UK General Election 2019

[Beskar]

The Game is Afoot.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-50221856

Will the Brexit party compete with the Conservatives to rob them of precious votes?
Will the Legion of Corbyn be able to fight off the threat of the Lib Dems and SNP ?
Will Corbyn carry out his threat to directly challenge Boris on his home turf?

To be continued...

[Furunculus]

Prediction - the boris govt will not ignore the standard lynton crosby advice - as theresa may's did - of boiling the issues down to a select few messages to the exclusion of all else.

in his words: clear the barnacles of the hull.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

It could still all be delayed again.

I'm not sure what to do, to be honest.

Maybe Monster Raving Loony Party.

[rory_20_uk]

Either people vote on one issue and we end up with a government in power for years based on one issue, or else people choose based on the whole manifesto (assuming that the parties bother to have one) and then we're back to politicians not representing their constituents on the most salient issue.

Of course, the one thing we can guarantee is no attempt at root and branch reform of our democratic system.

~:smoking:

[Greyblades]

There will absolutely be reform, the speaker of the house and the supreme court have been used against the executive in a political manner and the LD's election limits have caused this mess to be so protracted. The next government will find limiting and/or removing them to ensure they arent used so again a priority

[Pannonian]

There will absolutely be reform, the speaker of the house and the supreme court have been used against the executive in a political manner and the LD's election limits have caused this mess to be so protracted. The next government will find limiting and/or removing them to ensure they arent used so again a priority

You want yet more centralisation of power under the executive. As if Johnson and Cummings haven't been abusing said power as exists currently. I look forward to a future government which is not to your liking, which will then wield such power as you want to give Johnson just because the latter is enacting Brexit.

[Furunculus]

They have only been in place a month or so now, how have they managed to abuse their power?

[Greyblades]

You want yet more centralisation of power under the executive. As if Johnson and Cummings haven't been abusing said power as exists currently. I look forward to a future government which is not to your liking, which will then wield such power as you want to give Johnson just because the latter is enacting Brexit.

There is no want, merely an is.

The trust in impartiality has been betrayed, the taboo broken. Noone in the running will tolerate a power remaining un limited after being abused such, tory, labor, lib dem, green, snp, it matters not, none of them will risk being the subject of a repeat performance. Once a majority government assumes power they will waste no time crushing the institutes that took advantage of a moment of weakness

As the remainers like to parrot without understanding, parliament is sovereign, and thanks to the neutering of the house of lords noone has the power to stop them. You should thank Blair for that one.

[InsaneApache]

It's going to be interesting to say the least.

It looks like Labour has already shot it's foot off by attempting to include 16 year olds and foreign nationals in the franchise. Clueless of how this looks to the electorate. It smacks of we know we can't win so we'll screw over the British public. Great look guys, well done.

As for the Lib Dems......vote for us because we will ignore your vote if we don't like the outcome. Ditto.

The there's the Tories. Boris dead in a ditch, if we've not left the EU come Halloween. Again just Foxtrot Oscar.

Brexit party here we come.

[Greyblades]

Never understood that prediction, why would boris be punished for us being in past haloween when the reason for it is the delaying of our zombie parliament?

If anything would hurt him surely it would be the reheating of the chequers deal, not that.

[rory_20_uk]

I think Boris will be fine. He is a quick learner and realises that histrionics and grand gestures matters more than keeping his word.

I think few if any will vote Brexit party since under FPTP second place counts for nothing - and why take the risk? So tactical voting for the Tories.

The Government managed to soldier on with a minority. The checks and balances were in fact pretty toothless barring the media spectacle - they managed to marginally alter policy. In fact, even when the PM decides to massively reduce his own party he still remained and didn't loose command of the House. The Courts came in on a very specific matter and even this was viewed as momentous. The Monarch did nothing either.

To be seen to crush the almost cosmetic checks and balances would I think be the wrong move.

~:smoking:

[Greyblades]

A consideration but I dont think it will stay thier hand, particularly in the case of the supreme court. A unanimous verdict against the government in the face of the high court's decision that it was a political issue not legal, combined with the posturing of the most visible of the judges against the prime minister, combined again with the Court being a recent imposition on the british legal system, one pushed by the lib dems... Well, I dont think its likely that will be able to continue should we see a conservative majority.

I could be wrong of course, what with the return of chequers I am less sure of what goes through boris and cumming's heads these days. At the very least, we definitely will see the power of snap elections return to the prime minister.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

...The Monarch did nothing either....

I thought that was the Monarch's job, "constitutionally."

[rory_20_uk]

I thought that was the Monarch's job, "constitutionally."

Indeed. And it creates a situation where when things get bad we have no backstop. The Lords has also been hobbled and there is no clear place for the Judiciary to be involved either. Everyone covering their own backsides and entitlements rather than worrying about the future of the country. The same can be seen in Northern Ireland - all the politicians taking a salary although not even pretending to do anything. No mechanism to dissolve and reboot.

Personally I am a monarchist with a small M, so to speak - I think that they are a better solution than the elected Presidents I have seen in my lifetime at least. So whilst I would not wish to see a return to the Star Courts but I think there must be improvements that can be made.

~:smoking:

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Actually, one of the drawbacks to a USA-style presidency is that the President and Vice President are saddled with a surprising number of ceremonial duties that have little to do with executive decision-making etc. Some of those serve political purpose, but others are somewhat extraneous -- the White House visit for the current championship team of X sport for example. You lot have your royals to grace most ceremonial occasions at least somewhat easing the burden of such to the government.

On the other hand, there is nothing really equivalent to a "veto" in your system. While a one-vote majority running roughshod across your legal system is unlikely (party loyalty is more powerful in the UK than the USA, but seldom THAT cohesive), the potentiality does exist for that and the Lords and the Monarch, the other "branches" of your system of governance are quite secondary. And, as I understand it, your Supreme Court can rule against a decision/action of government, but that ruling could be entirely undercut by the passage of an Act by the Commons -- as there is no officially promulgated "highest authority" as our Constitution serves as for the USA.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

The upcoming election on December 12th really deserves its own thread, so here we are.

So, this is the second early election in two years, the last one having been in 2017. Once again a Tory Prime Minister seeks to increase their majority in the eternal quest to "get Brexit done". Once again, the Labour party lumbers into motion with Jeremy Corbyn at the realm, shedding its more moderate members and MP's in the process.

Fist piece of news, Labour Deputy Leader Tom Watson has resigned after the last attempt to knife him failed in September. He will not stand at the next election and has essentially said that he no longer recognises the party he joined. Meanwhile, another former Labour MP has advised the public to hold their nose and vote for Boris Johnson because Corbyn is "unfit" to lead the party, let alone the country.

[rory_20_uk]

God it's a pretty pathetic time for Democracy in the UK.

"Being better than Corbyn" is possibly one of the most depressing slogans to have - but what else can the Tories offer?

~:smoking:

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

God it's a pretty pathetic time for Democracy in the UK.

"Being better than Corbyn" is possibly one of the most depressing slogans to have - but what else can the Tories offer?

~:smoking:

Maybe also "slightly less racist than Corbyn"?

That's a pretty damning indictment of the Labour party right there.

[rory_20_uk]

Maybe also "slightly less racist than Corbyn"?

That's a pretty damning indictment of the Labour party right there.

Its Jew / rich bashing or Muslim / poor bashing. It is reaching the playground in a primary school in terms of lack of nuance, data and "alternative facts". [Most] people are retreating into their own online social enclaves and hearing personal echo chambers. I've been unfriended / blocked on a few occasions for daring to challenge the data that was being quoted - not stating that the other side are great, but just to try to get people to argue on frankly reality as opposed to the conflicting fantasies.

~:smoking:

[Furunculus]

Ahem...

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php/153974-UK-General-Election-2019

[Gilrandir]

Ahem...

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php/153974-UK-General-Election-2019

I suggest making one more thread on Brexit and at least a couple of threads on Uk politics. There can never be too much of UK. Neither can there be enough of Trump.

[Pannonian]

The upcoming election on December 12th really deserves its own thread, so here we are.

So, this is the second early election in two years, the last one having been in 2017. Once again a Tory Prime Minister seeks to increase their majority in the eternal quest to "get Brexit done". Once again, the Labour party lumbers into motion with Jeremy Corbyn at the realm, shedding its more moderate members and MP's in the process.

Fist piece of news, Labour Deputy Leader Tom Watson has resigned after the last attempt to knife him failed in September. He will not stand at the next election and has essentially said that he no longer recognises the party he joined. Meanwhile, another former Labour MP has advised the public to hold their nose and vote for Boris Johnson because Corbyn is "unfit" to lead the party, let alone the country.

And Boris Johnson, pathological liar (it's his distinguishing characteristic). starts his campaign with a list of lies.

General election: 7 lies or half-truths Boris Johnson told in his first speech (https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/general-election-7-lies-half-20828514)

Incredible though it may seem, the Tory PM is actually worse than Corbyn. Not that I will be voting for either.

[Montmorency]

One thing that strikes me in all the talk about PMs is that everyone loses sight of the MPs. Parliament is where the action is, so one should take into account the MPs (party) that constitute a potential PM's power base.

As far as I'm concerned, more Labour MPs has to be better than more Conservative MPs.


Its Jew / rich bashing or Muslim / poor bashing. It is reaching the playground in a primary school in terms of lack of nuance, data and "alternative facts". [Most] people are retreating into their own online social enclaves and hearing personal echo chambers. I've been unfriended / blocked on a few occasions for daring to challenge the data that was being quoted - not stating that the other side are great, but just to try to get people to argue on frankly reality as opposed to the conflicting fantasies.

~:smoking:

You should spend more time doing that on the Org rather than social media. It's more productive, I promise.


Ahem...

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php/153974-UK-General-Election-2019

How rude to Beskar. :tear:

[Seamus Fermanagh]

And Boris Johnson, pathological liar (it's his distinguishing characteristic). starts his campaign with a list of lies.

General election: 7 lies or half-truths Boris Johnson told in his first speech (https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/general-election-7-lies-half-20828514)

Incredible though it may seem, the Tory PM is actually worse than Corbyn. Not that I will be voting for either.

An almost congenital inability to tell the truth has NOT been an impediment to a political career in and English-speaking nation on either side of the "pond" for some time now.

[Pannonian]

An almost congenital inability to tell the truth has NOT been an impediment to a political career in and English-speaking nation on either side of the "pond" for some time now.

It does mean that anyone thinking of voting Tory should not pretend to some kind of moral high horse. They know the current PM is a liar, has his entire career, inside and outside Parliament, defined by a habit of constantly lying (cf. his former editor and colleagues at the Telegraph). Causes that he has supposedly taken up have denounced him as a liar first and foremost, with every utterance of his safely assumed to be untrue until proven otherwise. There was an episode in Yes Prime Minister where the eponymous PM was aghast at having inadvertently told an untruth, with the threat of having to resign if it were found out. If people vote for him anyway, despite knowing him to be a liar above any other characteristic, then they should not pretend to hold any kind of moral high ground.

[rory_20_uk]

Aaaah, for the days when the PM would drag the country into a war based on fabricated evidence - those were the days!

First off, you vote for the local representative. Only those in Boris's constituency are voting for him. But I've said that before and you just ignored it.

Secondly... do people vote for any party for a sense of moral superiority? Perhaps the Green Party.

~:smoking:

[Greyblades]

do people vote for any party for a sense of moral superiority?

Have you seen the Lib-Dems' platform lately?

[Pannonian]

Aaaah, for the days when the PM would drag the country into a war based on fabricated evidence - those were the days!

First off, you vote for the local representative. Only those in Boris's constituency are voting for him. But I've said that before and you just ignored it.

Secondly... do people vote for any party for a sense of moral superiority? Perhaps the Green Party.

~:smoking:

Then don't pretend that you have any kind of moral or intellectual superiority over the dumb Americans who elected Trump. Johnson is a replica of Trump. If you want to elect him as PM (and don't give me that guff about electing a rep only, you're not fooling anyone with that make believe crap), you're the same as those who elected Trump as President.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I may be biased, but I believe Trump to be more of an asshat then Boris. I will stipulate that, given Trump, that is not necessarily an indication of quality for BoJo….

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Ahem...

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php/153974-UK-General-Election-2019

Embarrassing, and apologies to Beskar. However, I would respectfully submit that when Beskar posted his thread the game was not actually afoot.

[Pannonian]

And Boris Johnson demonstrably lies about the key issue that this election has been called on, with his claims contradicting what his Brexit secretary has already said on the subject. Will any Brexiteers care? Nope.

[rory_20_uk]

And Boris Johnson demonstrably lies about the key issue that this election has been called on, with his claims contradicting what his Brexit secretary has already said on the subject. Will any Brexiteers care? Nope.

What do you suggest those supporting Brexit do? Is there an alternative mechanism to complete Brexit?

~:smoking:

[InsaneApache]

What do you suggest those supporting Brexit do?

Fuck off and die?

[Furunculus]

i note with some amusement that the paradox of trying to appeal to the 'working-class' and the 'metro-iberal' is proving too much for labour, with support crashing in the north west and yorkshire.

[Pannonian]

Two ongoing investigations/reports that may be damaging to the Tories have been postponed until after the election. One concerning possible financial corruption regarding a personal adviser. The other, ironically concerning Russian influence on the 2016 referendum and which has been oked by the intelligence people and is ready for publication, will not be published until after the election. This is what you will be voting for folks.

[Pannonian]

ISTR one or two members here saying that collusion with foreign powers was tantamount to treason. What do these members think of the PM postponing the publication of a report on Russian influence over the 2016 referendum?

[Furunculus]

will they get brexit done?

[Furunculus]

**waits for carol cadwolladr to get all flustered over this dark-campaigning technique**

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-conservatives-fox-hunting-facebook-ad-campaign-a9195791.html



oopsie, someone has a problem!

https://twitter.com/Steven_Swinford/status/1193864719729397761

[Greyblades]

Guess thats it, we're locked in to a term of boris, good and ill. I'd cross my fingers but.. I am just too burned .

[Pannonian]

Guess thats it, we're locked in to a term of boris, good and ill. I'd cross my fingers but.. I am just too burned .

Wasn't that what you chose?

[Greyblades]

I thought I would get what I chose in August... and 2017... and 2016....

[Beskar]

Brexit party makes it move. They will not target the seats of sitting Tories.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2019-50377396

[Pannonian]

I thought I would get what I chose in August... and 2017... and 2016....

I hope you will be happy with the Johnson government that you will elect this time round. Presumably the other Leavers here will be voting the same way to facilitate what they want.

[Furunculus]

there is literally no-one else i could vote for:

labour is the very antithesis of my views.
lib-dems are close if they were truer to classical liberalism, but they're enabling nationalist parties and I am a unionist. and nuts of brexit.
the nationalist parties are (in wales and scotland) are bin juice.
brexit party are of no interest.
greens are a bunch of useless virtue-signallers.

who does that leave?

[rory_20_uk]

I hope you will be happy with the Johnson government that you will elect this time round. Presumably the other Leavers here will be voting the same way to facilitate what they want.

No, not happy. But then I wasn't impressed with Blair's wars and Cameroon and May seemed to achieve very little of real substance. Who do you want to run the country?

Please can you lay out an alternative method of Brexit?

~:smoking:

[Pannonian]

there is literally no-one else i could vote for:

labour is the very antithesis of my views.
lib-dems are close if they were truer to classical liberalism, but they're enabling nationalist parties and I am a unionist. and nuts of brexit.
the nationalist parties are (in wales and scotland) are bin juice.
brexit party are of no interest.
greens are a bunch of useless virtue-signallers.

who does that leave?

Are you ignoring the fact that the majority of Tory members, ie. the people who chose Johnson as PM, would accept the break up of the UK if that was the price of Brexit? In this forum the Brexiteers have largely been of a "Whatever will be will be" sentiment on this, whereas I've been strongly speaking up for the continuation of the union. A Tory government implementing Brexit will in practice mean the break up of the UK, especially as Johnson has agreed a deal that would split NI away from GB (hence even the DUP's opposition to it).

If you want the union and an examination of Brexit, perhaps you should demand that Brexit only goes ahead when all the nations have a majority for it. Right now, England for certain and perhaps Wales may still have a majority for it, but Scotland and Northern Ireland certainly don't. If Scotland, Northern Ireland and maybe even Wales have a majority against, but England has a majority for, do you still call yourself a unionist if you want something that the rest of the UK does not? Do you still call yourself a unionist when, as a result of this, and as predicted by others, the other nations want to move away from the UK? You like the idea of aligning with the US. Scotland likes aligning with the EU in general, while NI likes aligning with the RoI in particular. They are happy within the union as it currently is. You want to break this apart, yet you call yourself a unionist.

[Pannonian]

No, not happy. But then I wasn't impressed with Blair's wars and Cameroon and May seemed to achieve very little of real substance. Who do you want to run the country?

Please can you lay out an alternative method of Brexit?

~:smoking:

You won. We lost. Now keep your promises, starting with the 350 million per week for the NHS.

[rory_20_uk]

You won. We lost. Now keep your promises, starting with the 350 million per week for the NHS.

Still the same tired old lines / lies. This has even gone to court and even they threw out the petulant whining.

Leave won. So... yeah. Get on with it.

Would you like to have a go asking the simple question of how this is to be achieved? You are quick with problems and pretty thin on solutions.

~:smoking:

[rory_20_uk]

Are you ignoring the fact that the majority of Tory members, ie. the people who chose Johnson as PM, would accept the break up of the UK if that was the price of Brexit? In this forum the Brexiteers have largely been of a "Whatever will be will be" sentiment on this, whereas I've been strongly speaking up for the continuation of the union. A Tory government implementing Brexit will in practice mean the break up of the UK, especially as Johnson has agreed a deal that would split NI away from GB (hence even the DUP's opposition to it).

If you want the union and an examination of Brexit, perhaps you should demand that Brexit only goes ahead when all the nations have a majority for it. Right now, England for certain and perhaps Wales may still have a majority for it, but Scotland and Northern Ireland certainly don't. If Scotland, Northern Ireland and maybe even Wales have a majority against, but England has a majority for, do you still call yourself a unionist if you want something that the rest of the UK does not? Do you still call yourself a unionist when, as a result of this, and as predicted by others, the other nations want to move away from the UK? You like the idea of aligning with the US. Scotland likes aligning with the EU in general, while NI likes aligning with the RoI in particular. They are happy within the union as it currently is. You want to break this apart, yet you call yourself a unionist.

This is a good example of how not all Leavers are the same(!)

I would like the union to continue. Rather like if one is married one would like one's partner to stay. But if they want to leave then surely they should be allowed to do so.

Both Northern Ireland and Scotland have been bribed for years with money to not cause a fuss - this is not a new problem and frankly the process already started under Devolution in exactly the same way it did with Canada, Australia and New Zealand when they regained Dominion status.

~:smoking:

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/11/14/nigel-farages-election-campaign-flounders-claims-tories-want/

Nigel has gone loco.

[Greyblades]

Alternate title: conservatives attempt to gain seats the brexit party are contesting by buying off candidates with jobs, peerages and getting paywalled articles in the telegraph attacking farage.

Allegedly, but I am inclined to believe it as using the peerage as a reward for loyalty is standard british practice, an exemplar example being bercow being denied one after going rogue with the speakers chair.

[Pannonian]

Still the same tired old lines / lies. This has even gone to court and even they threw out the petulant whining.

Leave won. So... yeah. Get on with it.

Would you like to have a go asking the simple question of how this is to be achieved? You are quick with problems and pretty thin on solutions.

~:smoking:

How was that a lie? Did Leave not promise 350 million for the NHS, or did Leave not win?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

How was that a lie? Did Leave not promise 350 million for the NHS, or did Leave not win?

He did a disservice by including the word 'lies' as the tenor of his post was best served by the 'tired old lines' phrase.

And, of course, any budget that does not include that 350 million in funding should mandate mass resignation on the part of those who promised same. It is the only honorable thing.

In other words, Pan,' WE GET IT ALREADY, they fucking well lied their asses off. We hereby stipulate same and you can move on to something else. It is not as though the leave crowd has only made this one mis-statement and it is the only thing you can throw in their faces. Sheesh.

[rory_20_uk]

He did a disservice by including the word 'lies' as the tenor of his post was best served by the 'tired old lines' phrase.

And, of course, any budget that does not include that 350 million in funding should mandate mass resignation on the part of those who promised same. It is the only honorable thing.

In other words, Pan,' WE GET IT ALREADY, they fucking well lied their asses off. We hereby stipulate same and you can move on to something else. It is not as though the leave crowd has only made this one mis-statement and it is the only thing you can throw in their faces. Sheesh.

Thanks. And it is not surprising that he jumped on the one poorly chosen word rather than the substance.

~:smoking:

[Pannonian]

Thanks. And it is not surprising that he jumped on the one poorly chosen word rather than the substance.

~:smoking:

What is the substance of Brexit? What is gained from it? We have a pretty good idea of what we lose from it, not least the UK most likely. What do we get from paying that price?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

What is the substance of Brexit? What is gained from it? We have a pretty good idea of what we lose from it, not least the UK most likely. What do we get from paying that price?

A return to individual sovereignty, whereas the EU is trending (slowly) toward a more centralized collective. It is a judgement call for each UK'er as to whether or not that "whistle" is worth the price.

[Idaho]

One of the most depressing campaigns I can remember. Just the level of manipulation, nonsense, stitch up and dumb wrong-headedness.

Corbyn the Jew hater on account of being the first party leader to suggest that the ongoing displacement, ethnic cleansing, routine interment without trial and murder of Palestinians is perhaps a bit unfair - the full Israeli propaganda machine kicks into gear.

Add to that Russia and big money piling on the pressure to get out of the EU and protect their off shore money - while convincing people that it's all too do with national pride and bureaucracy.

Labour missing the public mood in critical areas.

Lib Dems being shit as ever.

[Pannonian]

A return to individual sovereignty, whereas the EU is trending (slowly) toward a more centralized collective. It is a judgement call for each UK'er as to whether or not that "whistle" is worth the price.

Which bits of sovereignty though? We're still subject to WTO rules, despite Brexiteers portraying that as a no-rule complete sovereignty default. And as such, other countries impose their own demands on us, such as India, Canada, Australia and most notably the US already have. The US in particular has a list of demands on areas that the EU has not touched, that the UK populace generally see as holy cows.

More importantly, Brexit supporters have changed the style of discourse in the UK, that have dumped all the traditional checks and balances in favour of the centralised executive (you've seen all the demands here that the executive should not be subject to the legislative or the law). Imagine if the US has a popular executive that persists but does not have a super majority, but their supporters demand that both Houses, all the courts, and every other check on the executive should step out of their way. That's what we have in the UK.

And what makes it even more cringing, is that supporters of this in the UK then have gall to take the high horse on Trump. At the very least, even if my cause is lost, I will hold the supporters of Brexit to the consequences of their decision and continued support for such, letting them know at every abysmal step that they are continuing to support this and what they are doing to support it, and letting them see that the despised Donald Trump and his antics is exactly what they are supporting in the UK.

I shouldn't have had to do this of course. The leader of the opposition should have been leading the way. But Corbyn is a useless :daisy: who is just as bad as the Brexiteers, who are of course his fellows.

[Pannonian]

One of the most depressing campaigns I can remember. Just the level of manipulation, nonsense, stitch up and dumb wrong-headedness.

Corbyn the Jew hater on account of being the first party leader to suggest that the ongoing displacement, ethnic cleansing, routine interment without trial and murder of Palestinians is perhaps a bit unfair - the full Israeli propaganda machine kicks into gear.

Add to that Russia and big money piling on the pressure to get out of the EU and protect their off shore money - while convincing people that it's all too do with national pride and bureaucracy.

Labour missing the public mood in critical areas.

Lib Dems being shit as ever.

It's Corbyn the Brexiteer whom I hate. But for him, whom you, Littlegrizzly, etc. idolise, I'd be voting Labour, as would be many others who are now turning elsewhere.

[Idaho]

It's Corbyn the Brexiteer whom I hate. But for him, whom you, Littlegrizzly, etc. idolise, I'd be voting Labour, as would be many others who are now turning elsewhere.

Yes I idolise him. Therefore everything is my fault.

This is an excellent example of how politics and political discussion has gone down the toilet.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Yes I idolise him. Therefore everything is my fault.

This is an excellent example of how politics and political discussion has gone down the toilet.

Welcome to my life.

[rory_20_uk]

Yes I idolise him. Therefore everything is my fault.

This is an excellent example of how politics and political discussion has gone down the toilet.

I have committed the crime of holding a view that Johnson holds for political expediency.

Therefore I wholeheartedly support everything he has and will do.

