In two days time, the UK Labour Party is likely to lose the next general election.
The party is grappling with a self inflicted dilemma; adopt the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s definition of anti-semitism or stick with it’s own version which is looser on criticism of the Israeli Government’s behaviour.
For months now, Jeremy Corbyn, who is clearly not a racist, has steadfastly refused to accept that the party had an anti-semitic element. However, in early August, the Labour leader admitted there was a “real problem“.
For a brief moment, it looked like Labour might be able to move on to the pressing parliamentary business of knocking over the most despised and divided Government in a generation.
Like fish in a barrel, Jeremy, like fish in a barrel.
But, no, footage of Corbyn surfaced a week ago which showed him at his bumbling worst. Referring to English Zionists, he opined that:
“They clearly have two problems. One is that they don’t want to study history, and secondly, having lived in this country for a very long time, probably all their lives, don’t understand English irony either.”
Nah, irony is leading the opposition and failing to land a blow on the weakest British PM since records began.
Corbyn’s response to the video was that he was using an accurate definition of Zionism and that attacking Zionism was not in itself anti-semitic.
And, of course, he’s right.
Zionism is racist. It’s a half arsed nationalist philosophy that claims that adherents of one particular religion are better than all the others and therefore they have a right to treat their neighbours like dirt. In terms of its intellectual heft, Zionism is up there with Scientology; both pseudo religions that appear to have been drafted in crayon.
But being technically correct about the word Zionist does nothing for Jeremy Corbyn’s claims that he is dedicated to weeding out ‘genuine’ anti-semites from Labour.
And if you really, really need to have a go at modern Zionism, it might help if you have skin in the game.
In two days, Labour’s national executive committee will decide whether to adopt the IHRA’s definition of anti-semitism and appease their critics or die in a ditch they’ve dug themselves.
Don’t know about you, but I’m picking they’ll find a way to look hopeless whatever they do.
It’s like Corbyn would rather not be Prime Minister.
Principles, innit!
The shame of it is that there is so much to criticise the right wing Government of Israel about without even needing to mention Zionism. They’re just awful people, doing awful things.
Though we shouldn’t ignore the history of anti-semitism. It goes a long way to explaining why the Israeli right is so inhumane to its fellow semites. Whenever I see another Israeli government atrocity I see a beaten child who has grown up to beat his own children.
Maybe Israel’s next generation will break the cycle of violence, but I’m not optimistic.
In the meantime, let’s hope Corbyn’s Labour Party do the pragmatic thing; adopt the definition in full, expel those in the party who are genuinely racist and make peace with those Jewish Labour MP’s who have been at the sharp end of this debate.
A quick dead rat then get on with the job of dumping the Tories.
How hard can it be?
“Brian Wilson: Anti-semitism is vile – but so is smear against Labour”
https://t.co/7O5tvFdxVQ?amp=1
Pretty hard.
You’ve the Israeli state backed LFI behind most of Labour’s problems,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ceCOhdgRBoc&vl=en
abetted by agnostic Blairites who will use absolutely anything to oust Corbyn.
Turn about is fair play, Jeremy should unapologetically sack Hodge and fellow travelers.
Tolerating dissent off camera is one thing, allowing sustained gratuitous grandstanding assaults on the Party by sledging the leader is something else altogether.
Totally agree.
“Turn about is fair play, Jeremy should unapologetically sack Hodge and fellow travelers.:
You forget that Corbyn for most of his time as an MP was ‘voting against the whip’
The Highest number of times in one year the Blair years was 148 .
Corbyn Votes against Labour Whip
1983: 19 – which made him the 8th most rebellious Labour MP
1987: 36 – 7th most rebellious Labour MP
1992: 72 – 3rd most rebellious Labour MP
1997: 64 – the most rebellious Labour MP
2001: 148 – the most rebellious Labour MP
2005: 216 – the most rebellious Labour MP
2010: 62 – 3rd most rebellious Labour MP
http://revolts.co.uk/?p=932
Corbyn cant turn around now and ‘sack dissenters’ as he and others were dissenters during the Blair years.
