EU referendum, brexit and the aftermath

If you literally have to redefine the established meaning of the term 'antisemite' to include anyone that objects to the actions of the state of Israel to brand someone an antisemite, are they indeed antisemitic?

I’d look to what Jewish Labour Party members say it is, I’ve got no experience of it directly.

Adam Wagner is the sort of person I find credible, being a campaigner for human rights, Labour Party member, and Jew: https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/mar/07/labour-antisemitism-investigation

So when Milliband was leader, labour was ok, but when Corbyn takes over, it's got a deeply held institutional problem with anti-Semitism?

I can't say either way, I just find it coincidental that this became a stick to beat Corbyn with after several failed putsches from the Blairite wing of the party, a title that serves both them and the opposition very well in making Corbyn appear even more divisive and unelectable. The way the investigation is being conducted is also strange-contacting over a hundred people for response rather than asking people with concerns to approach investigators.

Anyway, apparently the UN is also an anti-Semitic organisation because it tabled motions denouncing Israel's indescriminate killing of Palestinian civilians. If that's the current threshold for being an anti Semite I find that troubling.

It looks like the Conservatives are leaking votes to the LibDems, there is a risk this Brexit/Conservative gamble may actually not pay off and it will be another minority government.

So in that case, delaying Brexit and new GEs will bring another 5 years of dithering. Which I prefer over a no-deal Brexit, but Labour has to turn pro-remain/second ref for a LibDems/Labour coalition to work.

LibDems probably won't support an IndyRef so...oh, I don't know. Cometh October cometh...more accurate predictions. With a still long error bar :)

Well, this is BoJos new 'Scottish' Secretary.

Finger on the pulse, as ever...

https://mobile.twitter.com/joepike/status/1154395412368953348

can see Johnson doing a Churchill and sending tanks up to George Square and confining Scottish troops to barracks again.

Anyway, apparently the UN is also an anti-Semitic organisation because it tabled motions denouncing Israel's indescriminate killing of Palestinian civilians. If that's the current threshold for being an anti Semite I find that troubling.

The fact that this attack line is still being repeated shows precisely how poor the Labour leadership's response to antisemitism is in terms of educating its base.

Criticising Israeli foreign policy is not, in itself, antisemitic. It never has been. It's a straw man.

Criticising Israeli foreign policy by invoking antisemitic conspiracy theories IS antisemitic. It always has been. And Corbyn types are the ones who tend to tip over into this kind of thing most often.

It's like when Obama was president; it's not racist to say he was a shite president, but it would've been racist to say he was a shite president because his Kenyan ancestry somehow prevented him from being a proud American. One's racist, one isn't. It's quite clear.

And changing the subject to Israel or Zionists when we're talking about the experience of British Jews in Labour is...perhaps not antisemitic, but at the very least it's whataboutery. We're talking about Labour. Let's talk about Labour.

If you want a separate conversation about Israeli foreign policy I will gladly slag it off with you - Netynyahu is a headbanger and I'm 100% in favour of Palestinian rights - but lets not conflate the two.

What do we think the probability is that Johnson is the last prime minister of the UK?

Before apocaplypse now?
and the world ends?

Or just the dissolution of the union?

I referred to Labour: under Milliband there was no accusations of anti-Semitism except when he initially proclaimed himself a Zionist then (in typical Milliband fashion) back-tracked the next day. I find it strange that as soon as Corbyn is at the helm it is then deemed to have a profound and institutionalised problem, and this makes the accusations (against a man who has a track record of solidarity with antiracist causes and links to the Jewish community) seem gratuitous.

Undeniably, Labour under Corbyn have botched handling these accusations but then, they seem to have botched everything else too so it's not surprising...

V.low

I just think Jewish people have better things to do with their time than make up accusations of antisemitism.

Look, don't get me wrong, I 100% agree that the Times / Mail etc exploit these stories for political reasons, because they hate / fear / despise Corbyn. That's a given.

But these accusations don't grow in a vacuum. The testimony of those whistleblowers is undeniable. The fact that the Jewish Labour Movement put a vote of no confidence in Corbyn is undeniable. The fact that so many Jewish MPs / Lords are resigning in protest at Labour's handling of antisemitism is undeniable. The three biggest Jewish newspapers in the UK all calling Corbyn an 'existential threat' is undeniable.

Fight against the former by all means. But minimising the latter (or attributing it to a conspiracy) is dangerous territory.

