Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

Register Log in

[News] Panorama tonight will be interesting !



highflyer

highflyer

Well-known member
Jan 21, 2016
2,434
Anyone who thinks there is not a problem with anti-semitism in the Labour party and (perhaps even more importantly) a problem with the way this has been dealt with by the leadership has not been paying attention. There are plenty of good people who have been deeply and genuinely hurt by this, including Jewish MPs such as Alex Sobel and Luciana Berger who I respect greatly.

Anyone who thinks that this has not been used deliberately by many who are politically opposed to Corbyn and wish to bring him down (by which I mean the opposition, the right wing media and many in the PLP - mainly people who have no history of opposing ant-semitism elsewhere) as a stick to beat him with are equally deluded.

Anyone who cannot see media bias in the way that the anti-semitism row has been highlighted (rightfully) vs the complete failure to engage with the deep rooted, widespread racism in the Tory party is being willfully blind. Saying this is not 'whataboutery' - it's not excusing the situation in Labour. It is a simple observation on blatant media bias, which tells us a lot.
 




Live by the sea

Live by the sea

Well-known member
Oct 21, 2016
4,718
borat said:
There is no evidence to suggest that Labour are more Anti-Semitic then other parties. There are few studies on this but the YouGov Polls of 2015 and 2017 resulted in the following.

1) Conservative respondents held more AS views than Labour
2) Anti-semitism has reduced since Corbyn took charge.
3) Members of the Labour Party hold less AS views than the general population at large.

0.06% of actual Labour Members have been found to have guilty of AS.

Lets call this what this is - a concerted smear campaign spearheaded by various factions

1) Tories
2) Blairites in the Labour Party
3) Very wealthy concerned about Tax changes
4) Israel Lobby (No not anti-semitic to say that) due to his vocal support of Palestinian rights.

Corbyn has pushed and fought for the rights of Jews throughout his career.

Feel free to criticise his policies but to paint him as a racist or condoning racism is ridiculous.
Click to expand...

I'll chance my arm and suggest you are a deluded Corbynista. It's people with similar mindsets to you that have helped ruin the once decent , moderate, proud and credible labour party.
 




highflyer

highflyer

Well-known member
Jan 21, 2016
2,434
clapham_gull said:
Remarkably, the Tories are now more credible on the environment than Corbyn's Labour. Gove is better on the environment than Jezza - who would ever have believed that ?.
Click to expand...

You generally seem pretty sensible, even if I don't agree with some of what you say.

But this is utter nonsense. The Tories are talking up the climate and the environment because they know they have to, but they are doing the opposite. Setting a (pathetically insufficient) target for 2050, while missing virtually all the targets they set themselves previously just doesn't cut it. Tackling climate change with the urgency it demands requires a substantial shift in economic policy, and also taking on the financial sector in a way that the Tories simply cannot do because of who they answer to. A bit of extra recycling and a tax on coffee cups is missing the point entirely.

While there is some way to go, and you are 100% right about the problem with some of the Union dinosaurs, it is clear that McDonnell has understood this and is actively working out what it means. The Greens are great (and, as it happens, some way to the left of Labour economically) but until we get electoral reform we are looking to Labour, or more likely a Labour led coalition, as our best, if not only, hope of the UK acting as we need to for avoiding climate disaster (that includes both doing what we need to do domestically and also leadership globally because, yes, 'China and the US' - Boris having suck up to Trump because he wants a trade deal is not going to be helpful in this respect). So while I can see huge risks in a Labour led government, those risks are still far far less than the realistic alternatives that I can see right now.
 






Westdene Seagull

Westdene Seagull

aka Cap'n Carl Firecrotch
NSC Patron
Oct 27, 2003
21,005
The arse end of Hangleton


T

theonlymikey

New member
Apr 21, 2016
789
The article was written by a New Zealand journalist for an editorial based in New Zealand.

It probably only seems disjointed because there was too too much evidence to support the claims of an orchestrated attack on Corbyn.

