Brexit deal nigh or nyet?

From: milko22 Feb 2019 10:47
To: milko 58 of 200
https://www.facebook.com/aboyle11/posts/10158277882684358
 
Quote: 

1. In October 1936, Jeremy Corbyn’s mother participated in the battle of Cable Street indefence of British Jews after British fascists had staged an assault on the area. Corbyn was raised in a household passionately opposed to antisemitism in all its forms.

2. In 23rd April 1977, Corbyn organised a counter-demonstrationto protect Wood Green from a neo-nazi march through the district. The area had a significant Jewish population.

3. On 7 November 1990, Corbyn signed a motion condemning the rise of antisemitism in the UK

4. In 2002 Jeremy Corbyn led a clean-up and vigil at Finsbury Park Synagogue which had been vandalised in an anti-Semitic attack

5. On 30 April 2002, Corbyn tabled a motion in the House of Commons condemning ananti-Semitic attackon a London Synagogue

6. On 26 November 2003, Jeremy Corbyn signed a Parliamentary motion condemningterrorist attacks on two synagogues

7. In February 2009, Jeremy Corbyn signed a parliamentary motion condemning a fascist for establishing a website to host antisemitic materials

8. On 24th March 2009, Corbyn signed a Parliamentary motion praising British Jews who resisted the Holocaust by risking their lives to save potential victims

9. Nine years ago, Corbyn signed a Parliamentary motion praising “Jewish News”for its pioneering investigation into the spread ofAntisemitism on Facebook

10. On 9 February 2010, Corbyn signed a Parliamentary motion calling for an investigation into Facebook and its failure to prevent the spread of antisemitic materials on its site.

11. On 27 October 2010, Corbyn signed a Parliamentary motion praising the late Israeli Prime Minister for pursuing a two state solution to the Israel/Palestine question.

12. On 13 June 2012, Corbyn sponsored and signed a motion condemning the BBC for cutting a Jewish Community television programme from its schedule.

13. 1 October 2013, Corbyn appeared on the BBC to defend Ralph Miliband against vile antisemitic attacks by the UK press.

14. Five years ago Corbyn signed a Parliamentary motion condemning antisemitism in sport.

15. On 1 March 2013, Corbyn signed a Parliamentary motion condemning and expressing concern at growing levels of antisemitism in European football.

16. On 9 January 2014, Jeremy Corbyn signed a Parliamentary motion praising Holocaust education programmes that had taken 20,000 British students to Auschwitz.

17. On 22 June 2015, Corbyn signed a Parliamentary motion expressing concern at the neo-nazi march being planned for an area of London with a significant Jewish population.

18. On 9 October 2016, Corbyn, close to tears, commemorated the 1936 Battle of Cable Street and recalled the role his mother played in defending London’s Jewish community.

19. On 3 December 2016, Corbyn made a visit to Terezin Concentration Camp when Jewish people were murdered by the Nazis. It was Jeremy’s third visit to such a camp, all of which were largely unreported in the most read UK papers.

20. Last year, a widely-endorsed 2018 academic report found ninety-five serious reporting failures in the reporting of the LabourAntisemitism story with the worst offenders The Sun, the Mail & the BBC.

21. On 28 February 2016, five months after becoming leader, Jeremy Corbyn appointed Baroness Royall to investigate antisemitism at Oxford University Labour Club.

22. On 27 April 2016 Corbyn suspended an MP pending an investigation into antisemitism.

23. A day later, Corbyn suspended the three times Mayor of London after complaints of antisemitic comments. Party.

24. On 29 April 2016, Corbyn launched an inquiry into the prevalence of antisemitism in the Labour Party. In spite of later changes in how the inquiry was reported, it was initially praised by Jewish community organisations.

25. In Corbyn’s first seven months as leader of the Labour Party, just ten complaints were received about antisemitism. 90% of those were suspended from the Labour Party within 24 hours.

26. In September 2017, Corbyn backed a motion at Labour’s annual conference introducing a new set of rules regarding antisemitism.

27. In the six months that followed the introduction of the new code of conduct, to March 2018, 94% of the fifty-four people accused of antisemitism remained suspended or barred from Labour Party membership. Three of the fifty-four were exonerated.

28. When Jennie Formby became general secretary of the party last year, she appointed a highly-qualified in-house Counsel, as recommended in the Chakrabarti Report.

29. In 2018, Labour almost doubled the size of its staff team handling investigations and dispute processes.

30. Last year, to speed up the handling of antisemitism cases, smaller panels of 3-5 NEC members were established to enable cases to be heard more quickly.

31. Since 2018, every complaint made about antisemitism is allocated its own independent specialist barrister to ensure due process is followed.

