Off Topic The Politics Thread

"OH LOOK! THERE'S A DEAD CAT ON THE TABLE!"

Which is just my way of saying it's just another diversion that means we stop looking at the important issues and forget who we really should be holding to account and on what issues. At PMQs yesterday, instead of answering serious questions that have no reasonable answer, Cameron used this to distract everyone.

I have no comment to make regarding her. That's just talking about the dead cat again.

 

Social media Kiwi, I think she tweeted or retweeted something. I haven't seen it because this place is the only social media that I participate in.

True of course, but it's still relevant to talk about a politician who gives the impression that she supported the forcible transportation of a nation. We have the ability to consider more than one issue at a time. The real problem yesterday was Corbyn using all his questions, for the second PMQs in a row, on academy schools, and not being prepared for the Cameron attack on Shah. The subsequent suspension was, or at least looks like, a reaction to the Tories rather than a decision of principle. I find that helpful when considering my personal voting intentions in the future.

 

quite right too
who has the time for all that other nonsence
stay well away from twatter

 

It seems like Shah is an idiot and that Corbyn has handled the issue badly, but I do think that Dipper has a point about PMQs. I didn't hear it yesterday, but presumably Cameron was answering a planted question from a Tory backbencher. PMQs should be about the government being held to account, and I think that the PM should really only be facing questions from opposition parties.

 

Good call. PMQs is strange, usually a shambles of short term points scoring, but the fact that our 'chief executive' is exposed to it every week is excellent and a source of amazement to people who live under different systems, especially the US.

Some small changes happening in the House, I love the fact that the SNP have introduced applause ((Burnham got a good round yesterday, though I thought May was good too, and clearly emotional about it) despite being told not to. Tradition for its own sake, no thanks.

 

Slightly more than that, mate. She referred to the forced relocation of Israel as a 'solution'. As Hitler spoke of the Holocaust being the 'Final Solution', use of that word in this context was understandably deeply offensive to all Jews. I think it was everything she said all together that caused the issue, and the Labour party stance of zero-tolerance needed to be tested, which is why the PM called them on it and why Corbyn had to act once it had been made so public that - in this instance - what they said and what they were doing were so at odds.

 

In no way wanting to defend her, but Naz Shah has had a very hard life, and is owed a debt of gratitude for keeping George Galloway out of parliament. She is obviously not the brightest. If she, or anyone else (Galloway for example) really believe this **** I would much prefer them to say it in public so we can argue with them. Livingstone suspended now.

Cameron only called them out to **** up Labour, PMQs, as has been pointed out above, is for him to be held to account, there are plenty of other platforms where he or other members of the government could have raised anti semitism in the Labour Party.

 

Of course that's why he did it. That's why other party members ask any questions at all - it's not to 'hold them to account' it's to try and make them look foolish. That's how PMQs have been for years.

I disagree that the incumbent party should not be allowed to raise issues, even if they are 'friendly' questions. This is just one of a number of platforms for all parties to raise issues and try to paint themselves as the party of choice in people's minds.

 

I'm sure they value your vote so highly, Stan, that your offer will be exceedingly tempting for them...

 

The left of the labour party has real anti semetic problems.
Shah is a half witted disgrace and Livingston is an odious toad.

 

I'm confused. If I am critical of the Israeli state, am I anti-semitic? If I am critical of the Islamic faith, am I racist?

 

Not necessarily. But as soon as you begin to present Hitler as:

1 Pro-Zionist
2 Much misunderstood
3 Much maligned
4 He had his good points. For example he made the trains run on time.

You'll know the signs

 

You seem to be confusing me with somebody else, Yorkshire - and you haven't my questions.

 

Neither, as you well know. But choose your words carefully. On second thoughts don't bother, no matter how reasoned your argument you'll be accused of something by people who can't bear to hear things they don't agree with and think that debate is evil because they might have to exercise some brain cells.

Shah has admitted that her remarks were anti-Semitic in intent. Why Livingstone thought he should go round denying this in the bizarre terms he did is beyond me, but I'm afraid I share Col's assessment of him as an individual.

 

I think I did. Work it out. The answer is in the first line. Plenty are critical of the Israeli state but it's what else they say on which we can judge whether they are anti-semitic or racist.

 

I wasn't trying to justify Livingstone's mad ramblings, Yorkshire. Just posing genuine, albeit rhetorical, questions.

 

She should have listened to her dad.

 

Just joking mate. There's a quote in there from a DrMahmood Shah.