Originally Posted by BonnieDundee:
That is completely correct, but that is because Nulabour have moved right and taken on so much of the Thatcherite rubbish.

They did under Blair but he was similar to Cameron in that he's the face to get them in to power once in power the true colors will show. Blair had no principles, morals or beliefs. He was just out for himself all the way.

But Gordon Brown is no right winger he is an out an out socialist. Labours ideology that the rich should be taxed to help the poor is a poorly thought out dream that dose not work. If he starts to tax the super rich they will just move they're money else where in the world. If he puts to much pressure on the middle class he loses the floating voter. So in reality he can only tax one part of the working class to pay for the other part of the working class.

Socialism is one fat con. They tax you an extra £40 then give you back a tax credit of £20 and then pat them selves on the back for being such good leaders. They build shiny new schools but then lower the standard of education so that education is more about indoctrination. Given the choice between a run down school with teachers allowed to do they're job as they see fit or a nice new building where teachers are told what to say and do I'd certainly prefer the former.

I was very anti Thatcher when I was young but now I understand economics and view life a bit more logically the best thing a government can do is let the people live their lives and only intervene when theirs genuine concerns for the safety of those not in a position to defend themselves.
[Rep]

Originally Posted by Unionist:
You appear to be saying that: (1) there is a 'Jewish lobby' that has great influence in the selection of Labour leaders; (2) David Miliband's main concern is to promote Israel's interests.

Both propositions are false, IMHO, and I am surprised that no one has commented thus far.

Obviously you may wish to clarify as there may be some other interpretation to your words. :-)

I am well aware that some people will want to put the 'anti-semite' slant to this, but at what point does fact overcome this accusation/threat?

Facts:

Tony Blair, as Prime Minister, appoints one Michael Levy as his party fund raiser in 1994. Mr Levy becomes Lord Levy three years later. Lord Levy is also an Isreali citizen, with close ties to the Israeli Labour Party, and has a son, Daniel, who was an assistant to the then Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak. How Levy and Blair were introduced is an interesting story in itself, but I'll leave that for you to find out for yourself else you'll be accusing me of creating a 'Jewish conspiracy'...:-).

I don't need to go on about the influence Lord Levy had on the Labour Party, but for Blair to send a high ranking British Jew (member of the Board of Deputies) to the Middle East as his personal envoy to try and foster peace seems, at best, naive. I'm sure the Palestinians fully appreciated the irony.

Lord Levy, acknowledged as a superlative fund-raiser, put millions into the Labour coffers - leading to the cash-for-honours enquiry.

Tam Dalyll, a well know Labour MP critisised the 'Jewish Cabal' around Blair
BBC NEWS | Politics | Dalyell's 'Jewish cabal' remarks denied

Apart from those mentioned, a significant number of members of the Jewish faith have been added to the Cabinet (both Milibands, Hodges and others) with question marks over their ability to do the job - especially Hodges.

Outside of the Politicians, there is the Labour Friends of Israel. A group which was run by Lord Levy, but is now run by Jon Mendelson - a name which will crop up later.

How and why Lord Levy was left out to dry is unclear, but Blair couldn't leave the Party quick enough. Am I the only person who thinks the manner in which Brown was hit by successive 'disasters' as being 'odd'? All this money that was given yet not declared. The best part is Hain. Isn't it a remarkable coincidence that the man behind the 'donations' scandle was also an active and well known member of Friends of Israel? Even Jon Mendelson (remember him) got in on the act by claiming he'd given Hain £5000.

We now have a situation where the Labour Party are scrambling for funds, which may be one of the reasons why Brown couldn't call an election last Novemeber, and is near bankruptcy.

But the LibDems have also shown how much they are influenced by the current LibDem Friends of Israel. Baroness Tonge was hounded after making a statement that the pro-Israeli lobby had financial grips on the western world and particularly the LibDem Party...

