Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The danger for Corbyn is that his vulnerability on antisemitis

124

Comments

  • ElliotElliot Posts: 1,516

    In other news, it looks like continental expulsions are imminent:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-43541256

    I note, with concern, that Austria is not on that list. I presume it’s because the Freedom Party, which is in Government, has links with United Russia.

    Not the first time Austria has allied with autocratic ethnonationalists.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 113,969
    edited March 2018
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Pretty similar to what Australian PM Malcolm Turnbull has said

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/43532750
    Yes but he's the Australian PM commenting on the Australian team. Coming from the British PM it's not very tactful to say the least. Almost smacks of Schadenfreude.
    I don't think too many voters in the UK will be concerned at May rubbing the noses of the Australian cricket team in it, they are not exactly modest and humble when it comes to beating England as they did in the series where these incidents took place
    Voters in the UK won't give a toss but it won't pay to piss off people we might want to be doing trade deals with in the near future.

    Not that I expect it to make that much difference but why risk it in the first place?
    Given Turnbull has made basically exactly the same statement anyway before May did I don't quite see your logic? It is him May will be negotiating with not the Australian cricket captain.

    May is basically reiterating the Australian PM's position (plus of course while a FTA with Australia would be nice it comes well below getting one with the EU, the USA, China, Saudi Arabia, Japan etc)
    The logic is only that of the parent who calls his own child a monster but doesn't like it if someone else does.

    I'm not making a big deal of this. I just think it's silly for politicians or their spokespeople to risk causing offence over matters that don't concern them.
    Given the England cricket team may have lost the Ashes if the Australians cheated in the last series it does concern us actually
    Nah, we were shite and were walloped, ball tampering doesn't explain it all.

    We lost by 10 wickets, 120 runs, an innings and 41, and innings and 123.

    Those are shellackings. I mean we were bowled out for 58 by New Zealand, we haven't played well overseas in Tests recently.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 58,043
    Floater said:
    I hope that when/if the time comes, LibDem MPs will not allow a Corbyn-led government to take power by some supply and confidence arrangement.

    I'm expecting a bit of moral courage on this one.
  • oxfordsimonoxfordsimon Posts: 5,831

    Floater said:
    I hope that when/if the time comes, LibDem MPs will not allow a Corbyn-led government to take power by some supply and confidence arrangement.

    I'm expecting a bit of moral courage on this one.
    Cable has no moral courage at all.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 31,718
    welshowl said:

    welshowl said:

    @OldKingCole

    Well there was another go at at resolving it in 1689, where we agreed to look like a monarchy but under the bonnet became a republic. It's held since.

    (Incidentally we're good at that sort of thing. The century before, the Cof E had bishops and a lot of Catholic looking hierarchy whilst being Protestant. Or nearer our own time, the Irish Free State was let go, but still part of the "Dominions of the Crown" for show, even though they had gained the right to go the whole hog - which they of course did starting notably by being neutral in 1939).

    Like the analogy, but not sure it worked further down the scale. I’m told, for example, that my grandfather, who, although a CofE churchwarden came from a long line of non-conformists, objected to the (new) vicar putting candlesticks on the altar. That was about 1930.
    And in 1964 my (originally Welsh Baptist) father objected strongly to incense being used at the CoE baptism service for my infant daughter.
    Indeed. Funny how these things lingered for ages and ages, and for all I know still do.

    The key to a long lasting settlement seems to be to keep much of the "visuality" of the old whilst actually doing something different. Both sides have a bit of a buy in then?

    To use the Crown v Parliament; I guess the actual shift was decided at Naseby in 1645. There was no way back, in retrospect, for the return of an all powerful Crown after that., 1660 notwithstanding. Essentially the settlement was to give the Cavaliers their theatre whilst actually, in the ultimate analysis, giving power to Parliament. The Hanovarians were useful at least in that they reinforced that, because they were only Monarchs because Parliament said they were, because they had the "right" religion. They had to toe the line because that was their source of legitimacy.

    Quite how we pull off a similar trick with Europe is another matter but something from our historical precedent would be useful I think.
    Ref. your first para. Indeed they still do. In the town where I live there’s a long Protestant tradition, but a recent vicar decided to call himself ‘Father’. Which annoyed several long-standing residents, some of whom stopped attanding church.
  • welshowlwelshowl Posts: 4,460
    Elliot said:

    welshowl said:

    @OldKingCole

    Well there was another go at at resolving it in 1689, where we agreed to look like a monarchy but under the bonnet became a republic. It's held since.

    (Incidentally we're good at that sort of thing. The century before, the Cof E had bishops and a lot of Catholic looking hierarchy whilst being Protestant. Or nearer our own time, the Irish Free State was let go, but still part of the "Dominions of the Crown" for show, even though they had gained the right to go the whole hog - which they of course did starting notably by being neutral in 1939).

    It was 1715 where that truly happened. William of Orange was a fairly hands on King.
    He was "the transition period". Once he'd fallen off his horse in 1702, the rest flowed.

    This is why the Brexiteers are happy enough to go with the flow mostly, perhaps more than most expected. It's the "Michael Collins rather that the Eamonn de Valera route" (to mix my historical metaphors). It's not freedom, but the means to achieve freedom I think he said (or something like that- doubtless better minds than mine will correct me).
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,074

    HYUFD said:

    Corbyn may think he is not technically anti Jewish but he is largely anti Israel, just as he is anti American and his support for the Palestinians and the Russians is clearly as a counterweight to them

    Tha's pretty fair. I agree he's largely against the policies of both the United States and Israel (he's nothing against individuals who happen to come from there), on which I think he's largely right, and that's over the years led him to give airtime to people who on closer inspection are best kept far away. It didn't really matter much when he was a backbencher and would talk to anyone but it needs attention as a leader. But specifically on Israel, it's not only possible but easy to consistently oppose their policies over most of the last 20 years without being anti-semitic. Labour Friends of Israel, on which I was a national executive member (possibly the only non-Jewish member, who cares), has exactly that position.

    It is just as wrong to assume that if one's Jewish (or even merely not anti-semitic) one "must" like Israel and its policies, as the reverse, to think that if one's sympathetic to the horrible situation of many Palestinians one should start worrying about Jewish conspiracies. Both some passionate Zionists and some passionate pro-Palestinians fall into the trap of conflating the two.
    Corbyn comes across to me as a passive antisemite. Someone who would never, ever think of himself as one, and is genuinely horrified that he's called one, yet his actions and words give succour to antisemites.

    He's thick and dangerous.

    People who are sympathetic about the horrible situation of many Palestinians (and rightly so) also need to consider the other side of that equation: the horrible situation the Jewish people will be in if the Palestinians take control. Neither side's consciences are clear on this; there is , and has been, evil on both sides.

    Would you prefer to be a Palestinian living in the Jewish state, or a Jew living in a Palestinian one? (Though even such terminology has become fraught).
    Some Palestinians have been clear that Jews would not be permitted in a Palestinian state.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,820

    Floater said:
    I hope that when/if the time comes, LibDem MPs will not allow a Corbyn-led government to take power by some supply and confidence arrangement.

    I'm expecting a bit of moral courage on this one.
    I wouldn't hold your breath.

    Cough, Baroness Tonge, ahem.

    In fact there is more likely to be moral courage from the dwindling bands of decent Labour MPs. (More likely but not very likely, that is).
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 47,789

    In other news, it looks like continental expulsions are imminent:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-43541256

    I note, with concern, that Austria is not on that list. I presume it’s because the Freedom Party, which is in Government, has links with United Russia.

