Numero Veinticinco

The party line is that Israel is an evil regime? News to me. Of course, you could be completely making it up, which would be news to absolutely nobody.

Fascist isn’t a synonym for Nazi. That’s true, but Nazis are the first thing that comes to mind when talking about fascism and they’re the prime, most widely known form and example of it. Again, even if it’s accurate I’m not sure why you’d use it given the issues the party has had. It’s genuinely like we like walking into these traps.

How can you say something like that with a straight face? I mean, clearly nobody is asking anybody to keep quiet about IDF shooting children to win a few votes. It’s about calling Israel fascist when doing so in parliament when you’re part of a party which has just been through an antisemitism crisis and… You know what. You’re right. I hope all Labour politicians get up, say ‘fuck the Jews’ and burn the Star of David, making them entirely unelectable. Mean, if we’re making shit up we might as well go the whole hog and make the debate entirely ridiculous.

Well, fascism as a political ideology has several key defining factors. Although Israel has one or two matching characteristics, and it certainly acts in disgusting and despicable ways, especially when it comes to militarism and use of violence, there are others where it just doesn’t match with racism, so it would not be accurate to call Israel a fascist state in my estimation. And to be honest, whether or not it’s correct and accurate isn’t the point. It’s clearly politically naive to keep doing this. Is it morally right to speak out, absolutely, is it sensible to use inflammatory language that you know will get portrayed as antisemitic whilst doing so… I’d argue not. There are few countries governments that I despise more than Israel, but this isn’t the way to make change in a system like ours. We can’t sit naively by and worry about what should be, we have to be concerned about what is. In my opinion anyway.

What are you chuntering on about? Sigh. What? aren’t you getting the attention you need Boris?

I don’t know who is saying that, but they’re wrong. Criticising those actions is fine. You can do it in a way that doesn’t evoke fascism though.

Of course, and it’s well known, so I ask… why do it. Why would you do it? It’s so daft.

That’s Labour; if it ain’t one side it’s the other. Wish there was PR and a proper alternative

Israel has a fucking tragic regime, evil in the way they treat people, with a history of abuses that should surely shame anybody connected to it, but surely to God we can all agree that for Labour, trying to win an election, coming of the back of really unsavoury antisemitism issues, it might not be good a good idea to stand in parliament and call Israel fascists, not when large parts of the country were victims of or related to victims of fascism. Surely? I mean, even from a purely selfish, logical, strategic perspective as a politician, let alone the optics abroad?

Had worse reviews, to be fair.

You're so obtuse. I made zero posts about her before you raised the issue for discussion on an open discussion forum. I'm not slurring her, I'm saying these are the probably reasons why they've refused to allow her to stand as the MP.

It's just facts. You don't like them. Of course not, it's obvious and expected. When the left are in charge they changed the rules so they could get rid of the centrist candidates. Now the centre is in charge it's shifting out left wingers. It's not odd, it's natural in politics. Why would I have to answer this. I have no issue with Byrne; he seems like a good MP and a good guy. It's up to his local CLP. It's not a slur, it's a fucking fact that she said it. Yesterday I linked action plans on how to respond to the antisemtism report suggestions and it said they were going to vet people. The fact she liked posts saying how Israel brings shame to all Jews is probably the blocker. Me pointing that out doesn't mean I think she's antisemitic, that she's racist, that the guy she said it about is my mate - claiming this makes you look like a fucking idiot- it means I acknowledge what they're doing, and they absolutely are trying to 1) disassociate with all things Corbyn 2) limit attack lines from the Tories 3) stop anybody linked with anything that could be twists into being antisemitic. The problem, as always, is you don't actually have the first idea what you're talking about. I don't really have any views on it. I don't really care. Akehurst is irrelevant to anything, you trying to paint me as some sort of Tory lite makes you look like a fucking moron.

