Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Just need to nationalise rail first.

I find it morally obscene that something like HS2 is having billions upon billions of public money spent on it, only to be handed over to a private company to juice it for as much profit as they can.

Decent public transport infrastructure is a must for any civilised country. It helps the workforce maximise it's potential, and spreads wealth further away from centralised locations.

Look at commuting to London. The prices are frankly obscene. If the rail company's profits take a dip, they jack up the price to cover the shortfall, because commuters rarely have a viable alternative to using the rail network. And they claim government subsidies, which seem to get rolled up in their profit margin. That's right. We're collectively paying them to rip us off.

It's an utter shambles.

We need to Brexit before we can take back the trains.

We really don't. As long as the companies running the trains and the tracks are separate and that there is the possibility for private firms to request access to the tracks, we can nationalise our rail services. This is how multiple EU countries are running nationalised rail services including France, Poland, Spain, Germany etc.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Just need to nationalise rail first.

I find it morally obscene that something like HS2 is having billions upon billions of public money spent on it, only to be handed over to a private company to juice it for as much profit as they can.

Decent public transport infrastructure is a must for any civilised country. It helps the workforce maximise it's potential, and spreads wealth further away from centralised locations.

Look at commuting to London. The prices are frankly obscene. If the rail company's profits take a dip, they jack up the price to cover the shortfall, because commuters rarely have a viable alternative to using the rail network. And they claim government subsidies, which seem to get rolled up in their profit margin. That's right. We're collectively paying them to rip us off.

It's an utter shambles.

We need to Brexit before we can take back the trains.

We really don't. As long as the companies running the trains and the tracks are separate and that there is the possibility for private firms to request access to the tracks, we can nationalise our rail services. This is how multiple EU countries are running nationalised rail services.

It makes sense to have track and train under one roof, as long term rail infrastructure projects can then be properly planned out.

Plus, i want to see Branson's Virgin trains getting a boot up the rear

That would be nice.

I'm still utterly baffled that nationalised running of a previously failing rail line turned a profit for the nation, and was then sold on. Again.

Insanity.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Just need to nationalise rail first.

I find it morally obscene that something like HS2 is having billions upon billions of public money spent on it, only to be handed over to a private company to juice it for as much profit as they can.

Decent public transport infrastructure is a must for any civilised country. It helps the workforce maximise it's potential, and spreads wealth further away from centralised locations.

Look at commuting to London. The prices are frankly obscene. If the rail company's profits take a dip, they jack up the price to cover the shortfall, because commuters rarely have a viable alternative to using the rail network. And they claim government subsidies, which seem to get rolled up in their profit margin. That's right. We're collectively paying them to rip us off.

It's an utter shambles.

We need to Brexit before we can take back the trains.

This is a complete fallacy spread under Brexit nonsense. East coast mainline was in public ownership for years (and profitable) whilst we were in the EU. As noted other EU countries still manage their own public transport systems. It was bullgak like this that is trying to persuade people Brexit is a good idea and either is lack of awareness or deliberately misleading. The only thing the EU requires is that if you put it out to the private market then you have to undertake an appropriate procurement exercise to give every European company an equal chance of applying for it. If you bring the service in house there is absolutely no requirement to do this. The reason that rails are in private hands is simply because the Tories wanted to hand the money over to private businesses (arguably to favour their donors, or less cynically to make them more 'efficient' and break the backs of the unions). However the decision was entirely, and always has been, the British governments decision - blaming it on the EU is just EU bashing to try and promote an agenda.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Building HS2 30 years ago would have made sense. Now, in this age of cheap flights, automated cars on the war, and high speed broadband? It's a white elephant in the making

They're saying that 16,000 jobs will be created from 100 billion of spending.

You could probably pay those 16,000 a million a year for life to never work again, and still have billions left over.

A better way of looking at it, is that it is cash for an extra 130,000 nurses per year being paid about £26,000 pa (gross cost to the tax payer of about £30k pa) for 25 years. £100bn/25 = £4bn pa / 30000 = 133,333

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
That would be nice.

I'm still utterly baffled that nationalised running of a previously failing rail line turned a profit for the nation, and was then sold on. Again.

Insanity.

Because ideology.

 r_squared wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
That would be nice.

I'm still utterly baffled that nationalised running of a previously failing rail line turned a profit for the nation, and was then sold on. Again.

Insanity.