~:smoking:

[Idaho]

This level of debate suits some people. It suits those people who already have the money and power and don't want any scrutiny.

I have a plumber friend who is a classic working class Tory. He is brexit and anti immigration. Thinks that socialism is some crazy thing that will make him change the colour of his bin bags and give free medicine to Somalians. He works long weeks, rents his home and has no pension. He is heading, not just for poverty in his old age, but destitution. And his son is unlikely to be able to get to university or other higher institution of learning, and hence will also grow up poor. The same is true for the MAJORITY of British people. But they just don't care about it. They care about Brussels politicians or Latvians.

Rees mogg won't answer questions about his off shore money and the cabinet office won't investigate. These are multi millionaires in charge who have clearly benefited from our society to an extraordinary degree, who are twisting the rules to make sure they remain the elite. And idiots who are essentially the shit on his shoes, cheer him on.

[Furunculus]

as an accidental follow on to idaho's post above - an interesting view on the priorities of the C1/C2 demographic:

https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/huffpost-uk-edelman-focus-group-johnson-corbyn-brexit-nhs-trump_uk_5dced241e4b02947481682c0

[Idaho]

I have committed the crime of holding a view that Johnson holds for political expediency.

Therefore I wholeheartedly support everything he has and will do.

~:smoking:
Johnson is 100% about expediency. The expediency of himself. I can't remember a more self centered PM. Blair perhaps, but he at least spread the benefits around in his messianic zeal. Johnson would render us all down for tallow.

[Pannonian]

Anti-EU articles disseminated by such Kremlin-sanctioned media outlets as RT and Sputnik in the run-up to the referendum campaign are cited in the report. Social media analysis that was presented to the digital, culture, media and sport committee last year revealed that articles published by the Russian sites had four times more social media impact before the Brexit vote than the official leave campaigns.

More than 260 articles posted by RT and Sputnik in the six months prior to the referendum were shared so widely on Twitter that they could have been seen up to 134m times.

By comparison, tweets from Vote Leave and Leave.eu — the two biggest pro-Brexit campaign groups — generated potential impressions of 33m and 14m.

Intelligence officials who have either seen or been briefed on the document said: “The government’s refusal to publish the report has been very damaging to the British intelligence community, because it suggests that we have something major to cover up.”

Sunday Times article on report Johnson is refusing to publish. Intelligence people want it published.


Senior Whitehall source: “Downing Street are concerned that if this emerges it would raise questions about the validity of the referendum result, which is the central issue in the general election campaign & could compromise the Tories pitch to the electorate to get Brexit done.”

Tom Harper is the Home Affairs correspondent for the Sunday Times.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Johnson is 100% about expediency. The expediency of himself. I can't remember a more self centered PM. Blair perhaps, but he at least spread the benefits around in his messianic zeal. Johnson would render us all down for tallow.

I'm starting to think both Johnson and Corbyn suffer from some sort of fundamental personality disorder. In the former case Johnson seems to believe what he says when he says it, but what he believes changes at his convenience. In the latter case Corbyn seems to believe that anyone who agrees with his views on a given topic is above suspicion, hence surrounding himself with left-leaning antisemites.

That's my most charitable interpretation of their characters.

Jo Swinson, on the other hand has simply gone back on what she said previously - having actively campaigned for a Brexit referendum before it was even a practical possibility she now openly calls for the annulling of the result.

[Pannonian]

I'm starting to think both Johnson and Corbyn suffer from some sort of fundamental personality disorder. In the former case Johnson seems to believe what he says when he says it, but what he believes changes at his convenience. In the latter case Corbyn seems to believe that anyone who agrees with his views on a given topic is above suspicion, hence surrounding himself with left-leaning antisemites.

That's my most charitable interpretation of their characters.

Jo Swinson, on the other hand has simply gone back on what she said previously - having actively campaigned for a Brexit referendum before it was even a practical possibility she now openly calls for the annulling of the result.

That's the policy if the Lib Dems manage to get a majority. If the votes change to the extent that the Lib Dems gain a majority in the Commons, wouldn't you say that they'll have the mandate for it? They got 7.4% of the vote and 12 MPs last time, and to be in a position to implement that policy they'll need a net gain of at least +314 this time round.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Which bits of sovereignty though? We're still subject to WTO rules, despite Brexiteers portraying that as a no-rule complete sovereignty default. And as such, other countries impose their own demands on us, such as India, Canada, Australia and most notably the US already have. The US in particular has a list of demands on areas that the EU has not touched, that the UK populace generally see as holy cows.

No nation or state or even individual holds absolute sovereignty over their life. The other blokes, and random events, get a vote in the decision as well. The normal flow of international relations involve parties haggling back and forth over an issue until they reach an acceptable settlement, but the act of negotiation and compromise does not require you diminish your own ability to decide for yourself (ves) whether or not such a settlement is acceptable. I think the point of the Exit fanciers was that as much of that sovereignty as possible should be retained in the "mother of all parliaments" and that allowing the EU to require all members to align their internal policies, regulations, etc. would be an inappropriate diminishment of that degree of "self-rule" that has be enacted by UKer's for themselves over the centuries. As I noted above, how much of a cost will be paid so as to preserver/return this degree of self-determination as well as how much it had actually been diminished, are both open to debate.


More importantly, Brexit supporters have changed the style of discourse in the UK, that have dumped all the traditional checks and balances in favour of the centralised executive (you've seen all the demands here that the executive should not be subject to the legislative or the law). Imagine if the US has a popular executive that persists but does not have a super majority, but their supporters demand that both Houses, all the courts, and every other check on the executive should step out of their way. That's what we have in the UK. Both of our major political parties have been doing this since the mid-90s (arguably earlier), which is why our USA politics is such a polarized mess at this time. We have thesis and antithesis with virtually no effort at synthesis. Absent the Cold War to keep us at least vaguely consistent (and I would not go further than vaguely) in our foreign policy, it helps explain why the USA has been such a poor ally of late.


And what makes it even more cringing, is that supporters of this in the UK then have gall to take the high horse on Trump. At the very least, even if my cause is lost, I will hold the supporters of Brexit to the consequences of their decision and continued support for such, letting them know at every abysmal step that they are continuing to support this and what they are doing to support it, and letting them see that the despised Donald Trump and his antics is exactly what they are supporting in the UK.

I shouldn't have had to do this of course. The leader of the opposition should have been leading the way. But Corbyn is a useless :daisy: who is just as bad as the Brexiteers, who are of course his fellows. Indeed, your politics do appear to be as polarized as ours have become. In these polarized conditions, those who seem to rise to the leadership level are either those for whom power is the sole point (I include both of our 2016 major party nominees in this labeling) or somewhat too zealous in their pursuit of an ideological position at the expense of the "other" viewpoint.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

That's the policy if the Lib Dems manage to get a majority. If the votes change to the extent that the Lib Dems gain a majority in the Commons, wouldn't you say that they'll have the mandate for it? They got 7.4% of the vote and 12 MPs last time, and to be in a position to implement that policy they'll need a net gain of at least +314 this time round.

Oh come on. Even if the Lib-Dems get an absolute majority they won't get the same percentage of the vote as in the referendum, and the election probably won't have as high turnout.

So, no, no mandate for overturning the referendum.

If you don't like the results of referndums you shouldn't call for them to be held. Swinson argued the British people themselves deserved a say - now she argues the opposite.

[Pannonian]

Oh come on. Even if the Lib-Dems get an absolute majority they won't get the same percentage of the vote as in the referendum, and the election probably won't have as high turnout.

So, no, no mandate for overturning the referendum.

If you don't like the results of referndums you shouldn't call for them to be held. Swinson argued the British people themselves deserved a say - now she argues the opposite.

So what kind of policies does a government with a majority have a mandate for? And if a government does not have a majority, does the policy still have a mandate?

[Montmorency]

No nation or state or even individual holds absolute sovereignty over their life. The other blokes, and random events, get a vote in the decision as well. The normal flow of international relations involve parties haggling back and forth over an issue until they reach an acceptable settlement, but the act of negotiation and compromise does not require you diminish your own ability to decide for yourself (ves) whether or not such a settlement is acceptable. I think the point of the Exit fanciers was that as much of that sovereignty as possible should be retained in the "mother of all parliaments" and that allowing the EU to require all members to align their internal policies, regulations, etc. would be an inappropriate diminishment of that degree of "self-rule" that has be enacted by UKer's for themselves over the centuries. As I noted above, how much of a cost will be paid so as to preserver/return this degree of self-determination as well as how much it had actually been diminished, are both open to debate.

Limiting comment to this, it should be pointed out that the paleos on the American Right have wanted out of the United Nations since accession, and all manner of other organizations such as the WTO if I recall right. Trump (https://www.vox.com/world/2017/10/12/16464778/unesco-us-withdrawal-trump) has been delivering (https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/19/us/politics/trump-israel-palestinians-human-rights.html) some red (https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/11/05/trump-administration-un-diplomats-united-nations-makes-life-difficult/) meat (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-guns-nra-trump/trump-pulling-u-s-out-of-u-n-arms-treaty-heeding-nra-idUSKCN1S21RD) on the UN throughout his term.

They want bad things for bad reasons and they don't even understand causality. What was I talking about again?


Oh come on. Even if the Lib-Dems get an absolute majority they won't get the same percentage of the vote as in the referendum, and the election probably won't have as high turnout.

So, no, no mandate for overturning the referendum.

If you don't like the results of referndums you shouldn't call for them to be held. Swinson argued the British people themselves deserved a say - now she argues the opposite.

I strongly reject the position that an inspecific nonbinding referendum confers a mandate overriding a contemporary landslide electoral result gained on the basis of longstanding and specific campaign promises.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

So what kind of policies does a government with a majority have a mandate for? And if a government does not have a majority, does the policy still have a mandate?

The Referendum had long-standing cross-party support.

[Furunculus]

I strongly reject the position that an inspecific nonbinding referendum confers a mandate overriding a contemporary landslide electoral result gained on the basis of longstanding and specific campaign promises.

i can accept that point.
may i expect continuity-remain to walk small in the weeks and months following december 13th?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I strongly reject the position that an inspecific nonbinding referendum confers a mandate overriding a contemporary landslide electoral result gained on the basis of longstanding and specific campaign promises.

See above.

The cross-party support was crucial to the legitimacy of the referendum, it was only "non-binding" because there's no legal way to make a binding referendum in the UK.

[Pannonian]

The Referendum had long-standing cross-party support.

And if it no longer has cross-party support, then what?

[Pannonian]

i can accept that point.
may i expect continuity-remain to walk small in the weeks and months following december 13th?

I expect the loyal opposition to offer opposition to the loyal government's plans. Is this reasonable?

[Montmorency]

See above.

The cross-party support was crucial to the legitimacy of the referendum, it was only "non-binding" because there's no legal way to make a binding referendum in the UK.

Had being the operative word.


i can accept that point.
may i expect continuity-remain to walk small in the weeks and months following december 13th?

Depends on the exact arrangement. To say nothing else, if Johnson carries the election and still can't produce a final result, he can hardly proclaim "set and match" in the new cycle.

I have to hand it Farage, I'm not following UK news at all currently but in concept I can't see how the Brexit Party contesting only Labour seats doesn't:

1. Kill any prospects for a strong Labour performance
2. Position Farage to maintain influence over the Conservative government

Sad days.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

And if it no longer has cross-party support, then what?

Really?

Hold another one if you're that stuck.

[Pannonian]

Had being the operative word.



Depends on the exact arrangement. To say nothing else, if Johnson carries the election and still can't produce a final result, he can hardly proclaim "set and match" in the new cycle.

I have to hand it Farage, I'm not following UK news at all currently but in concept I can't see how the Brexit Party contesting only Labour seats doesn't:

1. Kill any prospects for a strong Labour performance
2. Position Farage to maintain influence over the Conservative government

Sad days.

THE GREAT BREXIT PARTY SWINDLE (https://bylinetimes.com/2019/11/15/the-great-brexit-party-swindle/)

TLDR: Nigel Farage has taken a load of money off people for the chance of becoming a Brexit party candidate, only to inform them they would not be candidates after all. All the money is non-refundable.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Strong Tory victory in the upcoming election seems likely.

There will be a no deal Brexit, the withdrawal agreement will likely fail or will never be followed up on.
The UK will see economic pain and people will likely switch to a Labor government in 2024, following the removal of Corbyn as party leader.

During this half a decade of getting kicked around on the world stage, the UK will likely splinter apart and England will rejoin the UK at a future date with no benefits or perks.

[Greyblades]

So this is what the americans feel when I comment on thier elections huh?

Whether the tories go along with the deal is in question, largely dependant on the performance of the brexit party IMO, but its leaning towards taking the deal and the next few governments will spend time chipping away at the unpopular parts.

The labor party are dead in the water, even assuming they are lucky enough to follow the lines of the previous labour resergeance; they're not coming back in such a small timeframe.

Whether we get kicked about depends on the next government's ability to hold out against the attempts at punishment from the more globalistic inclined parts of the world market, assuming the americans dont go democrat (fat chance, they're even more screwed than labor) I dont think it will be that bad.

[Idaho]

...In the latter case Corbyn seems to believe that anyone who agrees with his views on a given topic is above suspicion, hence surrounding himself with left-leaning antisemites.

Surrounding himself with anti Semites? Not just over egging the pudding, but adding custard, mayonnaise and extra eggs. While there are some loons in the party, the whole thing had been deliberately orchestrated by people who really care about:

- Israel holding the authority to discuss and condemn and control all information and discussion related to Jews
- politicians who are avowed centrists
- perhaps a distant third is caring about the issue of anti semitism.

And if we are targeting anti semitism in the political arena, why is it just the labour party? The right has long enjoyed the nods, winks and whispers about Jews. The far right, now co-opted into the brexiteers, are vociferous "Rothschild/nwo" nutters.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

So this is what the americans feel when I comment on thier elections huh?

Whether the tories go along with the deal is in question, largely dependant on the performance of the brexit party IMO, but its leaning towards taking the deal and the next few governments will spend time chipping away at the unpopular parts.

The labor party are dead in the water, even assuming they are lucky enough to follow the lines of the previous labour resergeance; they're not coming back in such a small timeframe.

Whether we get kicked about depends on the next government's ability to hold out against the attempts at punishment from the more globalistic inclined parts of the world market, assuming the americans dont go democrat (fat chance, they're even more screwed than labor) I dont think it will be that bad.

We probably all feel a hint "possessive" about our own elections. :laugh4:

Our election here is too close to call. Popular numbers favor the Democrats but our state-by-state electoral college system obviates much of that. Winning California by a million vote margin is no better than winning it by 10,000. The states where the numbers are closest (WI, MI, OH, PA, VA, FL, NV, NM) often feature goodly cadres of Trump supporters. Trump could very readily repeat his minority popular/majority electoral college win from 2016. Were the Dems to put forward a nominee who could garner mostly heart-felt support from BOTH their progressive wing and the union/working class then Trump goes down to defeat. So far (it is still earlyish), the Dems have yet to center on a candidate who has that broad of an appeal. We shall see.

[InsaneApache]

And if we are targeting anti semitism in the political arena, why is it just the labour party? The right has long enjoyed the nods, winks and whispers about Jews. The far right, now co-opted into the brexiteers, are vociferous "Rothschild/nwo" nutters.

Maybe that's because the far right and the far left are essentially the same?

[Idaho]

Maybe that's because the far right and the far left are essentially the same?

Not really. One side is about creating a powerful state that (somehow) doesn't become a dictatorship, for the (proposed) benefit of all. Removing powerful capitalist elites and prioritising ordinary people.

The other side is essentially the political arm of the same powerful elites, but dressed up as ordinary people - farage being a glorious example of a wealthy banker and political operator pretending that he has a great affinity for poor people in Sunderland. Or Yaxley-lennon who attempts the same con by calling himself Tommy Robinson.

[Pannonian]

Tory official twitter account renames itself FactcheckUK to post attack tweets.

[rory_20_uk]

Tory official twitter account renames itself FactcheckUK to post attack tweets.

:wall: GOD they're acting like the antivaxxers.

Trump helps poison the world. The UK has little proper oversight beyond "Chaps don't do unsporting things because they're not cricket". And that is certainly not working effectively any more - if it ever really did.

There are the tools for proper oversight but they are all scattered around - the ICO, the NAO - hell, the programme "more or less" on Radio 4 does a pretty good stats review job; the Supreme Court and (in Lieu of a president figure) the monarchy. The first two are able to find the truth - especially the NAO and the other two is the framework to enforce.

Will they be plucked out of obscurity to punish liars and get people disagreeing over opinions and not facts? I'm not optimistic.

~:smoking:

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Surrounding himself with anti Semites? Not just over egging the pudding, but adding custard, mayonnaise and extra eggs. While there are some loons in the party, the whole thing had been deliberately orchestrated by people who really care about:

- Israel holding the authority to discuss and condemn and control all information and discussion related to Jews
- politicians who are avowed centrists
- perhaps a distant third is caring about the issue of anti semitism.

And if we are targeting anti semitism in the political arena, why is it just the labour party? The right has long enjoyed the nods, winks and whispers about Jews. The far right, now co-opted into the brexiteers, are vociferous "Rothschild/nwo" nutters.

Oh come now, Ken Livingstone, that guy from the NEC claiming the whole thing was a Jewish cover-up and he's "never" seen any antisemitism in the part, the "antiracism" activisit who actually got thrown out for being antisemitic.

All Corbyn allies.

To say nothing of his links to Hamas.

[Greyblades]

:wall: GOD they're acting like the antivaxxers.

Trump helps poison the world. The UK has little proper oversight beyond "Chaps don't do unsporting things because they're not cricket". And that is certainly not working effectively any more - if it ever really did.

There are the tools for proper oversight but they are all scattered around - the ICO, the NAO - hell, the programme "more or less" on Radio 4 does a pretty good stats review job; the Supreme Court and (in Lieu of a president figure) the monarchy. The first two are able to find the truth - especially the NAO and the other two is the framework to enforce.

Will they be plucked out of obscurity to punish liars and get people disagreeing over opinions and not facts? I'm not optimistic.

~:smoking:

Thank God for that. Noone can be trusted to dictate what is truth and what is not, let alone trusted with power of punishing those that deviate from thier version of reality.

Such power given to an organization would see it usurped within a political cycle like blair did with the house of lords and turned into a ministry of truth for whichever party or interest has managed to pack it the most, if not outright purged and replaced by the PM like happened to the bbc under blair.

As it lies now you'd be giving terrifying reality to the cchq's name change.

[Pannonian]

:wall: GOD they're acting like the antivaxxers.

Trump helps poison the world. The UK has little proper oversight beyond "Chaps don't do unsporting things because they're not cricket". And that is certainly not working effectively any more - if it ever really did.

There are the tools for proper oversight but they are all scattered around - the ICO, the NAO - hell, the programme "more or less" on Radio 4 does a pretty good stats review job; the Supreme Court and (in Lieu of a president figure) the monarchy. The first two are able to find the truth - especially the NAO and the other two is the framework to enforce.

Will they be plucked out of obscurity to punish liars and get people disagreeing over opinions and not facts? I'm not optimistic.

~:smoking:

The current PM has already lied to the monarch, nothing was done about it beyond the courts ruling that the PM had lied, and the PM's organs are now back on the job, and is likely to win a majority. When people vote for known serial liars, what incentive is there to tell the truth?

[Beskar]

I thought it was the GCHQ when I casually overheard the news. Luckily, it was only the CCHQ.

Though to be fair, GCHQ is kind of 'Fact Change UK' when it comes to communications...

[Pannonian]

I thought it was the GCHQ when I casually overheard the news. Luckily, it was only the CCHQ.

Though to be fair, GCHQ is kind of 'Fact Change UK' when it comes to communications...

The Intelligence guys aren't too happy with Johnson for throwing them under the bus by blocking the publication of a report on Russian influence that they'd okayed. Together with the police not being too happy for Johnson using them for a photo op when he had no right to, I'm not sure if there are any branches of the professional government who are happy with the PM. Perhaps the armed forces.

[Idaho]

Oh come now, Ken Livingstone, that guy from the NEC claiming the whole thing was a Jewish cover-up and he's "never" seen any antisemitism in the part, the "antiracism" activisit who actually got thrown out for being antisemitic.

All Corbyn allies.

To say nothing of his links to Hamas.
They were/are Corbyn supporters. Not sure that's the same as an ally.

As for Hamas... That's a while other thread that never ends.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

They were/are Corbyn supporters. Not sure that's the same as an ally.

As for Hamas... That's a while other thread that never ends.

There's also this:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cJucfNhnwlM

[Idaho]

While your at it, how about this:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-7708351/Journalist-ANGELA-EPSTEIN-blasts-Jeremy-Corbyns-pronunciation.html

Utterly ridiculous. I have a German Jewish surname that gets pronounced a number of different ways. Some of which are much more accurate to how it would be pronounced in Germany now and in the past. Calling this anti-Semitic is just pathetic barrel scraping.

[Idaho]

There's also this:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cJucfNhnwlM

That's shocking in how utterly transparent mainstream defence of Israel is being turned into concern trolling. I wouldn't be surprised if these people were hand picked and coached.

One of them even had the nerve to talk about not listening to a marginalised community, just days after the Israeli military bombed a house killing an entire family, and shrugged it off saying that it was just a mistake. While another on this video is concerned that imports of kosher biscuits might be affected and that sends chills through them. Absolutely disgraceful.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

While your at it, how about this:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-7708351/Journalist-ANGELA-EPSTEIN-blasts-Jeremy-Corbyns-pronunciation.html

Utterly ridiculous. I have a German Jewish surname that gets pronounced a number of different ways. Some of which are much more accurate to how it would be pronounced in Germany now and in the past. Calling this anti-Semitic is just pathetic barrel scraping.

I'm not sure it's "utterly ridiculous", probably a bit overwrought but it isn't ridiculous. I think the issue here is, again, Corbyn. I can think of a number of reasons to pronounce the name Epstein in a specifically Germanic way - one is to highlight its Jewishness, another is because you're a pompous git. If it weren't for the miasma that now surrounds Corbyn I'd say it was probably the latter.

[Idaho]

I'm not sure it's "utterly ridiculous", probably a bit overwrought but it isn't ridiculous. I think the issue here is, again, Corbyn. I can think of a number of reasons to pronounce the name Epstein in a specifically Germanic way - one is to highlight its Jewishness, another is because you're a pompous git. If it weren't for the miasma that now surrounds Corbyn I'd say it was probably the latter.

I might pronounce it Ep-steyn or Ep-steen or Ep-shtine or Ep-shteen. Depends on my mood, and perhaps when I last came across the name (and hence it's pronunciation). It would be pathetic if it wasn't so clearly a shrieking defence of specific political interests.

[Pannonian]

And the Tories do it again. Just ahead of the release of the Labour manifesto, they do an attack site titled labourmanifesto.co.uk. Does it matter to Tory voters any more that the party lies and deceives as a matter of course?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

And the Tories do it again. Just ahead of the release of the Labour manifesto, they do an attack site titled labourmanifesto.co.uk. Does it matter to Tory voters any more that the party lies and deceives as a matter of course?

It matters very much to our Trump voters that Trump does so -- it is part of why they love him. It is all about taking the fight to the evil lefties, which end justifies almost any means short of child murder.

[Pannonian]

It matters very much to our Trump voters that Trump does so -- it is part of why they love him. It is all about taking the fight to the evil lefties, which end justifies almost any means short of child murder.

AFAIK, or at least I used to believe so, there isn't the same wellspring of virulent hatred in the UK of anything deemed left of centre. Policy-wise, left of centre politics would still get the support of a clear majority of the people.

[Greyblades]

:rolleyes:

As loath as I am to interupt the blonde/orange man bad circle jerk, might I recomend actually looking at what the back patting is over?

Its a pretty odd method of deception to have "A WEBSITE BY THE CONSERVATIVE PARTY" (https://www.labourmanifesto.co.uk/#) right under the page title.

[rory_20_uk]

And the Tories do it again. Just ahead of the release of the Labour manifesto, they do an attack site titled labourmanifesto.co.uk. Does it matter to Tory voters any more that the party lies and deceives as a matter of course?

It does matter. It is such a shame that all parties could not promise to Leave. Since if that were the case I'd probably vote Lib Dems.

~:smoking:

[Greyblades]

It does matter. It is such a shame that all parties could not promise to Leave. Since if that were the case I'd probably vote Lib Dems.

~:smoking:

Hm, I think if it was the case I'd not vote at all, what I want is just plain not on offer. I was hopeful that the purge of the wets would turn the conservatives into something worth voting for, but I still see signs they are as intrusively parternalistic as ever.

