Politics Thread (encompassing Brexit) - 21 June 2017 onwards

[The Doctor]

1 hour ago, Heathrow fox said:

He was one of the leaders

He was one of the leaders of the anti war movement.The clues in the name.

So, focus on the party specific charges - threatening to run against the party and backing an opposing candidate mean you shouldn't be kicked out of the party? 

[Heathrow fox]

1 hour ago, The Doctor said:

So, focus on the party specific charges - threatening to run against the party and backing an opposing candidate mean you shouldn't be kicked out of the party? 

If he wasn’t threatened with expulsion maybe? I wouldn’t worry I don’t think he’ll go back now anyway.I can understand why you can’t stand him.Hes marmite even to people on the left.

 

Personally I like him and he’s got a knack of seeing things before they happen and slightly altering his stance.He called Brexit when it looked like Leave would win months before the referendum.One of a handful to predict a Trump win.Said Corbyn would surprise us in the last election,even when he was miles

behind in the polls and got the

% spot on in the Scottish Indy ref.

 

I’m sure you could reel off his faults though.Ive followed him for years mainly because he’s got a different opinion to everybody else.

[DANGEROUS TIGER]

4 hours ago, Strokes said:

Listen mate, you might think its funny that our friends and families were killed in iraq but i don't. Whether you agreed with the war or not, soldiers who are sworn to protect us, were ordered to go there. Encouraging maming and killing them is not clever. You absolute bellend!

Not wanting to butt in on your conversation, but I do agree with the above post. Our military are sworn to protect us, whenever and wherever they are sent in the field to do it.

[Fox Ulike]

16 hours ago, The Doctor said:

Boris Johnsons remarks were stupid but there's a bit of a difference between that, for which he was roundly castigated, and muddying the waters between criticism of Israel (which is fair, and you'll find some of the biggest critics of Netanyahu are Jewish groups) and of Jews as a whole; giving plausible deniability to anti-semites. 

But he's not criticised "Jews as a whole". Did you actually listen to the recording of what he's said? 

 

This is the whole problem. You're not commenting on what he actually said; you're commenting on what he was reported to have said. You're letting the media tell you what to think.

[Fox Ulike]

17 hours ago, urban.spaceman said:

There is a slight difference between making an innocuous remark about an oppressive item of clothing and smearing parts of a community of first, being fanatics of a widely loathed foreign leader and second, being behind all the allegations of anti-semitism in the Labour party.

As above.

 

He's not said that. 

 

There's a huge difference between forming your opinion on what has actually happened or been said, or forming your opinion based on how those events or words have been reported. You're just letting yourself be led by the nose on all this.

 

As for innocuousness. Who decides that? Look at it this way. If John McDonnell had said that Jewish men who wear the Kipa look 'ridiculous', do you think that would be reported as an innocuous comment?

 

And if Johnson had said that "Some people in the Muslim community are Corbyn fanatics" - would it have even made the newspapers?

 

It's about moral eviqualence, and applying your own principles equally across the political spectrum.

 

Too many people are too happy to blandly be told what to think if it fits with their existing political prejudices.

 

 

 

 

[Sharpe's Fox]

16 hours ago, MattP said:

Well done Theresa. 

Love this. Margeret Hodge, Lord Sacks, Bibi Nethanyahu, Dan Hodges, Luciana Berger, your boys took one hell of a beating! Only Mossad can take out out JC now!

[Guest MattP]

36 minutes ago, Sharpe's Fox said:

Love this. Margeret Hodge, Lord Sacks, Bibi Nethanyahu, Dan Hodges, Luciana Berger, your boys took one hell of a beating! Only Mossad can take out out JC now!

You are well on course for government, still think you are going to struggle for an outright majority but if one is called in the next few months you'll have enough to put forward a Queen's speech. One bad thing from that for both of us is it gives May much much leeway when the vote comes back to the house among her own MP's.

Although haven't that lot now won? you've adopted the full definition of the IHRA.

 

Quote

 

The UK Labour Party's ruling body has agreed to adopt in full an international definition of anti-Semitism, after months of rows.

It will incorporate all the 11 examples of anti-Semitism cited by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance into its code of conduct.

But Jewish groups have attacked an accompanying statement agreed by the NEC aimed at protecting free speech.

One warned it risked giving "racists a get-out-of-jail card".

After a three hour meeting in London, Labour said its National Executive Committee had adopted all of the IHRA examples of anti-Semitism, including four it left out in July, alongside a statement ensuring "this will not in any way undermine freedom of expression on Israel or the rights of Palestinians"

 

Problem now is you'll be chucking out thousands of people over the next few months and your own leader is now defined as an anti-semite by his own party rules.

