The 2024 General Election - July 4th

[Lord Duckhunter]

27 minutes ago, pingpong said:

I remember when outright lies were looked on poorly by the general public.

😂 was this before or after New Labour. It’s pathetic trying to claim only people you disagree with lie. 

[Gloucester Saint]

1 hour ago, ecuk268 said:

Fraser Nelson, in that pinko rag The Spectator, did an analysis of the Tories plans using the same methodology and came up with an increase of £3000.

He’s one of the more objective Conservative commentators out there.

The £2k figure is being widely de-bunked today but Starmer needs to be better on his feet, I’d have simply interjected ‘so your SPADS claim Rishi’ each time Sunak popped up with it. He did deal with it well later but it shouldn’t have taken 30 minutes. 

You Gov poll afterwards reckoned Sunak edged it 51/49 which was also my impression of it on the night. The manifestos coming might help Starmer getting the measures across, I think he could have countered more on Rwanda and said ‘the cost is extortionate, our proposals would process x faster, cost y less and finish with the point he did make around reducing the accommodation cost’. He could have expanded slightly on the Border Security Command as well and compared to the VFM of Rwanda. It would mean he was answering the questions more which is an area Sunak was slightly better on.

Sunak scored some genuine hits but got laughed at and jeered three times which is unusual. He was too aggressive in the first 40 and tangled himself a few times verbally trying to get too many blows in at one time. Boris could carry it off but Rishi can’t. 

The other debates will need far stronger presenters than Julie Etchingham - Sunak just ignored her (which took a few points off the hits he did score) and Rayner/Shapps or Michael Green would have really destroyed her on Friday night. Can’t imagine Rigby, Burley or Kuenssberg getting owned like that by Sunak. 

Edited June 5 by Gloucester Saint

[The Kraken]

32 minutes ago, pingpong said:

I remember when outright lies were looked on poorly by the general public, now it seems not to matter. 

From what I’ve seen it matters a great deal and most news outlets are carrying the story negatively. Starmer and Labour have called it a lie and that’s how it’s now being projected. It’s playing out very poorly for the Tories.

32 minutes ago, pingpong said:

By the way that £2000 works out as 40 quid a month. I'd actually happily volunteer to pay that if it is spent on public services, its a bargain.  I would have expected a much higher cost to start sorting out the mess they've made. 

From what I read earlier it’s not even £2000 a year, it’s £2000 across the course of a parliament, so up to 5 years.

[whelk]

7 minutes ago, The Kraken said:

From what I’ve seen it matters a great deal and most news outlets are carrying the story negatively. Starmer and Labour have called it a lie and that’s how it’s now being projected. It’s playing out very poorly for the Tories.

From what I read earlier it’s not even £2000 a year, it’s £2000 across the course of a parliament, so up to 5 years.

You could possibly argue that Starmer deliberately didn’t rebuff it early on to allow Sunak to smugly go into repeat mode. 
Also annoyed me Sunak saying pensioners getting taxed as if a new thing. Unless you haven’t got a pot to piss in you pay tax on pensions like millions always have and even more so do with the frozen thresholds.

Edited June 5 by whelk

[revolution saint]

5 minutes ago, whelk said:

You could possibly argue that Starmer deliberately didn’t rebuff it early on to allow Sunak to smugly go into repeat mode. 
Also annoyed me Sunak saying pensioners getting taxed as if a new thing. Unless you haven’t got a pot to piss in you pay tax on pensions like millions always have and even more so do with the frozen thresholds.

Yeah, agree about the fiscal drag element of pensioner tax.  Problem is Labour have also signed up for it.

[Lord Duckhunter]

Sunak said he had a plan, Tories need to hope he’s making one for Nigel…

 

 

 

 

[The Kraken]

Farage and Galloway in one tweet, what an absolute pair of cunts.

[badgerx16]

27 minutes ago, whelk said:

You could possibly argue that Starmer deliberately didn’t rebuff it early on to allow Sunak to smugly go into repeat mode. 
 

