Westminster Election 12th December 2019

[seafoid]

Of course Israel and pro-Israel interests are behind the smears on Corbyn and his supporters.

It's the oldest trick in the book. Look at what they've done to Ilhan Omar in the US while ignoring the litany of virulent anti-Semitism from Trump and the Republicans.

Funny how the media doesn't mention actual instances of anti-Semitism from opponents of Corbyn within Labour.

Like, the guy who's the actual spokesman for an organisation called Labour Against Anti-Semitism, Euan Philipps, who isn't Jewish, called Corbyn supporting journalist Eleanor Penny, who is Jewish, "a blackshirt".

Labour MP Siobhan McDonagh said that "to be anti-capitalist automatically makes you anti-Semitic". That's a classic anti-Semitic trope.

Neither of these two instances of actual anti-Semtism are ever cited by the media. Why? Because Philipps and McDonagh both hate Corbyn.

It would disturb the narrative.

Have a look at the Tories even. There's a litany of anti-Semitism there. Boris Johnson continually commissioned a virulent anti-Semite, Taki Theodoracopulos, to write anti-Semitic propaganda for The Spectator when he was editor - Theodoracopoulos still writes for The Spectator!

Jacob Rees-Mogg, Michael Gove, Andrew Bridgen, James Cleverley, all use or have used anti-Semitic tropes. A Tory candidate in this election had to stand down for being caught out as a Holocaust denier!

Yet none of this is cited by the press as evidence of the Tories having an anti-Semtism problem, which they actually have.

The only prominent Tory to be accused of being an anti-Semite in my memory is Alan Duncan, who categorically is not an anti-Semite. Why was he accused? Because, rarely for a Tory, he knows what he's talking about when it comes to the Israel/Palestine situation and spoke out forcefully against Israel's disgraceful bombing of Gaza in 2014 which killed thousands, and over 500 children.

An Israeli diplomat was literally caught on hidden camera by Al Jazeera saying that he had to be "taken down".

If you're in any sort of prominent position in politics or the media and publicly oppose Israeli policy, it is very likely you will be smeared as an anti-Semite.

+1
Didn't the Israeli government attempt to get the UN definition of anti-semitism changed to any criticism of the Israel or its actions such as the murder of innocent Palestinians?

You would have to run that past Gallsman.

[yellowcard]

Johnson going from bad to worse, as anticipated he is having a dire campaign and is becoming more exposed as the charlatan that's he is the longer it goes on. The Tories can't even trust him to face the cameras yet he is the prime minister in waiting. I still think there will be a late surge in the Labour vote in the last 2 weeks.

[sid waddell]

Johnson going from bad to worse, as anticipated he is having a dire campaign and is becoming more exposed as the charlatan that's he is the longer it goes on. The Tories can't even trust him to face the cameras yet he is the prime minister in waiting. I still think there will be a late surge in the Labour vote in the last 2 weeks.

It's pathetic the way he's hiding, he wouldn't do C4's climate debate tonight and won't face Andrew Neil

The Tories are resorting to putting out people nobody has heard of for media engagements now because their whole front bench is made up of complete liabilities

Most of the UK media has turned full Fox News, C4 is one of the honourable exceptions

Johnson has now threatened to revoke C4's broadcasting licence because Gove wasn't admitted to the debate

It was the other leaders who rightly kept him out, not C4

C4 replaced Johnson and Farage with dripping ice blocks

The Tories are going apeshit, let them, they completely brought it on themselves

Johnson's threat to C4 is Putin-esque

[Saffrongael]

Johnson going from bad to worse, as anticipated he is having a dire campaign and is becoming more exposed as the charlatan that's he is the longer it goes on. The Tories can't even trust him to face the cameras yet he is the prime minister in waiting. I still think there will be a late surge in the Labour vote in the last 2 weeks.

Unfortunately if it was anyone other than Corbyn this GE would be a cakewalk for Labour, almost ten years of the Tories and they look likely to get a majority. Incredible

[smelmoth]

Johnson going from bad to worse, as anticipated he is having a dire campaign and is becoming more exposed as the charlatan that's he is the longer it goes on. The Tories can't even trust him to face the cameras yet he is the prime minister in waiting. I still think there will be a late surge in the Labour vote in the last 2 weeks.

Unfortunately if it was anyone other than Corbyn this GE would be a cakewalk for Labour, almost ten years of the Tories and they look likely to get a majority. Incredible

What position would this non-Corbyn alternative take on Brexit?

[sid waddell]

https://www.theguardian.com/news/2019/mar/07/debunking-myth-that-anti-zionism-is-antisemitic

All over the world, it is an alarming time to be Jewish – but conflating anti-Zionism with Jew-hatred is a tragic mistake

by Peter Beinart

It is a bewildering and alarming time to be a Jew, both because antisemitism is rising and because so many politicians are responding to it not by protecting Jews but by victimising Palestinians.

