RugbyRebels

I was talking to a friend recently, wondering what she was going to do in the election. Her MP is one of the deputy speakers. The speaker and deputy speakers do not vote in parliament (unless a casting vote is needed from the chair, in the case of a tie). So she's completely disenfranchised.

And I thought I was unhappy with the first past the post system.

IHRA definition below. If he is a racist which one applies?

Calling for, aiding, or justifying the killing or harming of Jews in the name of a radical ideology or an extremist view of religion.

Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as collective — such as, especially but not exclusively, the myth about a world Jewish conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal institutions.

Accusing Jews as a people of being responsible for real or imagined wrongdoing committed by a single Jewish person or group, or even for acts committed by non-Jews.

Denying the fact, scope, mechanisms (e.g. gas chambers) or intentionality of the genocide of the Jewish people at the hands of National Socialist Germany and its supporters and accomplices during World War II (the Holocaust).

Accusing the Jews as a people, or Israel as a state, of inventing or exaggerating the Holocaust.

Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations.

Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.

Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.

Using the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism (e.g., claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel or Israelis.

Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.

Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel.

Zhivago wrote:IHRA definition below. If he is a racist which one applies?

....

Indeed. And that's the rather over-inclusive list of examples which (unfortunately) follows the definition.

Stom wrote:

Digby wrote:I'm perfectly happy to accept criticism of Johnson for having used racist language, and for receiving the support of racists. But again I'm not wondering whether I can hold my nose and vote Tory, I have no consideration whatsoever for voting in such fashion. I am wondering about voting Labour, and the prime concern there is the leadership group at the top of Labour and the role within the party of such groups as Militant and Momentum

What right do you have to label someone a racist because of a personal dislike?

?

There are lots of people I don't like, indeed I start from a position of not liking people, they're annoying, and they talk. But I don't consider them racists just because I don't like them

Son of Mathonwy wrote:This thread has taken a strange turn. Nearly a page spent on Corbyn's alleged racism (when no one can offer a single instance of a racist statement from him) and nothing on Johnson, a proven racist (I'm sure we're all familiar with the quotes). Is Boris simply too easy a target?

No one is arguing that Corbyn is the perfect leader, but given the limited choice available to us......

The issue is more that Corbyn allows racism around him, not that I’m aware of him making a racist comment himself. We have the incident involving Ruth Smeeths abuser for one. We have the complete inability to grip anti demotion in his party when demnonstrated on multiple occasions (maybe an example of poor leadership but that’s hardly impressing people to vote for him to be PM). We have known support for terrorist groups, and it’s not promoting the little guy, he is strangely quiet when it’s regimes he likes doing the oppression.

And we have the row over that mural which my 3 year old could probably identify as anti Semitic but oddly Corbyn cannot. So either he is anti Semitic but has enough sense to not make bold statements or he is too thick to realise that it’s an issue amongst his close circle. Frankly, neither makes him a suitable candidate for PM. And it would appear that many voters also question his ability given his own personal polling. He is holding Labour back.

Sandydragon wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote:This thread has taken a strange turn. Nearly a page spent on Corbyn's alleged racism (when no one can offer a single instance of a racist statement from him) and nothing on Johnson, a proven racist (I'm sure we're all familiar with the quotes). Is Boris simply too easy a target?

No one is arguing that Corbyn is the perfect leader, but given the limited choice available to us......

The issue is more that Corbyn allows racism around him, not that I’m aware of him making a racist comment himself. We have the incident involving Ruth Smeeths abuser for one. We have the complete inability to grip anti demotion in his party when demnonstrated on multiple occasions (maybe an example of poor leadership but that’s hardly impressing people to vote for him to be PM). We have known support for terrorist groups, and it’s not promoting the little guy, he is strangely quiet when it’s regimes he likes doing the oppression.

And we have the row over that mural which my 3 year old could probably identify as anti Semitic but oddly Corbyn cannot. So either he is anti Semitic but has enough sense to not make bold statements or he is too thick to realise that it’s an issue amongst his close circle. Frankly, neither makes him a suitable candidate for PM. And it would appear that many voters also question his ability given his own personal polling. He is holding Labour back.

...ok, I'm not going to go into the detail of that, but my point is, isn't he nonetheless better than the proven racist (and misogynist, homophobe, compulsive lier and narcissist) Boris Johnson?

Because that is the choice facing us.

