Lineups announced for the footy. Displacement activity can stop and time to get a good place down the pub.
Relegation candidates can become champions if they have good team unity, and a leader who understands the tactics and personnel. Labour should take note. All is not yet lost, but definitely time to sack the manager.
"Just a reminder how good embittered Blairites are at winning general elections for Labour. Corbynistas take note"
Actually, a reminder of how bad the rest of Labour was at winning elections. Would Labour have won in 2010 had Blair stayed on or had David Miliband taken over? It has to be very doubtful - for all that Miliband might have been a better leader than Brown, the backlash from Brown and his following, the left and the rest excluded by Blairites would have eliminated any benefit in policy and personnel.
I heard Ruth Smeeth MP on the radio on Friday. She wasn't making any excuses for the antisemitism in the party, and acknowledged that it was more wide spread than the public might have thought. She also seems to have the right sort of background to know what she's talking about being involved with both pro-Israel and anti-racism organisations. But as she comes from the "wrong" wing of the party she will probably be ignored.
It's now been 6 days of BBC news front page headlines referencing Labour and resignations, anti-Semitism or Hitler. Can they keep it going until Thursday?
It's now been 6 days of BBC news front page headlines referencing Labour and resignations, anti-Semitism or Hitler. Can they keep it going until Thursday?
I think the question is more whether Labour can keep it going.
It's now been 6 days of BBC news front page headlines referencing Labour and resignations, anti-Semitism or Hitler. Can they keep it going until Thursday?
I think the question is more whether Labour can keep it going.
Tweo things - Abbot comes across as very dim in interviews, I wonder if that is indeed the case.
And Zac's campaign is really struggling if they are still having to push the extremist link so unsubtly, crossing over into offensiveness - if it was resonating surely we'd have seen the effect before now, and pushing it harder seems unlikely to sway people who were not concerned before, even if others think they should be.
I was in Naz Shah’s Bradford. A politician who wants to win there cannot afford to be reasonable, I discovered. He or she cannot deplore the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and say that the Israelis and Palestinians should have their own states. They have to engage in extremist rhetoric of the “sweep all the Jews out” variety or risk their opponents denouncing them as “Zionists”.
... But Shah’s wider behaviour as an MP – a “progressive” MP, mark you – gives you a better idea of how deep the rot has sunk. She ignored a Bradford imam who declared that the terrorist who murdered a liberal Pakistani politician was a “great hero of Islam” and concentrated her energies on expressing her “loathing” of liberal and feminist British Muslims instead.
On topic, at the risk of renaming myself "I told you so" some of us pointed out months ago the risks of Labour being seen as the terrorists' party. This is a risk which has been brewing for some time and has come to a head because of Livingstone's repulsive comments. But if not him, it would have been something else.
But this is not just about him. Until Labour rediscover what liberal principles are and what they mean - and the Far Left groupuscules who are now in charge are not and never have been liberal and despise everything about it - they will be stuck in this poisonous cul de sac where their leading politicians seek to defend themselves by relying on the works of revisionist historians who manipulate and falsify the historical evidence.
They show no signs of doing so: la-la-we-can't-hear-you-it's-all-a-plot seems to be the reaction now. It will take something truly awful, I fear, for them to wake up and that will likely involve the suffering of innocents.
The graph at the top is an indication of how good Blair was at winning elections. Embittered Blairites? Nah. They couldn't even come better than last in a leadership election for their own party.
I suppose if we lose a load of councillors, lose control in Wales and finish third in Scotland, talking about Hitler might be a good tactic next Friday morning. Dead cat, and all that.
I suppose if we lose a load of councillors, lose control in Wales and finish third in Scotland, talking about Hitler might be a good tactic next Friday morning. Dead cat, and all that.
Hitler will be old news by then. Perhaps a sympathetic take on early Pol Pot would be good for a media storm.
I suppose if we lose a load of councillors, lose control in Wales and finish third in Scotland, talking about Hitler might be a good tactic next Friday morning. Dead cat, and all that.
I was in Naz Shah’s Bradford. A politician who wants to win there cannot afford to be reasonable, I discovered. He or she cannot deplore the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and say that the Israelis and Palestinians should have their own states. They have to engage in extremist rhetoric of the “sweep all the Jews out” variety or risk their opponents denouncing them as “Zionists”.
... But Shah’s wider behaviour as an MP – a “progressive” MP, mark you – gives you a better idea of how deep the rot has sunk. She ignored a Bradford imam who declared that the terrorist who murdered a liberal Pakistani politician was a “great hero of Islam” and concentrated her energies on expressing her “loathing” of liberal and feminist British Muslims instead.
At least this is now coming out into the open, a bit like other problems in that town in recent history.
Labour need to disassociate themselves from this divisive local politics, even if it's at the expense of Galloway or one of his mob getting elected. It's not worth the problems elsewhere for one or two seats.
I suppose if we lose a load of councillors, lose control in Wales and finish third in Scotland, talking about Hitler might be a good tactic next Friday morning. Dead cat, and all that.
Hitler will be old news by then. Perhaps a sympathetic take on early Pol Pot would be good for a media storm.
The graph at the top is an indication of how good Blair was at winning elections. Embittered Blairites? Nah. They couldn't even come better than last in a leadership election for their own party.
And it was the right thing to do. Just occasionally there is a reward for that (he said naively).
Considering the swing to Labour in Brighton & Hove I doubt there was an electoral reward.
I suspect it didn't have much of an effect in Morley, Telford and Gower either.
It did. Was one of the little things that convinced Lib Dems to switch to the Tories.
Microscopically little.
Compared to the threat of a Sturgeon controlled EdM government it was like a candle compared to the sun.