Edited 5 September 2018 by MattP

[Sharpe's Fox]

7 minutes ago, MattP said:

You are well on course for government, still think you are going to struggle for an outright majority but if one is called in the next few months you'll have enough to put forward a Queen's speech. One bad thing from that for both of us is it gives May much much leeway when the vote comes back to the house among her own MP's.

Although haven't that lot now won? you've adopted the full definition of the IHRA.

 

Problem now is you'll be chucking out thousands of people over the next few months and your own leader is now defined as an anti-semite by his own party rules.

They hate the left and their goal is to see all traces of the left be removed from political discourse in this country. Margaret Hodge basically admitted that was her aim. These people don’t care about antisemitism, they don’t care about Jews, they’re not patriots, they only care about tax dodgers because they hate our country.

[Sharpe's Fox]

Another doozy from the right. Where does Jeremy hide his black shirt i wonder? https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/jeremy-corbyn-praised-release-of-hamas-terrorists-hh90cctgp

 

The headline

Jeremy Corbyn raised Nazi crimes to describe Israel in Gaza

 

The quote

“I was in Gaza three months ago. I saw . . . the psychological damage to a whole generation, who’ve been imprisoned for as long as the siege of Leningrad and Stalingrad took place.”

 

comparing one siege to another siege is racist now apparently

[Sharpe's Fox]

COMPARING TIMESCALES IS ANTISEMITIC LADS

[Fox Ulike]

27 minutes ago, MattP said:

Problem now is you'll be chucking out thousands of people over the next few months and your own leader is now defined as an anti-semite by his own party rules.

Yeah course they will.

 

I'm happy that Labour has adopted this as I think the definition is fair:

 

“Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.”

 

Boris is lucky that the Conservative Party don't adopt the same standard for all racial and religious groups. For example:

 

“Islamophobia is a certain perception of Muslims, which may be expressed as hatred toward Muslims. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of Islamophobia are directed toward Muslim or non-Muslim individuals and/or their property, toward Muslim community institutions and religious facilities.”

 

"I would go further and say that it is absolutely ridiculous that people should choose to go around looking like letter boxes."

 

Would you say that counts as  "rhetorical manifestation directed at Muslim individuals...".

 

Applying your own standards evenly, would you then chuck Boris out of the Party - plus everyone who supported him over that comment? Interesting.

[Fox Ulike]

16 minutes ago, Sharpe's Fox said:

Another doozy from the right. Where does Jeremy hide his black shirt i wonder? https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/jeremy-corbyn-praised-release-of-hamas-terrorists-hh90cctgp

 

The headline

 

 

 

The quote

 

 

 

comparing one siege to another siege is racist now apparently

 

What's interesting is the almost total lack of effect the whole anti-Semitism thing seems to be having on voting intentions.

 

Restores my faith in the British electorate somewhat, and shows the severe limitations of propaganda in a free society. For propaganda to work effectively you really need to be able to crush all dissent to it too. That's just impossible in the Social Media age.

 

However the worry remains that Corbyn constantly gains unearned power from these increasingly desperate and failing attacks on him. 

 

His approach to Israel is clearly questionable, but no-one is questioning it. How could a man who has so clearly planted his flag on the Palestinian side of the dispute become a PM who both sides would look at as an impartial mediator who could help to bring peace? Would Corbyn call for sanctions against Israel if he were PM? Seems unthinkable.

 

 

 

[Salisbury Fox]

13 minutes ago, Fox Ulike said:

Yeah course they will.

 

I'm happy that Labour has adopted this as I think the definition is fair:

 

“Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.”

 

Boris is lucky that the Conservative Party don't adopt the same standard for all racial and religious groups. For example:

 

“Islamophobia is a certain perception of Muslims, which may be expressed as hatred toward Muslims. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of Islamophobia are directed toward Muslim or non-Muslim individuals and/or their property, toward Muslim community institutions and religious facilities.”

 

"I would go further and say that it is absolutely ridiculous that people should choose to go around looking like letter boxes."

 

Would you say that counts as  "rhetorical manifestation directed at Muslim individuals...".

 

Applying your own standards evenly, would you then chuck Boris out of the Party - plus everyone who supported him over that comment? Interesting.

It's alright, Boris could say that he participated but was not involved in the writing of the article 

[breadandcheese]

2 hours ago, Sharpe's Fox said:

Love this. Margeret Hodge, Lord Sacks, Bibi Nethanyahu, Dan Hodges, Luciana Berger, your boys took one hell of a beating! Only Mossad can take out out JC now!

I'm going to bite on this.  

 

People concerned about anti-semitism took a beating.  Rejoice.  Let's then tap into a Jewish, sorry Zionist, conspiracy theory of meddling power with Mossad deciding to remove Corbyn.  Whilst you may be saying it in jest, it plays with tropes that are wrongly believed by many.

[breadandcheese]

4 hours ago, Fox Ulike said:

As above.

