BS: Labour party discussion

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Greg F.
Date: 30 Sep 16 - 12:31 PM

That should be "by whom".

Are there no depths to this man's ignorance?

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 Sep 16 - 12:20 PM

"The efforts to broaden the definition of antisemitism to include attacks on the policies or activities of the Israeli regime..."

"What efforts by who Steve, or is this just another of your vacuous assertions?"

Quite possibly your silliest post to date.

Not much chance of common ground with this bloke, eh, DMcG? See what I mean?

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 Sep 16 - 11:56 AM

Are you going to respond to those "self-hating Jews" links Keith?
You claimed I made the phrase up, now you have claimed I only produced one.
You will now refuse to acknowledge both - it's what you do
Your dishonesty appears t have no limits.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 Sep 16 - 11:05 AM

http://themessinglink.com/Anti-Semite

Addressing increasing boycott calls, he called for Israel to "fight back" and "delegitimize the delegitimizers."
"I think that it is important that the boycotters be exposed for what they are, they are classical Anti-Semites in modern garb," Netanyahu said.
He said Israeli is fighting BDS both by exposing the boycotters and with its booming high-tech sector.
"The most eerie and disgraceful thing is that people on the soil of Europe are talking about the boycott of Jews. That is outrageous," he said. "The boycotters make their goal clear: to end the Jewish state."

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 Sep 16 - 10:47 AM

You've had it Keith and you will only ignore it again
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Sep 16 - 10:29 AM

Steve,
The efforts to broaden the definition of antisemitism to include attacks on the policies or activities of the Israeli regime

What efforts by who Steve, or is this just another of your vacuous assertions?

Jim, Please identify one link that has evidence of an Israeli minister claiming, "It's Anti-Semitic To Ever Criticize Israel"

You know that no-one will spend an afternoon going through your silly list of web addresses.
Stop obfuscating and give us the killer evidence.
Confident prediction, you can't!

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Sep 16 - 10:22 AM

Jim, the headline on that article you linked to from an anti Israel propaganda site was,
"Israeli Justice Minister: It's Anti-Semitic To Ever Criticize Israel"

That was a lie. She has never said any such thing and nor has any minister.
The story was lifted from here,
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2016/05/04/israeli-minister-criticizing-israel-is-the-new-anti-semitism/

She said that some antisemites had found that their attacks were more acceptable if directed at Israel instead of Jews.
That is not the same as saying that only antisemites criticise Israel, and certainly not "It's Anti-Semitic To Ever Criticize Israel" !!!

Neteyahu has endorsed it publicly
Let's see it then Jim!!

If you mean accusations there are no such things from the NEC, who have examined the charges and found there is no case to answer.

No. I mean this,
"The NEC are appalled by recent cases of anti-Semitic abuse. Anti-Semitism has no place in the Labour Party"
" The entire NEC recognises the seriousness of this issue "

It is utterly Kafkaesque to accuse somebody of something and refuse to specify what you are accusing them of.

That is not me or Teribus. We are just the messengers.
Take it up with those prominent members, MPs, officials, the entire NEC and those pro-Corbyn activists I quoted today. They make the accusations, not us.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 Sep 16 - 10:21 AM

Can we finish with some of this dishonesty once and for all?
Keith can work his way through this at his leisure
Not going to bother bllue clickying it

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4591891,00.html

http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/09/30/the-self-hating-jew-a-critique/

http://www.haaretz.com/opinion/.premium-1.664162

http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/criticising-israel-is-not-the-same-as-being-anti-jewish-1.2631721

http://www.tabletmag.com/scroll/211763/black-lives-matter-and-self-hating-jews

http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Curbing-the-self-loathing-Jewish-defamers-of-Israel-403470

https://www.algemeiner.com/2016/04/26/the-phenomenon-of-jewish-self-hatred/

http://www.wrmea.org/2009-november/israel-and-judaism-attempts-to-silence-critics-of-israeli-policies-as-self-hating-jews-a-failing-strategy.html

http://www.metroeireann.com/news/652/im-no-self-hating-jew.html

http://www.mepc.org/journal/middle-east-policy-archives/anti-zionism-anti-semitic?print

http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Columnists/No-holds-barred-Anti-Israel-speakers-and-Jewish-self-hatred-344156

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CfbS2nubivI

http://jewishquarterly.org/issuearchive/article2366.html?articleid=432

http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-political-zionist-accusation-of-self-hating-jew/5512218

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2009/oct/05/self-hating-jew-antisemitism

https://www.bustle.com/articles/32836-is-jon-stewart-a-self-hating-jew-i-asked-the-daily-show-host-and-heres-what-he

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 Sep 16 - 10:14 AM

Sorry about that. I'll try again.