Read up on how and why Sir Lynton Crosby targeted the Lib Dem held seats.
The Lib Dems in those seats preferred Cameron as PM for the following primary reasons, strong on the economy and The NHS, support for the international aid budget, and Cameron's support for same sex marriage.
It's the economy, stupid
Now where have I read those words today.
If it was gay marriage then why was the swing to Labour in Brighton & Hove ?
Or are you and Lynton Crosby saying that gay marriage was a bigger issue in Morley, Telford and Gower than it was in Brighton & Hove ?
Now we all like to think that our own individual brilliance and beliefs are what bring us success.
But in reality its usually being in the right place at the right time.
The Conservatives won the 2015 by being in the right place at the right time - that being the alternative to a Sturgeon controlled EdM government.
I really don’t understand about this hatred of Sturgeon. Capable, effective politician who looks after her electorate. We could do with more like her.
Its n
Smells of English racism to me.
TBH.
I am so sick and tired of that implication, it's a very lazy assumption. It was explained quite rationally why people might have a problem specifically with SNP MPs, however talented and well meaning (and they do not lack for talent) exerting an influence on UK wide governance, rather than Scots MPs in general. Well within the Scots' rights to vote overwhelmingly for the former, and if the numbers had worked out, entirely legitimate for them to take seats in government or just prop up a Labour government, but not racist for people to think, 'You know, the SNP may just care more about Scotland alone rather than Scotland and the UK as a whole'.
And lest anyone link to someone who was being purely anti-scottish, yes, I'm some were - it doesn't mean most were.
I suppose if we lose a load of councillors, lose control in Wales and finish third in Scotland, talking about Hitler might be a good tactic next Friday morning. Dead cat, and all that.
Hitler will be old news by then. Perhaps a sympathetic take on early Pol Pot would be good for a media storm.
Semi-on topic: I've been a bit disturbed by the way some lefties have been hand-waving away Naz Shah's and Livingstone's comments as simply "criticism of Israel", rather than antisemitism.
Sure, it's possible to be critical of specific Israeli government actions without being antisemitic, especially while that idiot Netanyahu is in charge. But saying Israel should not exist at all (which Shah and Livingstone did/do)? As Jonathan Freedland said in his comment piece the other day, if anyone ever said a Muslim country should not exist and that all it's residents should up sticks and be "transported", the entire Left would be (rightly) up in arms.
If - God forbid - the world ever has another Hitler, Israel will be Jewish people's only country of 100% safe refuge - and I think anyone who wants to deny them that is by definition anti-semitic.
I suppose if we lose a load of councillors, lose control in Wales and finish third in Scotland, talking about Hitler might be a good tactic next Friday morning. Dead cat, and all that.
Don't worry, there's always London. Khan should be everywhere in the days after winning, to keep the idea of Labour winning in peoples' minds.
Why, he's a man so amazing he is apparently acceptable to both sides of the Labour party, which is an achievement these days.
Semi-on topic: I've been a bit disturbed by the way some lefties have been hand-waving away Naz Shah's and Livingstone's comments as simply "criticism of Israel", rather than antisemitism. .
Yes - a major problem is that people insist they are doing the former, when their tone, words and past statements indicate to others it is the latter. I have no doubt Ken believes he only does the former, but the preponderance of the evidence suggests to me it is the latter. But the end result is, as we've seen it is defended on the basis that people leap to easily to the accusations of antisemitism whenever someone criticises Israel. Which can happen, but I don't think has in this case, but is used as cover.
The graph at the top is an indication of how good Blair was at winning elections. Embittered Blairites? Nah. They couldn't even come better than last in a leadership election for their own party.
Quite.
Lol - because winning the party leadership is the same as winning power.
Semi-on topic: I've been a bit disturbed by the way some lefties have been hand-waving away Naz Shah's and Livingstone's comments as simply "criticism of Israel", rather than antisemitism.
Sure, it's possible to be critical of specific Israeli government actions without being antisemitic, especially while that idiot Netanyahu is in charge. But saying Israel should not exist at all (which Shah and Livingstone did/do)? As Jonathan Freedland said in his comment piece the other day, if anyone ever said a Muslim country should not exist and that all it's residents should up sticks and be "transported", the entire Left would be (rightly) up in arms.
If - God forbid - the world ever has another Hitler, Israel will be Jewish people's only country of 100% safe refuge - and I think anyone who wants to deny them that is by definition anti-semitic.
Semi-on topic: I've been a bit disturbed by the way some lefties have been hand-waving away Naz Shah's and Livingstone's comments as simply "criticism of Israel", rather than antisemitism.
Sure, it's possible to be critical of specific Israeli government actions without being antisemitic, especially while that idiot Netanyahu is in charge. But saying Israel should not exist at all (which Shah and Livingstone did/do)? As Jonathan Freedland said in his comment piece the other day, if anyone ever said a Muslim country should not exist and that all it's residents should up sticks and be "transported", the entire Left would be (rightly) up in arms.
If - God forbid - the world ever has another Hitler, Israel will be Jewish people's only country of 100% safe refuge - and I think anyone who wants to deny them that is by definition anti-semitic.
Defining someone as anti-Semitic because they don't believe that Jews have an axiomatic right to their own state seems wrong. Unless one is arguing for anti-Semitism to be defined more broadly than other racisms that would imply that every race/culture that has suffered genocide should be entitled to its own state, and to deny support for that state is racist. I'm not sure that would be widely accepted, thinking of attitudes to the Kurds (for example).