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote:This thread has taken a strange turn. Nearly a page spent on Corbyn's alleged racism (when no one can offer a single instance of a racist statement from him) and nothing on Johnson, a proven racist (I'm sure we're all familiar with the quotes). Is Boris simply too easy a target?

No one is arguing that Corbyn is the perfect leader, but given the limited choice available to us......

The issue is more that Corbyn allows racism around him, not that I’m aware of him making a racist comment himself. We have the incident involving Ruth Smeeths abuser for one. We have the complete inability to grip anti demotion in his party when demnonstrated on multiple occasions (maybe an example of poor leadership but that’s hardly impressing people to vote for him to be PM). We have known support for terrorist groups, and it’s not promoting the little guy, he is strangely quiet when it’s regimes he likes doing the oppression.

And we have the row over that mural which my 3 year old could probably identify as anti Semitic but oddly Corbyn cannot. So either he is anti Semitic but has enough sense to not make bold statements or he is too thick to realise that it’s an issue amongst his close circle. Frankly, neither makes him a suitable candidate for PM. And it would appear that many voters also question his ability given his own personal polling. He is holding Labour back.

...ok, I'm not going to go into the detail of that, but my point is, isn't he nonetheless better than the proven racist (and misogynist, homophobe, compulsive lier and narcissist) Boris Johnson?

Because that is the choice facing us.

I'm not remotely sold he's better than Boris, it's a depressingly low bar that a Labour leader cannot clear for far too many people who might vote Labour. Annoying too that they turned away from the likes of Yvetter Cooper who right now would be romping home by 150 seats or so

Digby wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote:...ok, I'm not going to go into the detail of that, but my point is, isn't he nonetheless better than the proven racist (and misogynist, homophobe, compulsive lier and narcissist) Boris Johnson?

Because that is the choice facing us.

I'm not remotely sold he's better than Boris, it's a depressingly low bar that a Labour leader cannot clear for far too many people who might vote Labour. Annoying too that they turned away from the likes of Yvetter Cooper who right now would be romping home by 150 seats or so

Yes, we can all imagine better candidates but "if only" doesn't really help us now: there are only two possible Prime Ministers at the end of all this.

If - after all the information we have on them - you're not remotely sold that Corbyn's at least better than Boris, there's nothing more I can say.

hmm not sure it’s a decision based purely on Leaders and who is less bad. There’s a huge chasm now in the policies which to me seems more important.

I’ve never got my head around what Corbyn does or doesn’t think about Jewish people. It’s hard to cut through the hysteria and right-wingers pretending they give a shit about racism and actually find out what it is he’s said or done.

It’s interesting seeing the same anti-Milliband content repackaged for Corbyn the anti-Semite though.

I read that his pronunciation of “Epstein” was incredibly anti-Semitic too, so who knows.

I just don’t know enough about Judaism to tell which parts are valid or not. It seems like a lot of the loudest public voices on this subject don’t either.

Banquo wrote:hmm not sure it’s a decision based purely on Leaders and who is less bad. There’s a huge chasm now in the policies which to me seems more important.

In which case Labour manifesto surely wins out? The Tory one is literally just Brexit and meh

Stom wrote:

Banquo wrote:hmm not sure it’s a decision based purely on Leaders and who is less bad. There’s a huge chasm now in the policies which to me seems more important.

In which case Labour manifesto surely wins out? The Tory one is literally just Brexit and meh

That’s the way the polls are shaping now. Depends on whether you believe the economics in the Labour plan, the ability to execute the policies, and have a belief that nationalisation will work in the UK. I like a lot of the aims in the manifesto, but the means look like a pretty high wire experiment to me, with a lot of unasked and this unanswered questions- for example see my pension fund query of before (and it’s not just ‘people like me’ as you so nicely put it, but tons of private and public sector pension holders); the British Broadband idea seemed poor at the time, and got poorer when Labour doubled the running costs from announcement to manifesto. It’s not an entirely straightforward choice.

Banquo wrote:

Stom wrote:

Banquo wrote:hmm not sure it’s a decision based purely on Leaders and who is less bad. There’s a huge chasm now in the policies which to me seems more important.