 

He's not said that. 

 

There's a huge difference between forming your opinion on what has actually happened or been said, or forming your opinion based on how those events or words have been reported. You're just letting yourself be led by the nose on all this.

 

As for innocuousness. Who decides that? Look at it this way. If John McDonnell had said that Jewish men who wear the Kipa look 'ridiculous', do you think that would be reported as an innocuous comment?

 

And if Johnson had said that "Some people in the Muslim community are Corbyn fanatics" - would it have even made the newspapers?

 

It's about moral eviqualence, and applying your own principles equally across the political spectrum.

 

Too many people are too happy to blandly be told what to think if it fits with their existing political prejudices.

 

 

 

 

Corbyn used anti-semitic language whether he chooses to obfuscate or confuse people.  The English irony quote was direct from his mouth and is anti-semitic.  There is no way to hide that.  You would never use the phrase English irony in any context.  You would just say someone doesn't understand irony, or that's ironic, rather than someone doesn't understand English irony or that's Englishly ironic.

 

 

 

 

[Sharpe's Fox]

Corbyn used anti-semitic language whether he chooses to obfuscate or confuse people.  The English irony quote was direct from his mouth and is anti-semitic.  There is no way to hide that.  You would never use the phrase English irony in any context.  You would just say someone doesn't understand irony, or that's ironic, rather than someone doesn't understand English irony or that's Englishly ironic.

 

Theresa May said in PMQ's that JC said "Jews don't understand English irony." Now is she willfully misrepresenting JC's comments at the dispatch box, in which case she should apologise to the House, or does she think that all Jews are Zionists, in which case she is an antisemite. I suspect what her intention was she was referring to a specific group of Jews, ie Zionists, rather than all Jews. Which is the exact same explanation for what JC said. Don't expect her to be brought up on it though because she's not a leftist.

Edited 5 September 2018 by Sharpe's Fox

[NasPb]

Corbyn was talking about one group of Zionists in particular who did not understand something said by a Palestinian. He then said his comments. Not about all Jews, Zionists, but about a specific group of Zionists, who did not understand it. What else was he supposed to call them? Zionists works because they were clear hardcore supporters of Israel who did not understand a simple statement. Context is extremely important. 

[Strokes]

16 minutes ago, NasPb said:

Corbyn was talking about one group of Zionists in particular who did not understand something said by a Palestinian. He then said his comments. Not about all Jews, Zionists, but about a specific group of Zionists, who did not understand it. What else was he supposed to call them? Zionists works because they were clear hardcore supporters of Israel who did not understand a simple statement. Context is extremely important. 

Can we break Muslims or Christians down into groups to berate them collectively and that be acceptable?

The trouble with baptist Christians is they are all thick as shit.

The trouble with Sunni Muslims is they are don’t understand humour.

Why is it acceptable to group describe Zionists?

[Milo]

6 hours ago, Fox Ulike said:

As above.

 

He's not said that. 

 

There's a huge difference between forming your opinion on what has actually happened or been said, or forming your opinion based on how those events or words have been reported. You're just letting yourself be led by the nose on all this.

 

As for innocuousness. Who decides that? Look at it this way. If John McDonnell had said that Jewish men who wear the Kipa look 'ridiculous', do you think that would be reported as an innocuous comment?

 

And if Johnson had said that "Some people in the Muslim community are Corbyn fanatics" - would it have even made the newspapers?

 

It's about moral eviqualence, and applying your own principles equally across the political spectrum.

 

Too many people are too happy to blandly be told what to think if it fits with their existing political prejudices.

 

 

 

 

Which is why I've taken to viewing the politics thread with a bit of tape down the left hand side of the screen, so I can't immediately see who's posted what comments.

 

It makes it more fun and leads to a less biased reaction reading a post without knowing that it's come from one of the vociferous lefties/righties/brexiteers/remainers!

 

 

[NasPb]

2 minutes ago, Strokes said:

Can we break Muslims or Christians down into groups to berate them collectively and that be acceptable?

The trouble with baptist Christians is they are all thick as shit.

The trouble with Sunni Muslims is they are don’t understand humour.

Why is it acceptable to group describe Zionists?

Zionism is not even a part of Judaism, and again, he was not talking about all Zionists, he literally spoke about ONE encounter he had with ONE group of right wing Zionists. He literally described a scenario in which they misunderstood a Palestinian man and harassed him. Do not turn this into something it is not. He did 0 wrong as he literally described a situation. 

[Trav Le Bleu]

25 minutes ago, Strokes said:

Can we break Muslims or Christians down into groups to berate them collectively and that be acceptable?

The trouble with baptist Christians is they are all thick as shit.

The trouble with Sunni Muslims is they are don’t understand humour.

Why is it acceptable to group describe Zionists?

