That certain elements on here who are more than happy to scream ‘anti-Semitism’ at the left
Tbh bridges when I saw you highlighting 3 posts ago the close association between one Jewish lord who has been forced to resign twice from high office in disgrace, and a Jewish convicted nonce, I thought "well there's a thinly veiled antisemitic attack".
Tbh bridges when I saw you highlighting 3 posts ago the close association between one Jewish lord who has been forced to resign twice from high office in disgrace and a Jewish convicted nonce, I thought “well there’s a thinly veiled antisemitic attack”.
Edit. I guess you're just taking the piss? 😉
Ernie, I think being convinced that Peter Mandelson 'The Dark Lord' is secretly in charge of the Labour Party (with very little evidence) might well be seen as an AS conspiracy theory by some.
I'm practically a Nazi.
Don't get me going about Marx and his quest for world domination.
Or Jesus Christ for that matter.
What is it about these Jews, eh?
Ernie, I think being convinced that Peter Mandelson ‘The Dark Lord’ is secretly in charge of the Labour Party (with very little evidence) might well be seen as an AS conspiracy theory by some.
But do we really need to pay any attention to such idiots? Mandelson's influence over the Labour party has got absolutely **** all to do with him being of Jewish heritage. Same as how being Jewish had nothing to do with Epstein being a peadophile. I place those who make spurious and totally unfounded claims about anti-Semitism, in the same basket of ****s who might actually try to conflate the ****ishness of the likes of Mandelson and Epstein, with Judaism. IE; filed under 'ignore these idiots'.
What is it about these Jews, eh?
I blame Moshe and his ten commandments. Decimalising bastard. Ten? Why can't it be a decent British number, like 12, 14 or 16?
Einstein is another one. What gave him the right to decide that energy equals mass times the speed of light squared ffs?
The world is not enough for them, now they want to dominate the universal laws of physics.
But yeah, very little evidence that Mandelson is pulling Starmer's strings, apart from all the stuff reported across the media. And cosying up to wealthy donors doesn't sound like Mandelson at all.
Mind you I have referred to him as the Prince of Darkness, and there's very little evidence that he's even a prince. It's just something a read in the Times, or the Guardian, or somewhere.
I've only just realised Epstein is Jewish thanks to this thread! Seems obvious now with that name.
Nah I think Mandelson is undoubtedly highly devious, amoral, and stinking rich - but some of the ways he is characterised are dangerously close to anti Semitic tropes. Tricky one!
Admittedly it was widely reported re Starmer and Mandelson but then has gone quiet - seems odd.
Yawn. Just park all the Jewish jokes chaps it's all a bit yuck.
The world is not enough for them, now they want to dominate the universal laws of physics.
Film, Theatre, Art, Music, Comedy, Architecture, Design, Mathematics, Fashion; the list is endless. Anyone who doesn't think it's a conspiracy is most definitely a fool...
Film, Theatre, Art, Music, Comedy,
All that rolled into one man.......Mel Brooks.
Genius
The “puppet masters” stuff is an anti-Semitic trope. Those having fun using it again and again in this thread aren’t anti-Semitic (how can they be, they say they aren’t) but absolutely should know, and should behave, better. Just because we are on the Left doesn’t mean we are any better than those on the Right if we keep these tropes alive and mainstream. Be better than that.
Continuing to use unfounded and ignorant insinuation, as a way of launching ad homninem attacks on those with whom you disagree, knowing full well the context in which certain words/language were used, and knowing full well that there was no anti-Semitism whatsoever, is incredibly offensive and insulting to the memory of those who suffered and died at the hands of the Nazis. You don't get to dictate what language and words someone else can and cannot use; you've been challenged numerous times to desist from continuing with your extremely offensive behaviour, yet you choose to continue. All you are doing is undermining the genuine fight against anti-Semitism, and racism everywhere, by acting in such a cowardly and pathetic manner. Shame on you. If you had an ounce of humility and self-awareness, you'd have shut up a long time ago. Others have apologised for their mistake, yet you continue to be offensive. I genuinely feel sorry for you.
