AlterEgo
Veteran Member
That doesn't make him Boris' personal friend.
Anyway, where do you get the idea that all the Jews complaining of anti-Semitism are either involved with the Israeli government or the Tories?
-
Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
The 2019 General Election - Campaign Debate and Discussion
- Thread starter KashmireHawker
- Start date
- Status
That doesn't make him Boris' personal friend.
Anyway, where do you get the idea that all the Jews complaining of anti-Semitism are either involved with the Israeli government or the Tories?
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
Tetchytyke
Veteran Member
Because many of them are. Lipman's a Tory, Oberman's a supporter of the Israeli government, there are unanswered questions about how Berger's independent group are funded, and alJazeera had a fascinating documentary on it all a couple of years ago.
I don't think there's any great conspiracy behind it all, and there are legitimate criticisms to be made of Corbyn's tepid response, the far-left's genuine issues with anti-Semitism, and Labour's inability to deal with it. Luciana Berger's treatment was disgraceful.
But saying Jewish people are in mortal danger if Labour win is just a base smear campaign, and is more about Corbyn's politics than his supposed racism.
As I've repeatedly said, if it truly were about fighting racism the likes of the Chief Rabbi and Maureen Lipman wouldn't be endorsing a candidate who calls black people "picanninies with watermelon smiles". And if they were truly bothered by all anti-Semitism, they wouldn't be endorsing a vocal supporter of Victor Orban, a man who regularly uses the vilest anti-Semitic insults against George Soros.
DynamicSpirit
Established Member
That's rubbish. What the Labour Party should be is a party that represents ordinary people, and which promotes policies to create a better society for all.
The Labour Party was founded at a time when socialist theories had never really been put into practice in a real Government, and therefore, quite reasonably, people had never had a chance to see how state control over the whole economy basically doesn't work and usually causes far more harm than good. Given the awful conditions that workers and poorer people at the time endured, it wasn't really surprising that Labour at the time was therefore founded as an anti-capitalist party that followed socialist ideals.
Once Labour came to real power after the 2nd World War, people could see what Communism lead to, and Labour very pragmatically moved to social democratic principles and became a party that paid some lip service to socialism while actually being more of a social democratic party. And it largely stayed that way for close to 70 years (other than for a brief blip during the 1980s) until Corbyn was elected leader. Sadly, it now seems that quite a few people on the left have forgotten the lessons of history and seem to imagine that abolishing capitalism and creating some kind of socialist utopia is possible and makes any kind of sense. It doesn't, and for people in the Labour party to promote that is - far from being 'how it should be' - rather a huge historical mistake that is sadly likely to cause considerable suffering from those whom Labour will probably be unable to help because of that vain pursuit of some socialist utopia by so many on the left - including many Labour members.
Having said that, fortunately there is in my view still enough pragmatism in the Labour party for it to be a miles better choice to vote for than what Boris and his bunch of liars and xenophobes offer.
thenorthern
Established Member
- Joined
- 27 May 2013
- Messages
- 4,116
We will have to wait and see, back at the local elections the leader of Sunderland City Council he mentioned that they were losing votes as many Labour voters are not interested in a second vote as they voted leave are not interested in another vote. At the time Labour hadn't promised a second vote.
DarloRich
Veteran Member
here is another one for you. A key member of the shadow cabinet and regular media voice Richard Burgon. This is someone who denied making dodgy comments and tired to bluff it out then had to apologise after video of him ranting like a wrong un surfaced:
bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-47952275BBC said:
Last edited:
DarloRich
Veteran Member
I am not sure saying Jewish people are controlled by some shadowy third party is a good look.........................
Absolutely not. The problem is that the argument doesn't stop there. Just as saying that the policies of the Israeli government or their treatment of people in these areas are not acceptable. It quickly descends into more dodgy areas. THAT is the problem.
Agreed. There has long been an AS problem in the more frutiy left wing groups. Anyone with experience of left politics for more than 5 minutes knows this. The good news was the Labour party fought long and hard to get the wrong uns out. Corbyn let them flood back in.
Agreed with the addition that I will not vote for Corbyn's Labour.
Agreed x 2 - Labour is now and has long been a democratic socialist party. Or at least it was until the current leadership arrived!
