General Election 2019 - 12th December

[BillyStubbsTears]

Thank you MM. You're right.

I'll give you my take.

The Tory papers chucked the kitchen sink at Corbyn on the issue of the IRA in 2017 and none of it worked. I think that baffled them.

They now think they've hit a nerve on anti-Semitism. So they are re-doing the attack with a seasoning of anti-Semitism. It seems to have worked for you because your original post talks about the IRA man having anti-Semitic leanings, when in fact there is nothing whatsoever in that article that in any way justifies that.

My bigger issue is that the Mail is simply not trustworthy on reporting issues. I don't say that because it is a right wing paper. I say it from personal experience.

I was involved in a major R&D project a few years ago, involving partners from 7 EU countries, with part funding from the EU. At the end of the project, we put out a press release that got worldwide attention. Papers all round the world quoted our press release verbatim. The Mail was the one and only "newspaper" in the world which surgically removed all reference to other EU country partners and to the EU funding. That was an eye opener for me. That was the day I realised the Mail wasn't an ordinary newspaper. It was a propaganda sheet carefully deciding what information it would hide from its readers. It is beyond disgusting, and deeply, deeply dangerous to democracy.

[Metalmicky]

Thank you MM. You're right.

I'll give you my take.

The Tory papers chucked the kitchen sink at Corbyn on the issue of the IRA in 2017 and none of it worked. I think that baffled them.

They now think they've hit a nerve on anti-Semitism. So they are re-doing the attack with a seasoning of anti-Semitism. It seems to have worked for you because your original post talks about the IRA man having anti-Semitic leanings, when in fact there is nothing whatsoever in that article that in any way justifies that.

My bigger issue is that the Mail is simply not trustworthy on reporting issues. I don't say that because it is a right wing paper. I say it from personal experience.

I was involved in a major R&D project a few years ago, involving partners from 7 EU countries, with part funding from the EU. At the end of the project, we put out a press release that got worldwide attention. Papers all round the world quoted our press release verbatim. The Mail was the one and only "newspaper" in the world which surgically removed all reference to other EU country partners and to the EU funding. That was an eye opener for me. That was the day I realised the Mail wasn't an ordinary newspaper. It was a propaganda sheet carefully deciding what information it would hide from its readers. It is beyond disgusting, and deeply, deeply dangerous to democracy.

My original post doesn't say anything about the IRA man - purely about Corbyn's links and anti-semetic leanings - I also say it's a story by the Daily Mail....

I understand that - and it obviously doesn't match your views - however, many of your own views might not appeal to others, but it doesn't mean you shouldn't be heard or seen

Hence I put up the article for people to view and decide upon......... with impartiality.

[Not Now Kato]

A very good friend of mine has written, twice now, to the Chief Rabbi asking for details of any specific examples of anti-Semitism in the Labour party as he is unable to find any specific examples anywhere.
 
To date, the Chief Rabbi hasn't replied.
 
Strange, if the Labour Party was full of anti-Semitism you'd think the CR would be able to give a few concrete examples!

[Not Now Kato]

And here's a very interesting piece
 
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/dec/04/bishop-auckland-toys-with-tories-in-once-unthinkable-revolution-labour?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_AquaMail
 
The downtrodden, in a downtrodden area look like voting for the very people responsible for them being downtrodden in the first place!
 
The Brain Dead of Britain, deserve all they get!  Sadly, they screw everyone else in the process.

[Metalmicky]

A very good friend of mine has written, twice now, to the Chief Rabbi asking for details of any specific examples of anti-Semitism in the Labour party as he is unable to find any specific examples anywhere.
 
To date, the Chief Rabbi hasn't replied.
 
Strange, if the Labour Party was full of anti-Semitism you'd think the CR would be able to give a few concrete examples!

I'm not taking sides here - but if you want details to it, my earlier post had a link...

[DonnyOsmond]

Corbyn isn't anti-semitic, he might be anti-Israel for their persecution of the Palestinians but it's nothing to do with their religion. People in the Labour party may be anti-semitic but as long as they're dealing with that.