Cos you're one of those stupid Leicester City supporters.

[Trav Le Bleu]

26 minutes ago, Milo said:

Which is why I've taken to viewing the politics thread with a bit of tape down the left hand side of the screen, so I can't immediately see who's posted what comments.

 

It makes it more fun and leads to a less biased reaction reading a post without knowing that it's come from one of the vociferous lefties/righties/brexiteers/remainers!

 

 

I prefer the terms, "Commies" and "Fascists".

[urban.spaceman]

6 hours ago, Fox Ulike said:

As above.

 

He's not said that. 

 

There's a huge difference between forming your opinion on what has actually happened or been said, or forming your opinion based on how those events or words have been reported. You're just letting yourself be led by the nose on all this.

 

As for innocuousness. Who decides that? Look at it this way. If John McDonnell had said that Jewish men who wear the Kipa look 'ridiculous', do you think that would be reported as an innocuous comment?

 

And if Johnson had said that "Some people in the Muslim community are Corbyn fanatics" - would it have even made the newspapers?

 

It's about moral eviqualence, and applying your own principles equally across the political spectrum.

3

Willsman literally said that:

Almost verbatim.

 

"Innocuous" was bang on. It's an obscene item of clothing that is far more offensive than anything Boris said about it. Does it look ridiculous? Yes. Does it make the wearer look like a bank robber? Yes (the same day his article reached the news a guy was convicted of robbing jewellers.... wearing a burqa). Does it look like a letterbox? Yes. Except less red. These are perfectly rational views to hold and are shared by the majority of the British public, as well the publics of most of Europe, the millions of Muslim women in the Middle East who are legally forced to wear it, as well as moderate Muslims everywhere. There's plenty of examples of these.

 

The people you see on TV being outraged are either people who have something to gain from exploiting it (for Labour it diverts attention from its ow anti-semitism row; the self-appointed & unrepresentative Muslim Council of Britain can continue to push its victim narrative with further data of Islamophobic attacks provided by TellMAMA, who have been caught lying again and again; or the 1% of the whiners who were actual Muslim women who actually wore the sodding thing).

 

"What if" John McDonnell had said the Kippah looked ridiculous? Well, you're right that it would get reported as anti-semitism. But that's because of the ongoing anti-semitism going on in the Labour party. At the end of the day though, it's just an item of clothing. The KKK look like dodgy wizards. The Pope looks like a ****ing velociraptor when the wind blows up his skirt. If you're upset because someone is mocking something you wear, just don't wear it. 

 

Again, these are perfectly rational views to hold.

 

Quote

It's about moral eviqualence, and applying your own principles equally across the political spectrum.

Couldn't agree more. I'm a lifelong Labour supporter who voted Remain. That doesn't stop me being able to see things for what they actually are.

[leicsmac]

27 minutes ago, urban.spaceman said:

Willsman literally said that:

Almost verbatim.

 

"Innocuous" was bang on. It's an obscene item of clothing that is far more offensive than anything Boris said about it. Does it look ridiculous? Yes. Does it make the wearer look like a bank robber? Yes (the same day his article reached the news a guy was convicted of robbing jewellers.... wearing a burqa). Does it look like a letterbox? Yes. Except less red. These are perfectly rational views to hold and are shared by the majority of the British public, as well the publics of most of Europe, the millions of Muslim women in the Middle East who are legally forced to wear it, as well as moderate Muslims everywhere. There's plenty of examples of these.

 

The people you see on TV being outraged are either people who have something to gain from exploiting it (for Labour it diverts attention from its ow anti-semitism row; the self-appointed & unrepresentative Muslim Council of Britain can continue to push its victim narrative with further data of Islamophobic attacks provided by TellMAMA, who have been caught lying again and again; or the 1% of the whiners who were actual Muslim women who actually wore the sodding thing).

 

"What if" John McDonnell had said the Kippah looked ridiculous? Well, you're right that it would get reported as anti-semitism. But that's because of the ongoing anti-semitism going on in the Labour party. At the end of the day though, it's just an item of clothing. The KKK look like dodgy wizards. The Pope looks like a ****ing velociraptor when the wind blows up his skirt. If you're upset because someone is mocking something you wear, just don't wear it. 

 

Again, these are perfectly rational views to hold.

 

Couldn't agree more. I'm a lifelong Labour supporter who voted Remain. That doesn't stop me being able to see things for what they actually are.

2

As the question wasn't answered a little ways back, mind if I repeat it?

 

On 04/09/2018 at 22:53, leicsmac said:

As much as I think Labour needs to do some cleaning house, is it a certainty the remark was innocuous in its intent as well as its delivery? I'm really not sure, given the way it fired up both ends of the debate.

 

 

[Guest MattP]

Corbyn really does have a lot to answer for.

 

 

Edited 5 September 2018 by MattP