32. The entire backlog of cases outstanding upon Jennie Formby becoming General Secretary of the Labour Party was cleared within 6 months of Jennie taking up her post.

33. Since September 2018, Labour has doubled the size of its National Constitutional Committee (NCC) – its senior disciplinary panel – from 11 to 25 members to enable it to process cases more quickly.

34. Under Formby and Labour’s left-run NEC, NCC arranged elections at short notice to ensure the NCC reached its new full capacity without delay.

35. Since later 2018, the NCC routinely convenes a greater number of hearing panels to allow cases to be heard and finalised without delay.

36. In 2018, the NEC established a ‘Procedures Working Group’ to lead reforms in the way disciplinary cases are handled.

37. The NEC adopted the IHRA working definition of antisemitism and al

…[Message Truncated] View full message.
From: william (WILLIAMA)22 Feb 2019 19:28
To: ANT_THOMAS 59 of 200
What Milko said.

Journalists such as Tom Bower and Stephen Pollard are virulently right wing and prepared to use their ethnicity to attack Corbyn and anybody else they oppose, Jewish or otherwise. Corbyn's Jewish supporters such as the author Michael Rosen or journalist Michael Segalov are routinely abused and insulted because they don't fall into line. Rosen is somebody who has been told that he is not a 'proper' Jew and Segalov was told on national television that he was a 'self-hating Jew' by Tom Bower. 

It doesn't help that many Labour supporters, fellow travellers and trolls sometimes appear to be incapable of thinking before speaking and keeping their mouths shut. It follows that anything sensible they say goes unreported whereas anything stupid or ill considered is covered by all media outlets alongside a routinely unchallenged right wing commentary. The clown George Galloway is attempting to rejoin the Labour party and interviewed by Sky News he was asked about antisemitism. Not only did he dismiss the whole issue as 'black ops', he went on to describe it as 'Goebellian', a choice of words so head-smackingly stupid that it almost defies belief. 

Yes, the Labour party does have a problem. There are antisemites and there are stupid people by the fistful. It is not and never will be remotely on the same scale as the anti-semitism and racism of all sorts within the Tory party and their supporters even though the Labour party is nearly five times larger. A huge amount has been done to address the problem. This will never be properly reported. On a pragmatic level, the problem is the press which is almost wholly happy to support and amplify the accusations. On a moral level it is a problem that it exists and Labour should never stop addressing it.
EDITED: 22 Feb 2019 19:33 by WILLIAMA
From: Peter (BOUGHTONP)23 Feb 2019 00:31
To: ANT_THOMAS 60 of 200
My stance remains the same until the evidence changes.

I try not to waste my life with the news, so I just did this search: https://duckduckgo.com/?q=labour+r%3Auk&iar=news

The first seemingly relevant article was this one: https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/jeremy-corbyn-denies-wide-scale-bullying-in-the-labour-party-a4074506.html

It mentions Ian Austin posted a full statement on his website, so I find that here: http://www.ianaustin.co.uk/i_have_taken_the_difficult_decision_to_leave_the_labour_party

There's a lot of rhetoric, so if I'm missing anything substantial you'll have to point it out me, but this seems to be the crux of Ian's statement:

"Jeremy Corbyn and the people around him have turned a mainstream party into something very different. He has spent his entire political career working with and supporting all sorts of extremists, and in some cases terrorists and antisemites. I always thought he was unfit to lead the Labour Party and I certainly think he is unfit to lead our country."

Um, yeah. :/

The quote Milko posted is also a lot of waffle, but it does have actual statistics. It suggests Jeremy Corbyn's Labour have dealt with anti-semitism from 2 MPs and 60 party members. Can you show proof of ignored complaints or unhandled issues? How many complaints have the Conservatives received and what was their outcome? What about the Lib Dems?

EDITED: 23 Feb 2019 00:31 by BOUGHTONP
From: milko23 Feb 2019 12:58
To: william (WILLIAMA) 61 of 200
yeah, these opportunistic MPs like Austin and Umunna are happy to use spurious antisemitism accusations to attack the leadership, largely (entirely, even?) to further their agenda of turning the party back to the right. I mean, that's the party they joined under Blair et al, they have the right to try and change it but this is a really bad way to go about it and diminishes actual genuine efforts to combat antisemitism. And of course, the press and many people in power are desperate to avoid Corbyn becoming PM so they gleefully amplify it. Horrible situation.
From: CHYRON (DSMITHHFX)12 Mar 2019 16:10
To: ALL62 of 200
Looking like May and her deal's geese are cooked...
From: Manthorp12 Mar 2019 16:42
To: CHYRON (DSMITHHFX) 63 of 200
It looks that way, though the numbers are still fluid and the ERG have yet to come to a collective decision.  Brextremists will be weighing up a half-assed (in their terms) Brexit against the possibility of a softer Brexit yet, or even no Brexit at all, if it's voted down and there's a successful vote for an extension.

