OT. For those interested according to the Jewish groups meeting Corbyn yesterday one of the sticking points was his refusal to sign up to this. I have to say I'm not at all surprised. To agree to this sort of declaration is the slippery slope to totalitarianism.
"....The guidance says it could be considered antisemitic to accuse Jews of being more loyal to Israel or their religion than to their own nations, or to say the existence of Israel is intrinsically racist."
To accuse someone of having a greater loyalty to a foreign power (“Papusm” for example) absolutely makes them “other” and - in the case of Jews - would 100% by antisemitic
Similarly to implicitly deny the right of Israel to exist (by saying that it is intrinsically racist in the way that France or Germany is not) is very much anti-Semitic
Wouldn't most religious people say they owe some form of a higher loyalty to their religion rather than their country? Give unto Caesar what is Caesar's etc.?
The whole point of “render unto Caesar” is that it differentiated between temporal and spiritual authority.
Temporal authority is due to the legal government of the country you are in. To say that loyalty is first to another country is to create a group that is different and can be attached
A nice bit of whataboutery. But Jezza has been kippered here.
He will talk the talk but he'll never walk the walk if it doesn't suit. You can insult the Tories all you want, but it doesn't absolve 'ol Bonehead.
BTW, I think signing up to Ed-Stones, codes of conduct or whatever is just meaningless frippery, but refusing to so in this situation is making a point.
You brought up Tebbit!
I hold no brief for Jezza, and from a pragmatically political pov I'd rather see his inconsistencies and hypocrisies pointed out. However that being so, I'd rather winnow out the manufactured & partisan outrage from the real thing.
Perhaps he is a Remainer wibble-merchant who prefers a convenient UK-trashing 4-month-old forecast to the inconvenient actual data which shows the forecast was wrong.
OT. For those interested according to the Jewish groups meeting Corbyn yesterday one of the sticking points was his refusal to sign up to this. I have to say I'm not at all surprised. To agree to this sort of declaration is the slippery slope to totalitarianism.
"....The guidance says it could be considered antisemitic to accuse Jews of being more loyal to Israel or their religion than to their own nations, or to say the existence of Israel is intrinsically racist."
To accuse someone of having a greater loyalty to a foreign power (“Papusm” for example) absolutely makes them “other” and - in the case of Jews - would 100% by antisemitic
Similarly to implicitly deny the right of Israel to exist (by saying that it is intrinsically racist in the way that France or Germany is not) is very much anti-Semitic
The 'Right of Return' is what makes it racist not it's existence.
It's their aggregate 2017 Trump approval rating polling broken down by state.
West Virginia North Dakota Wyoming South Dakota Alabama Oklahoma Idaho Montana Kentucky Tennessee Arkansas Alaska Nebraska Louisiana Kansas South Carolina Mississippi Utah
Is the list of states where he has a net positive approval rating.
"However that being so, I'd rather winnow out the manufactured & partisan outrage from the real thing."
A sentiment with which I agree (as the thread is also discussing grammar).
Winnowing out hypocrisy is also helpful, but without it, politics would cease to exist. To be fair to Jezza, signing it would be hypocritical so he's avoided one trap.
"Was anyone suggesting at the time that Tebbit's test should be formally adopted by the Conservative party?"
Sorry, but I don't see your point. My point is that the Labour Party considered this racist. Why don't they consider the Jewish theme racist too and sign up to show that? is it because they are Jewish?
Just like the Conservative party disavowed the cricket test and disowned Tebbit? Oh, that's right, they made Norm a peer and right now they're having to clean up a mess due to them creating a hostile environment for immigrants.
It was Labour who first started creating that hostile environment. As they admitted last week.
The list of things labour did first or started is quite interesting considering much of the critique of the government is based around the follow up of those policies.
Voter ID. 2002 act required the use of photo ID in Northern Ireland. Energy price controls were removed by labour in 1999 and 2001 and market competition replaced regulation of both gas and electricity prices 2006 welfare acts introduced local housing allowances which connected housing benefit payments to the number of bedrooms you need, it this was only applied to the private sector. The same act also brought in benefit sanctions and the concept that pretty much you are never written off as a disabled person without a job and the rules (along with atos appointed assessments) would be used to ‘support’ those to get work that is suitable for them. Inidivdual voter registration was referred to in the 2010 labour manifesto as something that the ground work had been done and would be implemented soon. Use of the private sector (and internal market) had increasingly become common under Burnham and his predecessor with the concept that the NHS is the service being about free at point of use, not about who owns the company doing it. GP fund holding had been well down the Cumbria as a pilot long before the cons implemented it across England. Academies had been a corner stone of Blair’s school policy. The final act of parliament on academies went through from support by the conservatives.
I'm not questioning the data. I'm surprised that so many first hand accounts are dismissed by Leavers. Even Michael "had enough of experts" Gove apparently accepts them.
How many is 'so many' ?
And are any of these anecdotes questioned in these media reports ?
It should be easy to compare the farmer with the anecdote with what other farmers in the area are experiencing yet this never seems to be done.
