The Chairman Mao resembling, Monarchy hating, threat to Britain, Labour Party thread

[HanoiVillan]

3 hours ago, ml1dch said:

"All we need to do is just keep quiet, say nothing and the public will think we're better than the Tories"

<narrator> "They didn't"

 

 

 

I'm not much of a one for 'poll unskewing' but YouGov always show the worst results for Labour. We'll know more as we see more polling from other pollsters. 

That being said, it should be expected that Labour will experience a big fall in the opinion polls, but I'm not expecting to see it until after the 'meaningful vote' really. 

[blandy]

1 hour ago, HanoiVillan said:

it should be expected that Labour will experience a big fall in the opinion polls

I think I know what you mean, but on a wider point, no it shouldn't. With such an abysmal government, making such a complete clusterpork of, well, everything, an opposition should be way ahead and climbing in these polls. The opposition though is as incompetent and divided as the government.

[bickster]

Just in case anyone though Corbyn had a clue (thread)

 

[blandy]

18 minutes ago, bickster said:

Just in case anyone though Corbyn had a clue (thread)

 

I don't think his band of angry tramps give a damn. It's like a cult.

[bickster]

Just now, blandy said:

I don't think his band of angry tramps give a damn. It's like a cult.

its funny on Reddit in r/ukpolitics, I'm getting downvoting for pointing out that he's clueless on the issue even though its patently obvious, he's clueless on the issue.

It's definitely a cult... roll on Waco

[tonyh29]

I watched Corbyn on the Marr show .. in terms of trying to sell his party ,I  thought he did a decent job , he did revert briefly back into his sneering disdain mode then remembered his training and slid back into fake politician mode again , even tried a few jokes , that Marr laughed at the same way I laugh at Stewert Lee but without the cussing

the substance of what he said was wishy washy , but in terms of yer average voter who won't fact check anything he'd have done well ...if only  those people watched the Andrew Marr show

[bickster]

2 minutes ago, tonyh29 said:

I watched Corbyn on the Marr show .. in terms of trying to sell his party ,I  thought he did a decent job , he did revert briefly back into his sneering disdain mode then remembered his training and slid back into fake politician mode again , even tried a few jokes , that Marr laughed at the same way I laugh at Stewert Lee but without the cussing

the substance of what he said was wishy washy , but in terms of yer average voter who won't fact check anything he'd have done well ...if only  those people watched the Andrew Marr show

In a previous time when Marr was a journalist, he'd have pulled Corbyn up on that rubbish. He's nothing more than a talk show host now

[HanoiVillan]

2 hours ago, bickster said:

Just in case anyone though Corbyn had a clue (thread)

 

I think this is pretty weak. To be a member of the EU, you have to be a member of the ECHR, and you can't withdraw from the ECHR and remain in the EU, and the Treaty of Lisbon obliged the EU as a body to sign up to the ECHR, and the ECJ relies on the principles of the ECHR when issuing judgements. 

Is that complex relationship best described, in a clause-length aside in a sentence, as 'only in part an EU institution' or 'has nothing to do with the EU' or something else? 

[Demitri_C]

This is why the conservatives are still in power because their owner is pathetic. If they had someone like Hilary been or David Lammy I think they would win this landslide next election. 

Corbyn is not trustworthy like may

[snowychap]

6 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

I think this is pretty weak. To be a member of the EU, you have to be a member of the ECHR, and you can't withdraw from the ECHR and remain in the EU, and the Treaty of Lisbon obliged the EU as a body to sign up to the ECHR, and the ECJ relies on the principles of the ECHR when issuing judgements. 

Is that complex relationship best described, in a clause-length aside in a sentence, as 'only in part an EU institution' or 'has nothing to do with the EU' or something else? 

That's not a particularly complex relationship.

The ECtHR is not an EU institution. It is not 'in part an EU institution'.

[HanoiVillan]

3 minutes ago, snowychap said:

That's not a particularly complex relationship.

The ECtHR is not an EU institution. It is not 'in part an EU institution'.

I agree. I also wouldn't say 'it's a totally separate institution' either, which the tweet at the top of this thread states. It isn't totally separate; they are entwined in at least three ways

I'm not arguing that he was correct - he wasn't. I am arguing that seizing upon a clause in one sentence and jumping up and down shouting 'OMG OMG what a mong' is daft. He wasn't discoursing on the structure of EU institutions to a Government and Politics class, he was stating that Labour policy will not be to leave the ECHR. But instead, we're parsing an aside for some reason. 