But, as expected the response proves the point of the article. An impartial writer living over 10 thousand miles away has written a well reasoned argument with evidence to back up said arguments and you've dismissed it as bias and 'sounds like momentum'.

It's time. Time to wake up and see that the smears are actually just that. without any substance or evidence.

Perhaps you're one of the millions who hasn't got a clue you're being made to believe what the rich want you to believe. A puppet with voting rights. Doesn't that scare you?

The sad truth is, when you have to look to international newspapers to get an impartial view of the reality of the political situation in the THIS country then democracy already lost the battle.

This this really democracy?

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk
 


M

Mellor 3 Ward 4

Well-known member
Jul 27, 2004
9,799
saaf of the water
borat said:
You say Members are tired - He has helped grow it to 500k plus and Labour are currently leading in all polls bar one. I wonder how well Labour might be doing with a more balanced press and more supportive MPs on the right of the Labour party

.
Click to expand...

But Labour should be a minimum of 15-20 points ahead of this Government. The fact that they are actually trailing in some polls is astounding.

Perhaps the 'I wonder' question should be I wonder how well Labour might be doing with a more balanced, centrist leader?
 






B

borat

Well-known member
Jul 16, 2003
464
Live by the sea said:
I'll chance my arm and suggest you are a deluded Corbynista. It's people with similar mindsets to you that have helped ruin the once decent , moderate, proud and credible labour party.
Click to expand...

What mindset is that? One that prefers to deal in facts and evidence as opposed to vague and hyped up smears?. If you cant see that this constant AS is an orchestrated smear campaign then your analytical skills have a lot to be a be desired.
 


highflyer

highflyer

Well-known member
Jan 21, 2016
2,434
Mellor 3 Ward 4 said:
But Labour should be a minimum of 15-20 points ahead of this Government. The fact that they are actually trailing in some polls is astounding.

Perhaps the 'I wonder' question should be I wonder how well Labour might be doing with a more balanced, centrist leader?
Click to expand...

Since i have already written a response to this point in another thread I'm just going to copy and paste:

I believe that (more by accident than design) Corbyn et al have found themselves in a position they were (understandably) completely unprepared for. They have spent a life time rebelling,which is hardly the best preparation for imposing party discipline,.

2. trying to win an election based on a manifesto of genuine, radical (and 100% necessary) social and economic change which is in direct opposition to the interests of richest and most powerful is a very different proposition from the Blair approach of 'win by getting the powerful onside and telling people what they want to hear'.

3. They are fighting against the full weight of the media (the coverage of Labour anti-semitism is correct and appropriate, but the repeated failure to mention the racist and anti-islamic views held in the Tory party, or to hold Boris accountable for his back tracking on an enquiry, is a disgrace) the lobbying power of the city and the visceral hatred (I have seen it first hand) of a large part of the PLP as well as the other parties.Chukka Ummuna doesn't hate corbyn because of anti-semitism or because of ideological differences. He hates him because the change in direction of the Labour party wiped out the career (as a centrist) he had mapped out, and worked all his life for. His anger is thwarted ambition made flesh.

4. In that light the ideas expressed on how well/badly they are doing vs a chaotic Tory party may be unfair.

None of that, as I hope I have made clear, remotely excuses the existence of anti-semitism in the party. And nor does it excuse the abject failures in tackling it. Corbyn is not a racist, but he's made very serious mistakes and it's going to be difficult to get it back on track.

But staying where we are is not an option. Climate change alone ensures that. The rise of the extremist right, the Trumps, Dutertes, Orbans and Bolsanaros mean that we need a reponse that is not just 'stay where we are'. The most 'radical' thing we can do now is try to maintain the status quo, which would be essentially accepting the very likely outcome of a rising far right and climate disaster. Like it or not, centrism led us to where we are now and can't get us out of this mess. Centrism is history. Stop pining for it. We are going somewhere else now, and we all need to decide what we can do to steer the arc of history towards justice.
 