If she's voted down this evening, she's toast.  Any normal person would resign if that happened but she adamantly believes in a responsibility to public service (it's a vicar's child thing. I speak from a position of knowledge). She also believes, erroneously, that she's the best person for the job.  So she will have to pushed. The Ides of March are approaching.
From: william (WILLIAMA)12 Mar 2019 18:36
To: Manthorp 64 of 200
Quote: 
she adamantly believes in a responsibility to public service
I can't help thinking that this is an exceptionally generous assessment. I'd offer a psychological explanation myself: she's dangerously controlling and stubborn. People who believe in a responsibility to public service tend not to make commitments and then renege on them as readily as she does. Looking at her history, acting on her nasty little prejudices as Home Secretary and then terrified of her party's right wing over Brexit, to me she looks more like  the School Bully's best mate rather than an archetypal Vicar's kid.
From: Peter (BOUGHTONP)13 Mar 2019 00:07
To: Manthorp 65 of 200
> If she's voted down this evening, she's toast.

By 149 votes (38:62). Time to heat the beans then?

From: Manthorp13 Mar 2019 09:37
To: william (WILLIAMA) 66 of 200
I agree, but I don't think that the two explanations are mutually exclusive. Dedication to public* service has an strong element of arrogance about it: it often involves the assumption that one's values & aspirations and those of the constituency one serves are closely aligned. And, of course, one's values and aspirations are often informed, consciously or not, by one's own self-interest and prejudices.

It's not uncommon (and often not wrong) for those dedicated to service to give the public what they think is good for them, rather than what they want.

*I mistyped 'pubic', then shuddered at my error.
From: Manthorp13 Mar 2019 09:39
To: Peter (BOUGHTONP) 67 of 200
We can only hope.

Of course, there's a certain element of 'be careful what you wish for' about what happens if she goes. Who, out of this current government of all the talentless, would be a better alternative?  The only one I can think of - who also has a snowball's chance of being voted in by the Tories - is Amber Rudd: and I say that only as I would, deciding which animal's shit would be better in my sandwich.
From: william (WILLIAMA)13 Mar 2019 12:22
To: Manthorp 68 of 200
Absolutely. That's a big problem with the current Tory crop. I do try to think outside my lefty bubble and look for positives in some of them. Clearly, I am never going to have any sympathy for Rees-Mogg, Johnson, Chope, Cleverly, Fox, Leadsom etc. but I see Amber Rudd saying a few honest things about Universal Credit and I remind myself that she has been strong enough to take the bullet for May in the Home Office, and earlier in the election debate. Then I start to wonder about her role as Home Secretary and just how clean her hands really are. Political memories are short, but it really is only a year ago that Amber Rudd was facing criticism for her failure to tackle knife crime and her efforts to justify savage cuts to the police force. She may not have the obvious vanity and gross personal ambition of Sajid Javid, but her failures add up to complicity. 

With her off my list, I can't think of one who is fit to be PM, or even one who actually shows any interest at all in public service rather than personal enrichment and acting out dirty little urges and prejudices.

(edited shocking grammar)
EDITED: 13 Mar 2019 15:00 by WILLIAMA
From: milko13 Mar 2019 19:16
To: william (WILLIAMA) 69 of 200
ultimately, any tory is gonna hang their hat on the austerity peg, so I find it impossible to see any of them other than disastrous. Even the ones who centrist types see some hope in (like TINGE types such as "Soubz") have a voting record that reveals their actual deeds do not even nearly match their lip-service to humane policy.
EDITED: 13 Mar 2019 19:17 by MILKO
From: william (WILLIAMA)13 Mar 2019 19:51
To: milko 70 of 200
I'm sad to say I agree. I did say that political memories are short and I suppose there's also the rosy tint of passing time, but much as I loathed Thatcher and most of her ilk, and her successors, at least I could see that some of them (though obviously not many) were doing what they did because they believed it was for the public good. With the Tory party since the turn of the century, I see a resurgence of entitlement, a profound hatred of the idea of public provision and a horrible willingness to flirt with extreme right-wing populism. The predominant economic model of government is not to sustain the nation in any way but to normalise the process of driving wealth up to the rich and risk down to the poor. Banks and "Captains" of finance are no longer risk-takers; they will be bailed out if things go wrong.
From: milko13 Mar 2019 20:59
To: william (WILLIAMA) 71 of 200
too true. My fear is that the current press are only too happy to misreport all this, and the public seem quite content to read it and accept lies at face value even when they contradict what the politician said earlier, later, was happening right next to them during the interview, pretty much anything really. Ugh.
From: Peter (BOUGHTONP)13 Mar 2019 22:19
To: Manthorp 72 of 200
Probably a bird - liquids go down quicker - or maybe a pet rodent since it's less likely to overpower the cheese and ketchup.

