Snap General Election called

[Mellsblue]

Hate to say it, but the only appropriate response is... I told you so

Ha! You’ve got me bang to rights, guv.

It’s f**king pathetic.

I’m only too happy to criticise my own party and it’s leader when required, as you’ll see from my posts today. Alternatively, I could’ve questioned the use of ‘source’ and/or questioned whether Buzzfeed was/is bias or has an agenda, as happens when Corbyn is present but not involved.

No worries.

I'd like to think it was me being cynical or paranoid, but the conservatives really are like this.

One unnamed prick has piped up and we know the conservatives really are like this. So, I assume given numerous anti-semites we know Labour really are anti-Semitic?

[Son of Mathonwy]

Ha! You’ve got me bang to rights, guv.

It’s f**king pathetic.

I’m only too happy to criticise my own party and it’s leader when required, as you’ll see from my posts today. Alternatively, I could’ve questioned the use of ‘source’ and/or questioned whether Buzzfeed was/is bias or has an agenda, as happens when Corbyn is present but not involved.

No worries.

I'd like to think it was me being cynical or paranoid, but the conservatives really are like this.

One unnamed prick has piped up and we know the conservatives really are like this. So, I assume given numerous anti-semites we know Labour really are anti-Semitic?

One unnamed prick? I thought when you said "bang to rights" that you accepted that this was true or pretty likely to be true, ie “If we are re-elected we will have to review Channel 4’s Public Services Broadcasting obligations." That's the conservative party, not some individual member of it.

[Son of Mathonwy]

Any issues with what Corbyn said?

No. Given that Israel has been illegally occupying - and mistreating the inhabitants of - land taken from neighbouring states for over half a century, I think the BBC is showing bias by failing to question this situation. Whether this is due to influence from Israel itself, I have no idea, but it's plausible.

Good to know where we stand.

Where do you stand?

[Mellsblue]

No worries.

I'd like to think it was me being cynical or paranoid, but the conservatives really are like this.

One unnamed prick has piped up and we know the conservatives really are like this. So, I assume given numerous anti-semites we know Labour really are anti-Semitic?

One unnamed prick? I thought when you said "bang to rights" that you accepted that this was true or pretty likely to be true, ie “If we are re-elected we will have to review Channel 4’s Public Services Broadcasting obligations." That's the conservative party, not some individual member of it.

Yep. I believe that an unnamed prick has said it. How that means the Conservatives as a party are all the same is quite the leap. Just because he said we doesn’t mean the party as a whole is like him. You’ve taken the words of one idiot and bracketed an entire party. From here on in, can I take the words of anyone associated to the Labour Party and then state the party as a whole are the same or believe the same?
Your silence on the anti-semitism stuff says a lot. It’s ok to criticise your own party, they haven’t control of your internet.....yet.

[Mellsblue]

No. Given that Israel has been illegally occupying - and mistreating the inhabitants of - land taken from neighbouring states for over half a century, I think the BBC is showing bias by failing to question this situation. Whether this is due to influence from Israel itself, I have no idea, but it's plausible.

Good to know where we stand.

Where do you stand?

I think the far left’s obsession with the Middle East is weird.

[Mellsblue]

Looks like Boris could be the second or third best prime minister New Labour have ever had:

[Which Tyler]

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/955f ... 41210fa214?

Boris Johnson has served notice that he intends to clip the power of the courts in what leading lawyers said was revenge for outlawing his attempt to suspend parliament.

The prime minister is understood to have insisted that the Conservative party manifesto include a promise of constitutional reform so that he could claim a mandate to reform the Supreme Court and House of Lords.

A little-noticed section of the manifesto, published this week, states that “after Brexit we also need to look at the broader aspects of our constitution: the relationship between the government, parliament and the courts; the functioning of the royal prerogative”.

