[Oliver_W]

Originally Posted by The Slim Reaper

Nazism isn't difficult to place at all. What makes you think that it is?

I'm thinking more of facism in general rather than specifically nazism; it contains extreme elements of both nationalism and Marxism, to the point where you can't truly call it left or right wing.

[The Slim Reaper]

Originally Posted by Oliver_W

I'm thinking more of facism in general rather than specifically nazism; it contains extreme elements of both nationalism and Marxism, to the point where you can't truly call it left or right wing.

What elements of Marxism? Marxism specifically talks about the negative effect of workers being powerless when up against business owners, and how capitalism will eventually end up where we are today (record company profits versus it's workers needing government assistance to survive because wages aren't liveable), whereas nazism specifically wants companies controlled by the state and it's benefactors. It's the opposite of Marxism or Marxist theory.

[Oliver_W]

Originally Posted by The Slim Reaper

What elements of Marxism? Marxism specifically talks about the negative effect of workers being powerless when up against business owners, and how capitalism will eventually end up where we are today (record company profits versus it's workers needing government assistance to survive because wages aren't liveable), whereas nazism specifically wants companies controlled by the state and it's benefactors. It's the opposite of Marxism or Marxist theory.

All far left stuff blends in a bit, maybe i didn't mean marxism

But again, facism opposes both capitalism and socialism, making it hard to place clearly in the left-right scale. Extreme state ownership is "extreme left" while the nationalistic aspects are "extreme right"

[Crimson Dynamo]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

Oop... tumbleweed after that slim. Ah I love it when educated facts trump populist drivel.

What a snide member insult. Wow

[Twosugars]

Originally Posted by Oliver_W

All far left stuff blends in a bit, maybe i didn't mean marxism

But again, facism opposes both capitalism and socialism, making it hard to place clearly in the left-right scale. Extreme state ownership is "extreme left" while the nationalistic aspects are "extreme right"

All political scientists place it firmly on the far right end of the political spectrum.
Let's not reinvent the wheel shall we

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

What a snide member insult. Wow

Excuse me ...which member are you accusing me of insulting? :/

[MTVN]

Originally Posted by The Slim Reaper

No it wasn't. It was dominated by accusations. Only lib dems and tories actually involved themselves with anti semitic tweets forcing resignations.

Labour had at least one as well:

Labour has removed one of its general election candidates over allegations that she made anti-Semitic posts on Facebook.

Safia Ali had been due to stand for the party in the Falkirk seat in next month's election.

But Scottish Labour said it had taken "immediate action" to remove her as its candidate after the posts emerged.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2019-50585278

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by MTVN

Labour had at least one as well:

Right so all parties had resignations or members not permitted to stand... remind me why the issue is solely a labour problem again?

[jet]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

Right so all parties had resignations or members not permitted to stand... remind me why the issue is solely a labour problem again?

Because there are far too many cases of anti - semitism in the Labour party.

Remind me why they are being investigated by the EHRC, only a second investigation of its kind?

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by jet

Because there are far too many cases of anti - semitism in the Labour party.

Remind me why they are being investigated by the EHRC, only a second investigation of its kind?

There were cases identified in the labour membership. They are open to scrutiny and will comply and be as transparent as possible.
As they should be. Why have other parties avoided similar investigation and clarity?.. hmm?

[Oliver_W]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

There were cases identified in the labour membership. They are open to scrutiny and will comply and be as transparent as possible.
As they should be. Why have other parties avoided similar investigation and clarity?.. hmm?

Have similar complaints been raised against other parties?

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Oliver_W

Have similar complaints been raised against other parties?

Yep.

[Oliver_W]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

Yep.

Oh right, when and who?

[jet]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

There were cases identified in the labour membership. They are open to scrutiny and will comply and be as transparent as possible.
As they should be. Why have other parties avoided similar investigation and clarity?.. hmm?

Because it isn't a major problem? Because, maybe unlike Labour, they are dealing with issues instead of ignoring them?

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/e...hame-mwhhfkknv
John McDonnell apologises for Labour anti-semitism
Leaked internal documents reveal shocking record in tackling new anti-semitism cases

In a leaked audio recording from the party’s disciplinary committee in late October, a Labour official complains that more than 130 cases remain outstanding even though the “vast majority” were reported to the party 18 months ago. One unresolved case had been on Labour’s books for more than three years, according to the recording.

Some of the cases in the files are disturbing, with Labour members likening Jewish people to killer viruses, labelling them “bent nose manipulative liars” and calling for the “extermination of every Jew on the planet”.

One Labour member from Nottingham wrote that “Jews represent a viral infection that need to be completely eliminated” and said he wanted the “complete extinction of all Jews”. It took more than 10 months for the party to expel him after his case was first reported in 2018.

Lord Macdonald, a former director of public prosecutions, said the member in question had clearly committed a racial hate crime. Labour refused to say whether it had referred him to police.

I read widely and have come across dozens upon dozens of cases of anti - semitism in Labour, not much at all in other parties.
Do you really believe that all those who say they were targeted for being Jewish are liars?

Do you think the EHRC are investigating to pass their time? If there are similar serious problems in other parties why aren't they being investigated too? Or do you think they are league with the other parties to discredit Labour?
Please try and answer without the usual diverting tactics...

