BS: UK thread, Politics and political

Subject: RE: BS: UK thread, Politics and political
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 26 Jun 20 - 11:42 AM

On an intellectual/ideological level, I'm stuck between BWM and Jim&Steve.

But I'm no fence sitter, I'm a pragmatic realist..

We can't wait forever, for the further far right inclined tories to see the light and leave power voluntarily,
or kill each other off with stupid careless covid social recklessness...

Any UK party calling itself "Labour" might be some improvement for us...??????????

[pause for grim laughter of despair...]

Subject: RE: BS: UK thread, Politics and political
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 26 Jun 20 - 11:47 AM

"Is it split or is it two separate parties? "
There have been divisions between the warring groups, true, but to a degree, Brexit gave them a reason to bury them
Amnesty has reportedly denied that they reported that the knee-on--neck technique - that was a branch of Amnesty, they have not denied that Israel has trained American police forces - how could they - that has been a fact since at least 2013 when Amnesty first raised it   
This denial appeared in 'The Spectator', owned by the same press magnate who owns The Daily Telegraph
When Boris Johnson was editor he was accused of publishing a racist article aimed at Nigerians - a journal to be trusted on matters such as rcism

It is unclear exactly what Maxine Peake said about her statement, as far as I can find it has not been quoted in full - just the one line
That is beside the point - there is no question thet Israel has been training American police forces, just as there is no question that the technique that killed Floyd is used by Israel against the Palestinians
These are proven facts, whatever way you car to try to sidestep them

As far as political Parties being able to work with each other - following Brexit, political parties ban no longer get a consensus of their own elected members and are at odds with the rank and file membership
Starmer stands to become part of this ivory tower group who have been totally ignoring the wishes of those who elected them
That is the circus that Parliamentary Democracy has now openly become
Go ask the old-school Tories who were kicked out of office en-mass for not dancing to the music from the top
We have a hand-picked Cabinet dictatorship in Britain, as things stand at present
Jim

Subject: RE: BS: UK thread, Politics and political
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 26 Jun 20 - 11:57 AM

"The vast majority of Labour voters aren’t ‘Lefties’, they are ordinary people with decent, sensible, middle-of-the road views."
On what grounds do you make this claim - I don't remember a referendum being held on the issue
It depends on you are in this divided nation (divided by Thatcher)
What right have you to describe left-wingers as indecent
I would describe those who stood behild Blair when he committed Britain to decades of war in the Middle East as thoroughly indecent
The same goes for those who stood silent as the situation was arrived at where working people could no longer afford to send their children to higher education, or as the gap between haves and have-nots steadily widened, or homelessness grew....... and all the rotten things that have ahppened to Britain over the last few decades   
The old Labour party was part and parcel of making Britain the unequal, dog-eat-dog, oil greedy nation it has become - just by saying nothing as it happened
Jim

Subject: RE: BS: UK thread, Politics and political
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 26 Jun 20 - 12:26 PM

Jim - this is the article that appeared on my news feed a few nights back...

The Rise of the Cyber-Mercenaries 2018


You'll probably know better than me how reliable & trustworthy this writer is..

"Israel is a world leader in private cybertechnology,
with at least 300 firms covering everything from banking security to critical infrastructure defense.
But while most of these firms aim to protect companies from cyberattacks,
a few of them have taken advantage of the thin line
between defensive and offensive cybercapabilities to provide clients with more sinister services...

...Israel.. produces a steady supply of highly skilled cyberoperators who learn the craft during their military service
in one of the country’s elite signals intelligence units
—Unit 8200 is the best known among them
—and then go on to work in the private sector. "

Funny how the UK right always get such fast intelligence
on Labour party membership tweeting history...???

Subject: RE: BS: UK thread, Politics and political
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 26 Jun 20 - 01:15 PM

I have no idea how accurate that article is PFR - there's no reason to doubt it
Israel is now the major supplier of military drones

A CONVENIENTLY FORGOTTEN FACT
It says the deal fell through because of "costs" - it transpires it was abandoned because they didn't want "the blecks" to have them if the regime ever fell

From The Christian Science Monitor, 2013
Does Israel have chemical weapons?
Israel signed the global treaty banning the production or use of chemical weapons. But Israel never ratified it. Israel will not confirm or deny the existence of chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons.
Israeli workers are seen at the Shalon gas mask factory in Kiryat Gat, Israel. The U.S.-Russian plan to dismantle Syria's chemical weapons is drawing some unwanted attention on Israel's own alleged chemical stockpile.
September 16, 2013
By Josef Federman Associated Press
JERUSALEM
The US-Russian plan to dismantle Syria's chemical weapons is drawing attention to Israel's own suspected chemical stockpile and could raise pressure on the Jewish state to come clean about its capabilities.
Israel signed the landmark international treaty banning the production or use of chemical weapons two decades ago, but it is among a handful of nations that have never ratified the deal. While foreign experts widely believe that Israel likely possesses a stockpile of chemical and biological weapons, Israeli officials refuse to confirm or deny the existence of any such arsenal.
They say the key issue right now is Syria, not Israel.
In a radio interview Monday, former Defense Minister Amir Peretz declined to discuss the country's chemical weapons capabilities but said the international community's attitude toward Israel is "different" from Syria.
"It's clear to everyone that (Israel) is a democratic, responsible regime," he told Israel Radio. "I very much hope and am certain that the international community will not make this a central question and we will maintain the status quo."
‘It’s way past time to try something new’: The push to defund police