"And, DMcG, it isn't a debatable alternative definition they seek to use. It's false."

"As it happens, I totally agree. But any form of progress in discussion depends on people recognising their shared ground and where they differ and then seeking a way forward. Peace processes, and all that. I don't think two groups simply declaring the other is wrong gets us very far."

It is not possible to find any shared ground with people who have a dishonest agenda. The efforts to broaden the definition of antisemitism to include attacks on the policies or activities of the Israeli regime come under that category, because they have nothing to do with defending Jewish people against attacks based on their ethnicity or perceived personality traits and everything to do with preventing criticism of the Israeli regime, no matter what they get up to. No-one is forced by such ploys to hold back on criticism of Britain's role in the Middle East or America's role in Vietnam, and we should likewise be free and unfettered in attacking the Israeli regime. The attempt to widen the definition degrades the proper definition and makes it harder to tackle the issue of real antisemitism. That actually disadvantages Jewish people severely, so when Jim accuses people like Keith,Teribus and bobad of antisemitism he's absolutely right, and it's time they ditched the dishonesty and got on the side of the ordinary Jewish people.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 Sep 16 - 09:59 AM

"And, DMcG, it isn't a debatable alternative definition they seek to use. It's false."

"As it happens, I totally agree. But any form of progress in discussion depends on people recognising their shared ground and where they differ and then seeking a way forward. Peace processes, and all that. I don't think two groups simply declaring the other is wrong gets us very far."

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 Sep 16 - 09:41 AM

"No they have not. You quoted one single person, "
I have quoted several, including a report that Neteyahu has endorsed it publicly
Why do you keep ignoring what you have been given over and over again?
You damn well know this is true - that is why you refuse to respond to the statement made by the Israeli justice Minister - if you can't answer i, ignore it, seems to be the way you work.
"There is lots of evidence in the form of statements "
If you mean accusations there are no such things from the NEC, who have examined the charges and found there is no case to answer.
They have treated the matter seriously and found there to be no major problem.
No-one here, or elsewhere has specified what exactly what those accusations are other than criticisism of Israel - these do not amount to Antisemitism by any definition
It is utterly Kafkaesque to accuse somebody of something and refuse to specify what you are accusing them of.
Unless you start answering these points, I am no longer going to respond to your dishonesty - there really is no point talking to someone who has defended every crime and atrocity Israel has ever committed.
Apart from anything else, it ***** up threads
Put up or go talk to someone else - I really am not interested.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Sep 16 - 08:22 AM

Jim,
Theyr have declared that Jews who criticise Israel are "Self hating"

No they have not. You quoted one single person, who does not say that anyway.
Why do you keep making these false claims against Israel Jim?

So far, there is no evidence that it has a place in Labour Party politics, and never has had.

That is a really silly statement Jim.
There is lots of evidence in the form of statements from prominent members, MPs, officials and the entire NEC!


Surely it is essential to know what those complaints are before you can judge whether they are valid?

Yes, and those who have made that judgement do know.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: bobad
Date: 30 Sep 16 - 08:20 AM

Her suggestion on Holocaust Day is spot on and long overdue

There's a reason why those who co-opt the "Black Lives Matter" movement with "All Lives Matter" are racists.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Sep 16 - 08:20 AM

Jim,
Theyr have declared that Jews who criticise Israel are "Self hating"

No they have not. You quoted one single person, who does not say that anyway.
Why do you keep making these false claims against Israel Jim?

So far, there is no evidence that it has a place in Labour Party politics, and never has had.