[Ammi]

...this is awful ...and very concerning As well, with the recent New York stabbings...apparently the man who carried out the stabbings had been searching...’why Hitler hated the Jews..’...very, very disturbing, the extent of hate that appears to be growing in some society’s atm..a society that is more and more, building on negativity...I hadn’t known about the 911 theory, until I googled it, when I read the article...

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by jet

Because it isn't a major problem? Because, maybe unlike Labour, they are dealing with issues instead of ignoring them?

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/e...hame-mwhhfkknv
John McDonnell apologises for Labour anti-semitism
Leaked internal documents reveal shocking record in tackling new anti-semitism cases

I read widely and have come across dozens upon dozens of cases of anti - semitism in Labour, not much at all in other parties.
Do you really believe that all those who say they were targeted for being Jewish are liars?

Do you think the EHRC are investigating to pass their time? If there are similar serious problems in other parties why aren't they being investigated too? Or do you think they are league with the other parties to discredit Labour?
Please try and answer without the usual diverting tactics...

responded appropriately, I am aware of the accusations agaist labour and agree with the action, I made that crystal clear, that was not the crux of my post. I was referring to the way the conservatives agreed to investigations into accusations within their ranks and then rowed back on those promises. That is not dealing with the issue, it is ignoring it.

I have NOT suggested anyone is a liar not sure how you have twisted what I said to infer that.
Of course anyone with extremist views has no place in the membership of our political parties.

What are your thoughts on the spokesperson for Britain first requesting up to 5000 members join the conservatives? Why would an alt right party feel so at home there? Surely if the home of extremist views is the labour party they would be signing up there.

[Oliver_W]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

responded appropriately, I am aware of the accusations agaist labour and agree with the action, I made that crystal clear, that was not the crux of my post. I was referring to the way the conservatives agreed to investigations into accusations within their ranks and then rowed back on those promises. That is not dealing with the issue, it is ignoring it.

Have there been accusations from within the Tories to match those of Labour?

What are your thoughts on the spokesperson for Britain first requesting up to 5000 members join the conservatives? Why would an alt right party feel so at home there? Surely if the home of extremist views is the labour party they would be signing up there.

They're obviously mistaken, nothing about the Tories or Johnson suggests their views are compatible, and the party has said the memberships will be revoked following the automatic confirmation emails.

[Kizzy]

Yes there have Savid Javid promised a full inquiry into accusations of Islamophobia and that was subsequently shelved, how is that being accountable?

It was reported that the leader of Britain first would have his membership revoked as they know who he is, that did not extend to the 5000 extreme right wing members.

[Crimson Dynamo]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

Yes there have Savid Javid promised a full inquiry into accusations of Islamophobia and that was subsequently shelved, how is that being accountable?

It was reported that the leader of Britain first would have his membership revoked as they know who he is, that did not extend to the 5000 extreme right wing members.

where are you getting 5000?

oh wait i know, you are directly quoting from the Britain First PR machine

[Oliver_W]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

Yes there have Savid Javid promised a full inquiry into accusations of Islamophobia and that was subsequently shelved, how is that being accountable?

How many accusations of Islamophobia have there been? Maybe it was a small enough number to be chalked down to a couple of bigots and a full enquiry not being necessary

It was reported that the leader of Britain first would have his membership revoked as they know who he is, that did not extend to the 5000 extreme right wing members.

Well they're not psychic are they hopefully the other BF members will realise their views don't align after all and withdraw.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

where are you getting 5000?

oh wait i know, you are directly quoting from the Britain First PR machine

Well yes, the spokesperson for Britain first asked their ranks to join the conservatives, why?

[Kizzy]

There were enough for Savid Javid to promise full scrutiny during the televised debates.

If the leader and the spokesperson thinks they align why would the membership feel different?
No they are not psychic which is why on receiving a request from 'John Smith'or 'Mick Brown' they won't be thinking ...hang on, is this the John Smith that was a member of BF?

[Oliver_W]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

Well yes, the spokesperson for Britain first asked their ranks to join the conservatives, why?

According to HopeNotHate, BF has approx 1000 members.
https://www.hopenothate.org.uk/resea...britain-first/

Who do you think is more reliable - a spokesman from a racist "party" which was de-registered from electability, or an anti-racist movement?

[jet]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

responded appropriately, I am aware of the accusations agaist labour and agree with the action, I made that crystal clear, that was not the crux of my post. I was referring to the way the conservatives agreed to investigations into accusations within their ranks and then rowed back on those promises. That is not dealing with the issue, it is ignoring it.

I have NOT suggested anyone is a liar not sure how you have twisted what I said to infer that.
Of course anyone with extremist views has no place in the membership of our political parties.

What are your thoughts on the spokesperson for Britain first requesting up to 5000 members join the conservatives? Why would an alt right party feel so at home there? Surely if the home of extremist views is the labour party they would be signing up there.

I agree with the other posters who have replied to you, so no need to say it all again....

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Oliver_W

According to HopeNotHate, BF has approx 1000 members.
https://www.hopenothate.org.uk/resea...britain-first/

Who do you think is more reliable - a spokesman from a racist "party" which was de-registered from electability, or an anti-racist movement?

Whether it's 5000, 1000 or 50 it's too many...and it doesnt explain why they think they are matched ideologically, that's the point :/