Viking Supporters Co-operative
Viking Chat => Off Topic => Topic started by: Cantley Rover on July 23, 2018, 07:09:38 pm
-
I a bit surprised this hasn't been raised on here. For me the answer is a big NO. Criticizing Israel for the way they have treated the population of Palestine in my mind is not antisemitic.
-
It's far above my level but from an open point of view why not just adopt the internationally held code for anti semitism? Seems simple.
No doubt there are anti semitics in all parties but to say labour is as a whole is ridiculous. Surprising Corbyn lets it linger, we can only speculate why he hasn't done what to me is an obvious thing and accept what most accept?
-
Agree 100% Corbyn is right to criticise Israel for their treatment of Palestine, and the anti-semitism "thing" is being pro-longed by the usual suspects in the media
-
I don’t know if Corbyn is anti-semitic, but if he isn’t, he certainly leaves himself open to that accusation.
His public support for this mural for example was, at best, crassly stupid.
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/mar/28/antisemitism-open-your-eyes-jeremy-corbyn-labour
His apology (that he only glanced at it and didn’t see the hook-nosed Jewish caricatures and the Elders of Zion inferences right in the centre of it) was troublesome too. It suggested either outright lying or a lack of care. Neither are particularly impressive traits in a future PM.
-
Well it didn't seem to matter to Tony Blair when he was telling us about all the weapons of mass destruction that Sadam had...
Yes there are certainly people within the Labour Party who are anti-semitic, just as there are people who are pro-Zionist (the Labour Friends of Israel refusing to condemn the Israeli army for the video of unarmed protestors being shot in the back for instance).
But I believe they are both very small minority who are far out-numbered by the more rational and balanced members who can tell the difference between criticism of the actions of the current Israeli government and blaming any Jewish person for them.
If you are interested in left wing Judaism and where they fit into the Labour Party and movement today can I recommend following the group Jewdas https://twitter.com/geoffreyjewdas
Just waiting now for BST to tell me they are not Jewish because Corbyn attends their ceremonies and BB to tell me I am not disagreeing with him, oy veh....
-
Odd response Wilts.
For the record, I don’t think Corbyn is anti-Semitic. However, I do think he has an unfortunate habit of walking into easily avoidable controversies.
The mural one was, at best, bloody stupid. For an experienced Labour politician to send a message of support to an artist who had produced a disgustingly anti-Semitic work was, at best, carelessly stupid.
And I do think he is overly influenced by the ideological purity of Seamus Milne. On a number of themes. And I suspect the current kerfuffle about the definition of anti-Semitism is one of those themes. It’s a subject that should never have arisen, is a distraction and could and should have easily been put to bed. Instead, Corbyn is giving the IMPRESSION of anti-Semitism.
Silly, immature politics.
-
Billy you read the Guardian to much. This isn't about Seamus Milne and what he thought about Israel in 2009, this is about a small number of labour 'supporters' giving a large amount of anti-semitic abuse to certain right-wing and Jewish figures, not just MP's.
Not accepting that and trying to see anti-semitism as what Corbyn thinks, is as bad as supporting it.
There are anti-semites in the Labour Party and they should be kicked out. It is not Jeremy Corbyn's job to do this nor is he responsible for what other people do or say. He is not Stalin however much you want him to be.
-
Wilts.
I rarely read the Guardian. But I do see Milne's dabs on every student union navel gazing debate that the Labour leadership has.
By the way, I've absolutely no idea what Milne thought about Israel in 2009. I don't drill that far down into his detail. It's enough to see his top-line policy direction. The one-dimensional one where you divide the world into Oppressors and Victims and decide your foreign policy from there. If you're a Victim, you cannot be an Oppressor (hence, Putin and Assad are OK to carpet bomb Aleppo because they are not America). If you're an Oppressor, you cannot be a Victim (hence Israel is basically wrong because they are not Palestine).
It is Foreign Policy by 6th Form debate. Simplified and simplistic. But it fits an ideology that Milne wants to push. So that's what Labour has got for its Foreign Policy.
As for Corbyn, and our discussion of him, you'd do better reading what I say about him, rather than trying to second guess what you think I think about him. He's not Stalin. He's a fundamentally well-intentioned man who isn't very savvy and who bumbles into easily avoidable disasters. Because to avoid them would require him to face down the 1980s lefties who he's associated with all his life, and who would accuse him of being ideologically unsaaaaarrrrnnndd if he didn't follow their line.
If he figured out how to tell them to f**k off, Labour would be 20 points ahead in the polls and we'd be on target for the best Labour Govt since 1945. While ever he gets dragged into their discussions and obsessions, Labour are in danger of letting the worst Govt and worst PM for more than 100 years define this era.
The fact that Labour is having a debate about the precise wording of it's beliefs about anti-Semitism at such a crucial point in our history is precisely what I'm talking about. It's the equivalent of discussions over whether to rename the Union Building the Nelson Mandela Building in the 1980s. Its great in the big scheme of things but it is self defeating in the present. Shut the f**king debate down and focus on what actually matters now.
-
Exactly and this is just the sort of news that this bumbling Government thrives on . Basically they are able to get away with policy decisions and subsequent disasters that most if not all poor governments of the past would have fallen foul of
Whilst Labour continue walking into traps of their own making , it is difficult if not nigh on impossible, to see them ever having a workable majority at least in the short to medium term .
The arithmetic is against them already and it would be harder still to form a government should Scotland ever gain independence.
Why present the Opposition with easy " own goals " that allow them to cover up their own deficiencies both in personell and poor policies ? Before Labour are to govern again they must exploit every opportunity presented to them to alter public perception and pile the pressure on what must be the worst government in decades.
-
By the way Wilts. I’ve only just spotted this.
Why on EARTH did you bring up Blair and WMD when we’re talking about Corbyn and the current Labour Party?
-
As you may recall I have been a fervid Corbyn supporter.
But the Labour leadership is more and more reminding me of Pythons Judean Popular Front; determined to have yet another debate about nothing while the s**t is hitting the fan everywhere else.
-
.......Or was it the Peoples Front of Judea?
-
Let's be honest. If Labour had a half decent leader they would be in power now. Both main parties are not worth a single vote
-
I'll be honest and say that even though I am a Corbyn supporter I don't think he'll become PM and his responses on Brexit lately and on the poisonings left a bit to be desired. However, if he appoints a successor who he can successfully put over to his voters - and let's be clear, the thousands of new voters Labour gained at the last GE are his voters - while also not being quite so easy to attack by the right, Labour will be in power. It's not the man himself, but the change he represents for me at this point.
On topic, no, the Labour Party is not anti-semitic, at least not in any endemic way. There are fringe elements of course, but these are blown up beyond all proportion by MPs from both sides using it for political gain.
