Join the Labour Party and save your country!

TheBigBean

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Regarding the discussions we had a few years ago around austerity, here's an NY Times piece on Portugal and how it's economy has been doing since it jettisoned austerity (hint, it's doing well).

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/22/busi ... v=top-news

Brexiteers will be pleased to hear that Portugal eschewed the EU's advice to tighten its belt and in hindsight EU officials have admitted that Portugal has been much more of a success than they thought it would be as a result.

What reassurance can you give those of us who worry about debt? In my world we are still living beyond our means and the next recession will take debt over 100% of GDP.

We already spend £48bn a year on debt interest - is there a level that you deem too high?

These are all genuine questions as I realise I am in a tiny minority of people who worry about these things and can’t understand why nobody else does.

Some of that interest goes to the bank of england and is then held on behalf of the treasury. Likewise, £400b or so of the debt is held by the bank of england.

Stevo_666

Rick Chasey wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Read the article.

Broadly, my view is you can grow your way out of debt if you are sensible.

Over what time scale do you think we could grow our way out of £1.8 trillion of debt?

So the way I see it is if your growth in tax receipts over the duration of the debt is higher than the interest rate it’s all good.

FWIW if you’re really worried about debt you ought to look at state AND private debt as cutting a whole bunch of state services may just change the definition of the debt, rather than eliminating the debt.

First point is that your receipts need to be more than all or your expenditure, not just the interest cost, And overall the idea of earning more than you spend is all very well but I would be very happy to see a workable plan that achieves this in our lifetime.

However, consider this: if your point is valid then you would expect a reasonable number of high growth nations to be reducing their debt pile. Have a look here:
http://www.usdebtclock.org/world-debt-clock.html
I can see no correlation between high growth and debt reduction.

To your point abut why should we worry about debt: look at the debt ratio for countries that either are in trouble (e.g. Greece) or are expected to be in trouble (e.g. Italy). Then look at where some countries' debt levels are heading.

rjsterry

A pretty damning assessment of the Corbyn's failure to deal with antisemitism.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... ian-austin

Jez mon

I can't see much correlation between debt and health of country in that list. Or are we saying that the countries we most want to be like are China, Nigeria and Russia?

Stevo_666

Jez mon wrote:

I can't see much correlation between debt and health of country in that list. Or are we saying that the countries we most want to be like are China, Nigeria and Russia?

Greece and Italy should give you a clue on the European front.

TheBigBean

rjsterry wrote:

A pretty damning assessment of the Corbyn's failure to deal with antisemitism.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... ian-austin

The Guardian published quite a good article a week or so ago which actually dealt with the issue around the IHRA examples. I'm not sure the one you have posted does that.

Edit. Here.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... ntisemitic

rjsterry

TheBigBean wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

A pretty damning assessment of the Corbyn's failure to deal with antisemitism.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... ian-austin

The Guardian published quite a good article a week or so ago which actually dealt with the issue around the IHRA examples. I'm not sure the one you have posted does that.

Edit. Here.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... ntisemitic

It's a point of view. I find it difficult to believe that the examples included within the IHRA definition are "mere indications" as though they were brainstormed in half an hour on a Friday afternoon. I would expect that a great deal of thought has gone into the precise choice of words. I'm also more inclined to listen to the wide spectrum of Jewish views on the matter than a single academic.

Anyway, the point I took from the article was more about the way those Labour MPs who have voiced dissent about the way Corbyn is dealing with the issue, are then facing disciplinary action themselves and accused of 'plotting against Jeremy' (as though he's the only thing that matters in the party). Somewhat at odds with the professed aim of having an open discussion.

tangled_metal

You can have any open discussion you like so long as you agree with us. With official doctrine. Is that really the case with labour these days?

rick_chasey

Tangled Metal wrote:

You can have any open discussion you like so long as you agree with us. With official doctrine. Is that really the case with labour these days?

It's absolutely the case of momentum.

I actually overheard a couple who were saying that they can empathise with the racist working class brexiters but "those Blairites need to be lined up and shot. F*cking traitors" the other day.

Left me rather slack jawed.

cycleclinic

The left is not very liberal and can be quite nasty to those who hold views they disagree with. Has this not always been the case with the far left though.

rjsterry

When a member of Labour's NEC says he can't see any evidence of antisemitism it's pretty clear the problem is more than policy wording.

tangled_metal

Put the telescope to your blind eye and look for what you don't want to see. It worked for Nelson!

I say that as someone who is antisemitic according to the IHRA I believe. The reason is I do not agree with the right of any religion to have their own country because I don't agree with religion having any role in controlling society. I believe that puts me at odds with the widely accepted definition. However a similar definition for Islam and Saudi Arabia or Buddhism and Nepal might result in me being considered as holding the similar form of racism that's given the name antisemitism.