That doesn’t work dukeofurl. It is not a matter of fairness, ‘I did it so you can too’. It is a matter of how the best person to handle present and future conditions for good results, can attain a position where necessary policies can be decided and implemented. Otherwise it is an echo of David Low’s cartoon with the two baddies, Hitler and Stalin, greeting each other, recognising a kindred spirit. Corbyn must do what is right now to go forward!
Then there is Barack Obama one of the few in Congress who opposed Bush’s war in Iraq – the only credible candidate for POTUS left standing in 2008.
Blair went with Bush, those who disagreed were right. Blair took in the East Europeans 10 years before required, its resulted in the UKIP growing in strength …
To me anti semitism is like any common garden variety bigotry against a group of people, could be the Chinese, could be the Australians , moreover could be based on religion or race… or a number of other slurs…
Whereas anti Zionism ,… well that seems to me to be an ideology of various degrees. It could be a mild believing in Israels simple right to exist right through to the extreme of pan -Israel,… denoting certain historic and present individuals desire for preeminence globally. Such as is reputed to be among certain of the Rothschild’s family who paid for the building pf the Supreme court and Knesset etc… and who undoubtedly finance other groups and pay off other politicians to see things ‘ their way’.
Antisemitism is the race, things pertaining to that race , its history and its people, Zionism is more a political ideology I should imagine.
Therefore detractors of Corbyn are deliberately misleading the tabloids and public by not discerning the difference between the two. Which is more the Machiavellian and evil minded deceit. I think perhaps this point should be made to silence those critics . Seems this sort of confusion has been going on for years and used conveniently when suits by these sorts of opportunists.
I’m not fond of Exclusive Brethren, who are willing to agitate in non-religious ways, let’s say. I consider myself Christian but don’t want to be near their supposed form. I guess Zionism demands the same allegiance to an ideology that could be a step to the side from Jewish religious beliefs.
This debacle raises a question Corbyn fanbois and fangirls should spend some time pondering: if Corbyn is such an abject failure in basic political management, would having him become prime minister actually be a good thing for the left? What came after Jimmy Carter?
Have you heard of the Trump school of political management
I bet you think hes doing fine by his supporters and its just his opponents who think hes a political incompetent.
This has to be one of the most wrong headed pieces I have read on this site in a long time. let’s take a look at a post that appears to wish to be a monument to Orwell’s observation that lie repeated often enough becomes the truth.
“…In two days, Labour’s national executive committee will decide whether to adopt the IHRA’s definition of anti-semitism and appease their critics or die in a ditch they’ve dug themselves….”
If the poster could to point to some sort of concrete evidence this is impacting the Labour vote in any substantial way, I would be much obliged. And not some fantasist counter factual about how they should be miles ahead – actual evidence, please. The British public so far appear to be aware the whole anit-semitism “scandal” is completely bonkers fake news, concocted by those who, as Brian Wilson writes in Ed’s link above, “…seek to do as much damage as possible on their way to the exit, while presenting themselves as custodians of high principle…” indeed, I read this morning that Peter Willsman was re-elected to the Labour NEC and pro-Corbyn candidates tooka clean sweep of the NEC positions on offer. Latest polling – http://ukpollingreport.co.uk – indicates no impact whatsoever on Labour support by this ridiculous Westminster bubble soap opera.
So much for disunity, eh TRP? We need to be crystal clear about this point. The “disunity” and the smears are coming from the Blairites in Labour, who have plenty of allies in the establishment media, all of whom are absolutely determined to remove the threat that Corbyn poses to their class privilege and political power. THESE PEOPLE HAVE NO CONSTITUENCY IN THE WIDER ELECTORATE WHATSOEVER. And what is more they know it. The reasons why they haven’t all buggered off to form a centrist party is a) they’d all lose their seats and b) their sole political mission is now a negative one – to destroy Labour in order to deny a Corbyn led Labour power – something they can do best by inflicting maximum damage from inside the party. Once safely re-elected on a Labour ticket in 2020, they’ll then act as a bunch of betrayers and stymie genuine reform for another five years before finally flouncing off to fat salaries in the private sector. These people are traitors, pure and simple.