That is a really silly statement Jim.
There is lots of evidence in the form of statements from prominent members, MPs, officials and the entire NEC!


Surely it is essential to know what those complaints are before you can judge whether they are valid?

Yes, and those who have made that judgement do know.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: bobad
Date: 30 Sep 16 - 08:03 AM

Her suggestion on Holocaust Day is spot on and long overdue

There's a reason why those who co-opt the Black Lives Matter movement with White Lives Matter are racists.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 Sep 16 - 07:51 AM

Surely it is essential to know what those complaints are before you can judge whether they are valid?
That is the missing ingredients in all these arguments
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 30 Sep 16 - 07:32 AM

"But what you think is crucial, since it is people's views that need to be understood before they can be addressed"

As someone who is not particularly interested in any political party in the UK what I think is irrelevant, the people whose views you have had your attention drawn to are all members of the Labour Party who think that there is a problem, those are the "people's views that need to be understood before they can be addressed".

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 Sep 16 - 07:02 AM

"They have done no such thing Jim."
Israeli Justice Minister
Theyr have declared that Jews who criticise Israel are "Self hating"
"Is it?"]
If it is applied to critics of Israel, it most certainly is
If it is applied as a means to defend Israel it is Antisemitic, as it implicates all Jewish people in acts of terrorism, human rights abuses and possible war crimes carried out by the Israeli regime.
Anitsemitism certainly does have a place in politics unfortunately - extreme right-wing politics.
So far, there is no evidence that it has a place in Labour Party politics, and never has had.
Historically. the Tory Party can't make the same claim
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Sep 16 - 06:43 AM

Israel decided to move the goalposts to include criticism of Israeli policy in their own definition.

They have done no such thing Jim. They have a free press that criticises Israeli policy every day, and an opposition whose very purpose is to criticise Israeli policy.
Why are you always making false claims against Israel Jim?

The slur of "antisemite" is increasingly used as a political weapon against people who are in no way antisemitic.

Is it? Should antisemitism not be challenged and attacked because it might harm the political careers of the antisemites?
I think antisemites have no place in politics, and I do not believe it is all a conspiracy against Corbyn.
That is a delusion and proved so by the statements of pro Corbyn people like those in my BBC link.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: DMcG
Date: 30 Sep 16 - 06:22 AM

And, DMcG, it isn't a debatable alternative definition they seek to use. It's false.

As it happens, I totally agree. But any form of progress in discussion depends on people recognising their shared ground and where they differ and then seeking a way forward. Peace processes, and all that. I don't think two groups simply declaring the other is wrong gets us very far.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 Sep 16 - 05:54 AM

If you express hostility towards Jews or discriminate against Jews BECAUSE THEY ARE JEWS you are antisemitic. You simply can't use that word for any extended definition, and the people who do so (who are far from all being Jews) are just as ignorant in their remarks as are the alleged Labour miscreants. It's fine in debate to try to defend the actions of the Israeli regime, (though be prepared for a good scrap if you do), provided you're honest enough to admit that that's what you're doing, and not doing it whilst hiding behind a false definition which you're using as your backstop. It is simply not right that those of us who disagree with the policies and actions of a regime have to constantly tread on eggshells lest our opponents lazily and ignorantly throw the antisemite slur at us. That is precisely what has happened in the Labour Party, and those who refuse to see why it happens are both disingenuous and blinkered. It's simple. The opponents of Corbyn want him out and the antisemitism ploy is just one tactic. There has been some pretty unprincipled behaviour, taking Ruth Smeeth's and John Mann's stage-managed and shabby charades as examples. And, DMcG, it isn't a debatable alternative definition they seek to use. It's false. To say that I'm "antisemitic" if I criticise the theft of land for settlements, or because I condemn the building of an apartheid wall, is both ignorant of the proper meaning of the term, dishonest and is absolutely NOT in the interests of Jewish people. In fact, degrading the definition makes it all the harder to attack real antisemitism where it does occur, which, sadly, it does, a lot. And it is simply a lie to assert that "the leader has done nothing about it." He is a lifelong opponent of racism, he publicly condemns antisemitism, he has criticised the members of his party who indulge in aggressive behaviour towards Jews and other minorities and he set up an enquiry which has reported but which, unfortunately, will never keep some people happy short of having mass executions in the Labour Party.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 Sep 16 - 05:43 AM