Israel has been similarly vague about foreign reports of a nuclear arsenal, a policy of ambiguity aimed at deterring its enemies. But following the weekend deal between the U.S. and Russia to eliminate Syria's chemical weapons by mid-2014, voices have emerged calling on the government to take similar steps.
"I do believe that the Israeli government should be open about this issue, should say what arsenal, if any, it does have and should strive for an international agreement to keep all these kinds of weapons outside of the Middle East," said opposition lawmaker Dov Khenin.
The liberal daily Haaretz wrote in an editorial Monday that the chemical disarmament of Syria gives Israel an opportunity to finally ratify the Chemical Weapons Convention.
"It would be a pity if in the future Israel finds itself in the position of Syria — forced to sign the convention under international pressure," the newspaper said.
Paul Hirschson, a spokesman for the Israeli Foreign Ministry, said Israel could not ratify the treaty in such an uncertain environment. "These things are regional and we're not going to go out there on our own," he said.
There seems to be a consensus among foreign experts that Israel has likely developed an arsenal of chemical and biological weapons over the years.
"Israel's lack of transparency has led to a continued suspicion that a chemical weapons program is in place, although we are unable to confirm this or provide any further details," Emily Chorley, a chemical weapons analyst at IHS Jane's, said in an email.
In a report this month, Foreign Policy magazine published what it said was a secret 1983 CIA document outlining evidence that Israel possessed a chemical weapons stockpile of unknown size, likely developed in the 1970s out of fear its neighbors were acquiring such weapons.
"Several indicators lead us to believe that they have available to them at least persistent and nonpersistent nerve agents, a mustard agent, and several riot-control agents, matched with suitable delivery systems," the document says.
The article's author, military historian Matthew M. Aid, said the nonpersistent agent was almost certainly sarin, the same chemical that the Syrian army is suspected of using in an Aug. 21 attack that allegedly killed more than 1,400 civilians and triggered the international response. It was unclear what the persistent nerve agent might be.
Chemicals are labeled persistent and nonpersistent depending on how long they last.
The document said Israel had possessed special testing equipment since the early 1970s and "possible tests were detected in January 1976." It also said a "probable CW nerve agent production facility and a storage facility" were identified in 1982 in the southern Israeli town of Dimona, home to Israel's secretive nuclear program. It said other weapons production capability was believed to exist in Israel's chemical industry.
If Israel does have an active chemical weapons program, it likely involves the Israel Institute for Biological Research, a secretive facility in the Tel Aviv suburb of Nes Ziona that is under the jurisdiction of the prime minister's office. The facility's website describes itself as a "governmental, applied research institute specializing in the fields of biology, medicinal chemistry and environmental sciences." Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's office declined comment.
Israel says it has never used chemical weapons on the battlefield, though in one famous incident, Israeli agents attempted to assassinate Hamas leader Khaled Mashaal by poisoning him in neighboring Jordan. The agents were captured, however, and Israel was forced to turn over the antidote.
Israel has also drawn war crimes accusations for its use of white phosphorous during an offensive in the Gaza Strip in early 2009. White phosphorous can be used legally as an illuminating agent, but is forbidden from use as a weapon. The substance can be dangerous if used in civilian areas because it can cause severe burns. Earlier this year, the Israeli military said it was halting its use of the material.
The use of chemical weapons is an emotional topic in Israel, where memories remain fresh of the Holocaust, when countless numbers of Jews were killed in Nazi gas chambers.
Since the outbreak of the civil war in neighboring Syria two and a half years ago, Israel has repeatedly warned of the dangers of Syria's chemical arsenal. Israeli leaders fear that Syrian nonconventional weapons could either be fired into Israel, or slip into the hands of Hezbollah and other hostile groups battling inside Syria.
Hirschson said attempts by Syria or any other country to link Israeli compliance with Syria's were disingenuous efforts to divert attention away from the real issue.
"I don't think Syria is in any position to tell anyone what to do," he said. "We have never threatened anybody with chemical weapons, never used them, and they have."

Jim

Subject: RE: BS: UK thread, Politics and political
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 26 Jun 20 - 01:59 PM

”The vast majority of Labour voters aren’t ‘Lefties’, they are ordinary people with decent, sensible, middle-of-the road views."
On what grounds do you make this claim - I don't remember a referendum being held on the issue. It depends on you are in this divided nation (divided by Thatcher)“

Well, Jim, I live in the UK, I have a wide circle of friends, many of whom are Labour voters. Some - a small number - are what I would describe as radical Lefties, most fall into the category I described, they have middle-of-the-road views very much akin to mine. It seems a pretty reasonable to assume that would more or less hold true in a wider setting. If you think I’m wrong, give us the evidence.

”What right have you to describe left-wingers as indecent”

I didn’t. You’ve just introduced that concept - very low and dishonest of you, Jim.

”I would describe those who stood behild Blair when he committed Britain to decades of war in the Middle East as thoroughly indecent”

So would I.