In which case Labour manifesto surely wins out? The Tory one is literally just Brexit and meh

That’s the way the polls are shaping now. Depends on whether you believe the economics in the Labour plan, the ability to execute the policies, and have a belief that nationalisation will work in the UK. I like a lot of the aims in the manifesto, but the means look like a pretty high wire experiment to me, with a lot of unasked and this unanswered questions- for example see my pension fund query of before (and it’s not just ‘people like me’ as you so nicely put it, but tons of private and public sector pension holders); the British Broadband idea seemed poor at the time, and got poorer when Labour doubled the running costs from announcement to manifesto. It’s not an entirely straightforward choice.

They’ll need to water some down, British Broadband mainly, but it’s an actual manifesto unlike the Tory one.

And also...

Why are the lib dems so incompetent? They’re just always so damn useless and it’s embarrassing that I’ll be voting for them

Stom wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Stom wrote:
In which case Labour manifesto surely wins out? The Tory one is literally just Brexit and meh

That’s the way the polls are shaping now. Depends on whether you believe the economics in the Labour plan, the ability to execute the policies, and have a belief that nationalisation will work in the UK. I like a lot of the aims in the manifesto, but the means look like a pretty high wire experiment to me, with a lot of unasked and this unanswered questions- for example see my pension fund query of before (and it’s not just ‘people like me’ as you so nicely put it, but tons of private and public sector pension holders); the British Broadband idea seemed poor at the time, and got poorer when Labour doubled the running costs from announcement to manifesto. It’s not an entirely straightforward choice.

They’ll need to water some down, British Broadband mainly, but it’s an actual manifesto unlike the Tory one.

And also...

Why are the lib dems so incompetent? They’re just always so damn useless and it’s embarrassing that I’ll be voting for them

...that's the very/slightly annoying thing (though I wouldn't call it watering down), but for re-nationalisation (and consequent massive borrowing through bonds and likely massive impact on pension funds (and everything else impacted)) and things like reducing R and D tax relief I'd be thinking about voting for them (there are others, but they would make me sound even more selfish).

Agreed on the Libdems....apparently, they have a manifesto as well.

Some analysis in the Times today suggests that because Corbyn is now being written off (in terms of his ability to form a majority on his own- largely because of a likely kicking by the SNP) there is a chance that more swing voters will vote Labour in other seats, knowing that the SNP and Liberals will be a brake on much of Labours manifesto.

Sandydragon wrote:Some analysis in the Times today suggests that because Corbyn is now being written off (in terms of his ability to form a majority on his own- largely because of a likely kicking by the SNP) there is a chance that more swing voters will vote Labour in other seats, knowing that the SNP and Liberals will be a brake on much of Labours manifesto.

I'd suggest that's The Times trying to ensure potential Tory voters vote...

The forecast is for an easy LD win in my constituency, but I worry...

Yes, a lot of residents would be out of pocket from Brexit, but those same voters would not want a Labour government.

apropos of nothing, shouldn't Labour (and the others tbh) have two scenarios in their manifestos? (leave or remain)

Banquo wrote:apropos of nothing, shouldn't Labour (and the others tbh) have two scenarios in their manifestos? (leave or remain)

Good point.

But the leave one should basically just say...

"We have 1/3rd of the budget to work with, so we we'll only be able to give x nurses, no extra bursary, we'll need to increase corp. tax, we'll need to do x, y, and z, and your lives are going to be terrible because BREXIT WILL BE A DISASTER FOR THE UNITED KINGDOM

Oh, and we'd be forced into a 2nd Scottish Ref., but if there's no Brexit, we can shrug that off. You really think, given the choice of economic prosperity with the EU, or remaining in a suddenly shit UK, the Scots will feel our ties are suddenly close?

Stom wrote:

Banquo wrote:apropos of nothing, shouldn't Labour (and the others tbh) have two scenarios in their manifestos? (leave or remain)

Good point.

But the leave one should basically just say...

"We have 1/3rd of the budget to work with, so we we'll only be able to give x nurses, no extra bursary, we'll need to increase corp. tax, we'll need to do x, y, and z, and your lives are going to be terrible because BREXIT WILL BE A DISASTER FOR THE UNITED KINGDOM

Oh, and we'd be forced into a 2nd Scottish Ref., but if there's no Brexit, we can shrug that off. You really think, given the choice of economic prosperity with the EU, or remaining in a suddenly shit UK, the Scots will feel our ties are suddenly close?

Yes, and frankly Labour/all need to be honest about that early part and not be sitting on a fence, but that's not about to happen.