    It's noteworthy that Russia is massively expanding its presence in Dublin.
    https://twitter.com/evanoconnell/status/977152030321102849
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,933
    For the other videogamers I know we have here, my review of Kingdom Come Deliverance: http://thaddeusthesixth.blogspot.co.uk/2018/03/review-kingdom-come-deliverance-ps4.html
  • welshowlwelshowl Posts: 4,460

    welshowl said:

    welshowl said:

    @OldKingCole

    Well there was another go at at resolving it in 1689, where we agreed to look like a monarchy but under the bonnet became a republic. It's held since.

    (Incidentally we're good at that sort of thing. The century before, the Cof E had bishops and a lot of Catholic looking hierarchy whilst being Protestant. Or nearer our own time, the Irish Free State was let go, but still part of the "Dominions of the Crown" for show, even though they had gained the right to go the whole hog - which they of course did starting notably by being neutral in 1939).

    Like the analogy, but not sure it worked further down the scale. I’m told, for example, that my grandfather, who, although a CofE churchwarden came from a long line of non-conformists, objected to the (new) vicar putting candlesticks on the altar. That was about 1930.
    And in 1964 my (originally Welsh Baptist) father objected strongly to incense being used at the CoE baptism service for my infant daughter.
    Indeed. Funny how these things lingered for ages and ages, and for all I know still do.

    The key to a long lasting settlement seems to be to keep much of the "visuality" of the old whilst actually doing something different. Both sides have a bit of a buy in then?

    To use the Crown v Parliament; I guess the actual shift was decided at Naseby in 1645. There was no way back, in retrospect, for the return of an all powerful Crown after that., 1660 notwithstanding. Essentially the settlement was to give the Cavaliers their theatre whilst actually, in the ultimate analysis, giving power to Parliament. The Hanovarians were useful at least in that they reinforced that, because they were only Monarchs because Parliament said they were, because they had the "right" religion. They had to toe the line because that was their source of legitimacy.

    Quite how we pull off a similar trick with Europe is another matter but something from our historical precedent would be useful I think.
    Ref. your first para. Indeed they still do. In the town where I live there’s a long Protestant tradition, but a recent vicar decided to call himself ‘Father’. Which annoyed several long-standing residents, some of whom stopped attanding church.
    So, given it's 480 years from 2016 to 1536 and the rift with Rome, Leave v Remain should be down to parish level by about 2496. Something we can all look forward too (!)
  • Am loving Valerie Vaz not understanding what anti-Semitism is on Westminster Hour last night.

    https://order-order.com/2018/03/26/shadow-cabinet-minister-corbyn-steeped-anti-semitism-anti-semitic-party/

    There is mis-speaking and there is complete car crash. I think she will need more than the AA and RAC combined after this one.

    Too many -isms make a schism.
    Surely too many -isms make an -asm?
  • dr_spyndr_spyn Posts: 11,279
    Corbyn doesn't appear to have managed to apologise or offer a coherent explanation in public. Hiding behind his spin team can't work for ever.

    https://twitter.com/Renoir_Jones/status/978224459223007233

    Turning Corbyn into a figure of ridicule.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633

    In other news, it looks like continental expulsions are imminent:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-43541256

    I note, with concern, that Austria is not on that list. I presume it’s because the Freedom Party, which is in Government, has links with United Russia.

    It's noteworthy that Russia is massively expanding its presence in Dublin.
    https://twitter.com/evanoconnell/status/977152030321102849
    Time for a hard border with this persistent enemy on our doorstep.

    The Russians aren't much better either - but they did eventually fight on our side in WW2.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 47,789
    welshowl said:

    welshowl said:

    welshowl said:

    @OldKingCole

    Well there was another go at at resolving it in 1689, where we agreed to look like a monarchy but under the bonnet became a republic. It's held since.

    (Incidentally we're good at that sort of thing. The century before, the Cof E had bishops and a lot of Catholic looking hierarchy whilst being Protestant. Or nearer our own time, the Irish Free State was let go, but still part of the "Dominions of the Crown" for show, even though they had gained the right to go the whole hog - which they of course did starting notably by being neutral in 1939).

    Like the analogy, but not sure it worked further down the scale. I’m told, for example, that my grandfather, who, although a CofE churchwarden came from a long line of non-conformists, objected to the (new) vicar putting candlesticks on the altar. That was about 1930.
    And in 1964 my (originally Welsh Baptist) father objected strongly to incense being used at the CoE baptism service for my infant daughter.
    Indeed. Funny how these things lingered for ages and ages, and for all I know still do.

    The key to a long lasting settlement seems to be to keep much of the "visuality" of the old whilst actually doing something different. Both sides have a bit of a buy in then?

    To use the Crown v Parliament; I guess the actual shift was decided at Naseby in 1645. There was no way back, in retrospect, for the return of an all powerful Crown after that., 1660 notwithstanding. Essentially the settlement was to give the Cavaliers their theatre whilst actually, in the ultimate analysis, giving power to Parliament. The Hanovarians were useful at least in that they reinforced that, because they were only Monarchs because Parliament said they were, because they had the "right" religion. They had to toe the line because that was their source of legitimacy.

    Quite how we pull off a similar trick with Europe is another matter but something from our historical precedent would be useful I think.
    Ref. your first para. Indeed they still do. In the town where I live there’s a long Protestant tradition, but a recent vicar decided to call himself ‘Father’. Which annoyed several long-standing residents, some of whom stopped attanding church.
    So, given it's 480 years from 2016 to 1536 and the rift with Rome, Leave v Remain should be down to parish level by about 2496. Something we can all look forward too (!)
    I know you're joking but I don't see even a hint of sectarianism in the Leave v Remain split, despite the best efforts of elite Brexiteers to frame it that way and threaten civil war if they are thwarted.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 31,718

    Floater said:
    I hope that when/if the time comes, LibDem MPs will not allow a Corbyn-led government to take power by some supply and confidence arrangement.

    I'm expecting a bit of moral courage on this one.
    I wouldn't hold your breath.

    Cough, Baroness Tonge, ahem.

    In fact there is more likely to be moral courage from the dwindling bands of decent Labour MPs. (More likely but not very likely, that is).
    Personally I’ve always regarded Baroness Tonge as more sinned against than sinning.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 58,043

    Floater said:
    I hope that when/if the time comes, LibDem MPs will not allow a Corbyn-led government to take power by some supply and confidence arrangement.

    I'm expecting a bit of moral courage on this one.
    Cable has no moral courage at all.
    LibDem voters should be starting to ask their MPs now - what will they do? I, for one, would like a clear answer on this.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 31,718
    welshowl said:

    welshowl said:

    welshowl said:

    @OldKingCole

    Well there was another go at at resolving it in 1689, where we agreed to look like a monarchy but under the bonnet became a republic. It's held since.

    (Incidentally we're good at that sort of thing. The century before, the Cof E had bishops and a lot of Catholic looking hierarchy whilst being Protestant. Or nearer our own time, the Irish Free State was let go, but still part of the "Dominions of the Crown" for show, even though they had gained the right to go the whole hog - which they of course did starting notably by being neutral in 1939).

    Like the analogy, but not sure it worked further down the scale. I’m told, for example, that my grandfather, who, although a CofE churchwarden came from a long line of non-conformists, objected to the (new) vicar putting candlesticks on the altar. That was about 1930.
    And in 1964 my (originally Welsh Baptist) father objected strongly to incense being used at the CoE baptism service for my infant daughter.
    Indeed. Funny how these things lingered for ages and ages, and for all I know still do.

