Jump to content
  • Sign up for free and receive a month's subscription

    You are viewing this page as a guest. That means you are either a member who has not logged in, or you have not yet registered with us. Signing up for an account only takes a minute and it means you will no longer see this annoying box! It will also allow you to get involved with our friendly(ish!) community and take part in the discussions on our forums. And because we're feeling generous, if you sign up for a free account we will give you a month's free trial access to our subscriber only content with no obligation to commit. Register an account and then send a private message to @dave u and he'll hook you up with a subscription.

General Election 2019


Bjornebye
 Share

Who are you voting for?   

142 members have voted

  1. 1. Who are you voting for?



Recommended Posts

This is in the Guardian's News section:

 

"Plenty of Jews in the UK would say the chief rabbi does not speak for them. They may be from different traditions in Judaism – progressive or ultra-Orthodox – or they may be secular. But many, probably most, agree with the thrust of his unprecedented intervention in next month’s general election."

 

Just unreal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Rico1304 said:

Holly Rigby, well, bye bye. 

*Partridge shrug gif*

 

Actually, maybe I should be concerned. It seems (from a cursory Google) that she's a journo who dared to question the pack line about Mirvis v. Corbyn and she's received a load of shit (presumably pour encourager les autres). If that is what's happened, it's not a sign of a healthy democracy. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Lizzie Birdsworths Wrinkled Chopper said:Not a chance Johnson is risking going up against Andrew Neill.

 

Whatever points he loses for supposed cowardice he’ll factor in are well, well worth it to avoid being lacerated on television.

 

Plus the memory of Corbyn’s interview with Neill doesn’t then get the contrast or context of what would happen to Johnson.

Yep, I think they’ll take the “he’s a shithouse” shouts over the “oh my god” headlines that would inevitably follow an Andrew Neill vs Boris Johnson interview.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, sir roger said:

Other than a handful of seats with a healthy proportion of Jewish voters this will have no specific impact at all at the election. The only problem is that while it is clogging up Labour's time it is stopping them getting their policies across and time is getting short.

I think the Tories and their friends realise that it won’t help in regards to much of the Jewish community, but anything that makes the rest of the population have any doubts about Corbyn’s suitability as a potential PM is worth the mud slinging. I think unfortunately some of this shit sticks, especially with the newspaper buying fraternity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Vincent Vega said:

I think the Tories and their friends realise that it won’t help in regards to much of the Jewish community, but anything that makes the rest of the population have any doubts about Corbyn’s suitability as a potential PM is worth the mud slinging. I think unfortunately some of this shit sticks, especially with the newspaper buying fraternity.

That's definitely true. I know family members and colleagues who've bought it hook line and sinker.

 

EDIT - and they're not Tories, or even readers of right-wing papers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Dougie Do'ins said:

Maybe this fucking rabbi cunt should have thought about this before wading in with his inciting words.

The problem with that is that they don’t have to, as they have the support of the billionaire press gang right now.

sadly as long as labour supports broadly centre left principles they have to battle disinformation.

All the bullshit about people needing to

leave the uk if labour get in, and having bags packed, the risk is far greater if Johnson succeeds, which is why the likes of Michael Rosen and Miriam Margolyes are countering the claims.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just watched the Corbyn and Neil interview, it wasn't good but it was nowhere near the total shambles it's been made out to be I don't think. Even if he has apologised several times to Jews as well I don't see what simply saying sorry again would've done to damage him in any way. I can't get my head around why politicians avoid that so much, like the word sorry is supposed to be some type of weakness or something. Even if he's looking at the smear campaign, doesn't think he has to apologise and is sick of saying sorry, on a show like that just before the election it might not have hurt to say it and move on. It would've saved almost all headlines today as well in the rags.

 

It's almost impossible to deal with someone like Neil as well with him constantly cutting others off before they get chance to explain anything. I'm looking forward to seeing how Johnson deals with it as I think it'll be a lot worse with him rambling all types of random shit because he doesn't have answers.

 

Corbyn evaded too much or tried to explain and build up to answers which of course can't be done with Neil constantly cutting off, but when pressed enough almost everything had some type of answer at the end. I don't think Johnson will be anywhere near as good in that area.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Red Phoenix said:

Just watched the Corbyn and Neil interview, it wasn't good but it was nowhere near the total shambles it's been made out to be I don't think. Even if he has apologised several times to Jews as well I don't see what simply saying sorry again would've done to damage him in any way. I can't get my head around why politicians avoid that so much, like the word sorry is supposed to be some type of weakness or something. Even if he's looking at the smear campaign, doesn't think he has to apologise and is sick of saying sorry, on a show like that just before the election it might not have hurt to say it and move on. It would've saved almost all headlines today as well in the rags.

 

It's almost impossible to deal with someone like Neil as well with him constantly cutting others off before they get chance to explain anything. I'm looking forward to seeing how Johnson deals with it as I think it'll be a lot worse with him rambling all types of random shit because he doesn't have answers.

 

Corbyn evaded too much or tried to explain and build up to answers which of course can't be done with Neil constantly cutting off, but when pressed enough almost everything had some type of answer at the end. I don't think Johnson will be anywhere near as good in that area.