Jenny Tonge - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I did not say that Milibands main concern was to promote Israeli interest, that would be mere supposition. However, as Foreign Secretary, he has shown an inclination to support Israel (ie the invasion of Lebanon) when he can and will criticise China, Mugabe etc for human rights violations, but never Israel...draw your own conclusions.

What I've put here is just the tip of the iceberg. The Tories claim two thirds of their Parliamentary members are also members of Conservative Friends of Israel...just look at the CFI website for proof. You could also look at the LFI, LibDemFI and UKIP FI websites while you're at it and make some comparisons.

Now tell me I'm making it all up....:-)
[Rep]

Hunter, not only did I not accuse you of anti-semitism, but nor was it an accusation - let alone a threat. You are being very defensive, and rightly so given your follow-up post which seems to confirm my fears.

What is your issue with Lord Levy? He is someone with wide connections in the Middle East including (but not limited to) Israel. Is the problem simply that he is Jewish? (By the way, you don't need to hint darkly about how Levy and Blair were introduced. I am fully aware of the story and it is pretty innocuous.) Levy has money and connections - that much is obvious. He is Jewish too - so what? It is only peculiar if you read something sinister into any story in which Jewish people have access to power.

Citing the unfortunate incident of Tam Dalyell's outburst about Blair surrounding himself with Jews is a bit desperate. Dalyell's comments were all a bit tenuous, with distant Jewish ancestry being cited in some cases and no evidence of any particular favouritism by Blair towards Jews. Most of Dalyell's colleagues were profoundly embarrassed at the time. The explanation for the outburst, in my view, is that Dalyell was scratching around for an explanation for the war in Iraq and his concerns about future conflicts with Iran and Syria. The Israeli/Jewish angle seemed to be a convenient peg to hang it all on, as ever.

You say that 'a significant number' of Jewish people have been appointed to the Cabinet with question marks over their ability to do the job, and you cite the two Milibands and Margaret Hodge. Talent does not seem to be too evident among Cabinet ministers in general, which is the first point to make, so it would not be unusual to find Cabinet ministers lacking in talent. Even so, are you seriously suggesting that the Milibands have little talent? They are among the brightest in the Labour government today and both have a good track record in policy development. Hodge is not a great star IMHO but she networked well politically over many years and it is unsurprising that she reached Cabinet level.

You ask whether the way Brown has been hit by successive disasters is 'odd', the implication being that there is a (Jewish?) cabal operating behind the scenes to undermine him. It is not odd at all - a quick look back will find other prime ministers being hit by successive disasters (what Harold Macmillan famously termed 'events, dear boy, events'. Of all your comments, this one is perhaps most revealing.

On the matter of Jenny Tonge, she not only made those unsupported comments about a 'pro-Israeli' lobby, but she also explained how she might well have become a suicide bomber if she were a Palestinian. When you think of the actions of such suicide bombers in blowing up pizza restaurants and family weddings, this was at the very least ill-advised. She weakens rather than strengthens any case you might have.

You claim that you did not say that Miliband's main concern was to promote Israeli interests. Well, what you actually said was that he had strong connections with Labour Friends of Israel and "...[o]ther than that, he has no interest in representing this Country in an official capacity." You then went on in your subsequent post to claim that he has shown an undue inclination to support Israel, which I would contest. You are completely wrong about David Miliband's position on the Israeli military campaign against Hezbollah. Even as the UK government was offering support for Israel, David Miliband - a Cabinet minister and therefore bound in theory by collective responsibility - was distancing himself. His critical stance on Israel was a talking point when he was appointed as Foreign Secretary. This BBC profile from the time of his appointment confirms this view:
BBC NEWS | Politics | Profile: David Miliband

What you have done is to take a few selective facts - and some of the 'facts' are highly tenuous, at the very least - and fit them into a view of the world in which Jewish interests predominate. In that you are following in a long line of such theories, even ones promoted unconsciously on this forum by those who talk about the New World Order, the Bilderbergers, the Trilateral Commission, the Freemasons and the neocons. It is the oldest conspiracy theory in the book and you are consciously or unconsciously helping to sustain it.
[Rep]

Originally Posted by Westcountryman:
Anyone who'll help ensure they never win again.