Jackie Walker's difficulty in finding a definition of Antisemitism she can work with seems to be one many people are having since Israel decided to move the goalposts to include criticism of Israeli policy in their own definition.
Most accusations seem to be related to criticism of Israel rather than attacks on the Jewish People
Mac of H put it in a nutshell above when he wrote:
The slur of "antisemite" is increasingly used as a political weapon against people who are in no way antisemitic. Using it in this way is disrespectful of real victims of antisemitism, both in the past and in the present. It devalues the very term to use it in this way,
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 Sep 16 - 05:28 AM

"a fellow member of our Labour and trade union family holds such anti-Semitic views""
What a pity those views aren't Antisemitic - or are they?
Surely, if someone has been accused of expressing Antisemitic views, we have a right to know what those vies are.
Nothing produced so far come anything near that description - maybe Mr Cortes knows something we don't?
What is this "antisemitism" she ha#s advocated?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Sep 16 - 04:57 AM

The accusations are not from enemies of Labour, or even enemies of Momentum.
BBC,
"But a spokesman for Momentum, the left-wing grassroots organisation set up in wake of Jeremy Corbyn's 2015 election as Labour leader, said: "Members of Momentum's steering committee are seeking to remove Jackie Walker as vice-chair of the committee." "


"Manuel Cortes, general secretary of the TSSA union, which backed Momentum and Jeremy Corbyn's leadership, said on Thursday he was "deeply saddened that a fellow member of our Labour and trade union family holds such anti-Semitic views" and said she should not be allowed to "remain active within our party".
"I am asking Jackie that in the interests of unity she resigns at once from our party and also as vice-chair of Momentum.
"If she doesn't, both the Labour Party and Momentum need to act to get rid of her at once.
"We would seriously need to consider our union's support for Momentum if she is still in post by this time next week." "
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37513813

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: DMcG
Date: 30 Sep 16 - 04:45 AM


As far as the Labour Party and the presentation of political parties in the UK is concerned what I personally think is beside the point. Address the message DMcG not the messenger

As I have said elsewhere, I am not going to enter into rows that I think are unnecessary. But what you think is crucial, since it is people's views that need to be understood before they can be addressed. It is of limited value if we completely eliminate what "we" see as antisemitism if "you" see something else entirely as antisemitic. We cannot decide what to do about anti-Semitism in any group unless we know what we mean by the term - and it is obvious there is disagreement here - and who we think is guilty of it. And here it is complicated by all sorts of issues that don't really have anything to do with antisemitism, like trying to sound the note "Corbyn is a weak leader" without caring too much about how you do that.

So, yes, I do think it is appropriate to ask you to clarify your views because that is what enables a solution.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 Sep 16 - 04:13 AM

"So the problem as far as some within the Labour Party are concerned is that anti-Semitism exists "
Depends oon who the "some" are
So far, they have turned out to be Israeli supporters campaigning to halt the boycott and right-wing opponents of Corbyn
o evedence of a serious problem has been found, unless you accept the "guilty by accusation" style of justice.
The Jackie Walker nonsense just about sums up the quality of the evidence.
Her suggestion on Holocaust Day is spot on and long overdue
"it would appear that everybody gets a say in what constitutes "anti-Semitism" except the Jews"
The Jews, like the rest of us, have no doubt what Antisemitism is - a direct attack on the Jewish people
TheIsraelis have extended that to include criticism of Israeli political policy
Those Jewish People who disagree have been deemed "self hating Jews"
Many Jews are the harshest crittics of the present Israeli regime - "Antisemites all".
For the record, this is a rough total of those who died as a result of the Nazi policy of deliberate extermination.
Number of Deaths
Jews: up to 6 million
Soviet civilians: around 7 million (including 1.3 Soviet Jewish civilians, who are included in the 6 million figure for Jews)
Soviet prisoners of war: around 3 million (including about 50,000 Jewish soldiers)
Non-Jewish Polish civilians: around 1.8 million (including between 50,000 and 100,000 members of the Polish elites)
Serb civilians (on the territory of Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina): 312,000
People with disabilities living in institutions: up to 250,000
Roma (Gypsies): 196,000–220,000
Jehovah's Witnesses: Around 1,900
Repeat criminal offenders and so-called asocials: at least 70,000
German political opponents and resistance activists in Axis-occupied territory: undetermined
Homosexuals: hundreds, possibly thousands (possibly also counted in part under the 70,000 repeat criminal offenders and so-called asocials noted above)
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 30 Sep 16 - 03:32 AM