All that rolled into one man…….Mel Brooks.
Genius
His influence on the likes of Larry David, Jerry Seinfeld, Ben Stiller, Sascha Baron Cohen ands many others, is just incredible. Genius is spot on.
Lighten up mate.
I know that screaming antisemitism helped to elect a Tory government, and consequently has left a lot of bitterness, but no need to take it so personally on a mtb forum.
Edit : with regards to the previous post.
I've reported Kelvin's post. Just so that's out in the open. For constantly breaking Rule No. 1.
Lighten up mate.
What we need is a bit of comedy...
What we specifically need is possibly the finest cinema scene ever committed film…
The only game in town for me - especially given the last few days with all the rubbish on both sides of the neolib tax and spend house.
www.ted.com/talks/stephanie_kelton_the_big_myth_of_government_deficits#t-826642
Super simple MMT primer - set in the backdrop of the pandemic.
US based but equallly applies to UK.
There’s a good article in today’s Guardian by Larry Elliot on MMT.
From that Guardian piece... this bit of nonsense made me laugh...
The good news for Starmer is that Johnson is doing this because the left has won the economic and political argument.
Tax the working poor. Reduce in work benefits. Lift more property owners out of inheritance tax. Protect the incomes and wealth of landlords at all costs. Funnel public funds to mates in the private sector. Make individuals pay for their education.
Yeah, that's what we on the left have been "arguing" for.
Utter nonsense.
Shift the tax burden towards those who earn and own more. Accept the need for rent controls. Pull more public services and infrastructure back into public ownership. Fund education and training for all... start with the nurses... immediately.
There truly is an open goal for Labour. Being kind to Starmer I will say he is timing his run, we'll see.
TBF to Starmer for a moment it is true that if he proposes anything, all the Tories need to do is start saying things about 'the trouble with socialism is eventually you run out of other people's money' and 'there is no magic money tree' and 'politics of envy' or 'you want to tax hard-working people and give it all to foreigners and scroungers'.
And despite recent events people will lap it up.
For those who seem confused.
Ah, the Edinburgh Defence. Never gets old.
And despite recent events people will lap it up.
Binners article is claiming the opposite.
Although perhaps not agreeing with every single point made in the article I think there was a lot of very valid and important points made in it.
Unlike Kelvin who appears to think it was utter nonsense.
It certainly challenges concepts which most people take for granted.
But people are lazy and it's easier to believe that things are as they have always been.
Despite the obvious fact that they are not, and that we are living in strange unprecedented times.
Unlike Kelvin who appears to think it was utter nonsense.
I said that one line I quoted was nonsense, and said why I thought it was. I didn’t comment on the whole article (I agree with some of it), but as the set up was “the left have won the argument”, when in my opinion we are losing on every front (the poorer being made poorer, the rich made richer, the state abdicating responsibility for so much and paying the private sector over the odds and yet remaining the ultimate risk holder) it’s part of the agenda setting for Johnson… letting him claim to be progressive when he is regressive and attacks the less well off with his very instinct and his every action.
Binners article is claiming the opposite.
I think all that's happened is that the tories are good at taking the popular Labour policies and paying lip service to them, while proving they aren't a 'soft touch' by being horrible to migrants and provoking phoney patriotic culture wars about statues.
It's really left Labour in quite the pickle.
Speaking of creepy secret advisers (or not) - I wonder if BJ is still in touch with Steve Bannon?
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/jun/22/video-reveals-steve-bannon-links-to-boris-johnson
Yeah it's more than one line which you are disagreeing with Kelvin, you are disagreeing with the whole crux of the article.
If the Labour party is ever to return to power, it must stop repeating the line parroted by Keir Starmer at prime minister’s questions that this is the “same old Tory party”. This is lazy thinking. Boris Johnson’s government has tacked left on the economy, which is why he has taken stick from rightwing papers and strained the Tory party’s relationship with business.