I guess it's no surprise that Corbyn keeps being on the front pages when his dogs mother's owners cousins grandfather is an anti-semite but when Boris Johnson talks of watermelon smiles, bumboys, is islamaphobic, etc it's all ignored.

[wing commander]

   I take the point about the daily mail it is full of rubbish at the best of times and i haven't bothered to even read the article in question because i can imagine what it consists off just reading the posts on this forum..

  However My opinions on Corbyn's.Mcdonnels and Abbots past comments on the IRA which are in the public domain are very strong with hatred i wont despute.And regardless of their politics,manifesto's plans etc I couldnt put a cross in their box based on that alone..

  That of course is because i'm ex military and have experience first hand of that situation,i've known people killed in service by them.One of my old military friends was Irish and they even knee capped his brother because he was in service..As far as i'm concerned the Labour front bench are traitors (strong i know) and i dont want to see them anywhere near power...How can anybody expect me to want to vote for a front bench who publically supported people who at the time were actively trying to kill me and my friends..

  The anti semitism thing is different,i believe that situation has been used as a political football against Labour and a stick to constantly beat them with.Of course there has been cases and it's well known Corbyn has sympathy's to the Palestinian cause as if i'm honest so do i.However not to the extent it's portrayed

[Not Now Kato]

A very good friend of mine has written, twice now, to the Chief Rabbi asking for details of any specific examples of anti-Semitism in the Labour party as he is unable to find any specific examples anywhere.
 
To date, the Chief Rabbi hasn't replied.
 
Strange, if the Labour Party was full of anti-Semitism you'd think the CR would be able to give a few concrete examples!

I'm not taking sides here - but if you want details to it, my earlier post had a link...

My browser won't open that link.  Can you cut and paste the relevant examples and I'll pass them on to my friend? Thanks.

[Metalmicky]

A very good friend of mine has written, twice now, to the Chief Rabbi asking for details of any specific examples of anti-Semitism in the Labour party as he is unable to find any specific examples anywhere.
 
To date, the Chief Rabbi hasn't replied.
 
Strange, if the Labour Party was full of anti-Semitism you'd think the CR would be able to give a few concrete examples!

I'm not taking sides here - but if you want details to it, my earlier post had a link...

My browser won't open that link.  Can you cut and paste the relevant examples and I'll pass them on to my friend? Thanks.

Nope........ perhaps send the link to your friend.

[Not Now Kato]

A very good friend of mine has written, twice now, to the Chief Rabbi asking for details of any specific examples of anti-Semitism in the Labour party as he is unable to find any specific examples anywhere.
 
To date, the Chief Rabbi hasn't replied.
 
Strange, if the Labour Party was full of anti-Semitism you'd think the CR would be able to give a few concrete examples!

I'm not taking sides here - but if you want details to it, my earlier post had a link...

My browser won't open that link.  Can you cut and paste the relevant examples and I'll pass them on to my friend? Thanks.

Nope........ perhaps send the link to your friend.

OK, will do that.

[BillyStubbsTears]

WingCo
Excellent post and I could not argue with any of that. At some time, all conflicts have to fade into the past. McGuiness and Paisley ended up as friends, which says a hell of a lot. But I understand how raw those memories must be for you.

MM
Apologies if I misconstrued your original post.

EDIT. On reflection, of course I don't understand that. That's a stupid thing for me to have said. I never experienced it and I hope I never do, so I can't possibly fully understand what that feels like.

[Not Now Kato]

A very good friend of mine has written, twice now, to the Chief Rabbi asking for details of any specific examples of anti-Semitism in the Labour party as he is unable to find any specific examples anywhere.
 
To date, the Chief Rabbi hasn't replied.
 
Strange, if the Labour Party was full of anti-Semitism you'd think the CR would be able to give a few concrete examples!

I'm not taking sides here - but if you want details to it, my earlier post had a link...

My browser won't open that link.  Can you cut and paste the relevant examples and I'll pass them on to my friend? Thanks.

Nope........ perhaps send the link to your friend.

Hmmmmmmmmmm, sent the link to my friend and he has the same problem opening it!
 
I tried googling it and managed to open it that way, and guess what..........................................
 
