British politics

Page 3 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Re:

Brullnux said:
Massive storm among the Labour Party about anti-semitism within it. There are many alleged cases, and some are actually fairly anti-Semitic, but others solely criticise the actions of the Israeli government. I think the problem with the some parts of Labour is stressing their problem is with Zionism, rather than the Israeli government. Zionism is Jewish right to self-determination, and the actions of the Israeli government are racist. They are not the same thing.
How though do we resolve the rebus of acts of racism by the Israeli government in concomitance with Zionism's right to self-determination? I say this in the historical, social and territorial contexts.

What's taking place is ideological and it has been setup ever since Lawrence of Arabia. In the sense that, long after the Crusades, Orientalism was at the dawn of Zionism being treated philologically (at Oxford) for ideological ends. Then the industrialists and their bankers took over, with their insatiable appetite for oil. In fact they created the "Middle East."
 
May 14, 2010
5,303
4
0
Re:

Brullnux said:
Massive storm among the Labour Party about anti-semitism within it. There are many alleged cases, and some are actually fairly anti-Semitic, but others solely criticise the actions of the Israeli government. I think the problem with the some parts of Labour is stressing their problem is with Zionism, rather than the Israeli government. Zionism is Jewish right to self-determination, and the actions of the Israeli government are racist. They are not the same thing.
My friend, you need to look into the ideology of Zionism a little further. Anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism are not synonymous; in fact, many Jews are anti-Zionist.
 
Re: Re:

Maxiton said:
Brullnux said:
Massive storm among the Labour Party about anti-semitism within it. There are many alleged cases, and some are actually fairly anti-Semitic, but others solely criticise the actions of the Israeli government. I think the problem with the some parts of Labour is stressing their problem is with Zionism, rather than the Israeli government. Zionism is Jewish right to self-determination, and the actions of the Israeli government are racist. They are not the same thing.
My friend, you need to look into the ideology of Zionism a little further. Anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism are not synonymous; in fact, many Jews are anti-Zionist.
I know that, although a couple of the jibes were quite anti-semitic. My point was the media and other politicians casually mixing anti-semitism, anti-zionism and criticism of the Israeli government, purely with the goal of ***-stirring. They now the difference. My other point is Labour's lack of political knowledge. Calling yourself anti-Zionist will leave you open to attacks by the right of anti-semitism, as has been shown.
 
Re: Re:

Brullnux said:
Maxiton said:
Brullnux said:
Massive storm among the Labour Party about anti-semitism within it. There are many alleged cases, and some are actually fairly anti-Semitic, but others solely criticise the actions of the Israeli government. I think the problem with the some parts of Labour is stressing their problem is with Zionism, rather than the Israeli government. Zionism is Jewish right to self-determination, and the actions of the Israeli government are racist. They are not the same thing.
My friend, you need to look into the ideology of Zionism a little further. Anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism are not synonymous; in fact, many Jews are anti-Zionist.
I know that, although a couple of the jibes were quite anti-semitic. My point was the media and other politicians casually mixing anti-semitism, anti-zionism and criticism of the Israeli government, purely with the goal of ***-stirring. They now the difference. My other point is Labour's lack of political knowledge. Calling yourself anti-Zionist will leave you open to attacks by the right of anti-semitism, as has been shown.
The moral is don't critisize the Israeli gov. or else you get branded as anti-semetic - which taps into the historical reality I previously mentioned.

Conversely there are in fact some who hide their anti-semitism behind the curtain of critisizing the Israeli gov. Thus the rebus plays out inversely. Civilization, though, doesn't take a time-out to sort through the muck.
 
Sep 25, 2009
7,527
1
0
^^ i have already expressed my thoughts on the zionist idea previously...

in short, very short, it had revolved from a genuinely progressive, national liberation drive to a tool (today, starting about 1973) to justify an outright oppression under a false, outdated fear-tag of antisemitism.

america and europe have evrey reason to be ashamed of their record of duplicity towards the palestinians under the false premise of antisemitism. modern russia under putin is also complicit, though to a lesser degree.
 
Re:

python said:
^^ i have already expressed my thoughts on the zionist idea previously...

in short, very short, it had revolved from a genuinely progressive, national liberation drive to a tool (today, starting about 1973) to justify an outright oppression under a false, outdated fear-tag of antisemitism.

america and europe have evrey reason to be ashamed of their record of duplicity towards the palestinians under the false premise of antisemitism. modern russia under putin is also complicit, though to a lesser degree.
I agree. The zionist idea in itself IMO has no real issues. As long as they at least try to peacefully co exist with Palestine and other countries. Right now, it does have a problem. But I'm willing to say that is Netanyahu and co's fault, along with his predecessors. We, as the west, need to stand up to Netanyahu, and the Israeli govnt. But smartly, else the brand of anti-semitism will be thrown. They claim to be the most advanced and fairest gov. in the middles east. I wouldn't mind if they actually started living up that claim.
 