In that case, I propose Hazel Blears as a ventriloquist's dummy, being worked by Caroline Flint! That should work into the membranes of every brain in the country so that the memory cells never forget what a shrill, ghastly lot this New Labour pantomime of control freaks was!
[Rep]

Originally Posted by Roland:
They did under Blair but he was similar to Cameron in that he's the face to get them in to power once in power the true colors will show. Blair had no principles, morals or beliefs. He was just out for himself all the way.

But Gordon Brown is no right winger he is an out an out socialist. Labours ideology that the rich should be taxed to help the poor is a poorly thought out dream that dose not work. If he starts to tax the super rich they will just move they're money else where in the world. If he puts to much pressure on the middle class he loses the floating voter. So in reality he can only tax one part of the working class to pay for the other part of the working class.

Socialism is one fat con. They tax you an extra £40 then give you back a tax credit of £20 and then pat them selves on the back for being such good leaders. They build shiny new schools but then lower the standard of education so that education is more about indoctrination. Given the choice between a run down school with teachers allowed to do they're job as they see fit or a nice new building where teachers are told what to say and do I'd certainly prefer the former.

I was very anti Thatcher when I was young but now I understand economics and view life a bit more logically the best thing a government can do is let the people live their lives and only intervene when theirs genuine concerns for the safety of those not in a position to defend themselves.

I'm almost an economist and I can say that economics does not particularly support Thatcher and her rich mates, particularly when you realise how flawed mainstream neoclasiscal economics actually is.

For anyone with a basic knowledge of history it is clear Brown is no socialist, the hyperbolic rhetoric helps no one.
[Rep]

Originally Posted by Unionist:
Hunter, not only did I not accuse you of anti-semitism, but nor was it an accusation - let alone a threat. You are being very defensive, and rightly so given your follow-up post which seems to confirm my fears.

If you wish to think I was being defensive, then that is your choice. I was merely trying to establish that I have no intention of getting involved in the purile anti-semite argument some people like to unfold for simply expressing opinions. Something which I have the right to exercise - unless you know of some NuLabour plan to put an end to that too.....

Originally Posted by :
What is your issue with Lord Levy? He is someone with wide connections in the Middle East including (but not limited to) Israel. Is the problem simply that he is Jewish? (By the way, you don't need to hint darkly about how Levy and Blair were introduced. I am fully aware of the story and it is pretty innocuous.) Levy has money and connections - that much is obvious. He is Jewish too - so what? It is only peculiar if you read something sinister into any story in which Jewish people have access to power.

What gave you the impression I have some issue with Lord Levy? He is merely the central character in the incidents I mention. I also acknowledge that he is a superlative fund-raiser, which you may have missed, but I did point out that he has close connections with a Foreign Power. That in itself should have been enough to keep him out of Downing Street. But Lord Levy himself I have no issue with at present. In fact I think it was a bit two-faced for NuLabour to leave him exposed to the 'cash-for-honours' charges. Perhaps it is you who is being a bit on the defensive side?

Originally Posted by :
Citing the unfortunate incident of Tam Dalyell's outburst about Blair surrounding himself with Jews is a bit desperate. Dalyell's comments were all a bit tenuous, with distant Jewish ancestry being cited in some cases and no evidence of any particular favouritism by Blair towards Jews. Most of Dalyell's colleagues were profoundly embarrassed at the time. The explanation for the outburst, in my view, is that Dalyell was scratching around for an explanation for the war in Iraq and his concerns about future conflicts with Iran and Syria. The Israeli/Jewish angle seemed to be a convenient peg to hang it all on, as ever.