[edit: of course it's undeniable that a large proportion of those who argue that the Jews don't have an automatic right to their state say plenty of stuff that is unambiguously anti-Semitic which means this point may be fairly academic]
The graph at the top is an indication of how good Blair was at winning elections. Embittered Blairites? Nah. They couldn't even come better than last in a leadership election for their own party.
Quite.
Lol - because winning the party leadership is the same as winning power.
That wasn't really the point I was getting at (or what I interpreted TUD was saying)
My point is Tony Blair as a person is what won those elections, not "Blairism" as a philosophy. A "Blairite" leader who has none of Blair's charisma or communication skills would not win a general election.
Well, colour me shocked - I've just received a piece of election material for the PCC election (with a piece on the candidate for the locals in 2017 on the reverse).
You may be sick and tired of the implication, but as you say, it was about. You'd perhaps be surprised how racist some otherwise intelligent and rational English people can be.
Well, colour me shocked - I've just received a piece of election material for the PCC election (with a piece on the candidate for the locals in 2017 on the reverse).
You've got more than we have. I hate to think what the turnout's going to be where, as here, there are no other elections.
I've been on the local PCC elections website and discover that the UKIPper is going to use the police to stop immigration!
Semi-on topic: I've been a bit disturbed by the way some lefties have been hand-waving away Naz Shah's and Livingstone's comments as simply "criticism of Israel", rather than antisemitism.
Sure, it's possible to be critical of specific Israeli government actions without being antisemitic, especially while that idiot Netanyahu is in charge. But saying Israel should not exist at all (which Shah and Livingstone did/do)? As Jonathan Freedland said in his comment piece the other day, if anyone ever said a Muslim country should not exist and that all it's residents should up sticks and be "transported", the entire Left would be (rightly) up in arms.
If - God forbid - the world ever has another Hitler, Israel will be Jewish people's only country of 100% safe refuge - and I think anyone who wants to deny them that is by definition anti-semitic.
Defining someone as anti-Semitic because they don't believe that Jews have an axiomatic right to their own state seems wrong. Unless one is arguing for anti-Semitism to be defined more broadly than other racisms that would imply that every race/culture that has suffered genocide should be entitled to its own state, and to deny support for that state is racist. I'm not sure that would be widely accepted, thinking of attitudes to the Kurds (for example).
[edit: of course it's undeniable that a large proportion of those who argue that the Jews don't have an automatic right to their state say plenty of stuff that is unambiguously anti-Semitic which means this point may be fairly academic]
In my non-expert opinion, I think there's a case for the Kurds to have their own state.
I'll admit there might be some holes in my thinking, but instinctively it just feels wrong that a people who had a third of their people slaughtered in relatively recent history, should not have a safe haven available to them if such a thing were to ever happen again.
You may be sick and tired of the implication, but as you say, it was about. You'd perhaps be surprised how racist some otherwise intelligent and rational English people can be.
Would you mind possibly amending your post so it is clear I did not say 'some of my best friends are jews'? I feel that would be unclear based on how you've summed up what you seem to belive was my point. Thanks
I'm not surprised by how racist people can be, not anymore. I was stunned to discover at the GE people I know and used to respect apparently had no problem referring to Ed M as a 'little jew boy'. There will always be racists on sides in a debate, and probably all sides. The question is if they are characteristic of the rest who hold that side of the debate. I would argue strenuously it did not in this instance, unless it is your contention the majority of english people are anti-scots racists.
I was in Naz Shah’s Bradford. A politician who wants to win there cannot afford to be reasonable, I discovered. He or she cannot deplore the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and say that the Israelis and Palestinians should have their own states. They have to engage in extremist rhetoric of the “sweep all the Jews out” variety or risk their opponents denouncing them as “Zionists”.
... But Shah’s wider behaviour as an MP – a “progressive” MP, mark you – gives you a better idea of how deep the rot has sunk. She ignored a Bradford imam who declared that the terrorist who murdered a liberal Pakistani politician was a “great hero of Islam” and concentrated her energies on expressing her “loathing” of liberal and feminist British Muslims instead.
At least this is now coming out into the open, a bit like other problems in that town in recent history.
Labour need to disassociate themselves from this divisive local politics, even if it's at the expense of Galloway or one of his mob getting elected. It's not worth the problems elsewhere for one or two seats.
Labour cannot disassociate themselves from the horrid local politics in places like Bradford. Such politics is a direct result of the multi-culturism promoted by so called progressive thought for the last couple of decades.
Well, colour me shocked - I've just received a piece of election material for the PCC election (with a piece on the candidate for the locals in 2017 on the reverse).
You've got more than we have. I hate to think what the turnout's going to be where, as here, there are no other elections.
I've been on the local PCC elections website and discover that the UKIPper is going to use the police to stop immigration!
Given the reverse includes the candidate for the 2017 locals, and a list of all the other candidates for the town in the locals as well who have been selected, I presume my local conservatives are planning well in advance, and so might as well thrown in a bit on the PPC while they lay the groundwork for the one they actually care about next year.
'if anyone ever said a Muslim country should not exist'
No need for the 'if' when it comes to Palestine or Kurdistan or Northern Cyprus.
Well, the UN voted for a Palestine to come into existence in the late 1940's. There was even land allocated. It was...er.....the then Palestinians who refused. Perhaps there is no Palestinian phrase for "a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush".
The Kurds do deserve a state I agree, much like the Poles in 19th century Europe. It is realpolitik which has prevented them getting one.
The graph at the top is an indication of how good Blair was at winning elections. Embittered Blairites? Nah. They couldn't even come better than last in a leadership election for their own party.
Quite.
Lol - because winning the party leadership is the same as winning power.