The revolting (in every sense of the word) Margaret Hodge let the cat out of the bag yesterday – https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/sep/02/margaret-hodge-jeremy-corbyn-problem-labour-antisemitism-crisis – when she said this now an issue about Corbyn’s leadership, as if it ever wasn’t simply a smear campaign to get rid of him.
Which leads us to this doozy from the post above:
“…In the meantime, let’s hope Corbyn’s Labour Party do the pragmatic thing; adopt the definition in full, expel those in the party who are genuinely racist and make peace with those Jewish Labour MP’s who have been at the sharp end of this debate…”
This is the most politically naive thing I have read ina fair little while. It pre-supposes the debate has been honest from the start. In the article linked to above, Hodge reveals the tactics of the Blairites -or more accurately, the smearites – “…Labour MP says adopting IHRA definition not enough as former PM speaks out on issue…” In other words, no matter what Corbyn and Labour do, Hodge and the rest of the pro-Israel, anti-Corbyn political elites will simply shift the goalposts and leak another doctored photo, another “incriminating” snippet. They know Labour isn’t anti-semitic. Their real agenda is to get rid of Corbyn.
And what to make of this?
“…Don’t know about you, but I’m picking they’ll find a way to look hopeless whatever they do…”
Jesus H Christ, TRP. Has it not yet sunk in the British establishment loath Corbyn? The guy could rescue Mary and Baby Jesus from Herod’s soldiers looking to kill the firstborn and the Guardian Zionist brigade would attack him for backing the Romans against a legitimate Jewish government. All in all, I would recommend TE REO PUTAKE spends less time taking at face value anything he’she reads in the British establishment media, which is only different in it’s agendas from the redtops in it’s pious hypocrisy. At least the Daily Mail has the virtue of a certain odious honesty. And the side panel of shame, which I never read of course.
I agree with that.
The British media is far more partisan than the more broad based NZ media could ever hope to be, even though our crowd slant national.
Hi, Sanctuary. I appreciate your detailed comment, though I disagree with a fair bit of it. There’s a couple of points I’d like to make.
Referring to Corbyn’s opponents as Blairites is part of why Labour are in such trouble. Othering is a form of bigotry. It looks and sounds nasty and it turns people off. The Labour Party used to be a broad church, tolerant of diverse opinions. No more. There is a Stalinist streak to the Corbyn camp that is truly off putting.
You say the British establishment loath Corbyn. That’s not quite right. They loath what he stands for, but he is no threat to them. The real problem is that the majority of voters dislike Corbyn, and the media reflect that antipathy.
In short, the man is currently unelectable; the Neil Kinnock of our time.
On the upside, there is still time to turn it around. Sort out the anti-semitism. Call for a second Brexit referendum. Actively oppose the Tories.
Win.
Another thing to note about British polling, and support for Corbyn. One of the reason Labour did so well last election was that during the election campaign the media is forced by law to offer more balanced coverage – this had the effect of surprising a lot of voters about Corbyn, who had been subject to relentless smears since his election to the leadership. During the campaign, the percentage of those with a positive image of the Labour leader rocketed up.
For all the talk of the youth quake, this was a major reason for Labour doing so well. Given that except for a brief period of shock after the 2017 election, the UK media has resumed smearing Corbyn relentlessly. Therefore, it follows that a similar effect will occur in 2020.
Zionism in itself does not suck. Indeed it has official sanction from the UN. Israel’s right to exist as a safe haven for Jewish people around the World is a current given. If you believe that Israel does not have a right to exist in such a way then you have to accept all the awful consequences that come with that.
The real issue with Zionism is that it comes up against Palestinian nationalism. You can still support Zionism whilst also supporting Palestinians right to self determination. You just need to accept some compromises such as land for peace. The trouble with Corbyn is he isn’t known for compromising his views very often (if at all).