Because ideology.

And because the ministers who make the decisions and the civil servants who implement them, end up with very agreeable non-exec roles with the companies in question.

@whirlwind.

That may be, but this is what I can never comprehend: what business is it of the EU to tell a nation what it can and can't do with its own rail services?

What happens to British rail is for the British government, elected by the British people, not some pen pusher in Brussels.

This is exactly the point I was making a few weeks back about the expanding bureaucracy and its thirst for power.

Another case in point is Poland.

Here we have an unelected vice-president of the EU commission laying down the law to the elected government of Poland! WTF!!

I happen to disagree with the Polish government and its treatment of the judiciary, but that is an internal matter for the Polish people, not some desk jockey in EU HQ!

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Just need to nationalise rail first.

I find it morally obscene that something like HS2 is having billions upon billions of public money spent on it, only to be handed over to a private company to juice it for as much profit as they can.

Decent public transport infrastructure is a must for any civilised country. It helps the workforce maximise it's potential, and spreads wealth further away from centralised locations.

Look at commuting to London. The prices are frankly obscene. If the rail company's profits take a dip, they jack up the price to cover the shortfall, because commuters rarely have a viable alternative to using the rail network. And they claim government subsidies, which seem to get rolled up in their profit margin. That's right. We're collectively paying them to rip us off.

It's an utter shambles.

We need to Brexit before we can take back the trains.

We really don't. As long as the companies running the trains and the tracks are separate and that there is the possibility for private firms to request access to the tracks, we can nationalise our rail services. This is how multiple EU countries are running nationalised rail services.

It makes sense to have track and train under one roof, as long term rail infrastructure projects can then be properly planned out.

They can be under one roof: the Government's

The whole thing about them being separate is because infrastructure+maintenance is expected to run at a loss more or less all the time, and being constantly subsidized while actual transport activity can turn a profit if it's managed well (in busy lines and HS, at least. More rural routes also need to be subsidised).

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
@whirlwind.

That may be, but this is what I can never comprehend: what business is it of the EU to tell a nation what it can and can't do with its own rail services?

...

It is the business of the EU because the countries that decided to form and become of the EU decided it is the business of the EU.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
@whirlwind.

That may be, but this is what I can never comprehend: what business is it of the EU to tell a nation what it can and can't do with its own rail services?

...

It is the business of the EU because the countries that decided to form and become of the EU decided it is the business of the EU.

Why not run them as one system with the proffit from the main lines and such used to invest and maintain the network...

Its not rocket science, needs far grants, money being planned etc.
Everything under one umbrella with various lines, track, trains, and procurement/investment sectors linked together working alongside the bus, tram, ferry/chunnel and the airports management to interlink a fully effective network.

And another rant while I'm in the mood. In the unlikely event of people noticing where I had gone this past week, I was in England for a short holiday.

Now, certain sections of the media would have you believe that Brexit has caused deep divisions in the nation, with Britain on the verge of civil war.

And yet, whilst in England, I couldn't help notice how normal things were.

There were no mobs of UKIP supporters dragging Polish plumbers through the streets so they could burn them at the stake.

The British Union of Fascists weren't holding branch meetings, and the House of Commons wasn't voting on banning the Indian Congress party.

So what happened to a tidal wave of xenophobia? The British Empire reborn? Foreigners fleeing for their lives?

Everything seemed normal. England's green and pleasent land was green and pleasent.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
@whirlwind.

That may be, but this is what I can never comprehend: what business is it of the EU to tell a nation what it can and can't do with its own rail services?

...

It is the business of the EU because the countries that decided to form and become of the EU decided it is the business of the EU.

Translation: political elite of member nations devised more ways of insulating themselves from the ordinary voters they clearly despise.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
@whirlwind.

That may be, but this is what I can never comprehend: what business is it of the EU to tell a nation what it can and can't do with its own rail services?

What happens to British rail is for the British government, elected by the British people, not some pen pusher in Brussels.

This is exactly the point I was making a few weeks back about the expanding bureaucracy and its thirst for power.

Another case in point is Poland.

Here we have an unelected vice-president of the EU commission laying down the law to the elected government of Poland! WTF!!

I happen to disagree with the Polish government and its treatment of the judiciary, but that is an internal matter for the Polish people, not some desk jockey in EU HQ!

By that logic no one's allowed to intervene if Germany decides to go all Vierte Reich and starts shooting people in Germany. It's an internal affair after all, no? Or, we could stop pretending that neighbouring countries don't have an interest in making sure Poland's democracy doesn't explode and cause the rest of us a bunch of trouble.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
@whirlwind.

That may be, but this is what I can never comprehend: what business is it of the EU to tell a nation what it can and can't do with its own rail services?

...

It is the business of the EU because the countries that decided to form and become of the EU decided it is the business of the EU.

Translation: political elite of member nations devised more ways of insulating themselves from the ordinary voters they clearly despise.

You don't need to translate for other users. He was clear what he meant. Thanks

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
@whirlwind.

That may be, but this is what I can never comprehend: what business is it of the EU to tell a nation what it can and can't do with its own rail services?

What happens to British rail is for the British government, elected by the British people, not some pen pusher in Brussels.

This is exactly the point I was making a few weeks back about the expanding bureaucracy and its thirst for power.

Another case in point is Poland.

Here we have an unelected vice-president of the EU commission laying down the law to the elected government of Poland! WTF!!

I happen to disagree with the Polish government and its treatment of the judiciary, but that is an internal matter for the Polish people, not some desk jockey in EU HQ!

By that logic no one's allowed to intervene if Germany decides to go all Vierte Reich and starts shooting people in Germany. It's an internal affair after all, no? Or, we could stop pretending that neighbouring countries don't have an interest in making sure Poland's democracy doesn't explode and cause the rest of us a bunch of trouble.

I'm not buying that argument. Britain and Sweden are two of the most strongest and stable democracies in Europe. Even when Poland was communist, our respective nations didn't break out the red flag becuase of events in Poland and I can't see them being effected by this turn of events.

Even nearby nations like Austria and Germany will be unaffected IMO because of the strength of their democracies and civil society.

It's a storm in a teacup and the EU should step back IMO.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
@whirlwind.

That may be, but this is what I can never comprehend: what business is it of the EU to tell a nation what it can and can't do with its own rail services?

What happens to British rail is for the British government, elected by the British people, not some pen pusher in Brussels.

This is exactly the point I was making a few weeks back about the expanding bureaucracy and its thirst for power.

Another case in point is Poland.

Here we have an unelected vice-president of the EU commission laying down the law to the elected government of Poland! WTF!!

I happen to disagree with the Polish government and its treatment of the judiciary, but that is an internal matter for the Polish people, not some desk jockey in EU HQ!

By that logic no one's allowed to intervene if Germany decides to go all Vierte Reich and starts shooting people in Germany. It's an internal affair after all, no? Or, we could stop pretending that neighbouring countries don't have an interest in making sure Poland's democracy doesn't explode and cause the rest of us a bunch of trouble.

I'm not buying that argument. Britain and Sweden are two of the most strongest and stable democracies in Europe. Even when Poland was communist, our respective nations didn't break out the red flag becuase of events in Poland and I can't see them being effected by this turn of events.

Even nearby nations like Austria and Germany will be unaffected IMO because of the strength of their democracies and civil society.

It's a storm in a teacup and the EU should step back IMO.

Except a decline in the prospects of Poland will have a knock on effect to its neighbours, in the form of greater movement of people from Poland to other EU countries along with all of the effects that would cause. When Poland was communist, that effectively couldn't happen.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:


Except a decline in the prospects of Poland will have a knock on effect to its neighbours, in the form of greater movement of people from Poland to other EU countries along with all of the effects that would cause. When Poland was communist, that effectively couldn't happen.

The problem is that this sort of justification, valid or not, is what leads to the 'mission creep' that makes so many uncomfortable with the EU. If 'it might potentially impact a neighbour in some vague way in the future' is sufficient justification for the the EU to interfere a country's internal affairs, that reason can be extended as an automatic response to practically anything. And it frequently is. With the natural result that the more the EU has to do with things, the more that other members can be potentially affected by events, and so the more the EU inevitably becomes involved.

It's a self-reinforcing cycle.

I think myself, and a lot of other people would have our concerns put at rest if the EU could just draw up a mission statement saying 'We deal with X, Y, & Z', and then sticking firmly to it; instead of constantly trying to tear off little pieces of internal matters and subsume them into itself on grounds like the reason given above. Either that, or just have the 'Do you want the United States of Europe' vote, fairly and honestly. If it was a solid enough proposal with sufficient safeguards and checks, I might even vote for it.