On 16 February, members of France's yellow vest protest movement hurled antisemitic insults at the distinguished French Jewish philosopher Alain Finkielkraut. On 19 February, swastikas were found on 80 gravestones in Alsace. Two days later, the French president, Emmanuel Macron, after announcing that Europe was "facing a resurgence of antisemitism unseen since World War II", unveiled new measures to fight it.

Among them was a new official definition of antisemitism. That definition, produced by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance in 2016, includes among its "contemporary examples" of antisemitism "denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination". In other words, anti-Zionism is Jew hatred. In so doing, Macron joined Germany, Britain, the United States and roughly 30 other governments. And like them, he made a tragic mistake.

Anti-Zionism is not inherently antisemitic – and claiming it is uses Jewish suffering to erase the Palestinian experience. Yes, antisemitism is growing. Yes, world leaders must fight it fiercely. But in the words of a great Zionist thinker, "This is not the way".

[seafoid]

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/11/28/fear-tories-may-yet-blow-election/


« Meanwhile, there's no sign of bold Boris. He looks at times as if he is fighting the last campaign, terrified of messing things up as Theresa May did.

I fear the Tories may yet blow this election

Over the seven days that YouGov took to complete its complicated new poll, its forecast for a Tory majority fell by 16 seats. If this trend continues – and why shouldn't it? – there might not be any majority left at all. »

[seafoid]

Regarding this part of the IHRA definition :

"Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation"

So if the US goes to war that means it's OK for Israel to bomb the shit out of Gaza.
Israel spent the 2014 assault on Gaza arguing that International law no longer applies to the conflict there.

This IHRA definition is dangerous for  few reasons , one of which is the safety of Jews outside Israel in the future. If powers can do whatever they want, they will.

[Franko]

And that definition basically says you can't criticise it without being racist.

Jesus Christ, no it doesn't. It states that Jewish community institutions (Israel in your example) can be victims/targets of antisemitism.

It says nothing about criticising Israel being anti-Semitic.

This is one of the "guidelines" for interpretation of this definition, which the IHRA publish along with their definition.  To do the below is racist.

Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.

Netanyahu could literally start to gas civilians and anyone who compared it to the Nazis would be a racist.  It's absolute carte blanche nonsense.

[bennydorano]

Tory strategists are getting it 100% right by hiding their halfwits and muddying the waters with everything they do.  Unfortunately the general public don't care for 2 reasons - Little England is Brexit obsessed and want it delivered no matter what and Corbyn is ultimately a (well meaning) liability. Those predicting a Labour bounce are clutching, nothing has changed.

[five points]

And that definition basically says you can't criticise it without being racist.

Jesus Christ, no it doesn't. It states that Jewish community institutions (Israel in your example) can be victims/targets of antisemitism.

It says nothing about criticising Israel being anti-Semitic.

This is one of the "guidelines" for interpretation of this definition, which the IHRA publish along with their definition.  To do the below is racist.

Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.

Netanyahu could literally start to gas civilians and anyone who compared it to the Nazis would be a racist.  It's absolute carte blanche nonsense.

Saddam Hussein gassed civilians but it would be ridiculous to compare him to the Nazis. If Netanyahu did anything like that, he'd be out on his ear within days. He heads a coalition government with a slender parliamentary majority. The fact that you ignore this in making such a ludicrous point suggests why the IHRA definition is needed in the first instance.

[seafoid]

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/11/28/fear-tories-may-yet-blow-election/
I fear the Tories may yet blow this election
FRASER NELSON
Follow   Fraser Nelson28 NOVEMBER 2019 • 9:30PM

Boris Johnson needs to be bolder in this campaign to avoid the fate of his predecessor, Theresa May CREDIT: BOB MORAN
In the downstairs loo at The Spectator hang magazine covers that were never published because the events they depict never happened. Hillary Clinton as president in the Oval Office, Jeremy Hunt stepping into in 10 Downing Street – in an era of historical surprises and tight deadlines, we have to be prepared. Our Christmas issue goes to press the morning after the general election so artwork options are needed now. The 'Labour wins' cover shows a crib with a baby Corbyn instead of a saviour, with three wise men looking on in horror. It's quite funny. Or it would be, if its implications were not so serious.

You might think all this a waste of an artist's time. Most polls suggest that the only question is whether Boris Johnson wins by a modest margin or by a landslide. YouGov have a sophisticated new polling model, tested in the last US Congress elections, which points to a 68-seat Tory majority. Sir John Curtice, the doyen of opinion pollsters, says the chances of a Corbyn majority now are "as close to zero as one can safely say." Once, I'd have agreed. But I'm afraid I think the Tories are still capable of blowing this, for quite a few reasons.

It's quite true that Jeremy Corbyn is having a tough campaign, having been eviscerated in television interviews with the Chief Rabbi now lined up against him. But we have to ask: how damaging is this, really? Support for Labour has been growing steadily since the election was called, just as it did in 2017. Anti-Semitism accusations were quite audible last time around and didn't stop Labour picking up enough support to deny the Tories a majority. The worse the headlines are for Corbyn, the higher his support seems to climb.