If only Palestinians had the same right to a ‘safe haven”…
Once there is a two state solution in place they will have a right to a safe haven. That stated the Palestinians culture and heritage is very similar to those around them in the Middle East so they aren’t in danger of having their culture wiped out.
Except:
So Palestinians get no citizenship anywhere in the region, they become stateless, …similar to other historical diaspora.
Yes the Arab nations are making a political point in doing that despite Palestinians living in their countries for three or more generations now.
So how can a two state system develop in your opinion then?
I actually prefer the idea of a Confederation where the Israelis and Palestinians both have a State in their own right but also share sovereignty over elements of the territory. What I think is critical in my mind is that the Palestinian side needs to give up the idea of the right of return to actual land and accept compensation (possibly paid for via the international community). The Israelis in return need to allow the Palestinians a viable space they can have control over which will include the closure of some Settlements and the swapping of land in Israel proper. Jerusalem should be an open city under a joint sovereignty.
So irredentism is fine for jews but not for palestinians ?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irredentism
A large section of the Israeli population doesnt even accept there is such a thing as a Palestinian or Palestine. They consider Jordan is ‘their country’
That is correct. Just as Polish people can promote Poland for the Poles but the Germans who used to live there can’t do the same for Germans.
Thats how WW2 started.
Poland has a terrible history of irredentism as they wanted to lord over the Lithuanians and the Ukrainians.
The former Yugoslavia basic problems were mostly due to Serb irredentism- it almost allways leads to various forms of genocide.
Thats the reason why its wrong.
But at least the Poles and germans were previously resident, the Jews in Palestine were immigrants
You miss my point. The Poles who now live in what used to be German Silesia and Pomerania can quite happily claim to be living in Poland for Polish people. The Germans who used to be the majority who lived there can’t claim to live there any more because they LOST the War.
Zionism has proven in the real world to suck utterly.
Israel apparently believes its right to exist eclipses that of the Palestinians.
The real issue is a want of good faith – Israel has none.
Correction – Some Israelis believe that. A good number of Israelis see no problem with a two State solution. The point being Zionism in itself is not inconsistent with a two State solution.
Never mind what they say Gosman – we’re in the real world here, watching what they do. And what they do is lie, kill and oppress Palestinians, and steal their land. Until they utterly reject such policies no moral person can lend them support, and BDS is a minimum response.
How many nations are you going to do that to? China, Russia, Turkey, Indonesia, Armenia, etc etc all do what you accuse Israel of to minorities in their lands. Are you pushing for BDS for them as well?
Oh really – shooting stone throwing children? Pirating aid convoys? Sponsoring disgusting pieces of shit like Whaleoil? Forging passports? Israel is a stand out.
Of course China, Russia, Turkey etc. (and let’s not forget Saudi and Syria) deserve condemnation for their worst actions.
But Israel is the subject of this thread, and while I understand your desire to derail it – not having a leg to stand on – they must necessarily each be considered in their own context rather than assembled into a crude and untenable false generalization to excuse your favourite murderers du jour.
The Israelis are not breaking International law by intercepting convoys making their way to Gaza. This was established at an international tribunal chaired by Sir Geoffrey Palmer.
https://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/02/world/middleeast/02flotilla.html
As if Palmer were in any way trustworthy – the scoundrel who cobbled together the Sealord deal in direct contravention of the Treaty.
If Israelis tried to board my ship in International waters I’d fire on them, and I would be entirely within my rights to do so.
Better would be to have one of these though: http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/the-weapon-of-sound-sonic-canon-gives-pirates-an-earful-a-385048.html
I find it hilarious you think you could take on the Israeli military and win.
Count on Gosman to bring a forte main argument to a moral fight.
If Israelis butcher an aid convoy in international waters even long time followers will desert them.
The thing is to oppose their illegal actions. Antipiracy devices would achieve that nicely.
Unlikely to work I would suggest. Give it a go and see where it gets you.
“find it hilarious you think you could take on the Israeli military and win”
Well hezbollah have done OK.