”The same goes for those who stood silent as the situation was arrived at where working people could no longer afford to send their children to higher education, or as the gap between haves and have-nots steadily widened, or homelessness grew....... and all the rotten things that have ahppened to Britain over the last few decades   
The old Labour party was part and parcel of making Britain the unequal, dog-eat-dog, oil greedy nation it has become - just by saying nothing as it happened“

Nothing I’d disagree with you about there Jim.

But what, pray, does any of that have to do with my suggestion that, by undermining the Leadership, ELECTED BY THE PARTY MEMBERS, the dissenters and underminers are risking destroying Labour’s chances of victory at the next GE? The Party should be big enough and adult enough to accommodate a range of views, and to reach agreement on its attitudes and policies by a process of discussion, negotiation, consensus, and compromise. And those who disagree with the final decision at the end of that process should be adult enough to accept it, and get behind the Leadership in order to rid the nation of the scourge of this corrupt Tory government.

You’re pulling your usual stunt of dragging out every red-herring you can think of in order to muddy the waters, and try to stifle the voice of one whose views don’t mirror yours.

It won’t wash, Jim. You’ve been rumbled.

Subject: RE: BS: UK thread, Politics and political
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 26 Jun 20 - 02:54 PM

"Well, Jim, I live in the UK, I have a wide circle of friends, many of whom are Labour voter"
So ?
You didn't say anything about a lot of friends - you actually said
"The vast majority of Labour voters aren’t ‘Lefties’, they are ordinary people with decent, sensible, middle-of-the road views."
Do you actually know this or did you make it up ?
You made the statement - you give us the evidence
"The vast majority of Labour voters aren’t ‘Lefties’, they are ordinary people with decent, sensible, middle-of-the road views."
Whick implies that "lefries aren't ordinary and don't have sensible views - otherwise, why make such a cliam
What is sensible about sitting on the fence whie your party supports a line fed by a criminal state - or all the other things I listed
Pretty 'insensible' to the suffering of those who elected them, in my opinion
"So would I."
So why was Blair noth thrown aout on his arse at the earliest opportunity-?
" the dissenters and underminers are risking destroying Labour’s chances of victory at the next GE? "
Which totaly ignores my point
What should anybody want to support a party who sacks his minister for telling the truth - do you claim that Britons wants to be governed by such a leader - or are you caiming Israel to be innocent of what she calamed they were doing - were they not traning American police forces to The vicious ?
The Minnesota Force is one of those has now admitted having backed away from the tactics because of the number of deaths

Why should Labour members gt behind a leadership who supports such behaviour - because they are the leaders - right or wrong - surely not?

The only rd herrings here are above - you have yet to respond to a single point - you have hidden behind "but they are the leaders" from the word go - whatever happened to principles and honesty ?

In essence, by sacking this principled lady, this nasty piece of work has accepted that The Labour Party is riddled with Jew-haters - he has played to the bumwipe press, The Friends of Israel and the Ethnic Clesnsing regime that has dragged the Labour Party's name into the slime
Not a bad days work for someone who hasn't been in office long
"Rumbled" - don't you wish !!
Jim

Subject: RE: BS: UK thread, Politics and political
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 26 Jun 20 - 03:48 PM

Here we go again.

I’ve made my point, several times, about disunity and disloyalty within the Labour Party. That’s my view. Now you rant on, be my guest, drag out your red-herrings, confuse issues, talk to people as though they’re idiots, playing Mr. Know-It-All, refusing to allow others an opinion - that’s your standard MO and I’ve got more wick in my lamp than to get dragged in to another of your interminable battles.

You certainly know how to piss people off. You’re talking to yourself from now on.

Subject: RE: BS: UK thread, Politics and political
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 26 Jun 20 - 04:12 PM

Well.. this just demonstrates in a nutshell how it will be extremely difficult
to regain the mass of working class Labour voters,
who abandoned the party in favour of the easily digestible rhetoric
of populist right wing ukip and tories...

The word "socialist" has now been successfully demonised forever beyond any positive use...

When these new working class conservative's relise they were hoodwinked by boris's tories,
they will probably be even more likely to turn to the easy solutions and scapegoats of the far right,
than the progressive policies of Labour...???

Subject: RE: BS: UK thread, Politics and political
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 26 Jun 20 - 05:51 PM

I don't think that most Labour voters are are "ordinary people with decent, sensible, middle-of-the road views".

I think that most people, however they vote, are "ordinary people with decent, sensible, middle-of-the road views."

It is not most people that cause trouble though. It is those that are intransigent in their views and unwilling to accept that other people's opinions matter too who create the rifts. As we see all too often on here.

As I keep saying. Compromise and cooperation is what is needed. When the oceans and the earth are worn out or when the air becomes unbeatable it will not matter who you vote for.

Subject: RE: BS: UK thread, Politics and political
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 26 Jun 20 - 06:04 PM

"The vast majority of Labour voters aren’t ‘Lefties’, they are ordinary people with decent, sensible, middle-of-the road views."
On what grounds do you make this claim

The Labour Party has around 580,000 registered members but received in excess of 10 million votes in the 2019 general election. The Party is split between those on the left and those who are more moderate but I would suggest that Party members, whatever their position, are more likely to be left leaning than those not in the party. If Labour is to win power, it will need to attract the floating voters who, last time, voted for Boris. As they have voted for the Tories at least once, they could not, by any stretch of the imagination, be described as 'Lefties'. I think that there are sufficient grounds to make the claim that the vast majority of Labour voters aren't 'Lefties'.