The closest is what the lib dems should be, sadly the liberal part seems completely subsumed by the social democrat end.

As for lies and deception... they're politicians I dont know a time when they werent all like that.
They should kindly take a running jump with thier "This is beyond the pale, my side would/has never done something like that" faux outrage.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I might pronounce it Ep-steyn or Ep-steen or Ep-shtine or Ep-shteen. Depends on my mood, and perhaps when I last came across the name (and hence it's pronunciation). It would be pathetic if it wasn't so clearly a shrieking defence of specific political interests.

The thing is, the man in question always pronounced in Ep-steen. There's also the fact that linking his Jewishness to child abuse is a version of the old "Blood Libel".

Like I say, could just be Corbyn being a pretentious git - but that's still a bad thing.

[Pannonian]

Hm, I think if it was the case I'd not vote at all, what I want is just plain not on offer. I was hopeful that the purge of the wets would turn the conservatives into something worth voting for, but I still see signs they are as intrusively parternalistic as ever.

The closest is what the lib dems should be, sadly the liberal part seems completely subsumed by the social democrat end.

As for lies and deception... they're politicians I dont know a time when they werent all like that.
They should kindly take a running jump with thier "This is beyond the pale, my side would/has never done something like that" faux outrage.

Politicians used to deceive by omission. Outright lies were a matter for resignation. See the episode of Yes Prime Minister where Hacker assures the Commons on something that he'd been mistaken about, and worries the whole episode over having to resign if anyone found out. The current PM has a justified reputation for lying every time he opens his mouth, and not just from ignorance, but knowingly repeating confirmed lies. In the UK, this current has only really been in evidence since Brexit (on the Leave side), and taken up since then by the Tory radicals (the ones you want to control the party, since you want rid of the wets).

See Corbyn for an example of the traditional UK politician's way of deceiving, by omission. I dislike him, but he is completely different from Johnson. Johnson is Trump in terms of propensity to plain lie.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

But does Johnson know he's lying?

I posit that query because I suspect -- and this is NOT a happy comment -- that Trump would actually pass a polygraph test when he makes his claims.

[Pannonian]

But does Johnson know he's lying?

I posit that query because I suspect -- and this is NOT a happy comment -- that Trump would actually pass a polygraph test when he makes his claims.

Yes he does. While I wouldn't class him as a political genius (none of the various front benches qualify), he's not stupid, and he repeats stuff that have been confirmed as lies. I think he's more self-aware than Corbyn, and is aware that he's lying, but unlike Corbyn, he doesn't care. His raison d'etre is to be PM for as long as possible, and he follows the instructions of his handlers as he's too lazy to do the work, not as well versed in doctrine as Corbyn to have a ready answer to select areas, and isn't bright enough to improvise a good answer. Any improvised answer is disastrous, so he just repeats stuff that his handlers reckon he can get away with.

Everyone who has worked with Johnson in the past says that lying is his main characteristic. Well, that and laziness, which causes him to lie to turn in the words for which he's paid. A few weeks ago the Telegraph had to settle the aftermath of another of his lying articles. Max Hastings, a former editor of his, is adamant that there are few, if any, worse candidates to be PM in terms of personal qualities. Most of his former colleagues detest him for his (non) working habits. He is loved by the owners of the Telegraph (and the other right wing press) as the ultimate in blank cheques. For as long as Johnson is PM, he will sign whatever they want him to sign, and he is happy to continue doing so for as long as they will keep him in number 10.

Edit: Max Hastings: I was Boris Johnson’s boss: he is utterly unfit to be prime minister (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jun/24/boris-johnson-prime-minister-tory-party-britain)

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Politicians used to deceive by omission. Outright lies were a matter for resignation. See the episode of Yes Prime Minister where Hacker assures the Commons on something that he'd been mistaken about, and worries the whole episode over having to resign if anyone found out. The current PM has a justified reputation for lying every time he opens his mouth, and not just from ignorance, but knowingly repeating confirmed lies. In the UK, this current has only really been in evidence since Brexit (on the Leave side), and taken up since then by the Tory radicals (the ones you want to control the party, since you want rid of the wets).

See Corbyn for an example of the traditional UK politician's way of deceiving, by omission. I dislike him, but he is completely different from Johnson. Johnson is Trump in terms of propensity to plain lie.

Corbyn definitely has told outright lies, though. He said during the televised debate that Johnson only got his deal through with the help of the DUP. In reality every member of the DUP voted against it.

[Pannonian]

Corbyn definitely has told outright lies, though. He said during the televised debate that Johnson only got his deal through with the help of the DUP. In reality every member of the DUP voted against it.

TBF, Corbyn is muddled when it comes to Brexit. He could have just as accurately said that the Tories are only in this position to carry out Brexit thanks to his personal support of it. And it does matter a bit just how many lies are told though. IIRC in Johnson's first political broadcast since announcing the election, proper fact checkers (as opposed to Tory HQ twitter) counted at least 6 lies or distortions in a very short speech. I know that a major company in one of the industries that Johnson cited in support of his deal denounced his claim as a lie, and stated that it's safe to assume that anything Boris Johnson says to be untrue.

Boris Johnson ridiculed by British sock makers over claim they are locked out of US market (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/boris-johnson-british-sock-makers-us-market-regulations-brexit-a9117076.html)


“My opinion is that if it comes out of Boris Johnson’s mouth it’s likely not to be true, you may quote me on that if it helps,” he said.

[Furunculus]

Let me get this straight:

when corbyn lies he is just muddled.
when he claims the tories want to sell off the nhs he merely mispoke.
when the guardian headline lies about what priti patel actually said it's just, you know, election rhetoric.

but when boris makes a mess of of one lining his as yet unannounced national insurance plans....

“LIES!!! Bring hellfire on ruinination down on all his line unto the 13th generation!”

have i got this right?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

TBF, Corbyn is muddled when it comes to Brexit. He could have just as accurately said that the Tories are only in this position to carry out Brexit thanks to his personal support of it. And it does matter a bit just how many lies are told though. IIRC in Johnson's first political broadcast since announcing the election, proper fact checkers (as opposed to Tory HQ twitter) counted at least 6 lies or distortions in a very short speech. I know that a major company in one of the industries that Johnson cited in support of his deal denounced his claim as a lie, and stated that it's safe to assume that anything Boris Johnson says to be untrue.

Boris Johnson ridiculed by British sock makers over claim they are locked out of US market (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/boris-johnson-british-sock-makers-us-market-regulations-brexit-a9117076.html)

You make Corbyn sound senile.

Pretty sure Trump is senile - look how that's working out.

[Pannonian]

You make Corbyn sound senile.

Pretty sure Trump is senile - look how that's working out.

Not senile. Dense. Corbyn's as intellectually competent now as he's ever been, which is not very. One advantage he has over Johnson is that Corbyn is thoroughly well read in areas he believes in, so when a discussion touches on these areas, he has a ready answer, as he's well versed in what doctrine says about it. In contrast, Johnson has his classical education, and he probably has a higher intellectual ceiling than Corbyn, but he's the laziest politician I've ever seen, and he prefers to blag and let his connections take him out of the trouble he's caused.

Neither of them is a good candidate for PM. Johnson is the worse by a wide margin.

[Pannonian]

Let me get this straight:

when corbyn lies he is just muddled.
when he claims the tories want to sell off the nhs he merely mispoke.
when the guardian headline lies about what priti patel actually said it's just, you know, election rhetoric.

but when boris makes a mess of of one lining his as yet unannounced national insurance plans....

“LIES!!! Bring hellfire on ruinination down on all his line unto the 13th generation!”

have i got this right?

Are you trying to get me to defend Corbyn? I've said on many occasions that I think he's an idiot. Go back a few pages to the Labour party thread where I got into disputes with true believers.

[Beskar]

And the Tories do it again. Just ahead of the release of the Labour manifesto, they do an attack site titled labourmanifesto.co.uk. Does it matter to Tory voters any more that the party lies and deceives as a matter of course?

Some random set up the https://www.thetorymanifesto.com/ in response which is now making its rounds.

[Idaho]

There's also this:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cJucfNhnwlM
This video is the equal and opposite of this:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/nov/21/farage-under-fire-for-conspiracy-claims-linked-to-antisemitism

Both are essentially bollocks. Click bait for the converted. It's news pumped out like viruses or bacteria. It's meant for someone to click on and paste somewhere - like you and me have done. The advertisers get the money (Google probably in both cases, and the respective "newspapers" get a cut. But does it actually mean anything Phillip? Is it just internet froth manipulated by advertisers, media pundits and political backers?

Of course there is a kernel of truth in both. But there is a kernel of truth in most bland, circumstantial correlations.

Is this as good as it gets?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

This video is the equal and opposite of this:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/nov/21/farage-under-fire-for-conspiracy-claims-linked-to-antisemitism

Both are essentially bollocks. Click bait for the converted. It's news pumped out like viruses or bacteria. It's meant for someone to click on and paste somewhere - like you and me have done. The advertisers get the money (Google probably in both cases, and the respective "newspapers" get a cut. But does it actually mean anything Phillip? Is it just internet froth manipulated by advertisers, media pundits and political backers?

Of course there is a kernel of truth in both. But there is a kernel of truth in most bland, circumstantial correlations.

Is this as good as it gets?

Honestly, I personally find the preponderance of evidence of Corbyn's antisemitism persuasive. It's not the relationship with Ken Livingstone (although they were close), it's not the forward to the book (though the book was a foundational text for 20th Century antisemitism), it's not the mural (though that's obviously peddling a conspiracy theory), it's not even the time Corbyn insinuated "Zionists" weren't properly English.

It's the whole shebang, Idaho - it's when you take more than two of those things and you have to ask "how stupid is he?" This Epshtien thing is just the latest example - and it DOES feed directly into the medieval blood-libel.

So, really, this election is about choosing between Boris Johnson who's entire political philosophy seems to be quoting Cicero and expediency, and Corbyn who's pretty definitely probably might be an antisemite.

[Pannonian]

Honestly, I personally find the preponderance of evidence of Corbyn's antisemitism persuasive. It's not the relationship with Ken Livingstone (although they were close), it's not the forward to the book (though the book was a foundational text for 20th Century antisemitism), it's not the mural (though that's obviously peddling a conspiracy theory), it's not even the time Corbyn insinuated "Zionists" weren't properly English.

It's the whole shebang, Idaho - it's when you take more than two of those things and you have to ask "how stupid is he?" This Epshtien thing is just the latest example - and it DOES feed directly into the medieval blood-libel.

So, really, this election is about choosing between Boris Johnson who's entire political philosophy seems to be quoting Cicero and expediency, and Corbyn who's pretty definitely probably might be an antisemite.

Are you trying to paint it that Johnson is a political pragmatist while Corbyn is defined by antisemitism? Antisemitism is just one form of racism, against Jews. Corbyn is antisemitic by association, damned because he's too dumb to disassociate from friends who are antisemitic. He himself associates with them because he is dogmatically anti-west, the kind Orwell satirised in his essays. OTOH, Johnson is directly racist, against multiple groups (I can find direct quotes against blacks, Muslims, and within the UK, against Scousers). You'll find stuff in his record that you won't find in Corbyn's. Corbyn is an idiot who recognises what he does himself but isn't bright enough to see beyond it. Johnson is a genuinely unpleasant and prejudiced individual.

About his political pragmatism: no he's not. You're fooling yourself if you think it. He's just a lazy bastard who does what his handlers tell him to. His "journalistic" record is reflective of his political record. He doesn't research. He doesn't bother to learn about what he's talking about. He just blags on the spot, trusting to his "charm" and classical education to give him a quote whenever it's demanded. His handlers have learned that this leads to trouble, so he's now kept from unplanned questions (how many PMQs has he faced?), and his shtick consists of hammering on a few memes with some rhetorical tricks to bring everything back to those few memes. If you think it's a good idea to be ruled by the likes of Cummings, then say it out loud.

[Furunculus]

We could instead have seamus “bring the revolution” milne - commissar of citizen doctrinal purity!

easy choice.... :D

[Pannonian]

We could instead have seamus “bring the revolution” milne - commissar of citizen doctrinal purity!

easy choice.... :D

You probably have more positive feelings for Seumas (sic) Milne than I do. There's a man who was expelled by the British Communist Party for being extremist. If you want me to defend the current Labour leadership, you're out of luck. I'm more scathing about them than you could ever be.

[Beskar]

On that whole anti-Semitism vein. I saw a share on Facebook which appeared to be a Palestinian website (from name) saying about how apparently Boris Johnston is a Zionist who loves Israel. I didn't click or look further as I was busy looking for something work related but I was like "Yeah... No...".

Edit: Found the thing on Google http://www.palestinechronicle.com/boris-johnson-as-a-passionate-zionist-i-love-israel/

[Greyblades]

You know, the one thing that confuses me more than anything else about the last 4 months is why Michael Gove wasnt taken behind the shed and shot, figuratively or otherwise.

[Pannonian]

You know, the one thing that confuses me more than anything else about the last 4 months is why Michael Gove wasnt taken behind the shed and shot, figuratively or otherwise.

Gove is the only Tory frontbencher who can blag confidently. He may even have done a modicum of research. Every other Tory frontbencher equals Johnson in sheer bloody incompetence allied to expectation that people should listen to them anyway. Every competent Tory has been dropped, and a fair few of them will no longer stand.

[Furunculus]

i like gove. :(

[Greyblades]

As a political actor I wouldnt want him anywhere near actual power or influence after being the jackass to give us the maybot for three years, Boris himself I would think would be extra wary of him.

As a person, I dunno, dont know much outside of his political context.

[Pannonian]

As a political actor I wouldnt want him anywhere near actual power or influence after being the jackass to give us the maybot for three years, Boris himself I would think would be extra wary of him.

As a person, I dunno, dont know much outside of his political context.

Do you prefer your politicians sound or competent?

[Greyblades]

I dont think he is either, I am left ever wondering what madness drove his actions in the leadership election.

[Pannonian]

I dont think he is either, I am left ever wondering what madness drove his actions in the leadership election.

I'm not saying he's any good. I'm saying that, among the Tory frontbench, he's the only one who can pretend to be good at what he does. All the others, the PM included, are so clearly incompetent that it's staggering how they've managed to get these posts.

[Greyblades]

I wouldnt know, most experience I have of the Tory front bench was under may and she dragged everyone down. The ones that stood out to me for being individually incompetent were the like of Rudd and Hammond, the ones now either on the back benches or on thier way out of parliament alltogether.

Also something tells me our definitions of incompetence might not be exactly the same, I dont like declaring what I dont agree with ideologically as incompetence; if they intended to mess up something I value can it be called incompetence that it is so messed up?

It makes judging ones like Blair difficult, when you judge by thier later revealed intentions their performance looks distressingly close to competence.

[Pannonian]

I wouldnt know, most experience I have of the Tory front bench was under may and she dragged everyone down. The ones that stood out to me for being individually incompetent were the like of Rudd and Hammond, the ones now either on the back benches or on thier way out of parliament alltogether.

Also something tells me our definitions of incompetence might not be exactly the same, I dont like declaring what I dont agree with ideologically as incompetence; if they intended to mess up something I value can it be called incompetence that it is so messed up?

It makes judging ones like Blair difficult, when you judge by thier later revealed intentions their performance looks distressingly close to competence.

Explain Boris Johnson. Show me how he's competent.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Explain Boris Johnson. Show me how he's competent.

Reminds me of Bill Clinton. Clinton was known to lie when needed (frequently) but the media so loved him for how interestingly he spun his tales that it became a hallmark of his style. From what I read in some articles, Johnson garners that same fascinated amazement with what he is willing to say. To the extent that prevarication is part of effective leadership...:rolleyes:

[Montmorency]

Reminds me of Bill Clinton. Clinton was known to lie when needed (frequently) but the media so loved him for how interestingly he spun his tales that it became a hallmark of his style. From what I read in some articles, Johnson garners that same fascinated amazement with what he is willing to say. To the extent that prevarication is part of effective leadership...:rolleyes:

The media hated Bill Clinton. Washington journalists were always talking about how they wanted to "take him down."


Idaho, it is not as obvious that Corbyn can't be anti-Semitic as you seem to think. You only need to roast one goat kebab to be a goatfucker. Broad sympathy or suspicion is also racism, and there is clearly a problem if perhaps even a majority of Labour-supporting Jews judge either the party or the man anti-Semitic. In the first place if Corbyn wants to help dispel these unsavory auras he should learn to stop compartmentalizing (https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/opendemocracyuk/corbyn-and-anti-semitism-frustrations-abiding-affection/) and learn intersectionality. Just because someone is marginalized, sympathetic, or allied in one respect (e.g. Israeli repression) does not mean their whole worldview or character needs to be embraced or excused. His compartmentalizing mindset is, I would assume, also what contributes to that brain rot common among the nominal hard left of uncritically venerating nasty governments around the world so long as they are seen to be hostile in some way to the perennial imperialists in Europe and the USA. But I am disappointed by PVC's continued pretextual affective attacks on leftists.

What are your thoughts on the updated Labour manifesto?

Here's a comics guy's take (https://www.theguardian.com/books/2019/nov/21/alan-moore-drops-anarchism-to-champion-labour-against-tory-parasites) on the election:


Here’s something you don’t see every day: an internet-averse anarchist announcing on social media that he’ll be voting Labour in the December elections. But these are unprecedented times.
I’ve voted only once in my life, more than forty years ago, being convinced that leaders are mostly of benefit to no one save themselves. That said, some leaders are so unbelievably malevolent and catastrophic that they must be strenuously opposed by any means available. Put simply, I do not believe that four more years of these rapacious, smirking right-wing parasites will leave us with a culture, a society, or an environment in which we have the luxury of even imagining alternatives.
The wretched world we’re living in at present was not an unlucky turn of fate; it was an economic and political decision, made without consulting the enormous human population that it would most drastically affect. If we would have it otherwise, if we’d prefer a future that we can call home, then we must stop supporting – even passively – this ravenous, insatiable conservative agenda before it devours us with our kids as a dessert.
Although my vote is principally against the Tories rather than for Labour, I’d observe that Labour’s current manifesto is the most encouraging set of proposals that I’ve ever seen from any major British party. Though these are immensely complicated times and we are all uncertain as to which course we should take, I’d say the one that steers us furthest from the glaringly apparent iceberg is the safest bet.
If my work has meant anything to you over the years, if the way that modern life is going makes you fear for all the things you value, then please get out there on polling day and make your voice heard with a vote against this heartless trampling of everybody’s safety, dignity and dreams.
A world we love is counting on us.

Alan Moore,
Northampton,
November 20th, 2019.


It has come to my attention that the Cons will have a difficult go of not losing most of their Scottish seats. Also, what if the Labour voters that Johnson and Cummings are targeting just vote for the Brexit Party instead? That is, what if the narrow demographic at the center of the Conservative electoral strategy (the small minority of pro-Brexit Labour voters in contested districts) is more liable to weigh their simultaneous hatred of Tories and desire for Brexit against Johnson and for Farage? If that is the case then Farage's decision to run only in Labour constituencies may be of little help on net to Johnson, who expects to poach opposing votes and not just negate them. May redux?

[Furunculus]

the difference with GE17 is:

1. Boris is a far more engaging character than May
2. They will not have a colossal mess up of a manifesto - will be deadly boring
3. We've now had four years of non-stop brexit - and Boris is offering his 'oven-ready' solution
4. Labour have done everything to poison their relationship with their heartland
5. Corbyn is now a dull attraction despite the extreme manifesto, where he used to be shiny and new
6. Brexit Party have also stood down in 30 key tory target seats, and how hard will they campaign in other key target seats
7. Scottish Tories will benefit from non-Tory Unionists who fear another Scottish ref (in addition to another EU one)!
8. The labour manifesto is an EXTREME break from the consensus of last forty years, now is a poor time to try it
9. Finally, the Lib-Dems will come dangerously close to (or even beyond!) 20% which will cannibalize Labour votes

I have argued for ten years now that Labour is losing relevance as [the] pole of opposition to right-wing tories in an adversarial political culture reinforced by a voting system the encourages binary politics, and that 2020 would be the election that nailed the coffin shut on the notion that they are the [default] left-wing alternative.
We're lucky to have a the Lib-Dems as a 0.5 party in a 2.5 party system, for it helps us avoid the downsides of an adversarial FPTP system as we see in the US. They're about to be seen in a different light...

[Idaho]

the difference with GE17 is:

1. Boris is a far more engaging character than May
2. They will not have a colossal mess up of a manifesto - will be deadly boring
3. We've now had four years of non-stop brexit - and Boris is offering his 'oven-ready' solution
4. Labour have done everything to poison their relationship with their heartland
5. Corbyn is now a dull attraction despite the extreme manifesto, where he used to be shiny and new
6. Brexit Party have also stood down in 30 key tory target seats, and how hard will they campaign in other key target seats
7. Scottish Tories will benefit from non-Tory Unionists who fear another Scottish ref (in addition to another EU one)!
8. The labour manifesto is an EXTREME break from the consensus of last forty years, now is a poor time to try it
9. Finally, the Lib-Dems will come dangerously close to (or even beyond!) 20% which will cannibalize Labour votes

I have argued for ten years now that Labour is losing relevance as [the] pole of opposition to right-wing tories in an adversarial political culture reinforced by a voting system the encourages binary politics, and that 2020 would be the election that nailed the coffin shut on the notion that they are the [default] left-wing alternative.
We're lucky to have a the Lib-Dems as a 0.5 party in a 2.5 party system, for it helps us avoid the downsides of an adversarial FPTP system as we see in the US. They're about to be seen in a different light...

I'd largely agree with your points except 8. I think the manifesto is fairly orthodox in terms of Western European social democrats. However it is so beyond the pale for the powerful media and economic interests that they paint it as extreme.

It's all pretty depressing. Working class people voting en masse for political interests who would push them through a sausage grinder. Same as trump in America - the media and the political search algorithm companies have gone to work. They know the buttons to click. How to keep people focused on the irrelevant.

[Furunculus]

I think the manifesto is fairly orthodox in terms of Western European social democrats.
however, we are not an orthodox western european country in which social democracy is quite closely tied with corpratist capitalism.
the manifesto is a jarring attempt at divergence from forty years of anglo-saxon capitalist orthodoxy.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I'd largely agree with your points except 8. I think the manifesto is fairly orthodox in terms of Western European social democrats. However it is so beyond the pale for the powerful media and economic interests that they paint it as extreme.

It's all pretty depressing. Working class people voting en masse for political interests who would push them through a sausage grinder. Same as trump in America - the media and the political search algorithm companies have gone to work. They know the buttons to click. How to keep people focused on the irrelevant.

I think it's an extreme break in the direction of travel in the UK. It might be more moderate in terms of Scandinavia, but those countries haven't been running large deficits for over two decades now. It's a transformative manifesto at a time when people just wants Brexit resolved, one way or the other, and rising GDP.

[Greyblades]

Explain Boris Johnson. Show me how he's competent.

He's PM, despite the big hitters of his party attempting extreme action to prevent it, and now many of those same hitters are out altogether. With only one change he's got people accepting a form of brexit that everyone hates as inevitable, there's a certain amount of skill behind such achievments (depressing though the latter might be)

[Pannonian]

He's PM, despite the big hitters of his party attempting extreme action to prevent it, and now many of those same hitters are out altogether. With only one change he's got people accepting a form of brexit that everyone hates as inevitable, there's a certain amount of skill behind such achievments (depressing though the latter might be)

Anything about governing a country?

[Greyblades]

Well thats the thing, he hasnt governed a country before 3-4 months ago and he's spent the entire time under the shadow of parliament's refusal to end the economy-supressing uncertainty over brexit.

Before that he was a mixed foreign secretary and he was mayor of london for two terms. While generally considered much better than his successor I dont know how much that experience translates to the national level.

As is the way of things we wont have a clear picture of his performance in these months for a long time and things are likely to be much different once he wins in december. I do like some of his cabinate picks and he's making the right noises, just dont know if it will continue after.

[Pannonian]

Well thats the thing, he hasnt governed a country before 3-4 months ago and he's spent the entire time under the shadow of parliament's refusal to end the economy-supressing uncertainty over brexit.

Before that he was a mixed foreign secretary and he was mayor of london for two terms. While generally considered much better than his successor I dont know how much that experience translates to the national level.

As is the way of things we wont have a clear picture of his performance in these months for a long time and things are likely to be much different once he wins in december. I do like some of his cabinate picks and he's making the right noises, just dont know if it will continue after.

How was his stint as foreign secretary? That, at least formally, had nothing to do with Brexit, as he was posted in various non-Brexit-related areas. As one of the four great offices of state (the third, after Prime Minister and Chancellor), it should be suitable training for Prime Ministership. How did he fare in that post?

