General Politics Thread

[pandarilla]

Which ones do you disagree with?

The one relating to the state of Israel being a possible racist endeavour could be technically tricky if you're looking at the situation from the point of view of the Palestinians.

What examples do you think the party have not properly covered in their more detailed examples?

[Jmothecat2]

The one relating to the state of Israel being a possible racist endeavour could be technically tricky if you're looking at the situation from the point of view of the Palestinians.

What examples do you think the party have not properly covered in their more detailed examples?

Calling Israel a racist endeavour is anti-Semitic. Saying it has done racist things is not.

[welshbairn]

9 minutes ago, Jmothecat2 said:

 

Calling Israel a racist endeavour is anti-Semitic. Saying it has done racist things is not.

 

Saying that Israel did not have the right to evict Arabs and confiscate their lands to establish a Jewish run state is not anti semitic. 

Edited July 23, 2018 by welshbairn

[pandarilla]

Calling Israel a racist endeavour is anti-Semitic. Saying it has done racist things is not.

But surely some of the racist things you might accuse it of doing relate to the expansion of their land?

There's a possible overlap there.

What specific problem(s) do you have with the labour examples?

[Jmothecat2]

But surely some of the racist things you might accuse it of doing relate to the expansion of their land?

There's a possible overlap there.

What specific problem(s) do you have with the labour examples?

Unless you are calling Israel itself an inherently racist endeavour it is not anti-Semitic to suggest what Israel is doing is racist. On the Labour issue the requirement for antisemitic 'intent' to be required is the most obviously problematic. This makes the anti-Semitic comparisons of Israel with Nazis not necessarily anti-Semitic under labour's definition unless intent can be proven. The issue is as much to do with Labour not adopting what the majority of Jewish people believe to be anti-Semitic. I cannot picture any other situation in which a group is not allowed to define the prejudice it faces. Labour should have just adopted the full IHRA definition for political reasons as much as moral reasons. Why the party are insisting on shooting themselves in the foot over this I don't know. It simply doesn't look good for the Labour leadership to try to tell Jews what anti-Semitism actually is, particularly considering the poor record Labour currently have on the issue. When there is already an internationally accepted definition, widely supported by Jewish people, why would Labour not adopt that? Why give its own version which appears to soften the definition?

[Jdog]

6 hours ago, Jmothecat2 said:

 

Calling Israel a racist endeavour is anti-Semitic. 

 

What?..The racist, apartheid ethnocracy?..it's anti-semitic to call it what it is?..do me a favour.

Israel IS a racist endeavour.

[Baxter Parp]

https://www.theguardian.com/money/2018/jul/24/poorest-30-of-uk-households-worse-off-by-between-50-to-150-last-year

 

Poorest 30% of UK households 'worse off by between £50 to £150' last year

Tory c***s: "Mission accomplished!"

[Detournement]

15 hours ago, Jmothecat2 said:

 

 The issue is as much to do with Labour not adopting what the majority of Jewish people believe to be anti-Semitic. I cannot picture any other situation in which a group is not allowed to define the prejudice it faces.

I can't think of any other situation where a group would be able to consider criticism of the actions of a sovereign state as an offence against themselves. Should the same courtesy be extended to Saudis, Chinese or Americans? Why not let little Englanders take offence if someone says the UK is racist.

The absolutely absurd thing is that Israel is racist. It's undeniable and it has been constant from it's inception until today.

From yesterday's Guardian in an article by the Israeli and Jewish composer Daniel Barenboim

"Instead, we have a law that confirms the Arab population as second-class citizens. It follows that this is a very clear form of apartheid. I don’t think the Jewish people lived for 20 centuries, mostly through persecution and enduring endless cruelties, in order to become the oppressors, inflicting cruelty on others. This new law does exactly that. Therefore, I am ashamed of being an Israeli today. "

From a 1948 letter condemning the first version of Likud by Hannah Arendt, Albert Einstein and other prominent Jewish intellectuals

"Among the most disturbing political phenomena of our times is the emergence in the newly created state of Israel of the "Freedom Party" (Tnuat Haherut), a political party closely akin in its organization, methods, political philosophy and social appeal to the Nazi and Fascist parties. It was formed out of the membership and following of the former Irgun Zvai Leumi, a terrorist, right-wing, chauvinist organization in Palestine."

"The undersigned therefore take this means of publicly presenting a few salient facts concerning Begin and his party; and of urging all concerned not to support this latest manifestation of fascism. "

http://www.thehypertexts.com/Albert Einstein 1948 Letter New York Times Nakba.htm

 

 

[MEADOWXI]

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-44933009

Public sector workers: Pay rises announced for a million people

• 37 minutes ago
• 1349 comments

• Share this with Facebook
• Share this with Messenger
• Share this with Twitter
• Share this with Email
• Share

 

 

Image caption Teachers are expected to be among those getting a pay rise after five years of a cap on increases

A million public sector workers are to receive their biggest pay rise in nearly 10 years, the government says.

It includes 2.9% extra this year for the armed forces, 2.75% for prison officers and up to 3.5% for teachers.

Police will see a 2% rise, the same increase seen by GPs and dentists.

The move confirms the scrapping of the 1% pay cap last year and follows campaigns by unions for higher wage rises.

The government said the increases were affordable within its spending plans. Individual departments are having to fund the pay rises, rather than the money coming from the Treasury.

The pay rises for doctors and dentists only apply to England, while the pay rises for prison officers, teachers, and police officers apply to England and Wales.

The armed forces pay offer is for the whole of the UK.

Details of the announcement include:

• The teachers' pay deal means a rise of 3.5% - worth between £800 and £1,366 per year - for classroom teachers on the main pay range. Overall, teachers in England and Wales will receive pay rises of between 1.5% and 3.5%
• Schools will receive a pay grant of £508m over two years to cover the increases, drawn from existing Department for Education budgets
• The £508m is for schools in England only and increases in Wales will rely on money from the devolved government
• The rise for members of the armed forces is 2%, falling short of the 2.9% recommended by the Armed Forces' Pay Review Body, but is being supplemented by a one-off non-consolidated payment of 0.9% this year
• This means the average soldier will get an extra £680 in pay with a one-off payment of £300
• Prison workers get a 2% annual pay rise with a one-off non-consolidated payment of 0.75%
• A pay increase of at least 2% is being given to junior doctors, specialist doctors, GPs and dentists, with consultants getting a pay rise of 1.5%

 

 

__________________________________________________________________

I've read this article and heard it on the news this time and am confused by this part they keep emphasising,

The government said the increases were affordable within its spending plans. Individual departments are having to fund the pay rises, rather than the money coming from the Treasury.

So the London Treasury hands the funds to the London Deptartments so it still Treasury money, or more accurately UK Taxpayer money. The money is coming through the Treasury however they word it, so I don't see the significance of the great play they are making of the money being Dept money not Treasury money.

[Detournement]

The point is that (for example) teachers get a wage increase but it comes out of the existing education budget meaning something else  being cut to pay for it.

[Baxter Parp]

8 minutes ago, MEADOWXI said:

 

I've read this article and heard it on the news this time and am confused by this part they keep emphasising,

The government said the increases were affordable within its spending plans. Individual departments are having to fund the pay rises, rather than the money coming from the Treasury.

So the London Treasury hands the funds to the London Deptartments so it still Treasury money, or more accurately UK Taxpayer money. The money is coming through the Treasury however they word it, so I don't see the significance of the great play they are making of the money being Dept money not Treasury money.

Means they won't be getting any additional money to fund the pay rises and will need to find it with "savings".

[Peppino Impastato]

12 hours ago, Jdog said:

What?..The racist, apartheid ethnocracy?..it's anti-semitic to call it what it is?..do me a favour.

Israel IS a racist endeavour.

Absolutely.  Any Jewish person anywhere in the world is entitled to apply for and probably get Israeli citizenship, any non Jew does not have that right.  By definition it's a racist endeavour.  Israel is the world's only official racist state.

And Jews don't define anti semitism, society does.  Black people don't define racism either.  Jmo really is a fkn moron.

[renton]

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/type-31e-frigate-programme-suspended/

There's a big fucking hole in the Scotstoun order books then....

Edited July 24, 2018 by renton

[Granny Danger]

It’s a bit strange all these Labour Party members writing screeds about supposed anti-Smitism and yet not scribbling more than a couple of lines about Israel’s latest apartheid laws.

Funny priorities right enough.

I would like to see every member of Labour Friends of Israel barred from membership of the Labour Party for holding a position that conflicts with that of a progressive, left-of-centre political party.

 

[doulikefish]

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/type-31e-frigate-programme-suspended/
There's a big fucking hole in the Scotstoun order books then....

Seperation shuts yards

[welshbairn]

8 minutes ago, renton said:

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/type-31e-frigate-programme-suspended/

There's a big fucking hole in the Scotstoun order books then....

Were the 2 humongous aircraft carriers the vanity  projects that blew the budget? They'd only seem to be of any use against a much inferior enemy. As a Russian said, they're just a nice big target out at sea. I'd be interested in your take, given that we seem to be sacrificing a practical navy.

[cyderspaceman]

12 hours ago, Jdog said:

What?..The racist, apartheid ethnocracy?..it's anti-semitic to call it what it is?..do me a favour.

Israel IS a racist endeavour.

I'll admit to being confused. Are Jews a race or  a religious grouping?  Or something else, a tribe, an ethnicity, a culture? 

[Antiochas III]

Just now, cyderspaceman said:

I'll admit to being confused. Are Jews a race or  a religious grouping?  Or something else, a tribe, an ethnicity, a culture? 

 Depends on what you are talking about but the majority will be of the same race as Arabs and Bedouins (Semite).   

[renton]

6 minutes ago, welshbairn said:

Were the 2 humongous aircraft carriers the vanity  projects that blew the budget? They'd only seem to be of any use against a much inferior enemy. As a Russian said, they're just a nice big target out at sea. I'd be interested in your take, given that we seem to be sacrificing a practical navy.

Here's the issue. Carriers are fine, even against near peer opponents so long as they are part of an integrated defence - i.e. you have enough escorts to help defend them from submarine, surface and SSM threats. 

On the other hand, without the aircover, both defensively and for strike, that Carriers provide your surface ships can't really be deployed beyond the cover of land based aircraft. Or as someone once said, without aircraft carriers you don't have a Navy, you have a coastguard.

So really, it was never a choice of one or the other. For the mission profile set it, the Navy needed both: Carrier strike and enough escorts to defend them.

If any vanity project needed axed it was the drain on the defence budget from the Trident successor.

 

[welshbairn]

11 minutes ago, renton said:

Here's the issue. Carriers are fine, even against near peer opponents so long as they are part of an integrated defence - i.e. you have enough escorts to help defend them from submarine, surface and SSM threats. 

On the other hand, without the aircover, both defensively and for strike, that Carriers provide your surface ships can't really be deployed beyond the cover of land based aircraft. Or as someone once said, without aircraft carriers you don't have a Navy, you have a coastguard.

So really, it was never a choice of one or the other. For the mission profile set it, the Navy needed both: Carrier strike and enough escorts to defend them.

If any vanity project needed axed it was the drain on the defence budget from the Trident successor.

 

I'll defer to your knowledge, but if a nuclear capability has the capacity of being a credible deterrence to an equal or greater power, the cost would be cheap compared to the conventional alternative.