DC

Subject: RE: BS: UK thread, Politics and political
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 27 Jun 20 - 02:29 AM

Thanks Dave and Doug - couldn’t put it better myself.

Subject: RE: BS: UK thread, Politics and political
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 27 Jun 20 - 02:46 AM

Unbeatable should read unbreathable. The air is already unbeatable:-)

Subject: RE: BS: UK thread, Politics and political
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 27 Jun 20 - 03:04 AM

"I’ve made my point, several times, about disunity and disloyalty within the Labour Party. "
"My party right or wrong" is not a message I would wish to draw support for Labour on - the Labour Party had adopted wrong far to "right" (literally) policies for far too long - that peaked under Blair when he sold |Britain to George Dubya's oil wars adventures and began filling body bags with young British men and women
Is it a betrayal to suggest that should never have been suported and that all those left wingers who took to the streets were 'traitors to the cause'
The Party was wrong then, and the people who took Labour there - Blair's Babes and Babesses, are now scrambling to get into power - New Labour hasn't gone away - sacking ministers for telling the truth is holding the door open for them

Corbyn was inexperienced and he made mistakes, but you could see him growing into office as fast as the daisies in our garden - hi main strength from day one was that he had the strength of Labour principles behind him
If Labour is going to mean anything it has to put a huge gap between itself and its opponents - New Labour was indistinguishable from the Tories - if you voted them into office you would get the same policies in a different wrapping Corbyn offered a clean break, which was why so many flocked back in their thousands
Now Baccie's flavour-of-the-month is offering them a take it or leave it path back to the good old New Labour days

I notice nobody here has said that Labour has an antisemitism problem - Starmer has suggested that it has by sacking a principled minister for telling it as it is
That will drive out all those who came back and it will attract no new blood to replace them

Winning elections isn't enough; people have to be won back for an ideal - not promises of quick-fixes
The last election was a freak - it wasn't won on support for policies - it was won on 'Brexit fatigue' people wanted it to be over, one way or the other - that's not going to happen, of course
Corbyn's crowd offered a change - that is still a possibility and will remain so until his supporters throw in the towel and piss off

I cast my very first vote for a Prime Minister - Harold Wilson was our M.P.
I went on a massive lobby of Parliament one, organised by Y.S. and other groups (on rising youth unemployment, (particularly virulent on Merseyside)
As Wilson's most available constituent, I was invited into his office as a representative of the Merseyside group; it turned out to be my first experience of a slick, 'career politician' who spoke quickly and said nothing - polito-speak
When I was interview later by a leftie reporter I was totally unable to give one positive, straightforward statement Wilson had made - just empty 'shit-and-shine'
Politics have that down to a fine art nowadays - that's what has to change
Sacking people for telling the truth ain't gonna do that
Jim

Subject: RE: BS: UK thread, Politics and political
From: DMcG
Date: 27 Jun 20 - 03:19 AM

I am with Backwoodsman, Doug and DtG on this row. I kept thinking of that little rhyme:

Here lies the body of old John Gray
Who died maintaining his right of way.
He was right - dead right - as he walked along
But he's just as dead as if he'd been wrong.

Unless Labour can get elected, it is almost powerless, though I would say Starmer is making a good fist of the limited power that comes with opposition. He is not alone: the SNP are also having some success in challenging Johnson in PMQ. But in the end, it is always the government that holds the power. And, for Labour, as the review and cliche has it, there is a mountain to climb.   Having the largest membership of any party in Europe is of little value if no-one except party members vote for you. By all accounts, this was how Cummings got the Brexit vote he wanted: do not concentrate on those who will always vote for or always against you: all your attention needs to be on the undecided. It is a hard truth that Labour could in a sense afford to lose virtually all its members: it is far less than the number of votes they lost by. 'According to the 2011 census, 263,346 people answered "Jewish" to the voluntary question on religion, compared with 259,927 in the previous count of 2001. However, this final figure is considered an undercount' (Wikipedia). So it is around 50% of the party membership. Finding a way to make peace - or at least an accommodation - is important. And, as I said, I know traditional Labour voters who didn't because of the anti-Semitism row, so this argument has a 'voting power equivalent' of the same scale as the entire membership.

Climbing the mountain starts now, not just before the next election.

Now it is also true, as Jim was arguing, that there is no point getting Labour elected if it has jettisoned all its principles to do so. But I don't believe that would happen. In any case, when I come to cast my vote, I decide whether they have so weakened their principles that I vote elsewhere, or that they retain enough that they still get my vote. In the meantime, I think they are right to concentrate on what it will take to climb the mountain.