[Idaho]

however, we are not an orthodox western european country in which social democracy is quite closely tied with corpratist capitalism.
the manifesto is a jarring attempt at divergence from forty years of anglo-saxon capitalist orthodoxy.


I think it's an extreme break in the direction of travel in the UK. It might be more moderate in terms of Scandinavia, but those countries haven't been running large deficits for over two decades now. It's a transformative manifesto at a time when people just wants Brexit resolved, one way or the other, and rising GDP.

The last 40 years have seen a huge transfer of wealth from the poorest to the richest. It's seen our politicians start off as wealthier and finish as super rich. It's seen the cult of wealth become entrenched. That these people were to be deferred to and revered. Yes the manifesto is a break from that! Too right!

It's not some Scandinavian normal. It's German, French and Dutch normal. I want a cohesive and mixed economy and society. I don't want huge wealth disparity with the vast majority scratching a poor living with pockets of dramatic wealth. You both want that because you fancy your chances of being in the closed circle of wealth.

[rory_20_uk]

Today in the news I heard that the first utility companies are moving share ownership abroad. Apparently this means that the Government can't swap shares for guilts based at the rate the Government wants.

And that is the problem we have as a country. Although movement towards a fairer system is a Good Idea, most plans seem to ignore most of reality - both that the targets will react to change as well as the fact the rest of the world exists.

Corbyn could force lower tariff prices for utilities. He could do the same for broadband - in exactly the same way he's going to increase the minimum wage without Nationalising all companies to do so. This might lower profits in these companies but it is relatively simple to do and requires no massive shift of money to achieve.

Another "simple" win (in theory) is having council tax brackets linked to the value of the building - or even better - the land the building is on. And if you want, add a multiplier for second homes and overseas ownership. Probably electoral suicide of course.

~:smoking:

[Beskar]

50,000 more nurses!
"But you include 19,000 who are already nurses in that?"
50,000 more nurses!
"but how is it 50,000 more, when you already include 19,000 already in the NHS?"
50,000 more nurses!
"Explain..."
By retaining, there will be 50,000 more!
"Retention is an ongoing issue which needs to be done, but retaining a nurse doesn't mean you got 1 more nurse, it only means you don't need another Nurse..."
50,000 MORE NURSES!

[Pannonian]

50,000 more nurses!
"But you include 19,000 who are already nurses in that?"
50,000 more nurses!
"but how is it 50,000 more, when you already include 19,000 already in the NHS?"
50,000 more nurses!
"Explain..."
By retaining, there will be 50,000 more!
"Retention is an ongoing issue which needs to be done, but retaining a nurse doesn't mean you got 1 more nurse, it only means you don't need another Nurse..."
50,000 MORE NURSES!

It's the new "Strong and stable".

[Pannonian]

Tory deception (https://twitter.com/aljwhite/status/1199062870060883968).

Echoes his leader.

Presenter: This is about personal integrity and individual character. Does the truth matter in this election?
Boris Johnson: I think it does, and I think it very important.
Audience laughs at him.

[Montmorency]

the difference with GE17 is:

1. Boris is a far more engaging character than May
2. They will not have a colossal mess up of a manifesto - will be deadly boring
3. We've now had four years of non-stop brexit - and Boris is offering his 'oven-ready' solution
4. Labour have done everything to poison their relationship with their heartland
5. Corbyn is now a dull attraction despite the extreme manifesto, where he used to be shiny and new
6. Brexit Party have also stood down in 30 key tory target seats, and how hard will they campaign in other key target seats
7. Scottish Tories will benefit from non-Tory Unionists who fear another Scottish ref (in addition to another EU one)!
8. The labour manifesto is an EXTREME break from the consensus of last forty years, now is a poor time to try it
9. Finally, the Lib-Dems will come dangerously close to (or even beyond!) 20% which will cannibalize Labour votes

I have argued for ten years now that Labour is losing relevance as [the] pole of opposition to right-wing tories in an adversarial political culture reinforced by a voting system the encourages binary politics, and that 2020 would be the election that nailed the coffin shut on the notion that they are the [default] left-wing alternative.
We're lucky to have a the Lib-Dems as a 0.5 party in a 2.5 party system, for it helps us avoid the downsides of an adversarial FPTP system as we see in the US. They're about to be seen in a different light...

A reasonable contribution, though many of these are contested, for example the statistical relevance of Labour-LibDem competition (https://ukandeu.ac.uk/bloc-politics-a-split-remain-vote-may-not-equal-a-large-conservative-majority/). Most broadly, I'm sure the trick Corbyn wants to pull off is to out-organize the Tories on the ground and close the polling gap in the immediate runup to the election - as he did in 2017.



Today in the news I heard that the first utility companies are moving share ownership abroad. Apparently this means that the Government can't swap shares for guilts based at the rate the Government wants.

And that is the problem we have as a country. Although movement towards a fairer system is a Good Idea, most plans seem to ignore most of reality - both that the targets will react to change as well as the fact the rest of the world exists

The tactic being used here by some energy and water companies is to transfer operational ownership (not "share ownership," I'm not aware of a way that a company can do that without actually buying back shares) to holding entities in countries outside the EU with which the UK has bilateral investment treaties (or parties to the Energy Charter Treaty, which covers basically all of Europe). The motivation is to have a backstop in the form of recourse to treaty claims to arbitration, because most of these treaties reference "fair market value" with respect to nationalization and enable legal challenges in various forms against governments. I don't know how likely such arbitration would be to come in favor of the private owners, but the prospect of drawn-out litigation is clearly leveled as a deterrent to any perceived undervaluation by a Labour government. However, I don't see how any of this forecloses nationalization.


Corbyn could force lower tariff prices for utilities. He could do the same for broadband - in exactly the same way he's going to increase the minimum wage without Nationalising all companies to do so. This might lower profits in these companies but it is relatively simple to do and requires no massive shift of money to achieve.

What are tariff prices? Prices on imported electricity?

Whether you agree with it or not the purpose of nationalization goes beyond providing marginal relief to consumers.


Another "simple" win (in theory) is having council tax brackets linked to the value of the building - or even better - the land the building is on. And if you want, add a multiplier for second homes and overseas ownership. Probably electoral suicide of course.

How are council taxes assessed now, and how important are they? Looking at various info pages, council taxes (a fee for living in a neighborhood basically) are already assessed according to property valuation. Which seems kind of daft to me, since I gather that renters are subject to the same tax as owners. Or am I wrong?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

How are council taxes assessed now, and how important are they? Looking at various info pages, council taxes (a fee for living in a neighborhood basically) are already assessed according to property valuation. Which seems kind of daft to me, since I gather that renters are subject to the same tax as owners. Or am I wrong?

Council tax is money raised by the local Council, I.E. Parish Council (or City Council); it varies by region. The burden falls on the occupier and because it's a charge for services renters pay the same as owners.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_Tax#The_nature_of_the_Council_Tax

The problem is that there's is a top band on the valuation of the property - H in England (£320,000 and above), I in Wales (£424,001 and above) and H in Scotland (£212,001 and above). I'm sure you see the issue here given modern house prices. There are other issues, above-average inflation of the tax under Blair eroded incomes for the poorer people but not the most wealthy whilst caps and freezes since have eroded local government funding.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

The Chief Rabbi declares Corbyn "unfit" though he stops short of outright accusing him of prejudice.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/11/25/chief-rabbi-says-jeremy-corbyn-not-fit-high-office-wake-labour/

for those outside the UK, the Chief Rabbi occupies a position somewhat analogous to the Archbishops of Canterbury and York as a "moral voice" even outside Judaism. Lord Sachs, the former Chief Rabbi was especially respected.

In any case, senior Jewish members of the establishment usually follow the same precepts as their Christian counterparts and don't get involved in politics.

[Idaho]

The Chief Rabbi declares Corbyn "unfit" though he stops short of outright accusing him of prejudice.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/11/25/chief-rabbi-says-jeremy-corbyn-not-fit-high-office-wake-labour/

for those outside the UK, the Chief Rabbi occupies a position somewhat analogous to the Archbishops of Canterbury and York as a "moral voice" even outside Judaism. Lord Sachs, the former Chief Rabbi was especially respected.

In any case, senior Jewish members of the establishment usually follow the same precepts as their Christian counterparts and don't get involved in politics.

He is also very Pro Israel and has never commented or criticised any of the extra judicial murders, the wider scale imprisonment without trial, the separation of families, the destruction of homes, the land grabs,etc etc.

If you aren't Jewish, it doesn't really matter as much.

[rory_20_uk]

A reasonable contribution, though many of these are contested, for example the statistical relevance of Labour-LibDem competition (https://ukandeu.ac.uk/bloc-politics-a-split-remain-vote-may-not-equal-a-large-conservative-majority/). Most broadly, I'm sure the trick Corbyn wants to pull off is to out-organize the Tories on the ground and close the polling gap in the immediate runup to the election - as he did in 2017.




The tactic being used here by some energy and water companies is to transfer operational ownership (not "share ownership," I'm not aware of a way that a company can do that without actually buying back shares) to holding entities in countries outside the EU with which the UK has bilateral investment treaties (or parties to the Energy Charter Treaty, which covers basically all of Europe). The motivation is to have a backstop in the form of recourse to treaty claims to arbitration, because most of these treaties reference "fair market value" with respect to nationalization and enable legal challenges in various forms against governments. I don't know how likely such arbitration would be to come in favor of the private owners, but the prospect of drawn-out litigation is clearly leveled as a deterrent to any perceived undervaluation by a Labour government. However, I don't see how any of this forecloses nationalization.

They have undertaken a share for share exchange, so yes, it looks as though the shares are now owned by a foreign held entity.

What are tariff prices? Prices on imported electricity?

Whether you agree with it or not the purpose of nationalization goes beyond providing marginal relief to consumers.

How are council taxes assessed now, and how important are they? Looking at various info pages, council taxes (a fee for living in a neighbourhood basically) are already assessed according to property valuation. Which seems kind of daft to me, since I gather that renters are subject to the same tax as owners. Or am I wrong?

Tariff prices already exist for some in the UK (generally the poor) and basically stipulate the price something can be sold at. I know that Nationalisation would go further and there is the belief that doing so is of itself going to magically make things better.

Council taxes are assessed by property valuation - BUT the top bracket is c. £500,000 whereas houses go into the tens of millions. So the richer you are the less it matters. Hence why so many rich foreigners like buying property in the UK with the mix of lax oversight, opaque ownership, the asset over time appreciates and the costs of ownership as a percentage to value drop the more it is worth. What renters are subject to is what they agree with the landlord. My house has a large mortgage on it. The bank doesn't pay its share of the council tax either. You could split the taxes into a council tax for living n the area and a property tax for the dwelling itself. I doubt that would change anything.

~:smoking:

[Idaho]

Property taxes used to be considered the responsibility of the owner. With the shift to the poll tax, it became the responsibility of the person/tenant. Then alongside this the Tories removed most tenant rights, got rid of any taxes for landlords and sold off council housing. While at the same time making the state pension one of the worst in Western Europe.

Now, if you are poor you pay a huge proportion of you income on rent, and you will be renting until you die - which will be sooner as the state pension will make that same rent unaffordable.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

He is also very Pro Israel and has never commented or criticised any of the extra judicial murders, the wider scale imprisonment without trial, the separation of families, the destruction of homes, the land grabs,etc etc.

If you aren't Jewish, it doesn't really matter as much.

You realise I'm not at all Jewish, right?

This sort of thing does matter to non-Jewish people. Again, it's the consistent othering of Jewish people by Corbyn that people find disturbing.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Speaking of the Archbishop: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/nov/26/justin-welby-chief-rabbi-labour-antisemitism

Yeah...

[Idaho]

You realise I'm not at all Jewish, right?


Yes. Which is why this rabbi doesn't really give a stuff about you.

[Beskar]

Been dealing with Housing issues for people recently... it is terrible in what is classified as 'minimum standards'. What is even worse is the rent for these properties too, they are above the benefit, so they have to supplement on top with their other benefits.

[Beskar]

On that topic of Chief Rabbi about Labour (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2019-50552068).
The Muslim Council have condemned the Islamophobia of the Tories (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2019-50561043).

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

On that topic of Chief Rabbi about Labour (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2019-50552068).
The Muslim Council have condemned the Islamophobia of the Tories (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2019-50561043).

I said a few weeks ago that this election would come down to which worried you more - antisemitism or Islamophobia.

I'm betting the former will rile more people up because of the historical context, and also the recent terrorist attacks which have eroded sympathy for British Muslims.

[Pannonian]

I said a few weeks ago that this election would come down to which worried you more - antisemitism or Islamophobia.

I'm betting the former will rile more people up because of the historical context, and also the recent terrorist attacks which have eroded sympathy for British Muslims.

Johnson doesn't just hate Muslims though. And unlike Corbyn, who associates with racists, Johnson himself is directly racist. Corbyn is awful. Johnson is far worse.

[Beskar]

Thing is, two candidates have just been suspended for antisemitism... Conservative candidates.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-north-east-orkney-shetland-50468770
https://politicshome.com/news/uk/political-parties/conservative-party/news/108071/tory-candidate-apologises-claiming-british

Do the Tories have a problem with it too? or is it a case that yes, there are some very unfortunate views shared by individuals of all kinds of stripes and colours.

[rory_20_uk]

Not the nicest of sentiments but one was 5 years ago and the other 7.

Frankly, is that it? Two comments?

~:smoking:

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Johnson doesn't just hate Muslims though. And unlike Corbyn, who associates with racists, Johnson himself is directly racist. Corbyn is awful. Johnson is far worse.

Again, matter of opinion.

For one thing, saying Johnson "hates" people is a bit of a stretch. Does he display that sort of vague, generalised, prejudice against everyone who didn't go to private school? Yes, frequently. Can it be shown to be malicious, or to have directly impacted policy making? Not really.

Boris Johnson is prejudiced in a similar way to Prince Philip, but less so... much less so.

Corbyn is prejudiced in the way Orwell's villains were in 1984.

[Pannonian]

Again, matter of opinion.

For one thing, saying Johnson "hates" people is a bit of a stretch. Does he display that sort of vague, generalised, prejudice against everyone who didn't go to private school? Yes, frequently. Can it be shown to be malicious, or to have directly impacted policy making? Not really.

Boris Johnson is prejudiced in a similar way to Prince Philip, but less so... much less so.

Corbyn is prejudiced in the way Orwell's villains were in 1984.

You need to read more Orwell. Corbyn does not resemble the villains in 1984. It's the Communists in Orwell's essays that Corbyn resembles. But your attempt to excuse Johnson does not wash. Prince Phillip is from another era. People from that era grew up a certain way, and we allow for that. Boris Johnson was born in 1964. He was 21 at the time of the Broadwater Farm Riot, after which Britain took a good look at itself and changed its mores. Unless you want to argue that people of a certain class ought to be given leeway in how they behave.

[Greyblades]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cre0in5n-1E

The political campaign of the future, today!

I dont think words can express how simultaniously confusing and amusing this campaign is getting.

[Beskar]

Not the nicest of sentiments but one was 5 years ago and the other 7.

Frankly, is that it? Two comments?

~:smoking:

If we use the 2017 YouGov survey (https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/bbvq6ahzdw/CampaignAgainstAntisemitismResults_170803_JewishOpinions.pdf) to the question: "British Jewish people chase money more than other British people",

True (Voter Sample)
Conservative: 27%
Labour: 14%
Lib Dem: 19%

Not True (Voter Sample)
Conservative: 45%
Labour: 60%
Lib Dem: 61%


That appears to indicate that those who vote Conservative are most likely to agree with antisemitic remarks than Labour voters given the sample used.

My point is that the claims of antisemitism is rather biased against Labour specifically, perhaps due Corbyn's views on topics such as Palestine, when similar arguments on antisemitism can be made against the Conservatives.

[Furunculus]

Johnson doesn't just hate Muslims though. And unlike Corbyn, who associates with racists, Johnson himself is directly racist. Corbyn is awful. Johnson is far worse.

do you have any evidence that:
1. he hates anyone?
2. he is a racist? **

** by which i use the oxford deictionaries definition: "The belief that all members of each race possess characteristics, abilities, or qualities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races."

[Pannonian]

do you have any evidence that:
1. he hates anyone?
2. he is a racist? **

** by which i use the oxford deictionaries definition: "The belief that all members of each race possess characteristics, abilities, or qualities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races."

That begs the question, if you are using these tight definitions to exonerate Johnson, of whether you extend these standards to Corbyn too. Do you?

[Beskar]

Independent print a story about a study examining positive and negative articles about political parties in the first week of the election.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/general-election-british-uk-media-news-bias-tories-labour-a9209026.html

Significantly skewed in favour of Conservatives.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

If we use the 2017 YouGov survey (https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/bbvq6ahzdw/CampaignAgainstAntisemitismResults_170803_JewishOpinions.pdf) to the question: "British Jewish people chase money more than other British people",

True (Voter Sample)
Conservative: 27%
Labour: 14%
Lib Dem: 19%

Not True (Voter Sample)
Conservative: 45%
Labour: 60%
Lib Dem: 61%


That appears to indicate that those who vote Conservative are most likely to agree with antisemitic remarks than Labour voters given the sample used.

My point is that the claims of antisemitism is rather biased against Labour specifically, perhaps due Corbyn's views on topics such as Palestine, when similar arguments on antisemitism can be made against the Conservatives.

I've seen this sort of poll before, and whilst this does indicate a certain level of racism there are acould of things to note:

1. 26% of Labour voters declined to answer.

2. 28% of Conservative voters declined to answer

3. 20% of Lib-Dems declined to answer.

4. Given the above there's a significant margin of error to the Con and Lab views, and this is probably confounded by the fact that Labour voters may feel group pressure to answer a certain way more so than Conservatives - especially when they know their party is getting hammered over the issue.

5. Whilst the averacious Jew is a nasty trope it's significantly less dangerous than the Rothschild Conspiracy, which is the more common form of Left-Wing antisemitism.

[Montmorency]

Council tax is money raised by the local Council, I.E. Parish Council (or City Council); it varies by region. The burden falls on the occupier and because it's a charge for services renters pay the same as owners.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_Tax#The_nature_of_the_Council_Tax

The problem is that there's is a top band on the valuation of the property - H in England (£320,000 and above), I in Wales (£424,001 and above) and H in Scotland (£212,001 and above). I'm sure you see the issue here given modern house prices. There are other issues, above-average inflation of the tax under Blair eroded incomes for the poorer people but not the most wealthy whilst caps and freezes since have eroded local government funding.


Tariff prices already exist for some in the UK (generally the poor) and basically stipulate the price something can be sold at. I know that Nationalisation would go further and there is the belief that doing so is of itself going to magically make things better.

Council taxes are assessed by property valuation - BUT the top bracket is c. £500,000 whereas houses go into the tens of millions. So the richer you are the less it matters. Hence why so many rich foreigners like buying property in the UK with the mix of lax oversight, opaque ownership, the asset over time appreciates and the costs of ownership as a percentage to value drop the more it is worth. What renters are subject to is what they agree with the landlord. My house has a large mortgage on it. The bank doesn't pay its share of the council tax either. You could split the taxes into a council tax for living n the area and a property tax for the dwelling itself. I doubt that would change anything.

~:smoking:

On the council tax, Labour's new manifesto proposes a second homes tax as "an annual levy on second homes that are used as holiday homes equivalent to 200% of
the current council tax bill for the property[...]" Elsewhere, I've found older reports that Labour was considering the replacement of council tax with property tax. Existing British property taxes include Blair's stamp duty on purchases of land and property, capital gains tax on sales thereof, income tax on income from property, inheritance tax (on global assets!), and annual tax on enveloped dwellings, which I don't understand well enough to summarize (it may have something to do with those rich foreigners). So a straight property tax on the value of land and property seems to be unknown in Britain, which is interesting.

But in the manifesto there's nothing about property tax, and the only other reference to council taxes is "giving councils new powers to tax
properties empty for over a year," which may or may not be related to the aforementioned second homes tax.
("The council tax database indicates that as of October 2018 there are 251,654 properties classed as ‘second homes’ for council tax purposes in England[...]")

I don't know, then, what the current Labour stance on the council tax is, or why they haven't committed to increasing bands. I doubt it has to do with a perception of electoral suicide in light of, you know, the entire rest of the manifesto.

Part of the purpose of nationalization (which is never named as such in the manifesto) is part and parcel with the overall program of decentralization. I guess that means local councils exercising much more decision-making over new and old infrastructure in their jurisdiction.


I've seen this sort of poll before, and whilst this does indicate a certain level of racism there are acould of things to note:

1. 26% of Labour voters declined to answer.

2. 28% of Conservative voters declined to answer

3. 20% of Lib-Dems declined to answer.

4. Given the above there's a significant margin of error to the Con and Lab views, and this is probably confounded by the fact that Labour voters may feel group pressure to answer a certain way more so than Conservatives - especially when they know their party is getting hammered over the issue.

5. Whilst the averacious Jew is a nasty trope it's significantly less dangerous than the Rothschild Conspiracy, which is the more common form of Left-Wing antisemitism.

The number of declined answers is not a margin of error.

We could posit anti-Semitic Conservatives also feel latent social pressure not to report hard attitudes about Jews.

We've already discussed this months ago, where I presented major survey (https://www.jpr.org.uk/publication?id=9993) results that the (self-reported) far-left through center-right are roughly similar in anti-Semitic views expressed, but among the far-right the prevalence is several times higher. Due to the fact that the self-identified far-left and far-right make up such small proportions of the population, gross anti-Semitism such as it exists is ultimately a broadly-British phenomenon as opposed to a factional, political, or even religious (wrt Muslims) one. Thankfully, leaving aside relative proportions, the absolute incidence of serious anti-Semitic worldviews in Britain is fairly rare. By all accounts the Muslims have much more to worry about than the Jews.

We can point to policies that have been pursued by both Labour and Conservatives that have harmed Muslims, and that will harm Muslims in the future. What policies have Labour pursued (in contemporary history), or intend to pursue, that will harm Jews?

My only misgiving is that in that one well-known 2018 survey (https://view.publitas.com/the-jewish-chronicle/jc-survation-poll-labour-antisemitism-part-2/page/2) of British Jews, almost all report belief in pervasive anti-Semitism in Labour. Certainly there is almost no polling on these questions so distortions in methodology may come through, but to find almost all of a sample in agreement on something is still remarkable. A quarter of British-Jewish votes were for Labour in 2017, so they can't all be Tories, and these beliefs can't all be attributed to media narratives. One way or another there's clearly something Labour is doing wrong. Since the proportion (86%) who ranked the Labour Party as highly anti-Semitic is the same as the proportion in that survey who think Corbyn is anti-Semitic, it is possible a certain transitive effect has taken hold whereby Labour will always be viewed as anti-Semitic not through the organizational culture or actions of individual members, but according to the status of Corbyn in itself. If this is the case then the corollary is that there are no steps the Labour Party can take to change this perception other than removing Corbyn.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

If we use the 2017 YouGov survey (https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/bbvq6ahzdw/CampaignAgainstAntisemitismResults_170803_JewishOpinions.pdf) to the question: "British Jewish people chase money more than other British people",

True (Voter Sample)
Conservative: 27%
Labour: 14%
Lib Dem: 19%

Not True (Voter Sample)
Conservative: 45%
Labour: 60%
Lib Dem: 61%


That appears to indicate that those who vote Conservative are most likely to agree with antisemitic remarks than Labour voters given the sample used.

My point is that the claims of antisemitism is rather biased against Labour specifically, perhaps due Corbyn's views on topics such as Palestine, when similar arguments on antisemitism can be made against the Conservatives.

What are the p values for the survey? Don't have spssx at home and do not want to crank the formulas manually tonight. But the best you can say absent those values is that conservative voters are somewhat more (not most) likely to agree with statements that are considered anti-Semitic.

[Greyblades]

Its a wierd statement to use as an example of antisemitism, any value judgement in it requires the reader to agree to bad connotations in the term "chase money" as opposed to positive ones, something the capitalist minded would take issue with.

[Furunculus]

LIES!

https://twitter.com/BeccyRyan/status/1199432664144601090

SO MANY LIES!!!

which is my gently made point about getting all worked up over politicians presenting their package in the most appealing light possible.

[Furunculus]

Its a wierd statement to use as an example of antisemitism, any value judgement in it requires the reader to agree to bad connotations in the term "chase money" as opposed to positive ones, something the capitalist minded would take issue with.

indeed, and somewhat hides the fact that sustained and ubiquitous anti-semitism over centuries has rather excluded jews from trades and guilds, leaving independent finance as a useful avenue of advancement beyond serf-like working of land.