There is nothing 'desperate' about Tam Dalyell's outburst, other than your weak explanation for his reasons for doing so. Tam Dalyell is not known for making stupid or tenuous comments. Nor is he known as someone who is afraid to speak his mind - his record is evidence of that. The colleagues who, as you say, were embarassed (for which I am unable to find any reference) are almost certain to have been members of Labour Friends of Israel.
The point I make with referring to this issue is that a number of people, from different political backgrounds, have a similar view on this.

Originally Posted by :
You say that 'a significant number' of Jewish people have been appointed to the Cabinet with question marks over their ability to do the job, and you cite the two Milibands and Margaret Hodge.

By 'significant' I refer to the Governments own guidlines to 'ethnic representation' in offical posts etc. Given that there are about 300,000 members of the Jewish Faith in Britain, this would work out at about 1:200 that is one Jewish person for every two hundred others. Using this figure, of the 646 Members of Parliament, roughly three and a half should be Jewish. As there are more than this in Parliament, then the Jewish 'ethnic minority' is significantly over represented. In both Parliament and the Cabinet.

Originally Posted by :
Talent does not seem to be too evident among Cabinet ministers in general, which is the first point to make, so it would not be unusual to find Cabinet ministers lacking in talent. Even so, are you seriously suggesting that the Milibands have little talent? They are among the brightest in the Labour government today and both have a good track record in policy development. Hodge is not a great star IMHO but she networked well politically over many years and it is unsurprising that she reached Cabinet level.

Your point here implies that the Cabinet is not chosen on merit, but on other factors. Ed Miliband was elected to Parliament in 2005. A few months later he becomes a Cabinet Minister. He didn't have enough time to show whether or not he could do the job. So how did he get the promotion. My local MP has only just managed to become a PPS - a requirement before being chosen as a Cabinet Minister. Ed Miliband bypassed this procedure which, I'm sure, would have caused some resentment among other MP's, especially the long-standing ones. So your statement here suggests that the Labour Party has little or no talented politicians among their ranks. Something which, I'm sure, several of them would take you to task over.

Originally Posted by :
You ask whether the way Brown has been hit by successive disasters is 'odd', the implication being that there is a (Jewish?) cabal operating behind the scenes to undermine him. It is not odd at all - a quick look back will find other prime ministers being hit by successive disasters (what Harold Macmillan famously termed 'events, dear boy, events'. Of all your comments, this one is perhaps most revealing.

'Odd' as in the sense of 'what a remarkable coincidence' odd. Brown made no secret of the fact he wanted Blair out so he could take over. I believe it was part of an agreement between them. 'Odd' in the sense that, given the amount of time that had passed since the Party Leadership Elections, why was the information over funding not made available earlier? Had it been held back deliberately in order to embarass Brown? And why was it his supporters who copped for it and not Blairs? Far too coincidental for me, but I appreciate you may believe otherwise. As for the 'Jewish' connection - show me otherwise.

Originally Posted by :
On the matter of Jenny Tonge, she not only made those unsupported comments about a 'pro-Israeli' lobby, but she also explained how she might well have become a suicide bomber if she were a Palestinian. When you think of the actions of such suicide bombers in blowing up pizza restaurants and family weddings, this was at the very least ill-advised. She weakens rather than strengthens any case you might have.

Again, you miss the point of the statement. It's not what Baroness Tonge said that was/is the issue. It is the manner in which she was treated. Many of her own Party were disgusted over the way she was dealt with. Some say it is reason Kennedy was sacked. And when Campbell tried to sack her for the 'financial grip' remark, he too was later replaced. The question here is why, given the great deal of respect Baroness Tonge had within the Party, was the LibDem Leadership at such pains to show they were punishing her?