Hezbollah gets a regular pasting from the Israeli airforce and haven’t posed much of a threat to Northern Israel for years.
“Hezbollah gets a regular pasting”.
Yup – regular and disproportionate use of force – the kind of thing that has made Israel an international pariah.
Celebrate it – you’re a pariah too.
Just like Israel I care little what you think
https://missilethreat.csis.org/country/hezbollahs-rocket-arsenal/
“Just like Israel I care little what you think”
The defining trait of pariahs.
The defining trait of pariahs is that they are shunned by a wide group. Whether or not they care about being shunned is irrelevant.
Defining traits are extrinsic then? What a strange universe of nonsense you inhabit Gosman.
Gosman Corbyn is saying the same thing.
Corbyn probably doesn’t know what he wants on this subject except to be seen to support what he regards as oppressed people.
So wrong again Gosman
United Nations General Assembly Resolution 3379, adopted on 10 November 1975 by a vote of 72 to 35 (with 32 abstentions), “determine[d] that Zionism is a form of racism and racial discrimination”.
This was later revoked as Israel refused to participate in madrid peace process
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_General_Assembly_Resolution_3379
Its hardly a ringing endorsement of Zionism
Israel was set up by the UN General Assembly Resolution and this has not been revoked or repealed. Given the very concept of Israel is a Zionist ideal then you cannot say the UN opposes Zionism. It may well oppose the expansion of Zionism but it doesn’t oppose the concept.
Yes the UN took over the league of nations mandate, and the US twisted arms to get the General Assembly to vote on a partition.
That would be great if the original partition could be restored – as the UN wanted.
That wouldnt suit you would it. As Israel doesnt event want the the cease fire lines after 1948.
Israel wont be happy till almost all of Palestine is permanently under their control, UN be damned.
The US was not a huge supporter of Israel back in 1947
The Arab nations (And Palestinians) rejected the partition in 1947. They declared War on Israel and as a result of losing the war they paid the price. This is no different to the Germans losing territory as a result of starting WWII.
Gosman on the subject of Israel and Zionism is either stupid or dishonest …. a good example of this being his statements over Israels deliberate attack and killing of usa sercvicemen on the uss Liberty …. Gosmans misleading statements on the attempted sinking of the US Navy ship the Liberty is an insult to the survivors of this old Israeli war crime.
This good doco belowe shows the views of the survivors involved …..
And it also shows the power of the Israeli lobby over usa politics …. Which would be 100x the electoral influence than Russia ….
Sorry did I say 100x the influence of Russia …. that should have been 1000x …. the Israel lobby owned both the horses in the race for usa president
Even if the war criminal Hillary had won the white-house …. zionist Isreael still won…..
Their meddling in british politics has been exposed before.
Zionism is obviously not a religion …. its a state of bad faith ( ie that steals homes, land, waqteer etc )…. and it feasts out on the “anti-semite” smear.
There was no logical reason why the Israeli military would have deliberately targetted the US ship. The reaction of the Israeli military and political leadership after the ship was attacked highlights this was a mistake not on purpose. Unless you can tell me what advantage Israel gained from the attack?
Your mistaken Gosman …. I was not trying to educate You …. I was educating people about you.
People can watch the documentary and weigh up the evidence of the surviving eye witlessness s
against your statements …..
I agree with Sanctuary @ 6 & some of the reasoning in 5 while not finding TRP’s analysis problematic enough to take issue with the overall gist. It’s a complex and nuanced situation. When I read commentary (think it was the Guardian last week) about those sections of the IHRA’s definition of anti-semitism Corbyn had rejected, it seemed to me he was right to do so.
Progress will hinge on whether Labour is willing to be defeated by pc conformists. I hope they decide to take a moral stand in support of Corbyn. I’d like to see the principles at issue debated more thoroughly.
It was amusing to see that the UNGA had made fools of themselves by deciding that zionism is racism in 1975 without explaining why (according to Wikipedia, although the lobbyists probably do so during their advocacy). It was good to see that the UNGA revoked that decision in 1991. I was amused that no admission that their original rationale for making that decision was invalid was included! It’s essential that the United Nations demonstrate it’s ongoing lack of credibility via such insults to the intelligence of the world’s people.