As far as the Labour Party and the presentation of political parties in the UK is concerned what I personally think is beside the point. Address the message DMcG not the messenger.

Goes back to what was said earlier in this thread, it would appear that everybody gets a say in what constitutes "anti-Semitism" except the Jews who can have absolutely no say in the matter, apparently because their views are by nature biased and controlled by the Israeli regime.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: DMcG
Date: 30 Sep 16 - 02:06 AM


The "anti-Semitism" row continues to rumble on with calls from those within the Labour Party for the permanent expulsion of Jackie Walker.

So the problem as far as some within the Labour Party are concerned is that anti-Semitism exists and that "The Leader" is doing nothing about it.

That's a misreading, in my view. But let's clarify your view first. Do you think Jackie Walker is the one who is being anti-Semitic, or those calling for expulsion, or that none of them are but that some Labour people think expelling Walker is a way of stressing they won't tolerate anti-Semitism?

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 30 Sep 16 - 01:52 AM

"The slur of "antisenite" is increasingly used as a political weapon against people who are in no way antisemitic. Using it in this way is disrespectful of real victims of antisemitism, both in the past and in the present. It devalues the very term to use it in this way" - MGOH

Now read again what I posted:

The "anti-Semitism" row continues to rumble on with calls from those within the Labour Party for the permanent expulsion of Jackie Walker.

So the problem as far as some within the Labour Party are concerned is that anti-Semitism exists and that "The Leader" is doing nothing about it. That is what has been pointed out to the loyal Labour members of this forum. Never ever having been a member or supporter of any political party in my life means that perhaps I am less "blinkered" in my political outlook than they are.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Sep 16 - 06:43 PM

Why? Just for once, try explaining yourself.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: bobad
Date: 29 Sep 16 - 06:30 PM

Of course calling it a "political weapon" is also used as a justification for anti-Semitism.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Greg F.
Date: 29 Sep 16 - 06:06 PM

And of course, Kevin, Bubo uses it in EXACTLY this way, and always has.

Same as it ever was............

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Sep 16 - 06:04 PM

Hear hear!

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 29 Sep 16 - 05:37 PM

Holocaust Day is in fact supposed to be about all the other victims of genocide as well as the Jews who were killed by the Nazis. This tends to be ignored, which is what Jackie Walker ( herself of Jewish descent) was pointing out.

The slur of "antisenite" is increasingly used as a political weapon against people who are in no way antisemitic. Using it in this way is disrespectful of real victims of antisemitism, both in the past and in the present. It devalues the very term to use it in this way,

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: bobad
Date: 29 Sep 16 - 04:55 PM

She says that she accepts David Schneider's definition of anti-Semitism, a definition which some of our posters and Labour party supporters should read and reflect on.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 29 Sep 16 - 03:08 PM

"Could we have that again in English?"
Convenient dyslexia
Not sure I can manage it in words less than two syllables, but here goes.
The Labour Party decided
that, rather than return to the society that gave us appeasement to "Herr Hitler", the Great Depression and mass poverty, they would, in a very limited way, attempt to reward those who bore the brunt of the war by introducing affordable and secure homes, a health service paid for out of the taxes, and a voice in the workplace.
In other words, rather than return to the pre-war status quo, they attempted to make everybody a beneficiary of being British.
The Right fought all attempts do do that tooth and nail
How difficult was that.
"permanent expulsion of Jackie Walker."
Quite right too - this bastard has proposed that instead of remembering the Jews who died, that the remembrance should include the Gypsies, the homosexuals, the Trades Unionists and active opponents of Fascism and those considered mentally deficient , all of whom suffered a similar #ftr   
"In terms of Holocaust day wouldn't it be wonderful if Holocaust day was open to all people who experienced holocaust..."
How Antisemitic can you get!!!!
She should be flayed to death - expulsion is too good for her.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 29 Sep 16 - 02:14 PM

The "anti-Semitism" row continues to rumble on with calls from those within the Labour Party for the permanent expulsion of Jackie Walker.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 29 Sep 16 - 02:11 PM

Could we have that again in English?