Subject: RE: BS: UK thread, Politics and political
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 27 Jun 20 - 03:59 AM

"Unless Labour can get elected, it is almost powerless, "
Repeating this without addressing the fact that unless Labour is elected to bring about a change is becoming a bit of a meaningless mantra folks
People need to stop being asked to vote for a party and be asked to vote for genuine policies
Labour has no right to demand party loyalty any more - it has betrayed that loyalty over and over and over again - Wilson, Kinnock, Callahan, Blair, Brown - all Tories in everything but name
Why should people be asked to continue to do that ?
LABOUR HAS BEEN IN POWER - EACH TIME THEY HAVE SOLD OUT
This time, this feller has dropped out of honest politics before he started, which has scuppered your 'mountain climbing promises'

A simple question Mac - Baccie won't answer -you try
What sign has Starer given that he is any different than anything that has gone before, and where does his "sacking for telling the truth" strategy fit into this ?
Your time starts ........ now!
Jim

Subject: RE: BS: UK thread, Politics and political
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 27 Jun 20 - 04:07 AM

Can I just add
When this crisis is finally over, Britain, along with the rest of the world, will have been left to clean up the mess
Those in charge are going to demand we (the ordinary voters) are going to have to tighten our belts, bite the bullet, take on the burden.... whatever phrase they choose for making sacrifices and accepting what is thrown at us)
Brexit ("the People's Decision") will be their trump card, even though it is not going to happen for years
Their aim will be to return things back to the way they were   
Starmer has already offered Labour's full co-operation
Is that really what Britain needs ?
JIm

Subject: RE: BS: UK thread, Politics and political
From: DMcG
Date: 27 Jun 20 - 04:21 AM

I have a lot of criticisms of New Labour even if we leave out the obvious Iraq War matters. But given a choice of New Labour or the Conservatives I would go new Labour, because of things like the introduction of the minimum wage and Sure Start.

Subject: RE: BS: UK thread, Politics and political
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 Jun 20 - 04:34 AM

"The Party is split between those on the left and those who are more moderate..."

There's so much wrong with this statement that I don't know where to begin.

Subject: RE: BS: UK thread, Politics and political
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 27 Jun 20 - 04:38 AM

“It is not most people that cause trouble though. It is those that are intransigent in their views and unwilling to accept that other people's opinions matter too who create the rifts. As we see all too often on here.“

And there is everything right in this statement, on every level.

Subject: RE: BS: UK thread, Politics and political
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 27 Jun 20 - 04:41 AM

Why shouuld eiher be a choice Mac, expectantly when they are two sides of the same coin ?
The aim of both was'is to preserve the status quo
Surely there is no better time to demand a new broom - both for the Labour Party and for the country
Even the few principled politiciians there are have admitted that Parliament is little more than an exclusive Gentlemans' Club
Jim

Subject: RE: BS: UK thread, Politics and political
From: DMcG
Date: 27 Jun 20 - 04:58 AM

Why shouuld eiher be a choice Mac

I can only select between the choices on offer. There may be twenty things I would like a party to do, but if a certain party will do one, and the other none, I will vote to get the one.

What I want is to get as many of the "twenty positions" into power as possible. In the ideal world, yes, I'd love all twenty to be elected.   But if I can only get 10, 5 or even 1 into power, I would rather that than insist on all 20 if it means I don't get any.

That we differ on this is not a problem, and I am not going to argue about it. We must each take the consequences of our stance.

Subject: RE: BS: UK thread, Politics and political
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 27 Jun 20 - 05:24 AM

"The Party is split between those on the left and those who are more moderate..."

There's so much wrong with this statement that I don't know where to begin.


OK Steve, let's change that to "The Party includes those on the left and those who are more moderate..."

If you still find that contentious, let's delete the statement altogether. My argument still stands.

DC

Subject: RE: BS: UK thread, Politics and political
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 27 Jun 20 - 05:35 AM

"I can only select between the choices on offer. "
Yeah - you can get Heinz soup or Campbell's soup - fine, if you want soup]
Voting for Parties hasn't worked - it's about time people were given the opportunity of voting for policies - for genuine change..... anything but the same old, same old merry-go-round

"The Party includes those on the left and those who are more moderate..."
Same old rightist crop Doug
What it "immoderate" about left wing policies ?
As I have always understood them, they have always been about fairness and equality of opportunity, (work, education health, housing... etc), anti racism and a voice in the workplace
Take you pick - which of these is "immoderate"?
Jim

Subject: RE: BS: UK thread, Politics and political
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 27 Jun 20 - 05:42 AM

Jim,

If you still find that contentious, let's delete the statement altogether

DC

Subject: RE: BS: UK thread, Politics and political
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 Jun 20 - 05:51 AM

Well, let's take that well-known "moderate," Keir Starmer. This "moderate" has made an unprincipled and opportunistic decision to sack a left-wing member of his cabinet on false pretences. His decision appears to have gone down rather well with plenty of other "moderates," including some in this thread. If being a "moderate" permits you to do things in that way, then I'm proud to count myself as not among those "moderate" ranks. Oh, and that other Labour "moderate," Tony Blair, another chap who had no time for the left in his party, dragged this country into a war on a lie, causing death and misery to hundreds of thousands of people. And there are plenty of "moderates" who are way to frightened to lift a finger against Benjamin Netanyahu's vicious regime. I bet those Palestians just love all these western "moderates." If "moderate" means ditching your principles in order to "become electable," then things have really come to a pretty pass, haven't they? And I'll remind you also that many organisations that fight for justice, equality and human rights on this planet are replete with "non-moderate" lefties...

Subject: RE: BS: UK thread, Politics and political
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 Jun 20 - 05:53 AM

Don't mess with my two to too...