Originally Posted by :
You claim that you did not say that Miliband's main concern was to promote Israeli interests. Well, what you actually said was that he had strong connections with Labour Friends of Israel and "...[o]ther than that, he has no interest in representing this Country in an official capacity." You then went on in your subsequent post to claim that he has shown an undue inclination to support Israel, which I would contest. You are completely wrong about David Miliband's position on the Israeli military campaign against Hezbollah. Even as the UK government was offering support for Israel, David Miliband - a Cabinet minister and therefore bound in theory by collective responsibility - was distancing himself. His critical stance on Israel was a talking point when he was appointed as Foreign Secretary. This BBC profile from the time of his appointment confirms this view:
BBC NEWS | Politics | Profile: David Miliband

I was not aware of the claim that David Miliband had 'criticised' Israel. So thank you for that. I will look into it further. What the claim does not state is what David Miliband actually said. Saying that Israel should not have invaded was considered, in some circles, as anti-Israeli and/or anti-Semitic. So what he said would be of some importance. But if there is no Jewish 'influence' on British Politics, why would this -

Originally Posted by :
His critical stance on Israel was a talking point when he was appointed as Foreign Secretary

have been an issue with anyone? A talking point with whom?
I do not believe he is fit for purpose on the basis that, when King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia paid an Official State visit to Britain, Miliband, as Foreign Secretary should have been here. He chose not to. This is what he is being paid for. If he doesn't want to do it full time, he should quit.

Originally Posted by :
What you have done is to take a few selective facts - and some of the 'facts' are highly tenuous, at the very least - and fit them into a view of the world in which Jewish interests predominate. In that you are following in a long line of such theories, even ones promoted unconsciously on this forum by those who talk about the New World Order, the Bilderbergers, the Trilateral Commission, the Freemasons and the neocons. It is the oldest conspiracy theory in the book and you are consciously or unconsciously helping to sustain it.

None of the facts here are in any way 'tenuous'. The are a matter of record. Anyone who believes that every criticism of Jewish people, the Jewish Faith, or Israel is always anti-semitic really are living in a paranoid world. Nothing I have said, at any point, suggests the events mentioned are part of a wider conspiracy. That is meaning you have decided to interpret and as such your problem, not mine. To suggest that my points of view on this subject tie in with the groups you mentioned would seem to take defensiveness to a whole new level. Are you suggesting that everyone else on this Forum who has discussed the various groups you mention are anti-semitic in that their theories ultimately point to a worldwide 'Jewish Conspiracy'?
[Rep]

The Labour party is finished.
I can see much the same happening here has happened in French Presidential election in 2002.
The Liberals will collapse and the BNP will eventually move into 2nd place.
Labour will become the third party.
[Rep]

All a bit wishful thinking. I'd say the BNP will take votes from Labour, but 2nd place? Never. Neither will he Labour party be finished. Or the LibDems. What it will do is signal the end of the Westminster system. Maybe not now, but in 20/25 years. The non-major party vote will go up to about 20%. There will be coalition governments, because the system will throw up all sorts of maverick results in the constituencies.

I don't think we will see the cosy system of the last century go through this one.
[Rep]

Many of the career Politicians are beginning to see the logic, for them, of having a PR system. It will guarantee jobs for the majority of them while allowing them to pick and chose who they want to fill the lesser places when they become available. And all without being answerable to the British public.

Quids in all the way to the bank.....
[Rep]

Originally Posted by BonnieDundee:

For anyone with a basic knowledge of history it is clear Brown is no socialist, the hyperbolic rhetoric helps no one.

I've never heard anything so ridiculous in my life. Brown is an out and out communist.

Brown thinks that all money made in this country should be the states and then the state should redirect it to where the state thinks it should best go.

Brown clearly believes in centralized government where decisions are in his opinion made best.

Brown believes in ID cards, longer detention times, biometrics.

Brown does not care for or listen to the people of his country.

Brown believes he/government should tell us what to eat,drink, smoke, how much we should weigh and when we die what should happen to our spare parts.

Brown is a socialist I dread to think what he'd be like if the country could not vote him out.
[Rep]