    The key to a long lasting settlement seems to be to keep much of the "visuality" of the old whilst actually doing something different. Both sides have a bit of a buy in then?

    To use the Crown v Parliament; I guess the actual shift was decided at Naseby in 1645. There was no way back, in retrospect, for the return of an all powerful Crown after that., 1660 notwithstanding. Essentially the settlement was to give the Cavaliers their theatre whilst actually, in the ultimate analysis, giving power to Parliament. The Hanovarians were useful at least in that they reinforced that, because they were only Monarchs because Parliament said they were, because they had the "right" religion. They had to toe the line because that was their source of legitimacy.

    Quite how we pull off a similar trick with Europe is another matter but something from our historical precedent would be useful I think.
    Ref. your first para. Indeed they still do. In the town where I live there’s a long Protestant tradition, but a recent vicar decided to call himself ‘Father’. Which annoyed several long-standing residents, some of whom stopped attanding church.
    So, given it's 480 years from 2016 to 1536 and the rift with Rome, Leave v Remain should be down to parish level by about 2496. Something we can all look forward too (!)
    LOL! And agree.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,019
    welshowl said:

    welshowl said:

    @OldKingCole

    Well there was another go at at resolving it in 1689, where we agreed to look like a monarchy but under the bonnet became a republic. It's held since.

    (Incidentally we're good at that sort of thing. The century before, the Cof E had bishops and a lot of Catholic looking hierarchy whilst being Protestant. Or nearer our own time, the Irish Free State was let go, but still part of the "Dominions of the Crown" for show, even though they had gained the right to go the whole hog - which they of course did starting notably by being neutral in 1939).

    Like the analogy, but not sure it worked further down the scale. I’m told, for example, that my grandfather, who, although a CofE churchwarden came from a long line of non-conformists, objected to the (new) vicar putting candlesticks on the altar. That was about 1930.
    And in 1964 my (originally Welsh Baptist) father objected strongly to incense being used at the CoE baptism service for my infant daughter.
    Indeed. Funny how these things lingered for ages and ages, and for all I know still do.

    The key to a long lasting settlement seems to be to keep much of the "visuality" of the old whilst actually doing something different. Both sides have a bit of a buy in then?

    To use the Crown v Parliament; I guess the actual shift was decided at Naseby in 1645. There was no way back, in retrospect, for the return of an all powerful Crown after that., 1660 notwithstanding. Essentially the settlement was to give the Cavaliers their theatre whilst actually, in the ultimate analysis, giving power to Parliament. The Hanovarians were useful at least in that they reinforced that, because they were only Monarchs because Parliament said they were, because they had the "right" religion. They had to toe the line because that was their source of legitimacy.

    Quite how we pull off a similar trick with Europe is another matter but something from our historical precedent would be useful I think.
    The Crown was pretty powerful in the 1680s, until the Glorious Revolution reversed it.

    I think what really helped the development of constitutional monarchy in the 18th Century was the fact the Hanoverians spoke little English, and were rather disinterested in British Government. Later monarchs, such as George III and Victoria, merely confined themselves to trying to interfere - with varying degrees of success - in party politics.
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 7,979

    Floater said:
    I hope that when/if the time comes, LibDem MPs will not allow a Corbyn-led government to take power by some supply and confidence arrangement.

    I'm expecting a bit of moral courage on this one.
    I wouldn't hold your breath.

    Cough, Baroness Tonge, ahem.

    In fact there is more likely to be moral courage from the dwindling bands of decent Labour MPs. (More likely but not very likely, that is).
    Personally I’ve always regarded Baroness Tonge as more sinned against than sinning.
    Quite
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,019

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Pretty similar to what Australian PM Malcolm Turnbull has said

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/43532750
    Yes but he's the Australian PM commenting on the Australian team. Coming from the British PM it's not very tactful to say the least. Almost smacks of Schadenfreude.
    I don't think too many voters in the UK will be concerned at May rubbing the noses of the Australian cricket team in it, they are not exactly modest and humble when it comes to beating England as they did in the series where these incidents took place
    Voters in the UK won't give a toss but it won't pay to piss off people we might want to be doing trade deals with in the near future.

    Not that I expect it to make that much difference but why risk it in the first place?
    I scarcely raised an eyebrow when I read that story.

    Australians have been playing dirty cricket for years.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 58,043
    Leading cultist shows form grip of the situation:

    https://twitter.com/paulmasonnews/status/978163610500333568
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 47,789

    The Crown was pretty powerful in the 1680s, until the Glorious Revolution reversed it.

    What this country needs is an injection of leadership from the Low Countries. Cometh the hour, cometh the Juncker!
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,933
    Mr. Divvie, that's different. May actually *is* a cricket fan.
  • glwglw Posts: 9,535
    edited March 2018
    TGOHF said:

    In other news, it looks like continental expulsions are imminent:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-43541256

    I note, with concern, that Austria is not on that list. I presume it’s because the Freedom Party, which is in Government, has links with United Russia.

    It's noteworthy that Russia is massively expanding its presence in Dublin.
    https://twitter.com/evanoconnell/status/977152030321102849
    Time for a hard border with this persistent enemy on our doorstep.

    The Russians aren't much better either - but they did eventually fight on our side in WW2.
    That story strikes me as nonsense. Physical proximity is almost irrelevant to cyber security, and Ireland's ability to investigate attacks isn't all that important either. US companies will go to US authorities to deal with such matters.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,019

    The Crown was pretty powerful in the 1680s, until the Glorious Revolution reversed it.

    What this country needs is an injection of leadership from the Low Countries. Cometh the hour, cometh the Juncker!
    Your banter needs some work mate.
  • oxfordsimonoxfordsimon Posts: 5,831

    Floater said:
    I hope that when/if the time comes, LibDem MPs will not allow a Corbyn-led government to take power by some supply and confidence arrangement.

    I'm expecting a bit of moral courage on this one.
    Cable has no moral courage at all.
    LibDem voters should be starting to ask their MPs now - what will they do? I, for one, would like a clear answer on this.
    Just look at how the LDs dealt with David Ward - who is still an elected LD councillor.

    Also Cable's willingness to see Rennard return to the fold is a clear indicator of his own personal lack of moral fibre.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 47,789
    glw said:

    That story strikes me as nonsense. Physical proximity is almost irrelevant to cyber security, and Ireland's ability to investigate attacks isn't all that important either. US companies will go to US authorities to deal with such matters.

    That's not really true. Cables and data centres don't exist in the ether.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 58,043
    Trump's economics will lead to massive overheating and then recession says former BoE official:

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2018/03/25/former-bank-england-guru-warns-trumps-economic-madness-will/
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 58,043

    glw said:

    That story strikes me as nonsense. Physical proximity is almost irrelevant to cyber security, and Ireland's ability to investigate attacks isn't all that important either. US companies will go to US authorities to deal with such matters.

    That's not really true. Cables and data centres don't exist in the ether.
    The staff are the biggest potential doorway for cyber-attacks, so being close to where they live and work could be a tactic.

    Ukraine honeypot girls touring the bars where coders drink?
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 47,789

    The Crown was pretty powerful in the 1680s, until the Glorious Revolution reversed it.