Subject: RE: BS: UK thread, Politics and political
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 27 Jun 20 - 06:09 AM

"If you still find that contentious, let's delete the statement altogether"
Thanks Doug
Te problem is it's become to regular
Immoderacy is a feature of all politics (and religion, for that matter)
The left can be immoderate - the right gave us Thatchers army against the miners, Tommy Robinson's scumbags attacking the police and the two bobbies who jammed Blair peach's head against the corner of a wall and killed him
When it comes to political policies, I see nothing moderate about turnng families out of their homes when they are unable to pay rents, or using Xenophobia to win elections
You judge Parties by their overall objectives, not when their exponents overstep the merk
Jim

Subject: RE: BS: UK thread, Politics and political
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 27 Jun 20 - 06:09 AM

So you approve of disunity and disloyalty then, Steve? Like Sunny Jim, you’d rather have this disgusting Tory government than unite behind the Labour leader (who, I would remind you once again was democratically elected by a majority of party members) in order to fight and win at the next GE, whenever that may be.

It’s unfortunate that RL-B got the bullet but, knowing full well that the Tory propaganda-machine weaponised ‘Labour anti-semitism’ so successfully during the 2019 GE Campaign, and will use it again given the opportunity, she should have perhaps thought a bit more carefully before tweeting something that any fule no would be seized upon by the Party’s enemies whether it be true or not, spun, and used as yet more anti-Labour propaganda.

What a very strange state of affairs, where those who claim, loud and proud, to be ‘the best kind’ of Socialists have so little interest in their Party becoming electable, and would rather put one MP’s personal fortunes ahead of election success.

Subject: RE: BS: UK thread, Politics and political
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 27 Jun 20 - 07:08 AM

" Sunny Jim"
Tsk, tsk, still my Party right or right,
Snideswipes are no substitute for rational arguments
No Party that tolerates a leader who sacks collegues for telling the truth is worth electing
For cry out loud, how often has Johnson been slated for dishonesty - now we have Labour supporters demanding that we vote for the same kind of dishonesty - what kind of double--standards are they ?
A party must earn loyalty - it's not like money which can be inherited by the most worthless benefactor
Labour can no longer claim to be a socialist party - there lies the main problem
Jim

Subject: RE: BS: UK thread, Politics and political
From: peteglasgow
Date: 27 Jun 20 - 07:30 AM

i wouldn't doubt anyone's desire to get rid of the tories. i don't think any of us would rather we didn't live within a different political system and atmosphere. it's depressing enough to read about the old anti-semitism shite yet again but even more depressing to read folk with good intent returning to the endless squabbling about purity/pragmatism. the same old self-indulgent splitting that has led us to where we are now. i've done my share of stomping off in a huff but never really deviated from my peace, green, socialism etc opinions.....(shoot me now) i like reading alistair campbell in the new european - you can't really argue with him -we have to win an election or 2.

Subject: RE: BS: UK thread, Politics and political
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 Jun 20 - 07:41 AM

Until now the party has shown good unity under Starmer. If you want to foment disunity you can do it in the disreputable and opportunistic manner that Starmer has just displayed. Not an especially healing move, was it? And there is a bottom line here: Maxine Peake's remark may have been inaccurate but the broader picture of Israel indulging in the training she spoke of is true. That was a criticism of Israeli government policy. Therefore it was in no way antisemitic, not even remotely. Starmer wanted Becky out and he used this false pretext to do it. Perhaps you'd also approve of him selling his own kids in order "to make himself electable..."

Subject: RE: BS: UK thread, Politics and political
From: DMcG
Date: 27 Jun 20 - 07:47 AM

Perhaps you'd also approve of him selling his own kids in order "to make himself electable..."

Now why did that instantly bring an image to my mind of Michael Gove giving a beefburger to his child at the height of the CJD crisis?

Subject: RE: BS: UK thread, Politics and political
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 Jun 20 - 07:54 AM

Wasn't that the little bespectacled Tory squirt who Steve Bell depicted as a pimple on Thatcher's nose? Ah yes...Gummer...

Subject: RE: BS: UK thread, Politics and political
From: DMcG
Date: 27 Jun 20 - 07:58 AM

Yes, Gummer, I think.   I didn't want to examine the mental image too closely! :)

Subject: RE: BS: UK thread, Politics and political
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 27 Jun 20 - 08:15 AM

Steve, you have absolutely no more idea of what has gone on within the dark recesses of Party HQ any more than I do, and I have none. It’s possible that she was behaving naively when she re-tweeted Maxine Peake’s tweet, it’s equally perfectly possible that she deliberately set this whole situation up to embarrass Starmer. You don’t know, just as I don’t know, what were the exchanges between Rebecca Long-Bailey and Keir Starmer that preceded her dismissal but, unlike the Corbynistas, I’m prepared to accept that Starmer is the boss, and it’s his call.

What I do know, and what you, as an intelligent person, should know, is that Rebecca Long-Bailey, in full knowledge of the devastation the ‘Labour antisemitism’ Tory-led propaganda wrought on the Party in the lead-up to, and during, the 2019 General Election, chose to re-tweet a reference to Israel that would provide ammunition for the Tories, and was almost guaranteed to incite yet another round of ‘Look over there - Labour anti-semitism!’ propaganda. Whether what she posted was anti-Semitic or not, it’s an inescapable fact that it provided the Right with a stick to beat the Party with. It was either a lack of judgment on her part or, as a Corbynista, it was a deliberate act intended to undermine the current Leadership. Either way, it required action.