Aug 31, 2012
7,550
1
0
They are the most advanced and fairest gov in the ME, though that's obviously not a particularly impressive standard to live up to. Will things change?

Look at how Europeans have reacted to real and imagined threats stemming from incoming refugees and immigrants and the type of politics their reaction strengthened. Then think about whether the circumstances Israel finds itself in make it likely Israels will elect someone with markedly different foreign policy stances than Netanyahu any time soon.

On the Labour fiasco, Livingstone is hopefully gone for good. The man is nothing but a liability even to causes he supports at this point.
 
My school had a Question Time-style debate on leaving the EU today, with a random parent and historian Tim Newark for the Better Out campaign and local MP Ben Howlett for the Remain campaign. Newark was a beast, perhaps the most useless at debating I've ever seen. Howlett was actually a very nice man, and answered most questions directly. I wasn't able to ask a question, despite many on my mind, although rather embarrassingly, my dad did. He has an odd sense of humour and it took everyone a good 30 seconds or so to understand he was sarcastically saying that all immigrants should be banned and deported and that there are too many immigrants. They realised this as he has a strong Italian accent, and is an immigrant himself. And then saying that the French should have less representation in the EU parliament.

However, I did speak to both after. I asked the Better Out guy what he thought about the really real threat of the 'bonfire of rights' and loss of environmental regulations. He gave me no answer at all and finished off by saying: 'Well just go and vote Labour then'. I will, thank you very much. Needless to say I didn't like him.
 
Feb 6, 2016
1,213
0
0
Re:

Brullnux said:
My school had a Question Time-style debate on leaving the EU today, with a random parent and historian Tim Newark for the Better Out campaign and local MP Ben Howlett for the Remain campaign. Newark was a beast, perhaps the most useless at debating I've ever seen. Howlett was actually a very nice man, and answered most questions directly. I wasn't able to ask a question, despite many on my mind, although rather embarrassingly, my dad did. He has an odd sense of humour and it took everyone a good 30 seconds or so to understand he was sarcastically saying that all immigrants should be banned and deported and that there are too many immigrants. They realised this as he has a strong Italian accent, and is an immigrant himself. And then saying that the French should have less representation in the EU parliament.

However, I did speak to both after. I asked the Better Out guy what he thought about the really real threat of the 'bonfire of rights' and loss of environmental regulations. He gave me no answer at all and finished off by saying: 'Well just go and vote Labour then'. I will, thank you very much. Needless to say I didn't like him.
I still don't understand why the Remain campaign haven't pressed to kingdom come the fact that the EU has given us workers' rights, emvitonmental protection, consumer protection. I realise that the government may not like the implications of that arguments (i.e. they can't be trusted to give us working conditions rules and do on), but the Remainers are letting the narrative run away from them and presenting lacklustre and negative arguments as a response. Also beyond me why they don't talk about the EU's role in ameliorating climate change, since that's a genuinely important subject that I think some people could well be persuaded by.
 
Re:

Brullnux said:
Massive storm among the Labour Party about anti-semitism within it. There are many alleged cases, and some are actually fairly anti-Semitic, but others solely criticise the actions of the Israeli government. I think the problem with the some parts of Labour is stressing their problem is with Zionism, rather than the Israeli government. Zionism is Jewish right to self-determination, and the actions of the Israeli government are racist. They are not the same thing.
I don't know the situation in Britain but this does not surprise me at all. There had been accusation of anti-Semitism inside the French Left too. So if I compare the two, my assumption is this.

The Jewish (should say pro Israeli) associations in Europe have always had a huge influence on the left-wing parties, and to some extent the so-called right-wing parties as well.

By the seventies and most of all the eighties, those lobby groups were very instrumental in France to welcome mass immigration more particularly from Northern Africa (whether good or bad is not the point of my comment here) and the Socialists implemented that policy while the far-right of Jean-Marie Le Pen strongly stood up against it and was demonised for that, at that time (whether rightly or wrongly so is not the purpose of my comment either).