However I hold my strongest prejudices towards John Martin Mcdonnell, momentum and their section of labour party.

TheBigBean

Tangled Metal wrote:

Put the telescope to your blind eye and look for what you don't want to see. It worked for Nelson!

I say that as someone who is antisemitic according to the IHRA I believe. The reason is I do not agree with the right of any religion to have their own country because I don't agree with religion having any role in controlling society. I believe that puts me at odds with the widely accepted definition. However a similar definition for Islam and Saudi Arabia or Buddhism and Nepal might result in me being considered as holding the similar form of racism that's given the name antisemitism.

However I hold my strongest prejudices towards John Martin Mcdonnell, momentum and their section of labour party.

This is the example you are referring to. I'm not completely sure what it means or what it covers. Nor whether it fits with the Nation-State of the Jewish People law that was recently passed in Israel.

Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.

tangled_metal

Is that the phrasing? I thought there was one that read a bit more Jewish state can't be criticised. Perhaps I'm not antisemitic afterall.

On case you didn't realise I kind of oppose the idea of Israel being a Jewish state not a secular one. Traditionally it's been a mix of religions and races such that the new law passed in the Knesset is really not a good thing IMHO.

rjsterry

Tangled Metal wrote:

Is that the phrasing? I thought there was one that read a bit more Jewish state can't be criticised. Perhaps I'm not antisemitic afterall.

On case you didn't realise I kind of oppose the idea of Israel being a Jewish state not a secular one. Traditionally it's been a mix of religions and races such that the new law passed in the Knesset is really not a good thing IMHO.

That's a long way from saying that the existence of the state of Israel is a racist endeavour.

Edit: for clarity this does not mean you can't criticise actions of the Israeli government, much as we can criticise the Hungarian or Italian governments.

tangled_metal

Denying the Jewish outdoor their right to self determination? Hmmm! The Nation-State of the Jewish People law, is that potentially racist and denying other races and religions the same and equal right of self determination? I don't know but AFAIK it is a law that's basically stating within the framework that passes for Israelis constitution that Israel is first for the homeland of the Jewish people. I believe it. Never was completely a Jewish land and certainly hasn't been. It has been a mix of races and religions so how does this new Israelis law relate to the flip side of the antisemitism definition of applied to non-Jews living in Israel and occupied territories? By that I mean does that law do to Arabs, Palestinians, Christians, etc what antisemitism dies to Jews in one shape or form?

I'm actually thinking that labour are right to want to write their own definition. Whether it is right is debatable but I don't feel the existing one is right neither due to the examples and the way they're written.

Just my view. I have no idea if it would be classed as antisemitic under this definition.

morstar

I don't pretend to know all the ins and outs of middle East politics.
However, I believe it is perfectly possible to be very uncomfortable with and therefore critical of, the policies of the Israeli state without being anti Semitic.
The problem with labour is that nobody is arguing this case which does leave you wondering what is going on.

rjsterry

Tangled Metal wrote:

Denying the Jewish outdoor their right to self determination? Hmmm! The Nation-State of the Jewish People law, is that potentially racist and denying other races and religions the same and equal right of self determination? I don't know but AFAIK it is a law that's basically stating within the framework that passes for Israelis constitution that Israel is first for the homeland of the Jewish people. I believe it. Never was completely a Jewish land and certainly hasn't been. It has been a mix of races and religions so how does this new Israelis law relate to the flip side of the antisemitism definition of applied to non-Jews living in Israel and occupied territories? By that I mean does that law do to Arabs, Palestinians, Christians, etc what antisemitism dies to Jews in one shape or form?

I'm actually thinking that labour are right to want to write their own definition. Whether it is right is debatable but I don't feel the existing one is right neither due to the examples and the way they're written.

Just my view. I have no idea if it would be classed as antisemitic under this definition.

The IHRA definition is specifically intended not to curtail legitimate criticism of the Israeli government. I would suggest reading it in the original context.

https://www.holocaustremembrance.com/wo ... tisemitism

tangled_metal

I've already read that page and a few more of theirs about the vote on it.

The right to self determination example with the further example of claiming it's a racist endeavour is what I question in light of the west bank and other matters or the new Nation-State of the Jewish People law. I think that law is on part heading towards being racist in light of the history of that area being home to a range of races and religions. If you can't criticise prejudicial laws enacted by Israel because of a potential interpretation of this definition and examples.

The other point is labour have the right to define it in their own words. The key point is whether their definition provides a framework to deal with this particular variety of racism. Personally I wonder whether dealing with antisemitism couldn't be dealt with through universal anti racism rules and framework? Does it need a separate system to fight it or deal with it when encountered? What's unique about it?

rick_chasey

Paper: "Did austerity cause Brexit?"

https://warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/economics ... fetzer.pdf

rjsterry

Tangled Metal wrote:

I've already read that page and a few more of theirs about the vote on it.

The right to self determination example with the further example of claiming it's a racist endeavour is what I question in light of the west bank and other matters or the new Nation-State of the Jewish People law. I think that law is on part heading towards being racist in light of the history of that area being home to a range of races and religions. If you can't criticise prejudicial laws enacted by Israel because of a potential interpretation of this definition and examples.

The other point is labour have the right to define it in their own words. The key point is whether their definition provides a framework to deal with this particular variety of racism. Personally I wonder whether dealing with antisemitism couldn't be dealt with through universal anti racism rules and framework? Does it need a separate system to fight it or deal with it when encountered? What's unique about it?

I don't see that (quite rightly in my view) criticising Israeli government policy on these issues is the same as arguing about whether the state of Israel should even exist, which is what that particular definition is getting at.

As for Labour's right to set it's own definition, of course but just like the Israeli government can be criticised for their decisions, the Labour NEC can be criticised for the way it has chosen to 'edit' the IHRA definition.

surrey_commuter

Rick Chasey wrote:

Paper: "Did austerity cause Brexit?"

https://warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/economics ... fetzer.pdf

Is that a way of using data and longer words to come to the same conclusion that people were asked a question that they were not qualified to answer?

rick_chasey

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Paper: "Did austerity cause Brexit?"

https://warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/economics ... fetzer.pdf

Is that a way of using data and longer words to come to the same conclusion that people were asked a question that they were not qualified to answer?

I'm as guilty of this as any, but modern day discourse where people look at the conclusion and/or the provenance and decide whether the content is BS before they read it is half the reason we're in this mess.

tangled_metal

Corbyn apologies for chairing a meeting at which Israel was compared to the Nazis. He has been reported apparently.

Oh dear. Does that mean he's broken his own code on antisemitism of he's allowed out as meeting chair? Or did labour miss that part out of their definition examples? He really has a problem doesn't he!

tangled_metal

I should read more rather than skim read. It's a report and the meeting was 2010 if I've read it right this time. Old news. Trouble making?

rick_chasey

So depressing.

You've got a PM who's only defining policy feature is her hatred of foreigners, leading a party who is increasingly open about its islamophobia and the head the opposition is from a far left socialist wing which re-hashes old anti-semitic rhetoric and ideas and updates them for the modern era, ostensibly to challenge the opposition's islamophobia.

It's just sh!te all round.

rjsterry

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Paper: "Did austerity cause Brexit?"

https://warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/economics ... fetzer.pdf

Is that a way of using data and longer words to come to the same conclusion that people were asked a question that they were not qualified to answer?

Not from the bit I read, no. I think the point was that austerity created the discontent. The referendum provided an opportunity to express that discontent, and the EU (or immigrants) provides a convenient 'other' on which to blame the negative effects of austerity rather than the government having to accept responsibility. I think the conclusion is beware unintended consequences of austerity policies.

TheBigBean

rjsterry wrote:

As for Labour's right to set it's own definition, of course but just like the Israeli government can be criticised for their decisions, the Labour NEC can be criticised for the way it has chosen to 'edit' the IHRA definition.

If you believe in an absolute right to free speech then you can criticise who you like; however, if you think it should be legitimate and proportionate then it is disproportionate to compare it to some of Israel's government's transgressions, and of questionable legitimacy depending on whose opinion you value.

rjsterry

TheBigBean wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

As for Labour's right to set it's own definition, of course but just like the Israeli government can be criticised for their decisions, the Labour NEC can be criticised for the way it has chosen to 'edit' the IHRA definition.

If you believe in an absolute right to free speech then you can criticise who you like; however, if you think it should be legitimate and proportionate then it is disproportionate to compare it to some of Israel's government's transgressions, and of questionable legitimacy depending on whose opinion you value.

My clumsy wording. The point was that a right to self determination doesn't mean that the exercising of that right is immune from criticism, not a comparison of Labour's antisemitism issues with the Israeli government's behaviour.

Stevo_666

The Labour anti-semitism row just won't go away - becuase they haven't solved it. Tom Waton's view below is quite realistic:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-45073081
Apart from the bit where he says that "his party may "disappear into a vortex of eternal shame" and render itself unfit to lead if it does not tackle anti-Semitism." Does he honestly think they haven't already achieved that?