Yes disproportionately hitting struggling young breadwinners is not progressive and not the best solution, but Johnson is still the least right-wing and most progressive Tory PM since before Thatcher, whatever his motives might be.
He isn't being attacked by the right-wing press and his own party for being too Tory.
Yeah it's more than one line which you are disagreeing with Kelvin, you are disagreeing with the whole crux of the article.
If the Labour party is ever to return to power, it must stop repeating the line parroted by Keir Starmer at prime minister’s questions that this is the “same old Tory party”. This is lazy thinking. Boris Johnson’s government has tacked left on the economy, which is why he has taken stick from rightwing papers and strained the Tory party’s relationship with business.
Yes disproportionately hitting struggling young breadwinners is not progressive and not the best solution, but Johnson is still the least right-wing and most progressive Tory PM since before Thatcher, whatever his motives might be.
He isn't being attacked by the right-wing press and his own party for being too Tory.
https://www.****/news/article-9963405/DAN-WOOTTON-Boriss-Corbyn-lite-agenda-proved-hes-Tory-Only.html "Under his leadership, the PM has overseen the complete demolition of Conservative policies and values, many under the guise of a global health emergency."
TBF Dan Wooton and many Mail readers see anyone left of Pinochet as a communist. But it's true that economically they've done quite a bit of non-tory stuff. Meanwhile they've gone hard right socially though - which makes it hard to call them progressive.
Rub your eyes… paying private companies more and more without any need for them to deliver value for money, while shifting the tax burden onto the renting and living pay cheque to pay cheque working poor and away from those with estates to pass on, does not mean he has moved away from right wing economics or politics one jot. Deliberately dumbed down journalism might paint that as a shift to the left, or claim some nonsense about the left having won the argument… but it’s the same old Tories… taking money from the poor and delivering it into the hands of the rich.
I don't think anyone is arguing the Tories are doing a good job of it but some of their policies are undoubtedly unusual for a Tory government.
The shifting of tax burden away from income tax to other taxes like VAT and NI is definitely regressive, but the overall tax take is high (by historical UK standards anyway)
Sorry for another Guardian article Ernie but this is a good summary imo.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/may/11/politics-left-right-tories-advantage-labour
Johnson is still the least right-wing and most progressive Tory PM since before Thatcher, whatever his motives might be.
😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣
You've ****ing lost it if you think that means the argument has been won. That's a really low bar to even try to draw a worthwhile conclusion from.
Right now, the argument has a sizeable number of the least well off abandoning Labour in favour of the tories, 'the left' being a thing of ridicule amongst those same people and a jingoistic tubthumping racist parody of Worzel Gummidge as PM. To say nothing for the total collapse of Labour in Scotland.
The argument has been put well and truly on its arse despite what the true believers think. This is nothing to do with centerists and everything to do with a parliamentary party in complete disarray and its members determined to carry on the good work by attacking each other and driving even more people away.
Get a ****ing grip for Christ's sake!
It’s only one poll… but it’s still customary to post them here I think…
https://twitter.com/steven_swinford/status/1436076040128974854?s=21
Get a **** grip for Christ’s sake!
For someone who claims not to give a toss about my opinions why the need to tell me to get a grip? Why is important to you? And important enough to add "for Christ's sake"
We've had this argument before and you think it is hilarious that I think Thatcher was more right-wing than Johnson.
Presumably you think all the comment writers who say pretty much the same thing in the FT and Guardian are also hilarious, and should obviously also get a grip for Christ's sake.
Well that's fine, you are entitled to your opinions, despite the fact they are nonsense. You obviously haven't got a very good grip on the subject, which is ironic.
If you had you would understand that yes, the NI hike is regressive, it places an unfair burden on those less able to afford, but then Johnson is a Tory so you would expect that.