Do we want criticize people for friendships in this area? Corbyn has some some dodgy "friends".
Tetchytyke
Veteran Member
*sigh*
This is exactly the point I was making. The Jewish people criticising Corbyn are, by and large, people who are already opposed to him politically. Their motivation is political and has nothing to do with supposed racism.
Your insinuation that my opinion, a legitimate criticism, is some anti-Semitic trope just goes to show what I mean when I say anti-Semitism is being trotted out as a political hatchet job.
The Chief Rabbi, by endorsing Johnson, is effectively saying that racism is OK, so long as it's not racism against Jewish people. If you're a picaninny or a letterbox you can jog on. An interesting view for a religioys leader to take, I'm sure you'll agree.
DarloRich
Veteran Member
I am certain you are not expressing antisemitic views & I insinuate nothing. I simply point out how easy it is to start down a road to something dodgy. Personally I would just say they were not acting in good faith as they are politically opposed to Corbyn and are linked to the Tories. No possible criticism there beyond the fact several of them claim to have been Labour members.
It is, as I am sure you know, a common antisemitic trope to state Jews have a secret loyalty to a shadowy rich jew club who control the world and that because of this they are disloyal, should not be trusted and are out to cause mischief . These kind of vile and utterly bonkers statements and worse are regularly trotted out by fans of Corbyn. That isnt on imo.
Hopefully we can agree that Corbyn simply has not dealt effectively or quickly enough with this issue.
I am not sure the chief Rabbi HAS endorsed Johnson. His reported quotes don't got that far. What he has said is that Corbyn is unfit for high office. That isnt the same thing as endorsing a candidate. I agree, however, that he should be calling out racism when he sees it.
Tetchytyke
Veteran Member
It is a depressingly common trope, and one that's not limited to the left.
What I find interesting is that the Tories imposing a 3-line whip to endorse Orban- who has repeatedly used that exact trope against Soros and at least one member of the British Board of Deputies- in the EU parliament was a mild "disappointment", but Corbyn is an existential threat.
DarloRich
Veteran Member
All i can offer by way of a thin explanation is that Orban isnt standing to be our PM. Corbyn is.
Tetchytyke
Veteran Member
And very thin it is too.
I think it's regrettable that the opponents of Corbyn have resorted to the base politics of fear rather than attacking his political stance. But hey ho, the Tories want it to be a dirty election and they're determined to drah everyone into the mud with them.
Kite159
Veteran Member
I see labour has decided to leak secret documents dated from 2017 when May was PM and trying to say that Boris will sell off the NHS to the Americans...
At least it's better than selling off the NHS to construction companies under poorly written PFI deals costing billions. £150 standard charge to get someone out to look at a fault.
At least it's better than selling off the NHS to construction companies under poorly written PFI deals costing billions. £150 standard charge to get someone out to look at a fault.
Butts
Veteran Member
The problem with the NHS is that any form of criticism is somewhat akin to heresy.
To pretend it is not privatised to an extent with regard to PFI's and provision of some services by outside contractors is insanity. This has occurred under Labour and Conservative administrations. Indeed technically GP's are private entities that sell their services to the NHS.
It's not completely free at the point delivery either - Dental and Optical charges spring to mind.
A Royal Commission is needed to have a root and branch examination looking at how services are provided in other developed democracies and perhaps learning some lessons to provide improvements in provision and quality of treatment.
If the way it operates at the moment is so good more replication in other countries would have been expected.
There is plenty of anecdotal evidence that mixtures of state and insurance backed systems with safeguards for the poor lead to better choices and levels of care in other parts of Europe.
I have not seen people marching on the streets of Dublin complaining about healthcare perhaps we could start there. Are there any members on here from Eire who could add some perspective ?
To pretend it is not privatised to an extent with regard to PFI's and provision of some services by outside contractors is insanity. This has occurred under Labour and Conservative administrations. Indeed technically GP's are private entities that sell their services to the NHS.
It's not completely free at the point delivery either - Dental and Optical charges spring to mind.
A Royal Commission is needed to have a root and branch examination looking at how services are provided in other developed democracies and perhaps learning some lessons to provide improvements in provision and quality of treatment.
If the way it operates at the moment is so good more replication in other countries would have been expected.
There is plenty of anecdotal evidence that mixtures of state and insurance backed systems with safeguards for the poor lead to better choices and levels of care in other parts of Europe.
I have not seen people marching on the streets of Dublin complaining about healthcare perhaps we could start there. Are there any members on here from Eire who could add some perspective ?
433N
Guest
- Joined
- 20 Jun 2017
- Messages
- 752
'Billions' will be peanuts compared to having US Pharmaceutical companies setting their own prices for prescription medicines. A trade deal with the US risks disallowing the NHS from negotiating bulk discounts on drugs (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prescription_drug_prices_in_the_United_States) .
I agree with you completely. Why does it have to be assumed in Britain that the only way of offering a comprehensive health-care system is Bevan's way from the 1940s, as unchanged as we can possibly keep it? Why is the alternative always quoted by the politicians just as the (truly dreadful) USA system and why are they always unwilling to learn anything from our European nearest neighbours?
433N
Guest
- Joined
- 20 Jun 2017
- Messages
- 752
Again, as you so readily agree, I am a novice in these matters and unfamiliar of the nuances in what is a very complex geopolitical and religiously-diverse region. So could you explain to me (like I'm a 5 year old) why stating 'Zionism is the enemy of peace' is antisemitic ; particularly when he states that 'the enemy of the Palestian people is not the Jewish people'.
Puffing Devil
Established Member
- Joined
- 11 Apr 2013
- Messages
- 2,766
Those comparisons have already been made, here's a piece from the King's Fund:
While we should not rely too much on international comparisons for the reasons set out above, they do emphasise one of the unique features of the NHS – that access to care does not depend on how much money you earn. The key building blocks of our health system – its public funding base and the comprehensive range of services provided (mostly) free at the point of use – have made the UK a world leader on equitable access to care. [My bolding]
The full report is here and links out to many other studies. The Kings Fund is an independent charity that looks to drive better healthcare provision.
I believe that if a private contractor can deliver a service in the NHS at a lower cost than NHS provision and make a profit there must either be:
- Edges being trimmed that are to the detriment of patients and/or staff or
- Inefficiencies in the NHS delivery model that can be addressed.
Butts
Veteran Member
How do you equate this in relation to Dental Treatment ?
A lot of people not entitled to Free Treatment are going without it .
Whats the justification for the maximum NHS charge for Dentistry being enforced(in the hundreds) but no contribution expected towards say an A&E or Doctors visit ?
DynamicSpirit
Established Member
Not really a justification, as I'm sure the reasons for dental charges being levied are historical and will be to do long forgotten events dating from how the NHS was created in the 1940s and so on. However, it's probably worth pointing out one difference: I would imagine the vast majority of NHS treatments required at the dentist are entirely avoidable and have only become necessary due to the negligence of the patient in failing to follow well known advice on look after their teeth properly. It's a pretty fair guess that that's true of only a much smaller proportion of appointments at the doctors and at the hospital.
Another difference is that dentists - along with opticians - are somewhat unique in the way we recommend that people have very regular check-ups even when they are not aware that anything is wrong. You could argue about whether that justifies a different funding model for them. (Though maybe you could also argue that, in an ideal world, people would be having regular check-ups of their general health, not just their dental health).
I believe Labour are proposing to make dental check-ups free on the NHS. That seems to me to be a very good idea from the point of view of encouraging preventative medicine, and ensuring that dentists can detect possible problems sooner (although I'm not sure how that policy can be achieved without also increasing the numbers of available dentists).
Butts
Veteran Member
The NHS was completely free at it's inception with no charges for prescriptions, optical or dental care. These arrived later.
With all due respect I feel you have dropped a massive clanger with regard to your allusion to lifestyle choices forming a big element of the necessity for treatment being more prevalent in dentistry rather than general surgery / treatments.
Speaking as a smoker I am well aware I have indulged for 40 years and avoided any ill affects requiring treatment. However ASH and their zealous contemporaries are always delighted to advocate restrictions due to the harm to health of both the smoker and passive recipient. This costs the Health Service Billions or so they say. They conveniently omit the fact the revenue raised in excise duty on smoking products is even more than the considerable cost to the NHS.
Obesity and diabetes as a result also cost the NHS Billions - lifestyle choice ?
By the way dental check up's in Scotland have been free for years !!!
Puffing Devil
Established Member
- Joined
- 11 Apr 2013
- Messages
- 2,766
It was the Labour government in 2006 who changed the fundamental contract for the dentists and removed the incentives to provide NHS treatment. That is when NHS dentistry started to fail and I don't know how we can easily get it back: dentists are even more "freelance" than GPs, being wholly responsible for their surgery, equipment, staff and consumables. Bringing that back into a state model would take some doing. We could start by including provision in new health centres or some of the hospital wards closed by the Tories and offer salaried positions and slowly increase the public provision.
Howardh
Established Member
- Joined
- 17 May 2011
- Messages
- 8,161
Seeing as the vast majority of dentists round here are private - I wonder if the best "solution" is to make all dentistry private but the government give a certain amount to each individual towards insurance. I've no idea how much annual insurance is, and it will vary greatly from person to person, but let's say you are given £xxx in "vouchers" towards your insurance and you can use it as you see fit?
But the absurd thing is we are charged for treatment for bands A, B and C which can be over £200. But if someone lets their teeth rot, they could be sent to hospital for extensive work which would be....free.
Alch
New Member
Anyone read the document snippets I've seen just say its looking at trade deals this normally means better pricing and reports I've heard say not proof of anything like corbyn said btw where the nhs staff in uniform really nhs staff I seem to remember an online add used an actor posing as a nurse and had to be removed afraid I would not believe him if he said the earth was round sorry just do not trust him totally the wrong person to lead.
Tetchytyke
Veteran Member
My wife lived there for years. GPs always had time for you.
The fact a GP consultation was €50 helped with that.
Tetchytyke
Veteran Member
That's a very slippery slope to go down, as you say. The expensive and extensive rebuilding work following a motorcycle crash, or a skiing accident, or a horse-riding accident, is caused by "lifestyle" as much as anything else is. Where do you draw the line? Lifestyles you don't agree with?
433N
Guest
- Joined
- 20 Jun 2017
- Messages
- 752
Normally, the market sets prices not the manufacturer . The pharmaceutical companies in the US railroaded the government into accepting their setting of prices. It is almost certain that they will make mincemeat of a tiny island nation desperate for trade. As someone famously said, in the US, the corporations ARE the government.
... and when Boris Johnson says the NHS is not for sale, we absolutely believe him because he has such a good track record of telling the truth.
DarloRich
Veteran Member
If you see the full video of him ranting like a loon you will see why he needed to apologise imo but it might be best to ask Burgon directly why he felt the need to apologise. Perhaps it was the lie he was apolgising for. Perhaps he just made a "mistake" like Mr Corbyn did when he shared content with pictures of an a obviously antisemitic mural.
Anyway, it is clear you wont accept any criticism of the Sainted Jeremy so I see little point in continuing this exchange.
nlogax
Established Member
Polls indicate that in spite of the continued Cult of Jeremy, the Tories are going to win this thing hands-down with an actual majority. Amazing isn't it? Doesn't matter how awful the incumbent is or how much he ducks media appearances, doesn't matter how badly the government performs, doesn't matter how bad things are - the public appear to still prefer that over Jeremy Corbyn. Very telling.
bussnapperwm
Established Member
- Joined
- 18 May 2014
- Messages
- 1,510
"Boris Johnson Called Children Of Single Mothers 'Ill-Raised, Ignorant, Aggressive And Illegitimate'"
Boris Johnson faces fresh claims of sexism after it emerged he once wrote there was an “appalling” growth of single mothers who were “uppity and irresponsible” for getting pregnant out of wedlock.
Johnson also lamented what he called “feckless” working class men and described the children of single mums as “ill-raised, ignorant, aggressive and illegitimate”, in a column unearthed by the Labour Party.
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/boris-johnson-women-column-specatt-070907363.html
Boris Johnson faces fresh claims of sexism after it emerged he once wrote there was an “appalling” growth of single mothers who were “uppity and irresponsible” for getting pregnant out of wedlock.
Johnson also lamented what he called “feckless” working class men and described the children of single mums as “ill-raised, ignorant, aggressive and illegitimate”, in a column unearthed by the Labour Party.
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/boris-johnson-women-column-specatt-070907363.html
- Status