Religion and Ethics Forum

General Category => Politics & Current Affairs => Topic started by: BashfulAnthony on November 18, 2015, 06:18:50 PM

Title: Ken Livingstone
Post by: BashfulAnthony on November 18, 2015, 06:18:50 PM
It's a very debatable choice for the role he has been assigned.  Is it another classic error of judgement, especially when you listen to his handling of callers on the radio show he was on this morning.
Title: Re: Ken Livingstone
Post by: Nearly Sane on November 18, 2015, 06:24:36 PM
It's a very strange role. I think it should simply have been Maria Eagle, but Ken was always going to be dodgy and with his idiotic remarks about Kevan Jones, he has scuttled himself
Title: Re: Ken Livingstone
Post by: ad_orientem on November 18, 2015, 06:27:47 PM
Eh? What's all this about? A link?
Title: Re: Ken Livingstone
Post by: Nearly Sane on November 18, 2015, 06:31:46 PM
Eh? What's all this about? A link?


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34853430
Title: Re: Ken Livingstone
Post by: BashfulAnthony on November 18, 2015, 06:35:39 PM

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34853430

His original comments were bad enough, but his attitude, when pressed to say he was sorry, was abominable.  He says sorry now, but only after Corbyn's insistence:  how sincere is that!  Not many new appointees make such blunders before they'v even started the job!
Title: Re: Ken Livingstone
Post by: Nearly Sane on November 18, 2015, 06:42:09 PM
Be interesting what happens in and after the Oldham by election
Title: Re: Ken Livingstone
Post by: BashfulAnthony on November 18, 2015, 06:53:02 PM
Be interesting what happens in and after the Oldham by election

Though, of course, bye-elections are notoriously quirky. 
Title: Re: Ken Livingstone
Post by: Nearly Sane on November 18, 2015, 07:04:07 PM
Not sure quirky is the right word, but I take your point. That said this should be an easy Labour Hold, and much of the polling so far seems to back that up. However, I've been seeing some murmurings from some psepholigists that it may be a lot closer than expected. If it is then the main change, other than the loss of a long term MP in Michael Meacher,  is Corbyn's leadership and those Labour MPs currently using their electric knifesharpeners will be all Ides of March on his ass in an instant.
Title: Re: Ken Livingstone
Post by: BashfulAnthony on November 18, 2015, 07:17:53 PM
Not sure quirky is the right word, but I take your point. That said this should be an easy Labour Hold, and much of the polling so far seems to back that up. However, I've been seeing some murmurings from some psepholigists that it may be a lot closer than expected. If it is then the main change, other than the loss of a long term MP in Michael Meacher,  is Corbyn's leadership and those Labour MPs currently using their electric knifesharpeners will be all Ides of March on his ass in an instant.

And don't forget UKIP and the migrant crisis.
Title: Re: Ken Livingstone
Post by: Nearly Sane on November 18, 2015, 07:25:52 PM
If UKIP do well then it can be written off as 'quirky', if the Tories do well, then I suspect Corbyn will be done before the Ides of March, though there might be a possibility that they stay with him.till after the Scottish elections.
Title: Re: Ken Livingstone
Post by: BashfulAnthony on November 18, 2015, 07:29:09 PM
If UKIP do well then it can be written off as 'quirky', if the Tories do well, then I suspect Corbyn will be done before the Ides of March, though there might be a possibility that they stay with him.till after the Scottish elections.

Anything can happen, I suppose, but I'll be very surprised if the Tories get any cheer;  I have a feeling UKIP will do well;  and just wonder if the Corbyn bubble will show any sign of bursting?
Title: Re: Ken Livingstone
Post by: Nearly Sane on November 18, 2015, 07:40:59 PM
Anything can happen, I suppose, but I'll be very surprised if the Tories get any cheer;  I have a feeling UKIP will do well;  and just wonder if the Corbyn bubble will show any sign of bursting?

Not sure there is any such thing as a Corbyn bubble, the polls since his election have been much the same as the election result.

As covered, if UKIP do well, then it can be written off as a protest vote. If the Tories do well, then it will look like Corbyn will have no chance at the next election (which he doesn't nor does any other Labour member), unless the Tories do something very mad.
Title: Re: Ken Livingstone
Post by: BashfulAnthony on November 18, 2015, 07:43:52 PM
Not sure there is any such thing as a Corbyn bubble, the polls since his election have been much the same as the election result.

As covered, if UKIP do well, then it can be written off as a protest vote. If the Tories do well, then it will look like Corbyn will have no chance at the next election (which he doesn't nor does any other Labour member), unless the Tories do something very mad.

Well, perhaps not bubble, but popularity:  was it just a flash in the pan?
Title: Re: Ken Livingstone
Post by: Nearly Sane on November 18, 2015, 07:55:05 PM
Well, perhaps not bubble, but popularity:  was it just a flash in the pan?

His popularity is in those who had votes in the Labour Leadership election. That may or may not transpose to the general electorate.
Title: Re: Ken Livingstone
Post by: BashfulAnthony on November 18, 2015, 07:57:48 PM
His popularity is in those who had votes in the Labour Leadership election. That may or may not transpose to the general electorate.

You're right.  I think we may see a more realistic picture of how he is viewed.
Title: Re: Ken Livingstone
Post by: Nearly Sane on November 18, 2015, 08:07:51 PM
You're right.  I think we may see a more realistic picture of how he is viewed.

Both of the views are real, they are just different groups. It isn't clear that any vote in Oldham is a referendum by that electorate on Corbyn as leader.
Title: Re: Ken Livingstone
Post by: BashfulAnthony on November 18, 2015, 08:17:09 PM
Both of the views are real, they are just different groups. It isn't clear that any vote in Oldham is a referendum by that electorate on Corbyn as leader.

As yet it remains to be seen how the candidates will present their positions, and how Corbyn will figure in them.
Title: Re: Ken Livingstone
Post by: Nearly Sane on November 18, 2015, 08:22:05 PM
As yet it remains to be seen how the candidates will present their positions, and how Corbyn will figure in them.

It's already going on, but I think there is too much happening to see this as about Corbyn. Undoubtedly if it is closer than currently expected and we have to think that the loss of a personal vote for Meacher will have an effect, then some will try and make it about Corbyn, probably by those in the Labour Party wh want to get rid of him. But a Tory success will have much more impact there.
Title: Re: Ken Livingstone
Post by: BashfulAnthony on November 18, 2015, 08:24:46 PM
It's already going on, but I think there is too much happening to see this as about Corbyn. Undoubtedly if it is closer than currently expected and we have to think that the loss of a personal vote for Meacher will have an effect, then some will try and make it about Corbyn, probably by those in the Labour Party wh want to get rid of him. But a Tory success will have much more impact there.

I think the Tax Credit issue will hit the Tories hard; and I hope it does.
Title: Re: Ken Livingstone
Post by: Nearly Sane on November 18, 2015, 08:32:12 PM
I think the Tax Credit issue will hit the Tories hard; and I hope it does.

It may do, and was discussing what will impact on a Corbyn leadership. It would see that voting UKIP as a protest against Tory cuts on.Tax Credit is a bit odd, but then illustrates why we cannot take the result of the by election as being about single issues
Title: Re: Ken Livingstone
Post by: Hope on November 18, 2015, 09:31:55 PM
Anything can happen, I suppose, but I'll be very surprised if the Tories get any cheer;  I have a feeling UKIP will do well;  and just wonder if the Corbyn bubble will show any sign of bursting?
Not surte what the Tory's proportion of the vote at the General Election was, but all they need is to see a rise in that figure - even if they are left back in third place - to feel cheerful in a such a staunch Labour seat.
Title: Re: Ken Livingstone
Post by: BashfulAnthony on November 18, 2015, 09:35:21 PM
Not surte what the Tory's proportion of the vote at the General Election was, but all they need is to see a rise in that figure - even if they are left back in third place - to feel cheerful in a such a staunch Labour seat.

I'll be very surprised if the Tory vote goes up  -  bye-elections almost always give the incumbent Party a hiding.
Title: Re: Ken Livingstone
Post by: Hope on November 18, 2015, 09:45:45 PM
I'll be very surprised if the Tory vote goes up  -  bye-elections almost always give the incumbent Party a hiding.
I agree, but I'm not sure that this could be deemed to be a bog-standard by-election, BA: the political context of it is not usual.
Title: Re: Ken Livingstone
Post by: BashfulAnthony on November 18, 2015, 09:48:38 PM
I agree, but I'm not sure that this could be deemed to be a bog-standard by-election, BA: the political context of it is not usual.

You're right; but anyone who votes Tory after the Tax Credit in particular, has to be a real dyed-in-the-wool Tory, or politically inept.
Title: Re: Ken Livingstone
Post by: Shaker on November 18, 2015, 09:53:33 PM
You're right; but anyone who votes Tory after the Tax Credit in particular, has to be a real dyed-in-the-wool Tory, or politically inept.
You say that as though there's a difference, Bashers ;)
Title: Re: Ken Livingstone
Post by: BashfulAnthony on November 18, 2015, 09:55:22 PM
You say that as though there's a difference, Bashers ;)

Now you mention it, there isn't!   
Title: Re: Ken Livingstone
Post by: jakswan on November 19, 2015, 07:34:03 AM
You're right; but anyone who votes Tory after the Tax Credit in particular, has to be a real dyed-in-the-wool Tory, or politically inept.

We are talking about the British electorate, who seem to contain a lot of both categories.
Title: Re: Ken Livingstone
Post by: Ricky Spanish on April 07, 2017, 08:07:58 AM
Talking of Red Ken.

Any views on the teacup storm created over these comments?

“The SS set up training camps so that German Jews who were going to go there could be trained to cope with a very different sort of country.

When the Zionist movement asked the Nazi Government, would they stop Jewish Rabbis doing their sermons in Yiddish and make them do it in Hebrew, he agreed to that.

He also passed a law that said the Zionist flag and the Swastika were the only flags that could be flown in Germany and then they started selling Mauser pistols to the underground Jewish army.

So you had, right up until the start of the Second World War, real collaboration and when, in July 1937, many senior Nazis gathered at their Foreign Offices, saying we should stop sending German Jews to Palestine because it risks creating a Jewish state, a directive comes directly from Hitler saying, ‘no, continue with this policy.’

Everyone who studies history just knows this. It is true."

Just because he says it is true does that make it so?
Title: Re: Ken Livingstone
Post by: ad_orientem on April 08, 2017, 12:08:30 PM
It's not true just because Ken said it but because that's what actually happened.
Title: Re: Ken Livingstone
Post by: Nearly Sane on April 08, 2017, 10:25:42 PM
Pretty much


https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/apr/06/ken-livingstone-hitler-zionism-jews
Title: Re: Ken Livingstone
Post by: Owlswing on April 09, 2017, 12:01:26 AM

You say that as though there's a difference, Bashers ;)


Good to see you again - Shakes!

BB

)O(
Title: Re: Ken Livingstone
Post by: Robbie on April 09, 2017, 03:27:18 AM
Honestly, as someone who has always favoured Ken, I really do not know what to make of this. I'd love to think he is being misinterpreted but.....
Title: Re: Ken Livingstone
Post by: Ricky Spanish on April 09, 2017, 08:43:15 AM
I see your ex-jewish comedian and raise you 5 Jewish Labour Party Members:

Quote
"The decision to continue the suspension (of) Ken is mistaken. It is an attempt to protect Israel from criticism, while simultaneously weakening the position of Jeremy Corbyn, a principled supporter of Palestinian rights.

"It is the verdict, not Ken Livingstone, that has brought the Labour Party into disrepute."

http://www.aol.co.uk/news/2017/04/05/jewish-labour-party-members-speak-up-for-livingstone/
Title: Re: Ken Livingstone
Post by: Ricky Spanish on April 09, 2017, 09:01:38 AM
Robinson.

This take on the whole debacle might interest you:

"Why so many are twisting Ken Livingstone’s words about Hitler and Zionism"

http://mondoweiss.net/2017/04/twisting-livingstones-zionism/ (http://"Why so many are twisting Ken Livingstone’s words about Hitler and Zionism")
Title: Re: Ken Livingstone
Post by: Ricky Spanish on April 09, 2017, 12:22:32 PM
Actually Sane. Someone's taken the time to deconstruct Baddiels Gurniad article.

Have a read here: http://voxpoliticalonline.com/2017/04/08/why-david-baddiel-has-it-so-wrong-over-ken-livingstone-and-hitler/
Title: Re: Ken Livingstone
Post by: jakswan on April 10, 2017, 10:09:15 AM
Paraphrased Ken 'when Hitler got elected in 1932 he was supporting Zionism before he went mad'.

May or may not be factually true however its highly controversial statement to make, if your aim as a political party is to win over the electorate it is counter productive.
Title: Re: Ken Livingstone
Post by: Robbie on April 10, 2017, 10:26:03 AM
Thanks Ricky.  Your first link produced a blank page!  However I googled mondoweiss and found this:
http://mondoweiss.net/?s=ken+livingstone

The Vox one was fine and I have read the article.

Paraphrased Ken 'when Hitler got elected in 1932 he was supporting Zionism before he went mad'.

May or may not be factually true however its highly controversial statement to make, if your aim as a political party is to win over the electorate it is counter productive.
 
Quite right Jakswan.
Title: Re: Ken Livingstone
Post by: Nearly Sane on April 10, 2017, 10:32:40 AM
Thanks Ricky.  Your first link produced a blank page!
The Vox one was fine and I have read the article.
 
Quite right Jakswan.

It's a specific attempt to provoke guilt by association and to play into the idea that all wars are caused by Jewish control of finance. Hitler used Zionists as opposed to supporting Zionism to get rid of Jewish people. He didn't suddenly go mad and this is where the Baddiel article is correct.

It's dog whistle politics for anti semitism
Title: Re: Ken Livingstone
Post by: Rhiannon on April 10, 2017, 11:03:59 AM
Yes, I think the 'before he went mad' line is the most pernicious.

It's been pointed out that Hitler's enthusiasm for a Jewish state wants when he realised that it wouldn't be some kind of reservation in  the Middle East controlled by the British.