Instead though, the EU continues to swell inch by inch, budget increasing year on year & remit continually expanding.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
@whirlwind.

That may be, but this is what I can never comprehend: what business is it of the EU to tell a nation what it can and can't do with its own rail services?

What happens to British rail is for the British government, elected by the British people, not some pen pusher in Brussels.

This is exactly the point I was making a few weeks back about the expanding bureaucracy and its thirst for power.

Another case in point is Poland.

Here we have an unelected vice-president of the EU commission laying down the law to the elected government of Poland! WTF!!

I happen to disagree with the Polish government and its treatment of the judiciary, but that is an internal matter for the Polish people, not some desk jockey in EU HQ!

By that logic no one's allowed to intervene if Germany decides to go all Vierte Reich and starts shooting people in Germany. It's an internal affair after all, no? Or, we could stop pretending that neighbouring countries don't have an interest in making sure Poland's democracy doesn't explode and cause the rest of us a bunch of trouble.

I'm not buying that argument. Britain and Sweden are two of the most strongest and stable democracies in Europe. Even when Poland was communist, our respective nations didn't break out the red flag becuase of events in Poland and I can't see them being effected by this turn of events.

Even nearby nations like Austria and Germany will be unaffected IMO because of the strength of their democracies and civil society.

It's a storm in a teacup and the EU should step back IMO.

I apologize in advance for the Godwin, but we stayed stable democracies when Nazi Germany went wild. Does that mean we wouldn't have had any interest in stopping them from coming to power?

The separation of the judiciary from the control of the legislature is one of the fundamental features of the rule of law. You're advocating that the EU should sit idly by while Poland dismantles the rule of law because internal affairs apparently are sacrosanct.

 Ketara wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:


Except a decline in the prospects of Poland will have a knock on effect to its neighbours, in the form of greater movement of people from Poland to other EU countries along with all of the effects that would cause. When Poland was communist, that effectively couldn't happen.

The problem is that this sort of justification, valid or not, is what leads to the 'mission creep' that makes so many uncomfortable with the EU. If 'it might potentially impact a neighbour in some vague way in the future' is sufficient justification for the the EU to interfere a country's internal affairs, that reason can be extended as an automatic response to practically anything. And it frequently is. With the natural result that the more the EU has to do with things, the more that other members can be potentially affected by events, and so the more the EU inevitably becomes involved.

It's a self-reinforcing cycle.

I think myself, and a lot of other people would have our concerns put at rest if the EU could just draw up a mission statement saying 'We deal with X, Y, & Z', and then sticking firmly to it; instead of constantly trying to tear off little pieces of internal matters and subsume them into itself on grounds like the reason given above.

Except what the EU is now doing with Poland is within X, Y & Z as you name it. Poland entered the EU agreeing to a series of conditions on democracy and rule of law (article 2) and giving the EU enforcement powers (article 7)

It's all in the books.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
And another rant while I'm in the mood. In the unlikely event of people noticing where I had gone this past week, I was in England for a short holiday.

Now, certain sections of the media would have you believe that Brexit has caused deep divisions in the nation, with Britain on the verge of civil war.

And yet, whilst in England, I couldn't help notice how normal things were.

There were no mobs of UKIP supporters dragging Polish plumbers through the streets so they could burn them at the stake.

The British Union of Fascists weren't holding branch meetings, and the House of Commons wasn't voting on banning the Indian Congress party.

So what happened to a tidal wave of xenophobia? The British Empire reborn? Foreigners fleeing for their lives?

Everything seemed normal. England's green and pleasent land was green and pleasent.

When you engage in hyperbole, you're inevitably going to be disappointed.

Needless to say, gobshites are flexing their vocal muscles, and ignorant opinion is now vaunted as commentary. Just listen to the hateful bs spouted by the overly opinionated arse wipe Paul Watson. The man is a fething world class bell end, with the political acumen of a cerebrally stunted lug worm.
He's now considered by many as some sort of truth sayer, a sanctuary of rationality and common sense in a world beset with liberalism and equality. However, the reality is, he's a c@#t.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
A...

So what happened to a tidal wave of xenophobia? The British Empire reborn? Foreigners fleeing for their lives?

Anti-Semitic incidents 'at record level in UK'
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-40735634

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
A...