I would suggest this is good advice to follow when encountering anecdotes from vested interests reported in biased publications:
' What can we do to combat this? In short, be sceptical. If you’re told something eyebrow-raising, look for a primary source to back it up. Try to get context.
Be especially sceptical of information that produces a strong emotional response from you. Ask yourself who wants to produce that response.
Don’t be part of the problem. If you are retweeting without first checking your information, you are a vector. '
OT. For those interested according to the Jewish groups meeting Corbyn yesterday one of the sticking points was his refusal to sign up to this. I have to say I'm not at all surprised. To agree to this sort of declaration is the slippery slope to totalitarianism.
"....The guidance says it could be considered antisemitic to accuse Jews of being more loyal to Israel or their religion than to their own nations, or to say the existence of Israel is intrinsically racist."
To accuse someone of having a greater loyalty to a foreign power (“Papusm” for example) absolutely makes them “other” and - in the case of Jews - would 100% by antisemitic
Similarly to implicitly deny the right of Israel to exist (by saying that it is intrinsically racist in the way that France or Germany is not) is very much anti-Semitic
The 'Right of Return' is what makes it racist not it's existence.
Given that a third of the World's Jews were murdered in recent terms, a right of return is pretty reasonable.
I'm not questioning the data. I'm surprised that so many first hand accounts are dismissed by Leavers. Even Michael "had enough of experts" Gove apparently accepts them.
How many is 'so many' ?
And are any of these anecdotes questioned in these media reports ?
It should be easy to compare the farmer with the anecdote with what other farmers in the area are experiencing yet this never seems to be done.
I would suggest this is good advice to follow when encountering anecdotes from vested interests reported in biased publications:
' What can we do to combat this? In short, be sceptical. If you’re told something eyebrow-raising, look for a primary source to back it up. Try to get context.
Be especially sceptical of information that produces a strong emotional response from you. Ask yourself who wants to produce that response.
Don’t be part of the problem. If you are retweeting without first checking your information, you are a vector. '
I'm not doubting the ONS's figures. I am doubting your ability to see what's in front of you. Michael Gove accepts that the NFU have made a compelling case. Be more Michael.
Comments
Temporal authority is due to the legal government of the country you are in. To say that loyalty is first to another country is to create a group that is different and can be attached
I hold no brief for Jezza, and from a pragmatically political pov I'd rather see his inconsistencies and hypocrisies pointed out. However that being so, I'd rather winnow out the manufactured & partisan outrage from the real thing.
http://news.gallup.com/poll/226454/trump-approval-highest-west-virginia-lowest-vermont.aspx?g_source=link_NEWSV9&g_medium=SIDEBOTTOM&g_campaign=item_203207&g_content=Trump's%20Approval%20Highest%20in%20West%20Virginia,%20Lowest%20in%20Vermont
It's their aggregate 2017 Trump approval rating polling broken down by state.
West Virginia
North Dakota
Wyoming
South Dakota
Alabama
Oklahoma
Idaho
Montana
Kentucky
Tennessee
Arkansas
Alaska
Nebraska
Louisiana
Kansas
South Carolina
Mississippi
Utah
Is the list of states where he has a net positive approval rating.
"However that being so, I'd rather winnow out the manufactured & partisan outrage from the real thing."
A sentiment with which I agree (as the thread is also discussing grammar).
Winnowing out hypocrisy is also helpful, but without it, politics would cease to exist. To be fair to Jezza, signing it would be hypocritical so he's avoided one trap.
Voter ID. 2002 act required the use of photo ID in Northern Ireland.
Energy price controls were removed by labour in 1999 and 2001 and market competition replaced regulation of both gas and electricity prices
2006 welfare acts introduced local housing allowances which connected housing benefit payments to the number of bedrooms you need, it this was only applied to the private sector. The same act also brought in benefit sanctions and the concept that pretty much you are never written off as a disabled person without a job and the rules (along with atos appointed assessments) would be used to ‘support’ those to get work that is suitable for them.
Inidivdual voter registration was referred to in the 2010 labour manifesto as something that the ground work had been done and would be implemented soon.
Use of the private sector (and internal market) had increasingly become common under Burnham and his predecessor with the concept that the NHS is the service being about free at point of use, not about who owns the company doing it.
GP fund holding had been well down the Cumbria as a pilot long before the cons implemented it across England.
Academies had been a corner stone of Blair’s school policy. The final act of parliament on academies went through from support by the conservatives.
And are any of these anecdotes questioned in these media reports ?
It should be easy to compare the farmer with the anecdote with what other farmers in the area are experiencing yet this never seems to be done.
I would suggest this is good advice to follow when encountering anecdotes from vested interests reported in biased publications:
' What can we do to combat this? In short, be sceptical. If you’re told something eyebrow-raising, look for a primary source to back it up. Try to get context.
Be especially sceptical of information that produces a strong emotional response from you. Ask yourself who wants to produce that response.
Don’t be part of the problem. If you are retweeting without first checking your information, you are a vector. '
Here is a primary source:
https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/employmentandemployeetypes/timeseries/jwr5/lms