Subject: RE: BS: UK thread, Politics and political
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 27 Jun 20 - 08:26 AM

"Until now the party has shown good unity under Starmer. "
The deputy leader of the Labour Party (Long's flatmate) is one of those opposing her sacking - the Labour Party is divided at the top

"Rebecca Long-Bailey, in full knowledge of the devastation the ‘Labour antisemitism’"
Are you suggestion that the Labour Party has a problem with antisemitism, if not, are the accusations not worth opposing because "the Tories might use them"
Where does that leave nationalisation, or equality of opportunity, or homes for all, or a right to health for all..... and all the other policies the Tories are likely to use ?
Maybe we abandon those and just accept policies the Tories won't use ?
The first of those points is the most immediate but all the rest logically follow
Jim

Subject: RE: BS: UK thread, Politics and political
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 27 Jun 20 - 08:50 AM

Jim, if you’re going to quote me, please give the complete quote - don’t just select a small part which you can pretend means something it doesn’t. The full quote is...

”What I do know, and what you, as an intelligent person, should know, is that Rebecca Long-Bailey, in full knowledge of the devastation the ‘Labour antisemitism’ Tory-led propaganda wrought on the Party in the lead-up to, and during, the 2019 General Election, chose to re-tweet a reference to Israel that would provide ammunition for the Tories, and was almost guaranteed to incite yet another round of ‘Look over there - Labour anti-semitism!’ propaganda“

My use of the term ‘propaganda’ makes my meaning perfectly clear. You’ve chosen to take a few words from it and, in the most deceitful way possible, put your own interpretation on it to mean something that was neither intended, nor exists in fact.

Do please read posts in full, and think a bit, before you start up with your rabid pit-bull routine.

Subject: RE: BS: UK thread, Politics and political
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 Jun 20 - 09:11 AM

So, John, we'd all better completely shut up about the murky dealings between the Israeli secret service with US police forces, not to speak of the horrors that the Israeli regime has visited on the Palestinian minority, lest we get tarred with the antisemitism brush. Game, set and match, then, to the Board Of Deputies and the other pro-Israel lobby groups, including all those "friends of Israel" party cabals. Except that they'll be back for more, of course. Even the disreputable John Mann and Margaret Hodge have crawled out the woodwork. Don't mention the occupation...don't mention ethnic cleansing in the Negev...don't mention the illegal settlements on all the best land with the best water...don't mention Gaza...don't mention IDF snipers murdering children on the border...mustn't get called antisemitic and make ourselves "less electable..." First things first, eh?

Subject: RE: BS: UK thread, Politics and political
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 27 Jun 20 - 09:27 AM

Oh dear Steve, not you too, pretending I said things that I didn’t?

In the LP’s present situation, it can’t do anything about anything - it was defeated at the 2019 GE by a landslide and is impotent to defeat the worst Tory government in living memory on any issue. I’m astonished you need to be reminded of that fact.

Of course things should be discussed, but in the right way and in the right place. For an MP to shoot their mouth off on social media about a subject that, amongst others, caused Labour to suffer one of its worst defeats ever, and bring down its leader, is either naively irresponsible or deliberately destructive.

Social media is not the right place. Parliament is.

And please, Steve, don’t resort to Jim’s low tactics of pretending I said something I didn’t. I really did expect better of you, for sure.

Subject: RE: BS: UK thread, Politics and political
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 Jun 20 - 09:48 AM

Well I have nothing to do with any social media, but, let's face it, twitter is a prime platform for politics now whether we like it or not.

"For an MP to shoot their mouth off on social media about a subject that, amongst others, caused Labour to suffer one of its worst defeats ever..."

The subject you presumably refer to is antisemitism. One more time. Neither Maxine Peake's remarks nor Rebecca's response contained any antisemitism. You can opine about their judgement (as long as we don't mention Gendrick or Cummings...), but that much is crystal clear. You seem to be arguing for the gagging of any discussion of an horrendous Israeli regime. Well, unless you can tell me what you think is the right way and the right place. As this is a party issue, not Parliament, eh? What price robust and honest politics if we can't mention Israel, without looking over our shoulders?

Subject: RE: BS: UK thread, Politics and political
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 27 Jun 20 - 10:17 AM

When will you and your mate Jim start to actually read and understand what I write, instead of putting Your own highly-spun interpretation on it? Comment on the facts of what I say, not what you try to pretend I say. You really should be better than that, Steve.

Please show me where I have said that Long-Bailey’s and Peake’s tweets were anti-Semitic. Here’s a clue - I haven’t. I haven’t passed any judgment, I have only referred to claims and judgments by others that they’re anti-Semitic.

I’m not arguing for the ‘Gagging of any discussion of a horrendous Israeli regime’, that, once again is your spun, distorted interpretation of what I’m saying, which I answered in my last post, paragraph 3.

I’ll say it again - I want this foul Tory government kicked out and replaced by a Labour government. I want that for the good of the people of the United Kingdom, people who have suffered and whose lives have been impoverished by ten years of Tory mis-rule. But, if Labour is to take power, it has once and for all to rid itself of undeserved labels - and it won’t do that by providing ammunition for the Right-Wing Propaganda Machine. You saw how shit sticks during the last election - and it will stick again unless Labour tread very carefully.