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 29 Sep 16 - 01:51 PM

"Not really interested in what you would accept "
And I'm not really interested in what you're you don't accept
You never back up what you claim anyway.
Creating an all inclusive society giving people a statke and a voice in Britain could have achieved what the Germans did had it been let run its course.
Labour (then) saw the interests of the people in the form of Housing, Health and insurance against hardship, as a priority.
It's not as if the ordinary people of Britain would ever have prospered under your lot - even at the best of times, their interesteds wer put at the bottom of the pile.
British industry as a whole was systematically destroyed, not because it was "crap" or because teh peole were "lazy scroungers", as you "patriots" have suggested, but because it was ore profitable to go elsewhere.
That would have been the case had Britain spent all the money available rather than on its poorer sections.
Labour chose to put people before profit
It has my gratitude, but there again - I despise greed, not worshop it, as you do
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 29 Sep 16 - 01:00 PM

Not really interested in what you would accept because oddly enough when it comes to historical documented fact what you are prepared to accept is irrelevant.

As far as spending Marshall Aid goes the Germans got it right, not through Teutonic efficiency and ruthless pragmatism, they didn't have much choice. Instead of spending their dosh (They got $1.7 billion the UK got $2.7 billion) on creating a "Welfare State", they had to spend it on infrastructure and machinery in order that they could get their population working. With a population working it meant that they could be taxed and it was their taxes that built the German "Welfare State". Because our dosh did not go towards rebuilding our industrial base, once the Germans got going in rival fields their industries were at a considerable advantage, they were more efficient because their equipment was modern while ours were old and worn out.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 29 Sep 16 - 09:24 AM

"Ehmm No, all paid for by US Marshall Aid plus an additional loan of $4 million from the USA."
I don't accept for one minute that this continued to be the case, the Americans gave $12 billion to rebuild Western Europe after the destruction of the war, Britain got about %26 of that.
The Martial Plan ended in 1951, at the time of the Korean War - Joe McCarthy's America would not in a million years have stood by while it's donations were being used to introduced Socialist measures into Britain.
Had it been down to the Conservatives, not a penny would have been spent to better the lot of the ordinary person - that was down to a Labour Government who adopted a very limited Socialist policy of sharing out what wealth there was at hand.
The Tories opposed all the measures bitterly, The National Health Scheme included - eventually, under funding and right-wing antipathy killed of the benefits there were, and the greed of the privileged destroyed our industrial base.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 29 Sep 16 - 08:29 AM

"socialist policies what altered the face of Britain, social housing, a National Health Scheme which, for all its faults, is the envy of the world, unemployment and hardship benefits, a voice in the work[lace.... all paid for by sharing the profits brought about." - Jim Carroll

Ehmm No, all paid for by US Marshall Aid plus an additional loan of $4 million from the USA.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 29 Sep 16 - 08:19 AM

"Jim, what is the point of introducing socialist policies into a global capitalist economic system?"
It was done in 1949 and it improved the lot of British people
What do you suggest in practical terms as an alternative - that we send missionaries out to educate the people and sit and our hands and wait, allowing the situation to remain the same?
I have no intention of arguing this with you at any length Ake - we've been here before.
You're not unlike the sailor standing outside the wedding with the albatross hanging around his neck.
Given the situation, what do you suggest should happen to change things?
Hearts and minds are won over by action, not ideas and, in the meantime, it is possible to alleviate at least the worst of the problems that this system brings with it.
In the meantime, unless we place the blame really where it belongs and not, as is your tendency, at the Poles and the refugees and the National Health "abusers" and the "dole scroungers" and the "lack of values", the people who benefit the most from this system will be laughing all the way to the Stock Exchange.
We live now and here, not in some Utopian Cloud-Cuckoo Land when one day everybody will wake up with the scales fallen from their eyes.
Practical suggestions please?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: akenaton
Date: 29 Sep 16 - 06:46 AM