 

[The Kraken]

I don’t think it was deliberate from Starmer. I think he tried to rebutt it early on but instead of talking over Sunak he held back, he looked frustrated that he wasn’t being allowed to make his case against it. In the end he had enough of Sunak repeating it about twenty times so just went “fuck it” and said it was nonsense. I don’t see it as some sort of genius 4D chess strategy though, he was just helped by his inclination of not talking over people, which he seemed to push the limits of the more the debate went on.

 

Edited June 5 by The Kraken

[aintforever]

Think Starmer was just trying to ignore Sunak and stick to his script, not wanting to be bossed into answering Sunak’s questions. He should have challenged it straight away because it didn’t look great at the time.

Now it has been exposed as a blatant lie it looks awful for Sunak because he repeated it over and over staring straight at the camera.

[Turkish]

[The Kraken]

Meh. I quite like Starmzy and I reckon he’d be good to go for a beer with. Still plays 5 a side, likes a beer, likes the football (Arsenal fan though), clearly a very intelligent fella and apparently swears like a sailor. 

His presentation skills need work though.

[Lord Duckhunter]

7 minutes ago, The Kraken said:

Meh. I quite like Starmzy and I reckon he’d be good to go for a beer with. Still plays 5 a side, likes a beer, likes the football (Arsenal fan though)

Fuck me, didn’t you here his boring answer to the Gareth Southgate question. I bet he calls it Footy as well.
 

Still at least he seems a genuine “footy” fan, unlike Cameron & Blair who were pony merchants. I preferred the old days when apart from a few honourable exceptions like Michael Foot our politicians didn’t follow the game. God help us if we win the Euros, there will be MBE’s flying round left right & centre, and Wokegate will probably get knighted (although he’ll probably do a Sir Kier & pretend he isn’t). 

[sadoldgit]

1 hour ago, revolution saint said:

Yeah, agree about the fiscal drag element of pensioner tax.  Problem is Labour have also signed up for it.

The trouble is the rebuilding programme is going to cost money and that money has to come from somewhere. It is one thing not to increase tax but as we know, by not increasing the tax thresholds it drags more lower income houses into the various tax brackets. If you subscribe to taxing the people at a higher rate who can afford it more then the brackets should be changed but Labour don’t want to step into the trap of raising taxes and the Tories don’t like taxing anyone apart from the poorer section of society so those on relatively high salaries will continue to be okay (apart from having to stump up more for sending their children to private schools). The problem we have is that more of the middle classes are being dragged into the area where they are no ok financially.

Labour are between a rock and a hard place. I’m sure they would like to be much more proactive with their rebuilding programme but haven’t got the financial backing to do as much as they would like. The austerity programme and Brexit have stuffed the UK good and proper. Current Tory policies have left Starmer a poison chalice and you can bet your life he will get a kicking from day 1 and everything will be Labour’s fault. Sunak is already distancing himself and his party from the last 14 years. It is all about the future. Of course it is Rishi, because you have nothing to crow about from the past.

[The Kraken]

3 minutes ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

Fuck me, didn’t you here his boring answer to the Gareth Southgate question. I bet he calls it Footy as well.
 

Still at least he seems a genuine “footy” fan, unlike Cameron & Blair who were pony merchants. I preferred the old days when apart from a few honourable exceptions like Michael Foot our politicians didn’t follow the game. God help us if we win the Euros, there will be MBE’s flying round left right & centre, and Wokegate will probably get knighted (although he’ll probably do a Sir Kier & pretend he isn’t). 

I’d switched off by then but I heard his answer was an absolute shocker 🤪

And I’m with you. I don’t know why Sunak goes for the “man of the people, I love Saints, me” approach, it’s all a bit insincere. John Major was an ardent cricket follower, as Sunak is, and there nothing wrong with just saying that’s your main sporting passion. But it’s not even on the scale of Cameron getting confused between Villa and West Ham which was an utter embarrassment, and Blair’s support of Newcastle was always transparently phoney. 

[revolution saint]

8 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

The trouble is the rebuilding programme is going to cost money and that money has to come from somewhere. It is one thing not to increase tax but as we know, by not increasing the tax thresholds it drags more lower income houses into the various tax brackets. If you subscribe to taxing the people at a higher rate who can afford it more then the brackets should be changed but Labour don’t want to step into the trap of raising taxes and the Tories don’t like taxing anyone apart from the poorer section of society so those on relatively high salaries will continue to be okay (apart from having to stump up more for sending their children to private schools). The problem we have is that more of the middle classes are being dragged into the area where they are no ok financially.