What exactly is he supposed to be sorry for? Sorry that the press continue to smear him as an anti Semite despite the fact he has arguably done more I. The fight against anti-semitism than probably >95% of other members? 
he is right to take the stance that the Labour Party abhors all forms of racism and will not tolerate it amongst members. Making a special case specifically for dealing with Jewish issues, well, that could be construed as somewhat bigoted.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, arthur friedenreich said:

What exactly is he supposed to be sorry for? Sorry that the press continue to smear him as an anti Semite despite the fact he has arguably done more I. The fight against anti-semitism than probably >95% of other members? 
he is right to take the stance that the Labour Party abhors all forms of racism and will not tolerate it amongst members. Making a special case specifically for dealing with Jewish issues, well, that could be construed as somewhat bigoted.

 

I'm not looking at it as him saying sorry because of anything he's done wrong, I think that many people have been sucked into the propaganda though that saying sorry would be seen as a good thing. Maybe most people disagree but if he says sorry I don't think he's losing anything, and playing along for a couple of seconds in this case might have been worth it.

 

If it wasn't a couple of weeks before an election I'd not give a fuck though. I'd prefer him in that case to just start ranting about the actual smear campaign itself and see how Neil deals with that. I guess he'd move on quickly to his next line of attack though then let the media shitstorm commence after that. At some stage I think this has to be done, saying sorry before an election (which he might do anyway in the coming days) is fine, but eventually calling it out for what it is might be the best option so that they can't keep this same old shit carrying on like this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Red Phoenix said:

 

I'm not looking at it as him saying sorry because of anything he's done wrong, I think that many people have been sucked into the propaganda though that saying sorry would be seen as a good thing. Maybe most people disagree but if he says sorry I don't think he's losing anything, and playing along for a couple of seconds in this case might have been worth it.

 

If it wasn't a couple of weeks before an election I'd not give a fuck though. I'd prefer him in that case to just start ranting about the actual smear campaign itself and see how Neil deals with that. I guess he'd move on quickly to his next line of attack though then let the media shitstorm commence after that. At some stage I think this has to be done, saying sorry before an election (which he might do anyway in the coming days) is fine, but eventually calling it out for what it is might be the best option so that they can't keep this same old shit carrying on like this.

That’s the point though, you don’t play their game, you can member fucking win it. He didn’t shrug it off, he went after neil as he tried to move on, reiterated his point. Racism isn’t assigned to one group, it affects a broad range of people, he is singling now group out. This is true anti-racism. Does anyone on here really believe Corbyn is bigoted about any group of people? Fuck me if a ReesMogg was lying in a ditch, Corbyn would tend to the prick before Johnson. He’s a fucking straight up fella, which makes the smears worse.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, arthur friedenreich said:

That’s the point though, you don’t play their game, you can member fucking win it. He didn’t shrug it off, he went after neil as he tried to move on, reiterated his point. Racism isn’t assigned to one group, it affects a broad range of people, he is singling now group out. This is true anti-racism. Does anyone on here really believe Corbyn is bigoted about any group of people? Fuck me if a ReesMogg was lying in a ditch, Corbyn would tend to the prick before Johnson. He’s a fucking straight up fella, which makes the smears worse.

 

I don't think he's racist and have gone on about how sick of this smear campaign I am as much as most others on here I think. Like he said himself, it seems like being anti-racist is one of the most important things in his life. Maybe that's partly why they enjoy doing smearing him so much. But people all over the country reading the headlines today will be falling for it, and simply saying sorry then moving on to the next question would've removed all of those headlines. That's the only reason I think he should've done it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It feels like him saying 'The Party is not a racist party and I refute any suggestion that anti-semitism is somehow endorsed by the leadership of the Party - but I am very concerned that the Chief Rabbi has felt it necessary to make these remarks and will be seeking a meeting with him as soon as we are elected' would have been pretty low risk/high reward...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, UnwelcomeinPeru said:

It feels like him saying 'The Party is not a racist party and I refute any suggestion that anti-semitism is somehow endorsed by the leadership of the Party - but I am very concerned that the Chief Rabbi has felt it necessary to make these remarks and will be seeking a meeting with him as soon as we are elected' would have been pretty low risk/high reward...

He has already said he would like to meet with the Rabbi to discuss his concerns, regardless of whether they are elected or not...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, UnwelcomeinPeru said:

It feels like him saying 'The Party is not a racist party and I refute any suggestion that anti-semitism is somehow endorsed by the leadership of the Party - but I am very concerned that the Chief Rabbi has felt it necessary to make these remarks and will be seeking a meeting with him as soon as we are elected' would have been pretty low risk/high reward...

 

It doesn't matter what he says. The next leader will get the same treatment. They will simply do all they can to prevent a Labour government. The best thing to do it avoid interacting with the smears and ignore them. The less oxygen they have the better.

 

Politics is in the gutter now. Democracy is being pissed all over and it's the Tories doing the pissing, likewise with those Republican clowns across the pond.  Even the Lib Dems, who I used to respect, have gone all fucktarded and megalomaniacal (is that a word?) with their lies and smears and imagery over substance. It's the pits.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...