-
I'll be honest and say that even though I am a Corbyn supporter I don't think he'll become PM and his responses on Brexit lately and on the poisonings left a bit to be desired. However, if he appoints a successor who he can successfully put over to his voters - and let's be clear, the thousands of new voters Labour gained at the last GE are his voters - while also not being quite so easy to attack by the right, Labour will be in power. It's not the man himself, but the change he represents for me at this point.
On topic, no, the Labour Party is not anti-semitic, at least not in any endemic way. There are fringe elements of course, but these are blown up beyond all proportion by MPs from both sides using it for political gain.
You want Corbyn to appoint the next leader? I thought it was an elected post! :silly:
-
I'll be honest and say that even though I am a Corbyn supporter I don't think he'll become PM and his responses on Brexit lately and on the poisonings left a bit to be desired. However, if he appoints a successor who he can successfully put over to his voters - and let's be clear, the thousands of new voters Labour gained at the last GE are his voters - while also not being quite so easy to attack by the right, Labour will be in power. It's not the man himself, but the change he represents for me at this point.
On topic, no, the Labour Party is not anti-semitic, at least not in any endemic way. There are fringe elements of course, but these are blown up beyond all proportion by MPs from both sides using it for political gain.
You want Corbyn to appoint the next leader? I thought it was an elected post! :silly:
Appoint was the wrong word you are correct! I worded that terribly but what I meant was hopefully the party will see sense and elect a left-wing leader who gets Corbyn's blessing to get his base onside with the new leader.
-
I'd rather they elected a leader that all sides of the party can get behind without needing anyone's blessing.
-
Be nice if we had a government like that (pipe dream) politics is broken in the is country, too polarised both in the gulf between the main parties and internally to parties too.
-
I'd rather they elected a leader that all sides of the party can get behind without needing anyone's blessing.
Me too, but you know that's probably unrealistic. Like him or not, Corbyn energised a voter base that was previously apathetic for a long time. If he can pass that energy on to his successor, or if his successor can find it themselves, Labour will be in a strong position.
-
I'd rather they elected a leader that all sides of the party can get behind without needing anyone's blessing.
Me too, but you know that's probably unrealistic. Like him or not, Corbyn energised a voter base that was previously apathetic for a long time. If he can pass that energy on to his successor, or if his successor can find it themselves, Labour will be in a strong position.
I get the impression that if a new leader wants to unify the party, Corbyn blessing them would be the last thing they'd want.
-
I've ditched Corbs and Labour temporarily while he's indulging this Brexit malarkey. No party that will happily flush the country down the shitter will get a vote from me regardless of its other policies.
I'd rather they elected a leader that all sides of the party can get behind without needing anyone's blessing.
Me too, but you know that's probably unrealistic. Like him or not, Corbyn energised a voter base that was previously apathetic for a long time. If he can pass that energy on to his successor, or if his successor can find it themselves, Labour will be in a strong position.
I get the impression that if a new leader wants to unify the party, Corbyn blessing them would be the last thing they'd want.
That however is the most politically naive comment I've ever heard. There's some fantastic Labour MPs that Corbyn has around him who would be ideal to follow him once he's decided enoughs enough. They have to maintain the new generation of voters that Corbyn has created and an endorsement from will ensure that (and pretty much guarantee they're the new Labour leader, they'd certainly get my vote through my Union affiliation). A return to a neo-liberal leader would be the biggest disaster and would destroy that movement and work dead.
-
I've ditched Corbs and Labour temporarily while he's indulging this Brexit malarkey. No party that will happily flush the country down the shitter will get a vote from me regardless of its other policies.
I'd rather they elected a leader that all sides of the party can get behind without needing anyone's blessing.
Me too, but you know that's probably unrealistic. Like him or not, Corbyn energised a voter base that was previously apathetic for a long time. If he can pass that energy on to his successor, or if his successor can find it themselves, Labour will be in a strong position.
I get the impression that if a new leader wants to unify the party, Corbyn blessing them would be the last thing they'd want.
That however is the most politically naive comment I've ever heard. There's some fantastic Labour MPs that Corbyn has around him who would be ideal to follow him once he's decided enoughs enough. They have to maintain the new generation of voters that Corbyn has created and an endorsement from will ensure that (and pretty much guarantee they're the new Labour leader, they'd certainly get my vote through my Union affiliation). A return to a neo-liberal leader would be the biggest disaster and would destroy that movement and work dead.
You think one of Corbyn's apostles will unite the Labour Party and you call me naive?
Nobody that wants to unite the Labour Party, whether they're from the left or right, needs blessings from anybody; they need a clean slate.
-
The implication that you believe anyone on the right side of the party will be anything but a token nomination to be the next leader of the Labour party doesn't do your image of not being naive any good.
-
Who could have possibly predicted that Corbyn would indulge this Brexit mularkey?
-
I agree with the opening post, and that is why this issue is more than a squabble about precise definitions.
There is a reasonable summary here;
https://www.thecanary.co/uk/analysis/2018/07/17/corbyn-receives-a-huge-boost-from-36-jewish-groups-worldwide-which-is-awkward-for-the-media/
A broader question is why the mainstream media have an interest in blowing this up out of all proportion.
If you reduce it to the core question
"Do the Labour Party and its members have a right to criticise the actions of the Israeli state",
then I believe a majority would support that position.
It is no different to other countries having a right to comment on UK foreign policy.
The idea that to criticise Israeli policy and actions is anti-semitic in itself is completely ridiculous.
-
Albie
The point is that the entire debate could have been put to bed by simply accepting the internationally agreed definition.
Done.
Finished.
Instead, the self-indulgent navel gazing has led to an external appearance of anti-Semitism among the leadership. And in politics, appearances matter as much as substance.
-
The implication that you believe anyone on the right side of the party will be anything but a token nomination to be the next leader of the Labour party doesn't do your image of not being naive any good.
Like some MPs put Corbyn up as a token leftie nomination when he won, you mean?
-
BST,
I understand your point of view, but disagree with you that accepting the International definition would be the ethical choice, and I also doubt it would end the debate.
It is not self indulgent navel gazing to restrict future comment on human rights abuses in order to avoid contention. The issues the Israeli state are accused of are fundamental to the rule of law in a democratic world.
So I am pleased that Labour has taken a principled stand on this, and hope to see them do the same on other ethical questions going forward.
-
Albie
I didn't say it would be the ethical choice. I meant that it would be the pragmatic choice.
Top level political leadership involves far more than maintaining ideological purity. It requires tough compromises and setting of priorities.
By letting this internal debate roll on, the leadership may well be attempting to secure an ethical outcome. It will count for nothing if it allows them to be painted by their opponents as anti-Semites, and results in them not winning the next election.