That wasn't really the point I was getting at (or what I interpreted TUD was saying)
My point is Tony Blair as a person is what won those elections, not "Blairism" as a philosophy. A "Blairite" leader who has none of Blair's charisma or communication skills would not win a general election.
Accepting that, in policy terms, Blair was and is to all intents and purposes a Tory (didn't they say at the time "if only he was one of ours"?) the centre-left have not won a working majority since 1966. Why anyone should think they'll ever win another one beats me.
Elections are now about identity (race, religion), not economics (class).
'if anyone ever said a Muslim country should not exist'
No need for the 'if' when it comes to Palestine or Kurdistan or Northern Cyprus.
The Kurds do deserve a state I agree, much like the Poles in 19th century Europe. It is realpolitik which has prevented them getting one.
I presume the same is preventing Somaliland from being recognised by anyone, given it is apparently a stable and functioning state in a region which has been anything but for 20 years.
Semi-on topic: I've been a bit disturbed by the way some lefties have been hand-waving away Naz Shah's and Livingstone's comments as simply "criticism of Israel", rather than antisemitism.
Sure, it's possible to be critical of specific Israeli government actions without being antisemitic, especially while that idiot Netanyahu is in charge. But saying Israel should not exist at all (which Shah and Livingstone did/do)? As Jonathan Freedland said in his comment piece the other day, if anyone ever said a Muslim country should not exist and that all it's residents should up sticks and be "transported", the entire Left would be (rightly) up in arms.
If - God forbid - the world ever has another Hitler, Israel will be Jewish people's only country of 100% safe refuge - and I think anyone who wants to deny them that is by definition anti-semitic.
Defining someone as anti-Semitic because they don't believe that Jews have an axiomatic right to their own state seems wrong. Unless one is arguing for anti-Semitism to be defined more broadly than other racisms that would imply that every race/culture that has suffered genocide should be entitled to its own state, and to deny support for that state is racist. I'm not sure that would be widely accepted, thinking of attitudes to the Kurds (for example).
[edit: of course it's undeniable that a large proportion of those who argue that the Jews don't have an automatic right to their state say plenty of stuff that is unambiguously anti-Semitic which means this point may be fairly academic]
In my non-expert opinion, I think there's a case for the Kurds to have their own state.
I'll admit there might be some holes in my thinking, but instinctively it just feels wrong that a people who had a third of their people slaughtered in relatively recent history, should not have a safe haven available to them if such a thing were to ever happen again.
Yes, I agree with you completely. I would say that it would not be anti-Semitic to disagree with you, unless one sought to define "anti-semitism" to have a meaning that went beyond the boundaries implied by "racism towards Jews". It's also not clear that the smartest place to have put this "safe haven" is the Middle East - but that's all history now and I struggle to see how one could advocate dismantling the state of Israel given the suffering that would entail - in the real world it would be difficult to advocate that unless it was motivated by some hatred of Jews, surely.
"Just a reminder how good embittered Blairites are at winning general elections for Labour. Corbynistas take note"
Actually, a reminder of how bad the rest of Labour was at winning elections. Would Labour have won in 2010 had Blair stayed on or had David Miliband taken over? It has to be very doubtful - for all that Miliband might have been a better leader than Brown, the backlash from Brown and his following, the left and the rest excluded by Blairites would have eliminated any benefit in policy and personnel.
I would argue that in 2005 Labour won in spite of Blair - not because of him. He had become a liability, and at that stage Labour would probably have emerged with a bigger majority under Brown.
You may be sick and tired of the implication, but as you say, it was about. You'd perhaps be surprised how racist some otherwise intelligent and rational English people can be.
I've just been reading the moderated Times comments - out of 63 so far, about half are handwaving, whatabouting or impugning Israel in very thinly veiled terms. Either some people are feeling a lot more confident of saying what they think [up from about 10% a couple of days ago], or the Times is getting a bunch of new subscribers.
Either way - it's very disturbing. A very ugly side to our society that I honestly thought was almost dead and buried. In my almost 50yrs, I can't think of a single anti-Semetic comment expressed by anyone I've known. Some good natured jokes that are no different to any other group, but never anything nasty or bigoted.
I suppose if we lose a load of councillors, lose control in Wales and finish third in Scotland, talking about Hitler might be a good tactic next Friday morning. Dead cat, and all that.
LOL. Glad to see you retaining a sense of humour about the situation.
I was in Naz Shah’s Bradford. A politician who wants to win there cannot afford to be reasonable, I discovered. He or she cannot deplore the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and say that the Israelis and Palestinians should have their own states. They have to engage in extremist rhetoric of the “sweep all the Jews out” variety or risk their opponents denouncing them as “Zionists”.
... But Shah’s wider behaviour as an MP – a “progressive” MP, mark you – gives you a better idea of how deep the rot has sunk. She ignored a Bradford imam who declared that the terrorist who murdered a liberal Pakistani politician was a “great hero of Islam” and concentrated her energies on expressing her “loathing” of liberal and feminist British Muslims instead.
At least this is now coming out into the open, a bit like other problems in that town in recent history.
Labour need to disassociate themselves from this divisive local politics, even if it's at the expense of Galloway or one of his mob getting elected. It's not worth the problems elsewhere for one or two seats.
Labour cannot disassociate themselves from the horrid local politics in places like Bradford. Such politics is a direct result of the multi-culturism promoted by so called progressive thought for the last couple of decades.
It's a direct consequence of their reliance on Muslim votes. If you court and rely on votes from illiberals and anti-Semites (though, for the avoidance of doubt, not all Muslims are illiberal and/or anti-Semitic) then you will inevitably become more illiberal and/or anti-Semitic.
if anyone ever said a Muslim country should not exist and that all it's residents should up sticks and be "transported", the entire Left would be (rightly) up in arms.