    What this country needs is an injection of leadership from the Low Countries. Cometh the hour, cometh the Juncker!
    Your banter needs some work mate.
    At least you successfully identified it as banter this time. When I said Cable was trying to convince people that the European Lib Dems wanted us out you thought I was being serious.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,712
    edited March 2018
    Prince William is looking more and more like Stephen Kinnock by the day and Kate Middleton does not look much different from Helle Thorning Schmidt either
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,019

    In other news, it looks like continental expulsions are imminent:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-43541256

    I note, with concern, that Austria is not on that list. I presume it’s because the Freedom Party, which is in Government, has links with United Russia.

    It's noteworthy that Russia is massively expanding its presence in Dublin.
    https://twitter.com/evanoconnell/status/977152030321102849
    It’s ok. Eire has the full weight of the EU behind it to help.
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300

    Trump's economics will lead to massive overheating and then recession says former BoE official:

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2018/03/25/former-bank-england-guru-warns-trumps-economic-madness-will/

    Yes but in Dick Cheney's words, Reagan showed that deficits don't matter.
  • glwglw Posts: 9,535

    glw said:

    That story strikes me as nonsense. Physical proximity is almost irrelevant to cyber security, and Ireland's ability to investigate attacks isn't all that important either. US companies will go to US authorities to deal with such matters.

    That's not really true. Cables and data centres don't exist in the ether.
    To a small degree, but the big web scale companies are well aware of those issues, and take the security of their data centres and interconnects very, very seriously. There are few known large-scale cyber attacks where physical access or close proximity was an issue. If anything those are the easiest holes to fill, it is software issues that are the biggest problems.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,136

    Leading cultist shows form grip of the situation:

    https://twitter.com/paulmasonnews/status/978163610500333568

    The funny thing about this is that when he got the chance to make a manifesto there wasn't even any radical change in there, and barely any social justice. Possibly even the opposite, since the main financial change was helping people in their 60s, who are generally doing pretty well.
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 13,921

    The Crown was pretty powerful in the 1680s, until the Glorious Revolution reversed it.

    What this country needs is an injection of leadership from the Low Countries. Cometh the hour, cometh the Juncker!
    It really doesn't.

    Last night I watched a recording of a joint INTA/IMCO meeting on the draft EU legislation on restricting the import of cultural goods to fight terrorism.

    The current proposals are that there are licenses and import declarations on all cultural goods (stupidly, even those originating from the EU) over 250 years old, putting burdensome restrictions on goods (like old books) that have historically had almost entirely free circulation around the world.

    This would be bad enough for the antiques trade.

    Several contributors to the committee meeting suggested it should be a 100 year threshold.
  • TheJezziahTheJezziah Posts: 3,840
    edited March 2018
    Jewish people who support Corbyn in shock move don't go along with smear campaign claiming Corbyn is anti-Jewish.

    Next they'll be claiming that some Jewish people might get annoyed at people who don't care about racism pretending to be white knights fighting it purely for political advantage...

    Edit: @edmundintokyo

    Be careful calling Corbyn 'not radical' both sides can get a bit twitchy about that one ;)
  • The_ApocalypseThe_Apocalypse Posts: 7,830
    Re the LDs, it depends on what there is base is like. If it’s mostly orange bookers, then I doubt they’ll want to get into any CoS or coalition with Labour. Saying that, IIRC Tim Bale’s recent study of the party memberships seem to show that most of the centre left party memberships essentially had the same views on nearly everything. I wouldn’t be surprised if they saw it as an opportunity to restore their reputation with left of centre/left wing voters. The LDs had their most electoral success as an anti-establishment/to the left of Labour alternative. I think they made right decision to go into coalition in 2010, but the reality is there is a large section of left of centre/left wing voters who will punish you big time if you associate with the Tories in any big way.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 47,789
    Why has he drawn Boris's nose like that?
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,019

    The Crown was pretty powerful in the 1680s, until the Glorious Revolution reversed it.

    What this country needs is an injection of leadership from the Low Countries. Cometh the hour, cometh the Juncker!
    Your banter needs some work mate.
    At least you successfully identified it as banter this time. When I said Cable was trying to convince people that the European Lib Dems wanted us out you thought I was being serious.
    To be fair, you usually are.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,408

    Ishmael_Z said:

    Sean_F said:

    Sean_F said:

    HYUFD said:

    Corbyn may think he is not technically anti Jewish but he is largely anti Israel, just as he is anti American and his support for the Palestinians and the Russians is clearly as a counterweight to them

    Or it's possible to create antisemitic tropes to appeal to antisemites and 'hide' them behind masonic and other tropes?

    Besides, as someone pointed out the other day, it's not even any good.
    The painter's comments about Jews complaining that he was showing up "their beloved Rothschild and Warburg for the demons they are" show what he was aiming at, anyway.
    One day those behind the Leave campaigns’ posters will have as much honesty about what they were aiming at.

    But most Leave advocates are simply satisfied that they were better shots.
    Cry me a river.
    So your concern about the anti-Semitic mural is, as Corbynites believe, entirely insincere and party political. Noted.
    This.

    There seems to be a huge disconnect between Corbyn, who has long campaigned against Israels injustices, being blamed for anti-semitism in the Labour party when quite frankly he has done very little to try and make Israel a major issue in his campaigns for leader and PM, if anything his opponents have focused on it.

    Compared to Brexit where immigration was used as a trump card as part of the campaign being absolutely shut down legitimate areas of debate it generally doesn't help things.
    You do realise he is
    He's as responsible for anti-semitic attitudes within Labour as May is for those within the Conservative party.

    https://antisemitism.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/Antisemitism-Barometer-2017.pdf

    40% of Conservatives agreed with one anti-semitic statement
    32% of Labour agreed with one anti-semitic statement
    Leaders can, you know, lead. If a problem exists they can try to address it. Corbyn says there is a problem. As the board of deputies notes he has the standing to address matters.

    With Corbyn's acceptance, this need not be party political. He has accepted the task to address this. Any other places with the same issue also should.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    Scott_P said:
    That's just so crap it's baffling that they printed it.



  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,712
    New graphs from 1992 to 2017 show rise in left liberals, decline in Labour left authoritarians and more left authoritarians voting Tory

    https://mobile.twitter.com/p_surridge/status/978008185075392512
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,933
    edited March 2018
    Mr. P, that's good news. I hope they haven't (bear* they have) cut down the elm that's resistant to Dutch Elm Disease and therefore of special scientific interest.

    Edited extra bit: but fear*. I am mildly pestilent, which is my excuse.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,136


    Be careful calling Corbyn 'not radical' both sides can get a bit twitchy about that one ;)

    You may be right, although I called the voters of Britain racist up-thread on fairly thin supporting evidence and it went down better than I'd expected...
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,408
    edited March 2018

    Mr. Meeks, do you believe everyone who voted leave must necessarily endorse (or specifically recant) everything everyone who campaigned to leave did and said?

    If not, then surely you'd accept there were various reasons to vote for leave, as there were for remain, and that voting one way or another does not imply or demand that a given individual supports everything the very many groups and individuals in either campaign did?

    Don't try to be reasonable to a fanatic. Particularly when they reject anyone who does recant as asked, demonstrating that is not actually the goal, but a mere fig leaf
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 39,749


    I know you're joking but I don't see even a hint of sectarianism in the Leave v Remain split, despite the best efforts of elite Brexiteers to frame it that way and threaten civil war if they are thwarted.

    Actually the guys round my bit who wave flags with wee red hands in the centre of them seem to have adopted Brexit wholesale (along with support for Trump and the state of Israel).
  • geoffwgeoffw Posts: 8,092
    "If you're a bigot you're not going to join the Labour Party" Ken Livingston on the Radio just now.
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 12,880

    Why has he drawn Boris's nose like that?