There are no examples of Labour Party anti-Semitism whatsoever in that article - so no wonder you were 'reluctant' to cut and paste those non existent examples!  Just a headline, some people are easily swayed.

[tommy toes]

I'm going out canvassing in a bit with Rosie Winterton. It'll be interesting to see what Armthorpe residents mek of it all

[Metalmicky]

A very good friend of mine has written, twice now, to the Chief Rabbi asking for details of any specific examples of anti-Semitism in the Labour party as he is unable to find any specific examples anywhere.
 
To date, the Chief Rabbi hasn't replied.
 
Strange, if the Labour Party was full of anti-Semitism you'd think the CR would be able to give a few concrete examples!

I'm not taking sides here - but if you want details to it, my earlier post had a link...

My browser won't open that link.  Can you cut and paste the relevant examples and I'll pass them on to my friend? Thanks.

Nope........ perhaps send the link to your friend.

Hmmmmmmmmmm, sent the link to my friend and he has the same problem opening it!
 
I tried googling it and managed to open it that way, and guess what..........................................
 
There are no examples of Labour Party anti-Semitism whatsoever in that article - so no wonder you were 'reluctant' to cut and paste those non existent examples!  Just a headline, some people are easily swayed.

Not sure what you're Hmmmmmmmm-ing?  If you read my post, it said "I'm not taking sides here - but if you want details to it, my earlier post had a link..."  I'm not sure which article you read; however, for you and the benefit of impartiality - yet again............ here is the article in full - in which it clearly states that there were hundreds of complaints of antisemitism against members - the large majority of which had not been investigated by the party. 

Jeremy Corbyn faced veteran interviewer Andrew Neil this week, who grilled him on the party’s handling of antisemitism.

The Labour leader was challenged on a case involving a member who shared a video that cast doubt on whether six million Jews died in the Holocaust — but who only received a “reminder of conduct” letter from the party.

Mr Corbyn said he had “strengthened processes” since then and that “during the last few months” he had “proposed that egregious cases should be fast-tracked”.

But FactCheck has seen an internal Labour party document showing that as recently as mid-October, a senior party insider didn’t expect the policy to be implemented until after the general election.

We asked Labour to show us any proof of its having been introduced, but they did not respond to FactCheck’s requests.

Mr Corbyn has also claimed during this election campaign that: “Where anyone has committed any antisemitic acts or made any antisemitic statements, they are either suspended or expelled from the party and we have investigated every single case.”

But Labour’s own general secretary wrote to MPs in February this year setting out dozens of cases where members were found to have been antisemitic, but were not suspended or expelled from the party. The same letter also revealed that hundreds of complaints of antisemitism had not been formally investigated.

Update: what do Labour say?
Since we published this article, Labour have contacted FactCheck to say that the fast-track expulsion policy is now in use and “a number of people have been expelled under those new powers” this month.

We asked for evidence of this and they pointed us to remarks made by Labour’s General Secretary Jennie Formby in Jewish News on November 27: “Just this month a number of members have been expelled using these new powers.” The article was published after Mr Corbyn’s BBC interview, and after we first contacted Labour to ask about the new policy.

Responding to this FactCheck article after its publication, a Labour spokesperson said: “This is nonsense. Channel 4 FactCheck has not provided us with a document or with any evidence to back up its claim but the fact is, this alleged document from more than one month ago is out of date because the new fast-track expulsion procedures are already in use and a number of people have been expelled under those new powers.

“FactCheck has failed in its basic task to check the facts. In line with the Macpherson Principle, all complaints of antisemitism are recorded as such and we look into each complaint we receive. Some complaints do not meet the threshold for a potential breach of the Party’s rules, so they do not proceed beyond that initial stage after they have been recorded and reviewed.”

‘Strengthened processes’
In July this year, Mr Corbyn put forward proposals that would allow Labour’s ruling National Executive Committee (NEC) to set up a special panel to handle cases of antisemitism.

The plan is to give the NEC powers to expel members where appropriate — something that’s currently reserved for the party’s National Constitutional Committee.

We understand this is what Mr Corbyn was referring to when he told Andrew Neil that he had “strengthened processes” and had “proposed egregious cases should be fast-tracked” at some point “in the summer”.