Since the noughties, those Jewish pro-Israeli intellectuals such as Bernard-Henri Levy or Alain Finkielkraut who had advocated for the welcoming of mass immigration in the eighties were now turncoating and start pointing the finger at those population that they helped bringing here because of their Islam faith (because women have the bad idea to wear veils, etc.) and because they are living in ghettoes, and not really wishing to assimilate (which in their mouth mean accepting the Western overconsumerist system). In other words they have been taking over the Le Pen speeches but 20 to 30 years later and are not ostracised for it, they are entitled to say it, they are rushing to television set to say it while Le Pen was marginalised as a Fascist.

That is also why some clowns (including on this forum) can find themselves "politically uncorrect" while they are simply parroting the dominant islamophobic discourse. That discourse was nonconformist in the eighties, not today. But those same clowns would never have said in the eighties what they are telling now.

So I guess for the left-wingers of old (so of the eighties) who have not evolved from their tolerant stance towards North African migrants of that time can be seen as "anti-Semitic" by the Jewish lobby groups and re: the French case, by the government.

If Le Pen father wished to put a mess in the present-day French politics, he should extend hand to the Islamic community in France. The "moderates" could not respond to that. He, the epitome of "racism" in European politics, becoming tolerant towards "wogs". That would be nose-thumbing. If I may come back on topic, I'd have to remember that Nick Griffin said has approached by neocons & zionists to target all his effort against Islam. When I first said that here, I was labeled an anti-Semite because Griffin is a holocaust denier while I never said I supported Griffin (who is Islamophobic!), I just observe.

I still don't understand why the Remain campaign haven't pressed to kingdom come the fact that the EU has given us workers' rights, emvitonmental protection, consumer protection.
Is that a joke? The EU have been relocating jobs overseas to low cost countries via article 63 of the TFEU (freedom of capital movement), the EU imposes GMO cultures even in countries that refuses it like mine (Belgium) and likewise approves of animal flour, is working on the TTIP, etc. By voting for Remain, you are approving of all that. Assume it.
 
To the last point, I honestly do not think my government would have done anything differently.

Belgium is a completely different country to the UK on unions and workers' rights. The UK's unions nowadays have little or no power in the wide scheme if things, are very small and marginalised by the government. Ever since the 80s it has been going this way. Belgium is much more unionised, although not as much as Italy which is borderline destructively-unionised IMO. The EU is led by countries with stronger unions than the UK, so some of that wears off onto the laws and legislations they put out. Our current government would happily take away any environmental regulations and workers protections, that the EU currently holds in place. Yes, the TTIP is an all round disaster but one if the countries is bound to veto it sooner or later. Also, the UK government sees no wrong in it and would happily negotiate its own deal with other countries very similar to the TTIP.

Take environmental legislation in what was supposed to be our 'greenest government ever'. The government has taken away subsidies from wind and solar power, rightly or not I'll leave it up to you, and increased subsidies in oil and gas. The line peddled out by Downing Street is that they want a true free market. Fine. I disagree that's the way to go on solar and wind power, but I understand it is an ideological stance. But then increasing subsidies in oil just destroys that theory, and just makes it seem that the government is intent on destroying the environment and giving money to the people who donate to their party: millionaires and billionaires that have money in the oil business. It isn't an ideological move, but cronyism.

Onto relocating jobs, leaving the EU I don't think would change much of that in the UK. Partly because in the UK a lot of businesses will just leave as soon as we leave the EU, especially in the City which the UK economy is so dependent on. The manufacturing sector is dying, partly due to said movement of jobs but also due to the inadequacy of the the UK government in protecting UK steel from China, something that the EU has tried to do but we have blocked.

Take Sir James Dyson. A successful businessman who has come out in support of leaving the EU. Where does he have all his factories and jobs? South-east Asia, mainly Thailand. Does he treat them appallingly? Yes. Would he have done anything different had the UK not been in the EU? No. He would've pushed for massive free trade treaties which would've allowed him to do so anyway, and that the Leave campaign is planning. The U.K. needs the EU's regulatory nature, otherwise we'll end up in a neo-liberal Victorian style country.

On the first point, I do not know much at all about French politics of the 1980s, and little about how it is now. In the UK however the main criticism is the lack of secularism among Islamic population. Many are liberal and agree with western social standards (I'm talking about LGBT acceptance, women's right and to a lesser extent monogamy) but many also do not. This is down to too many factors to list, but it still annoys people in a country where about 50% of the populace is non-church going. No one cares if the go and pray at the mosque. Ghettoisation is another problem. The Islamic culture is a wonderful thing and I would quite like it spread among society rather than concentrated in small sections of cities.
 