Semi-on topic: I've been a bit disturbed by the way some lefties have been hand-waving away Naz Shah's and Livingstone's comments as simply "criticism of Israel", rather than antisemitism.
Sure, it's possible to be critical of specific Israeli government actions without being antisemitic, especially while that idiot Netanyahu is in charge. But saying Israel should not exist at all (which Shah and Livingstone did/do)? As Jonathan Freedland said in his comment piece the other day, if anyone ever said a Muslim country should not exist and that all it's residents should up sticks and be "transported", the entire Left would be (rightly) up in arms.
If - God forbid - the world ever has another Hitler, Israel will be Jewish people's only country of 100% safe refuge - and I think anyone who wants to deny them that is by definition anti-semitic.
Defining someone as anti-Semitic because they don't believe that Jews have an axiomatic right to their own state seems wrong. Unless one is arguing for anti-Semitism to be defined more broadly than other racisms that would imply that every race/culture that has suffered genocide should be entitled to its own state, and to deny support for that state is racist. I'm not sure that would be widely accepted, thinking of attitudes to the Kurds (for example).
[edit: of course it's undeniable that a large proportion of those who argue that the Jews don't have an automatic right to their state say plenty of stuff that is unambiguously anti-Semitic which means this point may be fairly academic]
In my non-expert opinion, I think there's a case for the Kurds to have their own state.
I'll admit there might be some holes in my thinking, but instinctively it just feels wrong that a people who had a third of their people slaughtered in relatively recent history, should not have a safe haven available to them if such a thing were to ever happen again.
Yes, I agree with you completely. I would say that it would not be anti-Semitic to disagree with you, unless one sought to define "anti-semitism" to have a meaning that went beyond the boundaries implied by "racism towards Jews". It's also not clear that the smartest place to have put this "safe haven" is the Middle East - but that's all history now and I struggle to see how one could advocate dismantling the state of Israel given the suffering that would entail - in the real world it would be difficult to advocate that unless it was motivated by some hatred of Jews, surely.
Anyone who advocates dismantling the Israeli state and sets about doing it is asking to be nuked..
'if anyone ever said a Muslim country should not exist'
No need for the 'if' when it comes to Palestine or Kurdistan or Northern Cyprus.
Well, the UN voted for a Palestine to come into existence in the late 1940's. There was even land allocated. It was...er.....the then Palestinians who refused. Perhaps there is no Palestinian phrase for "a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush".
The Kurds do deserve a state I agree, much like the Poles in 19th century Europe. It is realpolitik which has prevented them getting one.
The Palestinians also rejected the Camp David Accord..
There is a very rude phrase for people who act like that...
Semi-on topic: I've been a bit disturbed by the way some lefties have been hand-waving away Naz Shah's and Livingstone's comments as simply "criticism of Israel", rather than antisemitism.
Sure, it's possible to be critical of specific Israeli government actions without being antisemitic, especially while that idiot Netanyahu is in charge. But saying Israel should not exist at all (which Shah and Livingstone did/do)? As Jonathan Freedland said in his comment piece the other day, if anyone ever said a Muslim country should not exist and that all it's residents should up sticks and be "transported", the entire Left would be (rightly) up in arms.
If - God forbid - the world ever has another Hitler, Israel will be Jewish people's only country of 100% safe refuge - and I think anyone who wants to deny them that is by definition anti-semitic.
Defining someone as anti-Semitic because they don't believe that Jews have an axiomatic right to their own state seems wrong. Unless one is arguing for anti-Semitism to be defined more broadly than other racisms that would imply that every race/culture that has suffered genocide should be entitled to its own state, and to deny support for that state is racist. I'm not sure that would be widely accepted, thinking of attitudes to the Kurds (for example).
[edit: of course it's undeniable that a large proportion of those who argue that the Jews don't have an automatic right to their state say plenty of stuff that is unambiguously anti-Semitic which means this point may be fairly academic]
In my non-expert opinion, I think there's a case for the Kurds to have their own state.
I'll admit there might be some holes in my thinking, but instinctively it just feels wrong that a people who had a third of their people slaughtered in relatively recent history, should not have a safe haven available to them if such a thing were to ever happen again.
Yes, I agree with you completely. I would say that it would not be anti-Semitic to disagree with you, unless one sought to define "anti-semitism" to have a meaning that went beyond the boundaries implied by "racism towards Jews". It's also not clear that the smartest place to have put this "safe haven" is the Middle East - but that's all history now and I struggle to see how one could advocate dismantling the state of Israel given the suffering that would entail - in the real world it would be difficult to advocate that unless it was motivated by some hatred of Jews, surely.
Anyone who advocates dismantling the Israeli state and sets about doing it is asking to be nuked..
You may be sick and tired of the implication, but as you say, it was about. You'd perhaps be surprised how racist some otherwise intelligent and rational English people can be.
Would you mind possibly amending your post so it is clear I did not say 'some of my best friends are jews'? I feel that would be unclear based on how you've summed up what you seem to belive was my point. Thanks
I'm not surprised by how racist people can be, not anymore. I was stunned to discover at the GE people I know and used to respect apparently had no problem referring to Ed M as a 'little jew boy'. There will always be racists on sides in a debate, and probably all sides. The question is if they are characteristic of the rest who hold that side of the debate. I would argue strenuously it did not in this instance, unless it is your contention the majority of english people are anti-scots racists.
Clearly I can't amend the post after all this time. However, I'm happy to agree that you didn't post that.
You may be sick and tired of the implication, but as you say, it was about. You'd perhaps be surprised how racist some otherwise intelligent and rational English people can be.