[Idaho]

Again, matter of opinion.

For one thing, saying Johnson "hates" people is a bit of a stretch. Does he display that sort of vague, generalised, prejudice against everyone who didn't go to private school? Yes, frequently. Can it be shown to be malicious, or to have directly impacted policy making? Not really.

Boris Johnson is prejudiced in a similar way to Prince Philip, but less so... much less so.

Corbyn is prejudiced in the way Orwell's villains were in 1984.

You are such a Tory.

Completely unafraid and unconcerned about people who look and sound like you talking about fuzzy-wuzzies or anything else. You've never recognised or cared about institutionalised racism and prejudice, therefore it doesn't really exist.

However you will comb through all and every comment by a socialist, working class or Muslim and cry racist.

As Alexei Sayle has said:

it's absurd to see people who have spent a lifetime campaigning against racism be called racist by racists

[rory_20_uk]

I've seen this sort of poll before, and whilst this does indicate a certain level of racism there are acould of things to note:

1. 26% of Labour voters declined to answer.

2. 28% of Conservative voters declined to answer

3. 20% of Lib-Dems declined to answer.

4. Given the above there's a significant margin of error to the Con and Lab views, and this is probably confounded by the fact that Labour voters may feel group pressure to answer a certain way more so than Conservatives - especially when they know their party is getting hammered over the issue.

5. Whilst the averacious Jew is a nasty trope it's significantly less dangerous than the Rothschild Conspiracy, which is the more common form of Left-Wing antisemitism.

This isn't racism. Jews are not a race they are a religion - a matrilineal one which means in about 100 years the ethnicity of a Jew can change completely. Corbyn appears to be anti-Zionist since he is pro-Hamas who are also mainly ethnic Semites. Is criticising any facet of Israel somehow not allowed now? What about if the UK government had tackled the IRA the way Israel tackled uprisings? We blockade Ireland on the air, land and sea, we sent in tanks and troops and kill anything that looks like a threat and so on and so on. No, in fact the UK is still lambasted more for the acts they did which is nonsensical.

Viewing Jews as wanting to accrue money isn't always negative. Sikhs also as a cohort do so and like displaying wealth. Hell, I also like accruing money and am more focused than my siblings. I haven't had a day off work in over 4 years (I'm self employed). We are different, not right / wrong.


On the council tax, Labour's new manifesto proposes a second homes tax as "an annual levy on second homes that are used as holiday homes equivalent to 200% of
the current council tax bill for the property[...]" Elsewhere, I've found older reports that Labour was considering the replacement of council tax with property tax. Existing British property taxes include Blair's stamp duty on purchases of land and property, capital gains tax on sales thereof, income tax on income from property, inheritance tax (on global assets!), and annual tax on enveloped dwellings, which I don't understand well enough to summarize (it may have something to do with those rich foreigners). So a straight property tax on the value of land and property seems to be unknown in Britain, which is interesting.

But in the manifesto there's nothing about property tax, and the only other reference to council taxes is "giving councils new powers to tax
properties empty for over a year," which may or may not be related to the aforementioned second homes tax.
("The council tax database indicates that as of October 2018 there are 251,654 properties classed as ‘second homes’ for council tax purposes in England[...]")

I don't know, then, what the current Labour stance on the council tax is, or why they haven't committed to increasing bands. I doubt it has to do with a perception of electoral suicide in light of, you know, the entire rest of the manifesto.

Part of the purpose of nationalization (which is never named as such in the manifesto) is part and parcel with the overall program of decentralization. I guess that means local councils exercising much more decision-making over new and old infrastructure in their jurisdiction.

Increasing council tax on holiday homes is a good start... Note it is not second homes required for work, since that might affect MPs!
Gordon Brown always preferred stealth taxes that would bite in the future to visible ones in the present. And rather like how treating alcohol and tobacco in the same way as all other drugs and rating them according to their danger just isn't going to happen due to the past, the UK really has a fetish with homes and owning them and even somewhat redistributive taxes on homes is suicide - not to mention the much more extreme tax on land utility (the basic difference being the former is a tax on what is there now, and the latter is a tax on the potential of the land - so it helps optimise land usage at the expense of sentiment).

I think Labour realises that people are happy to advocate for "rich bastards" to loose their companies and for the State to grab companies but when it is something literally closer to home like the value of their house then the loss of money is much more real.

Nationalisation often leads to centralisation, not localisation. After all, before the railways were nationalised they were integrated companies and run in geographic areas which made sense - compared to the current split of the trains, the lines and the stations which makes no sense. Surely if decentralisation was the purpose, letting local government have control of different taxes would be the way to go rather than central government annexing companies.

~:smoking:

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

You are such a Tory.

Completely unafraid and unconcerned about people who look and sound like you talking about fuzzy-wuzzies or anything else. You've never recognised or cared about institutionalised racism and prejudice, therefore it doesn't really exist.

However you will comb through all and every comment by a socialist, working class or Muslim and cry racist.

As Alexei Sayle has said:

You may recall the thread where I described Monty's presentation of the history of racism in the US Army Air Force as "banal". What you might call "lazy" racism is everywhere, what Corbyn peddles is something rather more than that. It's not just the sideways look, the muttered word, it's not even the spitting and the crossing the street.

No, it's the racism of old men in back rooms talking about how to "solve" the "problem", how to "free" themselves from the pernicious "influence".

[Idaho]

A load of tosh. Repeat the lie until you believe it. This is clearly a deliberate and cynical tactic by the Tories. Their manifesto is empty, their promises are rhetoric, their leader is a bumbling liar and a fraud.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

A load of tosh. Repeat the lie until you believe it. This is clearly a deliberate and cynical tactic by the Tories. Their manifesto is empty, their promises are rhetoric, their leader is a bumbling liar and a fraud.

Last night when interviewed by Andrew Neil Corbyn had visible difficulty condemning the Rothschild conspiracy as antisemitic. I find that significant given that he wrote a forward to Imperialism: A Study where he described the book as "controversial at the time" but also "basically right".

That book blames World War I on the Rothschilds and other Jewish bankers - it asserts that they engineered the war so as to profit from the sale of armaments etc.

What so revolts many people about Corbyn is the suspicion that, deep down, he's antisemitic and can't see it. Contrast to Johnson who is completely unembarrassed about his various prejudices, which are superficial by comparison anyway.

[Pannonian]

Last night when interviewed by Andrew Neil Corbyn had visible difficulty condemning the Rothschild conspiracy as antisemitic. I find that significant given that he wrote a forward to Imperialism: A Study where he described the book as "controversial at the time" but also "basically right".

That book blames World War I on the Rothschilds and other Jewish bankers - it asserts that they engineered the war so as to profit from the sale of armaments etc.

What so revolts many people about Corbyn is the suspicion that, deep down, he's antisemitic and can't see it. Contrast to Johnson who is completely unembarrassed about his various prejudices, which are superficial by comparison anyway.

Does anyone know when the Neil interview with Boris Johnson will be broadcast? I'd like to see him give the PM as hard a time as he gave the LOTO.

[Beskar]

So Corbyn released the leaked un-redacted documents (https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/breaking-jeremy-corbyn-reveals-451-20970436?fbclid=IwAR08a1KkYVyX4uW6oIBKld8kG4FxUdAZnDr3Rr5qSN3Cugwt4BVI4hR6zYc) about the UK-US trade talks and it appears that Corbyn was right along, not Boris.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

So Corbyn released the leaked un-redacted documents (https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/breaking-jeremy-corbyn-reveals-451-20970436?fbclid=IwAR08a1KkYVyX4uW6oIBKld8kG4FxUdAZnDr3Rr5qSN3Cugwt4BVI4hR6zYc) about the UK-US trade talks and it appears that Corbyn was right along, not Boris.

"Crucially the documents show what US officials have demanded - not what the UK government has agreed to accept."

Nobody ever said the US didn't want direct access to the NHS drug markets - and there's apparently nothing in these papers showing the UK willing to give that access.

So where's the political coup here, exactly?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Does anyone know when the Neil interview with Boris Johnson will be broadcast? I'd like to see him give the PM as hard a time as he gave the LOTO.

So would I. Supposedly it's meant to be next week but it's also been said that negotiations are "ongoing".

[Pannonian]

So would I. Supposedly it's meant to be next week but it's also been said that negotiations are "ongoing".

Would Johnson avoid it altogether? He's been wary of non-moderated contact so far, PMQs included.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Would Johnson avoid it altogether? He's been wary of non-moderated contact so far, PMQs included.

My bet is that they're hoping to shame him into it.

[Pannonian]

My bet is that they're hoping to shame him into it.

That won't work. The man has no shame.

What would you make of the coming Tory government if the PM minimises contact during the election and minimises PMQs and other non-moderated meetings during government? Our democracy is supposed to involve contact with the people, while government is supposed to be regulated by Parliament. So far in his reign he's tried to avoid both as much as he can get away with.

[Montmorency]

What are the p values for the survey?

It's just a single survey, so it wouldn't contain any significance tests, right? But if you want a quick and dirty z-score between Conservatives and Labour over "Total yes" on that question, I got 8.8 for a p-value of < .00001.


But the best you can say absent those values is that conservative voters are somewhat more (not most) likely to agree with statements that are considered anti-Semitic.

I would be even more conservative and say it can only distinguish the selected groups on this one question, not overall likelihood to agree with anti-Semitic attitudes. The included total results from the previous such survey at least indicate stability in attitudes in the overall population (between samples). With more such questions on anti-Semitic attitudes it might become tempting to extrapolate. Here are the other questions in the survey and the party crosstabs:

"Having a connection to Israel makes Jewish people less loyal to Britain than other British
people"."




Con
Lab
LibDem


Total Yes
16
9
8



Total No
58
66
70





"Jewish people consider themselves to be better than other British people".




Con
Lab
LibDem


Total Yes
14
11
8



Total No
58
64
66



"Compared to other groups, Jewish people have too much power in the media".




Con
Lab
LibDem


Total Yes
15
11
11



Total No
54
56
63



"Jewish people talk about the Holocaust just to further their political agenda".




Con
Lab
LibDem


Total Yes
13
8
7



Total No
69
74
76



"Jewish people can be trusted just as much as other British people in business"




Con
Lab
LibDem


Total Yes
77
75
79



Total No
8
8
9



"I am just as open to having Jewish friends as I am to having friends from other sections of British society"




Con
Lab
LibDem


Total Yes
91
92
93



Total No
4
2
0



The differences between Conservative and Labour (or LibDem) respondents on these questions is visibly much smaller. From this one survey you probably can't tell a great deal about the crosstab of three parties (Labour, Cons, LibDem) on anti-Semitic attitudes, or what it all means put together. The safest hypothesis is that there isn't a great deal of distinction between average partisans when it comes to anti-Semitism. Which is what I reported in my post above. !!!!!! (That means hearken.)

You might like to look at the study I linked in the post above, which is more substantial and rigorous in doing this sort of thing. I have described some of the results.



Its a wierd statement to use as an example of antisemitism, any value judgement in it requires the reader to agree to bad connotations in the term "chase money" as opposed to positive ones, something the capitalist minded would take issue with.

You are noticing that racial tropes are not rational. But this one is much older than capitalism.



LIES!

https://twitter.com/BeccyRyan/status/1199432664144601090

SO MANY LIES!!!

which is my gently made point about getting all worked up over politicians presenting their package in the most appealing light possible.

I have two questions about Neil's scenario (outside sources are solicited):

What is the basis of the calculation, and what is the prevalence of such financial arrangements that would be meaningfully affected by tax reform? I assume his scenario depends on elimination of the marriage allowance and taxing dividends as ordinary income. On dividends, "Labour will tax capital gains at the same level as income tax and abolish the lower income tax rate for dividend income." I note that currently most pensions and annuities are not taxed at all in the UK, and Corbyn does not intend to change that AFAIK, so if I have it right £2000 in dividends taxed as ordinary income would in fact incur zero liability because £2000 total taxable income would fall within the personal allowance (equivalent to the US standard deduction). I don't see then where Neil's figure of £400 tax liability could come from. There is a potential £250 loss from the elimination of the marriage allowance, not a new tax but a closing of a preference, but here we return to the second question of how many people affected, and for those what account for positive offset by new credits, allowances, and other increases in the manifesto.

Would definitely like to see the numbers, but I suspect Neil was trying to catch Corbyn with a real edge case. That would be fair enough if Corbyn has claimed for sure no one below a certain income threshold could possibly incur increased tax liability - but has he? For example, in Andrew Yang's Universal Income proposal, as it is currently structured a very small proportion of people currently living in poverty (correspondingly, an income under £14000 today is pretty well poverty) would see a decrease in their net incomes. This can hardly be called fatal, and to my knowledge Yang has never pretended that there is a direct monetary net benefit to exactly every citizen below a certain income.



This isn't racism. Jews are not a race they are a religion

Jews are functionally like a race.


pro-Hamas who are also mainly ethnic Semites.

It has long been accepted that "Semite" is synecdoche for Jew. It was a term that gained currency with respect to Germany's ethnic problems in the 19th century, and let me tell ya, there weren't many Arabs or Ugarites in 19th-century Germany.


Viewing Jews as wanting to accrue money isn't always negative. Sikhs also as a cohort do so and like displaying wealth. Hell, I also like accruing money and am more focused than my siblings. I haven't had a day off work in over 4 years (I'm self employed). We are different, not right / wrong.

I find it hard to believe that anyone in this thread could be having a hard time understanding what is meant by the stereotype of Jews and money. Greedy, usurious, swindling kikes? Ever read Merchant of Venice? Come on now.


Nationalisation often leads to centralisation, not localisation. After all, before the railways were nationalised they were integrated companies and run in geographic areas which made sense - compared to the current split of the trains, the lines and the stations which makes no sense. Surely if decentralisation was the purpose, letting local government have control of different taxes would be the way to go rather than central government annexing companies.

I won't to spend too much time looking into this right now - maybe Idaho knows more - but here's McDonnell on nationalization: https://truthout.org/articles/democracy-and-decentralization-uk-labour-leaders-reframe-socialism-for-the-21st-century/


Crucially though, for McDonnell, the task is bigger than just creating a few more worker cooperatives; the project for Labour in the 21st century is to articulate “how we can change our economy to suit our society, rather than changing society to suit our economy … We need to go much further than simply offering a defence of what we already have.” And such a vision should not just fall back on old models of centralized, technocratic state ownership, with all their well-documented flaws:


Nor can we simply demand top-down nationalisation as a panacea. The old, Morrisonian model of nationalisation centralised too much power in a few hands in Whitehall. It had much in common with the new model of multinational corporations, in which power is centralised in a few hands in Silicon Valley, or the City of London. It won’t work in a world in which technological change is providing opportunities to decentralise power.

Riffing off the above, it's as good a time as any to remind the reader that the private firm is indeed administered like a Communist dictatorship.




You may recall the thread where I described Monty's presentation of the history of racism in the US Army Air Force as "banal". What you might call "lazy" racism is everywhere, what Corbyn peddles is something rather more than that. It's not just the sideways look, the muttered word, it's not even the spitting and the crossing the street.

No, it's the racism of old men in back rooms talking about how to "solve" the "problem", how to "free" themselves from the pernicious "influence".

This guy thinks the murderous, all-encompassing apartheid of the white majority in mid-century America was "banal" and "lazy," but Corbyn pronouncing a name exactly how I would expect a British person to pronounce it is genocidal intent.

*spits*
*spits again*


Last night when interviewed by Andrew Neil Corbyn had visible difficulty condemning the Rothschild conspiracy as antisemitic. I find that significant given that he wrote a forward to Imperialism: A Study where he described the book as "controversial at the time" but also "basically right".


Do you believe writing a forward to a collection of Voltaire's works would make one an anti-Semite? Should we throw out the corpus of Gottlieb Frege, David Hume? Or should we contextualize it? Even a glance reveals that the book is not about Zionist conspiracies at all, but is a classic work of political science. In fact it contains more material (https://www.marxists.org/archive/hobson/1902/imperialism/pt2ch4.htm) on the inferiority of Africans and Asians, which you don't see fit to mention for some reason.

What gives away the game, PVC, is that instead of choosing to develop potentially-persuasive examples you breathlessly emphasize trivialities as compromising while turning to dismiss egregious real-world harms. How can this be interpreted as anything other than pretext?


That book blames World War I on the Rothschilds and other Jewish bankers - it asserts that they engineered the war so as to profit from the sale of armaments etc.

The book was published well before the Great War, and is about imperialism, capitalism, and mercantilism. You're not doing anything to restore confidence in your integrity here. :whip:

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

This guy thinks the murderous, all-encompassing apartheid of the white majority in mid-century America was "banal" and "lazy," but Corbyn pronouncing a name exactly how I would expect a British person to pronounce it is genocidal intent.

*spits*
*spits again*

Sorry, no.

Ep-steen, also, Ross-child or perhaps Roth's-child. Anglicisation is the name of the game here, as it has been from the 19th Century onwards. To the extent that I hadn't even linked the name Epstein to Jewishness or Yiddish before Corbyn miss-pronounced it.

In any case, I didn't say it was "genocidal intent", I said it was a form of "othering" which recalls the Blood Libel. I'll thank you not to put words in my mouth.


Do you believe writing a forward to a collection of Voltaire's works would make one an anti-Semite? Should we throw out the corpus of Gottlieb Frege, David Hume? Or should we contextualize it? Even a glance reveals that the book is not about Zionist conspiracies at all, but is a classic work of political science. In fact it contains more material (https://www.marxists.org/archive/hobson/1902/imperialism/pt2ch4.htm) on the inferiority of Africans and Asians, which you don't see fit to mention for some reason.

We are not discussing Hobson's status as a generally terrible human being, which he was, we are discussing Corbyn's support for his work and the link to the Rothschild Conspiracy..


What gives away the game, PVC, is that instead of choosing to develop potentially-persuasive examples you breathlessly emphasize trivialities as compromising while turning to dismiss egregious real-world harms. How can this be interpreted as anything other than pretext?

The Book, the mural, Ken Livingstone, Naz Shah, othering Jews as Zionists with no concept or "English irony" or history, being in need of education, attending a commemoration for those who planned the Munich hostage-taking...

It's not one thing Monty, it's a litany of sins - were it only one, two, even three examples I might be persuaded it was bad judgement but there's always another one.


The book was published well before the Great War, and is about imperialism, capitalism, and mercantilism. You're not doing anything to restore confidence in your integrity here. :whip:

My mistake, he's referring to the Boer War. I confused the original work with later commentary. The point that it fed into the intellectual environment that precipitated the Holocaust remains valid. Further, a new edition was printed, with new introduction, in 1938.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

It's just a single survey, so it wouldn't contain any significance tests, right? But if you want a quick and dirty z-score between Conservatives and Labour over "Total yes" on that question, I got 8.8 for a p-value of < .00001.
Prima facia it seems significant (hardly surprising that folks closer to the reactionary end are somewhat more likely to be nativists etc.), but that stuff is really ordinal level data, not even interval Likert-style scaling. I don't think the Z-score really works there, as there really is no "mean" per se. I wish they'd put in 5-point Likert questions, then you could get a better significance approximation using interval level stats.

[Furunculus]

"Crucially the documents show what US officials have demanded - not what the UK government has agreed to accept."

Nobody ever said the US didn't want direct access to the NHS drug markets - and there's apparently nothing in these papers showing the UK willing to give that access.

So where's the political coup here, exactly?

This shouldn't have needed to be said. :(

[rory_20_uk]

Jews are functionally like a race.

It has long been accepted that "Semite" is synecdoche for Jew. It was a term that gained currency with respect to Germany's ethnic problems in the 19th century, and let me tell ya, there weren't many Arabs or Ugarites in 19th-century Germany.

I find it hard to believe that anyone in this thread could be having a hard time understanding what is meant by the stereotype of Jews and money. Greedy, usurious, swindling kikes? Ever read Merchant of Venice? Come on now.
:

I don't think that Jews are functionally like a race. Ethiopian Jews are black for example. To make all Jews the same is again easier to homogenise them and treat a group as all the same.

I know that Semite has become a lazy term for being a Jew. I view it as extremely unhelpful - and assists those who wish to have anything anti-Israel as somehow anti-Jew. I think that the two should be clearly separated. Perhaps in 19th century Germany it make sense, but things have changed.

Wanting to have / accrue money is quite a way from being greedy, usurious swindling kikes. Again, this enables confirmation bias to link questions that could be taken as neutral to be a negative since more is being read into the interpretation.

I personally am anti-Zionist but I've nothing really against Jews or Semites as cohorts.

~:smoking:

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I don't think that Jews are functionally like a race. Ethiopian Jews are black for example. To make all Jews the same is again easier to homogenise them and treat a group as all the same.

I know that Semite has become a lazy term for being a Jew. I view it as extremely unhelpful - and assists those who wish to have anything anti-Israel as somehow anti-Jew. I think that the two should be clearly separated. Perhaps in 19th century Germany it make sense, but things have changed.

Wanting to have / accrue money is quite a way from being greedy, usurious swindling kikes. Again, this enables confirmation bias to link questions that could be taken as neutral to be a negative since more is being read into the interpretation.

I personally am anti-Zionist but I've nothing really against Jews or Semites as cohorts.

~:smoking:

Jewishness can function as an ethnic or religious identity. In the US it's much more strongly an ethnic identity - something reflected in the portrayal of Jews in American entertainment and also in Bernie Sanders' retort to one interviewer "Are you suggesting I'm white?" In the UK the situation is much more ambiguous because whilst Jews are seen as somewhat distinct (and are still portrayed this way sometimes) it's much more in the way that any other white British group, like Londoners or people from the West Country. Again, referring to political statements consider Ed Milliband's claim that he would be quote "The first Jewish Prime Minister" if he won the election - most people tend not to think of Benjamin Disraeli as Jewish because he was a practising Christian despite his being very openly Jewish, ethnically speaking.

None of which explains why Monty believes British people would pronounces Jewish names as though they were speaking Yiddish - especially given we anglicise everything, just ask my valet.*

*Yes Monty, I realise it was an early importation from French when the t was still sounded but we've deliberately not updated it in 500 years.

[Pannonian]

Johnson appears for as few PMQs as possible, refuses to appear for Commons committee, refuses to be interviewed by Neil after the others have done theirs, refuses to appear for multi-party debate, then the Tories complain that Channel 4 have deprived them of representation after they'd refused to expose Johnson to exposure.

Will PM Johnson be held accountable for anything? Will Tory voters care that the PM does not have to be held accountable?

[Furunculus]

The [whole] electorate are free to hold him accountable for his (in)actions.

I know what the parties stand for.

[Pannonian]

The [whole] electorate are free to hold him accountable for his (in)actions.

I know what the parties stand for.

If the PM avoids questioning during his term, as Johnson has done as much as he could so far, and he is excused from questioning during election, do we expect the PM to be questioned at all?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

If the PM avoids questioning during his term, as Johnson has done as much as he could so far, and he is excused from questioning during election, do we expect the PM to be questioned at all?

I feel this is something of a non sequiter, to be honest.

As I noted previously, this is very much a "negative election" where the winner will be the one people are willing to hold their noses for, not the one they like.

In fact, Johnson has been interviewed, he has debated Corbyn, if he refuses to be exposed to the extent the other candidates are it will hurt him. Johnson may not feel shame 9oh, to be that posh) but he's aware of the concept and when others expect him to be "shamed". I don't think he has a good excuse not to do the Andrew Neil interview, which is why he'll do it... last.

At the last minute.

Let's be clear, though, nobody's really supporting Johnson here - the best that can probably said is that some of us would be able to hold a civil conversation with him.

[Pannonian]

I feel this is something of a non sequiter, to be honest.

As I noted previously, this is very much a "negative election" where the winner will be the one people are willing to hold their noses for, not the one they like.

In fact, Johnson has been interviewed, he has debated Corbyn, if he refuses to be exposed to the extent the other candidates are it will hurt him. Johnson may not feel shame 9oh, to be that posh) but he's aware of the concept and when others expect him to be "shamed". I don't think he has a good excuse not to do the Andrew Neil interview, which is why he'll do it... last.

At the last minute.

Let's be clear, though, nobody's really supporting Johnson here - the best that can probably said is that some of us would be able to hold a civil conversation with him.

See Furunculus above. He says the electorate can be held accountable for his (in)action. This clashes with your assertion that you should not be held personally accountable for what the people you vote for do. Which is correct? Or is the truth merely what the elected government can get away with?

[Furunculus]

You misunderstand - i said that the electorate can choose to hold [him] to account, not that we should hold the electorate to account.