Jun 22, 2009
4,991
0
0
Re:

python said:
^^ i have already expressed my thoughts on the zionist idea previously...

in short, very short, it had revolved from a genuinely progressive, national liberation drive to a tool (today, starting about 1973) to justify an outright oppression under a false, outdated fear-tag of antisemitism.

america and europe have evrey reason to be ashamed of their record of duplicity towards the palestinians under the false premise of antisemitism. modern russia under putin is also complicit, though to a lesser degree.
Wow, I agree.

Maxiton said:
My friend, you need to look into the ideology of Zionism a little further. Anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism are not synonymous; in fact, many Jews are anti-Zionist.
Correct. *raises hand*
 
Feb 6, 2016
1,213
0
0
Echoes said:
Brullnux said:
Massive storm among the Labour Party about anti-semitism within it. There are many alleged cases, and some are actually fairly anti-Semitic, but others solely criticise the actions of the Israeli government. I think the problem with the some parts of Labour is stressing their problem is with Zionism, rather than the Israeli government. Zionism is Jewish right to self-determination, and the actions of the Israeli government are racist. They are not the same thing.
I don't know the situation in Britain but this does not surprise me at all. There had been accusation of anti-Semitism inside the French Left too. So if I compare the two, my assumption is this.

The Jewish (should say pro Israeli) associations in Europe have always had a huge influence on the left-wing parties, and to some extent the so-called right-wing parties as well.

By the seventies and most of all the eighties, those lobby groups were very instrumental in France to welcome mass immigration more particularly from Northern Africa (whether good or bad is not the point of my comment here) and the Socialists implemented that policy while the far-right of Jean-Marie Le Pen strongly stood up against it and was demonised for that, at that time (whether rightly or wrongly so is not the purpose of my comment either).

Since the noughties, those Jewish pro-Israeli intellectuals such as Bernard-Henri Levy or Alain Finkielkraut who had advocated for the welcoming of mass immigration in the eighties were now turncoating and start pointing the finger at those population that they helped bringing here because of their Islam faith (because women have the bad idea to wear veils, etc.) and because they are living in ghettoes, and not really wishing to assimilate (which in their mouth mean accepting the Western overconsumerist system). In other words they have been taking over the Le Pen speeches but 20 to 30 years later and are not ostracised for it, they are entitled to say it, they are rushing to television set to say it while Le Pen was marginalised as a Fascist.

That is also why some clowns (including on this forum) can find themselves "politically uncorrect" while they are simply parroting the dominant islamophobic discourse. That discourse was nonconformist in the eighties, not today. But those same clowns would never have said in the eighties what they are telling now.

So I guess for the left-wingers of old (so of the eighties) who have not evolved from their tolerant stance towards North African migrants of that time can be seen as "anti-Semitic" by the Jewish lobby groups and re: the French case, by the government.

If Le Pen father wished to put a mess in the present-day French politics, he should extend hand to the Islamic community in France. The "moderates" could not respond to that. He, the epitome of "racism" in European politics, becoming tolerant towards "wogs". That would be nose-thumbing. If I may come back on topic, I'd have to remember that Nick Griffin said has approached by neocons & zionists to target all his effort against Islam. When I first said that here, I was labeled an anti-Semite because Griffin is a holocaust denier while I never said I supported Griffin (who is Islamophobic!), I just observe.

I still don't understand why the Remain campaign haven't pressed to kingdom come the fact that the EU has given us workers' rights, emvitonmental protection, consumer protection.
Is that a joke? The EU have been relocating jobs overseas to low cost countries via article 63 of the TFEU (freedom of capital movement), the EU imposes GMO cultures even in countries that refuses it like mine (Belgium) and likewise approves of animal flour, is working on the TTIP, etc. By voting for Remain, you are approving of all that. Assume it.
Nice job blaming one single (and relatively powerless) institution that has on the whole done overwhelmingly more for social policy than against it for literally all of the ills of neo-liberalism. I can't think of any possible logical way that makes sense, but OK. (Also, what in the name of God is GMO culture? Are your vegetables writing symphonies now?) If you think that a UK that's left the EU would not support TTIP, you're suffering from painful naïvete. I also remind you that the principle of free movement transcending nationality is a profoundly socialist one; abandoning that seems pointless.
 
Mar 14, 2016
3,092
5
0
The Conservative government's track record clearly suggests that, if anything, they'd use Brexit to water down social, labour, environmental and consumer protection regulations.
 
Scottish parliament elections this week (Thursday). It will be another SNP landslide without a doubt. The only question is, can Labour see off the Conservatives as second party. Probably they will, but my, how times have changed to even have to type that sentence...
 