As ever with rule-changes of this kind, the policy needed approval at the Labour party conference, which it got on 21 September.

But FactCheck has seen an internal Labour party document that shows that as recently as October, the new policy had yet to be implemented — and that a senior figure did not expect it to take effect until after the general election.

So Mr Corbyn claims to have “strengthened processes”, but the evidence we’ve seen casts doubt on whether the new policy has actually taken effect.

Antisemites ‘are either suspended or expelled’
It’s not the only time in this election campaign that Mr Corbyn has faced questions on antisemitism.

Last week, he said in the ITV leaders’ debate that: “Where anyone has committed any antisemitic acts or made any antisemitic statements, they are either suspended or expelled from the party and we have investigated every single case.”

But that is at odds with a letter from his party’s general secretary, Jennie Formby, who told Labour MPs that between April 2018 and February 2019, some 16 members were “issued with a formal NEC warning” for antisemitism, 25 got a “reminder of conduct” from the ruling body.

In other words, dozens of Labour members were given sanctions other than suspension or expulsion for antisemitism as recently as 2018-19.

‘We have investigated every single case’
Mr Corbyn was also challenged on his claim that Labour “have investigated every single case” of antisemitism — which the chief rabbi Ephraim Mirvis described as “a mendacious fiction”.

Responding to Rabbi Mirvis’ comments, Mr Corbyn told the BBC: “No, he’s not right. Because he would have to produce the evidence to say that’s mendacious.”

But Ms Formby’s letter from February this year reveals that 220 complaints of antisemitism against members “did not have sufficient evidence of a breach of party rules to proceed with an investigation”.

In any event, claiming to have “investigated every single case” is not as impressive as it seems.

Sources with detailed knowledge of Labour party processes told FactCheck that by definition, a complaint only becomes a “case” once an investigation is launched.

So if you thought Mr Corbyn’s claim that the party has “investigated every single case” meant that every allegation of antisemitism has received a full investigation by the Labour party, you’d be wrong.

[drfchound]

When someone posts a link to a Tory supporting newspaper it is immediately denounced by the Labour supporters on here as rubbish and untrue.
Yet those same people bombard us with articles from such as the Guardian and expect us to believe that everything therein is the gospel truth.
Strange that.

[selby]

  They know they both lie Hound, but think that only one parties lies are the truth. It is called brain washing, or is it brain dead?

[Not Now Kato]

A very good friend of mine has written, twice now, to the Chief Rabbi asking for details of any specific examples of anti-Semitism in the Labour party as he is unable to find any specific examples anywhere.
 
To date, the Chief Rabbi hasn't replied.
 
Strange, if the Labour Party was full of anti-Semitism you'd think the CR would be able to give a few concrete examples!

I'm not taking sides here - but if you want details to it, my earlier post had a link...

My browser won't open that link.  Can you cut and paste the relevant examples and I'll pass them on to my friend? Thanks.

Nope........ perhaps send the link to your friend.

Hmmmmmmmmmm, sent the link to my friend and he has the same problem opening it!
 
I tried googling it and managed to open it that way, and guess what..........................................
 
There are no examples of Labour Party anti-Semitism whatsoever in that article - so no wonder you were 'reluctant' to cut and paste those non existent examples!  Just a headline, some people are easily swayed.

Not sure what you're Hmmmmmmmm-ing?  If you read my post, it said "I'm not taking sides here - but if you want details to it, my earlier post had a link..."  I'm not sure which article you read; however, for you and the benefit of impartiality - yet again............ here is the article in full - in which it clearly states that there were hundreds of complaints of antisemitism against members - the large majority of which had not been investigated by the party. 

Jeremy Corbyn faced veteran interviewer Andrew Neil this week, who grilled him on the party’s handling of antisemitism.

The Labour leader was challenged on a case involving a member who shared a video that cast doubt on whether six million Jews died in the Holocaust — but who only received a “reminder of conduct” letter from the party.

Mr Corbyn said he had “strengthened processes” since then and that “during the last few months” he had “proposed that egregious cases should be fast-tracked”.