According to Wikipedia/YouGov, the most recent (July 2018) Conservative party member poll has top three as Jacob Rees-Mogg, Ruth Davidson, Sajid Javid. Ambed Rudd is one of three marked as N/A, but it doesn't explain why.

Given that TM won the no confidence vote relatively comfortably, she can't be officially pushed before December, right? So she'd need to want to pass the chalice to someone specific to not stubbornly hold on?

From: ANT_THOMAS13 Mar 2019 23:00
To: milko 73 of 200
The news cycle is far too quick right now. Resulting in there being very little risk to lying. There's far more news and outrage about something else before there's time to expose a liar.
From: william (WILLIAMA)14 Mar 2019 13:56
To: ANT_THOMAS 74 of 200
90% of the press are obviously hugely biased towards a right-wing and (because of their various proprietors) largely pro-leave viewpoint. The same applies to the news coverage on television, with the possible exception of Channel 4. The BBC doesn't even pretend to be unbiased any more, packing their news programmes with guests from the right, "interviewed" by extreme right-wingers like Andrew Neil, or Emily Maitlis* (and if anybody thinks that's unfair on Maitlis, remember that she works for the Spectator for free). When a guest from the left appears, they are invariably introduced with references to their being left-wing, or 'supporters of Jeremy Corbyn' before facing a barrage of sarcastic questions, expressions of disbelief, questions that are either actually accusations, or lengthy speeches supporting the establishment cause (I'm looking at you, wannabe renaissance-man Andrew Marr). 

*there seems to be some kind of competition going on amongst BBC presenters at the moment to see how much they can get away with in verbal assaults on anybody from the Labour party or the left generally. Neil has the blue ribbon at the moment for his treatment of Owen Jones on the Daily Politics, but Maitlis challenged this when she asked Barry Gardiner the absurd question 'what Brexit Vision will be on Labour's manifesto in the event of a General Election next week?' Now given that NO political party has formulated an election manifesto because no election has been announced 2) The last Labour manifesto and probably the next will have far more input from the membership of the party than in previous years, Maitlis clearly knew that this was not the simple question she wanted it to sound like and the suggestion that he could answer in the few seconds available disingenuous. As soon as he started to speak, she started to interrupt, saying that his attempt at an answer was just 'what was on the leaflet' and accompanied this with furious body language: tossing her head impatiently, dramatic eye-roll to camera, acting out 'not listening' by writing on her notes finally refusing to let him speak. I'm not saying that Gardiner handled it well, but it was a deliberate trap, much in the Laura Kuenssberg tradition.

 
EDITED: 14 Mar 2019 13:59 by WILLIAMA
From: CHYRON (DSMITHHFX)14 Mar 2019 15:30
To: william (WILLIAMA) 75 of 200
The CBC here are performing a somewhat similar function, but perhaps with more subtlety ATM given the situation is less dire... my theory is they (publicly/gummint funded new organizations) are simply hedging their bets against the day a right-wing (or more extreme right-wing) government is in power, with the traditional howls (fueled by media-owning patrons) to defund socialist projects such as public television et al.

TLDR; They are running scared.
EDITED: 14 Mar 2019 15:31 by DSMITHHFX
From: milko14 Mar 2019 21:58
To: CHYRON (DSMITHHFX) 76 of 200
yeah, here the BBC is (or was?) under severe threat of being defunded to the point of shutdown by any Conservative government. It seems to have made them afraid to present much in the way of opposing views, and a suspicious amount of their political journos either have second jobs or move on to their next jobs in conservative/right wing political orgs. That plus a bizarre mishandling of 'balance' making them feel the need to put one climate change denier on air for every story about how fucked the planet is... well, grr. It's a shame.

Pretty much all of the rest of the press is just owned and operated by rich people with everything to lose if a vaguely socialist Labour ever gets into power, so naturally they fight it and smear all the way.
From: ANT_THOMAS15 Mar 2019 08:21
To: william (WILLIAMA) 77 of 200
Not much to say to that apart from I agree, and that Andrew Neil is a cunt.

As Milko mentioned, along with the bias, I hate him even more because of his climate change denial. That really really fucks me off.