Re: UK Election 2019
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.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: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.
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.
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.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.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/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.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.
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*
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.
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.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.
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks