activist and nothing more.
Corbyn goes to an event run by a Jewish organisation. Gets accused of undermining opposition to anti-semitism. How so? Oh, they’re the wrong sort of Jews, they’re left wing Jews critical of Israel ergo he doesn’t take anti-semitism seriously.
It does demonstrate a weakness of Corbyn. He only hangs out with like minded people. Throughout his career he’s displayed a reluctance (or even unwillingness) to speak to those who don’t share his views. In Northern Ireland for example he was always happy to hang around with the Republicans in the name of ‘peace’ but if I recall correctly he never found the time to talk to the unionist side. In this example, wouldn’t it have been a better idea to speak to a Jewish group who have been challenging him and who back Israel instead of meeting up with his fellow travellers? That way he could at least showed without question that he’s taking this seriously.
Why would he support a pro-Israel group if he himself is not pro-Israel?
There actually is a strong suspicion that he is a poor leader and lacks fitness for the role, due to things like that and this anti-semitism problem.
Let's be clear that there is a degree of anti-semitism in the Labour Party, and of course the Tories and right-wing press want to exploit that to attack Corbyn. That doesn't excuse Corbyn from doing nothing, though. It makes it all the more important for him to set Labour's house in order.
"Seize the nettle firmly and it will become a stick with which to beat your enemies."
Those same people are going to have those suspicions no matter what he does, short of becoming a Tory , so why should he bother?
Because it's like an argument in an online forum. A lot of what people may say here isn't directed at each other, it's directed at "lurkers".
In the same way, if Corbyn would announce a robust process to investigate and deal with anti-semitism in the Labour Party, which was widely supported by Jewish groups, the next the Dail Hate Mail goes "wah wah wah" then Corbyn can poke them in the eye, spin them round and administer a swift kick to their arse with a finely curated list of anti-semitic stuff they have done in the past 10 years.
This would not make the Daily Fail shut up, but it would impress a lot of third party bystanders and allow Corbyn and other Labour shadow ministers to go on the radion and TV and smartly dismss any related questions.
Steve steveson wrote: Because that's not the issue. He is a poor leader who seems to ignore anyone who is not 100% aligned with him, a weak politician and, frankly, I agree with the feeling that he is still a student activist and nothing more.
Definitely. I agree with most of his policies as do what appears to be a fairly big grass roots movement, but he doesn't seem to have the presence/confident to play parliamentary politics. He should be publicly destroying May on an almost daily basis (she couldn't make it any easier) and yet he seems content to just do his own thing without capitalizing on anything. I can appreciate he's deliberately not playing these games, but it does make him look fairly soft.
Steve steveson wrote: Because that's not the issue. He is a poor leader who seems to ignore anyone who is not 100% aligned with him, a weak politician and, frankly, I agree with the feeling that he is still a student activist and nothing more.
Definitely. I agree with most of his policies as do what appears to be a fairly big grass roots movement, but he doesn't seem to havethe presence/confident to play parliamentary politics. He should be publicly destroying May on an almost daily basis (she couldn't make it any easier) and yet he seems content to just do his own thing without capitalizing on anything. I can appreciate he's deliberately not playing these games, but it does make him look fairly soft.
A cynic might argue that his lack of statesmanship and ability to kill off May has been spun quite beautifully.
He's for the people but really cannot speak up for them, past soapboxing.
Steve steveson wrote: Because that's not the issue. He is a poor leader who seems to ignore anyone who is not 100% aligned with him, a weak politician and, frankly, I agree with the feeling that he is still a student activist and nothing more.
Do we know this? I think this may all being spun out of control and we are not looking at it in a balanced way. Has anyone checked what Corbyn's diary has been. He may have visited 10's of other community groups but we are only hearing about the ones the papers think they can poke him with. I'd save criticism until there are more facts. His approach may be to discuss with greater subtlety. Talk quietly with the relevant groups and then come to a view as to how to achieve your stated aims in the longer term with greater effect. It's a much more sensible way of approaching things by gathering evidence first. The disadvantage is that it takes longer.
The we have an issue and must do something NOW! (in some ways fed by the populace to see some action being taken regardless of whether it is sensible or not) approach is partly the problem with politics we have today and why we are in the mess we are because it is consistently reactive looking for the headline rather than long term viability.
It is similar to the climate change 'debate'. Scientists spend years gathering data, analysing the results and then coming to a consensus on a reasonable direction. Yet that isn't a story to the papers. Yet a climate change denier is put on against one and says "but haven't you checked whether it's just *insert ridiculous reason*. The scientist then has to go away and come back 3 years later and conclude as we suspected the answer is no at which point the denier has moved on to another ridiculous point and so on. However due diligence does require that work to be done and validated.
The same potentially goes with Corbyn here, it's just individual points being brought out with no information on the context, once one is put to bed another is pulled out the hat and so on. It's not a story if it reads "Corbyn visits the majority jewish community groups to see how anti-Semitism affects their lives; one of these groups....". We can't complain that we don't like the current politics and then complain when the opposition decides to play a different politics?
I fear here that we are starting to jump on hype train in the media and being less critical of its influence on us.
We need evidence of what Corbyn is doing not just one report of him being at one event. There will always be reports of politicians at individual events but that in itself does not mean people are guilty as charged. Except for Maybot, she doesn't go to events because she has to be plugged into the recharge socket...
Juewdas isn't a "community group". It's the Jewish equivalent of Momentum, in a sense, the anti-Establishment bit of politically organised British Judaism.
(Note here that Momentum are getting disturbed at how non-anti-semitic Corbyn is seeming by his actions.
Corbyn certainly did not visit the various other mainstream Jewish councils for Passover dinner, that is what makes his visit to Jewdas notable.
Kilkrazy wrote: Juewdas isn't a "community group". It's the Jewish equivalent of Momentum, in a sense, the anti-Establishment bit of politically organised British Judaism.
(Note here that Momentum are getting disturbed at how non-anti-semitic Corbyn is seeming by his actions.
Corbyn certainly did not visit the various other mainstream Jewish councils for Passover dinner, that is what makes his visit to Jewdas notable.
It's a 'group' of people with a specific community, ergo it's a 'community group'. It's not your tea party group granted but it is still a type of community group. Did any invite him though? How do we know this. I have had a quick look and can't find an online diary of all his interactions with society.
The point is that there is jumping to conclusions based on patchy data at best. That being what is being reported by the media. JC goes to dinner with mainstream group 'X' is not news worthy. Hence we are looking at the issue through the lens of the media. If his diary showed that he spent 50% of his meals at one group then that is news worthy. Otherwise we might as well start criticising him for going on holiday to [insert racially intolerant country] and use that as evidence of issues.
To put this into context JC is too left wing for my liking but this whole topic is focussed on the wrong issue. Who has dinner with whom is less of a concern than the actions taken to try and get rid of intolerance in whatever form.
I think there's a new silent majority. They're not racists, they're not anti-semites, they're tired of the Tories, Blairites and Brexit. They're sick of the press, racist arseholes on the Internet, Facebook, the BBC and being lied to.
Their voice will be heard at the next GE, after May gets her voice of no-confidence.
It wasn’t some organised rally, it was a small Passover event taking place in his own constituency to which he was invited. It should go without comment. And criticising Israel is not anti-Semitic, I don’t even agree with Corbyn’s stance on Palestine/Israel but I can see the difference, it’s a lazy ‘debating’ tactic. But this is one of the main points on which this particular group of Jews, representing the wrong sort of Jews apparently, is being used to smear Corbyn as being ambivalent about tackling anti-semitism. Personally I think that, while the media and some politicians are screeching about Corbyn’s anti-semitism on a daily basis, the public aren’t buying this.
Howard A Treesong wrote: It wasn’t some organised rally, it was a small Passover event taking place in his own constituency to which he was invited. It should go without comment. And criticising Israel is not anti-Semitic, I don’t even agree with Corbyn’s stance on Palestine/Israel but I can see the difference, it’s a lazy ‘debating’ tactic. But this is one of the main points on which this particular group of Jews, representing the wrong sort of Jews apparently, is being used to smear Corbyn as being ambivalent about tackling anti-semitism.
I agree. This particular story is a smear job. It's taking the base of a legitimate issue (anti-semitism within Labour) and jumping on a relatively innocuous aspect of Corbyn's routine to try and build a mountain from a molehill. It's simply turned into a political football now.
Which frankly, is quite vexing, because it plays into the arguments of those who want to depict the entire issue as being of a similar vein.
Isn't part of a political party leader's job to avoid being manoeuvred into situations which enable him to be smeared?
To flip the point of view, how did Corby's attendance at Jewdas help mend relations with the overall Jewish community, or help to damp down the anti-semitism rumours around the Labour Party?
Kilkrazy wrote: Isn't part of a political party leader's job to avoid being manoeuvred into situations which enable him to be smeared?
To flip the point of view, how did Corby's attendance at Jewdas help mend relations with the overall Jewish community, or help to damp down the anti-semitism rumours around the Labour Party?
There is literally nothing he can do that won't be smeared and used in this way. He attended a Jewish religious festival attend by Jews, but because they were the "politically wrong" sort of Jews the accusations and smears continue.
