|
In order to ensure that this thread meets TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we ask that everyone please adhere to this mod note. Posts containing only Tweets or articles adds nothing to the discussions. Therefore, when providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments will be actioned upon. All in all, please continue to enjoy posting in TL General and partake in discussions as much as you want! But please be respectful when posting or replying to someone. There is a clear difference between constructive criticism/discussion and just plain being rude and insulting. https://www.registertovote.service.gov.uk |
Northern Ireland27463 Posts
On June 03 2019 09:46 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:Labours John McDonnell stated "The issue for me on the Brexit Party is not where the votes are going; it’s the nature of its politics. "It gives a stepping stone for the far right and that’s very worrying. We had that politics in this area for a long time, with the BNP and the National Front. I wouldn’t want it to be inflicted on the rest of society." (Times Magazine) Yet the Equality and Human Rights Commission is investigating the Labour party for Anti-Semitism.Labour joins the BNP as the only political parties to be investigated by the Equality and Human Rights Commission.So don't mention the BNP when you have that in common with them and maybe get rid of the intolerant bigots in your own party before you start claiming others are the bigots?.. https://www.theguardian.com/news/2019/jun/02/labour-antisemitism-probe-ehrc-evidence-from-100-witnessesShow nested quote +
Mason said that antisemitism within the party had shown no signs of reducing since the investigation was launched: “It’s ongoing. The Labour party has just emerged from the pre-election period and, for that period, constituency Labour parties aren’t allowed to hold meetings, but now that they can again, we’ve got constituencies debating and rejecting the EHRC, calling it all a smear, diminishing the experience of Jewish members.
“Nothing has changed. We continue to see the same behaviour that we have seen for a very long time and no action taken to tackle it.”
A load of guff with fuck all details, like almost none.
If the grounds of what constitutes anti-Semitic behaviour, how the party facilitates it and whatnot come out then maybe yeah, make a case that there’s systemic anti-Semitism in the Labour Party.
I’m not saying it isn’t an issue but it’s article after artf Or talking about the Labour Party being anti-Semitic without actually couching it in anecdotal form that makes it in any way plausible. If I read an article from a Labour member who was belittled and prevented from advancing due to being Jewish I’d take that seriously.
I’ve read a lot of articles on the subject and they just assert it without actually putting the case forward. The heir apparent to Blair lost the leadership to his brother, both of whom are Jewish.
It reads to many people, myself included that being critical of Israel and being anti-Semitic are being needlessly conflated, and a lot of people straight up don’t buy it. Especially when it’s suddenly become such an issue under a leadership that is more decidedly left wing than usual. If this is a long-term endemic thing why is it only relatively recently that it’s become such a problem?
|
Northern Ireland27463 Posts
Like you care about the attitudes of Labour towards Jews, but the evidenced racially tinged immigrant hating scaremongering of the Brexit crew is just democratic and the will of the people right?
|
On May 31 2019 07:12 Zaros wrote:https://flavible.com/politics/map/polls?sid=2050Latest Poll and Map, would be a crazy result but if Labour and the Lib dems are splitting their vote roughly 50:50 the Conservatives or the Brexit Party (depending on if brexit is delivered by the time of the election or not) could sweep a landslide majority by just getting into the low to mid 30s.
Uh, what? The majority by the tweet is Liberal Democrats and by seats it is 185 labour seats and 175 LDem and then its 134 for BRX. What sourcery is this that the brexit party has a landslide?
|
On June 04 2019 02:11 Dangermousecatdog wrote:Uh, what? The majority by the tweet is Liberal Democrats and by seats it is 185 labour seats and 175 LDem and then its 134 for BRX. What sourcery is this that the brexit party has a landslide?
I said Landslide if they get into the low 30s by eating most of the conservative vote, not based on that poll.
|
That was not what you said. What you wrote is actually quoted in the post above yours. Why claim you said that when you did not?
|
"could sweep a landslide majority by just getting into the low to mid 30s"
In other news I would highly recommend the Margaret Thatcher Documentary on the bbc (Thatcher a very British revolution) very interesting and informative.
And the Conservative leadership election rules have been leaked:
|
On June 04 2019 02:19 Zaros wrote:
I said Landslide if they get into the low 30s by eating most of the conservative vote, not based on that poll. On June 04 2019 06:28 Zaros wrote:
"could sweep a landslide majority by just getting into the low to mid 30s"
Where did you say " by eating most of the conservative vote". The very part that would make the post make sense. What a joke you are.
Here we have an example of a hardcore brexiteer. Who claims to have written something, when he has not, and then continues to claim that he did so, despite that this we can visually see that you have not.
Why do this? We know you was basing it on the poll, because there was only one sentence in your post!
It would be easy to simply write that you intended to include that the brexit party would eat most of the conservative vote, and then we could have a pleasant discussion, but instead you continue to deny the reality of written words that you wrote that are plain to see.
|
On June 04 2019 06:57 Dangermousecatdog wrote:Show nested quote +On June 04 2019 02:19 Zaros wrote:
I said Landslide if they get into the low 30s by eating most of the conservative vote, not based on that poll. Show nested quote +On June 04 2019 06:28 Zaros wrote:
"could sweep a landslide majority by just getting into the low to mid 30s" Where did you say " by eating most of the conservative vote". The very part that would make the post make sense. What a joke you are. Here we have an example of a hardcore brexiteer. Who claims to have written something, when he has not, and then continues to claim that he did so, despite that this we can visually see that you have not. Why do this? We know you was basing it on the poll, because there was only one sentence in your post! It would be easy to simply write that you intended to include that the brexit party would eat most of the conservative vote, and then we could have a pleasant discussion, but instead you continue to deny the reality of written words that you wrote that are plain to see.
