Hilary Benn Sacked From The Shadow Cabinet - wider political debate

[magicjuan]

Again that's ture but generally speaking those type of people tend to be either Jewish or have Jewish friends and more often then not only do so because of the wall venom they encounter when they express a diffrent point of view on the Isreal question. I simply find it quite alarming that such idiotic and dangrous people (who do not care at all about the party, more there now agenda) have infiltrated the Labour Party and believe somthing needs to be done about them asap.

The reality is, there can be no debate on Israel. It gets to a certain point and the term anti semitism is thrown up and the debate locked down and stigma prevails by association, desreved or not.

It is a truism that you can be anti Zionist without being anti semitic, but mostly not allowed to be.

The conundrum is that there is more semitic heritage within the Palestinians than with Israel so the language needs to change.

I was accused of anti semitism by a Lib Dem councillor years ago simply for cooking a joint of ham, when I replied that I had no issue with Palestinian semitic peoples he flew into a rage and reported me. It took me an hour on the history of the state of historic Israel to defend my reasoning and the charge thrown out.

The point is, once the term anti semitism is launched it sticks and it is used and abused too easily to the detriment of genuinely anti semitic cases. The state of Israel and Judaism need to be seperated in discussions, but neither will acquiesce to that stance and the cycle continues.

 

[Gwladysstreetlad]

One doesn't justify the other in either case.

I'll not defend the idiots who blindly shut themselves off from reality over Israel but Labour need to understand that this growing number of anti semitic nutters make a lot of traditional Labour voters very uncomfortable.

 

[Toffeelover]

JC has principles but to me some times those blind one. Look at Trident, he wants rid so would any sane person but that will not fo anything in real terms for other countries holding nuclear weapons to ditch theirs. On the back of that principle JC is clearly prpared to kill of thousands of jobs in a poor part of the country and seemingly does not care for those people at all. So where is all his talk of protecting the working class. Now for me the maintenance of jobs is foremost but not for JC.
Similarly on the subject of fracking, we at least need to try a couple of boreholes to investigate the feasiblity of them to supply future energy needs and then explore if there is any geoloogical harm. If that is stopped we have to import gas from countries which have dubious HR, is that wanted? Gas is needed to heat homes otherwise how are homes to be heated? Gas is also also needed for industry of that there can be no doubt. Look at Grangemouth, the only refinery in Scotland. It now imports shale gas from the USA otherwise it would have to close and jobs therefore down the tube. Yet Strurgeon is against fracking so another leader prepared to kill off jobs. In fact she was almost trying to stop Ineos bringing the gas in. North sea supplies are dwindling there is the rub.

Just two examples.

So what price principles?

 

[Gwladysstreetlad]

The reality is, there can be no debate on Israel. It gets to a certain point and the term anti semitism is thrown up and the debate locked down and stigma prevails by association, desreved or not.

It is a truism that you can be anti Zionist without being anti semitic, but mostly not allowed to be.

The conundrum is that there is more semitic heritage within the Palestinians than with Israel so the language needs to change.

I was accused of anti semitism by a Lib Dem councillor years ago simply for cooking a joint of ham, when I replied that I had no issue with Palestinian semitic peoples he flew into a rage and reported me. It took me an hour on the history of the state of historic Israel to defend my reasoning and the charge thrown out.

The point is, once the term anti semitism is launched it sticks and it is used and abused too easily to the detriment of genuinely anti semitic cases. The state of Israel and Judaism need to be seperated in discussions, but neither will acquiesce to that stance and the cycle continues.

If only the growing number of nutters within the Labour party shared your perfectly logical point of view. Sadly many of them obviously don't.

 

[magicjuan]

If only the growing number of nutters within the Labour party shared your perfectly logical point of view. Sadly many of them obviously don't.

Not to detract from that but the the influence of the Jewish friends of Israel wield a greater influence within the party, and indeed cross party. Some of them are as fanatically minded as their counterparts yet have an allowed, uninterrupted platform for campaigning. As I said, any contrary point ends up being labelled anti semitic regardless of veracity or degrees of lunacy and therein lies a very heavy irony.