-
BST
If not an ethical choice, then how pragmatic would it be?
Consider the response the next time Israel is accused of a human rights violation after any change.
If Labour supporters objected, they would be accused of anti semitic behaviour in castigating Israel.
The International code supports this interpretation by default.
That is why it should be challenged.
The issue is that the code is not fit for purpose, and that needs to be debated.
All Politics is about pragmatism in the short to mid term, but it must be informed by a solid ethical base.
I don't think that discounting ethics is a game the Labour movement should embrace.
Look at Blair and WMD if you want to see where that leads!
-
Albie
Consider the response the next time Israel is accused of a human rights violation after any change.
If Labour supporters objected, they would be accused of anti semitic behaviour in castigating Israel.
The International code supports this interpretation by default.
I’ve no idea where you’ve got that interpretation from, but here’s the verbatim quote from the IHRA website.
https://www.holocaustremembrance.com/working-definition-antisemitism
...criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic.
The really contentious issue is that the Labour leadership refuses to acknowledge this definition of anti-Semitism.
Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.
This is not about leaving space for realistic and fair criticism of Israel. It’s about a debate on ideological purity that has obsessed many in left wing politics for decades.
By the way, I’ve nearly got a line on my Blair/WMD bingo card.
-
But anyway. While we’re talking about anti-Semitism...
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.newsweek.com/trump-russia-jewish-farage-brexit-698486%3famp=1
-
BST
The media scrum would always use any occasion to focus upon a key meme.
Dog whistle politics, thats their game.
The right to self determination clause is fundamental because it runs in opposition to say, a Palestinian right to self determination. By what means are actions to be measured where they advantage one claim to the disadvantage of another?
Interesting perspective here, from a Jewish commentator;
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jul/20/labour-code-of-conduct-not-antisemitic
The real question the media should look at is the anti Muslim bias within the Conservative Party.
Baroness Warsi has been getting more Bolshi by the day on this.
-
Albie.
No. The right to self determination for Israel does not preclude the same right for Palestine. We were very close to a workable two-state solution in the 1990s when relatively moderate people were in charge. The problem since then has been that the extremists who don’t want compromise have taken over on both sides.
And you’re right. The emphasis SHOULD be on the Tories. But it won’t be so long as Labour continues to stick out it’s chin and shout “Free Punch!”
-
And yes. You WILL find some Jewish people who will be against the IHRA definition. There’s a debate going on. My point is that it is utterly counterproductive for Labour to allow themselves to be defined by that debate.
There’s a widely accepted international definition of Anti-Semitism. Some people don’t agree with it but most do. Just accept it. Even if you disagree with 5% of it.
I’m speaking here as someone who used to be active in relatively far left politics. The problem is that you get obsessives for whom the word “pragmatism” is the worst insult you can hurl. It’s all about being pure to an ideological line. This whole issue reeks of that attitude.
-
The real question the media should look at is the anti Muslim bias within the Conservative Party.
Baroness Warsi has been getting more Bolshi by the day on this.
In otherwords what Labour do is fine because the Tories do something else, talk about an unwillingness to face the issue, Symptomatic of politics and society in general, deflection and denial
-
And yes. You WILL find some Jewish people who will be against the IHRA definition. There’s a debate going on. My point is that it is utterly counterproductive for Labour to allow themselves to be defined by that debate.
There’s a widely accepted international definition of Anti-Semitism. Some people don’t agree with it but most do. Just accept it. Even if you disagree with 5% of it.
I’m speaking here as someone who used to be active in relatively far left politics. The problem is that you get obsessives for whom the word “pragmatism” is the worst insult you can hurl. It’s all about being pure to an ideological line. This whole issue reeks of that attitude.
I'm no Corbyn fan but I think a lot of the outrage is bogus. At the same time, it isn't clever, wherever you stand on the political spectrum, to invoke Nazism and The Holocaust in contemporary political discourse. Had Labour adopted the definition they could have put this to bed.
-
Precisely the point TRB. The problem is that there are many on The Left for whom ideological debates are a way of life. And Corbyn has been one of those all his political life. So the idea of “putting this to bed and getting on with the real agenda” doesn’t get much air time. Because if you disagree with the ideologically correct line, you’re immediately no longer one of us.
-
Precisely the point TRB. The problem is that there are many on The Left for whom ideological debates are a way of life. And Corbyn has been one of those all his political life. So the idea of “putting this to bed and getting on with the real agenda” doesn’t get much air time. Because if you disagree with the ideologically correct line, you’re immediately no longer one of us.
I saw this about Corbyn. I thought it summed things up quite neatly.
https://mobile.twitter.com/MichaelDugher/status/1024636758582075392?p=v
Of course, if you're a Corbyn supporter you will disagree completely.
-
The labour party attracts by definition the less well off members of society. It has tried with some success to attract the working class Muslim population in the inner cities throughout the country.
By their very nature, whether you accept it or not that population is anti semitic, whether it upsets you or not, it is a fact, and certain factions within the Labour party will pander to their view. It may not be their official stance, because to admit it as fact would do them no good, and would be pounced on by the media.
Whether you accept it or not the factions within the party will keep pushing their view in the background, but if they come to the fore it will cost the party votes, pandering to them.
So yes, not officially, but elements of the party most definitely.
-
I have been to Auschwitz. I have also been to Yad Vashem. They are both very evocative and emotional places and essential visiting if you are ever in the area.
So it is not only for that reason that I still can't get the idea straight in my head as to why asking a survivor from Auschwitz to talk of his experiences in the camp and what lessons can be learnt from that today is anti-semitic. The wrong type of Jew? Weird.
I have given my thoughts earlier on in this thread. So I now recommend this article by Mark Steel that concludes:
We should all agree that
a) there is antisemitism on the left, and that hasn’t been conclusively dealt with;
b) Opponents of Corbyn have cynically exaggerated this for their own purpose;
and c) Both things can be true at once, because as extraordinary as it seems, it’s possible for two different sets of people to both be talking shite.
https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/antisemitism-labour-party-jeremy-corbyn-jewish-holocaust-survivor-abuse-a8474846.html
-
In a formal statement this morning Corbyn said he is not anti Semitic and anyone who thinks otherwise can keep there big nose out of it!
-
In a formal statement this morning Corbyn said he is not anti Semitic and anyone who thinks otherwise can keep there big nose out of it!
Of course you think that is funny. Here we have the Tories, the MSM and of course the BBC playing the biggest game of whataboutery to cover up the mess that the Tory Party has presided over in decades.
Well what do the Labour Party do - well sweet fa , they allow this to persistently hit the headlines instead of drawing a line under it! Now call me stupid but is the way for an Opposition Party to seek power ? Actually BE an Opposition Party instead of coming out with mealy - mouthed words .....fecking Oppose properly. What do you actually stand for anymore because from where I'm standing ; it's not to help the weak, the poor and the working class.