B

borat

Well-known member
Jul 16, 2003
464
Mellor 3 Ward 4 said:
But Labour should be a minimum of 15-20 points ahead of this Government. The fact that they are actually trailing in some polls is astounding.

Perhaps the 'I wonder' question should be I wonder how well Labour might be doing with a more balanced, centrist leader?
Click to expand...

You have to take into account the relentless daily hammering the press will have had on numbers. I dont say relentless gliby - its every single day even for spurious reasons e.g Corbyn is physically unfit (That was headline news!). I think the fact that Labour are ahead in spite of the onslaught shows a lot of people see throught the bullsh*t

Devisivness off Brexit will have impacted the lead - taken some potential votes away to either Lib Dems or Brexit Party.
 


T

theonlymikey

New member
Apr 21, 2016
789
It's worth pointing out that during an election campaign, the media are bound by much stricter rules. Which would explain the labour swing after Treeza called her snap.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk
 


P

portslade seagull

Well-known member
Jul 19, 2003
17,606
portslade
borat said:
What mindset is that? One that prefers to deal in facts and evidence as opposed to vague and hyped up smears?. If you cant see that this constant AS is an orchestrated smear campaign then your analytical skills have a lot to be a be desired.
Click to expand...

If you think it's bad now vote Corbyn in it will be a nightmare. Sooooooo many promises so little money. What gives for all the pledges to be met ???
 






Lower West Stander

Lower West Stander

Well-known member
Mar 25, 2012
4,753
Back in Sussex
highflyer said:
Since i have already written a response to this point in another thread I'm just going to copy and paste:

I believe that (more by accident than design) Corbyn et al have found themselves in a position they were (understandably) completely unprepared for. They have spent a life time rebelling,which is hardly the best preparation for imposing party discipline,.

2. trying to win an election based on a manifesto of genuine, radical (and 100% necessary) social and economic change which is in direct opposition to the interests of richest and most powerful is a very different proposition from the Blair approach of 'win by getting the powerful onside and telling people what they want to hear'.

3. They are fighting against the full weight of the media (the coverage of Labour anti-semitism is correct and appropriate, but the repeated failure to mention the racist and anti-islamic views held in the Tory party, or to hold Boris accountable for his back tracking on an enquiry, is a disgrace) the lobbying power of the city and the visceral hatred (I have seen it first hand) of a large part of the PLP as well as the other parties.Chukka Ummuna doesn't hate corbyn because of anti-semitism or because of ideological differences. He hates him because the change in direction of the Labour party wiped out the career (as a centrist) he had mapped out, and worked all his life for. His anger is thwarted ambition made flesh.

4. In that light the ideas expressed on how well/badly they are doing vs a chaotic Tory party may be unfair.

None of that, as I hope I have made clear, remotely excuses the existence of anti-semitism in the party. And nor does it excuse the abject failures in tackling it. Corbyn is not a racist, but he's made very serious mistakes and it's going to be difficult to get it back on track.

But staying where we are is not an option. Climate change alone ensures that. The rise of the extremist right, the Trumps, Dutertes, Orbans and Bolsanaros mean that we need a reponse that is not just 'stay where we are'. The most 'radical' thing we can do now is try to maintain the status quo, which would be essentially accepting the very likely outcome of a rising far right and climate disaster. Like it or not, centrism led us to where we are now and can't get us out of this mess. Centrism is history. Stop pining for it. We are going somewhere else now, and we all need to decide what we can do to steer the arc of history towards justice.
Click to expand...

You sound like Citizen Smith.

Don't live in Tooting by any chance?
 


T

theonlymikey

New member
Apr 21, 2016
789
A huge amount of "spending" I don't know about you but when I put money into shares such as electric, water and trains I don't consider it "spending". I call it investing.

The deficit won't increase as the valued assets will offset the outgoings on the national balance sheet.

Oh to be able to stop subsidies AND reap the profits, eh? Don't know a single person (who doesn't have vested interests) who would be unhappy with that.