However the Poll Tax was incomparably more regressive - a single mother living in one bedroom flat was paying exactly the same local tax as a billionaire living in a mansion. And so central was it to Thatcherism that Thatcher herself called it her "flagship policy".
Right across a whole range of economic issues Thatcher was to the right of Johnson.
To suggest that Johnson is more right-wing than Thatcher is nonsense. To suggest that Johnson is like Thatcher is nonsense.
Just because they were/are both Tory Party leaders doesn't mean that there is no difference. Binners Guardian article is correct imo when it says that Starmer should not keep repeating the "same old Tory party” line, it is not. And that is what seems to be confusing Labour.
Shift the tax burden towards those who can afford it least. Cut benefits when they are needed most. Shuffle funds from the public purse into the pockets of friends, contacts, and the better off. Same old Tories.
I think all that’s happened is that the tories are good at taking the popular Labour policies and paying lip service to them, while proving they aren’t a ‘soft touch’ by being horrible to migrants and provoking phoney patriotic culture wars about statues.
It’s really left Labour in quite the pickle.
Agree. The tories also have the advantage that they are largely preaching to the converted. Labour need to appeal to a high number of those voters that actually like the hardline approach to migrants and scroungers not taking their money and don't dare raise any taxes and take more of their money to fund the ill or less fortunate.
https://twitter.com/BritainElects/status/1436080285309972487?s=19
People don't like hypocrisy.
Wonder if this will stick.
Boris on his hind legs? Gove incoming?
(Starmer's IV with Rigby was awful too.)
Kelvin beat me to it. Soz.
It's us or them.
Same old Tories.
If you feel you need to say that Kelvin then it's clear that you completely disagree with the whole premise of Larry Elliott's article, and not just one line as you claimed.
The class interests that the Tories serve never changes but their behaviour certainly can.
Harold Macmillan was a highly successful Tory Prime Minister, he was every bit as much of a Tory as Margret Thatcher, an equally highly successful Tory Prime Minister.
And yet the differences between them was very clear. Macmillan was Keynesian/social democrat and Thatcher was a monetarist/neoliberal.
However callous and disregarding of social justice he might be Johnson is not a thatcherite Tory. Which is precisely why the right-wing press and members of his own party are less and happy and why he appears able to wrong-foot Starmer's Labour Party.
The reasons aren't that important but it is widely believed that he is driven primarily by the need to be popular. He is after all a born showman and all showmen crave approval and popularity.
The Larry Elliott article which binners linked suggests that Johnson's instincts have recognised that the public will no longer buy austerity and neoliberalism, in part due to Corbyn offering an alternative agenda.
Although I suspect that Johnson's recognition of the very serious limitations of neoliberalism when faced with a catastrophic crisis has also played a part.
It’s us or them.
Us?
Them?
As I said quite some time ago, Labour will win when the Tories piss enough people off not when Labour actually to anything to appeal. It is always for the Tories to lose rather than for Labour to win.
More good reading for Labour:
Except Labour have only gained very slightly and most Tory votes have gone to the LDs.
Still worrying for the Tories, their morphing into Blukip has squeezed Labour but left a space for the libdems
Blukip did a good job of getting a coalition of voters together, perhaps Starmers blandness is an asset- for many voters fear of corbyn was bigger than their fear of the tories & keeping him out was the priority
However callous and disregarding of social justice he might be Johnson is not a thatcherite Tory. Which is precisely why the right-wing press and members of his own party are less and happy and why he appears able to wrong-foot Starmer’s Labour Party.
Starmer is missing the biggest open goal ever presented to a labour opposition. As you say Johnson (if not his party) has conceded that neoliberal austerity economics doesn't work and has now shifted to 20th century era tax, borrow and spend economics. Labour have a golden opportunity now to start talking about MMT based thinking and shift the debate away from the govt finances being the same as a household's, but instead they think pretending to be a low tax, austere, 'economically responsible' party is the answer. It would be funny if it wasn't so tragic.