-
I don’t get so wound up over labour or the tories I will just keep plodding along and what will be will be
-
I don’t get so wound up over labour or the tories I will just keep plodding along and what will be will be
Nice if you can switch off like that, I think sometimes that's the easy way out - far too easy , my family have far too much riding on this bpool . In less than 3 weeks time my daughter starts studying in Denmark. No deal means a lot to us and for that matter most everyone else in this country - we have alot riding on this .
-
I no mate but getting wound up won’t change anything, the tories can’t call a second referendum or they will be voted straight out of power, labour I’m not sure want to be in power until brexit as happened or they will be in the same position the tories are, yes there is a lot riding on it but my opinion is the end result won’t be anywhere near as bad as you think, so enjoy life mate until it actually happens
-
I no mate but getting wound up won’t change anything, the tories can’t call a second referendum or they will be voted straight out of power, labour I’m not sure want to be in power until brexit as happened or they will be in the same position the tories are, yes there is a lot riding on it but my opinion is the end result won’t be anywhere near as bad as you think, so enjoy life mate until it actually happens
And your opinion that the end result won't be anywhere near as bad as he thinks is based on what, exactly?
-
1 a opinion 2 I can’t be bothered putting link after link up anymore as they will be off the leave side so it’s pointless, my point was he will worry himself into a early grave when he should be enjoying life
-
I am a LP member and have never met a antisemitic individual .I have no doubt that following the massive influx of members over the last couple of years you could find the odd antisemitic dude who has fallen for some conspiracy theory .You could also find flat earthers's if you look hard enough .The reality is this is the basis of a third attempted coup by the billionaire owned MSM and the blairite relics who want to preserve there power base.JC has been accused of being an IRA sympathiser ,check spy ,Putins stooge and now antisematic .Just shows how desperate the stars quo are to discredit him.Pick on the oldest conflict in the world just when its escalating due to Trumps interference and blame it on JC.Then put pressure on adopting this controversial definition of antisemitism which be the way is aimed to stifle any criticism of right wing israeli government attrocities.A very dangerous precedent for free speech.Meanwhile ignore brexit and the crisis in government .Cant believe how manipulated people are to swallow this crap judging by some of the comments on this subject.
-
I am a LP member and have never met a antisemitic individual .I have no doubt that following the massive influx of members over the last couple of years you could find the odd antisemitic dude who has fallen for some conspiracy theory .You could also find flat earthers's if you look hard enough .The reality is this is the basis of a third attempted coup by the billionaire owned MSM and the blairite relics who want to preserve there power base.JC has been accused of being an IRA sympathiser ,check spy ,Putins stooge and now antisematic .Just shows how desperate the stars quo are to discredit him.Pick on the oldest conflict in the world just when its escalating due to Trumps interference and blame it on JC.Then put pressure on adopting this controversial definition of antisemitism which be the way is aimed to stifle any criticism of right wing israeli government attrocities.A very dangerous precedent for free speech.Meanwhile ignore brexit and the crisis in government .Cant believe how manipulated people are to swallow this crap judging by some of the comments on this subject.
The wreath laying stunt has shown him up for what he is an anti Semitic, IRA Terrorist sympathiser. Wtf is he doing in charge of the Labour Party. Other than ensuring we have to endure another 5 years of Tory hell!
-
I’m pretty sure that Corbyn isn’t anti-Semitic. I do think he’s genuine in his claim that he’s against all prejudice.
The problem is what I’ve pointed out earlier in this thread. It’s the one-dimensional approach that he and his core team has to foreign policy.
It’s simple. It’s all about who is seen as being powerful and who isn’t.
The less powerful, in Corbyn’s world, cannot be criticised for hitting out at the more powerful.
Israel is seen as being more powerful than the Palestinians. Therefore what Israel does is wrong, but what the Palestinians do (like murdering innocent Israeli athletes) is a justified act of resistance. And the heroes who carry out those attacks should be lauded.
That’s his approach. Consistent right down the line for decades. When he was a backbencher...
Except now of course, he has to win over an electorate. And the electorate don’t see it the same way. So now when he’s faced with his lifelong beliefs and actions, it suddenly becomes “Well, I was THERE (at the laying of a wreath to commemorate the Palestinians who carried out the Munich killings) but I didn’t participate in laying the wreath.”
See. He KNOWS that he’s unelectable if he tries to argue what he truly believes - that the Palestinian killers WERE heroes. So he has to pretend that he doesn’t really think that.
This is the new politics that Corbyn promised us. It’s a right f**king mess. And it’s in danger of giving a free pass to the most f**king useless Govt for more than a century.
-
Has he ever laid a Wreath at the cenotaph or the Menin Gate? If he has I haven't got a problem with him..............!
-
Of course he has. Every Remembrance Sunday since he became leader.
-
Has he ever laid a Wreath at the cenotaph or the Menin Gate? If he has I haven't got a problem with him..............!
Of course he has why wouldn't he? What he did in this case was a poor choice, though one he probably didn't think mattered too much as he'd never go on to be near power.
Granted the media with agendas are playing it up and it doesn't make much difference to a lot of Labour policy, but it builds that narrative around him as making strange choices. What I don't like about him on this is not his choices but his backtracking - he either believes in what he did or he doesn't? The whole "I was there but I wasn't involved thing" is a pretty poor response. He's supposed to be liked because of his honesty.
It will make no difference to his fanatics though. He could probably do just about anything in their eyes.
-
I would argue that criticizing the policies of the State of Israel is not anti-Semitic. I would also argue that criticizing the tenets and practices of Islam is not racist. However try convincing people on either side of the argument of that!
-
TRB
Agreed on all three points.
As I posted up the page, the IHRA statement says "...criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic."
So people who are saying that the reason Labour don't want to sign up to the IHRA definition of anti-semitism is because it will stop them making valid criticisms of Israel's policies are either misguided or trying to misguide others.
-
Ouch.
https://mobile.twitter.com/rickburin/status/1029001210462982144
-
Ouch.
https://mobile.twitter.com/rickburin/status/1029001210462982144
The whole business with the wreath reminds of that politician (can't remember who) who admitted to smoking pot when he was a student but claimed he didn't inhale.
-
He is a twit, consistently has made bad choices and has never thought of their long term consequences.
-
TRB
It was Bill Clinton.
-
I for one am getting pretty much fed up with the lot of them..Maybe if BOTH party's spent more time in concentrating on doing whats best for this country rather than constantly trying to score cheap pointless political digs at each other..Then maybe just maybe this country could move forward...
-
TRB
It was Bill Clinton.
Was it him? I knew he later found other purposes for cigars. 😊
-
TRB
It was Bill Clinton.