Let's not pretend that the Corbyn agenda is dismissed nationwide as a socialist calamity-in-waiting. His plans to nationalise water, railways, electricity and gas are supported by about half of all voters; his idea for a British Broadband Corporation is backed by a margin of three to one. So if you think Corbynomics is too radical, too off-the-wall to ever win an election, think again. Voters certainly regard it as impractical but there is a lot more public sympathy with his overall aims (and worldview) than the likes of like me normally admit.

The headlines are bad, but less harmful in an age when more people get their news from social media than from any newspaper. There's no shortage of anti-Tory material in cyberspace: you can read that a Tory victory will mean selling the NHS to Americans, women paying to give birth, and worse. The wilder the conspiracy theory the more likely it is to be shared online. Almost a third of the electorate now regard the Prime Minister as racist, probably even more believe another internet trope that Tory austerity killed thousands. There is no 'gatekeeper' in social media, no one to be held to account if false information is spread. It's a new game that the Tories are not very good at playing.



Meanwhile, there's no sign of bold Boris. He looks at times as if he is fighting the last campaign, terrified of messing things up as Theresa May did. Timidity doesn't suit him. To have him tiptoeing around the campaign like a pull-string doll saying "Get Brexit Done" every time it is prodded is a waste of his wit and energy. Ducking the Andrew Neil interviews braved by all other leaders risks giving a sense of complacency, as if he thinks victory is in the bag and that he doesn't need to say anything more to earn votes. Which is odd because he is, by instinct, a who-dares-wins kind of leader. We could see a bit more of his daring.

Expectations of a big Tory victory, of course, make such a victory far less likely – especially if the Tory Remainers calculate that they can risk staying at home or even vote Lib Dem to punish the party for its Brexiteering. Almost four million have registered to vote since the election was called, a million more than at the same stage last time. They're overwhelmingly younger voters, ergo far less likely to vote Tory. What effect will this have? We have no idea, which complicates things further. One of the main reasons pollsters keep getting elections so wrong is that they can never be sure who will turn out to vote.

Pollsters also struggle in guessing which way the don't-knows will jump. Even now, after all we know about Jeremy Corbyn and all that's been said about Brexit, one in six voters remain undecided. It could be that that the Tories have already squeezed as much as they can from the Brexit vote and most don't-knows will break for Labour. Over the seven days that YouGov took to complete its complicated new poll, its forecast for a Tory majority fell by 16 seats. If this trend continues – and why shouldn't it? – there might not be any majority left at all.


Into this delicate moment leaps Donald Trump, the star guest at next week's Nato summit in London. He's keen to help the Tories, which is what is so dangerous. On his last visit, he thought it helpful to say that the NHS would be "on the table" in any US-UK trade talks. This yielded a video clip that anti-Tory campaigners now project on the side of hospitals, seen as proof that the NHS will be sacrificed on the capitalist altar. On his last visit, Trump kept British officials waiting for ages on Heathrow tarmac while he composed a tweet denouncing Sadiq Khan, the Mayor of London. The Corbynites will be praying for another denunciation this time around.

The last election was summed up best, as so often, by a Matt cartoon in this newspaper. It showed two children catching butterflies with one saying to the other: "My dad's an opinion pollster. I hope he never loses that sense of wonder and surprise at election results."

It's quite possible that pollsters' curse is broken this time, that they learn from their (years of) mistakes. But it's also possible that Labour's rise continues, driven by forces the Tories can't understand or combat, leading to yet another hung parliament. Or worse. Unlikely? Perhaps. But impossible? Absolutely not.

[Franko]

And that definition basically says you can't criticise it without being racist.

Jesus Christ, no it doesn't. It states that Jewish community institutions (Israel in your example) can be victims/targets of antisemitism.

It says nothing about criticising Israel being anti-Semitic.

This is one of the "guidelines" for interpretation of this definition, which the IHRA publish along with their definition.  To do the below is racist.

Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.

Netanyahu could literally start to gas civilians and anyone who compared it to the Nazis would be a racist.  It's absolute carte blanche nonsense.

Saddam Hussein gassed civilians but it would be ridiculous to compare him to the Nazis. If Netanyahu did anything like that, he'd be out on his ear within days. He heads a coalition government with a slender parliamentary majority. The fact that you ignore this in making such a ludicrous point suggests why the IHRA definition is needed in the first instance.

On what planet would it be ridiculous to compare a government which gassed civilians to a government which gassed civilians?

Netanyahu has shot plenty of civilians and hasn't managed to get turfed out yet.

[five points]

On what planet would it be ridiculous to compare a government which gassed civilians to a government which gassed civilians?

On any one that equates Saddam Hussein and Adolf Hitler.

Netanyahu has shot plenty of civilians and hasn't managed to get turfed out yet.

Lots of world leaders have done the same yet Israel always gets singled out.

[screenexile]

BBC have refused Johnson for the Andrew Marr show they say it has to be Neil!!