[Pannonian]

You misunderstand - i said that the electorate can choose to hold [him] to account, not that we should hold the electorate to account.

So if the electorate does not do so, then the PM is allowed to do anything they want, up to and including minimising questioning? Are we transitioning to a presidential system where the executive is freed from scrutiny except for re-affirmation at the end of each electoral cycle? Are we going to put in place the other parts of a presidential system, or are we just going to stick with the informal checks and balances of the Parliamentary system that can be ignored by a presidential executive?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

So if the electorate does not do so, then the PM is allowed to do anything they want, up to and including minimising questioning? Are we transitioning to a presidential system where the executive is freed from scrutiny except for re-affirmation at the end of each electoral cycle? Are we going to put in place the other parts of a presidential system, or are we just going to stick with the informal checks and balances of the Parliamentary system that can be ignored by a presidential executive?Yes. I think that's what that Savoyard fellow was on about when he said we all get the government we deserve.

[Greyblades]

Let's be clear, though, nobody's really supporting Johnson here - the best that can probably said is that some of us would be able to hold a civil conversation with him.

I would say I would probably get along with him well, but thats the pittrap of politicians; personability doesnt translate into trustworthiness, see bush, clinton, obama etc.

I would support him if I believed most of his election time views were genuine, but I cant; he's still of the eton boys generation and being least shit of the generation doesnt make me worry any less that, once secure, he will morph into another cameron.

[Pannonian]

Yes. I think that's what that Savoyard fellow was on about when he said we all get the government we deserve.

You lot have existing checks and balances for a presidential system though, such as a constitution and functions split off into different bodies. We have a Parliamentary system where a lot of these checks and balances are based on custom and accepted practice, but a Commons majority and a government with no shame can ignore all that, to an extent that would be impossible in the US.

[Furunculus]

So if the electorate does not do so, then the PM is allowed to do anything they want

welcome to democracy.
there are... other systems available if you prefer?

[Greyblades]

Welcome to post modernism, we deconstructed everything and had nothing to replace the good parts.

[Furunculus]

LIES!

https://twitter.com/EuanPhilipps/status/1200330231065788417

SO MANY LIES!!!

which is my gently made point that getting all worked up about scrutiny miss the point if there is plenty of scrutiny but people choose not to pay attention to what is revealed.

[rory_20_uk]

I feel this is something of a non sequiter, to be honest.

As I noted previously, this is very much a "negative election" where the winner will be the one people are willing to hold their noses for, not the one they like.

In fact, Johnson has been interviewed, he has debated Corbyn, if he refuses to be exposed to the extent the other candidates are it will hurt him. Johnson may not feel shame (oh, to be that posh) but he's aware of the concept and when others expect him to be "shamed". I don't think he has a good excuse not to do the Andrew Neil interview, which is why he'll do it... last.

At the last minute.

Let's be clear, though, nobody's really supporting Johnson here - the best that can probably said is that some of us would be able to hold a civil conversation with him.

In any election, the incumbent always has an advantage and the most to loose from an interview / debate gaffe. All the others have the most to gain to be seen as an equal and perhaps saying something memorable.

So for quite a number of years the former tries to limit things as far as possible with the challengers yapping to get as many debates as possible.

I'm sure Boris knows he's at best tolerated. So he's limiting the damage he can do - leaving Corbyn to damage himself.

~:smoking:

[Pannonian]

In any election, the incumbent always has an advantage and the most to loose from an interview / debate gaffe. All the others have the most to gain to be seen as an equal and perhaps saying something memorable.

So for quite a number of years the former tries to limit things as far as possible with the challengers yapping to get as many debates as possible.

I'm sure Boris knows he's at best tolerated. So he's limiting the damage he can do - leaving Corbyn to damage himself.

~:smoking:

He's already faced the fewest PMQs in living memory for the time that he's been in office. And he's now avoiding being questioned whilst campaigning for office. If he's not open to questioning whilst in office, and he's not open to being questioned when seeking office, yet this is seen as acceptable, then is the office of Prime Minister open to questioning at all? Especially when you combine that with your argument that voters elect MPs rather than PMs, and Furunculus's argument on this page that he doesn't need to see Johnson questioned because he knows what the parties stand for.

[Pannonian]

Welcome to post modernism, we deconstructed everything and had nothing to replace the good parts.

What's this got to do with art theory?

[Furunculus]

Furunculus's argument on this page that he doesn't need to see Johnson questioned because he knows what the parties stand for.

i am a high-information voter; i gain NOTHING from the low-bandwidth tv circus drivel.

[rory_20_uk]

He's already faced the fewest PMQs in living memory for the time that he's been in office. And he's now avoiding being questioned whilst campaigning for office. If he's not open to questioning whilst in office, and he's not open to being questioned when seeking office, yet this is seen as acceptable, then is the office of Prime Minister open to questioning at all? Especially when you combine that with your argument that voters elect MPs rather than PMs, and Furunculus's argument on this page that he doesn't need to see Johnson questioned because he knows what the parties stand for.

Who exactly said it was acceptable?

It is not an "argument" that we elect MPs not the PM, it is a pretty solid fact.

If there was only some way that Members of Parliament could Vote to express their No Confidence... So Boris is mainly shielded by Corbyn - you topple the former and the risk of the latter is increased (or the Tories choose another leader of course).

Frankly I have finite time in my life. And between my job and my family I have no time to try to overturn the functioning of the country to obtain reform - and equally enough to loose to not dare break any laws. I mainly grumble - and even that with sotto voche since we're getting close to Though Crimes.

In case my many posts stating the UK system of democracy requires an overhaul have been missed, I again would like to state I am in favour of Proportional Representation at the very least, and ideally a system where Politicians of the same party stand against each other for the same seat (e.g. group areas where there are 4 MP seats being voted for). Will politicians do anything to overturn their jobs for life (or at least decades)? I doubt it - even Clegg screwed up his PR campaign for PR as the risk is whilst the Party might gain, individual MPs might loose their stability.

~:smoking:

[Pannonian]

Johnson goes on LBC with a sympathetic host (Nick Ferrari), but encounters a tricky caller, so he rambles a bit whilst gesturing to change the subject (https://twitter.com/BorisJohnson_MP/status/1200350094895304704). Do you want him as PM?

Oh hang on, James O'Brien has debunked that. Here's another one: Eddie Mair taking Boris Johnson to task over his deceitfulness and his willingness to see journalists assaulted (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZAxA-9D4X3o).

[Furunculus]

**looks at the list of things i do and don't want done by the next government**

**looks at the tories led by boz and labour led by magic grandpa, to see which things they will and won't do if they form the next government**

**conclude that i have no earthly use for labour, and am reasonably happy voting for the tories**

it really is this simple.

[Pannonian]

**looks at the list of things i do and don't want done by the next government**

**looks at the tories led by boz and labour led by magic grandpa, to see which things they will and won't do if they form the next government**

**conclude that i have no earthly use for labour, and am reasonably happy voting for the tories**

it really is this simple.

And thus because you loathe Labour and Corbyn, you think that Johnson should be excused from scrutiny?

[Furunculus]

you're making stuff up:

1. i've told you twice now: the public are welcome to judge him on his (in)actions.
they are allegedly adults of legally sound mind - and thus people we trust to use good judgement in the exercise of the franchise.

2. i don't loath anyone: we've been over the subject already of my emotional detachment.
they simply fail to advance my interests - and as such are irrelevant as a vehicle for my ambitions.

[Furunculus]

That begs the question, if you are using these tight definitions to exonerate Johnson, of whether you extend these standards to Corbyn too. Do you?

Yes i do, and i don't have any evidence that corbyn is racist.

Q: Do i have an awful lot of fun in hoisting the left on the petard of its nebulous and expanionist definition of racism?
A: Yeah, sure. Loads! It's great fun.

Q: Does he evidence what I consider to be a bigoted attitude to israel? Evidenced by him falling on the wrong side of every ME argument?
A: I believe so, yes.

My natural sympathy lies on the side of the representative democracy that is in relative terms a beacon of hope in the region, and takes time and trouble to include its arabs citizens in its society.
His natural sympathy appears to lie with the grievance mongers who prefer to run oppressive societies while tolerating the indoctrination of children into hateful ideology as a deliberate gateway into terrorist aggression.
Yes, there are plenty of examples in opposite on both sides - where opprobrium and applause should be given respectively - but we stand on fundamentally different sides of the argument.

So, not "racist", no.
But unpleasantly and wrongly bigoted (in my opinion), yes.

[Idaho]

My natural sympathy lies on the side of the representative democracy that is in relative terms a beacon of hope in the region, and takes time and trouble to include its arabs citizens in its society.
Wow. Just wow.

There is so much wrong with this that's it's essentially utter fantasy. I suppose if you're going to be wrong, then it's easier to be fanatically wrong.

[Furunculus]

I suppose it might be too much to expect an explanation for this breathless outrage?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Wow. Just wow.

There is so much wrong with this that's it's essentially utter fantasy. I suppose if you're going to be wrong, then it's easier to be fanatically wrong.

It's a sad fact that Israel is the most democratic country in the region, Lebenon comes a relatively distant second.

[Montmorency]

It's cathartic to read this (https://twitter.com/edburmila/status/1199160973669613568), but I could never. Bonus for PVC: it's the same guy who wrote the churl post. :sneaky:



Prima facia it seems significant (hardly surprising that folks closer to the reactionary end are somewhat more likely to be nativists etc.), but that stuff is really ordinal level data, not even interval Likert-style scaling. I don't think the Z-score really works there, as there really is no "mean" per se.

Admittedly, it's taking the Labour score as normal. I would have done more typical to compare to the aggregate total. But given the stability of responses between the survey and its previous iteration it's fair to say that there is a difference on that survey item between Labour (and LibDem) and Conservative as variables. This is not analytically tantamount to saying there is a difference between Labour voters and Conservative voters in "anti-Semitism."


I wish they'd put in 5-point Likert questions, then you could get a better significance approximation using interval level stats.

The study (https://www.jpr.org.uk/documents/JPR.2017.Antisemitism_in_contemporary_Great_Britain.pdf) I keep referring to Likert-scaled self-reported political orientation against responses to similar questions on attitudes toward Jews and Israel (plus religious dimensions of respondents). Seriously, check it out already!


I don't think that Jews are functionally like a race. Ethiopian Jews are black for example. To make all Jews the same is again easier to homogenise them and treat a group as all the same.

I know that Semite has become a lazy term for being a Jew. I view it as extremely unhelpful - and assists those who wish to have anything anti-Israel as somehow anti-Jew. I think that the two should be clearly separated. Perhaps in 19th century Germany it make sense, but things have changed.

Wanting to have / accrue money is quite a way from being greedy, usurious swindling kikes. Again, this enables confirmation bias to link questions that could be taken as neutral to be a negative since more is being read into the interpretation.

You wish that everyone would see things in the same light you do. That's your prerogative, but you have to engage with immemorial social reality too (especially if you want to change it). Some people think "nigga" and "ghey" are not insults and should be tolerated as general appellations - most disagree, and would react accordingly. BTW, Ethiopian Jews experience overwhelming discrimination from 'mainline' Jews, and often violent persecution by the Israeli state.


I personally am anti-Zionist but I've nothing really against Jews or Semites as cohorts.

I would say at this point "Zionist" is a descriptively-unhelpful word. They're there. The Jews are in the Levant. If you have a problem with Jewish supremacists, Jewish fascists, Jewish theocrats, etc. name them directly. Unless used with more precision than most muster, "Zionist" easily bleeds over to encompass pretty much anyone either living in Israel or outside who believes that Jews should not be expelled from that territory. Hopefully people who want to peacefully continue living in Israel are not your opponents. So, best to retire the term from colloquial discourse to avert confusion.

And PVC, most American Jews categorize themselves as "white" if you ask them to, whereas Israeli Jews - not living in a White society - have not needed to assimilate themselves to this frame (i.e. the question is invalid). But it is a complicated subject and you should take care with your assumptions.


And thus because you loathe Labour and Corbyn, you think that Johnson should be excused from scrutiny?

Pan, the fitness of Boris Johnson is not a relevant question to people who want the Tories in power because, obviously, in a parliamentary system it is a package deal. Boris Johnson could be a cognitive vegetable, and since the aim is to seat 300-odd Conservatives and not to seat Boris Johnson, that would be tolerable. This is separate from leadership as part of electoral strategy, as in how good or bad a leader is either in gaining power or wielding it. This is also separate from whether one should support a party in the first place; naturally I think Conservative backers make a bad, and badly-motivated, decision and that a Conservative government would be objectively bad for the UK. In summary:

1. Which party or platform to support?
2. Once I support them, how to maximize their fitness?

If your argument is that Johnson's personal unfitness should drive them away from the Conservative Party entirely, I think it is a bad argument. In political reality we cannot afford to be purity ponies. Voting as a political expression is fundamentally results-oriented in a world of constraint, and should not be conceived of as a personal expression of primarily symbolic importance.

So don't argue against Johnson, Pan. Argue against 300-odd Conservative MPs. One shouldn't like the Conservatives even if Johnson were a Great Man!




Q: Do i have an awful lot of fun in hoisting the left on the petard of its nebulous and expanionist definition of racism?
A: Yeah, sure. Loads! It's great fun.

Q: Does he evidence what I consider to be a bigoted attitude to israel? Evidenced by him falling on the wrong side of every ME argument?
A: I believe so, yes.

My natural sympathy lies on the side of the representative democracy that is in relative terms a beacon of hope in the region, and takes time and trouble to include its arabs citizens in its society.
His natural sympathy appears to lie with the grievance mongers who prefer to run oppressive societies while tolerating the indoctrination of children into hateful ideology as a deliberate gateway into terrorist aggression.
Yes, there are plenty of examples in opposite on both sides - where opprobrium and applause should be given respectively - but we stand on fundamentally different sides of the argument.

I'm residually biased against Palestinians, but I can see this is a distinctly prejudiced view on the conflict. "Beacon of hope," inclusive of Arabs vs. oppressive, hateful, terrorist. For whom are the petards? Hmmm.




Ep-steen, also, Ross-child or perhaps Roth's-child. Anglicisation is the name of the game here, as it has been from the 19th Century onwards.

And yet the name was pronounced exactly as I would expect a British person to pronounce i: [ain], with normal prosody. Maybe my expectation is spurious, but I would demand some data on the incidence of pronunciations of this name in the UK (and other '-ein' names, which do in fact vary in English pronunciation). Now, this particular individual's name and pronunciation was commonly represented on the news, so everyone should have been on the same page with Jeffrey. But you denounced Corbyn with such self-assurance I expected him to bray [epʃtein], the Russian pronunciation. This (https://youtu.be/zoRcCRULQl8?t=1045) is what riffing on an "ethnic" name looks like, from someone who indulges regularly. There's no similar marked intonation or contrived pronunciation with Corbyn. I'll tell you what would make a stronger case: history. Footage or testimony of Corbyn pronouncing the name differently for a different person/context. If Corbyn had a history of saying the same name an Anglicized way (wrt people who also used that pronunciation) but diverted himself when calling out a notorious predator, then it would be plausible as a provocation.


To the extent that I hadn't even linked the name Epstein to Jewishness or Yiddish before Corbyn miss-pronounced it.

It's a pretty well-known Jewish name and he was referring to a guy everyone knew was Jewish.


In any case, I didn't say it was "genocidal intent", I said it was a form of "othering" which recalls the Blood Libel. I'll thank you not to put words in my mouth.

You wrote: "No, it's the racism of old men in back rooms talking about how to "solve" the "problem", how to "free" themselves from the pernicious "influence"." That's an unmistakable reference to the historical "Jewish problem." Comparing Corbyn to someone deliberating on the dissolution of a "problem" pertaining to Jewish influence is an accusation of genocidal intent against him. Stop protesting when I accurately describe what you say. Or choose your words more carefully, Persian.

Though I wonder - what sort of facial hair do the old men in the back room have? Is it like Corbyn's, or coarser?


We are not discussing Hobson's status as a generally terrible human being, which he was, we are discussing Corbyn's support for his work and the link to the Rothschild Conspiracy..

It is a book on imperialism written by a racist who made a passing reference to financiers being predominantly Jewish. It is not a book about Jewish conspiracies. This (https://www.marxists.org/archive/hobson/1902/imperialism/pt1ch4.htm) is the whole extent of anti-Semitism in the book, marring an otherwise-worthwhile section.


If the special interest of the investor is liable to clash with the public interest and to induce a wrecking policy, still more dangerous is the special interest of the financier, the general dealer in investments. In large measure the rank and the of the investors are, both for business and for politics, the cat’s-paws of the great financial houses, who use stocks and shares not so much as investments to yield them interest, but as material for speculation in the money market. In handling large masses of stocks and shares, in floating companies, in manipulating fluctuations of values, the magnates of the Bourse find their gain. These great businesses – banking, broking, bill discounting, loan floating, company promoting – form the central ganglion of international capitalism. United by the strongest bonds of organisation, always in closest and quickest touch with one another, situated in the very heart of the business capital of every State, controlled, so far as Europe is concerned, chiefly by men of a single and peculiar race, who have behind them many centuries of financial experience, they are in a unique position to control the policy of nations. No great quick direction of capital is possible save by their consent and through their agency. Does any one seriously suppose that a great war could be undertaken by any European State, or a great State loan subscribed, if the house of Rothschild and its connections set their face against it?

Every great political act involving a new flow of capital, or a large fluctuation in the values of existing investments, must receive the sanction and the practical aid of this little group of financial kings. These men, holding their realised wealth and their business capital, as they must, chiefly in stocks and bonds, have a double stake, first as investors, but secondly and chiefly as financial dealers. As investors, their political influence does not differ essentially from that of the smaller investors, except that they usually possess a practical control of the businesses in which they invest. As speculators or financial dealers they constitute, however, the gravest single factor in the economics of Imperialism.

To create new public debts, to float new companies, and to cause constant considerable fluctuations of values are three conditions of their profitable business. Each condition carries them into politics, and throws them on the side of Imperialism.

The public financial arrangements for the Philippine war put several millions of dollars into the pockets of Mr. Pierpont Morgan and his friends; the China-Japan war, which saddled the Celestial Empire for the first time with a public debt, and the indemnity which she will pay to her European invaders in connection with the recent conflict, bring grist to the financial mills in Europe; every railway or mining concession wrung from some reluctant foreign potentate means profitable business in raising capital and floating companies. A policy which rouses fears of aggression in Asiatic states, and which fans the rivalry of commercial nations in Europe, evokes vast expenditure on armaments, and ever-accumulating public debts, while the doubts and risks accruing from this policy promote that constant oscillation of values of securities which is so profitable to the skilled financier. There is not a war, a revolution, an anarchist assassination, or any other public shock, which is not gainful to these men; they are harpies who suck their gains from every new forced expenditure and every sudden disturbance of public credit. To the financiers “in the know” the Jameson raid was a most advantageous coup, as may be ascertained by a comparison of the “holdings” of these men before and after that event; the terrible sufferings of England and South Africa in the war, which is a sequel of the raid, is a source of immense profit to the big financiers who have best held out against the uncalculated waste, and have recouped themselves by profitable war contracts and by “freezing out” the smaller interests in the Transvaal. These men are the only certain gainers from the war, and most of their gains are made out of the public losses of their adopted country or the private losses of their fellow-countrymen.

The policy of these men, it is true, does not necessarily make for war; where war would bring about too great and too permanent a damage to the substantial fabric of industry, which is the ultimate and essential basis of speculation, their influence is cast for peace, as in the dangerous quarrel between Great Britain and the United States regarding Venezuela. But every increase of public expenditure, every oscillation of public credit short of this collapse, every risky enterprise in which public resources can be made the pledge of private speculations, is profitable to the big money-lender and speculator.

The wealth of these houses, the scale of their operations, and their cosmopolitan organisation make them the prime determinants of imperial policy. They have the largest definite stake in the business of Imperialism, and the amplest means of forcing their will upon the policy of nations.

In view of the part which the non-economic factors of patriotism, adventure, military enterprise, political ambition, and philanthropy play in imperial expansion, it may appear that to impute to financiers so much power is to take a too narrowly economic view of history. And it is true that the motor-power of Imperialism is not chiefly financial: finance is rather the governor of the imperial engine, directing the energy and determining its work: it does not constitute the fuel of the engine, nor does it directly generate the power. Finance manipulates the patriotic forces which politicians, soldiers, philanthropists, and traders generate; the enthusiasm for expansion which issues from these sources, though strong and genuine, is irregular and blind; the financial interest has those qualities of concentration and clear-sighted calculation which are needed to set Imperialism to work. An ambitious statesman, a frontier soldier, an overzealous missionary, a pushing trader, may suggest or even initiate a step of imperial expansion, may assist in educating patriotic public opinion to the urgent need of some fresh advance, but the final determination rests with the financial power. The direct influence exercised by great financial houses in “high politics” is supported by the control which they exercise over the body of public opinion through the Press, which, in every “civilised” country, is becoming more and more their obedient instrument. While the specifically financial newspaper imposes “facts” and “opinions” on the business classes, the general body of the Press comes more and more under the conscious or unconscious domination of financiers. The case of the South African Press, whose agents and correspondents fanned the martial flames in this country, was one of open ownership on the part of South African financiers, and this policy of owning newspapers for the sake of manufacturing public opinion is common in the great European cities. In Berlin, Vienna, and Paris many of the influential newspapers are held by financial houses, which use them, not primarily to make direct profits out of them, but in order to put into the public mind beliefs and sentiments which will influence public policy and thus affect the money market. In Great Britain this policy has not gone so far, but the alliance with finance grows closer every year, either by financiers purchasing a controlling share of newspapers, or by newspaper proprietors being tempted into finance. Apart from the financial Press, and financial ownership of the general Press, the City notoriously exercises a subtle and abiding influence upon leading London newspapers, and through them upon the body of the provincial Press, while the entire dependence of the Press for its business profits upon its advertising columns involves a peculiar reluctance to oppose the organised financial classes with whom rests the control of so much advertising business. Add to this the natural sympathy with a sensational policy which a cheap Press always manifests, and it becomes evident that the Press is strongly biassed towards Imperialism, and lends itself with great facility to the suggestion of financial or political Imperialists who desire to work up patriotism for some new piece of expansion.

Such is the array of distinctively economic forces making for Imperialism, a large loose group of trades and professions seeking profitable business and lucrative employment from the expansion of military and civil services, from the expenditure on military operations, the opening up of new tracts of territory and trade with the same, and the provision of new capital which these operations require, all these finding their central guiding and directing force in the power of the general financier.

The play of these forces does not openly appear. They are essentially parasites upon patriotism, and they adapt themselves to its protecting colours. In the mouths of their representatives are noble phrase, expressive of their desire to extend the area of civilisation, to establish good government, promote Christianity, extirpate slavery, and elevate the lower races. Some of the business men who hold such language may entertain a genuine, though usually a vague, desire to accomplish these ends, but they are primarily engaged in business, and they are not unaware of the utility of the more unselfish forces in furthering their ends. Their true attitude of mind is expressed by Mr. Rhodes in his famous description of “Her Majesty’s Flag” as “the greatest commercial asset in the world.” [20]

It is therefore not, as you would have it, "Imperialism: A Study on the Protocols of the Elders of Zion" (which was published a year after Hobson's book, by the way). If it were a book like Mein Kampf, whose sole purpose is racial polemic, a warmer foreword would be questionable. It is not Mein Kampf. It is a serious work by an anti-Semite, not a narrative of blood libel. If someone writes a favorable foreword to works of Voltaire, Frege, Hume, and indeed most of all those dead white people, what is the significance? Not even a foreword to a biography or intellectual history, but to the original work. It is good to discuss how the racial ideologies of influential thinkers sprout through their output and its historical and philosophical significance. But it would take a hardcore radical to oblige that every mention of these names be placed against a full-throated examination of their sins. Notes on the State of Virginia, by "the lying rapist and genocidal moron Thomas Jefferson." ~:confused:


It's not one thing Monty, it's a litany of sins - were it only one, two, even three examples I might be persuaded it was bad judgement

Several weak examples does not transmute into strong examples.


there's always another one

Isn't it just those recycled ones in perpetuity? It would be helpful to identify a way in which a Corbyn government would act against Jews. Surely there must be some policy to undermine them? A restriction of their religious spaces? Bureaucratic targeting of their neighborhoods? Increased weight of police scrutiny?


My mistake, he's referring to the Boer War. I confused the original work with later commentary.

You remain confused. As Wiki points out, it was Hobson's earlier work that explicitly set out to name a "Jewish factor" about the 2nd Boer War. This book does not.


Further, a new edition was printed, with new introduction, in 1938.