[Puja]

Looks like Boris could be the second or third best prime minister New Labour have ever had:

Hah! For someone to have the audacity to call Boris's government centre-left just shows how far the Overton window has shifted right. He's promising to spend more that recent administrations, but that's a very low bar and, even if we assume that he'll keep his promises, he's still presiding over the lowest corporation tax in the G20, a DWP that has forced through benefit cuts and sanctions, and a minimum wage well below what's needed to live in a 40 hour week. He's also promised to use Brexit to cut "employer's red tape" which is usually code for employee's rights and introduce free ports which would cut tax on corporations even further.

Compared to Trump, he might be left wing, but not by any reasonable metric.

Puja

[Stom]

Looks like Boris could be the second or third best prime minister New Labour have ever had:

Hah! For someone to have the audacity to call Boris's government centre-left just shows how far the Overton window has shifted right. He's promising to spend more that recent administrations, but that's a very low bar and, even if we assume that he'll keep his promises, he's still presiding over the lowest corporation tax in the G20, a DWP that has forced through benefit cuts and sanctions, and a minimum wage well below what's needed to live in a 40 hour week. He's also promised to use Brexit to cut "employer's red tape" which is usually code for employee's rights and introduce free ports which would cut tax on corporations even further.

Compared to Trump, he might be left wing, but not by any reasonable metric.

Puja

Yeah, this seems to assume that Blair was left...

When he was centre right, mainly.

But all this is nonsense, we should be looking for a humanist party that takes from all sides

[Son of Mathonwy]

One unnamed prick has piped up and we know the conservatives really are like this. So, I assume given numerous anti-semites we know Labour really are anti-Semitic?

One unnamed prick? I thought when you said "bang to rights" that you accepted that this was true or pretty likely to be true, ie “If we are re-elected we will have to review Channel 4’s Public Services Broadcasting obligations." That's the conservative party, not some individual member of it.

Yep. I believe that an unnamed prick has said it. How that means the Conservatives as a party are all the same is quite the leap. Just because he said we doesn’t mean the party as a whole is like him. You’ve taken the words of one idiot and bracketed an entire party. From here on in, can I take the words of anyone associated to the Labour Party and then state the party as a whole are the same or believe the same?
Your silence on the anti-semitism stuff says a lot. It’s ok to criticise your own party, they haven’t control of your internet.....yet.

Ok, so what did you mean by "bang to rights"? What exactly did you concede at that point?

Let me clarify my language. When I said "the conservatives are really like this", I should have said "the people currently running the conservative party are really like this". Apologies if this caused offence.

I didn't realise you were asking me something about anti-semitism - I thought you were being rhetorical. What do you want to know?

[Son of Mathonwy]

Good to know where we stand.

Where do you stand?

I think the far left’s obsession with the Middle East is weird.

Ok, so you have no particular view on it?

[Mellsblue]

One unnamed prick? I thought when you said "bang to rights" that you accepted that this was true or pretty likely to be true, ie “If we are re-elected we will have to review Channel 4’s Public Services Broadcasting obligations." That's the conservative party, not some individual member of it.

Yep. I believe that an unnamed prick has said it. How that means the Conservatives as a party are all the same is quite the leap. Just because he said we doesn’t mean the party as a whole is like him. You’ve taken the words of one idiot and bracketed an entire party. From here on in, can I take the words of anyone associated to the Labour Party and then state the party as a whole are the same or believe the same?
Your silence on the anti-semitism stuff says a lot. It’s ok to criticise your own party, they haven’t control of your internet.....yet.

Ok, so what did you mean by "bang to rights"? What exactly did you concede at that point?

Let me clarify my language. When I said "the conservatives are really like this", I should have said "the people currently running the conservative party are really like this". Apologies if this caused offence.

I didn't realise you were asking me something about anti-semitism - I thought you were being rhetorical. What do you want to know?