I actually think it was a sound and subtle move. If you read the Guardian link above you'll see that it is possible to be a jew but also be anti-Israel and Corbyn would know that his presence there would send that signal. Besides, they're socialists, Jeremy is a socialist, it's not inconceivable that he'd want to hang out with them in his own time.
Ketara is right, it exposes that this particular anti-semite criticism is politically motivated, and detracts from the whole issue. It also exposes that those that call themselves the "mainstream" don't represent all Jews and that as a people they do not speak with one voice on this issue.
Anyone with eyes can see exactly what is happening, and remember that it happened in the GE. It will likely produce the same result. Even my blue collegues are getting sick of it now. It's turning people off the issue and actually building support for Corbyn. There's been a surge of new labour members since this whole attack has begun. That's what I mean by a silent majority, people not being heard in the press, or on the BBC who can make up their own mind about the stories, and motivations.
r_squared wrote: I think there's a new silent majority. They're not racists, they're not anti-semites, they're tired of the Tories, Blairites and Brexit. They're sick of the press, racist arseholes on the Internet, Facebook, the BBC and being lied to.
Their voice will be heard at the next GE, after May gets her voice of no-confidence.
If they are silent majority I doubt they will bother to vote either.
Kilkrazy wrote: Isn't part of a political party leader's job to avoid being manoeuvred into situations which enable him to be smeared?
To flip the point of view, how did Corby's attendance at Jewdas help mend relations with the overall Jewish community, or help to damp down the anti-semitism rumours around the Labour Party?
There is literally nothing he can do that won't be smeared and used in this way. He attended a Jewish religious festival attend by Jews, but because they were the "politically wrong" sort of Jews the accusations and smears continue.
I actually think it was a sound and subtle move. If you read the Guardian link above you'll see that it is possible to be a jew but also be anti-Israel and Corbyn would know that his presence there would send that signal. Besides, they're socialists, Jeremy is a socialist, it's not inconceivable that he'd want to hang out with them in his own time.
Ketara is right, it exposes that this particular anti-semite criticism is politically motivated, and detracts from the whole issue. It also exposes that those that call themselves the "mainstream" don't represent all Jews and that as a people they do not speak with one voice on this issue.
Anyone with eyes can see exactly what is happening, and remember that it happened in the GE. It will likely produce the same result. Even my blue collegues are getting sick of it now. It's turning people off the issue and actually building support for Corbyn. There's been a surge of new labour members since this whole attack has begun. That's what I mean by a silent majority, people not being heard in the press, or on the BBC who can make up their own mind about the stories, and motivations.
There's also the shocking double standard being displayed.
Das Daily Heil gets out of it's pram over anti-Semitism. Also printed in Das Daily Heil
Daily Express gets out of it's pram over anti-Semitism?
The Tories are in with those papers up their necks. The Tories have a genuine problem with genuine racism within their ranks. Or maybe BoJo using the term 'picaninny' to refer to black kids is a-ok?
People see through that, and this attempted smear for the desperate act it is. And not enough people are falling for it.
TL/DR: Services supporting some of Britain's most disadvantaged people risk being bankrupted by loss of the European Social Fund, unless ministers take urgent action.
Kilkrazy wrote:Isn't part of a political party leader's job to avoid being manoeuvred into situations which enable him to be smeared?
To flip the point of view, how did Corby's attendance at Jewdas help mend relations with the overall Jewish community, or help to damp down the anti-semitism rumours around the Labour Party?
r_squared wrote: He attended a Jewish religious festival attend by Jews, but because they were the "politically wrong" sort of Jews the accusations and smears continue.
Whilst r_squared and I have tussled over this particular issue, he's on the money with regards to this incident in particular. Corbyn was attending (in his spare time) an event being run by a Jewish organisation. Sure, they might be of a somewhat politically odd sheep, and sure, that might be because they fit in more with his personal ideology than more mainstream ones. It happens. You could say that his decision reflects on his apparent desire to mix only with birds of a similar feather to him, as FWC did above:-
Future War Cultist wrote:It does demonstrate a weakness of Corbyn. He only hangs out with like minded people.
But at the same time, that's not a crime, and it's not anti-semitic. It's just....Corbyn. The eternal protestor. The bloke who preaches that he's open to everyone/thing, but very much isn't. And that's fine, if hypocritical, all the other politicians are the same (well, the ones that have beliefs). It's nothing special, and certainly not something for which he personally deserves to have the words 'Anti-Semite' smeared next to his photograph on the frontpage of lots of newspapers.
but that a pretty solid chunk of the votes.