Now, if anyone wants to discuss what I’ve actually said! feel free. But if you think I’m going to waste my Sunday afternoon, or any other time, arguing with deceitful people who twist my words, or pretend I said something I didn’t say, fuggeddit.

Get honest, and stop the deceitful horse-shit.

Subject: RE: BS: UK thread, Politics and political
From: peteglasgow
Date: 27 Jun 20 - 10:58 AM

there is an opinion i've often heard - usually from ukip/right wing types - or folk with just a passing interest in politics who like to think they are too smart to be persuaded by any politician - 'all just in it for themselves' and 'those politicians are all the same' it's just lazy and media driven nonsense. if anyone can't see the difference between decent politicians and the current government then they are eejits or worse. when folk on the left descend to the same level, condemning them all as shameless tories they are just doing the establishment job for them . part of the problem or part of the solution?
[ also hear a lot about what is going on in the labour party but i don't know how much contributors to the discussion have a real and current knowledge of that issue. it should go without saying that you shouldn't believe all you read in the papers. i rejoined when corbyn got the job and back the manifesto of the election before last. as did everyone in our branch, including our MP sue hayman - who worked hard for JC though she had proposed owen smith. i disagreed with her on stuff though was happy to work for her as a good woman and a hard-working mp. it's tragic that we now have a clueless lout elected in her place.

we can choose between self-indulgence and solidarity . in the end if we can't take down this government it really does not matter how we interpret the current spat. there have been so many similar stories in the past- so many splits -we need to grow up and start behaving like a party ready to govern

Subject: RE: BS: UK thread, Politics and political
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 27 Jun 20 - 11:19 AM

" Here’s a clue - I haven’t."
Put it another way then since you dodged the question
What reason do you have to believe she is ?
She has been sacked from her job for this specifically - if there is no evidence that she isn't that sacking was unfair

Not "me and my mate" as you dishonest;y claim - this sacking has led to a split in the Labour party - it includes the deputy lead
Matybe you meannt "meand mu mate, the deputy leader and all the other members now up in arms over the sacking ?

I read exactly what you wrote and am still waiting for an answer to my question
Your somewhat ---- can't think of a word - non-answer to my antisemitism question leads me to think you might be siding with those who claim Labour does have an antisemitism problem

There is nothing "self-indulgent" anout expecting honesty from a Party Leader - we've already got a dishonest prime minister, why try to replace him with another ?
I answered your original quote in full, by the way - I repeat - why the hell should any party abandon its principles over something might use something might use?
Jim

Subject: RE: BS: UK thread, Politics and political
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 27 Jun 20 - 11:26 AM

If it's ok with the good socialists,

I'd reluctantly rather take a Starmer Labour Government shit sandwich,

than a never ending tory diet of nothing else on the plate but shit...

Subject: RE: BS: UK thread, Politics and political
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 27 Jun 20 - 11:40 AM

If that's the only alternative PFR - why vote ?
Maybe the Anarchists were right - it only encourages them
I belive that if Starmer is allowed to get away with the way he has behaved all the new members that Cornyn brought back in will walk away
Maybe Blair's Babes are happy with that - back to a Government of self-serving parliamentarians fighting for the status quo
Jim

Subject: RE: BS: UK thread, Politics and political
From: peteglasgow
Date: 27 Jun 20 - 11:51 AM

i don't know many folk who are willing to walk away. as i say, i've done it in the past but won't again - not till we have the luxury of choosing an alternative to a beaten tory party. ideologically i am better suited to the greens but i want to try to make a difference. the current argument does not matter in the long run, we have been here many times before

Subject: RE: BS: UK thread, Politics and political
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 27 Jun 20 - 11:57 AM

Jim - please don't start on the "don't bother to vote" bollox..

We are mature life experienced adults, not adolescent students...

I hold you in high esteem for your political analysis, research skills, and amazing memory for relevant info..

I welcome and value your political commentary, as if you are a real life mentor for me..

But you do tend to go a bit too extreme and unrealistic
in your conclusions and manifesto...

It should be a simple enough obvious goal - get the tories out...

.. and keep 'em out..

Without any of us lefties kicking an unforgivable home goal,
by enabling the far right to replace the tories in Govt...

Subject: RE: BS: UK thread, Politics and political
From: peteglasgow
Date: 27 Jun 20 - 11:58 AM

we should also remember that good mps like clive lewis and chris williamson have also lost their jobs through this long-running argument. labour continually lose out to these smear tactics and must find a smarter way to fight back.

Subject: RE: BS: UK thread, Politics and political
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 27 Jun 20 - 12:15 PM

"Jim - please don't start on the "don't bother to vote" bollox.."
It was rhetorical - I don't believe it to be necessary anyway
Keeping the Tories out is a negative aim - to be honest, the alternatives aare just as bad, if not worse, as things stannd - Ukik is still simmering in the background, The English Defence Leage only has to respectabalise as the B.N.P. tried to, and they could take a lump o the Populist vote
WE has all this a few years ago in Ireland when a nutty returned Yank, Peter Casey, shouted "Travellers" and came second in the Presidential race
These are dangerous times
Jim