It was a bit tongue in cheek. Hence me calling you ‘guv’. I totally agree that some prick has said it but it’s hardly party policy and, I’d hope, it’s certainly not the position of the majority of the party. Happy to concede it’s an incredibly dangerous thing to say, as I’ve already said on here today. I’m not happy to concede that the words of one idiot paints an entire party. Just as I wouldn’t paint the Labour Party as anti-Semitic due there being a number of anti-semites in the party.

Quite how the words of one unnamed man prove the Conservatives, current leadership group or wider, are ‘like that’, is beyond me.

I know everything I need to know about your stance on anti-semitism.

[Stom]

What's the betting that the Tory party are behind the fake Corbyn tweet?

[Mellsblue]

What's the betting that the Tory party are behind the fake Corbyn tweet?

?????

[Digby]

What's the betting that the Tory party are behind the fake Corbyn tweet?

?????

Did he apologise for being a racist and then claim it wasn't him?

[Mellsblue]

What's the betting that the Tory party are behind the fake Corbyn tweet?

?????

Did he apologise for being a racist and then claim it wasn't him?

You are being unfair. He was there when the tweet was composed but was not involved in the wording.

[Stom]

What's the betting that the Tory party are behind the fake Corbyn tweet?

?????

Did he apologise for being a racist and then claim it wasn't him?

The tweet said that "A man was murdered by the British Police"

and the Mail readers have been sending it around as if it's possibly truth, because they're gullible shits.

[Mellsblue]

Right. That’s it. Democracy is done. When the Lib Dems are you to this sort of s**t we might as well all give up:

[Digby]

I stopped reading at the Y-axes part

[Son of Mathonwy]

Yep. I believe that an unnamed prick has said it. How that means the Conservatives as a party are all the same is quite the leap. Just because he said we doesn’t mean the party as a whole is like him. You’ve taken the words of one idiot and bracketed an entire party. From here on in, can I take the words of anyone associated to the Labour Party and then state the party as a whole are the same or believe the same?
Your silence on the anti-semitism stuff says a lot. It’s ok to criticise your own party, they haven’t control of your internet.....yet.

Ok, so what did you mean by "bang to rights"? What exactly did you concede at that point?

Let me clarify my language. When I said "the conservatives are really like this", I should have said "the people currently running the conservative party are really like this". Apologies if this caused offence.

I didn't realise you were asking me something about anti-semitism - I thought you were being rhetorical. What do you want to know?

It was a bit tongue in cheek. Hence me calling you ‘guv’. I totally agree that some prick has said it but it’s hardly party policy and, I’d hope, it’s certainly not the position of the majority of the party. Happy to concede it’s an incredibly dangerous thing to say, as I’ve already said on here today. I’m not happy to concede that the words of one idiot paints an entire party. Just as I wouldn’t paint the Labour Party as anti-Semitic due there being a number of anti-semites in the party.

Quite how the words of one unnamed man prove the Conservatives, current leadership group or wider, are ‘like that’, is beyond me.

I know everything I need to know about your stance on anti-semitism.

Ok, so you basically don't believe the story about the conservative party source saying “If we are re-elected we will have to review Channel 4’s Public Services Broadcasting obligations." It was some rogue posing as a source, or a source going off message, or perhaps completely made up?
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... ate-debate

Please tell me what you think you know about my stance on anti-Semitism.

[Mellsblue]

Ok, so what did you mean by "bang to rights"? What exactly did you concede at that point?

Let me clarify my language. When I said "the conservatives are really like this", I should have said "the people currently running the conservative party are really like this". Apologies if this caused offence.

I didn't realise you were asking me something about anti-semitism - I thought you were being rhetorical. What do you want to know?

It was a bit tongue in cheek. Hence me calling you ‘guv’. I totally agree that some prick has said it but it’s hardly party policy and, I’d hope, it’s certainly not the position of the majority of the party. Happy to concede it’s an incredibly dangerous thing to say, as I’ve already said on here today. I’m not happy to concede that the words of one idiot paints an entire party. Just as I wouldn’t paint the Labour Party as anti-Semitic due there being a number of anti-semites in the party.