Would you mind possibly amending your post so it is clear I did not say 'some of my best friends are jews'? I feel that would be unclear based on how you've summed up what you seem to belive was my point. Thanks
I'm not surprised by how racist people can be, not anymore. I was stunned to discover at the GE people I know and used to respect apparently had no problem referring to Ed M as a 'little jew boy'. There will always be racists on sides in a debate, and probably all sides. The question is if they are characteristic of the rest who hold that side of the debate. I would argue strenuously it did not in this instance, unless it is your contention the majority of english people are anti-scots racists.
Clearly I can't amend the post after all this time. However, I'm happy to agree that you didn't post that.
You may be sick and tired of the implication, but as you say, it was about. You'd perhaps be surprised how racist some otherwise intelligent and rational English people can be.
I've just been reading the moderated Times comments - out of 63 so far, about half are handwaving, whatabouting or impugning Israel in very thinly veiled terms. Either some people are feeling a lot more confident of saying what they think [up from about 10% a couple of days ago], or the Times is getting a bunch of new subscribers.
Either way - it's very disturbing. A very ugly side to our society that I honestly thought was almost dead and buried.
I have not thought it dead and buried. It has been 15 years at least in my part of London that there have been guards at Jewish events, something that never happened during my childhood in the same part of London. The evidence has been there for anyone with eyes to see. But no-one - or not enough - spoke up against it and so the problem has grown and grown and those with hate in their mind have felt more and more emboldened.
On topic, at the risk of renaming myself "I told you so" some of us pointed out months ago the risks of Labour being seen as the terrorists' party. This is a risk which has been brewing for some time and has come to a head because of Livingstone's repulsive comments. But if not him, it would have been something else.
But this is not just about him. Until Labour rediscover what liberal principles are and what they mean - and the Far Left groupuscules who are now in charge are not and never have been liberal and despise everything about it - they will be stuck in this poisonous cul de sac where their leading politicians seek to defend themselves by relying on the works of revisionist historians who manipulate and falsify the historical evidence.
They show no signs of doing so: la-la-we-can't-hear-you-it's-all-a-plot seems to be the reaction now. It will take something truly awful, I fear, for them to wake up and that will likely involve the suffering of innocents.
The Tories quite rightly accused Labour of cosying up to terrorists. We just didn't expect those murderers to be Hitler and the Nazis!
'if anyone ever said a Muslim country should not exist'
No need for the 'if' when it comes to Palestine or Kurdistan or Northern Cyprus.
Well, the UN voted for a Palestine to come into existence in the late 1940's. There was even land allocated. It was...er.....the then Palestinians who refused. Perhaps there is no Palestinian phrase for "a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush".
The Kurds do deserve a state I agree, much like the Poles in 19th century Europe. It is realpolitik which has prevented them getting one.
An independent Kurdistan was to have been set up in what is today SE Turkey under the Treaty of Sevres (1920) but the area was conquered by Ataturk's forces and was recognised by the Allies as part of Turkey under the Treaty of Lausanne (1923).
I was in Naz Shah’s Bradford. A politician who wants to win there cannot afford to be reasonable, I discovered. He or she cannot deplore the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and say that the Israelis and Palestinians should have their own states. They have to engage in extremist rhetoric of the “sweep all the Jews out” variety or risk their opponents denouncing them as “Zionists”.
... But Shah’s wider behaviour as an MP – a “progressive” MP, mark you – gives you a better idea of how deep the rot has sunk. She ignored a Bradford imam who declared that the terrorist who murdered a liberal Pakistani politician was a “great hero of Islam” and concentrated her energies on expressing her “loathing” of liberal and feminist British Muslims instead.
At least this is now coming out into the open, a bit like other problems in that town in recent history.
Labour need to disassociate themselves from this divisive local politics, even if it's at the expense of Galloway or one of his mob getting elected. It's not worth the problems elsewhere for one or two seats.
Labour cannot disassociate themselves from the horrid local politics in places like Bradford. Such politics is a direct result of the multi-culturism promoted by so called progressive thought for the last couple of decades.
It's a direct consequence of their reliance on Muslim votes. If you court and rely on votes from illiberals and anti-Semites (though, for the avoidance of doubt, not all Muslims are illiberal and/or anti-Semitic) then you will inevitably become more illiberal and/or anti-Semitic.
Labour have always been bigots. They can't dis-associate from decades of vile vitriol. They way they spit at Tory conference, call everyone scum and litter the pavements on matches. They are filth.
Entirely off topic, I've been punting some stuff on Ebay. There appears to a be a new category in the 'Item specifics' category for trousers, 'Erotic?'. Anyone know what the erotic element might be in a pair of green cords?
Perhaps there is no Palestinian phrase for "a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush".
Actually, there is. With a flourish of hyperbole.
Usfur fi yad, yusawi alf fi shajarah: A bird in the hand is worth a thousand in the bush.
Ultimate origin is probably the 6th century BC Proverbs of Ahiqar: 'a sparrow in thy hand is better than a thousand sparrows flying'
I learn something new every day on PB! Thank you.
What a tragedy for the Palestinians that they have been so badly led. If ever a people needed another Mandela, it is the Palestinians.
Instead they had the Grand Mufti, Arafat, al Fatah and now Hamas. Maybe they get the leaders they deserve but a tragedy nonetheless fit those who suffer as a result, Palestinian and Jewish.
Perhaps there is no Palestinian phrase for "a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush".
Actually, there is. With a flourish of hyperbole.
Usfur fi yad, yusawi alf fi shajarah: A bird in the hand is worth a thousand in the bush.