    Dog whistle for Corbynites.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,408

    So how many silver bullets is it that the PB Tories have loaded up against Jezzah?

    I make it:

    Association with IRA
    Association with Hamas
    Association with Venezuela
    Being a Stalinist/Communist/Marxist
    Not wearing a tie
    Bonking Abbott
    Not immediately demanding a nuclear strike on Moscow after Salisbury

    Good luck with the freshly minted hollow point antisemitism round, lads.

    Yes it won't take him down. It's still relevant considering he admits the party needs to get to grips with this.

    I never understood why his past with Abbott was relevant. It's nice they have remained friends for so long.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,019
    HYUFD said:

    Prince William is looking more and more like Stephen Kinnock by the day and Kate Middleton does not look much different from Helle Thorning Schmidt either
    None of the monarchs lined up to come will look impressive next to HM QEII.
  • oxfordsimonoxfordsimon Posts: 5,831
    kle4 said:

    So how many silver bullets is it that the PB Tories have loaded up against Jezzah?

    I make it:

    Association with IRA
    Association with Hamas
    Association with Venezuela
    Being a Stalinist/Communist/Marxist
    Not wearing a tie
    Bonking Abbott
    Not immediately demanding a nuclear strike on Moscow after Salisbury

    Good luck with the freshly minted hollow point antisemitism round, lads.

    Yes it won't take him down. It's still relevant considering he admits the party needs to get to grips with this.

    I never understood why his past with Abbott was relevant. It's nice they have remained friends for so long.
    I think it is relevant - would she have been promoted to such high profile positions if they hadn't had a pre-existing relationship?

    Given her past record, it is hard to make a case for her promotion being on merit.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,019
    kle4 said:

    Mr. Meeks, do you believe everyone who voted leave must necessarily endorse (or specifically recant) everything everyone who campaigned to leave did and said?

    If not, then surely you'd accept there were various reasons to vote for leave, as there were for remain, and that voting one way or another does not imply or demand that a given individual supports everything the very many groups and individuals in either campaign did?

    Don't try to be reasonable to a fanatic. Particularly when they reject anyone who does recant as asked, demonstrating that is not actually the goal, but a mere fig leaf
    He asks that Leavers reach out to Remainers and their concerns as a way of making them engage with him. Then, when they do so, he personally accuses them of moral turpitude, and provokes then to respond to prove his point, usually by insulting their intelligence.

    It’s a form of sport to him. If he’s consistently ignored he’ll soon get bored of it.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,540
    When countries behave like grown ups:

    https://twitter.com/AlanDuncanMP/status/978234628619292672
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 8,981


    He's as responsible for anti-semitic attitudes within Labour as May is for those within the Conservative party.

    https://antisemitism.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/Antisemitism-Barometer-2017.pdf

    40% of Conservatives agreed with one anti-semitic statement
    32% of Labour agreed with one anti-semitic statement

    We are discussing the Parliamentary Labour Party. Those figures are not about parliamentary parties. They are not about parties at all. They are about "supporters" of parties. This does not merely weaken your point, it exposes it as complete nonsense.
  • felixfelix Posts: 15,124
    kle4 said:

    So how many silver bullets is it that the PB Tories have loaded up against Jezzah?

    I make it:

    Association with IRA
    Association with Hamas
    Association with Venezuela
    Being a Stalinist/Communist/Marxist
    Not wearing a tie
    Bonking Abbott
    Not immediately demanding a nuclear strike on Moscow after Salisbury

    Good luck with the freshly minted hollow point antisemitism round, lads.

    Yes it won't take him down. It's still relevant considering he admits the party needs to get to grips with this.

    I never understood why his past with Abbott was relevant. It's nice they have remained friends for so long.
    Not taking him down is fine since it probably prevents a left-wing government ofr the forseeable future. Despite his failings there has only been one Labour leader in recent times who has been able to win elections comfortably.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,540
    Oh well, if the Observer/C4 won't investifate REMAIN's (much greater) spending, Guido has a handy guide:

    https://order-order.com/2018/03/26/remain-campaign-used-exactly-spending-tactics-vote-leave-far-worse/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
  • TheJezziahTheJezziah Posts: 3,840
    kle4 said:

    So how many silver bullets is it that the PB Tories have loaded up against Jezzah?

    I make it:

    Association with IRA
    Association with Hamas
    Association with Venezuela
    Being a Stalinist/Communist/Marxist
    Not wearing a tie
    Bonking Abbott
    Not immediately demanding a nuclear strike on Moscow after Salisbury

    Good luck with the freshly minted hollow point antisemitism round, lads.

    Yes it won't take him down. It's still relevant considering he admits the party needs to get to grips with this.

    I never understood why his past with Abbott was relevant. It's nice they have remained friends for so long.
    If I wanted to take the partisan point scoring approach taken by the right I can think why... good for signalling pets without bothering people... ;)

    ______________________________________
    Leaders can, you know, lead. If a problem exists they can try to address it. Corbyn says there is a problem. As the board of deputies notes he has the standing to address matters.

    With Corbyn's acceptance, this need not be party political. He has accepted the task to address this. Any other places with the same issue also should.
    _____________________________________

    I don't think there has ever been a suggestion (not by anyone serious) that there are no anti-semites in the Labour party, simply that the issue has been overblown by the press and others for political advantage. Which I don't think anyone has really changed their belief on.

    As for sorting the issue Labour passed rule changes on racism suggested by the JLM a few months ago. This apology is for the benefit of the press rather than actually changing policy, which is already changed to what some Jewish critics within Labour asked for (JLM being a sort of critical of Corbyn Jewish Labour group, there is another one JLV which are very supportive of Corbyn, also a Jewish Labour group)

    Corbyn can lead in terms of getting a voter to vote for a platform which contains things they aren't happy with, getting crazy people who believe Jewish people are responsible for x, y or z or that the holocaust didn't happen aren't really practical... he can call it out, though if that would have made a difference it would have made a difference already as he has done.
  • HYUFD said:

    Prince William is looking more and more like Stephen Kinnock by the day and Kate Middleton does not look much different from Helle Thorning Schmidt either
    None of the monarchs lined up to come will look impressive next to HM QEII.
    Republicanism is coming. 10 years of Charles as King and even the Royal family will be campaigning for a republic.

    As a republican we'd be screwed if Prince Harry was the first son not the second son.

    If only James Hewitt had met Princess Diana sooner.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    @Jack Doyle - @jackwdoyle: Labour leader's office tactics on Anti-Semitism now clear: bunker down, refuse interviews and let JVL outriders to muddy the waters.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,540
    Miss Cadwalladr is taking her Marr interview well.....

    https://twitter.com/carolecadwalla/status/978221232540839937
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,019

    HYUFD said:

    Prince William is looking more and more like Stephen Kinnock by the day and Kate Middleton does not look much different from Helle Thorning Schmidt either
    None of the monarchs lined up to come will look impressive next to HM QEII.
    Republicanism is coming. 10 years of Charles as King and even the Royal family will be campaigning for a republic.

    As a republican we'd be screwed if Prince Harry was the first son not the second son.

    If only James Hewitt had met Princess Diana sooner.
    Prince Harry and Princess Anne would both be impressive, in my view.