Quite how the words of one unnamed man prove the Conservatives, current leadership group or wider, are ‘like that’, is beyond me.

I know everything I need to know about your stance on anti-semitism.

Ok, so you basically don't believe the story about the conservative party source saying “If we are re-elected we will have to review Channel 4’s Public Services Broadcasting obligations." It was some rogue posing as a source, or a source going off message, or perhaps completely made up?

Please tell me what you think you know about my stance on anti-Semitism.

That link states the party will be writing to Ofcom to ask about C4’s impartiality. I don’t think it’s a wise move but it’s perfectly allowable and not the same as the Party confirming it will look into C4’s licence.

I’ve already said I believe the story, which is a step beyond most Corbynistas who will start moaning about media bias, fake news etc. I do believe it’s probably someone high up in the party, otherwise why report it, but it’s not a party position and it’s not indicative of the party as a whole, which is how you’ve sought to portray it. How you’ve got to the point that you think I’ve denied it’s even true is beyond me. I’ve written “I totally agree that some prick has said it”. Not sure how I could be any clearer. I even gave you an example you should be able to relate to - there are anti-semites in the Labour Party but that’s doesn’t make the Labour Party anti-Semitic. I honestly don’t know how I can make it any clearer.

I’m struggling to see how you can’t understand the difference between me thinking one, high up member of the party has gone rogue - I’ve said it’s worrying and dangerous in case you don’t think I’m believe it’s serious - but not think it’s indicative of the party as a whole. After all, it’s ‘source’, single not plural.
Tbh, it’s not that much worse than leader of the Labour Party being on record as saying the Director General of the BBC has a pro-Israel agenda.

I think it’s very indicative that I’m happy to come on here and criticise my own party or leader but you seem to find it impossible to do the same, beyond alluding to JC being a poor leader.
To be honest, based on the above para, this discussion is boring. I’m happy to discuss politics if people are objective, as far as political leanings allow, but this is yet another case of Boris and Cons all bad, JC and Labour beyond reproach. So, I’ll leave it here.

[Son of Mathonwy]

It was a bit tongue in cheek. Hence me calling you ‘guv’. I totally agree that some prick has said it but it’s hardly party policy and, I’d hope, it’s certainly not the position of the majority of the party. Happy to concede it’s an incredibly dangerous thing to say, as I’ve already said on here today. I’m not happy to concede that the words of one idiot paints an entire party. Just as I wouldn’t paint the Labour Party as anti-Semitic due there being a number of anti-semites in the party.

Quite how the words of one unnamed man prove the Conservatives, current leadership group or wider, are ‘like that’, is beyond me.

I know everything I need to know about your stance on anti-semitism.

Ok, so you basically don't believe the story about the conservative party source saying “If we are re-elected we will have to review Channel 4’s Public Services Broadcasting obligations." It was some rogue posing as a source, or a source going off message, or perhaps completely made up?

Please tell me what you think you know about my stance on anti-Semitism.

That link states the party will be writing to Ofcom to ask about C4’s impartiality. I don’t think it’s a wise move but it’s perfectly allowable and not the same as the Party confirming it will look into C4’s licence.

I’ve already said I believe the story, which is a step beyond most Corbynistas who will start moaning about media bias, fake news etc. I do believe it’s probably someone high up in the party, otherwise why report it, but it’s not a party position and it’s not indicative of the party as a whole, which is how you’ve sought to portray it. How you’ve got to the point that you think I’ve denied it’s even true is beyond me. I’ve written “I totally agree that some prick has said it”. Not sure how I could be any clearer. I even gave you an example you should be able to relate to - there are anti-semites in the Labour Party but that’s doesn’t make the Labour Party anti-Semitic. I honestly don’t know how I can make it any clearer.