Ultimate origin is probably the 6th century BC Proverbs of Ahiqar: 'a sparrow in thy hand is better than a thousand sparrows flying'
I learn something new every day on PB! Thank you.
What a tragedy for the Palestinians that they have been so badly led. If ever a people needed another Mandela, it is the Palestinians.
Instead they had the Grand Mufti, Arafat, al Fatah and now Hamas. Maybe they get the leaders they deserve but a tragedy nonetheless fit those who suffer as a result, Palestinian and Jewish.
In 1947, the Palestinians would have got 45% of the territory of the Mandate of Palestine, plus Jerusalem under UN (presumably neutral) control.
Today, the West Bank and Gaza only equal 22% of the territory.
Entirely off topic, I've been punting some stuff on Ebay. There appears to a be a new category in the 'Item specifics' category for trousers, 'Erotic?'. Anyone know what the erotic element might be in a pair of green cords?
I'm sure there's Celtic fans who get the horn seeing people dressed in green clothing.
Mr. Divvie, might be a reference to velcro stripper trousers.
Hmm, I suppose..
It occurs to me that there is a thriving market in various types of 'used' clothing, usually schoolgirl associated. However these breeks were brand new.
I suppose if we lose a load of councillors, lose control in Wales and finish third in Scotland, talking about Hitler might be a good tactic next Friday morning. Dead cat, and all that.
LOL. Glad to see you retaining a sense of humour about the situation.
I think 3rd in Scotland and Wales minority govt with losses in English counties were factored in. Painful, but not unexpected.
The big loss will be London. Not just the Mayor, Ken's mate, but also if Labour lose Assembly Members. Labour have never had a 16 point lead in London that the opinion polls state. That is according to their own data. It is/was 8 at most. Over the last decade, they have had an 8 to 13 point lead in actual elections. There is no way, with an unpopular party, and with the Tories with the biggest poll lead since 2010 that Labour will romp home by 16 points.
I don't know the outcome but it will be less than 10 point margin to Labour for sure. If they have a 6 point lead, they lose Assembly Members. If it is 0, Khan is gone.
On the doorsteps, I just have to say: 'Ken Livingstone' and that is turning most doubters into voters and most voters into non-Labour. I'm off out to spout Ken's name a bit more.
Entirely off topic, I've been punting some stuff on Ebay. There appears to a be a new category in the 'Item specifics' category for trousers, 'Erotic?'. Anyone know what the erotic element might be in a pair of green cords?
On topic, at the risk of renaming myself "I told you so" some of us pointed out months ago the risks of Labour being seen as the terrorists' party. This is a risk which has been brewing for some time and has come to a head because of Livingstone's repulsive comments. But if not him, it would have been something else.
But this is not just about him. Until Labour rediscover what liberal principles are and what they mean - and the Far Left groupuscules who are now in charge are not and never have been liberal and despise everything about it - they will be stuck in this poisonous cul de sac where their leading politicians seek to defend themselves by relying on the works of revisionist historians who manipulate and falsify the historical evidence.
They show no signs of doing so: la-la-we-can't-hear-you-it's-all-a-plot seems to be the reaction now. It will take something truly awful, I fear, for them to wake up and that will likely involve the suffering of innocents.
The Tories quite rightly accused Labour of cosying up to terrorists. We just didn't expect those murderers to be Hitler and the Nazis!
Cruel, but true! On the Black Swan Scale - having Hitler as Labour's biggest issue several days running...
Undefined discussion subject.
Comments
https://twitter.com/BBCWorldatOne/status/726745093688950784
Relegation candidates can become champions if they have good team unity, and a leader who understands the tactics and personnel. Labour should take note. All is not yet lost, but definitely time to sack the manager.
He nearly broke the bleep machine.
Actually, a reminder of how bad the rest of Labour was at winning elections. Would Labour have won in 2010 had Blair stayed on or had David Miliband taken over? It has to be very doubtful - for all that Miliband might have been a better leader than Brown, the backlash from Brown and his following, the left and the rest excluded by Blairites would have eliminated any benefit in policy and personnel.
O/T - Poll has Cruz ahead in Indiana. Looks like an outlier - http://www.indystar.com/story/news/politics/2016/04/30/poll-cruz-leads-trump-indiana/83755438/
'We've got a fecking huge majority - we can do what the hell we like' would have been nicer.
Believe in BRITAIN!
Be LEAVE!
One of his fans accused me being part of the Zionist media for flagging up such polling.
Oy vey.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aykdAl1zS9U
And Zac's campaign is really struggling if they are still having to push the extremist link so unsubtly, crossing over into offensiveness - if it was resonating surely we'd have seen the effect before now, and pushing it harder seems unlikely to sway people who were not concerned before, even if others think they should be.
On topic, at the risk of renaming myself "I told you so" some of us pointed out months ago the risks of Labour being seen as the terrorists' party. This is a risk which has been brewing for some time and has come to a head because of Livingstone's repulsive comments. But if not him, it would have been something else.
But this is not just about him. Until Labour rediscover what liberal principles are and what they mean - and the Far Left groupuscules who are now in charge are not and never have been liberal and despise everything about it - they will be stuck in this poisonous cul de sac where their leading politicians seek to defend themselves by relying on the works of revisionist historians who manipulate and falsify the historical evidence.
They show no signs of doing so: la-la-we-can't-hear-you-it's-all-a-plot seems to be the reaction now. It will take something truly awful, I fear, for them to wake up and that will likely involve the suffering of innocents.
Remain 43%
Leave 46%
Embittered Blairites? Nah. They couldn't even come better than last in a leadership election for their own party.
Closest he's ever been to (a) grammar I'll bet!