Zionism could be defined as racism on a valid basis. That would require the doctrine of racial superiority to be included in the definition. Perhaps this: Zionism is the belief that Jerusalem is Zion, and semites ought to own it due to their innate superiority over other races. I suspect the state of Israel would reject this on at least two counts: hegemony ought to be over the promised land (Canaan) as per divine mandate, plus the explicit advocacy of racial superiority is too honest. A third count would be that not all semites are jews.
While I have taken an interest in this issue in UK Labour, if one steps back, it is hardly the most important thing going on in Britain at the moment.
The key issue is Brexit, which has to happen by 29 March 2019. There is almost zero chance of an election before then. Brexit is the burden of the conservative government and Corbyn knows that. He has no enthusiasm to take on that burden in the next few months. I suspect he will support any half way plausible Brexit deal that is presented to him, since he won’t want to have an election on Brexit. To do so and to win would mean that the Brexit problem is entirely his to solve. A likely government killer.
Brexit will either be on a formula similar to May’s Chequers deal, or it will be an exit without a deal, ie reversion to WTO rules. Whatever the deal it has to allow the British to do free trade deals with other countries. That limits the EU position as much as it does the British.
Corbyn will want the antisemitism issue well in the past. From what I read, he may well adopt the full IHRA definition simply to get the issue behind him. It won’t be an issue he wants around for the next election.
After all he will want to fight the next election on everything other than this issue and Brexit. Of which there will be heaps.
I am pretty sure that once Brexit is done, support for the Conservatives will slide. The only reason it wouldn’t, is if Brexit proves to be an enormous success. The next election is due in May 2022, three years after Brexit. The Conservatives might need all that time to show that Brexit is a success. Alternatively they may just blow up in the three years following Brexit.
I also think that this is storm in teacup territory. Internal LP factions waving a cause to settle other scores. Probably with the Israeli government promoting it as an exercise in suppressing any criticism.
Right now it is really hard to see ANY way for Brexit to be a success.
I also can’t see a lot of reason for NZ getting involved in trade agreements with the UK. Outside of low profit and low employment commodity agricultural products we don’t seem to have much potential trade with the UK. It isn’t like their tech and industrial offers much incentive to look their way.
I have no sentiment about the UK. I’m 5th gen here and mostly my ancestry either didn’t come from the UK or didn’t come voluntarily. Politically incompetent mismanagement in the UK has long history.
MFAT should concentrate their limited resources on less tapped out markets.
Wayne, Wayne! Hold the ladder steady
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=laEwOj5qXNo.
and btw., look for another earn (going forward).
Political irrelevancy is looming large – even the MSM is getting bored
It’s Brexit to the WTO, or its one of the existing models, nothing new for the UK.
They can single market, or they can customs union, based on existing arrangments.
May has two choices, she goes the WTO hard Brexit or she brings Labour into consensus on one of the existing model options.
I they go Brexit, Labour will have to choose which of the existing models Labour could go with on becoming government anyhow, unless the hard Brexit works …. because Donald gave them such a great FTA ….ha ha ha.
The EU is looking at their own banking transfer system to trade with the Iran etc – how is London going to continue as is? And their own IMF (just as China has done in Asia) …
Their best option is really TPP and RCEP, but each would also do a deal with the EU …
Will May put the Brexit deal to the people by calling an election?
Why would she do that?
As Britain has fixed terms of 5 years, its not soley her call.
However there are two other methods
1) Lose a vote of no confidence
2) 2/3 parliament vote for an early election ( which was the mechanism for the previous election)
The reality is against May repeating her previous early election where she increased the Tory vote by 5% but lost seats ( and they think MMP is weird) as labour increased by 9%
The PM can call an election any time as she did early in her leadership.
A new Brexit referendum is on the cards
Boris Johnston destabilising the Tories will lead to an early election.