I’m struggling to see how you can’t understand the difference between me thinking one, high up member of the party has gone rogue - I’ve said it’s worrying and dangerous in case you don’t think I’m believe it’s serious - but not think it’s indicative of the party as a whole. After all, it’s ‘source’, single not plural.
Tbh, it’s not that much worse than leader of the Labour Party being on record as saying the Director General of the BBC has a pro-Israel agenda.

I think it’s very indicative that I’m happy to come on here and criticise my own party or leader but you seem to find it impossible to do the same, beyond alluding to JC being a poor leader.
To be honest, based on the above para, this discussion is boring. I’m happy to discuss politics if people are objective, as far as political leanings allow, but this is yet another case of Boris and Cons all bad, JC and Labour beyond reproach. So, I’ll leave it here.

This is the start of the article linked (it's explicitly about reviewing the remit; the letter to Ofcom is later in the article):

The Conservatives are threatening to review Channel 4’s broadcasting remit if they win the general election after the channel decided to replace Boris Johnson with a melting ice sculpture during its climate change debate.

A Tory source confirmed that the party would review Channel 4’s public service broadcasting obligations if Johnson is returned to Downing Street next month. Under the proposal, first reported by BuzzFeed News, they would “look at whether its remit should be better focused so it is serving the public in the best way possible”.

Of course just saying that "some prick said it" is completely different from saying this. You are actually claiming that this "source" has gone rogue?

This is someone speaking on behalf of the Conservative party (most likely a press officer). This is the party's position - if not, the tories should correct it immediately.


You said "I know everything I need to know about your stance on anti-semitism." That sounds too much like a slur on my character to leave there. I want you to clarify the remark.

[Mellsblue]

Ok, so you basically don't believe the story about the conservative party source saying “If we are re-elected we will have to review Channel 4’s Public Services Broadcasting obligations." It was some rogue posing as a source, or a source going off message, or perhaps completely made up?

Please tell me what you think you know about my stance on anti-Semitism.

That link states the party will be writing to Ofcom to ask about C4’s impartiality. I don’t think it’s a wise move but it’s perfectly allowable and not the same as the Party confirming it will look into C4’s licence.

I’ve already said I believe the story, which is a step beyond most Corbynistas who will start moaning about media bias, fake news etc. I do believe it’s probably someone high up in the party, otherwise why report it, but it’s not a party position and it’s not indicative of the party as a whole, which is how you’ve sought to portray it. How you’ve got to the point that you think I’ve denied it’s even true is beyond me. I’ve written “I totally agree that some prick has said it”. Not sure how I could be any clearer. I even gave you an example you should be able to relate to - there are anti-semites in the Labour Party but that’s doesn’t make the Labour Party anti-Semitic. I honestly don’t know how I can make it any clearer.

I’m struggling to see how you can’t understand the difference between me thinking one, high up member of the party has gone rogue - I’ve said it’s worrying and dangerous in case you don’t think I’m believe it’s serious - but not think it’s indicative of the party as a whole. After all, it’s ‘source’, single not plural.
Tbh, it’s not that much worse than leader of the Labour Party being on record as saying the Director General of the BBC has a pro-Israel agenda.

I think it’s very indicative that I’m happy to come on here and criticise my own party or leader but you seem to find it impossible to do the same, beyond alluding to JC being a poor leader.
To be honest, based on the above para, this discussion is boring. I’m happy to discuss politics if people are objective, as far as political leanings allow, but this is yet another case of Boris and Cons all bad, JC and Labour beyond reproach. So, I’ll leave it here.

This is the start of the article linked (it's explicitly about reviewing the remit; the letter to Ofcom is later in the article):

The Conservatives are threatening to review Channel 4’s broadcasting remit if they win the general election after the channel decided to replace Boris Johnson with a melting ice sculpture during its climate change debate.

A Tory source confirmed that the party would review Channel 4’s public service broadcasting obligations if Johnson is returned to Downing Street next month. Under the proposal, first reported by BuzzFeed News, they would “look at whether its remit should be better focused so it is serving the public in the best way possible”.

