So Corbyn released the leaked un-redacted documents about the UK-US trade talks and it appears that Corbyn was right along, not Boris.
Printable View
So Corbyn released the leaked un-redacted documents 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."Quote:
Originally Posted by Beskar
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?
So would I. Supposedly it's meant to be next week but it's also been said that negotiations are "ongoing".Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
Would Johnson avoid it altogether? He's been wary of non-moderated contact so far, PMQs included.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
My bet is that they're hoping to shame him into it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
That won't work. The man has no shame.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
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:Quote:
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.
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
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.
You are noticing that racial tropes are not rational. But this one is much older than capitalism.Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
I have two questions about Neil's scenario (outside sources are solicited):Quote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus
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.
Jews are functionally like a race.Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
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.Quote:
pro-Hamas who are also mainly ethnic Semites.
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.Quote:
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 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/democr...-21st-century/Quote:
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.
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.Quote:
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:
Quote:
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
*spits*
*spits again*
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 on the inferiority of Africans and Asians, which you don't see fit to mention for some reason.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
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 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:Quote:
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.
Sorry, no.Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
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.
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..Quote:
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 on the inferiority of Africans and Asians, which you don't see fit to mention for some reason.
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...Quote:
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?
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.
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.Quote:
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:
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
This shouldn't have needed to be said. :(Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
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.
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?
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus
I feel this is something of a non sequiter, to be honest.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus
Yes. I think that's what that Savoyard fellow was on about when he said we all get the government we deserve.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
welcome to democracy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
there are... other systems available if you prefer?
Welcome to post modernism, we deconstructed everything and had nothing to replace the good parts.
LIES!
https://twitter.com/EuanPhilipps/sta...30231065788417
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
What's this got to do with art theory?Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
i am a high-information voter; i gain NOTHING from the low-bandwidth tv circus drivel.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
Who exactly said it was acceptable?Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
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: