Should Corbyn remain as Labour leader?

[Pidge]

Longshanks? Really?

 

We going back to William the Conqueror or the Saxon migration while we're at it?  Hadrian's wall a disgusting example of segregation at it's most divisive?

[Boss]

6 hours ago, moof said:

Essentially that racism requires some historical context. There’s no history of whites being systemically oppressed in this country. White people can’t experience actual, structural racism - so any comments based on their skin colour is ultimately benign. 

 

This is the post I'm talking about. Notice the words "no history" and "racism requires some historical context". That seems like an open invitation to talk about the history of racism in the UK to me.

[Pureblood]

7 minutes ago, Pidge said:

Longshanks? Really?

 

We going back to William the Conqueror or the Saxon migration while we're at it?  Hadrian's wall a disgusting example of segregation at it's most divisive?

Walls work.

 

[Denny Crane]

4 hours ago, Sugar Ape said:

 

I’ll be sure to rethink my entire existence because some random internet loon compares me unfavourably to Diane Abbott.

 

 

.

 

I wasn't comparing you to Diane Abbott, I know nothing about you. It was more the flippant dismissive tone to oh it was only Iraq, PFI that is damaging the NHS,  civil liberties and a politician warning about the potential impact of stripping British citizens rights. 

 

 

[Denny Crane]

4 hours ago, Hank Moody said:

I'd take the steam off of Sugar Ape's piss before you. 

 

This makes you look small and you are better than that. 

[Pidge]

4 minutes ago, Boss said:

 

This is the post I'm talking about. Notice the words "no history" and "racism requires some historical context". That seems like an open invitation to talk about the history of racism in the UK to me.

Both statements are clearly wrong, but there's a big difference between "systematic oppression" and racism.  The whole of British (isles) history has been marked with political, religious and military conflicts between the nations.  It's absurdly reductive to put it down to an idea of race (even with antiquated use of the term taken into account).

 

Irish prejudice (extending to perceived Celtic traits, part of the reason us ginges have such a great time of it in our younger years) was a product of political strategy and public relations, rather than an earnest sense of racial superiority (which is what African and Asian "subjects" have had to overcome and I don't think it's right to suggest it's the same thing - it isn't).  I think the satire of Swift uncovers the lie there, the Irish were being victim-blamed at the time to divert pressure from those in power and A Modest Proposal drove the dehumanisation to an extreme length to highlight the stupidity of the propaganda.

 

The Upper classes (of all nations involved - much like every other European state - divine right is often a popular concept for people born into wealth and power) have always considered themselves better than everyone else, hence the servitude, peasantry and villeinage that's existed as long as they have.

[cloggypop]

And serfdom before that. 

[Strontium]

39 minutes ago, Denny Crane said:

I wasn't comparing you to Diane Abbott, I know nothing about you. It was more the flippant dismissive tone to oh it was only Iraq, PFI that is damaging the NHS,  civil liberties and a politician warning about the potential impact of stripping British citizens rights. 

 

Didn't Corbyn vote for the 1997 NHS (PFI) Bill, the very first bill put forward by the Blair government?

 

Obviously the evil Lib Dems voted against it.

[AngryOfTuebrook]

2 hours ago, Sugar Ape said:

 

Did you know they call a chippy a ‘chipper?’ And an ice cream a ‘poke. ‘

 

Meaning that most Irish people have asked kids if they wanted a poke.

 

Maybe these 19th century people were onto something...

 

https://www.thedailymeal.com/travel/10-weirdest-irish-slang-food-and-drink-terms

So, if you're telling an Irishman about Fargo and you say that Steve Buscemi gets pushed into the chipper, he's going to be picturing a very different scene.

[AngryOfTuebrook]

2 hours ago, Strontium Dog said:

 

My grandfather being one of those.

Was he a copper?

 

"Irish Jew in the name of the law!"

[Boss]

40 minutes ago, Pidge said:

Both statements are clearly wrong, but there's a big difference between "systematic oppression" and racism.  The whole of British (isles) history has been marked with political, religious and military conflicts between the nations.  It's absurdly reductive to put it down to an idea of race (even with antiquated use of the term taken into account).

 

Irish prejudice (extending to perceived Celtic traits, part of the reason us ginges have such a great time of it in our younger years) was a product of political strategy and public relations, rather than an earnest sense of racial superiority (which is what African and Asian "subjects" have had to overcome and I don't think it's right to suggest it's the same thing - it isn't).  I think the satire of Swift uncovers the lie there, the Irish were being victim-blamed at the time to divert pressure from those in power and A Modest Proposal drove the dehumanisation to an extreme length to highlight the stupidity of the propaganda.

 

The Upper classes (of all nations involved - much like every other European state - divine right is often a popular concept for people born into wealth and power) have always considered themselves better than everyone else, hence the servitude, peasantry and villeinage that's existed as long as they have.

 

How was the treatment of Asians racially motivated exactly? It was a colony (in the case of India) used for it's man power. The skin colour of the inhabitants had nothing to do with it. Are the Jews not a race? I mean, we didn't create a law that expelled all Indians from the British Isles. That seems pretty racially motivated to me - and they are ethnically white. So how do you square that? 

[Pidge]

33 minutes ago, Boss said:

 

How was the treatment of Asians racially motivated exactly? It was a colony (in the case of India) used for it's man power. The skin colour of the inhabitants had nothing to do with it. Are the Jews not a race? I mean, we didn't create a law that expelled all Indians from the British Isles. That seems pretty racially motivated to me - and they are ethnically white. So how do you square that?  

How do I square what?  A false equivalence between a 700 year old edict of a Crusader king (which I've already said is a nonsense yardstick to hold up to modern Britain), that was wholly undone almost 400 years ago and the institutional racism of the Empire that's taken a century for Indian and Pakistani Brits to get past?  I haven't denied that white people have been oppressed in Britain and haven't said anything about Jews at all, so I'm a little confused.

 

Which isn't to diminish anti-Semitism in the UK (although I don't know how systematic I'd call it - edit: that's bollocks actually, there's been plenty in the early 20th century alone, let alone the Victorian era), I just don't know enough about the social position of 13th century Jews to really be able to comment on whether the bigotry was based on race or religion at the time.

[Boss]

31 minutes ago, Pidge said:

How do I square what?  A false equivalence between a 700 year old edict of a Crusader king (which I've already said is a nonsense yardstick to hold up to modern Britain), that was wholly undone almost 400 years ago and the institutional racism of the Empire that's taken a century for Indian and Pakistani Brits to get past?  I haven't denied that white people have been oppressed in Britain and haven't said anything about Jews at all, so I'm a little confused.

 

Which isn't to diminish anti-Semitism in the UK (although I don't know how systematic I'd call it - edit: that's bollocks actually, there's been plenty in the early 20th century alone, let alone the Victorian era), I just don't know enough about the social position of 13th century Jews to really be able to comment on whether the bigotry was based on race or religion at the time.

 

At least you've made some attempt to acknowledge the persecution Jews face to this very day and not just proclaim it was parsed 700 years ago like your first statement implies. What institutionalised racism do Indians and Pakistani's suffer in the UK nowadays and what makes their plight greater?

[A Red]

10 hours ago, Denny Crane said:

 

The tax-free personal allowance, which rises to £12,500 in April, should be scrapped and replaced with a flat payment of £48 a week for every adult, according to radical proposals welcomed by shadow chancellor John McDonnell.

The proposal, from the New Economics Foundation thinktank, is for a £48.08 “weekly national allowance,” amounting to £2,500.16 a year from the state, paid to every adult over the age of 18 earning less than £125,000 a year. The cash would not replace benefits and would not depend on employment.

The policy idea has been welcomed by the shadow chancellor, John McDonnell, and the Green MP Caroline Lucas, and would mean that as many as 88% of all adults would see their post-tax income rise or stay the same, helping to lift 200,000 families across the country out of poverty.

Advertisement

The weekly payments would be fully funded by the abolition of the tax-free personal allowance, which has seen inflation-busting increases under the Conservatives over the past 10 years, but which NEF said had benefited richer households most.

 

For someone on £25,000 a year, the personal allowance means that the first £12,500 of their earnings, from this April, are not charged basic rate tax at 20%. This is worth £2,500. But if the same person is paid £48 a week instead, they will receive £2,496 a year, so they will be no better or worse off.

Alfie Stirling of the New Economics Foundation said: “The persistent increases to the personal allowance of income tax seen over the past decade represent one of the most expensive and regressive public spending initiatives of the 21st century so far. Costing more than the whole of defence, local government and the Department for Transport combined and enriching the highest income households almost seven times faster than the poorest.”

 

The leftwing thinktank, which has developed close links with Labour to become a key influencer of shadow Treasury thinking, estimates the current cost of the tax-free allowance is as much as £111.2bn.

It said the change would transfer about £8bn currently spent on tax allowances that benefit the 35% of highest income households to the rest of the country.

 

The policy is likely to face opposition from some voters, as it would also mean bringing down the threshold for higher-rate taxpayers from £50,000 to £37,500. This is because the starting point for 40% income tax moves with the personal allowance. NEF said this would affect the top 13% of earners in the country.

 

McDonnell said: “This is just the kind of innovative thinking we need on how to fix the imbalances and problems of our tax system.

“I hope it will be the start of a debate about how we make tax more progressive and deliver the public services funding that is so badly needed after nine years of austerity.”

The richest 10% of households will be £1,470 better off by 2019-20 as a result of changes to the personal allowance since 2010, compared with just £130 for each of the poorest 10% of households.

 

The Treasury said the personal allowance has removed nearly 2 million people from income tax, and that income inequality in Britain is falling. In a statement, it said: “We’re raising the personal allowance one year early, which will mean that by April this year, 1.7 million income taxpayers will have been taken out of tax altogether since 2015-16.

 

“Our policies are highly redistributive. In 2019-20, the lowest income households will receive over £4 in public spending for every £1 they pay in tax on average, and the highest income households will contribute over £5 in tax for every £1 they receive in public spending on average.

“Income inequality is lower now than it was in 2010.”

 

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/mar/11/scrap-tax-free-personal-allowance-and-pay-everyone-48-a-week

If I was unemployed I would certainly vote for that

[skend04]

6 hours ago, Boss said:

 

At least you've made some attempt to acknowledge the persecution Jews face to this very day and not just proclaim it was parsed 700 years ago like your first statement implies. What institutionalised racism do Indians and Pakistani's suffer in the UK nowadays and what makes their plight greater?

It's not racist to be racist but it helps.

[Denny Crane]

8 hours ago, Strontium Dog said:

 

Didn't Corbyn vote for the 1997 NHS (PFI) Bill, the very first bill put forward by the Blair government?

 

Obviously the evil Lib Dems voted against it.

I'm sure we had this discussion before. From 1998 Corbyn is on record regarding PFI see below. 

 

I raised my concerns in parliamentary debates, questions and committee hearings from 1998, and with renewed intensity from 2000 when my local hospital was threatened with the imposition of a PFI scheme. I continued to raise concerns with ministers in the Treasury, the Department of Health and the then Department for Education and Skills year after year, as did numerous Labour MPs, our union affiliates, health service workers and economists.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/aug/26/pfi-labour-nhs-health-service-private-finance-initiative

 

 

[aRdja]

[Pidge]

7 hours ago, Boss said:

 

At least you've made some attempt to acknowledge the persecution Jews face to this very day and not just proclaim it was parsed 700 years ago like your first statement implies. What institutionalised racism do Indians and Pakistani's suffer in the UK nowadays and what makes their plight greater?

That isn't what I'm saying and hasn't been at any point and my first statement never implied that at all.  You seem to have shifted from talking about anti-Irish "racism", then anti-Semitism and now you seem to have shifted to diminishing other forms of racism and I'm not sure why as it makes no difference to your original argument (which I didn't even particularly disagree with - that white people have faced systematic oppression in Britain - they obviously have, just not because of racial identity).

 

I didn't say anything about Indian and Pakistani communities "nowadays" and so won't argue for whatever it is you've decided I was saying in contrast to the actual words I used.  Basically, this is total nonsense and I'll be leaving it here.

[Numero Veinticinco]

I have to admit, I’m very sceptical about the whole UBI thing. 

[Numero Veinticinco]

10 hours ago, Denny Crane said:

 

This makes you look small and you are better than that. 

Thanks, man. I’d now have the steam off your piss. 

[Strontium]

1 hour ago, Denny Crane said:

I'm sure we had this discussion before. From 1998 Corbyn is on record regarding PFI see below. 

 

I raised my concerns in parliamentary debates, questions and committee hearings from 1998, and with renewed intensity from 2000 when my local hospital was threatened with the imposition of a PFI scheme. I continued to raise concerns with ministers in the Treasury, the Department of Health and the then Department for Education and Skills year after year, as did numerous Labour MPs, our union affiliates, health service workers and economists.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/aug/26/pfi-labour-nhs-health-service-private-finance-initiative

 

 

 

A simple yes would have sufficed.

[Boss]

2 hours ago, Pidge said:

That isn't what I'm saying and hasn't been at any point and my first statement never implied that at all.  You seem to have shifted from talking about anti-Irish "racism", then anti-Semitism and now you seem to have shifted to diminishing other forms of racism and I'm not sure why as it makes no difference to your original argument (which I didn't even particularly disagree with - that white people have faced systematic oppression in Britain - they obviously have, just not because of racial identity).

 

I didn't say anything about Indian and Pakistani communities "nowadays" and so won't argue for whatever it is you've decided I was saying in contrast to the actual words I used.  Basically, this is total nonsense and I'll be leaving it here.

You're saying that the Irish weren't persecuted because of racial superiority. Okay, that can be taken as it's own statement. Then you claim Asians were. In what way were they persecuted for the colour of their skin specifically? Simple question.

[Denny Crane]

4 hours ago, A Red said:

If I was unemployed I would certainly vote for that

It's one way of looking at it. However I would point out it would benefit several groups, the long-term disabled and those in pension poverty.  Also carers looking after a family member. If you look at the amount of people with a disability of working age 16% to 4% unemployed the focus on those unemployed is misdirected. Similarly with adults in irregular work but earning a very low wage. 

 

It's a starting point be interesting to see where Labour end up. 

[Pureblood]

9 minutes ago, Denny Crane said:

It's one way of looking at it. However I would point out it would benefit several groups, the long-term disabled and those in pension poverty. 

Other people?  Pah.  A Red looks after A Red. 

[The Guest]

I don’t mind saying it.  Anti-Semitism is a fucking myth.  Saying Jewish people experience anti-Semitism every day is fucking laughable.  It’s a fucking religion.  You can be any race and be jewish.  Nobody has a fucking clue who is Jewish and who isn’t on the face of it.  Jewish people aren’t missing out on jobs because of their religion, they aren’t being attacked on public transport or in the street for their religion, they aren’t being under represented in parliament either.  Most people don’t give a shite about any religion.  The only one people have issues with generally is Islam and that’s because extremist parts of the world following it are terrorising western society.

 

Some people say some nasty things about Israel the country and shit its government are pulling.  I’m sorry but so fucking what.  It doesn’t effect your day to day life if you’re jewish and it’s highly questionable whether criticising it any way is anti-Semitic anyway.  If you don’t want to hear conspiracy theories on Israel trying to influence foreign governments then take issue with Israel trying to influence foreign governments then.

 

The whole thing is a smear campaign organised to run down the ecomically left wing leadership of the Labour Party.  It’s going to run and run until the leadership is overthrown.