    Charles is damaged goods, and I think even he knows it.
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300

    Oh well, if the Observer/C4 won't investifate REMAIN's (much greater) spending, Guido has a handy guide:

    https://order-order.com/2018/03/26/remain-campaign-used-exactly-spending-tactics-vote-leave-far-worse/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

    Two campaigns led by prominent Conservatives broke the spending rules: what are the odds?
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 47,789

    Miss Cadwalladr is taking her Marr interview well.....

    https://twitter.com/carolecadwalla/status/978221232540839937

    Oakeshott who wrote this in 2015:

    https://www.conservativehome.com/platform/2015/11/isabel-oakeshott-brexit-campaigners-dont-know-friend-from-enemy.html

    He has drafted in American campaigners Goddard Gunster (who boast of a 90 per cent success rate in referendum campaigns around the world) and Cambridge Analytica, which specialises in targeted voter messaging (and makes similarly impressive sounding claims about hit rates.)
  • Mr. Meeks, do you believe everyone who voted leave must necessarily endorse (or specifically recant) everything everyone who campaigned to leave did and said?

    If not, then surely you'd accept there were various reasons to vote for leave, as there were for remain, and that voting one way or another does not imply or demand that a given individual supports everything the very many groups and individuals in either campaign did?

    Apply your logic to Corbyn and the stench of anti-Semitism around him and you're giving a free pass to Labour members and supporters.

    Yet people on here and elsewhere were defending Farage's Nazi era posters.

    When someone commits a really bad act, you need to call them out on it.
  • The_ApocalypseThe_Apocalypse Posts: 7,830
    I’d love Harry to be King. Sadly won’t happen though.
  • HYUFD said:

    Prince William is looking more and more like Stephen Kinnock by the day and Kate Middleton does not look much different from Helle Thorning Schmidt either
    None of the monarchs lined up to come will look impressive next to HM QEII.
    Republicanism is coming. 10 years of Charles as King and even the Royal family will be campaigning for a republic.

    As a republican we'd be screwed if Prince Harry was the first son not the second son.

    If only James Hewitt had met Princess Diana sooner.
    Prince Harry and Princess Anne would both be impressive, in my view.

    Charles is damaged goods, and I think even he knows it.
    God no to Princess Anne, really bad personal manners.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-461338/Hands-orf-One-pick-oneself-says-Anne.html

    https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/9575/Princess-Anne-s-tirade-at-man-who-rushed-to-her-aid
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 25,165
    edited March 2018

    Mr. Meeks, do you believe everyone who voted leave must necessarily endorse (or specifically recant) everything everyone who campaigned to leave did and said?

    If not, then surely you'd accept there were various reasons to vote for leave, as there were for remain, and that voting one way or another does not imply or demand that a given individual supports everything the very many groups and individuals in either campaign did?

    Apply your logic to Corbyn and the stench of anti-Semitism around him and you're giving a free pass to Labour members and supporters.

    Yet people on here and elsewhere were defending Farage's Nazi era posters.

    When someone commits a really bad act, you need to call them out on it.
    Is this the Nazi era image that was splashed all over the Guardian?
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 12,880



    Charles is damaged goods, and I think even he knows it.


    I met Charles once at RNAS Yeovilton and he wanted to talk about a poodle he'd just seen. Andrew, on the other hand, is Fleet Air Arm to the core. Proper WAFU.
  • TheJezziahTheJezziah Posts: 3,840
    edited March 2018
    Ishmael_Z said:


    He's as responsible for anti-semitic attitudes within Labour as May is for those within the Conservative party.

    https://antisemitism.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/Antisemitism-Barometer-2017.pdf

    40% of Conservatives agreed with one anti-semitic statement
    32% of Labour agreed with one anti-semitic statement

    We are discussing the Parliamentary Labour Party. Those figures are not about parliamentary parties. They are not about parties at all. They are about "supporters" of parties. This does not merely weaken your point, it exposes it as complete nonsense.
    Well this is the comment of yours I was replying to.

    'You do realise he is leader of the Labour party, do you, or do you just think that even if he is, he has no responsibility for anyone's actions and omissions other than his own?'

    And the conversation was also about anti-semitism.

    So considering your point was apparently about the PLP.

    What anti-semitism by the PLP led by Corbyn has been caused by his actions or omissions?!

    I'd call your point nonsense but at this point I'm struggling to understand what point you are trying to make.... usually the idea is the other members of the PLP are the good guys and Corbyn the bad guy.
  • tlg86 said:

    Mr. Meeks, do you believe everyone who voted leave must necessarily endorse (or specifically recant) everything everyone who campaigned to leave did and said?

    If not, then surely you'd accept there were various reasons to vote for leave, as there were for remain, and that voting one way or another does not imply or demand that a given individual supports everything the very many groups and individuals in either campaign did?

    Apply your logic to Corbyn and the stench of anti-Semitism around him and you're giving a free pass to Labour members and supporters.

    Yet people on here and elsewhere were defending Farage's Nazi era posters.

    When someone commits a really bad act, you need to call them out on it.
    Is this the Nazi era image that was splashed all over the Guardian?
    Splashed all over the place.

    https://www.indy100.com/article/people-are-calling-out-ukips-new-antieu-poster-for-resembling-outright-nazi-propaganda--WkTYUB18EW
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 39,749
    All the same religion and of the same 'cultural' background. What are the chances?!

    'Chichester child abuse'

    https://tinyurl.com/ycegu4du
  • AnazinaAnazina Posts: 3,487

    HYUFD said:

    Prince William is looking more and more like Stephen Kinnock by the day and Kate Middleton does not look much different from Helle Thorning Schmidt either
    None of the monarchs lined up to come will look impressive next to HM QEII.
    Republicanism is coming. 10 years of Charles as King and even the Royal family will be campaigning for a republic.

    As a republican we'd be screwed if Prince Harry was the first son not the second son.

    If only James Hewitt had met Princess Diana sooner.
    Prince Harry and Princess Anne would both be impressive, in my view.

    Charles is damaged goods, and I think even he knows it.
    Well therein lies the inherent problem with the monarchy system doesn't it? You can't pick and choose your leader. The fact that the current monarch is neutral enough to be deemed vaguely acceptable to most people is just an accident of history. She could just as easily have been a deranged sadist with a penchant for eating live gerbils.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,019

    HYUFD said:

    Prince William is looking more and more like Stephen Kinnock by the day and Kate Middleton does not look much different from Helle Thorning Schmidt either
    None of the monarchs lined up to come will look impressive next to HM QEII.
    Republicanism is coming. 10 years of Charles as King and even the Royal family will be campaigning for a republic.

    As a republican we'd be screwed if Prince Harry was the first son not the second son.

    If only James Hewitt had met Princess Diana sooner.
    Prince Harry and Princess Anne would both be impressive, in my view.

    Charles is damaged goods, and I think even he knows it.
    God no to Princess Anne, really bad personal manners.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-461338/Hands-orf-One-pick-oneself-says-Anne.html

    https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/9575/Princess-Anne-s-tirade-at-man-who-rushed-to-her-aid
    She’s inherited a bit of her father’s temper. But that is really minor stuff.

    She is widely respected by most who’ve met her or worked with her, including my wife.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 25,165

    tlg86 said:

    Mr. Meeks, do you believe everyone who voted leave must necessarily endorse (or specifically recant) everything everyone who campaigned to leave did and said?

    If not, then surely you'd accept there were various reasons to vote for leave, as there were for remain, and that voting one way or another does not imply or demand that a given individual supports everything the very many groups and individuals in either campaign did?

    Apply your logic to Corbyn and the stench of anti-Semitism around him and you're giving a free pass to Labour members and supporters.

    Yet people on here and elsewhere were defending Farage's Nazi era posters.

