30-SEP 2023 : LAB 39% / CON 29% / LDM 12% / GRN 7%

[Mr Poppy]

Bit of a partisan bias on the top one. 'Neutral' wording with the comments made by Rishi (UK HMG) and Starmer (Opposition) might have been more interesting, especially given they agree on the importance of a United approach.

For the second one then after Biden's visit arguably made things worse then good to see broad based support for Rishi to avoid a visit to the region. Boris (et al) liked to pop over to Ukraine every now and then but that is very different. The appearance of taking sides in Hamas v Israel is not something that UK should get involved in. We can stand behind Israel's right to defend itself AND the rights of the people in the Gaza strip by not being as stupid and easily played as Biden 🤦‍♂️

[mercian]

Oct 18, 2023 16:14:58 GMT pjw1961 said:

Oct 18, 2023 13:41:02 GMT mercian said:

I have it on good authority that Ug, one of my ancestors, used to charge for rides on his wheel. Usual fee was a slice of mammoth meat.

We've done this one before. Ug might have been a jolly enterprising chap, but what he's doing is not capitalism. People bought and sold and traded for thousands of years before capitalism got going in the late middle ages/Renaissance (at the earliest; some would go as late as the 18th century).  

I forgot to say that he sold shares in the profits from the wheel rides, in exchange for particularly nice-looking rocks (the first form of currency). Dividends were paid in bits of the mammoth slices.

[Deleted]

Oct 18, 2023 16:25:12 GMT c-a-r-f-r-e-w said:

Oct 18, 2023 15:41:52 GMT neilj said:

That and Morris Dancing

have you got any Polling to show that Neil?

Or a video?

[athena]

Oct 18, 2023 8:36:23 GMT pjw1961 said:

... in 2015 (pre-Corbyn and when Labour had a Jewish leader) the much smaller number of Jewish voters were already 70%+ Conservative in line with their social characteristics.

Not sure where your >70% figure comes from, but I'm not sure it's reliable. There was a Survation poll (n=566) in 2015 which reported Con VI = 69%, Lab VI = 22%, but it's not clear the sample was representative of the Jewish population. The v. brief Methodology statement I found says 'pre-selected on the basis of a high probability of likely Jewish identity, estimated from a range of demographic indicators selected by Survation in consultation with Jewish community leaders and academics. Respondents were asked to confirm before the start of the survey whether they were Jewish (including secular and non-practicing) and only those who did were continued into the survey.'

A report on a 2010 survey (which asked about political leaning rather than VI) with a much larger sample (n=4081, although sub-sample of n=1000 for the politican leaning analysis) is more transparent about recruitment and compared its sample with the 2001 census data to assess representativeness with respect to demographic and religious cultural parameters - and weighted accordingly. This found 31% thought of themselves politically as Lab, 30% as Con, with demographic patterns as you'd expect (with the possible exception of sex, with men being much more likely to identify as Con than women - I can't remember the chronology of sex differences in VI for the general population).

A later survey (Dec 2017; n=512; fieldwork by Survation), reported Tory VI = 62%; Lab = 15% and tentatively attributes the antipathy to Lab to perceptions of Corbyn's leadership, but there are problems with the sample (no information about the religious cultural affiliation of respondents, a signficant problem as Orthodoxy is associated with political conservatism) and the analysis raises more questions than it answers.

Bah. In better weather I'd have been outside doing something more enjoyable and constructive than faffing about doing a non-exhaustive search for evidence to confirm or disconfirm a statement that was slightly out of line with my not particularly strong or informed guesstimate. I'm not even very interested in the political affiliations or voting behaviour of the UK's Jewish population.

[Deleted]

If the US were working out how their very complicated political system should work would they really invent their current voting system and responsibilities for a Speaker? Never mind their ability to elect a President who obtains a minority of the National vote, as Trump did in 2020.

It is embarrassingly mad.

[neilj]

Oct 18, 2023 16:56:17 GMT @fecklessmiser said:

Oct 18, 2023 16:25:12 GMT c-a-r-f-r-e-w said:

have you got any Polling to show that Neil?

Or a video?