And here's the thing, I'm totally fine with mandatory reselection. It's no issue for me. It's a solid policy of the left that everyone is always reselected by the CLP. Issue is, Corbyn and his entourage agree the changes, the policy is called corrupt and this is somehow Starmer's fault. It's mental

There's been one deselection. Stop saying 'all these deselections'. It's untrue. And the answer is no, I don't find it odd. It was the very purpose of the thing; the only difference is that the lower threshold was supposed to get centrists out, now it's being used to test the hand of others. The fact you're pulling up attempts where it hasn't been triggered (which you could do tomorrow, with anybody anywhere in the country) is ridiculous. It was predictable and obvious. So no, not odd. You haven't pulled me up on anything, you've made a tit out of yourself by saying things like he's my new mate, avoiding questions, and once again mimicking what I've said and claimed that I'm the one deflecting, which is so fucking ridiculous. You're actually pathetic, and you're clueless. I'm sure your heart is in the right place, but you've got no critical thinking skills at all. It's why you get sucked into thinking a certain way. The fact you keep calling me a Tory, when I've done nothing but slag off the Tories on here for best part of 15 years, is fucking pathetic. You just continually tell lies, won't back up what you say (because you can't), and misread what is written really shows you up. Oh, and I didn't search her out, I just remember MPs. I've studied, taught, and been involved with politics most of my life. This was talked about a lot at the time. Plus, it was in the first couple of replies in the twitter thread you linked. The fact you don't care about it and want to avoid answering questions about it shows you don't give a fuck about racist comments, you care about trying to win an argument. Thing is, you just aren't capable of doing that because you don't know anything beyond what you're told to think on twitter.

What is wrong with this? This could have happened any time in the last 30 years. Tried but failed to trigger an election. I asked you question about evidence, I assume you have it because you’re pure and perfect, but just don’t want to share it with a Tory like me?

Any chance you want to, ya know, back that up? I never said she was a right nasty racist piece of work, I asked if she was the one who made racist comments about a black person, calling him a 'token ghetto boy'. You called me racist for saying a word a while back, and you used a poster on a computer forum to back it up. Surely you agree these comments were racist? Or do you ignore those sorts of comments if you agree with them politically. For all I know, she might be amazing and made one small mistake. I didn't mention Shaun - my new mate - that was you.

Sure, why not. Bluster away. Deflect away. If that's the way you want the conversation to go because I happen to quote something she actually said and that the party understandably might not want to be associated with, rather than ignore the reality and pretend she's perfect and she's been overlooked for no reason, then just crack on. Me and my best mate that I've never heard of will just have to get on with it, I guess.

Right, so because I simply acknowledged that she called a black guy a token ghetto boy, that guy is now my new friend and I’m a Tory. Seems like a fair and sensible analysis. It’s almost as if you’re trying to use Boris-style bluster to deflect.

No now thanks mate, I've just eaten. Anyway, I don't know the rules.

Isn't she the one who made the racist comments about some black guy calling him a 'token ghetto boy'?

How have I thrown shade on him, I support mandatory reselection you bell; it's you that's moaning about people having to face reselection.

No, 'Corbyn and others' failed in bringing about mandatory reselection in the 2018 democracy review and had to settle for 'meagre' alternative to what they wanted. Mandatory reselection is Bennite bread and butter. The fact they had to settle for what they saw as an improvement - a step towards - rather than the whole hog is evidence they failed to get it in their full policy.

If Crick things it’s a corrupt policy, does he say why he thinks Corbyn and his team introduced it? Does he have any evidence of corruption? He obviously wouldn’t make claims without solid evidence - no journalist worth their salt would do that - so I’m wondering what it is?

So nothing on the actual subject, just Boris-style bluster? Fair enough. Laid bare again.

There’s no list. You can post anyone you like. You just can’t stop people from responding in the way they see fit. If you post something, and others think it’s dogshit and the author is dogshit, they’re allowed to say it. This doesn’t constitute a ‘not allowed to mention’ list, that’s a pure fabrication on your part. It’s just the right of response on an open forum. I was talking about your general penchant for spamming Twitter weirdos. Not Crick. Does Crick have any evidence of this Labour HQ conspiracy? BTW, you responded to information about how the trigger process actually works with some nonsense about invented lists and not an acknowledgment… curious, isn’t it.