So what happened to a tidal wave of xenophobia? The British Empire reborn? Foreigners fleeing for their lives?

Anti-Semitic incidents 'at record level in UK'
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-40735634

Sadly, anti-Semitism existed in the UK long before we joined the EU/EEC, so can Brexit be blamed for this? What about other mitigating factors:

A very small minority of radical Islamists or extreme right-wingers who have been engaging in this for years?

Could the criteria for what constitutes an anti-Semitic incident have changed? I don't know.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
@whirlwind.

That may be, but this is what I can never comprehend: what business is it of the EU to tell a nation what it can and can't do with its own rail services?

What happens to British rail is for the British government, elected by the British people, not some pen pusher in Brussels.

This is exactly the point I was making a few weeks back about the expanding bureaucracy and its thirst for power.

Another case in point is Poland.

Here we have an unelected vice-president of the EU commission laying down the law to the elected government of Poland! WTF!!

I happen to disagree with the Polish government and its treatment of the judiciary, but that is an internal matter for the Polish people, not some desk jockey in EU HQ!

By that logic no one's allowed to intervene if Germany decides to go all Vierte Reich and starts shooting people in Germany. It's an internal affair after all, no? Or, we could stop pretending that neighbouring countries don't have an interest in making sure Poland's democracy doesn't explode and cause the rest of us a bunch of trouble.

I'm not buying that argument. Britain and Sweden are two of the most strongest and stable democracies in Europe. Even when Poland was communist, our respective nations didn't break out the red flag becuase of events in Poland and I can't see them being effected by this turn of events.

Even nearby nations like Austria and Germany will be unaffected IMO because of the strength of their democracies and civil society.

It's a storm in a teacup and the EU should step back IMO.

I apologize in advance for the Godwin, but we stayed stable democracies when Nazi Germany went wild. Does that mean we wouldn't have had any interest in stopping them from coming to power?

The separation of the judiciary from the control of the legislature is one of the fundamental features of the rule of law. You're advocating that the EU should sit idly by while Poland dismantles the rule of law because internal affairs apparently are sacrosanct.

The Polish people have a long and proud history of fighting oppression. I have faith in them not to slide into some tyranny.

And yes, I agree that the independence of the judiciary is crucial in a democracy, so I hope Poland sorts this put.

Conversely, if they have a long history of fighting oppression and tyranny woudln't that also mean they have a long history of being a tyranny?

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
what business is it of the EU to tell a nation what it can and can't do with its own rail services?

It's its business to make legislation on issues that elected representatives of those nations have gotten together and decided that it should legislate on. I think that's a bit guff, but then I don't believe in parliamentary representative democracy. I you do, it's kinda hard to argue that the EU has no business being involved in issues that representative democracies have decided it should have business in.

What happens to British rail is for the British government, elected by the British people, not some pen pusher in Brussels.

The 'pen pusher' remark is a straw man. You're aware, I'm sure, that the European Parliament is comprised of elected parliamentarians, and the Commission is comprised of individuals appointed by elected governments, like any high ranking civil servant.

The 'pen pusher' remark is a straw man. You're aware, I'm sure, that the European Parliament is comprised of elected parliamentarians, and the Commission is comprised of individuals appointed by elected governments, like any high ranking civil servant.

As it's been pointed out before, the EU parliament is a sham of a parliament. It's the world's most expensive rubber stamper.

As for the commission, true, the individuals involved are appointed by their respective government, but their detachment and distance from the man on the street is still pretty big.

I believe the closer the people are to democracy, the better democracy is, especially in terms of accountability.

Example pre-Brexit for the UK.

Average person -- MEP---EU Parliament---EU Commission--- Random EU president

After Brexit: average person---MP---House of Commons

Throw in the odd councillor or MSP for Scotland, and it's clear that the distance between the electorate and the elected, will be better and shorter post-Brexit.

That is good for British democracy IMO.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

The 'pen pusher' remark is a straw man. You're aware, I'm sure, that the European Parliament is comprised of elected parliamentarians, and the Commission is comprised of individuals appointed by elected governments, like any high ranking civil servant.

As it's been pointed out before, the EU parliament is a sham of a parliament. It's the world's most expensive rubber stamper.

As for the commission, true, the individuals involved are appointed by their respective government, but their detachment and distance from the man on the street is still pretty big.

I believe the closer the people are to democracy, the better democracy is, especially in terms of accountability.