Definitive proof
youtu.be/_psj5xzYHzY?feature=shared

[athena]

Oct 18, 2023 11:37:44 GMT leftieliberal said:

I think that Starmer was swayed by another related issue. The level of anti-Semitism in the Labour Party under Corbyn's leadership (even if he personally was blameless) was significant. Starmer has successfully neutralised that, but it has has led to him leaning more to the Israeli side than the Palestinian side. Objectively, he should have been more even-handed, but to move in that direction now, would open up his flank to the right-wing newspapers decrying him for allowing anti-Semitism to rise again. It doesn't matter that it isn't true; what matters is it might persuade wavering ex-Tory voters not to switch their vote to Labour. In this, the small number of Jewish voters is irrelevant, as you say they primarily vote Conservative anyway, but to come out with a statement that is portrayed as pro-Muslim could also alienate Hindu voters and I know from first-hand experience how effectively Bob Blackman used that particular issue. 

I may not have been following what the party leaders have been saying as closely as you and pjw1961 , but I don't have many quibbles with what Starmer has said so far (nor Sunak, for which I'm heaving a sigh of relief as it's rather too easy to imagine that it might have been otherwise under recent former PMs and some of the likely future candidates for Tory leadership). I certainly agree that if Starmer is perceived to modify his approach to appease Muslim party members and voters he will undo all the good work he has done to repair the damage done by the party's tolerance for anti-Semitism under Corbyn.

When stories about anti-Semitism in Corbyn's Lab started to emerge I was inclined to believe that whilst there was a problem (the Lab candidate who nearly beat Clegg in Sheff Hallam in 2015, after running a strong, multi-platform local campaign, is Jewish and declined to stand in 2019 because of the hostile atmosphere in the party; the constituency party voted 40:1 in support of Chris Williamson, after he said Lab had been 'too apologetic' about anti-Semitism - a vote that the then Lab parliamentary candidate couldn't be bothered to attend), it had probably been exaggerated by the generally hostile media and levels of anti-Semitism might be little different in other parties. Having observed reactions to the atrocious Hamas attacks and Israel's response I've modified my point of view.

[pjw1961]

Oct 18, 2023 17:06:03 GMT @fecklessmiser said:

If the US were working out how their very complicated political system should work would they really invent their current voting system and responsibilities for a Speaker? Never mind their ability to elect a President who obtains a minority of the National vote, as Trump did in 2020.

It is embarrassingly mad.

The disadvantage of a written (US) constitution - no flexibility. The disadvantage of an unwritten (UK) constitution - no certainty. 

[pjw1961]

Oct 18, 2023 16:58:56 GMT athena said:

Oct 18, 2023 8:36:23 GMT pjw1961 said:

... in 2015 (pre-Corbyn and when Labour had a Jewish leader) the much smaller number of Jewish voters were already 70%+ Conservative in line with their social characteristics.

Not sure where your >70% figure comes from, but I'm not sure it's reliable. There was a Survation poll (n=566) in 2015 which reported Con VI = 69%, Lab VI = 22%, but it's not clear the sample was representative of the Jewish population. The v. brief Methodology statement I found says 'pre-selected on the basis of a high probability of likely Jewish identity, estimated from a range of demographic indicators selected by Survation in consultation with Jewish community leaders and academics. Respondents were asked to confirm before the start of the survey whether they were Jewish (including secular and non-practicing) and only those who did were continued into the survey.'

A report on a 2010 survey (which asked about political leaning rather than VI) with a much larger sample (n=4081, although sub-sample of n=1000 for the politican leaning analysis) is more transparent about recruitment and compared its sample with the 2001 census data to assess representativeness with respect to demographic and religious cultural parameters - and weighted accordingly. This found 31% thought of themselves politically as Lab, 30% as Con, with demographic patterns as you'd expect (with the possible exception of sex, with men being much more likely to identify as Con than women - I can't remember the chronology of sex differences in VI for the general population).

A later survey (Dec 2017; n=512; fieldwork by Survation), reported Tory VI = 62%; Lab = 15% and tentatively attributes the antipathy to Lab to perceptions of Corbyn's leadership, but there are problems with the sample (no information about the religious cultural affiliation of respondents, a signficant problem as Orthodoxy is associated with political conservatism) and the analysis raises more questions than it answers.

Bah. In better weather I'd have been outside doing something more enjoyable and constructive than faffing about doing a non-exhaustive search for evidence to confirm or disconfirm a statement that was slightly out of line with my not particularly strong or informed guesstimate. I'm not even very interested in the political affiliations or voting behaviour of the UK's Jewish population.

Yes, it was the poll the Jewish Chronicle commissioned from Survation so, fair enough, I was 2% out!  

As you note the position was worse for Labour in 2017 and even worse in 2019.
www.timesofisrael.com/polls-despite-mixed-opinions-on-brexit-93-of-uk-jews-wont-vote-for-labour/

Given only 7% of Jews voted Labour in 2019 it is pretty much a given that Starmer will do better in 2024, probably a lot better. But Jews are only 0.47% of the population of England and Wales according to the 2021 census, while Muslims are 6.5% in the same census. 

Muslims have historically been a group that have heavily voted Labour. The comparable figure for 2015 is 64% Labour, 25% Conservative (see slide 6)
www.britishfuture.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/ethnicminorityvote2015.pdf

The comment that Starmer made which seems to have done the most damage is the one about Israel having the right to cut power and water off from Gaza.  

[Deleted]

Oct 18, 2023 16:14:58 GMT pjw1961 said:

Oct 18, 2023 13:41:02 GMT mercian said:

I have it on good authority that Ug, one of my ancestors, used to charge for rides on his wheel. Usual fee was a slice of mammoth meat.

We've done this one before. Ug might have been a jolly enterprising chap, but what he's doing is not capitalism. People bought and sold and traded for thousands of years before capitalism got going in the late middle ages/Renaissance (at the earliest; some would go as late as the 18th century).  

I think you need to go back further than that.:-

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism

Actually I think it may have emerged a very long time ago , in Sumerian Mesopotamia when the Agricultural Revolution  produced the grain surpluses which enabled urban society and cities. The first "writing" was to record commodity inventories.

The step from barter between individuals to trade in and inventories of commodities for sale neccessitates money, banking, etc etc

[oldnat]

Oct 18, 2023 16:03:43 GMT pjw1961 said:

Oct 18, 2023 15:41:52 GMT neilj said:

That and Morris Dancing

An Anglo-centric comment that should rightly enrage our Celtic contingent.  

If davwel was still posting, he might point out that there is a thriving Morris Dancing group in Banchory. I hope he is OK - and especially during tomorrow's Red weather warning for Angus and Aberdeenshire.

[pjw1961]

Oct 18, 2023 17:41:38 GMT colin said:

Oct 18, 2023 16:14:58 GMT pjw1961 said:

We've done this one before. Ug might have been a jolly enterprising chap, but what he's doing is not capitalism. People bought and sold and traded for thousands of years before capitalism got going in the late middle ages/Renaissance (at the earliest; some would go as late as the 18th century).  

I think you need to go back further than that.:-

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism

Actually I think it may have emerged a very long time ago , in Sumerian Mesopotamia when the Agricultural Revolution  produced the grain surpluses which enabled urban society and cities. The first "writing" was to record commodity inventories.

The step from barter between individuals to trade in and inventories of commodities for sale neccessitates money, banking, etc etc

From that article: "Capitalism, in its modern form, can be traced to the emergence of agrarian capitalism and mercantilism in the early Renaissance, in city-states like Florence."

Or this one: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_capitalism

"The origins of capitalism have been much debated (and depend partly on how capitalism is defined). The traditional account, originating in classical 18th-century liberal economic thought and still often articulated, is the 'commercialisation model'. This sees capitalism originating in trade. In this reading, capitalism emerged from earlier trade once merchants had acquired sufficient wealth (referred to as 'primitive capital') to begin investing in increasingly productive technology. This account tends to see capitalism as a continuation of trade, arising when people's natural entrepreneurialism was freed from the constraints of feudalism, partly by urbanisation. Thus it traces capitalism to early forms of merchant capitalism practiced in Western Europe during the Middle Ages.


A competitor to the 'commercialisation model' is the 'agrarian model',which explains the rise of capitalism by unique circumstances in English agrarianism. The evidence it cites is that traditional mercantilism focused on moving goods from markets where they were cheap to markets where they were expensive rather than investing in production, and that many cultures (including the early modern Dutch Republic) saw urbanisation and the amassing of wealth by merchants without the emergence of capitalist production."

The latter one in the 18th century reference I made, the first paragraph the "late middle ages/Renaissance" reference. I had actually checked before I posted!

[athena]

pjw1961
The point is not that support for Lab is low amongst the UK's Jewish population, but that obtaining a representative sample from that population requires some care and effort, because Jews are such a small fraction of the population, geographically concentrated and because there are important segmentation factors that aren't relevant to a general population sample. I don't think Survation's fieldwork is good enough to consider their data reliable.

[neilj]

US House of Representatives vote still in deadlock

[pjw1961]

Oct 18, 2023 18:11:31 GMT athena said:

pjw1961
The point is not that support for Lab is low amongst the UK's Jewish population, but that obtaining a representative sample from that population requires some care and effort, because Jews are such a small fraction of the population, geographically concentrated and because there are important segmentation factors that aren't relevant to a general population sample. I don't think Survation's fieldwork is good enough to consider their data reliable.

Survation took the Jewish Chronicle's money and were presumably happy they could do it to professional standards as a reputable polling company. I assume we could agree that, given the gap between 69% and 22% is so enormous, there is a very high degree of likelihood that far more Jews voted Conservative than Labour in 2015?

[eor]

neilj - he picked up two converts and got a vote from someone who didn't vote the first time... but lost four supporters.

Hard to see his path from here, too many dissenters aren't cranks that will hold out for concessions of power like when McCarthy had his endless re-votes, there's genuine opposition that this guy is simply not acceptable as Speaker.

As a Dem friend put it when the GOP couldn't even get the votes together to have a vote on Scalise, "it's funny because Scalise is a ****. It's also less funny because there's now one fewer name between us and Jim Jordan."

[Deleted]

Oct 18, 2023 17:49:57 GMT pjw1961 said:

Oct 18, 2023 17:41:38 GMT colin said:

I think you need to go back further than that.:-

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism

Actually I think it may have emerged a very long time ago , in Sumerian Mesopotamia when the Agricultural Revolution  produced the grain surpluses which enabled urban society and cities. The first "writing" was to record commodity inventories.

The step from barter between individuals to trade in and inventories of commodities for sale neccessitates money, banking, etc etc

From that article: "Capitalism, in its modern form, can be traced to the emergence of agrarian capitalism and mercantilism in the early Renaissance, in city-states like Florence."

Or this one: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_capitalism

"The origins of capitalism have been much debated (and depend partly on how capitalism is defined). The traditional account, originating in classical 18th-century liberal economic thought and still often articulated, is the 'commercialisation model'. This sees capitalism originating in trade. In this reading, capitalism emerged from earlier trade once merchants had acquired sufficient wealth (referred to as 'primitive capital') to begin investing in increasingly productive technology. This account tends to see capitalism as a continuation of trade, arising when people's natural entrepreneurialism was freed from the constraints of feudalism, partly by urbanisation. Thus it traces capitalism to early forms of merchant capitalism practiced in Western Europe during the Middle Ages.


A competitor to the 'commercialisation model' is the 'agrarian model',which explains the rise of capitalism by unique circumstances in English agrarianism. The evidence it cites is that traditional mercantilism focused on moving goods from markets where they were cheap to markets where they were expensive rather than investing in production, and that many cultures (including the early modern Dutch Republic) saw urbanisation and the amassing of wealth by merchants without the emergence of capitalist production."

The latter one in the 18th century reference I made, the first paragraph the "late middle ages/Renaissance" reference. I had actually checked before I posted!

You seem to ignore suggestions like a source in the Golden Age of Islam, and I detect an  "English"  angle . So will pass on a detailed discussion.

Except to observe that your  uncoupling of the Dutch Golden Age from capitalism is a real stretch. Heres an example from a review of  Pioneers of Capitalism

by Maarten Prak and Jan Luiten van Zanden. :

"When the Dutch celebrate their King’s birthday on 27 April, a national holiday, a lot of them become merchants for one day. At so-called vrijmarkten (literally: “free markets”) children and grown-ups sell toys, books, games, cookies, and other “merchandise,” or play music for money in parks, streets, and squares, haggling over prices and often using the proceeds to become buyers themselves at the same market. Municipalities abandon traffic for the occasion and keep professional merchants at bay. For Maarten Prak and Jan Luiten Van Zanden, two recently retired professors in economic history from Utrecht University, this custom is evidence of how deeply the spirit of capitalism is rooted in Dutch culture."

[domjg]

Maybe I'm being ignorant but I thought capitalism was accruing funds that others can lobby and persuade to be invested in new projects (hence the name). The Koningsdag street sales are just people selling their old stuff. They didn't even buy it with the intention of selling it on, for profit or not.

[pjw1961]

Oct 18, 2023 19:02:25 GMT colin said:

Oct 18, 2023 17:49:57 GMT pjw1961 said:

From that article: "Capitalism, in its modern form, can be traced to the emergence of agrarian capitalism and mercantilism in the early Renaissance, in city-states like Florence."

Or this one: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_capitalism

"The origins of capitalism have been much debated (and depend partly on how capitalism is defined). The traditional account, originating in classical 18th-century liberal economic thought and still often articulated, is the 'commercialisation model'. This sees capitalism originating in trade. In this reading, capitalism emerged from earlier trade once merchants had acquired sufficient wealth (referred to as 'primitive capital') to begin investing in increasingly productive technology. This account tends to see capitalism as a continuation of trade, arising when people's natural entrepreneurialism was freed from the constraints of feudalism, partly by urbanisation. Thus it traces capitalism to early forms of merchant capitalism practiced in Western Europe during the Middle Ages.


A competitor to the 'commercialisation model' is the 'agrarian model',which explains the rise of capitalism by unique circumstances in English agrarianism. The evidence it cites is that traditional mercantilism focused on moving goods from markets where they were cheap to markets where they were expensive rather than investing in production, and that many cultures (including the early modern Dutch Republic) saw urbanisation and the amassing of wealth by merchants without the emergence of capitalist production."

The latter one in the 18th century reference I made, the first paragraph the "late middle ages/Renaissance" reference. I had actually checked before I posted!

You seem to ignore suggestions like a source in the Golden Age of Islam, and I detect an  "English"  angle . So will pass on a detailed discussion.

Except to observe that your  uncoupling of the Dutch Golden Age from capitalism is a real stretch. Heres an example from a review of  Pioneers of Capitalism

by Maarten Prak and Jan Luiten van Zanden. :

"When the Dutch celebrate their King’s birthday on 27 April, a national holiday, a lot of them become merchants for one day. At so-called vrijmarkten (literally: “free markets”) children and grown-ups sell toys, books, games, cookies, and other “merchandise,” or play music for money in parks, streets, and squares, haggling over prices and often using the proceeds to become buyers themselves at the same market. Municipalities abandon traffic for the occasion and keep professional merchants at bay. For Maarten Prak and Jan Luiten Van Zanden, two recently retired professors in economic history from Utrecht University, this custom is evidence of how deeply the spirit of capitalism is rooted in Dutch culture."

None of its mine, all quotes from the link I gave. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_capitalism

I doubt that you would get many historians or economists willing to push the origins of capitalism back more than 500/600 years maximum. Trying to apply it to earlier forms of trade and mercantilism makes the phrase essentially meaningless as a descriptor. 

[graham]

No sign yet of last minute LD 'canvass returns' highlighting how the MidBeds contest is neck and neck between them and the Tories!

[pjw1961]

Oct 18, 2023 19:09:29 GMT domjg said:

Maybe I'm being ignorant but I thought capitalism was accruing funds that others can lobby and persuade to be invested in new projects (hence the name). The Koningsdag street sales are just people selling their old stuff. They didn't even buy it with the intention of selling it on, for profit or not.

Exactly. At heart a capitalist makes money from his/her ownership and investment of capital not from actually doing anything themselves - this is not to say that they can't be more active and many are, but it is not compulsory so long as you can pay labour to do it for you. To take the simplest and most familiar example, someone who buys a share in a company is not required to take any interest in running that company; he/she has supplied them with capital by buying the share and then sits back and watches the dividends roll in. The downside is that they take a risk of losing the money if the company fails. All this is very different to pre-capitalist trade models, and required society to reach a level where excess capital was available for investment, but also a certain level of individual freedom from government control (for the wealthy at least) which is why it took off hugely in Protestant Europe/North America but not in somewhere like China, despite that country's long tradition of mercantile activity.   

[JohnC]

Oct 18, 2023 10:26:31 GMT alec said:

I'm not familiar with 'normal' mobile phone costs, as I have two pay as you go accounts for total £15 pcm, but don't do any significant internet work on my smart phone for security and worktime management reasons, so all my online activity is done at home on PC/laptop via a separate secure broadband connection.

I don't know for sure, but in a world where it is essential to have an internet connection (job applications, parking fees, benefit claims etc) £30 pcm doesn't to me seem to be excessive cost for what is in effect an essential. Indeed, it may well be the cheapest way to retain an internet connection. I suspect the Tory candidate suggesting that this is a luxury that shouldn't be available to benefits claimants may have been somewhat foolish here.

www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/oct/18/tory-candidate-andrew-cooper-foulmouthed-outburst-at-jobless-parents

Some providers offer social tariffs for those on benefits. These are cheaper broadband and phone packages for people claiming Universal Credit, Pension Credit and some other benefits. Some providers call them ‘essential’ or ‘basic’ broadband. They’re delivered in the same way as normal packages, just at a lower price, as little as £15).

[Deleted]

Oct 18, 2023 19:09:29 GMT domjg said:

Maybe I'm being ignorant but I thought capitalism was accruing funds that others can lobby and persuade to be invested in new projects (hence the name). The Koningsdag street sales are just people selling their old stuff. They didn't even buy it with the intention of selling it on, for profit or not.

You  are being a little tunnel visioned I think :-

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism

[Mark]

*** ADMIN ***

Today, I came on here to see several members asking me to intervene regarding a post that had been made by Danny

I won't repeat or quote the post here.

I have read and re-read the site rules several times between then and now and, against my own judgement, have to conclude that a rule breach did not take place.

With my member hat on, I have to say that I, too thought the post was beyond the pale, but, with my admin hat on, I cannot issue a sanction as no rule, as the rules stand, was broken.

Believe me, I wanted to, but, simply couldn't invent a new rule simply because I (and others) didn't like something that was posted here.

***HOWEVER***, I have to warn Danny that I (and others) have already pulled him up on a previous post that was anti-semitic (and therefore the earlier post was a rule breach on hate speech). and that he should think very carefully before posting in the future.

The warning would usually be sent by PM and not made public, but, I feel that regarding the current situation in the Middle East, while it is fine to criticise both Hamas and the Israeli government, this must *NOT* stray into anti-semitism or racism against Palestinians or Arabic people.

Regarding the site rules, while there are clear rules on flaming other members, that does not extend to our political leaders. This is in order to faciliate robust political discussion. By the same token, there is no rule against bad taste.

I am perfectly aware that some members will be disappointed with this post. I will ask that, should any member wish to add thoughts, please do so in the 'What the board should look like' thread.

[Rafwan]

Oct 18, 2023 17:12:56 GMT athena said:

Oct 18, 2023 11:37:44 GMT leftieliberal said:

I think that Starmer was swayed by another related issue. The level of anti-Semitism in the Labour Party under Corbyn's leadership (even if he personally was blameless) was significant. Starmer has successfully neutralised that, but it has has led to him leaning more to the Israeli side than the Palestinian side. Objectively, he should have been more even-handed, but to move in that direction now, would open up his flank to the right-wing newspapers decrying him for allowing anti-Semitism to rise again. It doesn't matter that it isn't true; what matters is it might persuade wavering ex-Tory voters not to switch their vote to Labour. In this, the small number of Jewish voters is irrelevant, as you say they primarily vote Conservative anyway, but to come out with a statement that is portrayed as pro-Muslim could also alienate Hindu voters and I know from first-hand experience how effectively Bob Blackman used that particular issue. 