Oh Scotland will be off should we leave, sooner or later. Whether that will be good for them , who knows.

Stom wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:Some analysis in the Times today suggests that because Corbyn is now being written off (in terms of his ability to form a majority on his own- largely because of a likely kicking by the SNP) there is a chance that more swing voters will vote Labour in other seats, knowing that the SNP and Liberals will be a brake on much of Labours manifesto.

I'd suggest that's The Times trying to ensure potential Tory voters vote...

The forecast is for an easy LD win in my constituency, but I worry...

Yes, a lot of residents would be out of pocket from Brexit, but those same voters would not want a Labour government.

Of course that’s the motive. But the logic makes a lot of sense.

Entirely seperate from the previous points - this article is a couple of years old; but I've only just come across it - analysing the myth that conservatives are the fiscally responsible, whilst labour are fiscally untrustworthy (analysing stats for public borrowing, and payment of national debt since WWII):
http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2016 ... -70-years/

The stat for 'Years in Office prior to Global Financial Crash' is a bit harsh and misleading. Labour had been in office for 10 years before that happened, plenty of time to overturn Conservative policies from previous administrations if they were that bad.

Otherwise, I don't disagree that the differences between the parties on financial competence aren't as marked as one might suggest, at least when they have formed governments. Those figures may have been very different if Michael Foot had won a GE, or if Corbyn had won last time round. The Blair and Brown Labour governments worked hard to be fiscally responsible and to be perceived as such. It's one of the reasons why they won such a long term in office. And austerity was never as austere as its critics liked to make out.

Gloves off today....

Sandydragon wrote:The stat for 'Years in Office prior to Global Financial Crash' is a bit harsh and misleading. Labour had been in office for 10 years before that happened, plenty of time to overturn Conservative policies from previous administrations if they were that bad.

Otherwise, I don't disagree that the differences between the parties on financial competence aren't as marked as one might suggest, at least when they have formed governments. Those figures may have been very different if Michael Foot had won a GE, or if Corbyn had won last time round. The Blair and Brown Labour governments worked hard to be fiscally responsible and to be perceived as such. It's one of the reasons why they won such a long term in office. And austerity was never as austere as its critics liked to make out.

Yep. The first couple of terms of New Labour I’d imagine would be closer to this Conservative manifesto than Lab’s with regards borrowing figures. The first two terms of that govt built on the economic foundations of the previous Conservative govt, too. Don’t forget the old adage, Blair was the best PM the Conservatives have ever had. This last Con govt has had to deal with the huge deficit left behind by Brown - nowhere near all his fault - and the austerity we’ve been through is nothing compared to what we would have needed to stop debt rising. I can only imagine the howls, rightly, from the left if Osborne had said he would cut the deficit, and therefore stop the build up of debt, from day one of the new Con govt. As you say, Osborne’s austerity was nowhere near as bad as the manifesto provided and was actually less austere than Darling’s set out in the Lab manifesto. As for the disaster inherited by Thatcher in the 80’s...I won’t go into that.

Long story short. The Conservatives do spend a certain amount of time dealing with deficits and debt inherited from Lab govts.

Sandydragon wrote:The stat for 'Years in Office prior to Global Financial Crash' is a bit harsh and misleading. Labour had been in office for 10 years before that happened, plenty of time to overturn Conservative policies from previous administrations if they were that bad.

Otherwise, I don't disagree that the differences between the parties on financial competence aren't as marked as one might suggest, at least when they have formed governments. Those figures may have been very different if Michael Foot had won a GE, or if Corbyn had won last time round. The Blair and Brown Labour governments worked hard to be fiscally responsible and to be perceived as such. It's one of the reasons why they won such a long term in office. And austerity was never as austere as its critics liked to make out.

The global crash wasn't really a left/right issue. We had Labour in charge here, it was the Republicans in charge in the USA. Everyone missed just how big the bubble was and how quickly the problem would unravel. I'd have some sympathy with the Tories looking to paint Labour in a bad light over the crash if they'd been warning about problems in the finance markets and bringing bills forward to try and avert the problems they foresaw.

Though I'd also think Vs the Labour government under Blair and Brown the current Labour leadership is much more gungho when it comes to borrowing and spending, so judging Corbyn by previous standards is likely misleading. Mind I also think the Tories fiscal policy unsound and dangerous, just not quite as dangerous