But FactCheck has seen an internal Labour party document showing that as recently as mid-October, a senior party insider didn’t expect the policy to be implemented until after the general election.

We asked Labour to show us any proof of its having been introduced, but they did not respond to FactCheck’s requests.

Mr Corbyn has also claimed during this election campaign that: “Where anyone has committed any antisemitic acts or made any antisemitic statements, they are either suspended or expelled from the party and we have investigated every single case.”

But Labour’s own general secretary wrote to MPs in February this year setting out dozens of cases where members were found to have been antisemitic, but were not suspended or expelled from the party. The same letter also revealed that hundreds of complaints of antisemitism had not been formally investigated.

Update: what do Labour say?
Since we published this article, Labour have contacted FactCheck to say that the fast-track expulsion policy is now in use and “a number of people have been expelled under those new powers” this month.

We asked for evidence of this and they pointed us to remarks made by Labour’s General Secretary Jennie Formby in Jewish News on November 27: “Just this month a number of members have been expelled using these new powers.” The article was published after Mr Corbyn’s BBC interview, and after we first contacted Labour to ask about the new policy.

Responding to this FactCheck article after its publication, a Labour spokesperson said: “This is nonsense. Channel 4 FactCheck has not provided us with a document or with any evidence to back up its claim but the fact is, this alleged document from more than one month ago is out of date because the new fast-track expulsion procedures are already in use and a number of people have been expelled under those new powers.

“FactCheck has failed in its basic task to check the facts. In line with the Macpherson Principle, all complaints of antisemitism are recorded as such and we look into each complaint we receive. Some complaints do not meet the threshold for a potential breach of the Party’s rules, so they do not proceed beyond that initial stage after they have been recorded and reviewed.”

‘Strengthened processes’
In July this year, Mr Corbyn put forward proposals that would allow Labour’s ruling National Executive Committee (NEC) to set up a special panel to handle cases of antisemitism.

The plan is to give the NEC powers to expel members where appropriate — something that’s currently reserved for the party’s National Constitutional Committee.

We understand this is what Mr Corbyn was referring to when he told Andrew Neil that he had “strengthened processes” and had “proposed egregious cases should be fast-tracked” at some point “in the summer”.

As ever with rule-changes of this kind, the policy needed approval at the Labour party conference, which it got on 21 September.

But FactCheck has seen an internal Labour party document that shows that as recently as October, the new policy had yet to be implemented — and that a senior figure did not expect it to take effect until after the general election.

So Mr Corbyn claims to have “strengthened processes”, but the evidence we’ve seen casts doubt on whether the new policy has actually taken effect.

Antisemites ‘are either suspended or expelled’
It’s not the only time in this election campaign that Mr Corbyn has faced questions on antisemitism.

Last week, he said in the ITV leaders’ debate that: “Where anyone has committed any antisemitic acts or made any antisemitic statements, they are either suspended or expelled from the party and we have investigated every single case.”

But that is at odds with a letter from his party’s general secretary, Jennie Formby, who told Labour MPs that between April 2018 and February 2019, some 16 members were “issued with a formal NEC warning” for antisemitism, 25 got a “reminder of conduct” from the ruling body.

In other words, dozens of Labour members were given sanctions other than suspension or expulsion for antisemitism as recently as 2018-19.

‘We have investigated every single case’
Mr Corbyn was also challenged on his claim that Labour “have investigated every single case” of antisemitism — which the chief rabbi Ephraim Mirvis described as “a mendacious fiction”.

Responding to Rabbi Mirvis’ comments, Mr Corbyn told the BBC: “No, he’s not right. Because he would have to produce the evidence to say that’s mendacious.”

But Ms Formby’s letter from February this year reveals that 220 complaints of antisemitism against members “did not have sufficient evidence of a breach of party rules to proceed with an investigation”.

In any event, claiming to have “investigated every single case” is not as impressive as it seems.

Sources with detailed knowledge of Labour party processes told FactCheck that by definition, a complaint only becomes a “case” once an investigation is launched.

So if you thought Mr Corbyn’s claim that the party has “investigated every single case” meant that every allegation of antisemitism has received a full investigation by the Labour party, you’d be wrong.