    When someone commits a really bad act, you need to call them out on it.
    Is this the Nazi era image that was splashed all over the Guardian?
    Splashed all over the place.

    https://www.indy100.com/article/people-are-calling-out-ukips-new-antieu-poster-for-resembling-outright-nazi-propaganda--WkTYUB18EW
    I meant it had previously been used by the Guardian. But more in a "someone must do something (but obviously not us in Hampstead Heath)" kind of way.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 39,749
    Anazina said:

    HYUFD said:

    Prince William is looking more and more like Stephen Kinnock by the day and Kate Middleton does not look much different from Helle Thorning Schmidt either
    None of the monarchs lined up to come will look impressive next to HM QEII.
    Republicanism is coming. 10 years of Charles as King and even the Royal family will be campaigning for a republic.

    As a republican we'd be screwed if Prince Harry was the first son not the second son.

    If only James Hewitt had met Princess Diana sooner.
    Prince Harry and Princess Anne would both be impressive, in my view.

    Charles is damaged goods, and I think even he knows it.
    Well therein lies the inherent problem with the monarchy system doesn't it? You can't pick and choose your leader. The fact that the current monarch is neutral enough to be deemed vaguely acceptable to most people is just an accident of history. She could just as easily have been a deranged sadist with a penchant for eating live gerbils.
    As one of the Lizard Illumanati, presumably she may well eat live gerbils.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340

    kle4 said:

    Mr. Meeks, do you believe everyone who voted leave must necessarily endorse (or specifically recant) everything everyone who campaigned to leave did and said?

    If not, then surely you'd accept there were various reasons to vote for leave, as there were for remain, and that voting one way or another does not imply or demand that a given individual supports everything the very many groups and individuals in either campaign did?

    Don't try to be reasonable to a fanatic. Particularly when they reject anyone who does recant as asked, demonstrating that is not actually the goal, but a mere fig leaf
    He asks that Leavers reach out to Remainers and their concerns as a way of making them engage with him. Then, when they do so, he personally accuses them of moral turpitude, and provokes then to respond to prove his point, usually by insulting their intelligence.

    It’s a form of sport to him. If he’s consistently ignored he’ll soon get bored of it.
    I make a direct point that none of the Leavers on here has even tried to answer: how do Leavers think they can condemn Jeremy Corbyn's complaisance towards anti-Semitism when they themselves have rallied behind a flag of xenophobic lies?

    Sooner or later Leavers are going to realise that they cannot simply pretend that the manner of their victory is now history. It is going to contaminate British politics for decades and it is only going to get worse the longer Leavers try to ignore the problem.
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 8,981

    kle4 said:

    So how many silver bullets is it that the PB Tories have loaded up against Jezzah?

    I make it:

    Association with IRA
    Association with Hamas
    Association with Venezuela
    Being a Stalinist/Communist/Marxist
    Not wearing a tie
    Bonking Abbott
    Not immediately demanding a nuclear strike on Moscow after Salisbury

    Good luck with the freshly minted hollow point antisemitism round, lads.

    Yes it won't take him down. It's still relevant considering he admits the party needs to get to grips with this.

    I never understood why his past with Abbott was relevant. It's nice they have remained friends for so long.
    I think it is relevant - would she have been promoted to such high profile positions if they hadn't had a pre-existing relationship?

    Given her past record, it is hard to make a case for her promotion being on merit.
    She was Shad Min Health under Miliband, and got Home sec at a time nobody else wanted the gig.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 113,969
    edited March 2018


    She’s inherited a bit of her father’s temper. But that is really minor stuff.

    She is widely respected by most who’ve met her or worked with her, including my wife.

    I disagree, The Duke of Edinburgh visited my father and his colleagues a few years back.

    An absolute gent they all said, no faffing around him, no temper, put everyone at east straight away, just a lovely old guy that liked to meet new people and learn stuff, very passionate about the deaf.

    This is a lovely story about the DoE from a White House butler.

    When reflecting on his fondest memory, Westray talks about a time in 1979 when Queen Elizabeth II and Prince Philip visited the White House. After dinner, Prince Philip went into the Red Room, next to the state dining room. Westray and his buddy were serving liquor. Westray says he was carrying the tray and glasses.

    "The prince was in there by himself, which was odd, because everybody else had gone down to the other end of the building," Westray says. "I said, 'Your Majesty, would you care for a cordial?' He says, 'I'll take one if you let me serve it.' What do you do? I didn't do all that because I had the stuff in my hand. And he says, 'If you let me pour it, I'll have one with you.'

    "... So he poured it, the one he wanted, and we took the same thing that he had. And we had our drink there together and had a little talk while we were there. He told us if we were ever over there in London to stop at Buckingham Palace and see him. Can you imagine the prince serving you? I enjoyed it. You know, we're not supposed to drink and carry on at that time. We're not guests. It was just the three of us in the room, so nobody knew what happened. And I drank my little cordial, we all drank, and had a little conversation. But that was one thing I'll never forget, having been served by royalty."


    https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=99418917
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 40,950

    All the same religion and of the same 'cultural' background. What are the chances?!

    'Chichester child abuse'

    https://tinyurl.com/ycegu4du

    More than one called "Mike".
  • felixfelix Posts: 15,124

    Oh well, if the Observer/C4 won't investifate REMAIN's (much greater) spending, Guido has a handy guide:

    https://order-order.com/2018/03/26/remain-campaign-used-exactly-spending-tactics-vote-leave-far-worse/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

    Two campaigns led by prominent Conservatives broke the spending rules: what are the odds?
    Much worse than for the LDs - have they paid their fine yet ?
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    See I’m not in a minority, time to shaft the DUP and Norn Iron. Cheerio Norn Iron, you’re getting reunited with the 26 counties.

    LBC can reveal that more Brits would prioritise leaving the European Union than maintaining the United Kingdom in its current form.

    Our poll with YouGov shows that 36% of people think leaving the EU is more of a priority than keeping Northern Ireland in the United Kingdom (29%).

    And 71% of people that chose the EU over Northern Ireland voted Brexit.


    http://www.lbc.co.uk/hot-topics/eu-referendum/brits-would-rather-leave-eu-than-keep-n-ireland/

    No. First most will want to keep NI in the UK and have Brexit and secondly while the DUP remains the largest party in Northern Ireland it is an irrelevant discussion anyway however much a liberal non Unionist like you may wish to break up the Union we Conservative and Unionists will ensure that is not the case
    Meanwhile, an overwhelming majority of Tory voters said they would prioritise leaving the EU over maintaining a United Kingdom - which very much goes against the party's full name - the Conservative and Unionist party.
    Most Tory voters want to preserve the Union and have Brexit, hence the 90% of Scottish Tories who voted No in Scotland in 2014 and the 60% of UK Tories who voted Leave in 2016
    This poll says otherwise.
    The poll forced them to chose one or the other, HYFUD is arguing that they would have both - no doubt Tories are overwhelmingly in favour of keeping NI in the UK
    True Unionists would give up Brexit to preserve the Union in a forced choice question.
    Not if they believe that, over time, the Union will dissolve into mush as part of the EU
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,019


    She’s inherited a bit of her father’s temper. But that is really minor stuff.

    She is widely respected by most who’ve met her or worked with her, including my wife.

    I disagree, The Duke of Edinburgh visited my father and his colleagues a few years back.

    An absolute gent they all said, no faffing around him, no temper, put everyone at east straight away, just a lovely old guy that liked to meet new people and learn stuff, very passionate about the deaf.