The UK economy is suffering because of this debacle.
Post Brexit the UK economy will go into severe recession.
Pundits also said the UK economy would shrink after the vote. It didn’t. In fact it grew faster. The same will happen post Brexit. Once people/business know the actual deal, they will make the most of it. It can’t be worse than the WTO rules, which is what for instance China does most of its trade under.
If the UK can do a series of FTA’s with countries like NZ, things will move quite quickly. As an example food prices in the UK will reduce significantly.
It would probably be useful to the UK.
I don’t think that it does fuckall for us. Why bother?
It will boost the amount we sell to the UK, and with higher margins than we currently get, since we will no longer have to contend with the EU Common Agricultural Policy.
Yes thats right. EU has very agriculture tariffs . We still have a lot of agriculture exports, or based such as wine.
Wayne – like most Gnats pines for his halcion days – when unrestricted access to the UK market made our economy work to some degree in spite of his party’s gross incompetence.
Having sold off most of our farms it would interesting to see how far that logic still runs in a new century.
Governments own very little farms so no Government has sold most of them off. Even if you count allowing farms to be purchased via the OIO most are still in the hands of NZ residents. Once again you make up nonsense.
Try hard not to be so obtuse you wretchedly backward fuckwit.
OIO (a government agency) approval is required to sell NZ farms abroad.
Under the slavering greed and drooling incompetence that characterised the previous government, the OIO became so lax that they allowed sales willy nilly, ignoring the requirement that such investments produce tangible local benefits.
The rubber stamping of these inappropriate sales was a deliberate government policy and none of your facile lies can make it not so.
Wake the fuck up and lift your game you worthless POS.
You still have zero evidence that MOST of NZ farms are now in the hands of foreigners
They are or will be shortly.
The rising generation of farm workers and managers do not accrue, in the course of a lifetime’s work, anything approaching the capital sum required to purchase most farms. Ergo most farms are or will be sold offshore.
Try to keep up.
Zero evidence Stuart Munro. Zero evidence.
Try to keep up Gosman.
There are these things called trends.
No, not those sad bell-bottomed corduroy things you mistook for them forty years ago, but tendencies that are expressed in the real world.
NZ farm ownership is moving rapidly offshore, because the factors that kept it local were deemed by a generation of economic incompetents like yourself to be unimportant. So we have Dutch, South African, Chinese and Korean farms all over the place, not to mention those acquired by North Americans.
None of this is evidence of course – if you just keep your head firmly buried in the sand you can ignore it and find your intellectual level at the same time.
I must say @Wayne, I admire your ability to survive in the 21st Century. (It’s probably the only thing I admire).
Is it because you’ve learned how to ‘fossilise’?
Any tips would be greatly appreciated
Trickle down you didnt read my post.
“The PM can call an election any time as she did early in her leadership.”
That election was a decision of 2/3 parliament , that didnt end well for her.
“In Rastafari, Zion stands for a utopian place of unity, peace and freedom, as opposed to Babylon, the oppressing and exploiting system of the materialistic modern world and a place of evil. It proclaims Zion, as reference to Ethiopia, the original birthplace of humankind”. “It originally referred to a specific hill in Jerusalem (Mount Zion), located to the south of Mount Moriah (the Temple Mount). Mount Zion held a Jebusite fortress of the same name that was conquered by David and was re-named the City of David”. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zion]
These two origin myths arose independently, but you see here the linking Zoroastrian frame of good & evil acquired in Babylon by the captive Israelites via race-memories of their home city passed down the generations, juxtaposed with the imperial dominance of the city in which they lived enslaved before being liberated to return home by the Persian conqueror of Babylon, the Emperor Cyrus.
Maybe those who see Corbyn as such a great existential threat to the Jewish people and Zionism in general should go create a new party with Frank Field.
And if they could take any Blairites* who aren’t worried about anti semitism with them..that would be great…then maybe we could start talking about Corbyn’s actual policies..heaven forbid..though there is a part of me looking forward to what the mainstream can come up with next to try and sideline Corbyn..first he’s unelectable, next he’s a hogger of train seats, then he’s apparently running a suddenly sexist Labour Party..