 

[magicjuan]

JC has principles but to me some times those blind one. Look at Trident, he wants rid so would any sane person but that will not fo anything in real terms for other countries holding nuclear weapons to ditch theirs. On the back of that principle JC is clearly prpared to kill of thousands of jobs in a poor part of the country and seemingly does not care for those people at all. So where is all his talk of protecting the working class. Now for me the maintenance of jobs is foremost but not for JC.
Similarly on the subject of fracking, we at least need to try a couple of boreholes to investigate the feasiblity of them to supply future energy needs and then explore if there is any geoloogical harm. If that is stopped we have to import gas from countries which have dubious HR, is that wanted? Gas is needed to heat homes otherwise how are homes to be heated? Gas is also also needed for industry of that there can be no doubt. Look at Grangemouth, the only refinery in Scotland. It now imports shale gas from the USA otherwise it would have to close and jobs therefore down the tube. Yet Strurgeon is against fracking so another leader prepared to kill off jobs. In fact she was almost trying to stop Ineos bringing the gas in. North sea supplies are dwindling there is the rub.

Just two examples.

So what price principles?

Labour announced a hugehinvestment on election into renewables so the creation of jobs would I assume go towards that balancing out, as well as infrastructural works.
Likewise fracking which has cross party protests, the evidence so far hasn't concluded safety, lots would argue it fails spectacularly.

So, we get back to necessity. Successive governments that were right leaning, including new labour, were happy to see other countries companies hold the control of energy as well as other infrastructures and that responsibility left to that old chestnut 'market forces', lookwhere that's left us. You can envisage a Springfield type scenario for the proposed nuclear power stations too.

The family silver is down to the last bauble of the NHS and we know where that is heading. Any for profit corporation is duty and legally bound to place the interests of its shareholders above all else, and while short of a global catastrophe, I cannot see how the market can be reined in, there are certain industries that should always be under public control and there is an almost wholesale litany of those that are not.

We do need to look at alternative approaches, the way Labour seem to be looking, otherwise we will be at the end of the creek before we realise we need a paddle.

 

[Toffeelover]

Labour announced a hugehinvestment on election into renewables so the creation of jobs would I assume go towards that balancing out, as well as infrastructural works.
Likewise fracking which has cross party protests, the evidence so far hasn't concluded safety, lots would argue it fails spectacularly.

So, we get back to necessity. Successive governments that were right leaning, including new labour, were happy to see other countries companies hold the control of energy as well as other infrastructures and that responsibility left to that old chestnut 'market forces', lookwhere that's left us. You can envisage a Springfield type scenario for the proposed nuclear power stations too.

The family silver is down to the last bauble of the NHS and we know where that is heading. Any for profit corporation is duty and legally bound to place the interests of its shareholders above all else, and while short of a global catastrophe, I cannot see how the market can be reined in, there are certain industries that should always be under public control and there is an almost wholesale litany of those that are not.

We do need to look at alternative approaches, the way Labour seem to be looking, otherwise we will be at the end of the creek before we realise we need a paddle.

Nice reply Mate but gave little about protecting jobs at the expense of principles hence no mention of Barrow.

AS for energy JC talks of renewables and talked of fracking affecting the environment but so will thousands of wind turbines and solar panels so seems to me a contradiction here. Labour failed badly on energy when in power and di nothing to address the future. JC talks of renewables but that can only apply to electricity so how do we heat our homes? How does Industry manufacture with out the gas it needs for production.

Sorry mate but you sidestepped these issues.

PS for me what ever gov't we have priority above all else should be:-

NHS,
Education,
Housing
Welfare

 

[Gwladysstreetlad]

Not to detract from that but the the influence of the Jewish friends of Israel wield a greater influence within the party, and indeed cross party. Some of them are as fanatically minded as their counterparts yet have an allowed, uninterrupted platform for campaigning. As I said, any contrary point ends up being labelled anti semitic regardless of veracity or degrees of lunacy and therein lies a very heavy irony.

Can you not see the problem of your argument mate, by saying one group is worse or more powerful you effectively justify the other. I'm sure you don't mean it that way but it seems quite a common excuse coming from Labour supporters just now.

 

[magicjuan]

Can you not see the problem of your argument mate, by saying one group is worse or more powerful you effectively justify the other. I'm sure you don't mean it that way but it seems quite a common excuse coming from Labour supporters just now.

No it's not justifying anything it's more to highlight an unlevel playing field that prejudices discourse.

The media and the establishment continually make out that there are 'lesser' peoples out there, by your reckoning that promotes a superior peoples. By not allowing a balance to the argument and intervening then ordinary people are shielded from the truth of situations, like Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria and of course Palestine. The public are shy to the links between these countries, policy, arms sales, regime support etc.