And what were the changes to this edition, if any? Innuendo is for humor, not clear communication.

It remains that the modern commentator on a book (still regularly taught in universities, like so many other archaic works) that contains a few pages of anti-Semitism cannot so easily be tainted by association. If you believed that you would have to believe that Corbyn is also anti-black, for there is much more material in the book racist toward blacks than toward Jews. What explains your silence on Corbyn's putative anti-blackness or anti-Asianness? If you believe this foreword is evidence for Corbyn's antisemitism, then you must believe that almost any author is racist or anti-Semitic who writes a foreword, preface, or introduction to any book by a white racist without explicitly condemning their racism. There is no coherent case to be made for one and not the other, unless it is a motivated case. I wouldn't criticize you the way you do Corbyn for writing a foreword to Churchill's autobiography where you decline to rage against him as a self-serving aristocrat supremacist. Oh hey, look at that, Boris Johnson did write a whole book (https://www.amazon.com/Churchill-Factor-How-Made-History/dp/1594633983) about Winston Churchill. Serious question - did he take the (ample) opportunity of a whole book to criticize his role model's racism and other sins?


The Labour Party has done a bad job with internal governance and in its persistent dismissiveness toward criticism. Clearly this is a source of distress to many people. I think there is a case to be made that the Momentum/Corbyn siege mentality leads to toleration of anti-Semitism from perceived comrades (e.g. Palestinians via Hamas) in the name of solidarity, even if overall internal anti-Semitism may not exceed the British baseline. You can't make it the way you've gone about, and so it's hard to believe you care any more about anti-Semitism than you evidently do about any other form of racism.

[Furunculus]

naturally I think Conservative backers make a bad, and badly-motivated, decision and that a Conservative government would be objectively bad for the UK.MPs.

One shouldn't like the Conservatives even if Johnson were a Great Man!

If it's any consolation:

Naturally I don't think Labour backers are bad, or badly-motivated, just that they are deeply misguided and the damage they would inflict means a Labour/Magic-Grandpa/Momentum government would be objectively bad for the UK.

One shouldn't support Labour as long as Momentum are calling the shots!

[Idaho]

I suppose it might be too much to expect an explanation for this breathless outrage?
I can't imagine changing your mind, so how would an explanation help? Go and read something about the occupation and the lives of Israeli Arabs that wasn't written by eager Zionists. Take the time to actually investigate.

Beacon of light?! The country that has thousands in prison without trial? The country that routinely arrests, imprisons and beats children. The country that was so alarmed by democratic forces in neighbouring states that it has actively moved to destabilise democratic movements. Israel repeatedly targeted Palestinian political leadership - assasinations, splitting any unity between the West Bank and Gaza... Oh Jesus Christ the list goes on and on and on.

But it doesn't matter to you because to you these Arabs aren't full humans. They are at best and undesirable inconvenience, at worst they need to be cleansed from holy Zion.

[Idaho]

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/uknews/10455326/jeremy-corbyn-anti-semitic-juju-jewish-mps/

Look at this beauty. Someone hacks an account and leaves a random short anti-Semitic post, and the sun has it down as Corbyn attacking Israel.

It's Putin style propaganda. It doesn't need to be subtle. It can be completely crude, baseless and clearly manipulation - but the converted will rally round it. It's just noise.

[Furunculus]

But it doesn't matter to you because to you these Arabs aren't full humans. They are at best and undesirable inconvenience, at worst they need to be cleansed from holy Zion.

You're making assumptions about what I believe that simply cannot be evidenced or substantiated.
And making your case with religious zeal and symbolism that suggests that is isn't me that is irrationally invested in the success/failure of one side or the other.

Either way, we have evidenced the rebuttal of the question of whether I hold Coryn to the same standard as Boris when it comes to claims of 'racism' - as asked by Pannonian.

[Idaho]

You're making assumptions about what I believe that simply cannot be evidenced or substantiated.
And making your case with religious zeal and symbolism that suggests that is isn't me that is irrationally invested in the success/failure of one side or the other.

Either way, we have evidenced the rebuttal of the question of whether I hold Coryn to the same standard as Boris when it comes to claims of 'racism' - as asked by Pannonian.

Yep, brush it off, don't investigate, move on. As expected.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

And yet the name was pronounced exactly as I would expect a British person to pronounce i: [ain], with normal prosody.

Here's the clip, he says it twice, the first time it's partially covered by the applause:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x-C_pI3PIA8

Not how I would have said it, and my spoken English is so close to RP a linguist once described me as having the "most boring" accent she had ever heard.

Also - you - arguing with Englishman about how English people pronounce things.


Maybe my expectation is spurious, but I would demand some data on the incidence of pronunciations of this name in the UK (and other '-ein' names, which do in fact vary in English pronunciation).

It's not the final syllable - which should be "een" in English but might sometimes be "ine", it's the guttural way he pronounces the "st".


Now, this particular individual's name and pronunciation was commonly represented on the news, so everyone should have been on the same page with Jeffrey. But you denounced Corbyn with such self-assurance I expected him to bray [epʃtein], the Russian pronunciation. This (https://youtu.be/zoRcCRULQl8?t=1045) is what riffing on an "ethnic" name looks like, from someone who indulges regularly. There's no similar marked intonation or contrived pronunciation with Corbyn. I'll tell you what would make a stronger case: history. Footage or testimony of Corbyn pronouncing the name differently for a different person/context. If Corbyn had a history of saying the same name an Anglicized way (wrt people who also used that pronunciation) but diverted himself when calling out a notorious predator, then it would be plausible as a provocation.

Watch the clip again.


It's a pretty well-known Jewish name and he was referring to a guy everyone knew was Jewish.

You really over-estimate the extent to which people in the UK are aware of "Jewishness" and how it's signified. When my cousin married a Jewish man most of the family didn't realise he was Jewish until the engagement (no church wedding), also some of his relatives arrived in kilts.


You wrote: "No, it's the racism of old men in back rooms talking about how to "solve" the "problem", how to "free" themselves from the pernicious "influence"." That's an unmistakable reference to the historical "Jewish problem." Comparing Corbyn to someone deliberating on the dissolution of a "problem" pertaining to Jewish influence is an accusation of genocidal intent against him. Stop protesting when I accurately describe what you say. Or choose your words more carefully, Persian.

Though I wonder - what sort of facial hair do the old men in the back room have? Is it like Corbyn's, or coarser?

Bit of a stretch from backroom mutterings to actual genocidal intent, but OK, fine, if you want to read me like that. I thought Corbyn was genocidal, though, I'd just say so.


It is a book on imperialism written by a racist who made a passing reference to financiers being predominantly Jewish. It is not a book about Jewish conspiracies. This (https://www.marxists.org/archive/hobson/1902/imperialism/pt1ch4.htm) is the whole extent of anti-Semitism in the book, marring an otherwise-worthwhile section.

Silly me - I thought you were going to link to the text. Oh well: https://archive.org/details/imperialismastu00goog/page/n274

Now - Hobson's views on Jews, whom he does not name, take up most of the latter half of a chapter titled "The Parasites of Imperialism" and whilst he does not say "Jew" he refers to a "peculiar race" (p. 64) and also to the Boer War - where he attacked Jews specifically at length in another work. Later in the same chapter he refers to the same "financiers" control of the press (p. 67), and asserts that their influence is felt also in "Berlin, Vienna and Paris" (ibid).

The entire argument is built on these "financiers" being a close inter-connected group, the entire argument is antisemitic.


It is therefore not, as you would have it, "Imperialism: A Study on the Protocols of the Elders of Zion" (which was published a year after Hobson's book, by the way). If it were a book like Mein Kampf, whose sole purpose is racial polemic, a warmer foreword would be questionable. It is not Mein Kampf. It is a serious work by an anti-Semite, not a narrative of blood libel. If someone writes a favorable foreword to works of Voltaire, Frege, Hume, and indeed most of all those dead white people, what is the significance? Not even a foreword to a biography or intellectual history, but to the original work. It is good to discuss how the racial ideologies of influential thinkers sprout through their output and its historical and philosophical significance. But it would take a hardcore radical to oblige that every mention of these names be placed against a full-throated examination of their sins. Notes on the State of Virginia, by "the lying rapist and genocidal moron Thomas Jefferson." ~:confused:

Hobson has an entire section devoted to parasitic Jewish financiers - which Corbyn (by implication) thinks is "basically right".

Even assuming you believe the tents of the book - and that's a big if because the argument is that the primary impetus of Imperialism is economic - you still need to confront the fact that Hobson believed the financial system was controlled by a small number of banking houses, specifically Jewish ones, who benefited even when their own country suffered. I invite those interested to read the work, from page 50 onward. It's decidedly dense and boring, but soldier on and see what I mean.


Several weak examples does not transmute into strong examples.

The examples are not all that weak.


Isn't it just those recycled ones in perpetuity? It would be helpful to identify a way in which a Corbyn government would act against Jews. Surely there must be some policy to undermine them? A restriction of their religious spaces? Bureaucratic targeting of their neighborhoods? Increased weight of police scrutiny?

The book only surfaced this year.

Here's him on "Zionists: https://archive.org/details/imperialismastu00goog/page/n274

The nastiest one so far.


You remain confused. As Wiki points out, it was Hobson's earlier work that explicitly set out to name a "Jewish factor" about the 2nd Boer War. This book does not.

I refer you to page 65, Hobson takes up the issues of the Transvaal (Boer War) and says just before that, "There is not a war, a revolution, an anarchist assassination, or any other public shock, which is not gainful to these men."

Now, we've already established that "these men" are of the "peculiar race" so this is basically Rothschild conspiracy 101 now.

Either you have not read the chapter or you assumed I had not.


And what were the changes to this edition, if any? Innuendo is for humor, not clear communication.

None, so far as I am aware, it got a new introduction - yay.


It remains that the modern commentator on a book (still regularly taught in universities, like so many other archaic works) that contains a few pages of anti-Semitism cannot so easily be tainted by association. If you believed that you would have to believe that Corbyn is also anti-black, for there is much more material in the book racist toward blacks than toward Jews. What explains your silence on Corbyn's putative anti-blackness or anti-Asianness? If you believe this foreword is evidence for Corbyn's antisemitism, then you must believe that almost any author is racist or anti-Semitic who writes a foreword, preface, or introduction to any book by a white racist without explicitly condemning their racism. There is no coherent case to be made for one and not the other, unless it is a motivated case. I wouldn't criticize you the way you do Corbyn for writing a foreword to Churchill's autobiography where you decline to rage against him as a self-serving aristocrat supremacist. Oh hey, look at that, Boris Johnson did write a whole book (https://www.amazon.com/Churchill-Factor-How-Made-History/dp/1594633983) about Winston Churchill. Serious question - did he take the (ample) opportunity of a whole book to criticize his role model's racism and other sins?

We've covered Boris Johnson's prejudices - I've also covered Churchill's in the past - I once seriously compared him to Hitler, I further made the point that many pro-Zionists in the UK at that time were so because they wanted to see the Jews leave Britain and go somewhere else. That's Ken Livingstone's preference, by the sounds of it - and according to Ken it was Hitler's preference before he "went crazy."

When I was doing my Undergrad and studying Cicero I was given some excellent advice by one of the professors, "You don't have to like the people you study."

Churchill was racist, he was more racist than average for people of his era - he was especially racist against Indians and quite happy top see them starve, he would have gassed the Kurds if he could have worked out how. However, he was a committed democrat which meant he guarded Britain and Europe against Fascism until more enlightened men than him could come to power peacefully.

That is, more or less, what I would write in the forward - although I'd be a little more polite.

Is Corbyn racist against non-whites? Difficult question - quite possibly given that he seems to insist on seeing them all as the perpetual victims of whites.


The Labour Party has done a bad job with internal governance and in its persistent dismissiveness toward criticism. Clearly this is a source of distress to many people. I think there is a case to be made that the Momentum/Corbyn siege mentality leads to toleration of anti-Semitism from perceived comrades (e.g. Palestinians via Hamas) in the name of solidarity, even if overall internal anti-Semitism may not exceed the British baseline. You can't make it the way you've gone about, and so it's hard to believe you care any more about anti-Semitism than you evidently do about any other form of racism.

So you accept Corbyn tolerates antisemitism from "fellow travellers" today? How do you explain his penchant for the same prior to becoming leader?

Rank stupidity?

That's a valid answer, to be fair, but it equally disqualifies him from high office.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I can't imagine changing your mind, so how would an explanation help? Go and read something about the occupation and the lives of Israeli Arabs that wasn't written by eager Zionists. Take the time to actually investigate.

Beacon of light?! The country that has thousands in prison without trial? The country that routinely arrests, imprisons and beats children. The country that was so alarmed by democratic forces in neighbouring states that it has actively moved to destabilise democratic movements. Israel repeatedly targeted Palestinian political leadership - assasinations, splitting any unity between the West Bank and Gaza... Oh Jesus Christ the list goes on and on and on.

But it doesn't matter to you because to you these Arabs aren't full humans. They are at best and undesirable inconvenience, at worst they need to be cleansed from holy Zion.

You forgot helping to precipitate the Civil War in Lebanon and then destroying all it's infrastructure afterwards which, among other things, has helped to discredit the moderate Christian majority, making the country less Christian and therefore somewhere Europeans are less likely to identify with.

Israel is not a good neighbour.

[Pannonian]

Will Johnson be interviewed by Neil like the other leaders? If he does not, would it affect anyone's opinions here?

[Furunculus]

Yes, i do think it will reflect badly on him, and he should do it - not least because his opponents went on the show on the understanding that they would all face such a grilling.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

...Israel is not a good neighbour.

It can be a pretty rough ally too. The Jerusalem Post listed 15 Americans killed by Palestinians in an article in 2017. Of course, the IDF killed 34 Americans in one day during the '67 conflict...

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

It can be a pretty rough ally too. The Jerusalem Post listed 15 Americans killed by Palestinians in an article in 2017. Of course, the IDF killed 34 Americans in one day during the '67 conflict...

Yes...

Israel makes you guys look reliable.

*Cough* don'tbelateforworldwarthreewe'verunoutofships *Cough*

[Gilrandir]

When my cousin married a Jewish man most of the family didn't realise he was Jewish until the engagement (no church wedding), also some of his relatives arrived in kilts.



Jews in kilts? Then his last name must be McRabinovitz.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Yes...

Israel makes you guys look reliable.

*Cough* don'tbelateforworldwarthreewe'verunoutofships *Cough*

Israel is a very predictable ally. And, based on the selflessness of their behavior, not all that far off from some of the "allies" I have made in Total War games.


And I think what you lot have done in drawing down the RN is crazy. What is left of the RN is neither strong enough to matter nor cheap enough to make sense.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Israel is a very predictable ally. And, based on the selflessness of their behavior, not all that far off from some of the "allies" I have made in Total War games.


And I think what you lot have done in drawing down the RN is crazy. What is left of the RN is neither strong enough to matter nor cheap enough to make sense.

The situation with the RN is the result of a number of complex circumstances. Firstly, you have the constant downward pressure on the armed forces what British politics has always exerted in peacetime - better to cut manpower than raise taxes. Secondly, you have the ongoing draw-down from the post-Cold war "peace dividend" which has continued even in the face of rising global tension. Thirdly, you have the "tonnage problem". From at least the 60's onwards RN ships have generally got bigger, heavier and generally more capable with a corresponding rise in cost that has meant a reduction in numbers.

Our new carriers are the largest in the world aside from American ships, but the Labour government cheaped out on then by trying to run harriers off them and hence they are not CATOBAR. Even so, the total tonnage of the two new ships is roughly double the tonnage of those they replace. Likewise, the Type 45 "Destroyer" is in reality a light cruiser given it's tonnage is roughly equivalent to the Leanders built in the 1930's and it is equipped to function as a taskforce flagship.

So, in really the UK has a "destroyer gap" in that we don't have any - the new Type 26 Frigate has the capabilities of a Destroyer but it may only reach 26 knots, too slow to be an escort ship, and in any case we are only building 8 to the Canuks 15. Even so, the RN has employed the policy of taking fewer, larger, ships in the hopes they can eventually build more smaller ones. This is the idea behind the Type 31 Frigate - Of which there were originally to be five but it looks like there will now be 8, which is three more frigates thean we have at present.

Overall, though, the UK remains in a state of post-Imperial decline, a rut we have been unable to get out of since 1946.

[Furunculus]

The royal navy's problem is the cold war - which forced a bankrupt Seapower culture that employed a Sea-Power strategy to move to a Land-Power strategy.

We never became a Landpower culture - as evidenced by our difficulties in joining in with the required self-absorption to be a successful EU member - but a combination european enthusiasm and osama bn laden in the New Labour years prevented us from abandoning the Land-Power strategy.

But that is changing, and you may well witness in the next 12 months a dramatic change at the next SDSR whereby:
1. The Army continues to shrink (115k SDR98 / 96k SDSR10 / 82K SDSR15 / 75k SDSR20).
2. And the Navy expands for the first time since the second world war.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

The royal navy's problem is the cold war - which forced a bankrupt Seapower culture that employed a Sea-Power strategy to move to a Land-Power strategy.

We never became a Landpower culture - as evidenced by our difficulties in joining in with the required self-absorption to be a successful EU member - but a combination european enthusiasm and osama bn laden in the New Labour years prevented us from abandoning the Land-Power strategy.

But that is changing, and you may well witness in the next 12 months a dramatic change at the next SDSR whereby:
1. The Army continues to shrink (115k SDR98 / 96k SDSR10 / 82K SDSR15 / 75k SDSR20).
2. And the Navy expands for the first time since the second world war.

The British Army is already pitifully small, it comprises only 2 combat divisions (1st and 3rd) with the 6th Division really just being a paper formation to group all the army's SIGINT units together.

If the Navy is in danger of becoming a joke the army is a Greek tragedy. It's not just the reduction in combat troops, it's complete lack of real invard investment, such as the failure to procure new tanks so that the old Vickers works has been shut down. Essentially, the UK would need to start from scratch if it wanted to build new armour.

There's no point in re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. At a bear minimum the RN needs to grow its escort fleet by 50%. Ideally we'd start building a run of new light carriers to supplement the hulking monstrosities Gordon Brown saddled us with - but that's not going to happen.

Ask yourself what any of the services might feasibly be required to do - then ask if they can do that job and continue to defend the British Isles - in every instance you'll see the answer is simply "no".

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/11/30/jeremy-corbyns-ardent-supporters-likely-anti-semitic/

Over one third of Corbyn's supporters are antisemitic, as opposed to just over one fifth of Boris Johnson's.

[Furunculus]

The British Army is already pitifully small, it comprises only 2 combat divisions (1st and 3rd) with the 6th Division really just being a paper formation to group all the army's SIGINT units together.

If the Navy is in danger of becoming a joke the army is a Greek tragedy. It's not just the reduction in combat troops, it's complete lack of real invard investment, such as the failure to procure new tanks so that the old Vickers works has been shut down. Essentially, the UK would need to start from scratch if it wanted to build new armour.

There's no point in re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. At a bear minimum the RN needs to grow its escort fleet by 50%. Ideally we'd start building a run of new light carriers to supplement the hulking monstrosities Gordon Brown saddled us with - but that's not going to happen.

Ask yourself what any of the services might feasibly be required to do - then ask if they can do that job and continue to defend the British Isles - in every instance you'll see the answer is simply "no".

conversely, i'd argue the army has more men than it can afford to equip.
it has way to much light infantry that is not part of any combined arms formation capable of maneuver warfare:
they have no organic armoured mobility in their own right.
they have no combat support and combat service support to provide recon, artillary, engineering, logistics, signals.

additionally, we have too many heavy formations, which:
we don't need - because they are no use in the places we want to fight (far away, over large areas, with poor support)
we can't afford - we're never going to build another tank production line for just 200 tanks, we'll buy american or german.

the answer to the army's problem is strike in providing affordable medium weight wheeled brigades, in that:
they solve the post fulda gap problem - 64k troops in 160sq/km where today we only have 8k troops to cover 8000sq/km.
they are designed to self deploy 1000km, operate dispersed ti avoid attrition, and aggregate to provide decisive effect.

if we had one armoured brigade (instead of two) and three strike (instead of two), plus an airmobile brigade, we be no worse off in fighting effect and could do it with ten thousand less troops.

we could spend that manpower budget to uplift the royal navy:
who have exactly the right carriers - as endless design studies demonstrated.
but need more escorts - in a hi/lo T26/T31 configuration suitable for a sea-power strategy with affordable forward deployed assets.
and we need to rethink our amphibious forces of commandos and their vessels - to destroy and flip the a2ad bubble preventing insertion of carrier/strike follow on forces into the theater of operation.

[rory_20_uk]

I've thought there are two things the UK needs to do with the Armed Forces:

1) Accept we are a Tier 2 Force. Get tried and tested material rather than a miniscule amount of so new it'll break stuff and we can't really use it since we can't afford to replace it. Be that going with the USA or with others - such as Germany - to increase the volume to reduce costs.
2) Reorganise the whole lot into an integrated "Marines force". Just accept there are a few number of things we can do and many others we can't - such as using the Army in any way where there is a hostile force and realistically no ability to fight anywhere more than 20 miles inland without assistance. Almost every facet of the logistic chain is missing. Perhaps this might force Politicians to accept that the UK has no place in getting involved in overseas adventures.

~:smoking:

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

conversely, i'd argue the army has more men than it can afford to equip.
it has way to much light infantry that is not part of any combined arms formation capable of maneuver warfare:
they have no organic armoured mobility in their own right.
they have no combat support and combat service support to provide recon, artillary, engineering, logistics, signals.

additionally, we have too many heavy formations, which:
we don't need - because they are no use in the places we want to fight (far away, over large areas, with poor support)
we can't afford - we're never going to build another tank production line for just 200 tanks, we'll buy american or german.

the answer to the army's problem is strike in providing affordable medium weight wheeled brigades, in that:
they solve the post fulda gap problem - 64k troops in 160sq/km where today we only have 8k troops to cover 8000sq/km.
they are designed to self deploy 1000km, operate dispersed ti avoid attrition, and aggregate to provide decisive effect.

if we had one armoured brigade (instead of two) and three strike (instead of two), plus an airmobile brigade, we be no worse off in fighting effect and could do it with ten thousand less troops.

we could spend that manpower budget to uplift the royal navy:
who have exactly the right carriers - as endless design studies demonstrated.
but need more escorts - in a hi/lo T26/T31 configuration suitable for a sea-power strategy with affordable forward deployed assets.
and we need to rethink our amphibious forces of commandos and their vessels - to destroy and flip the a2ad bubble preventing insertion of carrier/strike follow on forces into the theater of operation.

The army needs another 10,000 men to fill the logistics gap - i.e. to support the troops we have. As things stand a lot of the logistics chain is provided by civilians - food, accommodation, medical etc. It's not sexy but it's what keeps frontline troops fit and capable. I'll never forget the eight hours I was stuck in a Guardhouse with a broken armoury alarm, and why? There was no REME detachment on base, that's why, because the MOD had sold the base to a private contractor based in Germany and was leasing it back.

As far as actually fighting goes - we can *maybe* deploy one division on a medium-term without American support, maybe. We certainly can't fight the Falklands War again.

The Armoured Corps has been drawn down to an unacceptable level and the Challenger II tank is undergoing yet another ultimately futile "life extension" program when it need to be replaced.

The Light Division is of no real value - it exists principally as a formation that lacks mechanisation (i.e. it's cheap). We should dispense with Light Infantry entirely, convert everyone to some form of mechanisation, whether that's Infantry fighting Vehicles or a lighter form of APC.

We will not be fighting another war like Afghanistan, unless we specifically go back to Afghanistan. We're much more likely to end up fighting something like a genuine mechanised war against, say, Iran, or we're going to fight China or Russia. We're already relatively close to neutralising intercontinental ballistic missiles and once that happens MAD will cease to apply.

At that point it's going to be rearm or die, and don't think there's no future where the US invades Canada or blockades Australia, because there might be.

Overall, we should be aiming to return military funding (which has been constantly falling) to what it was around 2005, and we should be looking to rearm to the sort of levels we were at at the start of the millennium. The idea we're a "second rate power" is just rhetoric used to cover the fact we're happier wasting money than spending it on something useful.

Same applies to not plugging the pension hole in the Royal Mail, or not rebuilding the railways.