And the London Mayoral elections. I expect and hope Sadiq Khan will win but the Livingstone saga probably hasn't helped him at all. The Welsh assembly too and there too it will be interesting to see if Labour can keep a majority or if the Tories will close on them.

In England on the other hand it will be damage limitation for Labour in the local elections I fear. The last elections were just after the omnishambles budget IIRC so it was a fantastic result for Labour, but no one expects the same. The most interesting thing wil be to see if UKIP make gains on Labour in the traditional red seats. Farage recently has been trying quite hard to get these votes, backtracking on his ultra-Tory past and trying to appeal more to the working class.
 
Cannibal72 said:
Nice job blaming one single (and relatively powerless) institution that has on the whole done overwhelmingly more for social policy than against it for literally all of the ills of neo-liberalism. I can't think of any possible logical way that makes sense, but OK.
:rolleyes: :eek: I don't know how to approach this. So the EU Commission is relatively powerless? They are not the only one to blame for literally all the ills of neo-liberalism in Europe? They've done overwhelmingly more for social policy than against it? And saying the opposite does not make sense?

But seriously, am I dreaming? The relocation to low cost countries have never existed?

Article 63 of the TFEU does not exist?
1. Within the framework of the provisions set out in this Chapter, all restrictions on the movement of capital between Member States and between Member States and third countries shall be prohibited.
The EU Commission is not currently negotiating the TTIP? [which has been planned for decades, see the lobbying of the Transatlantic Policy Network whose chairwoman is the Left-wing German Erika Mann and which is or has been sponsored by Coca Cola, Microsoft, IBM, BASF, Bertelsmann (which means RTL, National Geographic, etc), Deutsche Bank, Dow Chemical, Facebook, Walt Disney Company, etc.)]

The Broad Economic Policy Guidelines which imposes absurd austerity measures to every country don't exist?

What about the European Stability Mechanism? ESM Governors enjoy total immunity nowadays. They are above the law. It's total madness.

What about the 2002 Barcelona Treaty which opened up many public sectors to free market such as electricity, the railway or the post? Is that social?

European social policy is zero. It's all about free market...


Cannibal72 said:
If you think that a UK that's left the EU would not support TTIP, you're suffering from painful naïvete.
If you vote Remain, you are approving of the TTIP, regardless. Assume it. I'm not British, so that is not my problem. If you exit the EU, it would be your responsability to vote against any form of Transatlantic Partnership at the next General Elections. My problem is that I do not want my country to be a part of it. I don't want US junk food on my plate.

Cannibal72 said:
I also remind you that the principle of free movement transcending nationality is a profoundly socialist one; abandoning that seems pointless.
How am I surprised? If so it is, I'm proud not to be a "socialist" or at least not to be a left-winger. I'm deeply social but definitely no leftist.
 
Mar 14, 2016
3,092
5
0
Echoes said:
What about the 2002 Barcelona Treaty which opened up many public sectors to free market such as electricity, the railway or the post?
And that is bad because...?
 
Mar 14, 2016
3,092
5
0
Brullnux said:
CheckMyPecs said:
Echoes said:
What about the 2002 Barcelona Treaty which opened up many public sectors to free market such as electricity, the railway or the post?
And that is bad because...?
Because it destroyed the British Railway, which was actually privatised in 1995, though.
So you blame a 2002 Treaty for the 1995 privatisation of British Railways?

And, even then, while the privatisation of BR was botched, opening things up to competition is generally a good thing for consumers. The airline market is a great example.
 
CheckMyPecs said:
Brullnux said:
CheckMyPecs said:
Echoes said:
What about the 2002 Barcelona Treaty which opened up many public sectors to free market such as electricity, the railway or the post?
And that is bad because...?
Because it destroyed the British Railway, which was actually privatised in 1995, though.
So you blame a 2002 Treaty for the 1995 privatisation of British Railways?

And, even then, while the privatisation of BR was botched, opening things up to competition is generally a good thing for consumers. The airline market is a great example.
The post service also has gone downhill since privatisation a few years back. Energy companies have become extortionate monsters.
 
Mar 14, 2016
3,092
5
0
Echoes said:
I'm talking about my country.
It's bad because of higher prices, to start with.
Thanks to liberalisation, air fares are way lower than they were in the 1990s, and that's just one example.
 
CheckMyPecs said:
Echoes said:
I'm talking about my country.
It's bad because of higher prices, to start with.
Thanks to liberalisation, air fares are way lower than they were in the 1990s, and that's just one example.
OK, that's one. I'll love to hear another. Thanks to liberalisation, train fares are exceptionally high; energy prices are extortionate; and the steel industry has vanished.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY