Don't like her at all; she was my least favourite Labour leadership candidate. But this silly anti semitism bollocks only makes me think Starmer is as bad as Johnson. Allowing pressure groups and media to run your party is never a good idea.

Starmer had little option, after nailing his colours to the mast on anti-semitism.

And RLB repeatedly refused to take down her retweet. Backtracking only slightly.

Even though Maxine Peake - who made the original tweet - soon changed her stance.

Yes labour is a disgrace and not a word from abour either on Israeli aggression on the West Bank it's a disgrace.

the whole current Labor lot are pretty ghastly.

The way they caved into the Board of Deputies was not only disgraceful but basically ensures they will be a permanent party of HM'S loyal Opposition and some like Starmer may even like that.

Gives him power and position without having to do the hard work.

# I reckon there will be a growing revival of Corbynism that will grow like a cult especially as tens of thousands of young people become a voting age.

## The Corbynistas should be planning for that as Boris the Badman will only get worse and is a disaster. Mind you he may be rolled by a more sensible Tory.

### Starmer caving into the Zionist Lobby was a huge tactical mistake and basically it neuters him.
( Hedda did have a Jewish mother and as we know that's what counts in that world as you don't always know who your father was although he was a Scotsman )

And as expected this turns into a pro or anti Jewish discussion which it isn't at all; I've read the Peake interview; it's a tiny passing comment and would have made no waves at all if she had mentioned that the bent cop had been trained by the UK or Palestinians or in Finland. Like Black Lives Matter; it simply takes the eye off the ball; the main problem. Humanity has become SOO superficial and predictable. As I sang yesterday "a doggy is nuthin' if he don't have a bone".

not anti-Jewish surely?. Anti- some Zionists yes .

And not anti-Israel either but definitely anti-some Israel government policies.

Israel must the only country in the world where critisising some regressive government policies (you know what they are) are deemed an attack upon the entire citizenry which is blatantly ludicrous.

I don't even know why the Israelis put up with that. Just bizarre.

Attacking Tory policies or Labour or Corbyn policies is not an attack upon the British people as a whole?

The thinking must be Israel = Jewish state, therefore criticism of Israeli government policy = criticism of Jews. Seems logical given their immigration policy. The UK doesn't stipulate that only those of British descent may move to the UK. Not yet, anyway (wouldn't put anything past Brexit Britain). The Israeli government could be crying wolf, thereby not doing anything to encourage people to take genuine claims of anti-Semitism seriously, but there's always the possibility that some of those claiming to be anti-Zionists or anti-Israeli government policy are in reality anti-Semites. A bit like the far right and their "white lives matter" banners (cf. Burnley identify fans behind 'white lives matter' banner and vow to issue lifetime bans - "Burnley chief executive Neil Hart tells Sky News he believes the far right is infiltrating some football clubs").

it's a real problem when an entire countries citizens are treated as a unit which the fanatical Zionists claim (as opposed to reasonable ones) .

Israel is fiercely anti black Ethiopian Jews and have tried to restrict their right to settle in Israel.

Are we to conclude Jews are racist as a people? ( I don't know the answer)

As for the weeping and moaning about their obvious enemies..Israel has possible up to 400 Nuclear weapons so doubtful anyone will dare attack them.

Someone once said "the oppressed eventually always becomes the oppressor"

The first time I saw her interviewed, years ago, I was genuinely stunned at how such an idiot could have been appointed to any position of responsibility. She was then an assistant to McDonnell, and she came on and said 'I think of socialism as caring capitalism'. She actually said that. You'd be laughed at saying that as a first year undergraduate, for god's sake, and yet she was a junior shadow minister who was supposed to understand economic theory and practice! And she's supposed to be on the left!!! She must have some great blackmail material on people, that's the only explanation I can think of.