It is only an 'excuse' because we are told it is.

 

[magicjuan]

Nice reply Mate but gave little about protecting jobs at the expense of principles hence no mention of Barrow.

AS for energy JC talks of renewables and talked of fracking affecting the environment but so will thousands of wind turbines and solar panels so seems to me a contradiction here. Labour failed badly on energy when in power and di nothing to address the future. JC talks of renewables but that can only apply to electricity so how do we heat our homes? How does Industry manufacture with out the gas it needs for production.

Sorry mate but you sidestepped these issues.

PS for me what ever gov't we have priority above all else should be:-

NHS,
Education,
Housing
Welfare

As with any opposition in place they form policies. Protecting workers is very high on Corbyn's list, within the minutiae would be the details.

Of course at present we need gas because the reserves we did have were used to prop up tax cuts under the tories and as I said no government has invested sufficiently in dealing with the public priorities ahead of the profitability of energy. Labour lost clause 4, which in my opinion was a big mistake.

I didn't sidestep anything, it's a generalisation on the immediate future, fracking doesn't merit being the answer, it isn't even a stop gap because of evidential consequences.

The priority for any government of democratic representation must be the people that constitute society, not as has been the overly unbalanced case recently, corporate interests. When that happens it is a natural consequence that your list will follow accordingly.

 

[Toffeelover]

As with any opposition in place they form policies. Protecting workers is very high on Corbyn's list, within the minutiae would be the details.

Of course at present we need gas because the reserves we did have were used to prop up tax cuts under the tories and as I said no government has invested sufficiently in dealing with the public priorities ahead of the profitability of energy. Labour lost clause 4, which in my opinion was a big mistake.

I didn't sidestep anything, it's a generalisation on the immediate future, fracking doesn't merit being the answer, it isn't even a stop gap because of evidential consequences.

The priority for any government of democratic representation must be the people that constitute society, not as has been the overly unbalanced case recently, corporate interests. When that happens it is a natural consequence that your list will follow accordingly.

So where are we going to get gas from? for home and industry. When you talk of future you say immediate but how about further ahead?
What do term as immediate? I see nothing in what Labour has said or in your Momentum leaflet that goes anywhere near addressing this sort of issue. All rhetoric and no substance mind it is a matter of what a few hundred conference delegates just want to hear. Loud speeches of meaningles talk.

 

[magicjuan]

So where are we going to get gas from? for home and industry. When you talk of future you say immediate but how about further ahead?
What do term as immediate? I see nothing in what Labour has said or in your Momentum leaflet that goes anywhere near addressing this sort of issue. All rhetoric and no substance mind it is a matter of what a few hundred conference delegates just want to hear. Loud speeches of meaningles talk.

Future is future and depends on tangibles and intangibles as to how much can be achieved and at what pace, information I am not privvy to, I do know the direction I want it to go in though and that is not short term profiteering.

As for 'my' momentum. Not a member. Not a member of anything other than B&Q.

And having been to a few conferences and spoken at a few they are more of a jolly for all concerned, it is in amongst the activist fringe meetings that things happen and a direction Corbyn wishes to empower and develop.

You been to any? Had experience of any or just what you see on telly? How far politically do you go?

 

[Joey66]

To be honest to you, I think I've done you a disservice, you are obviously on top of everything. Good luck.

if you lose an argument please do not use sarcasm, we agree to disagree ok!

 

[Joey66]

Absolutely depressing that you think he was being serious, explains a lot though.

so the daily politics is not a serious show FGS you are a p taker aren't you!
I dont give a damn about what momentum think about Trump , but it was not said tongue in cheek by Andrew Neil ok !
as for momentum I see UKIP biggest donor is setting up a Ukip momentum party movement to build up funding for UKIP oh the screams when other parties to the right join it undesirables its a worry that politics has to have a separate organisation to function imo!

 

[Toffeelover]

Future is future and depends on tangibles and intangibles as to how much can be achieved and at what pace, information I am not privvy to, I do know the direction I want it to go in though and that is not short term profiteering.

As for 'my' momentum. Not a member. Not a member of anything other than B&Q.

And having been to a few conferences and spoken at a few they are more of a jolly for all concerned, it is in amongst the activist fringe meetings that things happen and a direction Corbyn wishes to empower and develop.

You been to any? Had experience of any or just what you see on telly? How far politically do you go?

In short I have been as a delegate but many, many years ago.