Labour are between a rock and a hard place. I’m sure they would like to be much more proactive with their rebuilding programme but haven’t got the financial backing to do as much as they would like. The austerity programme and Brexit have stuffed the UK good and proper. Current Tory policies have left Starmer a poison chalice and you can bet your life he will get a kicking from day 1 and everything will be Labour’s fault. Sunak is already distancing himself and his party from the last 14 years. It is all about the future. Of course it is Rishi, because you have nothing to crow about from the past.

Thanks for explaining my statement to me.  Much appreciated.

[ecuk268]

2 minutes ago, The Kraken said:

I’d switched off by then but I heard his answer was an absolute shocker 🤪

And I’m with you. I don’t know why Sunak goes for the “man of the people, I love Saints, me” approach, it’s all a bit insincere. John Major was an ardent cricket follower, as Sunak is, and there nothing wrong with just saying that’s your main sporting passion. But it’s not even on the scale of Cameron getting confused between Villa and West Ham which was an utter embarrassment, and Blair’s support of Newcastle was always transparently phoney. 

Rishi has now said that OWTS is his favourite song.

Shame he couldn't make the Playoff Final. Probably left it too late to get a ticket, although some had unkindly said that he was advised against going as it wouldn't look good if he got jeered at Wembley.

[egg]

I hadn't seen this.The big short, Rishi Sunak 🛁

https://t.co/StckhU0wfa

 

[sadoldgit]

10 hours ago, revolution saint said:

Thanks for explaining my statement to me.  Much appreciated.

You are welcome, but I was just chipping in my five penneth, for what it’s worth. I like to give the Chuckle Brothers something to laugh at apart from the growing civilian death toll in Gaza.

😉

Edited June 6 by sadoldgit

[sadoldgit]

John Crace is always good value.

https://amp.theguardian.com/politics/article/2024/jun/05/no-more-mr-nice-guy-rish-embracing-boris-johnsons-brand-making-stuff-up

[pingpong]

16 hours ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

😂 was this before or after New Labour. It’s pathetic trying to claim only people you disagree with lie. 

I was thinking john major era, but probably trump was the pioneer of not caring about the consequences of lying, or trying to hide it. Johnson and truss were  the same.  I thought may, starmer, and sunak had more integrity, but sunak disappointed me in the debate and subsequently. 

 

 

[sadoldgit]

Can you imagine the outrage if Frank Hester had made his comments about a Jewish woman? It appears that he donated more money to the Tory Party since he made those comments and they have kept it all. Still no big deal because it is only a black woman eh? 
 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c900138vek4o.amp

[sadoldgit]

37 minutes ago, pingpong said:

I was thinking john major era, but probably trump was the pioneer of not caring about the consequences of lying, or trying to hide it. Johnson and truss were  the same.  I thought may, starmer, and sunak had more integrity, but sunak disappointed me in the debate and subsequently. 

 

 

The likes of Trump, Farage and Johnson pioneered the use of lying about pretty much everything. There is a big difference between them and someone like Blair. He rightly still gets called out about WOMD, you would spend a lot more time calling out the lies told by Trump, Johnson and Farage. Sunak is happy to join that club it seems now. It was once the done thing for politicians  to resign if caught in a lie. It is now a perfectly acceptable campaign technique thanks to the trailblazing frequency of lying by Trump, Johnson and Farage. What was that about bringing back integrity Rishi?