Rick wrote:
The first time I saw her interviewed, years ago, I was genuinely stunned at how such an idiot could have been appointed to any position of responsibility. She was then an assistant to McDonnell, and she came on and said 'I think of socialism as caring capitalism'. She actually said that. You'd be laughed at saying that as a first year undergraduate, for god's sake, and yet she was a junior shadow minister who was supposed to understand economic theory and practice! And she's supposed to be on the left!!! She must have some great blackmail material on people, that's the only explanation I can think of.

Sorry i am as usual a little lost re what is wrong with the statement

'I think of socialism as caring capitalism'.

There once was the idea of "the mixed economy" of indiviualist or a group of individuals i.e. companies etc with the values of the free market economy and capital etc. plus embracing at the same timethe social concern aspect of communism like medical care for all, a roof over one's head and ensuring all could actually find a paid job. The side thato promted the good aspects instead of communistic central control that puts the state higher than the individual's value "reason d'etre" kind of thing.

It was the concept that competition, free market and capital were a good thing as well as the idea that all people matter i.e. socialism - social concern.

And when practiced here and there it worked well in the past as it does today. When it is accidently practiced.

Whoever Rebecca Long Bailey may be or not be, the case to sack her seems to fly in the face of free speech, demorcacy and allows evil to grow (oppression). Yes the opportunity to freely speak should not be used to incite racism or terrorism and such but still people need to be able to share speak without undue concern.

I care deeply about the needs of people and yet the very political party that is suppose to be concerned and bring a social concern side to the capitistic conservatists is turning me into a conservatist supportor (Not really but yes I would vote conservative if I was in the labour's leader constituency the man is dangerous.

Still like to know what I am missing re 'I think of socialism as caring capitalism'. Probably obvious but I know I often miss the obvious so more than happy to eat humble pie so I can learn.

If you define socialism properly you simply cannot mix it with capitalism. You can only mix it with capitalism if you redefine what socialism is. Like 'democratic authoritarianism' or 'anarchistic government'. I hope that clears it up.

Rick wrote:
If you define socialism properly you simply cannot mix it with capitalism. You can only mix it with capitalism if you redefine what socialism is. Like 'democratic authoritarianism' or 'anarchistic government'. I hope that clears it up.

Thanks Rick for the clarification. Still not convinced re Rebecca Long Bailey use of words as I know nothing about the context or her motivations, whether she is a pragmatist or a believer only (i.e. bordering on fanaticism). As I consider socialism / capitalism, democratic / authoritarianism and anarchistic / government each have developed either concise and distinct meaning or encompasses various closely related meanings. Yes your choice of opposites is helpful.

On the other hand , "at a point in time" relating to "an individual item" the related words highlight actions that are exclusive of the other. In practise in time an individual item and to a degree - all elements come into play. So a democratic government at times like Covid 19 situation resorts to elements, degree of authoritarianism.

You are helping me learning lots and giving me lots to think about. Thanks.


As to Rebecca Long Bailey the comment may be a well thought out phrase with a context that defines what she means by it or it may be something that sounds good and is a meaningless bit of nonsense that you quite rightly point out, where the two opposite actions do not mix.

I can live under Capitalism or Socialism but both have to be strictly controlled..they are artificial constructs.

No-where has true Capitalism especially the USA which is fast becoming uncontrolled Corporatism where every aspect of financial society is aimed at the benefit of Corporations and thus, the 1% as worker's rights are dismantled.

They're heading for disaster.

The Northern European countries get the mix about right especially Germany where employees are generally treated as assets with a notion if they benefit the company benefits.

# Australia was the first country to have a Socialist government in 1900. It's veered from the right to left over and over since but never too far either way.
With 60% of the citizens on the Government Drip unlikely to change.

hedda wrote:
With 60% of the citizens on the Government Drip unlikely to change.


Neither is the UK - where 20 million are on benefits.

With 33 million working, in an overall population of 67 million.


In the virus/Brexit afterlife - those relying on benefits will rise significantly.

Largely because of increased unemployment and the debt that's been accumulated by so many.


Nevertheless - over 1.5 million are expected to visit the boozer, this coming Saturday.

When they reopen after over three months in darkness.


Accepting credit cards only - for reasons of hygiene - will be an added bonus to many...