[Furunculus]

Overall, we should be aiming to return military funding (which has been constantly falling) to what it was around 2005, and we should be looking to rearm to the sort of levels we were at at the start of the millennium. The idea we're a "second rate power" is just rhetoric used to cover the fact we're happier wasting money than spending it on something useful.
i'm with you, brutha!

unfortunately, while i'd be delighted to see defence spending return to 2.5% of gdp, while excluding the costs of:
1. the nuclear deterrent
2. pensions
3. [any] operational costs including UOR's

... i don't see the public or political parties lining up to offer me that.
so the army is only going to get smaller, not larger.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

i'm with you, brutha!

unfortunately, while i'd be delighted to see defence spending return to 2.5% of gdp, while excluding the costs of:
1. the nuclear deterrent
2. pensions
3. [any] operational costs including UOR's

... i don't see the public or political parties lining up to offer me that.
so the army is only going to get smaller, not larger.

I fear you are right, which is why I've spent the last month mostly playing Hearts of Iron IV and building Battle Cruisers.

[Montmorency]

Some things I want to hear from Idaho on:

What do McDonnell/Corbyn mean when they speak of decentralized nationalization?

What is your opinion on perhaps a majority of Labour-voting Jews holding Corbyn, and the party, to be anti-Semitic? (Ask about assumptions)

What is the Labour Party not doing that it could do to robustly process complaints and educate the membership on all vectors of (anti-)racism?

I mean the above question for its own sake, not in connection to public perception or media narrative. But having those in mind, what do you think of the conjecture that almost the entire popular perception of Labour anti-Semitism has come to be bound up with the figure of Corbyn?



If it's any consolation:

Naturally I don't think Labour backers are bad, or badly-motivated, just that they are deeply misguided and the damage they would inflict means a Labour/Magic-Grandpa/Momentum government would be objectively bad for the UK.

One shouldn't support Labour as long as Momentum are calling the shots!

When you post this way and lean on 'cool kid' detachment you remind me of this cartoon.

https://i.imgur.com/UhnAJKJ.jpg



It's not the final syllable - which should be "een" in English but might sometimes be "ine", it's the guttural way he pronounces the "st".

If its the alveopalatal fricative that concerns you, it's the other end from guttural.


Watch the clip again.

Both namings are in the Twitter clips, but thanks. The problem with your interpretation is that he doesn't - as in the comparison - pronounce it emphatically, in an exaggerated or mocking manner, so there's no reason to believe he was trying to call attention to it. If he wasn't trying to call attention to it but the significance is still nefarious, you could believe either that he is (*giggle*) trying to subliminally indoctrinate the Gentile population with othering microaggressions, or that his anti-Semitism manifests as an unconscious incorrect pronunciation of this name in particular. Again, some evidence from Corbyn's history with Jewish names would be probative here. Corporal evidence from British English speakers would also be helpful.

By the way, here is an example (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boris_Epshteyn) of the ossified genealogy of the "Epstein" name. I don't know how Boris Epshteyn pronounces his last name, but I am almost certain that the orthography is phonemic. (Amusingly, most of the text-to-speech apps I tried on the Internet pronounce the base Epstein [-ain].)


You really over-estimate the extent to which people in the UK are aware of "Jewishness" and how it's signified. When my cousin married a Jewish man most of the family didn't realise he was Jewish until the engagement (no church wedding), also some of his relatives arrived in kilts.

That's fair. The vast majority of my awareness of Jewish names I gained in adulthood, because I wasn't really paying attention.


Bit of a stretch from backroom mutterings to actual genocidal intent, but OK, fine, if you want to read me like that. I thought Corbyn was genocidal, though, I'd just say so.

You said "problem," which has just one historically-overspecified meaning in the context of unwanted Jewish influence. I've chosen my words carefully. Perhaps you should have done the same.


Silly me - I thought you were going to link to the text. Oh well: https://archive.org/details/imperial...goog/page/n274

Now - Hobson's views on Jews, whom he does not name, take up most of the latter half of a chapter titled "The Parasites of Imperialism" and whilst he does not say "Jew" he refers to a "peculiar race" (p. 64) and also to the Boer War - where he attacked Jews specifically at length in another work. Later in the same chapter he refers to the same "financiers" control of the press (p. 67), and asserts that their influence is felt also in "Berlin, Vienna and Paris" (ibid).

I linked it right there where you're quoting me, as well as quoting it at length in the spoiler. ???

Are you, like, skimming my posts??????


The entire argument is built on these "financiers" being a close inter-connected group

That is incorrect, and I really can't talk sources with you if you will consistently misrepresent them.


Hobson has an entire section devoted to parasitic Jewish financiers - which Corbyn (by implication) thinks is "basically right".

No, you can't make that association. It's 2% of the book. From my understanding of the thesis, Hobson thought modern imperialism was basically mercantilistic because of insufficient domestic markets under industrial capitalism in Europe. He referred to financiers as "parasitic" in the sense of a dichotomy between politicians and citizens motivated by patriotism and financiers motivated by economic self-interest, which in my opinion was too limited a characterization even then. He arrived at this theory by observing that imperialism was actually an overall economic drain on the manufacturing and trading sectors of the imperial nation, and so tried to explain this acting against self-interest by identifying self-interest in a financial sector driven by raw speculation (e.g. interest income from investment). This is again too limited by not taking into account geopolitics, and anyway imperial extraction directly injected massive amounts of wealth into imperial nations in all corners and all levels of society, so he must be mistaken on one of his core economic premises. I have indeed read some of the book just for the sake of this tedious exercise, and it's possible to find both flaws and prescient insight.

The bottom line is that no aspect of his argument - which goes well beyond the role of financiers - is affected by anti-Semitic propositions. It's straightforward to say that Hobson was convinced of the truth and relevance of anti-Semitic ideas, but logically his arguments stand apart from it.


Even assuming you believe the tents of the book - and that's a big if because the argument is that the primary impetus of Imperialism is economic - you still need to confront the fact that Hobson believed the financial system was controlled by a small number of banking houses, specifically Jewish ones, who benefited even when their own country suffered. I invite those interested to read the work, from page 50 onward. It's decidedly dense and boring, but soldier on and see what I mean.

Why would Corbyn need to reckon with a sliver of bigotry in a (two or five-page? The length also makes a difference) foreword? Or if he should, why shouldn't he address the other, more voluminous, racisms contained in the work? Why one but not the other?

Are you going to require reckoning with Aristotle or Plato's fundamental sexism in the first word about their philosophy?

I remain unconvinced that it is normally the province of a foreword writer - as opposed at least to an introductory commentator - to warn the reader about all the author's bigotries and insecurities.


The book only surfaced this year.

Here's him on "Zionists: https://archive.org/details/imperial...goog/page/n274

The nastiest one so far.

There is nothing on that page, or in the book from what I can find, on Zionists. What are you referring to?


I refer you to page 65, Hobson takes up the issues of the Transvaal (Boer War) and says just before that, "There is not a war, a revolution, an anarchist assassination, or any other public shock, which is not gainful to these men."

Now, we've already established that "these men" are of the "peculiar race" so this is basically Rothschild conspiracy 101 now.

Either you have not read the chapter or you assumed I had not.

I quoted and bolded this in the post of mine you're apparently responding to and it is the only anti-Semitic connection in the book.

Please stop misrepresenting sources to suit your narratives.


When I was doing my Undergrad and studying Cicero I was given some excellent advice by one of the professors, "You don't have to like the people you study."

Ding ding.


That is, more or less, what I would write in the forward - although I'd be a little more polite.


It's not easy to trust you, but if you were to write that in any foreword to any book by or about Churchill, that would be transgressive enough to earn you some lefty bonafides. I doubt many publishers would print it.


Is Corbyn racist against non-whites? Difficult question - quite possibly given that he seems to insist on seeing them all as the perpetual victims of whites.

Noticing racism is not racism. But is Corbyn racist toward non-whites on account of their absence from the foreword?


So you accept Corbyn tolerates antisemitism from "fellow travellers" today? How do you explain his penchant for the same prior to becoming leader?

I don't understand your question. You're suggesting someone who values partisan solidarity to the point of ignoring bad behavior would only become that way once in a position of power? It's more the other way around.

Please don't misunderstand me. Corbyn's leadership here and in other matters has been dreadful, and I think it's because he can't transition into that mindset of addressing demands by competing stakeholders and taking criticism judiciously - as a politician does/should. And I don't think it is outrageous to raise the possibility that Corbyn is anti-Semitic. I just think the way you construct your case on the most trivial and decontextualized examples, and with peripheral disdain toward anti-racism, is motivated by partisan considerations, and so fails to be credible on its own grounds - because it's not made to be. Which is to say, ironically, that when Corbyn underperforms to the anti-Semitism controversy by acting like everyone who has a problem is his enemy, he's probably fixating on people like you.


https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/11/30/jeremy-corbyns-ardent-supporters-likely-anti-semitic/

Over one third of Corbyn's supporters are antisemitic, as opposed to 1/5 of Boris Johnson's.

Ugh, this study (https://antisemitism.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/Antisemitism-Barometer-2019.pdf) makes the fatal mistake of constructing some very loaded questions on anti-Israel attitudes ("anti-Zionist anti-Semitism") and then lumping them in with "Judeophobic antisemitism." That is, it starts with the premise that all the former attitudes are in themselves anti-Semitic in nature and can all be analyzed together. The quality of the The far-left holding an elevated proportion of anti-Israel attitudes will inevitably skew the result against them in a way that diverges with other studies. As the analysis points out, "This finding [of elevated anti-Semitism on the very left-wing] is mostly accounted for by the proportion of ‘very left-wing’ respondents holding one, two, or three antisemitic views. When we look at the percentage of respondents holding four or more antisemitic views, there is no clear relationship with one’s position on the political spectrum. I'm confident that separating "anti-Zionist antisemitism" attitudes from Judeophobic attitudes in the design would neutralize the study's clickbaity finding.

The 2017 Jewish Policy Research study treated anti-Semitic and anti-Israel attitudes as analytically distinct before looking at the overlap, where it was found that while most of those holding at least one anti-Semitic attitude hold at least one anti-Israel attitude, the reverse is not true: most of those endorsing an anti-Israel attitude did not endorse any anti-Semitic attitude. The attitude questions/statements on Israel were also more numerous and better constructed than in the Campaign Against Antisemitism study. Compare former with latter:


People should boycott Israeli goods
and products

Israel is the cause of all the troubles
in the Middle East

Israel exploits Holocaust victimhood
for its own purposes

Israel is the only real democracy in
the Middle East

Israel has too much control over
global affairs

The interests of Israelis are at odds with
the interests of the rest of the world

Israel is an apartheid state

Israel is deliberately trying to wipe out
the Palestinian population

Israel is committing mass murder in
Palestine

The State of Israel makes a positive
contribution to global society

The State of Israel is the historic
homeland of the Jewish People
T



1. “Israel and its supporters are a bad
influence on our democracy.”
2. “Israel can get away with anything
because its supporters control
the media.”
3. “Israel treats the Palestinians like
the Nazis treated the Jews.”
4. “I am comfortable spending time with
people who openly support Israel.”
5. “Israel makes a positive contribution
to the world.”
6. “Israel is right to defend itself against
those who want to destroy it.”




We will not be fighting another war like Afghanistan, unless we specifically go back to Afghanistan. We're much more likely to end up fighting something like a genuine mechanised war against, say, Iran, or we're going to fight China or Russia. We're already relatively close to neutralising intercontinental ballistic missiles and once that happens MAD will cease to apply.

At that point it's going to be rearm or die, and don't think there's no future where the US invades Canada or blockades Australia, because there might be.

I have no opinions on the particulars of the UK order of battle, but this is real silly. If you think there is a future in which the United States invades the UK to slaughter its people or nuclear powers decide on an exchange, then your politics are already a joke and you should be stocking a LMOE bunker out in the highlands.

The only thing the British Isles have needed for external territorial defense in a thousand years are A2AD techniques. Forget about power projection to Iran; there is no security justification. A PM who inserted Britain into such a scenario should be strung up TBH.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

If its the alveopalatal fricative that concerns you, it's the other end from guttural.

Both namings are in the Twitter clips, but thanks. The problem with your interpretation is that he doesn't - as in the comparison - pronounce it emphatically, in an exaggerated or mocking manner, so there's no reason to believe he was trying to call attention to it. If he wasn't trying to call attention to it but the significance is still nefarious, you could believe either that he is (*giggle*) trying to subliminally indoctrinate the Gentile population with othering microaggressions, or that his anti-Semitism manifests as an unconscious incorrect pronunciation of this name in particular. Again, some evidence from Corbyn's history with Jewish names would be probative here. Corporal evidence from British English speakers would also be helpful.

By the way, here is an example (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boris_Epshteyn) of the ossified genealogy of the "Epstein" name. I don't know how Boris Epshteyn pronounces his last name, but I am almost certain that the orthography is phonemic. (Amusingly, most of the text-to-speech apps I tried on the Internet pronounce the base Epstein [-ain].)

This is what I've been arguing for years. Corbyn is inherently, unconsciously, prejudiced, it's the best explanation for why he so often fails to recognise the prejudice in others. It also explains how he can utter antisemitic tropes and decry antisemitism in the same breath.

As regards Jewish name pronunciation in the UK - pretty much every newspaper ran this - and twitter blew up. I don't really know what else to tell you - it's not how English people would say the name having read it, it's not how his name was ever said on the BBC


That's fair. The vast majority of my awareness of Jewish names I gained in adulthood, because I wasn't really paying attention.

The British historically distinguish between "Anglo-Jewish" people who, by the 20th Century, were similar to "Anglo Catholics" and continental Jewish people, or Jews in Mandatory Palestine.

Ref, the troubled history of the Jewish Brigade: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_Brigade

In this case a Germanic pronunciation of Epstein's name is a form of "de-Anglicisation" - hence people getting worked up.


You said "problem," which has just one historically-overspecified meaning in the context of unwanted Jewish influence. I've chosen my words carefully. Perhaps you should have done the same.

It does not mean "genocide", if I had said "final solution" you'd have been on firmer ground. I said "old men in back rooms" which is long-standing shorthand for racist or jingoistic sentiment, pre-Holocaust.


I linked it right there where you're quoting me, as well as quoting it at length in the spoiler. ???

Are you, like, skimming my posts??????

When I clicked that link I got a video of Trump talking about Obama's "dynasty" and I don't recall the spoiler being there. Did you edit that part of the post?


That is incorrect, and I really can't talk sources with you if you will consistently misrepresent them.

I disagree. The chapter is divided into three sections, the first section deals with the military and industrialists as "parasites", the second and third sections deal with the financial system, their control of the papers and the state through financial coercion etc - that section begins by characterising those financiers as Jewish, and part of a pan-European Jewish network. My interpretation is that having defined those financiers as Jewish Hobson takes it as read that it is this same group he is discussing in the following sections. Note especially the reference to "anarchist assassination" like the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand and the fact that thse financiers profit from any "shock" to their home country, such as losing a war and suffering hyper-inflation.


No, you can't make that association. It's 2% of the book. From my understanding of the thesis, Hobson thought modern imperialism was basically mercantilistic because of insufficient domestic markets under industrial capitalism in Europe. He referred to financiers as "parasitic" in the sense of a dichotomy between politicians and citizens motivated by patriotism and financiers motivated by economic self-interest, which in my opinion was too limited a characterization even then. He arrived at this theory by observing that imperialism was actually an overall economic drain on the manufacturing and trading sectors of the imperial nation, and so tried to explain this acting against self-interest by identifying self-interest in a financial sector driven by raw speculation (e.g. interest income from investment). This is again too limited by not taking into account geopolitics, and anyway imperial extraction directly injected massive amounts of wealth into imperial nations in all corners and all levels of society, so he must be mistaken on one of his core economic premises. I have indeed read some of the book just for the sake of this tedious exercise, and it's possible to find both flaws and prescient insight.

The bottom line is that no aspect of his argument - which goes well beyond the role of financiers - is affected by anti-Semitic propositions. It's straightforward to say that Hobson was convinced of the truth and relevance of anti-Semitic ideas, but logically his arguments stand apart from it.

The problem is not that Hobson's argument relies on the Jewishness of financiers, and you are correct that it does not, the problem is that by characterising the financiers as Jewish and then demonising them he demonises Jews and makes them a scapegoat for a nation's ills. His academic word legitimises what will become the Nazi narrative of the Jewish betrayal of Germany before, during and after World War I.


Why would Corbyn need to reckon with a sliver of bigotry in a (two or five-page? The length also makes a difference) foreword? Or if he should, why shouldn't he address the other, more voluminous, racisms contained in the work? Why one but not the other?

Corbyn would need to reckon with the racism of his subject - he apparently didn't. I find that more than troubling.


Are you going to require reckoning with Aristotle or Plato's fundamental sexism in the first word about their philosophy?

When I studied Aristotle one of the first things we dealt with was his sexism and penchant for teenage girls. Again, we come up against Corbyn's "basically right" comment.


I remain unconvinced that it is normally the province of a foreword writer - as opposed at least to an introductory commentator - to warn the reader about all the author's bigotries and insecurities.

I would say that the purpose of the forward is exactly to warn the reader of the prejudices of the esteemed author, the more so the more esteemed they are. Think of it as a sort of intellectual inoculation. For example, if you pick up a copy of Edward Gibbons's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire the forward usually contains something about his prejudice against Arabs and their unfitness for democratic government.


There is nothing on that page, or in the book from what I can find, on Zionists. What are you referring to?

Sorry, wrong link.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/aug/24/corbyn-english-irony-video-reignites-antisemitism-row-labour

This is "Ironygate", another Corbyn blunder - the most antisemitic thing he's personally said - and I don't buy his defence, it's not applicable.


I quoted and bolded this in the post of mine you're apparently responding to and it is the only anti-Semitic connection in the book.

Please stop misrepresenting sources to suit your narratives.

As I said, he first defines "financiers" as Jewish, then he demonises them. I therefore read "Jewish financier" when he says "financier". Note that he actually avoids using the word "Jew" entirely, the entire chapter is coded.


It's not easy to trust you, but if you were to write that in any foreword to any book by or about Churchill, that would be transgressive enough to earn you some lefty bonafides. I doubt many publishers would print it.

You don't trust me because you don't trust me. Nothing I can do about that. Try a forum search and read what I've written on Churchill.


Noticing racism is not racism. But is Corbyn racist toward non-whites on account of their absence from the foreword?

I think Corbyn infantelises non-whites.


I don't understand your question. You're suggesting someone who values partisan solidarity to the point of ignoring bad behavior would only become that way once in a position of power? It's more the other way around.

No, I'm suggesting Corbyn has been up to his neck in this for years - the current defence is that he needs to "get things done" but the fact is even as a nobody, which he has been for decades, he associated with horrible people.


Please don't misunderstand me. Corbyn's leadership here and in other matters has been dreadful, and I think it's because he can't transition into that mindset of addressing demands by competing stakeholders and taking criticism judiciously - as a politician does/should. And I don't think it is outrageous to raise the possibility that Corbyn is anti-Semitic. I just think the way you construct your case on the most trivial and decontextualized examples, and with peripheral disdain toward anti-racism, is motivated by partisan considerations, and so fails to be credible on its own grounds - because it's not made to be. Which is to say, ironically, that when Corbyn underperforms to the anti-Semitism controversy by acting like everyone who has a problem is his enemy, he's probably fixating on people like you.

It's a deep, visceral, hatred, deep, deep in my bones. It's an association between Corbyn's Leftist politics, his Marxism, his cozying up to Russia and his antisemitism which represent all the reasons I loathe many Left-Wing politicians. Most of all its the hypocrisy of a man who claims to be an "antiracist" and yet has an antisemitic rap sheet to make a skinhead blush.


Ugh, this study (https://antisemitism.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/Antisemitism-Barometer-2019.pdf) makes the fatal mistake of constructing some very loaded questions on anti-Israel attitudes ("anti-Zionist anti-Semitism") and then lumping them in with "Judeophobic antisemitism." That is, it starts with the premise that all the former attitudes are in themselves anti-Semitic in nature and can all be analyzed together. The quality of the The far-left holding an elevated proportion of anti-Israel attitudes will inevitably skew the result against them in a way that diverges with other studies. As the analysis points out, "This finding [of elevated anti-Semitism on the very left-wing] is mostly accounted for by the proportion of ‘very left-wing’ respondents holding one, two, or three antisemitic views. When we look at the percentage of respondents holding four or more antisemitic views, there is no clear relationship with one’s position on the political spectrum. I'm confident that separating "anti-Zionist antisemitism" attitudes from Judeophobic attitudes in the design would neutralize the study's clickbaity finding.

The 2017 Jewish Policy Research study treated anti-Semitic and anti-Israel attitudes as analytically distinct before looking at the overlap, where it was found that while most of those holding at least one anti-Semitic attitude hold at least one anti-Israel attitude, the reverse is not true: most of those endorsing an anti-Israel attitude did not endorse any anti-Semitic attitude. The attitude questions/statements on Israel were also more numerous and better constructed than in the Campaign Against Antisemitism study. Compare former with latter:

Eh.


I have no opinions on the particulars of the UK order of battle, but this is real silly. If you think there is a future in which the United States invades the UK to slaughter its people or nuclear powers decide on an exchange, then your politics are already a joke and you should be stocking a LMOE bunker out in the highlands.

The only thing the British Isles have needed for external territorial defense in a thousand years are A2AD techniques. Forget about power projection to Iran; there is no security justification. A PM who inserted Britain into such a scenario should be strung up TBH.

The point I made was that MAD is what has brought us peace, not social development, not the EU. Anti-missile technology will ultimately make ICBMS and hence Strategic Nukes, obsolete one day.

I said nothing about Nuclear exchange, or the US "slaughtering" people in the UK. I simple observed that war between the US and the UK is conceivable, the check on that is a combination of the UK having a credible military and our shared culture.

As regards war with Iran - that circumstance is conceivable if Iran tries to annex Iraq or goes to war with Saudi Arabia, as this would threaten oil imports.

In such a circumstance the UK needs to be able to deploy without American assistance (because American assistance can never be relied upon, and should in fact be discounted in most circumstances). So, assuming we need to go to war with Iran over Iraq we'd need to ally with the French and to be a credible actor in said war the UK would need to deploy two full mechanised divisions - which we have on paper, but not in reality.

[Greyblades]

The more I learn about my country's "managed decline" the more I want to hang every politician thats crawled out of the pit since thatcher's term.

[Idaho]

Some things I want to hear from Idaho on:

What do McDonnell/Corbyn mean when they speak of decentralized nationalization?

What is your opinion on perhaps a majority of Labour-voting Jews holding Corbyn, and the party, to be anti-Semitic? (Ask about assumptions)

What is the Labour Party not doing that it could do to robustly process complaints and educate the membership on all vectors of (anti-)racism?

I mean the above question for its own sake, not in connection to public perception or media narrative. But having those in mind, what do you think of the conjecture that almost the entire popular perception of Labour anti-Semitism has come to be bound up with the figure of Corbyn? .

Your post is a crime against brevity - one of the most underrated virtues in any discussion.

No idea what Corbyn means about nationalisation. Didn't listen or read about it.

Jews find anti-Semitism wherever they look. There is a fair bit about, and there is plenty of prejudice against myriad other groups that gets ignored - and definitely gets ignored by Jews - especially right leaning Jews. Right leaning Jews couldn't give a toss about any other group. They only believe that *they* should not be prejudiced against.

As to why has the right wing agenda chosen to identify the labour leader with anti semitism and repeat the same message again and again, even if many examples are just hearsay or fluff. Keep repeating, keep personalising.

[Beskar]

Those EU Nationals, coming into our country, putting a stop to our homegrown terrorists with Narwhal horns. The nerve of them...!

Full praise for Lukasz.

[Greyblades]

We need a second amendment to ensure the right of all citizens to posess weaponizable taxidermies.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

We need a second amendment to ensure the right of all citizens to posess weaponizable taxidermies.

You are referring to the right to keep and arm bears, yes? I believe the Silliest Court of the US has ruled that the bears in question must be living.

As to a second amendment, by the way, ought you not to promulgate a first amendment first?

You know...something along the lines of making no laws that respect religious establishments; prohibiting free exercise; freedom of speech when on a bridge or printing press; the right to assemble peace; and government by grievance.

...just a thought.

[Greyblades]

I want to continue the joke but I dearly want a first amendment here. Most of the censoring judiciary is in scotland rather than my neck of the woods but I have no faith that it will stay there.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I want to continue the joke but I dearly want a first amendment here. Most of the censoring judiciary is in scotland rather than my neck of the woods but I have no faith that it will stay there.

Our greatest advantage over the UK system of democratic-republican government is our written Constitution which forms the basis of our system. Our single biggest disadvantage, when compared to the UK system, is our written Constitution which constrains adaptation by government.

Ain't nothin' perfect when in comes to governance. The comment attributed to Washington (probably apocryphally) comparing government to fire comes to mind...