[whelk]

Labour should just repeat ad nauseam in every interview ‘Lying Rishi’  

[whelk]

56 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

Can you imagine the outrage if Frank Hester had made his comments about a Jewish woman? It appears that he donated more money to the Tory Party since he made those comments and they have kept it all. Still no big deal because it is only a black woman eh? 
 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c900138vek4o.amp

Jews don’t get what they deserve eh

[sadoldgit]

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/apr/15/racism-in-britain-is-not-a-black-and-white-issue-it-is-far-more-complicated
 

The above is the article in The Observer that Diane Abbott had the whip removed for replying to. It is universally agreed, including by herself, that it was clumsy and wrong. The point that she was trying to make though is that black and brown people are immediately identifiable by dint of their skin colour and therefore are a greater target more frequently for racist abuse. They are more likely to be pulled over in a car than white people. They are more likely to be stopped and searched than white people. They have experienced more segregation over the centuries due to their skin colour. She was making her point based on skin colour, not religion, and she only mentioned some sections of white people as they experience”prejudice” as she put it, but not racism. 
Now some people have decided that was antisemitic and some people didn’t think it was. I didn’t think her comments in this instance were, which led to a few posters on here using it as evidence that I apparently hate all Jewish people. 
She has since had the whip restored and is now standing for Labour at the next election, so we must assume that Labour have decided that her comments were badly phrased rather than rabidly anti semitic and she is free to canvass in a constituency which contains a large Jewish presence.

With the news that the Tory Party are keeping Frank Hester’s original donation and a further donation he made after his comments about seeing her made him wanting to hate all black women and shoot her, perhaps it gives more weight to her argument.

Starmer quite rightly said at the time that there is no hierarchy in racism, but there does seem to be a disparity here. He is clearly paranoid about any hint of antisemism being levelled at the party again and goes out of his way to distance the party from it, but Sunak, even after being persuaded that he should call out Hester’s comments for what they are, is happy to take money from a blatant racist for his election campaign.

 

 

[sadoldgit]

7 minutes ago, whelk said:

Jews don’t get what they deserve eh

You should go and work for Netanyahu’s press office.

[Lord Duckhunter]

[Turkish]

6 posts on this thread in the last 5 hours from SOG. Finally coughed up his fiver so looks like austerity is over in his little corner of Kent. Cheers Rishi 😡

[whelk]

52 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

You should go and work for Netanyahu’s press office.

What has Israel’s govt got to do with it? You are the one desperate to look for, or not for equivalence in racism v antisemitism. Sort of thing the far right Laurence Fox types do ‘imagine if this was a white person, St George’s day. Blah blah when they finds something ‘woke’.

I genuinely don’t believe you think you are anti semitic but you are.

[Weston Super Saint]

1 hour ago, sadoldgit said:

 

The above is the article in The Observer that Diane Abbott had the whip removed for replying to. It is universally agreed, including by herself, that it was clumsy and wrong. The point that she was trying to make though is that black and brown people are immediately identifiable by dint of their skin colour and therefore are a greater target more frequently for racist abuse. 

 

I assume this is why you once spent a whole day trying to prove Jews weren't a race, because those pesky Jews just don't have any outwardly identifiable features?

[tdmickey3]

2 hours ago, Turkish said:

6 posts on this thread in the last 5 hours from SOG. Finally coughed up his fiver so looks like austerity is over in his little corner of Kent. Cheers Rishi 😡

Should encourage the feeding frenzy for you and his other followers 😉

[ecuk268]

If there are any statistics nerds like me on here this is a very interesting site regarding polling and forecasts etc.

https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/homepage.html

If uses a more granular approach by looking at each constituency in depth rather than using the UNS method (Uniform National Swing) which just assumes that a change of vote share is the same across the country.

[revolution saint]

16 minutes ago, ecuk268 said:

If there are any statistics nerds like me on here this is a very interesting site regarding polling and forecasts etc.

https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/homepage.html

If uses a more granular approach by looking at each constituency in depth rather than using the UNS method (Uniform National Swing) which just assumes that a change of vote share is the same across the country.

In my seat, New Forest East, they're predicting a swing to labour that reduces a 29% conservative majority to just 2.2%. I'd be fucking amazed if that happens.  You could put a blue rosette on a pig and it would get elected here. 

[sadoldgit]

53 minutes ago, tdmickey3 said:

Should encourage the feeding frenzy for you and his other followers 😉

Bless him. You would think he would have more important things to do like wallow in his attention seeking CoT thread. Do you think anyone has actually explained to him that he doesn’t have to read my posts? Masochistic as well as narcissistic perhaps?

[sadoldgit]

37 minutes ago, ecuk268 said:

If there are any statistics nerds like me on here this is a very interesting site regarding polling and forecasts etc.

https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/homepage.html

If uses a more granular approach by looking at each constituency in depth rather than using the UNS method (Uniform National Swing) which just assumes that a change of vote share is the same across the country.

If you haven’t already check out the tactical voting websites.

https://tactical.vote/
 

 

[Holmes_and_Watson]

4 hours ago, sadoldgit said:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/apr/15/racism-in-britain-is-not-a-black-and-white-issue-it-is-far-more-complicated
 

The above is the article in The Observer that Diane Abbott had the whip removed for replying to. It is universally agreed, including by herself, that it was clumsy and wrong. The point that she was trying to make though is that black and brown people are immediately identifiable by dint of their skin colour and therefore are a greater target more frequently for racist abuse. They are more likely to be pulled over in a car than white people. They are more likely to be stopped and searched than white people. They have experienced more segregation over the centuries due to their skin colour. She was making her point based on skin colour, not religion, and she only mentioned some sections of white people as they experience”prejudice” as she put it, but not racism. 
Now some people have decided that was antisemitic and some people didn’t think it was. I didn’t think her comments in this instance were, which led to a few posters on here using it as evidence that I apparently hate all Jewish people. 
She has since had the whip restored and is now standing for Labour at the next election, so we must assume that Labour have decided that her comments were badly phrased rather than rabidly anti semitic and she is free to canvass in a constituency which contains a large Jewish presence.

With the news that the Tory Party are keeping Frank Hester’s original donation and a further donation he made after his comments about seeing her made him wanting to hate all black women and shoot her, perhaps it gives more weight to her argument.

Starmer quite rightly said at the time that there is no hierarchy in racism, but there does seem to be a disparity here. He is clearly paranoid about any hint of antisemism being levelled at the party again and goes out of his way to distance the party from it, but Sunak, even after being persuaded that he should call out Hester’s comments for what they are, is happy to take money from a blatant racist for his election campaign.

 

 

For the record, you backed Abbott to the hilt. You agreed with her heirarchy of racism. You then went on defending your heirarchy. A number of posters pointed out what your stance meant as you proceeded to discriminate against groups including jewish people. You didn't want to know. Nor did you care about Abbott's history of such comments.

We continued to point the implications out, as your views went past Abbott's stance, past Corbyn's, past the extremes of Momentum, past Palestinian activists, and past Palistinian politicians, who had apologised for views you raced past. Along the way you ticked a number of common antisemitic tropes.

Which, from the Israel thread, you're still doing. This week saw you trying to redefine antisemitism, as you don't like the label while holding the views. Up there with your gleeful 'maybe Jeremy was right' on deaths on a safe route, and the hostages really being a lot safer with Hamas, than with Israeli forces.

Posters here did not suddenly decide anything. The impact of your opinions has been pointed out to you for years.

Conflicted, you agreed with Starmer's actions against Abbott. But you could never reconcile your two stances. Even above Starmer is right, yet paranoid. Again, above, Abbott is wrong. Yet, actually... and off you go.

Trying to retrofit later activity around views you just can't learn from, is something common to a lot of your posts. Sadly, it seems we'll be seeing a lot more of it, now you've paid your fiver. I can only hope, after this initial flurry, it gives you room to not cram everything together, and that perhaps that was part of the problem.

[Turkish]

57 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

Bless him. You would think he would have more important things to do like wallow in his attention seeking CoT thread. Do you think anyone has actually explained to him that he doesn’t have to read my posts? Masochistic as well as narcissistic perhaps?

Bit like how someone needs to explain to you having someone on ignore means you can’t reply to their posts yet somehow you seem to be able too 🤣🤣

as for attention seeking threads you started one of those yourself in the last few hours 🤣🤣🤣

[sadoldgit]

16 minutes ago, Holmes_and_Watson said:

For the record, you backed Abbott to the hilt. You agreed with her heirarchy of racism. You then went on defending your heirarchy. A number of posters pointed out what your stance meant as you proceeded to discriminate against groups including jewish people. You didn't want to know. Nor did you care about Abbott's history of such comments.