Or was it this Australian
https://www.smh.com.au/national/abbott-i-tried-marijuana-but-didnt-inhale-20040725-gdjf1e.html
-
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=K3wfm-pwH4k
-
I for one am getting pretty much fed up with the lot of them..Maybe if BOTH party's spent more time in concentrating on doing whats best for this country rather than constantly trying to score cheap pointless political digs at each other..Then maybe just maybe this country could move forward...
Im with you
I have banged on (too long) about PR but flwed as it may be it should avoid extremism either way - and off the top of my head stop the DUP getting 10 Seats with 295,000* (and of course the balance of Power) where the Green Party gets 1 Seat for 550,000 votes *
Just cant be fair. Give us PR and then things might get better
* I excuse myself for guessing at the number of Votes / Seats but I cant be bothered to look it up as it just winds me up !
-
I am a LP member and have never met a antisemitic individual .I have no doubt that following the massive influx of members over the last couple of years you could find the odd antisemitic dude who has fallen for some conspiracy theory .You could also find flat earthers's if you look hard enough .The reality is this is the basis of a third attempted coup by the billionaire owned MSM and the blairite relics who want to preserve there power base.JC has been accused of being an IRA sympathiser ,check spy ,Putins stooge and now antisematic .Just shows how desperate the stars quo are to discredit him.Pick on the oldest conflict in the world just when its escalating due to Trumps interference and blame it on JC.Then put pressure on adopting this controversial definition of antisemitism which be the way is aimed to stifle any criticism of right wing israeli government attrocities.A very dangerous precedent for free speech.Meanwhile ignore brexit and the crisis in government .Cant believe how manipulated people are to swallow this crap judging by some of the comments on this subject.
The wreath laying stunt has shown him up for what he is an anti Semitic, IRA Terrorist sympathiser. Wtf is he doing in charge of the Labour Party. Other than ensuring we have to endure another 5 years of Tory hell!
He is in charge of the LP because he was elected twice by the rank and file and has the biggest swing to labour since 1945 based upon his policies .This makes us the largest socialist movement in europe currently showing a 5 per cent lead in the polls.Hence the smear campaign.Cant do the link thing but would urge you to look at the full interview regarding the wreath issue as he it is gerrymandered to facilitate opinions like yours.Central to his interview is the message that the cycle of violence needs to be broken through dialogue .This is hardly an endorsement for terrorism .
-
I’m pretty sure that Corbyn isn’t anti-Semitic. I do think he’s genuine in his claim that he’s against all prejudice.
The problem is what I’ve pointed out earlier in this thread. It’s the one-dimensional approach that he and his core team has to foreign policy.
It’s simple. It’s all about who is seen as being powerful and who isn’t.
The less powerful, in Corbyn’s world, cannot be criticised for hitting out at the more powerful.
Israel is seen as being more powerful than the Palestinians. Therefore what Israel does is wrong, but what the Palestinians do (like murdering innocent Israeli athletes) is a justified act of resistance. And the heroes who carry out those attacks should be lauded.
That’s his approach. Consistent right down the line for decades. When he was a backbencher...
Except now of course, he has to win over an electorate. And the electorate don’t see it the same way. So now when he’s faced with his lifelong beliefs and actions, it suddenly becomes “Well, I was THERE (at the laying of a wreath to commemorate the Palestinians who carried out the Munich killings) but I didn’t participate in laying the wreath.”
See. He KNOWS that he’s unelectable if he tries to argue what he truly believes - that the Palestinian killers WERE heroes. So he has to pretend that he doesn’t really think that.
This is the new politics that Corbyn promised us. It’s a right f**king mess. And it’s in danger of giving a free pass to the most f**king useless Govt for more than a century.
Dont agree with your analogy although acknowledge there are some discrepancies when dealing with a hostile press .This is mainly because many of the PLP exist to undermine a socialist agenda that departs from the neo liberal agenda they have benefited from via the gravy train.MPs like Mann et al are there to undermine any credible attempt to get elected .Hence the recent reported secret meeting looking to form a third centre party should the unthinkable happen .Many people like me believe that socialism is not an electoral liability but the fifth column have smelt blood and capitulation in my opinion is a massive tactical mistake.JC is isolated and surrounded by advisors like lansman who adopt this approach.There needs to be a bridge between the JC and the rank and file but standing in the way is twenty years of blairite corruption .This needs to be challenged and OMOV will take care of this .
Ask yourself why all his critics focus upon historical issues involving foreign policy such as IRA ,Hamas ,Putin etc .Then ask yourself why the MSM don't focus upon domestic policies such as the NHS etc.Could it be that they know challenging austerity is proving vastly popular with the electorate on the bread and butter issues relevant to our communities .
The most f---ing useless government in a century will continue if the left fail .This will give rise to the right with clowns like Tommy Robinson et al who by the way have links with Israel and finance by zionists .By using this latter word i risk being labelled antisemitic and expulsion under the controversial definition .This is the basis of my objection as it is already happening in the current witch hunt climate .The irony is that the first ones to challenge historically the NF ,BNP etc and now the EDL to put there necks on the line will be the ones like J Walker while the so called moderates will be hiding behind there keyboards .
Your a clever bloke do the math
-
DP
You’re preaching to the converted in your last paragraph. I’ve been saying for 3 years that I fully agree with Corbyn’s domestic policies.
The problem IS his foreign policy. It is an electoral liability and it offers free hits for the Tories and the press. That’s HIS responsibility. It’s up to HIM to sort it out.
-
Not strictly on topic but interesting to note that anti-semitism has become so rife that the EU has now been accused of it, for scheduling their next meeting on Yom Kippur.
https://www.politico.eu/article/jewish-officials-question-timing-of-eu-summit-yom-kippur-anti-semitism/
-
I am a LP member and have never met a antisemitic individual .I have no doubt that following the massive influx of members over the last couple of years you could find the odd antisemitic dude who has fallen for some conspiracy theory .You could also find flat earthers's if you look hard enough .The reality is this is the basis of a third attempted coup by the billionaire owned MSM and the blairite relics who want to preserve there power base.JC has been accused of being an IRA sympathiser ,check spy ,Putins stooge and now antisematic .Just shows how desperate the stars quo are to discredit him.Pick on the oldest conflict in the world just when its escalating due to Trumps interference and blame it on JC.Then put pressure on adopting this controversial definition of antisemitism which be the way is aimed to stifle any criticism of right wing israeli government attrocities.A very dangerous precedent for free speech.Meanwhile ignore brexit and the crisis in government .Cant believe how manipulated people are to swallow this crap judging by some of the comments on this subject.
The wreath laying stunt has shown him up for what he is an anti Semitic, IRA Terrorist sympathiser. Wtf is he doing in charge of the Labour Party. Other than ensuring we have to endure another 5 years of Tory hell!