Though I’m still curious as to why the Tory’s get a free ride on this issue..
https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-conservative-party-rulebook-doesnt-mention-antisemitism
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/aug/31/antisemitism-frank-field-resign-jumped-mp-labour
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traingate
“Look at them! They are just as bad as us (if not more so). Please ignore us and focus on them.”
So having no ‘antisemitism rule’ is Ok while having one thats 90% of a standard one is unacceptable.
Pointing this out merely shows the ‘antisemitism rule’ in political partys isnt the real issue but using it against Corbyn and Labour is .
A bit Early for the ‘Gosman gallop’ of logic .
Come off it gozzer, if I urged you to quit shitting on my lawn while continuing to shit on yours, you’d point out the inconsistency quickly enough.
Heh – if Corbyn had written this post, then the suggestion of A quick dead rat then get on with the job of dumping the Tories. would have been jumped on as being code for eating Jewish babies or some such.
Anyway, I suspect the British public look on the whole supposed anti-semite stuff in much the same way as the US public look upon the Russian stuff they’re being subjected to – ie, couldn’t give a flying fuck. (Apparently, less than 1% of those polled in the US thought “Russiagate” was important)
You’re dead right about Corbyn and the ‘dead rat’, Bill. The man isn’t going to get a break. Well, at least until he gets a grip on the problems in his party. And, as I suggested in the post, I get the feeling he’d rather stick to some inarticulated principle than actually win the next election.
Re: the UK polls, according to YouGov, 69% of poms think the Tories are ballsing up Brexit. However, they still prefer the Conservative party over Labour.
Corbyn’s failure to lead on Brexit, the sense that the entryists have taken control of the party, the bigotry of some of Corbyn’s supporters, the ‘othering’ of Jewish MP’s by describing them as Blairites and a general feeling amongst the voting population that Labour are hopeless, all spell defeat in the next election, whenever it is.
The amazing thing in all this is that Theresa May is going to win the next election despite being entirely uninspiring and being utterly unable to unite her own party.
It’s not the media’s fault that Corbyn is tanking. The problem is the man himself.
I can’t really comment on US polling, as I’m not that fluent in Russian 😉
Whereas I think the liberals/Blairites would rather lose the next election – as a means to win back control of the party (claim membership democracy was a failed experiment).
Within the margin of error: http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/
This site has an excellent comparison display of past poll results so we can see trends: before the two recent ties in late July, mid-July had Labour ahead. Re August: “August is normally a quiet time for polling – partly because the political agenda is often quite bare, partly because both pollsters themselves and the journalists who normally commission public polls will likely be taking their holidays”.
It’s a historical fact that jew baiting issues are political currency, and the use of such is unscrupulous cover for other things and nothing to do with supposed general jewish cultural interests in populations one way or another.
Israel society itself, is quite a discriminatory affair within it’s own jewish population sects i have read variously.
Much of the time it is likely that the fermentation of jewish issues into political spats are due to small groups of stratified jewish interests exploiting a general jewish population culture as it’s political currency for other things.
This is more about growing pains – the Labour Party becoming a democracy.
First members vote the leader, then members choose the candidates – the coming de-selection feared by Blairites.
So why not go down first by saving the party from anti-semites (left wingers), aided by the Tory and or Blairite media, seems to be the thinking here.
The response to the Blairites be gone is this effort to get their retaliation in first (having lost the leadership to Corbyn) by having left wingers removed by accusation of “anti-semitism”. An “anti-semite” be gone first move.
The Labour Party should tough this out and then leave it to the members to purge the Blairites by de-selection.
The media focus on this invented issue leaves them and the May establishment in post Brexit disrepute – and in fear of real democracy being exercised by both party membership and the public. Labour would be well placed to campaign from outside the corrupt system and win popular support.
The second head of the liberal elite, the Blairites, would be forced to become members of the LD and accept the end of their hostile takeover of the workers party.