Thank you MM, pity you couldn't have done that earlier, would have saved much confusion. I will now pass that onto my friend as he has a genuine interest in this issue.
 
It would appear that I was googling the link you posted "https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7752923/Jeremy-Corbyn-bomb-makers-friend-IRA-terrorist-admirer-Corbyn.html" and which neither I nor my friend could open, and from which my google search revealed no examples of Labour Party ant-Semitism.
 
My sincere apologies for missing your subsequent link, which I'm sure he will find helpful.

[Bentley Bullet]

That's what I've been trying to portray all along. They claim nothing in the Tory papers is credible, thus disregard them, and use completely biased rags like The Guardian, which, despite claims to be accurate, is totally unfair due to its absolute one-sidedness.

Then the cheeky buggers continually ask for links to back up your points!

You can't make it up, really!

[wilts rover]

I dont read The Mail (or Express) but can anyone provide me with a link to a story they have done on racism/Islamaphobia in the Tory Party?

Or the news articles they have done on the Tory candidates expelled for anti-semitism?

Thanks

[idler]

That's what I've been trying to portray all along. They claim nothing in the Tory papers is credible, thus disregard them, and use completely biased rags like The Guardian, which, despite claims to be accurate, is totally unfair due to its absolute one-sidedness.

Then the cheeky buggers continually ask for links to back up your points!

You can't make it up, really!

Boris could. 😉🙄

[BillyStubbsTears]

When you hear folk saying Labour are going to be spending recklessly and will crash the economy, here's what the IFS says the parties' policies will do to the national debt.



You want reckless? Dominic Raab was saying just this week that No Deal is still on the table. That would increase the national debt because of massively weakened economic growth. Labour's much more gentle increase in the national debt wold be used to pay for the promises in the Manifesto.

Which do you REALLY want?

[Herbert Anchovy]

Boris says he ‘guarantees’ a new trade deal with the EU will be in place by the end of 2020. That’s some claim.

[Padge_DRFC]

Labour raising the debt without a no deal Brexit. Good job it's irrelevant as they won't be in.

[wilts rover]

Boris says he ‘guarantees’ a new trade deal with the EU will be in place by the end of 2020. That’s some claim.

There's an empty ditch somewhere if he doesn't deliver on it - which I strongly suspect will continue to remain empty when he is unable to deliver on it...

[drfchound]

What I don’t understand is why the IFS figures are ridiculed when they show something positive about say, the Torys, but then are rolled out to support something good that might happen under Labour and people expected to accept the IFS figures as facts.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Hound.

They haven't said something good about the Tories.

As for me, I haven't ridiculed the IFS. I've pointed out that they don't use the multiplier effect in their analysis. So their predictions of the positive effects of increased Govt spending are almost certainly underestimates.

For the same reason, they significantly underestimated how badly Austerity would affect the economy.

That's not ridiculing. It's discussing.

I'm presenting the IFS's figures here to show that, even when accepting their analysis at face value, it shows that the Labour plans would hardly affect the level of national debt.

Agreed?

[selby]

Herbert, they are all saying what they want now just to get in power, then they can do what they want, which will be a completely different thing.

[scawsby steve]

What I don’t understand is why the IFS figures are ridiculed when they show something positive about say, the Torys, but then are rolled out to support something good that might happen under Labour and people expected to accept the IFS figures as facts.

It's called blinkered partisanship Hound.

[BillyStubbsTears]

And here we go again.

Selby. You obviously missed that report I posted the other day. The one that found that 85% of manifesto promises by UK parties were wholly or significantly put into practice. The highest percentage among all the countries they studied.

Instead you repeat the most ignorant of tropes. And that justifies you ignoring the lies of the side you support.

It's pitiful to watch.

[BillyStubbsTears]

What I don’t understand is why the IFS figures are ridiculed when they show something positive about say, the Torys, but then are rolled out to support something good that might happen under Labour and people expected to accept the IFS figures as facts.

It's called blinkered partisanship Hound.

And, once again. Ignore grown up discussion and chuck lazy insults out.

What is it with the folk on the Right?