Example pre-Brexit for the UK.

Average person -- MEP---EU Parliament---EU Commission--- Random EU president

After Brexit: average person---MP---House of Commons

Throw in the odd councillor or MSP for Scotland, and it's clear that the distance between the electorate and the elected, will be better and shorter post-Brexit.

That is good for British democracy IMO.

I agree that the closer to democracy the average person is, the better.

However, in reality, it's currently:

Me - Councillors - Council - Constituency MSP/List MSPs/MP - Hollyrood/Westminster (and a pile of unelected civil servants and quangos) - European parliament - Commission

Importantly, the first two stages of this don't have many people in them. The people whom it is easy to interact with are thin on the ground and have little time to deal with constituents. Relatively, there's loads of folks in the middle stages. The UK is one of the worst nations in the developed world for that. We have thousands of residents for each elected politician (and we have major drives to reduce the numbers of elected persons further). France has a couple hundred.

Brexit isn't going to do anything at all to fix this. If you want to be closer to democracy, you want lots more elected officials, not to simply remove the top two tiers of them so that everyone involved is a bit closer to you geographically.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
A...

So what happened to a tidal wave of xenophobia? The British Empire reborn? Foreigners fleeing for their lives?

Anti-Semitic incidents 'at record level in UK'
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-40735634

Sadly, anti-Semitism existed in the UK long before we joined the EU/EEC, so can Brexit be blamed for this? What about other mitigating factors:

A very small minority of radical Islamists or extreme right-wingers who have been engaging in this for years?

Could the criteria for what constitutes an anti-Semitic incident have changed? I don't know.

When you think of anti semitism you may think if new nazis and right wing, buts it exists on the left as well. The opposition to capitalism ties into the perception that jews are greedy and many of the richest people and companies/banks happen to be jewish controlled. Also the way some on the left cheer for Palestine leads to some quite anti semitic comments - beyond just commentary on Israeli policy.

I don't necessarily believe either are linked to brexit, a lot of increases in anything is due to increased reporting or method of data collection.

 Howard A Treesong wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
A...

So what happened to a tidal wave of xenophobia? The British Empire reborn? Foreigners fleeing for their lives?

Anti-Semitic incidents 'at record level in UK'
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-40735634

Sadly, anti-Semitism existed in the UK long before we joined the EU/EEC, so can Brexit be blamed for this? What about other mitigating factors:

A very small minority of radical Islamists or extreme right-wingers who have been engaging in this for years?

Could the criteria for what constitutes an anti-Semitic incident have changed? I don't know.

When you think of anti semitism you may think if new nazis and right wing, buts it exists on the left as well. The opposition to capitalism ties into the perception that jews are greedy and many of the richest people and companies/banks happen to be jewish controlled. Also the way some on the left cheer for Palestine leads to some quite anti semitic comments - beyond just commentary on Israeli policy.

I don't necessarily believe either are linked to brexit, a lot of increases in anything is due to increased reporting or method of data collection.

Ken Livingstone acting like a is one thing, but is it a sign of anti-Semitism gripping the left?

I'm not sure.

I'd say the left (labour in particular) do have an anti-semitism problem these days.

Anti semitism isn't 'gripping' the left, I didn't say that at all, just that it isn't unique to the right wing. Ken Livingstone who is a bit irrelevant, and seems more confused and clumsy than being anti Semitic. I don't think that Labour has an anti semitism problem, but the left wing is broad and fractured.

I've seen outright anti semitic comments made by people on the left, I noticed a bit thinking back to the Occupy protests and protests against bankers.

At any rate, anti-semitism is only a symptom of a much larger problem damaging this nation: the break down of law and order.

The first duty of any government is defence of the realm and then upholding the rule of law. The Tories have failed on this.

A few days ago, we learned that crime is on the increase across this great nation.

Today, on the BBC website, I learn that violence in prisons is on the up, and that prison guards were taken ill from drug fumes wafting through our prisons.

I also learned that prisoners were being let out early! Was that an honest mistake? Or prisoners tricking the authorities into early release?

I don't know anymore

Drug driving is on the up. Cybercrime. You name it. It's like Dark Age Britain.

Even if we catch and convict criminals, we can't even keep the fethers under lock and key any more!

You've heard me bang this drum many a time, but I ask my fellow dakka members this question:

what does UK stand for? United Kingdom or uncontrolled krimewave?