I may not have been following what the party leaders have been saying as closely as you and pjw1961 , but I don't have many quibbles with what Starmer has said so far (nor Sunak, for which I'm heaving a sigh of relief as it's rather too easy to imagine that it might have been otherwise under recent former PMs and some of the likely future candidates for Tory leadership). I certainly agree that if Starmer is perceived to modify his approach to appease Muslim party members and voters he will undo all the good work he has done to repair the damage done by the party's tolerance for anti-Semitism under Corbyn.

When stories about anti-Semitism in Corbyn's Lab started to emerge I was inclined to believe that whilst there was a problem (the Lab candidate who nearly beat Clegg in Sheff Hallam in 2015, after running a strong, multi-platform local campaign, is Jewish and declined to stand in 2019 because of the hostile atmosphere in the party; the constituency party voted 40:1 in support of Chris Williamson, after he said Lab had been 'too apologetic' about anti-Semitism - a vote that the then Lab parliamentary candidate couldn't be bothered to attend), it had probably been exaggerated by the generally hostile media and levels of anti-Semitism might be little different in other parties. Having observed reactions to the atrocious Hamas attacks and Israel's response I've modified my point of view.

It is difficult to fault leftieliberal’s carefully-worded remarks, but, surely athena’s highlighted claim above simply does not stand up? Williamson actually said that Labour had a proud record of fighting the “scourge” of antisemitism, and should not apologise for this. Which is just about the precise opposite of what you say here. Isn’t it?

[Mark]

*** New polling thread alert ***

ukpollingreport2.proboards.com/thread/75/oct-2023-lab-con-ldm

[Danny]

Oct 18, 2023 15:45:45 GMT alec said:

A good example here of how medics just get some things completely and totally wrong, on a systemic basis.....This is the problem we have with covid. The vast majority of doctors lack proper training in areas like evolutionary biology, basic aerosol hygiene techniques, long term viral impacts and how the immune system functions. That's why many of them are getting covid completely wrong.

I do wonder why you are so determined to prove covid will destroy the human race. Or is it just because you are guaranteed a reaction?

But for once I am pleased you acknowledge the limitations of the medical profession. Do you agree then this is likely to have contrubuted to why we adopted lockdown, which was a terribly damaging policy both to public health in other respects and to the world economy causing a world recession, simply because medics didnt know what they were doing? As recently reported by a member of Spi m, they didnt actually recommend lockdown, they merely presented it as one alternative and then politicians chose it. Presumably government are even less clued up medically than the average doctor, although if you recall the original documents, SAGE advice always came with warnings they werent choosing a course of action and government must take into account other factors. This always looked like covering thir asses, but maybe it was more than that, a desperate plea to government not to do what the questions they had been asked to answer implied government was planning to do regardless?

[Danny]

Oct 18, 2023 16:01:58 GMT neilj said:

Redfield Wilton Wales Westminster
Find the lib-dems numbers difficult to believe

There seems to be a trend to highlight these graphs of support over time with notes about political events. Problem with that is presumably that its an arbitrary choice by the polling company of what they believe significant. However, this graph highlighted con changes to their net zero policy coinciding with an uptick in their support.

But on the other hand, there was no corrsponding downtick in lab support. So maybe con are right, its a net vote winner at least in terms of motivating dont knows or disenchanted tories.

[Danny]

Oct 18, 2023 16:25:12 GMT c-a-r-f-r-e-w said:

Oct 18, 2023 15:41:52 GMT neilj said:

That and Morris Dancing

have you got any Polling to show that Neil?

Would that need a maypole?

[Danny]

Oct 18, 2023 19:09:29 GMT domjg said:

Maybe I'm being ignorant but I thought capitalism was accruing funds that others can lobby and persuade to be invested in new projects (hence the name). The Koningsdag street sales are just people selling their old stuff. They didn't even buy it with the intention of selling it on, for profit or not.

I seem to recall the invention of the limited liability company being a key step in development of capitalism. It allowed those with relatively modest amounts of money to take a share in new enterprises, or indeed old ones. It therefore helped redistribute wealth. But, the theory goes, this steady redistribution of wealth itself grew the economy.