By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
Very interesting to see this, especially after the couple of videos that Andrew Marr has done for the New Statesman, that I highlighted a few weeks back:
Can it just be a coincidence that commentators with a heck of a lot of knowledge of things are starting to suggest that the reality of a Labour government may well be (positively) very different to what is being offered?
There's a part of me (the red-tinted glasses part, admittedly) that really wonders if Labour are saying what needs to be said to the public at large in order to ensure election (fearful of the kind of backlash that met Corbyn if they try to be too radical) but, at the same time, are using certain channels such as the New Statesman and Maitlis' podcast to paint a slightly different picture to the subset of voters who are a little more switched on, know what's really required and expected of a Labour government, and won't be scared off by radical ideas.
Very interesting to see this, especially after the couple of videos that Andrew Marr has done for the New Statesman, that I highlighted a few weeks back:
Can it just be a coincidence that commentators with a heck of a lot of knowledge of things are starting to suggest that the reality of a Labour government may well be (positively) very different to what is being offered?
There's a part of me (the red-tinted glasses part, admittedly) that really wonders if Labour are saying what needs to be said to the public at large in order to ensure election (fearful of the kind of backlash that met Corbyn if they try to be too radical) but, at the same time, are using certain channels such as the New Statesman and Maitlis' podcast to paint a slightly different picture to the subset of voters who are a little more switched on, know what's really required and expected of a Labour government, and won't be scared off by radical ideas.
[Post edited 21 Mar 15:30]
It suppose it can just be a coincidence, because they’re trying to fill screen time and Labour are giving them nothing to work with. The consistent thread running through the media is that they’re all speculating.
It suppose it can just be a coincidence, because they’re trying to fill screen time and Labour are giving them nothing to work with. The consistent thread running through the media is that they’re all speculating.
I agree with you - businesses are not expecting anything remotely radical, hence the FTSE100 has hit very close to it’s record high today (albeit the FTSE250 is a better indicator of UK rather than global sentiment).
Nonetheless still ‘radical’ enough to attract criticism:-
Go away and do your homework then submit your findings again.
Homework done... https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/globalist ...so the likes of Tony Blair etc...but apparently now a word that must not be uttered. Very definitely not the Internationale. So essentially globalist, globalism....deriving from global....neither antisemitic.
"They break our legs and tell us to be grateful when they offer us crutches."
Go away and do your homework then submit your findings again.
I have no real idea about the history and, from what you're saying, the clearly loaded meaning (as far as you and others are concerned) behind that term but it really shouldn't mean anything beyond something like 'one who believes in an unchecked worldwide arena in an economic or a political sense', as far as I'm concerned. It should have nothing to do with any subgroup defined on any other basis.
I appreciate that it does carry that meaning to some though, and it therefore makes it a bit taboo to use, but that sort of (voluntary or involuntary) corruption of the language makes it bloody hard to have an emotionless and constructive conversation. It's a bit like the way everybody calls anybody who fights against them a terrorist these days (that's not meant to be an inflammatory comment, btw., just the best example I can think of.)
Not intended as a criticism of anyone in this argument, just bloody frustration at the undermining of language when it can have such a critical effect on getting on with one another and also things like saving the world!
# WE ARE STEALING THE FUTURE FROM OUR CHILDREN --- WE MUST CHANGE COURSE #
Homework done... https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/globalist ...so the likes of Tony Blair etc...but apparently now a word that must not be uttered. Very definitely not the Internationale. So essentially globalist, globalism....deriving from global....neither antisemitic.
Translate Hate
globalist noun 'glōbəlist
: a person who advocates the interpretation or planning of economic and foreign policy in relation to events and developments throughout the world
WHEN IT’S ANTISEMITIC: Much like dual loyalty, globalist is used to promote the antisemitic conspiracy that Jewish people do not have allegiance to their countries of origin, like the United States, but to some worldwide order—like a global economy or international political system—that will enhance their control over the world’s banks, governments, and media (see control).
The idea of a Jewish globalist was embedded in the core ideology of Nazism. Hitler often portrayed Jews as “international elements” who “conduct their business everywhere,” posing a threat to all people who are “bounded to their soil, to the Fatherland.”
Today, globalist is a coded word for Jews who are seen as international elites conspiring to weaken or dismantle “Western” society using their international connections and control over big corporations (see New World Order)—all echoing the destructive theory that Jews hold greed and tribe above country.
This has been done before, Same people same replies.
"Marie van der Zyl, the president of the Board of Deputies of British Jews, said: “Antisemitism experts such as the Anti Defamation League identify ‘globalist’ as a common antisemitic trope based on conspiracy theories about international Jewish power. Politicians should avoid using the term, particularly when referring specifically to Jewish individuals.”
Now I agree that Farage could do with shutting up but this is getting ridiculous isn't it?!
Shall we do Cultural Marxism next? Well there's nothing wrong with culture or Marxism eh?
: a person who advocates the interpretation or planning of economic and foreign policy in relation to events and developments throughout the world
WHEN IT’S ANTISEMITIC: Much like dual loyalty, globalist is used to promote the antisemitic conspiracy that Jewish people do not have allegiance to their countries of origin, like the United States, but to some worldwide order—like a global economy or international political system—that will enhance their control over the world’s banks, governments, and media (see control).
The idea of a Jewish globalist was embedded in the core ideology of Nazism. Hitler often portrayed Jews as “international elements” who “conduct their business everywhere,” posing a threat to all people who are “bounded to their soil, to the Fatherland.”
Today, globalist is a coded word for Jews who are seen as international elites conspiring to weaken or dismantle “Western” society using their international connections and control over big corporations (see New World Order)—all echoing the destructive theory that Jews hold greed and tribe above country.
This has been done before, Same people same replies.
"Marie van der Zyl, the president of the Board of Deputies of British Jews, said: “Antisemitism experts such as the Anti Defamation League identify ‘globalist’ as a common antisemitic trope based on conspiracy theories about international Jewish power. Politicians should avoid using the term, particularly when referring specifically to Jewish individuals.”
Now I agree that Farage could do with shutting up but this is getting ridiculous isn't it?!
Shall we do Cultural Marxism next? Well there's nothing wrong with culture or Marxism eh?
A long winded way of saying you're wrong! Context and who says it maybe but not the word itself.
"They break our legs and tell us to be grateful when they offer us crutches."
A long winded way of saying you're wrong! Context and who says it maybe but not the word itself.
If you say so mate. In the made up conversation in your head I definitely said the word was antisemitic regardless of the context.
Oh no I didn't. I even linked the examples of context. I'll leave you to reply to the same post two or three times when a new light bulb comes on in your head as per.
: a person who advocates the interpretation or planning of economic and foreign policy in relation to events and developments throughout the world
WHEN IT’S ANTISEMITIC: Much like dual loyalty, globalist is used to promote the antisemitic conspiracy that Jewish people do not have allegiance to their countries of origin, like the United States, but to some worldwide order—like a global economy or international political system—that will enhance their control over the world’s banks, governments, and media (see control).
The idea of a Jewish globalist was embedded in the core ideology of Nazism. Hitler often portrayed Jews as “international elements” who “conduct their business everywhere,” posing a threat to all people who are “bounded to their soil, to the Fatherland.”
Today, globalist is a coded word for Jews who are seen as international elites conspiring to weaken or dismantle “Western” society using their international connections and control over big corporations (see New World Order)—all echoing the destructive theory that Jews hold greed and tribe above country.
This has been done before, Same people same replies.
"Marie van der Zyl, the president of the Board of Deputies of British Jews, said: “Antisemitism experts such as the Anti Defamation League identify ‘globalist’ as a common antisemitic trope based on conspiracy theories about international Jewish power. Politicians should avoid using the term, particularly when referring specifically to Jewish individuals.”
Now I agree that Farage could do with shutting up but this is getting ridiculous isn't it?!
Shall we do Cultural Marxism next? Well there's nothing wrong with culture or Marxism eh?
So what is an acceptable general term for people who are ideologically committed to an open worldwide economic marketplace, with little to no consideration for local or environmental issues? People like those in charge of all international corporations, whether they be Western, Chinese, Japanese, Middle Eastern, Indian or of any other origin?
# WE ARE STEALING THE FUTURE FROM OUR CHILDREN --- WE MUST CHANGE COURSE #
You don't purge the left of the Labour Party out of the Labour Party before doing something radical. Unless the radical you're planing is more of the same with a different neoliberal name. ALL the fairly timid promises Starmer made to the Labour Party to get him self elected leader have been broken.
It's BS to keep anyone left of Thatcher in the party onside. And hopefully keep some of the left leaning electorate voting for them. Even before Corbyn, the party membership is far more to the left than the parliamentary party. But without that more left leaning membership, labour won't have the boots on the ground come election time. Give them some hope for change to keep them hopeful, from unofficial sources, of course.
There will be no major shifts of policy when labour wins the next election (IE an actual policy that fixes the housing crises, rather than tinkering around the edges), but there will be a resurgent far right as labour do begger all to fix the underlying problems with the county.
God, I hope I'm wrong. But all the evidence so far says I'm not. We will have a more competent government. But make no mistake, it will be a government of Thatcherites, that believe in the same ideology that got us in this mess in the first place.
Very interesting to see this, especially after the couple of videos that Andrew Marr has done for the New Statesman, that I highlighted a few weeks back:
Can it just be a coincidence that commentators with a heck of a lot of knowledge of things are starting to suggest that the reality of a Labour government may well be (positively) very different to what is being offered?
There's a part of me (the red-tinted glasses part, admittedly) that really wonders if Labour are saying what needs to be said to the public at large in order to ensure election (fearful of the kind of backlash that met Corbyn if they try to be too radical) but, at the same time, are using certain channels such as the New Statesman and Maitlis' podcast to paint a slightly different picture to the subset of voters who are a little more switched on, know what's really required and expected of a Labour government, and won't be scared off by radical ideas.
[Post edited 21 Mar 15:30]
For my own part, I think that Marr, and Jon Sopel and Emily Maitlis of the Newsagents podcast, are Blairite centrists who, freed from the shackles of the BBC, are keen too promote a fellow traveller in Starmer.
As it is, it's all a bit cosy when it comes to the establishment, with Nick Robinson, Emily Maitlis, Jon Sopel, and Adam Boulton all guests at George Osborne's wedding.
Very interesting to see this, especially after the couple of videos that Andrew Marr has done for the New Statesman, that I highlighted a few weeks back:
Can it just be a coincidence that commentators with a heck of a lot of knowledge of things are starting to suggest that the reality of a Labour government may well be (positively) very different to what is being offered?
There's a part of me (the red-tinted glasses part, admittedly) that really wonders if Labour are saying what needs to be said to the public at large in order to ensure election (fearful of the kind of backlash that met Corbyn if they try to be too radical) but, at the same time, are using certain channels such as the New Statesman and Maitlis' podcast to paint a slightly different picture to the subset of voters who are a little more switched on, know what's really required and expected of a Labour government, and won't be scared off by radical ideas.
[Post edited 21 Mar 15:30]
It is not a good reflection of democracy if a party says one thing to get elected and then does something else entirely (they all do it of course)
Our democracy really is broken in that a sizeable chunk of the population vote against the party they don't want rather than the one that they do
I'm increasingly convinced that we need to go to PR, it means we can vote more positively, and it will be good for all the parties (even the tories) eventually as their fringes can split off and leave us with parties who can work together in a mature way.
For my own part, I think Stephen Flynn was much nearer the truth at PMQs yesterday.
[Post edited 21 Mar 20:54]
That's a pretty strong reaction!
At this point, who really knows what's going to pan out (and that is a problem), but I'm a little unimpressed watching two failing incumbent parties arguing like bald men over a comb.
Has anyone ever looked at their own postings for last day or so? Oh my... so sorry. Was Ullaa
You don't purge the left of the Labour Party out of the Labour Party before doing something radical. Unless the radical you're planing is more of the same with a different neoliberal name. ALL the fairly timid promises Starmer made to the Labour Party to get him self elected leader have been broken.
It's BS to keep anyone left of Thatcher in the party onside. And hopefully keep some of the left leaning electorate voting for them. Even before Corbyn, the party membership is far more to the left than the parliamentary party. But without that more left leaning membership, labour won't have the boots on the ground come election time. Give them some hope for change to keep them hopeful, from unofficial sources, of course.
There will be no major shifts of policy when labour wins the next election (IE an actual policy that fixes the housing crises, rather than tinkering around the edges), but there will be a resurgent far right as labour do begger all to fix the underlying problems with the county.
God, I hope I'm wrong. But all the evidence so far says I'm not. We will have a more competent government. But make no mistake, it will be a government of Thatcherites, that believe in the same ideology that got us in this mess in the first place.
Just purely guessing, I wonder whether you've partially hit it there: that radical change may be coming, but it won't necessarily be definable as either left or right (or centre)?
Has anyone ever looked at their own postings for last day or so? Oh my... so sorry. Was Ullaa
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