From Dennis Skinner on his FB account
Have seen the U.K. reports that Jeremy Corbyn laid a wreath at the grave of the Munich Terrorists in Tunisia. This report carries the small logistical problem of the Munich Terrorists being buried in Libya, not Tunisia. The commemoration Jeremy attended was to mark the 1985 bombing of Tunisia by Israel that killed 47. Now, in fairness to the Daily Mail, Libya and Tunisia are in the minds of its readership as much of a muchness. But if you crack out that atlas and scroll your finger along North Africa you’ll see them damn natives actually make up two different countries. I can confirm Jeremy has never attended a wreath laying ceremony in Libya, nor has he attended the service of a Munich Terrorist. Enjoy the rest of your day folks.x
-
I can't believe you lot would want a labour government. The tories are a load of shite, what a weak kneed leader they have. But Labourwould lead us on the road to oblivion. They have no interest in the British working class. They have forgot what they were set up for.
-
You obviously haven’t looked looked at Labour’s domestic policies then AL.
Investment in infrastructure.
Investment in manufacturing.
Long-term re-structuring of the economy away from the financial sector.
An end to the stupid obsession with Austerity that has f**ked up the last decade.
Precisely what is needed to give a better future for the working class.
-
Problem is bst at the last election they promised everyone everything, and the rich were going to pay for it, people didn’t believe that they could afford to deliver what they said, it would be better if they didn’t promise everything and were realistic they would have much more chance of winning
-
Almost as if they didn't publish a fully costed manifesto...
oh wait.
-
Bpool.
I’m not sure what they could do to convince you. As RJ says, they published a fully costed manifesto. They were NOT proposing huge tax rises. They were proposing to run a balanced current budget (i.e. that existing taxes with some very minor increases would pay for all day to day costs - NHS, benefits, pensions, schools, Defence etc).
What was a welcome change from the Tories’ plans was that they were planning to do what every sensible economist in the world has been screaming at our Govt to do for 8 years - borrow money to pay for big infrastructure investments. New social houses. New roads. New rail upgrades. New ultra-fast broadband. The Govt can borrow at negative interest rates compared to inflation. Those projects would put skilled jobs back on the table, boost the economy and provide tax receipts to pay for themselves.
It was an absolute no-brainer. Unless you get your news from The Express.
-
You obviously haven’t looked looked at Labour’s domestic policies then AL.
Investment in infrastructure.
Investment in manufacturing.
Long-term re-structuring of the economy away from the financial sector.
An end to the stupid obsession with Austerity that has f**ked up the last decade.
Precisely what is needed to give a better future for the working class.
Blair opened the floodgates to the world to come here and take the few jobs we already had, how did that benefit the working class?
-
Calling Israel out for their policies towards the Palestian people is not anti semetic
-
https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-the-labour-manifesto Now I could post varied links doubting that it is fully costed and the institute of fiscal studies are far from certain the figures will bring in anywhere near as much money as labour think, in fact they said the same about the tories, but that labour might well damage the economy
-
Bpool
The Tories HAVE damaged the economy since they came to power, through the utterly stupid obsession with Austerity. Over the past 8 years, since the end of the Great Recession, we've had the slowest recovery from recession for over 150 years. We KNEW this would happen if we implemented Austerity and it DID happen. As a result, we as a country are massively poorer than we should have been. We lost something between 4-8% of GDP between 2010-2012 (depending on whose figures you take) compared to what we would have had if we'd had a sensible recovery from the recession and we have never made that up. The cost of that is truly terrifying. We're now something between £500-1000bn poorer as a country that we would have been if we'd had a proper recovery in 2010-12. That means we've lost, permanently, something like 4-8 times the annual budget of the entire NHS. Or 10-20 times the annual defence budget.
It ought to be the cause for national outrage, but for some reason, no one ever mentions it. It is Austerity and not immigration which has f**ked over the working class over the past decade. It's Austerity that is the reason that we are all working harder without getting any better off. And THAT was the Tories' choice. The biggest economic policy disaster of any Govt since the 1920s.
-
But if you were to ask 30 independent money people I reckon 2 thirds would trust there money with the tories and not labour! Labour offered everything to everyone that simply can't happen bst
-
You keep saying that but what exactly does that even mean. Or have you just lazily decided it?
-
Answered your own question there RedJ.
-
I believe blackpool is correct. Those people with money would sooner back the Tories than Labour - as is shown in the funding and donation figures of the two parties. The result of that being the massive wealth disparity in the country perfectly demonstrated by the salaries for CEO's rising 6 times faster than that of workers as announced this week. The richest 10% own 45% of the wealth in the UK - the poorest 50% less than 9%.
The Tories fought the 2010 and 2015 elections on fiscal responsibilty and the need to reduce the National Debt so as not to leave it for our grandchildren to pay off. Of course it was no coincidence they ignored it in 2017 as rather than reducing it they have trebled it!
So I can easily see why millionaires wouldn't wish to vote for a party that would clamp down on their tax havens and tax-free bonuses. They dont use public services or the NHS, why should they pay for them?
Though why any ordinary worker or pensioner thinks that what benefits millionaires benefits him or her is beyond me.
https://www.equalitytrust.org.uk/scale-economic-inequality-uk
-
But if you were to ask 30 independent money people I reckon 2 thirds would trust there money with the tories and not labour! Labour offered everything to everyone that simply can't happen bst
If you were to ask 30 macroeconomic experts which party had the more sensible economic plans, 20 would say Labour.
These are people whose life work is to study the effect that Govt decisions have on the economy and to develop predictions which can be compared to how things actually pan out. They were tearing their hair out and screaming that Austerity was bloody stupid back in 2010. They’ve been proved right.
-
But if you were to ask 30 independent money people I reckon 2 thirds would trust there money with the tories and not labour! Labour offered everything to everyone that simply can't happen bst
If you were to ask 30 macroeconomic experts which party had the more sensible economic plans, 20 would say Labour.
These are people whose life work is to study the effect that Govt decisions have on the economy and to develop predictions which can be compared to how things actually pan out. They were tearing their hair out and screaming that Austerity was bloody stupid back in 2010. They’ve been proved right.
It's the perception that counts and I/we always get back to who controls the media, the majority of the media is controlled by the wealthy industrialists and bankers etc and media they don't control is constantly criticised by them in an attempt to shut it and its influence down. Most of the rags, oops sorry the tabloid form of media sell their sports stories along with the tits and bums but all the while they drip feed the masses into believing that those out of work don't want work that it the immigrants that are taking jobs and ruining the country, undermining all the positives about those subjects, in fact breaking up and undermining the vote that would normally go to the left leaning parties.