We continued to point the implications out, as your views went past Abbott's stance, past Corbyn's, past the extremes of Momentum, past Palestinian activists, and past Palistinian politicians, who had apologised for views you raced past. Along the way you ticked a number of common antisemitic tropes.

Which, from the Israel thread, you're still doing. This week saw you trying to redefine antisemitism, as you don't like the label while holding the views. Up there with your gleeful 'maybe Jeremy was right' on deaths on a safe route, and the hostages really being a lot safer with Hamas, than with Israeli forces.

Posters here did not suddenly decide anything. The impact of your opinions has been pointed out to you for years.

Conflicted, you agreed with Starmer's actions against Abbott. But you could never reconcile your two stances. Even above Starmer is right, yet paranoid. Again, above, Abbott is wrong. Yet, actually... and off you go.

Trying to retrofit later activity around views you just can't learn from, is something common to a lot of your posts. Sadly, it seems we'll be seeing a lot more of it, now you've paid your fiver. I can only hope, after this initial flurry, it gives you room to not cram everything together, and that perhaps that was part of the problem.

For the record I didn’t back Abbott to the hilt. I said that he article was clumsy and badly written but I didn’t think that it had antisemitic intent. A number of other people said the same. I said that Starmer had made the point that there is no hierarchy of racism and I agreed with that. There is a difference between talking about different types of prejudice, which is the point she was trying to make, and denying that others don’t get it, which she didn’t.

Which groups did I discriminate against and where is the evidence that I discriminated against Jewish people? If you are conflating criticism with discrimination you will not be alone in this thread.

Re Abbott’s previous comments, I stated quite clearly that I was focussing on that particular article because that is what she was suspended for. If there was any other historic reasons I don’t recall them being mentioned at the time. If there were, I assume that she has been exonerated of them as she is still in the party. There is nothing unreasonable about that as much as you would like to make it so. 
Corbyn claims that he is not antisemitic. Has he been been found guilty of being so? His handling of the antisemitism claims in Labour were poor and he is clearly a strong supporter of the Palestinians, as many people are, it doesn’t make everybody antisemitic.

I don’t think that Starmer was right to remove the whip from her but given the microscope he is under he didn’t really have any choice did he? Those who hate her and constantly play the antisemitic card had already decided her guilt, although her article was much more about black/brown and white divisions than anything to do with Jewish people specifically and if you read the article in The Observer you will see why she responded as she did.

The comment about the hostages being safer with Hamas was a reference to the IDF killing several of its own who were unarmed and carrying a white flag. The IDF were also found to have killed several Israeli police inside an Israeli police station being held hostage and then bulldozered over the scene (this from the Israeli police). Also look at the number of innocent civilians, aid workers and journalists killed by the IDF and my comment is not discriminatory, it is well justified.

As for trying to refine the definition of antisemitism, no, I was reframing it and making the obvious point that every time anyone tries to criticise the actions of the Israeli government and their military, the same old tropes are thrown back in our faces and it is made to be all about a hatred for Jewish people. I can’t claim credit for that, it came from an article from a political commentator who made the point much better than I did.

Re the length of my posts, you also write very long posts and I have switched off halfway through many of them, but thanks for the advice.

My advice to you and the others who take issue with my opinions, if you don’t like them, don’t read them. It really is very simple.

[whelk]

SOG getting great value from his fiver

[Holmes_and_Watson]

1 minute ago, whelk said:

SOG getting great value from his fiver

If only we were.

 I stopped 2 lines into the last post, seeing the number of fibs and editing he was doing in his head.

[Turkish]

1 hour ago, sadoldgit said:

For the record I didn’t back Abbott to the hilt. I said that he article was clumsy and badly written but I didn’t think that it had antisemitic intent. A number of other people said the same. I said that Starmer had made the point that there is no hierarchy of racism and I agreed with that. There is a difference between talking about different types of prejudice, which is the point she was trying to make, and denying that others don’t get it, which she didn’t.

Which groups did I discriminate against and where is the evidence that I discriminated against Jewish people? If you are conflating criticism with discrimination you will not be alone in this thread.

Re Abbott’s previous comments, I stated quite clearly that I was focussing on that particular article because that is what she was suspended for. If there was any other historic reasons I don’t recall them being mentioned at the time. If there were, I assume that she has been exonerated of them as she is still in the party. There is nothing unreasonable about that as much as you would like to make it so. 
Corbyn claims that he is not antisemitic. Has he been been found guilty of being so? His handling of the antisemitism claims in Labour were poor and he is clearly a strong supporter of the Palestinians, as many people are, it doesn’t make everybody antisemitic.

I don’t think that Starmer was right to remove the whip from her but given the microscope he is under he didn’t really have any choice did he? Those who hate her and constantly play the antisemitic card had already decided her guilt, although her article was much more about black/brown and white divisions than anything to do with Jewish people specifically and if you read the article in The Observer you will see why she responded as she did.

The comment about the hostages being safer with Hamas was a reference to the IDF killing several of its own who were unarmed and carrying a white flag. The IDF were also found to have killed several Israeli police inside an Israeli police station being held hostage and then bulldozered over the scene (this from the Israeli police). Also look at the number of innocent civilians, aid workers and journalists killed by the IDF and my comment is not discriminatory, it is well justified.

As for trying to refine the definition of antisemitism, no, I was reframing it and making the obvious point that every time anyone tries to criticise the actions of the Israeli government and their military, the same old tropes are thrown back in our faces and it is made to be all about a hatred for Jewish people. I can’t claim credit for that, it came from an article from a political commentator who made the point much better than I did.

Re the length of my posts, you also write very long posts and I have switched off halfway through many of them, but thanks for the advice.

My advice to you and the others who take issue with my opinions, if you don’t like them, don’t read them. It really is very simple.

Jesus wept you could bore for England 

[Lord Duckhunter]

Abbott completed an online antisemitism awareness course in February 2024, So she clearly thought she needed educating.  She didn’t double down on her outrageous comments, she didn’t spend hours trying to prove the Jews aren’t a race, or try to redefine what anti semitism is. She apologised & educated herself. Maybe others who have written similar Jew hating bile should follow suit…

 

[LGTL]

5 hours ago, revolution saint said:

In my seat, New Forest East, they're predicting a swing to labour that reduces a 29% conservative majority to just 2.2%. I'd be fucking amazed if that happens.  You could put a blue rosette on a pig and it would get elected here. 

I’m in the same constituency and couldn’t agree more. Tories could commit to killing all first borns and the stupid old duffers round here would still gleefully elect Julian Lewis.

That swing would be absolutely mental. 

[CB Fry]

Sunak walking out on the D-Day commemorations with world leaders to fly back for an ITV News interview instead seems absolutely insane. 

Absolute gift to Farage and Farage supporters.

Edited June 6 by CB Fry

[Turkish]

6 hours ago, whelk said:

SOG getting great value from his fiver

If only Steve Grant charged by the word, he’d be more minted than Sunak

[Fan The Flames]

5 hours ago, CB Fry said:

Sunak walking out on the D-Day commemorations with world leaders to fly back for an ITV News interview instead seems absolutely insane. 

Absolute gift to Farage and Farage supporters.

All over The Mail https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13504037/Disbelief-military-figures-Rishi-Sunak-returned-Normandy-D-Day-events-finished-General-Election-interview-recording-ITV-News.html

[egg]

5 hours ago, CB Fry said:

Sunak walking out on the D-Day commemorations with world leaders to fly back for an ITV News interview instead seems absolutely insane. 

Absolute gift to Farage and Farage supporters.

To make it worse, the interview isn't being aired until Wednesday. Complete lack of respect and judgement. 

[Turkish]

30 minutes ago, Fan The Flames said:

All over The Mail https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13504037/Disbelief-military-figures-Rishi-Sunak-returned-Normandy-D-Day-events-finished-General-Election-interview-recording-ITV-News.html

Surely the *cough* right wing press aren’t critical of Sunak for this? How can this be when we assured they would support the tories even if they insisted on child sacrifices every morning before school 

[Fan The Flames]

54 minutes ago, Turkish said:

Surely the *cough* right wing press aren’t critical of Sunak for this? How can this be when we assured they would support the tories even if they insisted on child sacrifices every morning before school 

Because the right wing press likes to mould the Tories to be what they want them to be, they use gaffs like this to remind them of their power.