[snowychap]

13 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

I agree. I also wouldn't say 'it's a totally separate institution' either, which the tweet at the top of this thread states. It isn't totally separate; they are entwined in at least three ways

I'm not arguing that he was correct - he wasn't. I am arguing that seizing upon a clause in one sentence and jumping up and down shouting 'OMG OMG what a mong' is daft. He wasn't discoursing on the structure of EU institutions to a Government and Politics class, he was stating that Labour policy will not be to leave the ECHR. But instead, we're parsing an aside for some reason. 

'Entwined'? That's a bit of a bizarre way to put it especially when you're querying someone for having a go at someone else's wording. I understand you're trying to push an angle but come on.

Sure, EU member states are parties to the convention (and required to be such) - along with the other members of the Council of Europe - and the ECJ takes into its understanding both the convention and the rulings of the Court but I don't think that allows for a comment that says that the ECtHR is in part an EU institution.

The reason we're looking at the comment is that it's a fundamental and too oft repeated error that sits at the heart of a lot of bogus criticism of the EU.

Read further down the thread following on from Adam Wagner's initial tweet and you get the following:

And then further down, he goes on too say the following:

 

I think it's important that the Leader of the Opposition doesn't help perpetuate myths.

[bickster]

32 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

I agree. I also wouldn't say 'it's a totally separate institution' either, which the tweet at the top of this thread states. It isn't totally separate; they are entwined in at least three ways

I'm not arguing that he was correct - he wasn't. I am arguing that seizing upon a clause in one sentence and jumping up and down shouting 'OMG OMG what a mong' is daft. He wasn't discoursing on the structure of EU institutions to a Government and Politics class, he was stating that Labour policy will not be to leave the ECHR. But instead, we're parsing an aside for some reason. 

It predates the EU by a very large number of years. The EU Flag is actually a design taken from the Council of Europe Flag.

There is nothing weak in this argument. It is fact.

What you are suggesting is akin to arguing the the World Trade Organisation is “in part an EU institution”.

There are only two possibilities here. He's clueless or he's lying. Clueless is the benevolent interpretation. If he isn’t clueless, he's got another agenda

[Jon]

1 hour ago, Demitri_C said:

their owner is pathetic. 

This ain't football Dem. Jez doesn't 'own' Labour 

[Jon]

1 hour ago, Demitri_C said:

If they had someone like Hilary been.

 They'd have more luck with Mr Bean than Hilary Been. 

[Xann]

Quote

 

From the start, reporting of the “anti-Semitism crisis” in the UK’s Labour Party has been characterized by dishonesty, exaggeration and outright fabrication.

The real target of this manufactured crisis is not genuine anti-Semites, but Jeremy Corbyn and the wider Palestine solidarity movement.

But now additional evidence has come to light of a disturbing trend which has been fueling the fire lit since Corbyn’s first leadership victory in September 2015.

An investigation by The Electronic Intifada has documented 10 fake Twitter profiles posing as Corbyn supporters who have been posting virulent anti-Semitism.

The accounts share sufficient similarities to indicate that the same person – or group – is running them.

Without police involvement or a court case, it’s impossible to know for sure who is behind this troll network.

But whoever it is, they are clearly attempting to smear Labour as an anti-Semitic party.

 

Electronic Intifada

Golly.

[Seat68]

Utter bollocks. I follow a few high profile people that have been targeted by anti semites and its been long standing accounts, labour supporters and created prior to Corbyns election. 

[Xann]

3 hours ago, Seat68 said:

Utter bollocks.

Read it again then fact check it.

Then check out the publication.

It's Left leaning and reports from a Palestinian perspective, that's fairly obvious.

Its record for not telling porkies is remarkable.

[Seat68]

Xann not being critical of you but think it's skewed to fit their truth. Their may be examples of accounts set up to troll and besmirch the labour party but it also coming from long standing members. Real long standing members. One of them, as an example lives in the street behind me. That said some of them are known Labour activists. 

[bickster]

2 minutes ago, Xann said:

Read it again then fact check it.

Then check out the publication.

It's Left leaning and reports from a Palestinian perspective, that's fairly obvious.

Its record for not telling porkies is remarkable.

I'd say it's a bit of everything

Yes there's some anti-semitism

Yes, it's been exaggerated

Yes, the Labour Leadership have dealt with it incompetently

Yes, some of what is being termed anti-semitism really isn't

Yes, there probably has been some bot / fake account behaviour

The middle position is somewhere near the real position, there's a bit of everything. Taking a polarised view on this issue is pointless and won't help the situation.

And the whole thing hasn't been helped by the ridiculous definition of anti-semitism's examples which do nothing but serve Israel's agenda

(Not a pop at anyone just using @Xann's post as a reference point)