-
There was a very revealing blog exchange a few years ago between Simon Wren-Lewis, Oxford Prof of Macroeconomics, and Jeremy Warner, Assistant Economics Editor at the Telegraph.
Warner made some claims about the economic benefits of Austerity.
Wren-Lewis replies by pointing out the logical mistakes he had made, and demonstrating that Austerity was very bad for the economy.
The exchange went back and forth for a bit. Warner kept making claims. Wren-Lewis kept knocking them down.
Then Warner cracked and said something very revealing. He wrote an article (which has since been taken down from the Telegraph website) titled “Oh God I can’t take any more of this Austerity debate!” In it, he firstly accused Wren-Lewis of arrogance (presumably for pointing out facts). Then he said:
“In the end, you are either a big-state person, or a small-state person, and what big-state people hate about austerity is that its primary purpose is to shrink the size of government spending.
“The bottom line is that you can only really make serious inroads into the size of the state during an economic crisis. This may be pro-cyclical, but there is never any appetite for it in the good times; it can only be done in the bad.”
(“Pro-cyclical” is an economist’s term for Govt policy reinforcing the direction that the economy is going. Sensible policy should be anti-cyclical to stop booms booming too much, and slumps going on too long. So the textbook policy is that Govt spending should increase in a slump and decrease in a boom. What the Tories did was to slash it in a slump. And the slump went on for 3 years too long as a result.)
There you have it in black and white. A right-wing journalist whose job it is to educate and inform people about economics stating baldly that Austerity was never about economics. It was about political ideology. He’s saying it clearly and plainly there. It doesn’t matter if the country takes a massive and entirely avoidable economic hit, as long as you succeed in changing the ideological outlook.
And people accuse Labour of being eeconomically dangerous class warriors. f**k me...
-
There was a very revealing blog exchange a few years ago between Simon Wren-Lewis, Oxford Prof of Macroeconomics, and Jeremy Warner, Assistant Economics Editor at the Telegraph.
Warner made some claims about the economic benefits of Austerity.
Wren-Lewis replies by pointing out the logical mistakes he had made, and demonstrating that Austerity was very bad for the economy.
The exchange went back and forth for a bit. Warner kept making claims. Wren-Lewis kept knocking them down.
Then Warner cracked and said something very revealing. He wrote an article (which has since been taken down from the Telegraph website) titled “Oh God I can’t take any more of this Austerity debate!” In it, he firstly accused Wren-Lewis of arrogance (presumably for pointing out facts). Then he said:
“In the end, you are either a big-state person, or a small-state person, and what big-state people hate about austerity is that its primary purpose is to shrink the size of government spending.
“The bottom line is that you can only really make serious inroads into the size of the state during an economic crisis. This may be pro-cyclical, but there is never any appetite for it in the good times; it can only be done in the bad.”
(“Pro-cyclical” is an economist’s term for Govt policy reinforcing the direction that the economy is going. Sensible policy should be anti-cyclical to stop booms booming too much, and slumps going on too long.)
There you have it in black and white. A right-wing journalist whose job it is to educate and inform people about economics stating baldly that Austerity was never about economics. It was about political ideology.
Thanks BST, and this is how its done, give tax cuts to big business and the rich, reduce the amount of money available in the budget and then cut back on services to ''balance the books'' to show you are a ''responsible'' government. The pea and thimble trick.
''Osborne’s huge tax giveaway starts for rich – as the poor are hit''
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/apr/01/huge-tax-giveaway-for-rich-as-poor-are-hit-george-osborne-tax-benefit-budget-changes.
''Tax cuts for the rich don't help the rest. Don't take my word for it, ask the IMF''
https://www.theguardian.com/business/grogonomics/2017/sep/10/tax-cuts-for-the-rich-dont-help-the-rest-dont-take-my-word-for-it-ask-the-imf
''Governments in Europe, most notably the United Kingdom, have also pursued tax cuts for the rich while imposing austerity measures on the working classes. And the European financier class has benefited even more directly than their American counterparts from these budgets.''
https://www.huffingtonpost.com.au/entry/austerity-wall-street_n_1690838
-
The ifs are worried that taxing the rich would raise nothing like labour expect, let's say there right, what then where will labour get the money to fund all there promises?
-
I was also reading how any of it would benefit people on working tax credits and benefits as there the poorest people as a rule, and still can't figure out how anyone will be any better off?
-
The ifs are worried that taxing the rich would raise nothing like labour expect, let's say there right, what then where will labour get the money to fund all there promises?
Probs the same place you're getting this "promising everything to everyone" spiel.
-
Ok
-
The ifs are worried that taxing the rich would raise nothing like labour expect, let's say there right, what then where will labour get the money to fund all there promises?
Taxation as you've said. Borrowing at rock-bottom interest rates and using that to invest in the economy, infrastructure, education, public sector jobs, etc etc. This then stimulates the economy and the resulting increase in GDP means these promises effectively pay for themselves. It's pretty basic pump-priming economic theory. What the IFS actually said was that it's possible this might not work as well as Labour hoped because it's dependent on the economy starting up again, but it is all based on sound economic theory that's been tried and tested time and time again over decades, however it was certainly the most workable of all the party manifestos.
It's like deciding not to put petrol in your car because you're worried it might not start anyway. Putting petrol in your car doesn't guarantee that it'll start, but it's a safe bet that it will, and it's a damn sight better than not putting any petrol in at all because you're ideologically opposed to it, and just hoping the car magically starts itself somehow. Even if you don't end up filling the tank, it's better than nothing, wouldn't you agree?
-
What the ifs said was a bit more than that macho as you probably no, they said both the tories and labour were misleading people and that labour would raise spending and taxes to record highs
-
What the ifs said was a bit more than that macho as you probably no, they said both the tories and labour were misleading people and that labour would raise spending and taxes to record highs
Taxes objectively weren't going to be raised to record highs. You can look that up. You posted up a link to a fact checker the other day, right?
And you're moving the goalposts again. Initially you were going on about unemployment under Labour. You got proved wrong there. Then you moved on to debt levels under Labour. Proven wrong again. Then you said the IFS said Labour's economic plan wouldn't work. They didn't. Now it's the IFS said Labour would raise taxes to record levels, when they wouldn't! The manifesto outlined an increase in corporation tax and plans for an increase in income tax for those earning above £80k a year.
Raising government spending isn't always a bad thing, especially not when government spending is at rock bottom levels, with 2 (Tory-run) councils going bust in the last year, police numbers are being slashed, the NHS is struggling to cope, etc etc. Raising government spending way above where it needs to be isn't good, but it's also not what anyone is suggesting.