Jim, what is the point of introducing socialist policies into a global capitalist economic system? It just does not make sense, you put the cart before the horse.
I do not expect Mr Corbyn or anyone with a real socialist agenda to be elected to office in the next decade

Our society has become contaminated, everyone is to blame for our failure to sustain great services like the NHS, which is exploited by everyone. We need to educate our population into accepting the need for sustainability......that will take generations and at the end huge sections of the population will be less well off financially...not an easy policy to push, is it?

It may be acceptable to committed socialist, of which I am one, but the population in general will take more convincing....just look how many people play the lottery.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 29 Sep 16 - 03:58 AM

"They won 3 elections under Blair. The far left have never won anything.
Led by a war criminal who illegally involved Britain in oil wars which are still bringing British young people home in body bags.
The General election following the war introduced socialist policies what altered the face of Britain, social housing, a National Health Scheme which, for all its faults, is the envy of the world, unemployment and hardship benefits, a voice in the work[lace.... all paid for by sharing the profits brought about.
All these were violently opposed and all but destroyed by Conservative Governments and the move away from Socialist values by later Labour politicians led to a return to the dog-eat-dog system we now live under.
No period in history has ever produced such radical beneficial changes for the people of Britain than those introduced by the post-war Labour Government.
Extreme right wing policies such as those forced through by Thatcher, the self-declared fascist, led immediately to a steep rise in unemployment which continues to fluctuate, a loss of voice in the workplace, a sharp divide between rich and poor, insecurity of tenure in our homes, and the destruction of our industries, some of them which had taken centuries to build.
Right-wing politics have brought Britain nothing but hardship, insecurity and a dependence on foreign imports.
The largest export from Britain today is FINANCE which benefits only the wealthy.
Corbyn has promised a break with that rotten, out-dated system, and haven't the privileged rats run round in circles trying to stop him - throwing at him everything from misogyny to antisemitism.      
Let's hope he doesn't go 'the Way of all Political Flesh' and lives up to his promise to introduce genuine socialist policies.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 Sep 16 - 01:35 AM

On their own they'll never win anything.

They won 3 elections under Blair. The far left have never won anything.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Sep 16 - 05:28 PM

That's exactly how I see it. And the naysayers need a massive dose of humility in recalling that they were responsible for inflicting Cameron on us twice over. Two-time losers. On their own they'll never win anything. They need the Corbyn dose of fresh air!

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 28 Sep 16 - 05:12 PM

Jeremy's speech to Labour Conference was pretty good, I felt. And it was interesting to see the Red Flag and Jerusalem stuck in at the end of the speech, and a lively rendering rather than the way it normally gets tucked away at the end in a very embarrassed way. (Speech and songs both on YouTube).

Now if only the silly buggers could get over themselves, stop having tantrums, and get together. The trouble is there's a faction who actually seem to want a defeat in order to get rid of the threat of what Corbyn stands for - democratic socialism. Corbyn winning an election would be seen by the likes of Mandelson as the worst outcome, and they are working hard to make sure that doesn't happen.   But I don't think that faction is as powerful within the Labour Party, even the PLP, as it thinks - though of course it's the
way pretty well all the media is slanted, including the Guardian and even the BBC.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 27 Sep 16 - 02:41 PM

Hi there keith! very saddened by the recent death of MGM. he was a very special sort of chap. I visited him at his house near cambridge and we went to the local pub for dinner. Witty, donnish, incisive. He asked me to come again, but with denise being ill so much of the time I never made it.

still doing the occasional gig. still don't really feel up to the waspishness of Mudcat. something to do with getting older I suppose.

Anyway best of luck to you all.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: The Sandman
Date: 27 Sep 16 - 02:18 PM

I admire Jeremy Corbyn, I think renationalisation of the railways is a good idea.