I don't think anyone in this thread has claimed opposing Israel's policies is anti-Semitic. And basically noone in the general UK discussion about Labour/anti-Semitism has claimed opposing Israel's policies is anti-Semitic so that argument is a bit of a red herring.

An Israeli minister recent claimed that Natalie Portman refusing to fly to her birth country to accept an award (because she opposes Netanyahu) is anti-Semitic (I think he said borderline anti-Semitic). I'm not denying that some hard core Zionists call Israel's critics anti-Semites waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too easy. That's a thing. It's wrong. I find it very irritating. It's correct to call it out. But I feel like when it's called out it should be called out with an example. When there's a list of a million cases of clear anti-Semitism, and you point it out, and someone comes back with "Opposing Israel isn't anti-Semitic", well, that's frustrating.

Labour's manifesto wasn't particularly radical on Israel and Palestine. Corbyn himself actually isn't particularly obsessed with Israel (as compared to many of his fellow travellers). So what you say in your first paragraph is true - but there's a lot more to it than that. There's his decades long willingness to consort with the most anti-Semitic elements of the "pro-Palestine" "movement". And his decades long refusal to call out anti-Semitism despite spending so much time with anti-Semites. Plus Corbyn is a conspiracy theorists and conspiracy theorists attract other conspiracy theorists and conspiracy theorists are disproportionately anti-Semitic.

Plus he's handled the whole Labour/anti-Semitism thing like absolute trash because he's utterly incapable of admitting fault, not particularly intelligent/reflective, surrounds himself with tankies. And yes the fact that he's historically unpopular with the general public and within his own party hasn't helped. I don't think Labour MPs who criticise his shameful handling of Labour/anti-Semitism aren't genuine in their criticisms but it's also true they'd be less likely to air them if they thought he was a good leader. The converse is true of people like Abbott.

We dont agree on JC very much. I think he is right to try to talk with people from hamas, participate in pro-palestian discussion groups etc just as I think he was right to talk to the ira/etc. Unfortunately the reality is that that inevitably means mixing with people who say anti-semetic things (and have some responsibity for some horrific actions) just as it mean mixing with people who said anti english or anti-protestant things. These are very difficuly areas but far far too important to duck - my point is that that will inevitably draw some pretty suspect people towards labour.

I think he got banned for his conspiracy nonsense on another thread

FYP

Labour is the only party that's suddenly acquired that many new members, and it's obvious where they've come from: the far left and the far right, which are just the same. The phenomenon is known as 'red-brown crossover'.

Here are Corbyn's fascist supporters going about their daily work on Facebook:--

UKIP managed to get working class support from Labour by telling them lies about immigration stealing their jobs and school places, now we have left the EU they are going back to Labour.

= Labour are fascist.

The standard of debate itt is so in the toilet at the moment.

I agree with talking with hamas and hezbollah (and North Korea).

Unfortunately he's never, to the best of my knowledge, called out any of these anti-Semitic groups like hamas and hezbollah for their anti-Semitism. Instead he calls them friends committed to social justice and implied they're not anti-Semitic later in the same speech. Hamas's charter called for worldwide genocide of all Jews and endorsed the Protocols & Hezbollah are responsible the largest post-WWII anti-Semitic atrocity. There are plenty of people who talk with unpleasant groups while calling out their bigotry and without fawning praise. Jeremy Corbyn is not one of those people. I'm fed of hearing how he's spent his life fighting anti-Semitism, when I haven't seen a single example of him proactively speaking out against Jew hatred (signing EDMs doesn't count). He's been plenty proactive on anti-black, anti-Muslim and anti-gay hatred (which is great!!!) but his record on anti-Semitism is atrocious.

Question: let's say Corbyn get struck by lightning while planting turnips at his allotment, so there's a leadership contest but nothing that could be called a coup. Who wins? How would Labour do in relation to their current situation with various potential leaders?

That's an interesting way to frame the question. If Corbyn stepped down, he'd probably back Thornberry which would mean she was a shoe-in.

If we remove his explicit support for a candidate, it muddies the water somewhat. I think it's almost certain going to be a woman, however there really are not any outstanding candidates so in a 4-way run off I'd hope the women split the vote allowing Keir Starmer to sneak into the h2h and nick it.

AFAIK the overwhelming norm in all parties is for former leaders to stay neutral in subsequent leadership elections. Although I agreed a dedicated Stalinist like C****n is likely to endorse someone, even if perhaps passive-aggressively. Regardless I doubt he endorses Thornberry since she seems a highly non ideological centrist type who'll say anything for power. I imagine he'd go for McDonnell who seems to hold pretty much the same views but is much smarter (One of C****n's problems is a seeming lack of intellect) with better political instincts.

McDonnell gives me the impression he'd rather be the power behind the throne.

I disagree. He's way more comfortable with press than C****n and ran for leadership in 2007 and 2010 (granted it's possible he was running as a joke candidate a la C****n and didn't intend to win).

My advice to Labour would be for C****n to step down as leader if they have a good day on May 3 (or at some other "high point" before the next election). Claim he'd fulfilled his mandate and wanted to spend more time with his turnips or whatever. They'd almost certainly elect a left wing leader who'd avoid splitting the party and have a good chance of winning the next general against what is likely to be an unpopular party (I don't think the chance of a Labour party split under C****n is high, but it's plausible). Labour have a chance of winning with C****n but they'd almost always do better with a (any?) different leader.

Yes, I was mainly thinking about his implied support by telling Momentum who to back.

How long till we reckon Amber Rudd's gone?

She might hold on (but she should resign). Who replaces her?

Not long now.

She can get away with responsibility for horrendous behavior by the home office but not with misleading the commons over knowing about expulsion targets. That appears to be the charge now.

It will leave Wally as the only "moderate" senior cabinet minster, so I guess Maybot will have to provide him with some company in the form of the promotion of another "moderate".

Good to know that in May's Britain, as black people are being illegally deported to make targets, white non-British extremists are welcome:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...e-evans-battle

FFS what an absolute ****.

Adrian Mole?

Do you guys normally put milk in tea and if so just for particular kinds of tea?

I don't drink it. Most people do put milk in it though

It's not a proper cuppa without milk. Maybe your fancy teas don't use it but if you're having PG tips etc milk is assumed.

Green tea

no milk