But it would help if we could have debates on labour proposals after you've fully read them.

Labour were laughed at by the Tories about their being no money tree. We were told There's no money to scrap tuition fees, and increase police officer numbers by 10,000.

Come election, there's suddently 10 billion available to by 10 Dup votes.

Furthermore, during the leadership campaign, I've seen a candidate promise 20,000 extra police officers.

There's no red money tree. But there's a blue money Amazon rainforest if damn needed, apparently.



Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk
 


N

Neville's Breakfast

Well-known member
May 1, 2016
13,423
Oxton, Birkenhead
theonlymikey said:
A huge amount of "spending" I don't know about you but when I put money into shares such as electric, water and trains I don't consider it "spending". I call it investing.

The deficit won't increase as the valued assets will offset the outgoings on the national balance sheet.

Oh to be able to stop subsidies AND reap the profits, eh? Don't know a single person (who doesn't have vested interests) who would be unhappy with that.

But it would help if we could have debates on labour proposals after you've fully read them.

Labour were laughed at by the Tories about their being no money tree. We were told There's no money to scrap tuition fees, and increase police officer numbers by 10,000.

Come election, there's suddently 10 billion available to by 10 Dup votes.

Furthermore, during the leadership campaign, I've seen a candidate promise 20,000 extra police officers.

There's no red money tree. But there's a blue money Amazon rainforest if damn needed, apparently.



Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

To buy these new assets a Labour Government would need to borrow money via issuing bonds. This means an upward pressure on interest rates. Your national balance sheet idea does not really tell the whole story.
 




T

theonlymikey

New member
Apr 21, 2016
789
The profits from Energy, trains & water + reduced spending via subsidies to private shareholders would pay off interest from additional borrowing.

The manifesto was fully costed.

The only concern is from private shareholders who are unhappy at Labour wanting to nationalise under market value.

However , when you consider the proposal to pay under market value takes into consideration network run down, asset stripping and pension deficits it seems pretty fair to me. Private shareholders have basically taken the p1ss.

They have also proposed to deduct all subsidy payments made since privatisation.

Again, why anybody would complain about this type of decution is beyond me. Imagine me selling gas to you for 1 million quid. Then I pay you subsidies in order to run it. Then you keep al the profits. Then expect me to buy it back for 1 million. After all money I've given you since its been in your hands.

Er, no thanks.

There was an additional 350billion of borrowing for a national investment fund. This seems too work well for Norway. one if the happiest countries in the world.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk
 


N

Neville's Breakfast

Well-known member
May 1, 2016
13,423
Oxton, Birkenhead
theonlymikey said:
The profits from Energy, trains & water + reduced spending via subsidies to private shareholders would pay off interest from additional borrowing.

The manifesto was fully costed.

The only concern is from private shareholders who are unhappy at Labour wanting to nationalise under market value.

However , when you consider the proposal to pay under market value takes into consideration network run down, asset stripping and pension deficits it seems pretty fair to me. Private shareholders have basically taken the p1ss.

They have also proposed to deduct all subsidy payments made since privatisation.

Again, why anybody would complain about this type of decution is beyond me. Imagine me selling gas to you for 1 million quid. Then I pay you subsidies in order to run it. Then you keep al the profits. Then expect me to buy it back for 1 million. After all money I've given you since its been in your hands.

Er, no thanks.

There was an additional 350billion of borrowing for a national investment fund. This seems too work well for Norway. one if the happiest countries in the world.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

The additional borrowing will drive interest rates higher because otherwise there will be little investor interest in large tranches of new bonds The more you borrow (new bonds issued) the greater the upward pressure on interest rates and this is an unknown and therefore cannot be fully costed at this stage. It will also be dependent upon market conditions at the time. I am just pointing out economic reality in a capitalist system. Over simplification of economics is not the sole preserve of the Tories. Both parties and their supporters are equally guilty.
 


You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Albion and Premier League latest from Sky Sports


Top
Link Here