In his defense it does say that now. Might have gone back and edited it in, but it does say the words he's quoting.
|
It was pretty clear what Zaros meant anyway. I'm not sure why you're being so aggressive about it.
|
Norway28906 Posts
On June 04 2019 06:57 Dangermousecatdog wrote:Show nested quote +On June 04 2019 02:19 Zaros wrote:
I said Landslide if they get into the low 30s by eating most of the conservative vote, not based on that poll. Show nested quote +On June 04 2019 06:28 Zaros wrote:
"could sweep a landslide majority by just getting into the low to mid 30s" Where did you say " by eating most of the conservative vote". The very part that would make the post make sense. What a joke you are. Here we have an example of a hardcore brexiteer. Who claims to have written something, when he has not, and then continues to claim that he did so, despite that this we can visually see that you have not. Why do this? We know you was basing it on the poll, because there was only one sentence in your post! It would be easy to simply write that you intended to include that the brexit party would eat most of the conservative vote, and then we could have a pleasant discussion, but instead you continue to deny the reality of written words that you wrote that are plain to see.
You literally quote him saying those words..
|
some news on the rules for the leadership.
|
iamthedave, Liquiddrone, you need to reread the order of the posting.
Those are three seperate posts.
First quote is of Zaros is the twitter showing the poll and one sentence which makes no sense.
Second quote is of claiming he said something he did not.
Third quote is of Zaros continuing to claim he said something (eating most of the conservative vote part) by quoting himself as if he did. The quotation marks he used still does not validate that he said Landslide if they get into the low 30s by eating most of the conservative vote, for he did not.
It's astonishingly effective, because we naturally assume that there is no reason for him to lie, especially when there is no reason to do so. That is what makes it so strange. If he said he forgot to add it in, it would be a perfectly natural thing that we can all accept.
|
On June 06 2019 01:50 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
iamthedave, Liquiddrone, you need to reread the order of the posting.
Those are three seperate posts.
First quote is of Zaros is the twitter showing the poll and one sentence which makes no sense.
Second quote is of claiming he said something he did not.
Third quote is of Zaros continuing to claim he said something (eating most of the conservative vote part) by quoting himself as if he did. The quotation marks he used still does not validate that he said Landslide if they get into the low 30s by eating most of the conservative vote, for he did not.
It's astonishingly effective, because we naturally assume that there is no reason for him to lie, especially when there is no reason to do so. That is what makes it so strange. If he said he forgot to add it in, it would be a perfectly natural thing that we can all accept.
I thought my meaning was implied most people understood what I meant, apologies if you did not.
|
See, that would be fine, and I would accept that and then we could have a nice discussion about how fttp system is screwing the brexit party over or how other parties could eat each other's vote or whatever.
You now see how easy it is, if you simply don't claim that you said something you did not and drag this out to both our detriment?
|
Norway28906 Posts
Or you could just read the second post you quoted and realize that this is him clarifying his first post. You're the one trying to win a discussion based on this point, or whatever.
|
Seems like the era of 4 party politics
Peterborough by election tonight looking close between labour and brexit party
|
United Kingdom10006 Posts
Those numbers look good for Farage, but he really should have been able to win Peterborough, they voted 60% to leave.
Luckily, we have the ever insightful Brexit party blaming it on Pakistani voters,the way you would expect them to:
Brexit party insiders said Labour’s reliance upon a mainly Pakistani vote in inner-city wards had been the difference between the parties. “Some of these houses had 14 people in them registered to vote. It would be interesting to see what proportion voted Labour,” said one.
Stay classy Brexit Party lulz
|
On June 07 2019 15:05 Jockmcplop wrote:Those numbers look good for Farage, but he really should have been able to win Peterborough, they voted 60% to leave. Luckily, we have the ever insightful Brexit party blaming it on Pakistani voters,the way you would expect them to: Show nested quote +Brexit party insiders said Labour’s reliance upon a mainly Pakistani vote in inner-city wards had been the difference between the parties. “Some of these houses had 14 people in them registered to vote. It would be interesting to see what proportion voted Labour,” said one. Stay classy Brexit Party lulz
But don't you get it, that is totally unfair! The good English brexiteer with his 1 child only has three votes in his house, while that family of Pakistani has 14 in that one house. Everyone knows that votes should belong to houses and not to people.
|
Northern Ireland27463 Posts
On June 07 2019 17:56 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2019 15:05 Jockmcplop wrote:Those numbers look good for Farage, but he really should have been able to win Peterborough, they voted 60% to leave. Luckily, we have the ever insightful Brexit party blaming it on Pakistani voters,the way you would expect them to: Brexit party insiders said Labour’s reliance upon a mainly Pakistani vote in inner-city wards had been the difference between the parties. “Some of these houses had 14 people in them registered to vote. It would be interesting to see what proportion voted Labour,” said one. Stay classy Brexit Party lulz But don't you get it, that is totally unfair! The good English brexiteer with his 1 child only has three votes in his house, while that family of Pakistani has 14 in that one house. Everyone knows that votes should belong to houses and not to people.
‘From the folks that brought you 3/5th of a person, comes 1/14th of a house’
|
United Kingdom10006 Posts
I know you can't draw conclusions from just one result but do you guys think there's truth in what Labour are saying? By that I mean that they should be focusing on things other than Brexit and that they can win an election as the anti-austerity party regardless of Brexit...
Its an interesting idea but its something I would have rejected out of hand before this by-election result. They won this by campaigning on local issues and anti-austerity issues.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