Fingers crossed

#massivelyshortsterling

Of the seats that Johnson has now, how many would flip to LD in a GE, and how many would flip to BXP I think is the question, and how many Labour seats would do the same?

Boris could see off the threat of the BXP, but in so doing (by tacking further and further to the right) he pushes more moderate voters toward the LD's.

Question therefore becomes what's the win rate vs the loss rate for this.

If he tacks back toward the middle he's going to lose the ERG and the DUP and be as paralysed as May was, so thats not an option, but he has to increase his majority significantly enough to be able to ignore both the ERG/DUP, which strikes me as unlikely, unless he's counting on Labour seats going Blue due to a high % of Leavers.

Unless he puts a referendum in his manifesto, no deal or no Brexit, and dares the other parties not to?

That'd likely stop the bleed to the LD's, but I don't know what it'd do to the BXP vote.

Gah.

I referred to Labour: under Milliband there was no accusations of anti-Semitism except when he initially proclaimed himself a Zionist then (in typical Milliband fashion) back-tracked the next day. I find it strange that as soon as Corbyn is at the helm it is then deemed to have a profound and institutionalised problem, and this makes the accusations (against a man who has a track record of solidarity with antiracist causes and links to the Jewish community) seem gratuitous.

I think you would have to look at the dates and numbers of complaints to confirm that assertion. I don't have them but are there numbers of complaints to compare? I'm unaware whether those sorts of figures are published.

I watched that. I thought the tone overall was more how odd it was after years of austerity they are now proposing to spend as much as Labour were/are and what a U turn it is.

There was a bit of a "is this responsible" sort of tone but that's not surprising given Gideon Osborne's narrative of "Labour spent all the money" which was widely accepted by the public (despite being untrue), but that made the piece more balanced, not less.

Either way, while I welcome increased public spending it's worrying that the Tories are parking their tanks on Labour's lawn in this way. It also feels like Boris trying to buy everyone off to get a hard Brexit through to me.

Podsmead (Gloucester) result:

LDEM: 30.0% (+30.0)
CON: 29.6% (-18.5)
LAB: 18.0% (-33.9)
BREX: 16.4% (+16.4)
GRN: 4.3% (+4.3)
UKIP: 1.6% (+1.6)

Liberal Democrat GAIN from Labour.

Tory votes to BXP and Labour to LD? Very simplistic, but the numbers roughly align.

With Greens and UKIP making the difference.

Yeah fair enough, maybe I misread (misheard?) the tone of the piece there. Of course it's valid to point out that this would be a sudden U-turn and that it's basically what Labour wanted too, but it just came across to me a bit like "this is a bad thing because you're U-turning". I thought a slightly more neutral reporting tone would have helped, but again, just my take.

it's worrying that the Tories are parking their tanks on Labour's lawn in this way

So this is interesting: it's been pointed out in German politics that usually when one party starts making concessions to the talking points of more right-wing movements, e.g. regarding immigration, this usually doesn't really work out very well as those right-wing movements (such as the AfD) are seen as 'owning' the issue to some extent. So trying to copy their stances tends to backfire and just end up validating them.

I honestly don't see that happening here with regards to increases in spending and Labour, but why is that? Isn't Labour the party always calling for more spending, better pay and working hours for NHS staff, etc. etc.?

When the Labour party suggest reasonable increases in Public spending the right wing media dismiss them as reckless 'tax & spend'. When the Tories suggest returning Public spending to recent (non-inflation adjusted) levels that pertained before Tory cuts, the right wing media proclaim this as pragmatic investment.

When the UK populace is asked the question "who do you trust more with the NHS?" they tend to answer "Conservatives" despite the very obvious dismantling of said NHS by the Tories whenever they get in. As such, to the idiots who think the Tories support the NHS, this isn't seen as a move into Labours territory. cf £350M for the NHS from vote leave.

You're dead on with this comment.

The policies he's implementing basically look like campaign prep. work as well - more police officers, teachers, etc. Sensible headline-bait stuff that no one really objects to.

May I ask a stupid question please. I'm not British, but have lived in the UK in the past and Brexit intrigues me. I follow this thread and read the odd guardian article/analysis so know a tiny bit about what's been going on. Here's my question: wtf? Why? What's the idea? Why can't everyone (someone? anyone?) just shrug this off and say we're sorry, it was a poorly thought out idea, let's chuck it in the bin? Or rather, why doesn't anyone in government (I know lots of people do) seem to think that would work?