Of course just saying that "some prick said it" is completely different from saying this. You are actually claiming that this "source" has gone rogue?

This is someone speaking on behalf of the Conservative party (most likely a press officer). This is the party's position - if not, the tories should correct it immediately.


You said "I know everything I need to know about your stance on anti-semitism." That sounds too much like a slur on my character to leave there. I want you to clarify the remark.

This is my last response, I really have better things to do.

To clarify. If that is the official party position I will be contacting my MP, who is in the cabinet so I’d hope would have some sway, but I’ve not seen anything other than the ‘source’ from Buzzfeed. I have been vociferous in my defence of free speech elsewhere on this site, as I’m sure the likes of Puja will confirm, and hold my own party to the same standards. If we’re going down this route, I’ll assume that as Corbyn refuses to apologise to the Jewish community for the anti-Semitic problems in the Labour Party, the party’s position, or at least that of the current leadership, is that they don’t feel there is anything worth apologising for; which should be a huge worry.

If you require clarity from some random bloke on the internet:
It’s not a slur on you. I don’t think your anti-Semitic. You just seem to want to avoid even discussing it with regards the Labour Party.

[Son of Mathonwy]

This is the start of the article linked (it's explicitly about reviewing the remit; the letter to Ofcom is later in the article):

The Conservatives are threatening to review Channel 4’s broadcasting remit if they win the general election after the channel decided to replace Boris Johnson with a melting ice sculpture during its climate change debate.

A Tory source confirmed that the party would review Channel 4’s public service broadcasting obligations if Johnson is returned to Downing Street next month. Under the proposal, first reported by BuzzFeed News, they would “look at whether its remit should be better focused so it is serving the public in the best way possible”.

Of course just saying that "some prick said it" is completely different from saying this. You are actually claiming that this "source" has gone rogue?

This is someone speaking on behalf of the Conservative party (most likely a press officer). This is the party's position - if not, the tories should correct it immediately.


You said "I know everything I need to know about your stance on anti-semitism." That sounds too much like a slur on my character to leave there. I want you to clarify the remark.

This is my last response, I really have better things to do.

To clarify. If that is the official party position I will be contacting my MP, who is in the cabinet so I’d hope would have some sway, but I’ve not seen anything other than the ‘source’ from Buzzfeed. I have been vociferous in my defence of free speech elsewhere on this site, as I’m sure the likes of Puja will confirm, and hold my own party to the same standards. If we’re going down this route, I’ll assume that as Corbyn refuses to apologise to the Jewish community for the anti-Semitic problems in the Labour Party, the party’s position, or at least that of the current leadership, is that they don’t feel there is anything worth apologising for; which should be a huge worry.

If you require clarity from some random bloke on the internet:
It’s not a slur on you. I don’t think your anti-Semitic. You just seem to want to avoid even discussing it with regards the Labour Party.

Please do confirm it with your MP.

Corbyn has apologised to the Jewish community several times eg
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics- ... -189986489
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-43535710

I'm happy to discuss anti-Semitism in the Labour party if you have any questions about it (although I only know what I read about it - I'm not a member of Labour).

[Which Tyler]

Out of interest - how are we interpretting May and Johnson's involvement with the Nancy Astor statue? Pro-Women? Pro-Nazi? Anti-Semite?

Equally, one I've only recently had drawn to my attention - how do we interpret Corbyn's "IRA sympathiser" tag because he felt that dialogue with Sinn Fein was a good thing a few years earlier than government policy; counterpointed against Maria Gatland (AKA Maria McGuire), Tory counsellor, and ex-member of IRA leadership?

Oh, and these are genuine questions - I'm genuiney unsure how I feel aobut the Nancy Astor thing; and simply don't know enough about Maria Gatland (though I always felt that criticising Corbyn for being right about Sinn Fein was... a little odd)