-
https://amp.theguardian.com/business/2017/may/26/conservative-labour-tax-spending-plans-ifs-general-election-manifesto. Everything I said is in the always reliable guardian paper quoting the independent ifs
-
Where was I proven wrong on debt levels both sides and independent people are split on it it's down to interpretation, as far as the NHS you can't keep throwing money at it without making changes,yes they need more money but it needs to go to the right places and with far less waste
-
I'm not just a Tory voter macho, I have voted labour before and I would again if you take corbyn and McDonnell out of the equation and if they were honest where the money will come from, everything they said was give give give well that is not possible it is not possible just to target te rich the money has to come from other places to, again I want to know how they will help the worse off without raising benefits because if they do that unemployment will just rise as they will make it pointless 2 people on low incomes working it's not far off that now
-
https://amp.theguardian.com/business/2017/may/26/conservative-labour-tax-spending-plans-ifs-general-election-manifesto. Everything I said is in the always reliable guardian paper quoting the independent ifs
Not quite. Highest spending since the mid-1980s and high taxation in peacetime. However, that's not what the IFS are criticising, because high spending and taxation are not inherently bad things. They're criticising that they don't think the manifesto would raise as much as Labour say, which is fair enough. However, the article you linked doesn't take into account the effects of borrowing at rock-bottom interest rates and investing that into the economy, leading to jobs and infrastructure and so on. Surely you must agree that trying and failing to reach a higher bar is better than digging deeper into the ground? There's a huge difference between "Labour's plan might not raise the full amount they want" and "Tory Austerity f**king the economy to the tune of £6bn". What is the alternative? More austerity?
As you're posting Guardian links: https://www.theguardian.com/news/2017/jun/03/the-big-issue-labour-manifesto-what-economy-needs?CMP=fb_gu
129 leading economists backed Labour's manifesto. These aren't just limp-wristed shandy-drinking lefties, these are people who dedicate their lives to this stuff. It's not just hiking taxes, it's increasing borrowing and diverting money that's already being spent inefficiently down to the working classes. Again, simple pump-priming stuff that has worked in the past.
-
What the ifs said was a bit more than that macho as you probably no, they said both the tories and labour were misleading people and that labour would raise spending and taxes to record highs
Whereas the Tories have raised taxes to record highs - and thats before the Autumn Budget where they have to find the money that May promised the NHS. The difference being that Labour would raise income tax for the richest where the Tories raise 'stealth taxes', fuel duty, VAT etc, for everybody.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/6840388/brit-tax-burden-highest-since-1970/
-
Sweden and Denmark have far higher taxes than us and far higher Govt spending. They also have far higher quality of life, per capita income and happiness index scores.
Makes you think.
-
And as a by the way, McDonnell’s economic policies were developed in tandem with a committee made up of 7 leading macroeconomic Professors, including one Nobel Prize winner. The idea put about by some of the Press that they are some sort of mad far left set of loony policies is ridiculous. Labour’s policies are to the right of what a any UK Govt did between 1945 and 1975. Several members of that committee openly criticised McDonnell for not being radical enough.
-
And as a by the way, McDonnell’s economic policies were developed in tandem with a committee made up of 7 leading macroeconomic Professors, including one Nobel Prize winner. The idea put about by some of the Press that they are some sort of mad far left set of loony policies is ridiculous. Labour’s policies are to the right of what a any UK Govt did between 1945 and 1975. Several members of that committee openly criticised McDonnell for not being radical enough.
So much so that David Owen - absolutely no friend of the left - has started donating to the Labour Party because he agrees with them again.
-
Good job glyn as many have stopped or are stopping donating
-
Bpool
What are you on about? The Labour Party’s membership (paying members) has gone through the roof over the past 3 years.
-
I was also reading how any of it would benefit people on working tax credits and benefits as there the poorest people as a rule, and still can't figure out how anyone will be any better off?
So stick with austerity?
-
Good job glyn as many have stopped or are stopping donating
Got their names and addresses have you? Or are you you just making it up again as usual?
-
Good job glyn as many have stopped or are stopping donating
Sometimes you come out with the most bizarre statements , do you really think that the level of donations = the levels of economic competency ?
Clearly the rich will donate to the Party or organisations that benefit THEM the most - is that not obvious to you yet bpool ? I realise there are holes in the Labour spending plans but do they really compare adversely to the turgid mess that is Austerity or the as yet uncosted Tory manifrsto of 2017 ; I doubt it somehow.
It is well known that I share the same ideology as donnywolf and that I'm no friend of Labour but fact is the Labour plan is the only workable plan in town if checked.
-
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-jeremy-corbyn-antisemitism-sir-david-garrard-luciana-berger-a8283596.html?amp
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/Jeremy_Corbyn/12190512/Labours-biggest-donors-abandon-party-and-pump-140k-into-leadership-challengers.html
https://metro.co.uk/2018/05/31/labour-donations-have-dropped-to-lowest-level-since-records-began-7594301/amp/
https://amp.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jun/23/uks-biggest-political-donor-lord-sainsbury-to-end-his-contributions
Just a few links there are many more glyn
-
See farage is coming back into politics that will be a good boost for labour I think
-
https://amp.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jun/23/uks-biggest-political-donor-lord-sainsbury-to-end-his-contributions
Just a few links there are many more glyn
According to that he only made one donation to Labour.
-
https://metro.co.uk/2018/05/31/labour-donations-have-dropped-to-lowest-level-since-records-began-7594301/amp/
Just a few links there are many more glyn
That one says that Labour gets £20m more donations a year than the Conservatives so I don't think they need to worry just yet.
-
https://amp.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jun/23/uks-biggest-political-donor-lord-sainsbury-to-end-his-contributions
Just a few links there are many more glyn
According to that he only made one donation to Labour.
think you will find he donated to labour for years glum
-
Sweden and Denmark have far higher taxes than us and far higher Govt spending. They also have far higher quality of life, per capita income and happiness index scores.
Makes you think.
just because it works in 1 country it does not mean it will in another
-
No, you’re right BPool. One country as an example proves nothing.
What about 92 countries?
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/RELATION-BETWEEN-TAX-REVENUE-AND-LOG-GDP-C-IN-92-DEVELOPED-AND-DEVELOPING-COUNTRIES-2007_fig6_299900817
-
Lol bst I’ll take your word for it on that link thanks
-
Lol bst I’ll take your word for it on that link thanks
Yep could be for the best bpool on this one. Lol
-
Well we spent weeks discussing if Corbyn was racist
Question now is: is the Tory party racist?
They've just publicly supported the most racist Government in Europe and voted against the EU sanctioning them.
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/conservative-orban-hungary-jewish-deputies-board-antisemitism-tory-british-meps-eu-vote-latest-a8535846.html%3famp
-
Yes of course they are, if as is reported they whipped their MEPs into to supporting what is fast becoming a despotic state and it's leaders.
-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-46070229