    This is a lovely story about the DoE from a White House butler.

    When reflecting on his fondest memory, Westray talks about a time in 1979 when Queen Elizabeth II and Prince Philip visited the White House. After dinner, Prince Philip went into the Red Room, next to the state dining room. Westray and his buddy were serving liquor. Westray says he was carrying the tray and glasses.

    "The prince was in there by himself, which was odd, because everybody else had gone down to the other end of the building," Westray says. "I said, 'Your Majesty, would you care for a cordial?' He says, 'I'll take one if you let me serve it.' What do you do? I didn't do all that because I had the stuff in my hand. And he says, 'If you let me pour it, I'll have one with you.'

    "... So he poured it, the one he wanted, and we took the same thing that he had. And we had our drink there together and had a little talk while we were there. He told us if we were ever over there in London to stop at Buckingham Palace and see him. Can you imagine the prince serving you? I enjoyed it. You know, we're not supposed to drink and carry on at that time. We're not guests. It was just the three of us in the room, so nobody knew what happened. And I drank my little cordial, we all drank, and had a little conversation. But that was one thing I'll never forget, having been served by royalty."


    https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=99418917
    We all have our stories.

    I’ve always found Princess Anne respectful and impressive.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 47,789
    Charles said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    See I’m not in a minority, time to shaft the DUP and Norn Iron. Cheerio Norn Iron, you’re getting reunited with the 26 counties.

    LBC can reveal that more Brits would prioritise leaving the European Union than maintaining the United Kingdom in its current form.

    Our poll with YouGov shows that 36% of people think leaving the EU is more of a priority than keeping Northern Ireland in the United Kingdom (29%).

    And 71% of people that chose the EU over Northern Ireland voted Brexit.


    http://www.lbc.co.uk/hot-topics/eu-referendum/brits-would-rather-leave-eu-than-keep-n-ireland/

    No. First most will want to keep NI in the UK and have Brexit and secondly while the DUP remains the largest party in Northern Ireland it is an irrelevant discussion anyway however much a liberal non Unionist like you may wish to break up the Union we Conservative and Unionists will ensure that is not the case
    Meanwhile, an overwhelming majority of Tory voters said they would prioritise leaving the EU over maintaining a United Kingdom - which very much goes against the party's full name - the Conservative and Unionist party.
    Most Tory voters want to preserve the Union and have Brexit, hence the 90% of Scottish Tories who voted No in Scotland in 2014 and the 60% of UK Tories who voted Leave in 2016
    This poll says otherwise.
    The poll forced them to chose one or the other, HYFUD is arguing that they would have both - no doubt Tories are overwhelmingly in favour of keeping NI in the UK
    True Unionists would give up Brexit to preserve the Union in a forced choice question.
    Not if they believe that, over time, the Union will dissolve into mush as part of the EU
    You mean they want it to go out with a bang rather than a whimper?
  • TheJezziahTheJezziah Posts: 3,840
    edited March 2018

    Mr. Meeks, do you believe everyone who voted leave must necessarily endorse (or specifically recant) everything everyone who campaigned to leave did and said?

    If not, then surely you'd accept there were various reasons to vote for leave, as there were for remain, and that voting one way or another does not imply or demand that a given individual supports everything the very many groups and individuals in either campaign did?

    Apply your logic to Corbyn and the stench of anti-Semitism around him and you're giving a free pass to Labour members and supporters.

    Yet people on here and elsewhere were defending Farage's Nazi era posters.

    When someone commits a really bad act, you need to call them out on it.
    The difference being of course that was used and campaigned on for Brexit, the anti-semitism has been used against rather than positively for Corbyn and Labour. Corbyn hasn't once come out and made speeches as leader were he even dog whistled to the idea of anti-semitism to anywhere near the extent that was done for Brexit.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    RobD said:
    Once is unlucky, twice careless...

    What’s three times?
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 58,043
    Charles said:

    RobD said:
    Once is unlucky, twice careless...

    What’s three times?
    https://twitter.com/budgie/status/978240366292979712
  • Blue_rogBlue_rog Posts: 2,019

    All the same religion and of the same 'cultural' background. What are the chances?!

    'Chichester child abuse'

    https://tinyurl.com/ycegu4du

    I think they should be locked away until they die. The C of E has a lot to answer for in how they internally police the clergy.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 40,950

    Mr. Meeks, do you believe everyone who voted leave must necessarily endorse (or specifically recant) everything everyone who campaigned to leave did and said?

    If not, then surely you'd accept there were various reasons to vote for leave, as there were for remain, and that voting one way or another does not imply or demand that a given individual supports everything the very many groups and individuals in either campaign did?

    Apply your logic to Corbyn and the stench of anti-Semitism around him and you're giving a free pass to Labour members and supporters.

    Yet people on here and elsewhere were defending Farage's Nazi era posters.

    When someone commits a really bad act, you need to call them out on it.
    The difference being of course that was used and campaigned on for Brexit, the anti-semitism has been used against rather than positively for Corbyn and Labour. Corbyn hasn't once come out and made speeches as leader were he even dog whistled to the idea of anti-semitism to anywhere near the extent that was done for Brexit.
    Ask yourself whether if in this current environment you were, say, a Labour Party member, or perhaps even MP or aide who was antisemitic, whether the fact that Corbyn was leader of your party would make you more or less willing to indulge or let be known your predilection? Would you feel more or less inhibited in letting your views be known?
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 113,969
    edited March 2018
    Sixty Russian diplomats in US being expelled amid co-ordinated response to poisoning of Russian ex-spy in UK.

    http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-43545565
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,540


    She’s inherited a bit of her father’s temper. But that is really minor stuff.

    She is widely respected by most who’ve met her or worked with her, including my wife.

    I disagree, The Duke of Edinburgh visited my father and his colleagues a few years back.

    An absolute gent they all said, no faffing around him, no temper, put everyone at east straight away, just a lovely old guy that liked to meet new people and learn stuff, very passionate about the deaf.

    This is a lovely story about the DoE from a White House butler.

    When reflecting on his fondest memory, Westray talks about a time in 1979 when Queen Elizabeth II and Prince Philip visited the White House. After dinner, Prince Philip went into the Red Room, next to the state dining room. Westray and his buddy were serving liquor. Westray says he was carrying the tray and glasses.

    "The prince was in there by himself, which was odd, because everybody else had gone down to the other end of the building," Westray says. "I said, 'Your Majesty, would you care for a cordial?' He says, 'I'll take one if you let me serve it.' What do you do? I didn't do all that because I had the stuff in my hand. And he says, 'If you let me pour it, I'll have one with you.'

    "... So he poured it, the one he wanted, and we took the same thing that he had. And we had our drink there together and had a little talk while we were there. He told us if we were ever over there in London to stop at Buckingham Palace and see him. Can you imagine the prince serving you? I enjoyed it. You know, we're not supposed to drink and carry on at that time. We're not guests. It was just the three of us in the room, so nobody knew what happened. And I drank my little cordial, we all drank, and had a little conversation. But that was one thing I'll never forget, having been served by royalty."


    https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=99418917
    We all have our stories.

    I’ve always found Princess Anne respectful and impressive.
    The knack some senior Royals have is putting people at their ease - like the Duke.

    Many moons ago a friend in the army was deputed to escort the queen mum up some stairs. She gets out of the car & peers up at him (she's tiny, he's tall) 'Young man, are you drunk?'

    Shocked, 'No Mam!'

    'Well I am so you'd better help me up these stairs'.....
This discussion has been closed.