Labour need to disassociate themselves from this divisive local politics, even if it's at the expense of Galloway or one of his mob getting elected. It's not worth the problems elsewhere for one or two seats.
And lest anyone link to someone who was being purely anti-scottish, yes, I'm some were - it doesn't mean most were.
Sure, it's possible to be critical of specific Israeli government actions without being antisemitic, especially while that idiot Netanyahu is in charge. But saying Israel should not exist at all (which Shah and Livingstone did/do)? As Jonathan Freedland said in his comment piece the other day, if anyone ever said a Muslim country should not exist and that all it's residents should up sticks and be "transported", the entire Left would be (rightly) up in arms.
If - God forbid - the world ever has another Hitler, Israel will be Jewish people's only country of 100% safe refuge - and I think anyone who wants to deny them that is by definition anti-semitic.
Why, he's a man so amazing he is apparently acceptable to both sides of the Labour party, which is an achievement these days.
Labour 2016: things can only get bitter....
No need for the 'if' when it comes to Palestine or Kurdistan or Northern Cyprus.
[edit: of course it's undeniable that a large proportion of those who argue that the Jews don't have an automatic right to their state say plenty of stuff that is unambiguously anti-Semitic which means this point may be fairly academic]
My point is Tony Blair as a person is what won those elections, not "Blairism" as a philosophy. A "Blairite" leader who has none of Blair's charisma or communication skills would not win a general election.
"Some of my best friends are Jews"
You may be sick and tired of the implication, but as you say, it was about. You'd perhaps be surprised how racist some otherwise intelligent and rational English people can be.
Darn it. I was going to do that one.
I've been on the local PCC elections website and discover that the UKIPper is going to use the police to stop immigration!
I'll admit there might be some holes in my thinking, but instinctively it just feels wrong that a people who had a third of their people slaughtered in relatively recent history, should not have a safe haven available to them if such a thing were to ever happen again.
I'm not surprised by how racist people can be, not anymore. I was stunned to discover at the GE people I know and used to respect apparently had no problem referring to Ed M as a 'little jew boy'. There will always be racists on sides in a debate, and probably all sides. The question is if they are characteristic of the rest who hold that side of the debate. I would argue strenuously it did not in this instance, unless it is your contention the majority of english people are anti-scots racists.
Labour need to disassociate themselves from this divisive local politics, even if it's at the expense of Galloway or one of his mob getting elected. It's not worth the problems elsewhere for one or two seats.
Labour cannot disassociate themselves from the horrid local politics in places like Bradford. Such politics is a direct result of the multi-culturism promoted by so called progressive thought for the last couple of decades.
The Kurds do deserve a state I agree, much like the Poles in 19th century Europe. It is realpolitik which has prevented them getting one.
Elections are now about identity (race, religion), not economics (class).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-OO9LloDSJo
Either way - it's very disturbing. A very ugly side to our society that I honestly thought was almost dead and buried. In my almost 50yrs, I can't think of a single anti-Semetic comment expressed by anyone I've known. Some good natured jokes that are no different to any other group, but never anything nasty or bigoted.
It's a direct consequence of their reliance on Muslim votes. If you court and rely on votes from illiberals and anti-Semites (though, for the avoidance of doubt, not all Muslims are illiberal and/or anti-Semitic) then you will inevitably become more illiberal and/or anti-Semitic.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organisation_of_Islamic_Cooperation
There is a very rude phrase for people who act like that...
I think you probably forgot a few 'stans' in the Russian Federation. Dagestan, Chechen Republic, etc... And of course, closer to home, Bradfordistan.
Entertaining start to the race but less stellar afterwards. Will set about writing the post-race piece shortly.
Usfur fi yad, yusawi alf fi shajarah: A bird in the hand is worth a thousand in the bush.
Ultimate origin is probably the 6th century BC Proverbs of Ahiqar: 'a sparrow in thy hand is better than a thousand sparrows flying'
Wales?
Israel (on her 1949-67 borders)?
Labour have always been bigots. They can't dis-associate from decades of vile vitriol. They way they spit at Tory conference, call everyone scum and litter the pavements on matches. They are filth.
There appears to a be a new category in the 'Item specifics' category for trousers, 'Erotic?'. Anyone know what the erotic element might be in a pair of green cords?
Put me down for £5 on a yankee of "hook nose", "kike", "goldie" and "himey".
I learn something new every day on PB! Thank you.
What a tragedy for the Palestinians that they have been so badly led. If ever a people needed another Mandela, it is the Palestinians.
Instead they had the Grand Mufti, Arafat, al Fatah and now Hamas. Maybe they get the leaders they deserve but a tragedy nonetheless fit those who suffer as a result, Palestinian and Jewish.
Today, the West Bank and Gaza only equal 22% of the territory.
It occurs to me that there is a thriving market in various types of 'used' clothing, usually schoolgirl associated. However these breeks were brand new.
The big loss will be London. Not just the Mayor, Ken's mate, but also if Labour lose Assembly Members. Labour have never had a 16 point lead in London that the opinion polls state. That is according to their own data. It is/was 8 at most. Over the last decade, they have had an 8 to 13 point lead in actual elections. There is no way, with an unpopular party, and with the Tories with the biggest poll lead since 2010 that Labour will romp home by 16 points.
I don't know the outcome but it will be less than 10 point margin to Labour for sure. If they have a 6 point lead, they lose Assembly Members. If it is 0, Khan is gone.
On the doorsteps, I just have to say: 'Ken Livingstone' and that is turning most doubters into voters and most voters into non-Labour. I'm off out to spout Ken's name a bit more.
The person wearing them?
Miss Cyclefree, when Arafat died his personal fortune was larger than the whole GDP of Palestine.