Rochdale By Election - 29th Feb

[Nearly Sane]

I read NS as meaning that the public perceives anti-semitism as a bigger problem than Islamaphobia.

Yep

ETA - I think the Tories can get away with islamophobia and retaun their vote, that is their current polling, and possibly gain. That seems to be their current plan.

[ProfessorDavey]

I read NS as meaning that the public perceives anti-semitism as a bigger problem than Islamaphobia.

'the public' - define 'the public' please.

[Nearly Sane]

'the public' - define 'the public' please.

The voters

[Aruntraveller]

As a phrase, I think "the public" is widely understood.

I'm not saying what NS states is the case, merely that was what he meant.

As to the public, who knows what they think? Fed as they are a constant drip of biased information, downright lies and shite.

But I think there has been an attempt to "guide" the public in a direction that puts more "value" on anti-semitism than it does on Islamaphobia.

Not saying it is right. It appears to be the case to me though.

[ProfessorDavey]

The voters

In which case evidence please that 'the voters' consider antisemitism to be more of an issue than islamophobia.

[Nearly Sane]

In which case evidence please that 'the voters' consider antisemitism to be more of an issue than islamophobia.

That's not really my position. I think of those who the Tories are looking to get votes from a certain amount of them are Islamophobic, and the Tories are calculating that if they get the amount of Islamophobia 'right', they'll do better than without it.

[ProfessorDavey]

As to the public, who knows what they think? Fed as they are a constant drip of biased information, downright lies and shite.

I think the only reasonable way to judge what the public think on a particular matter is through reputable opinion polling and I'm not aware of any poll (may be wrong) that has specifically asked people whether they think antisemitism is more of an issue in the UK than islamophobia.

But I think there has been an attempt to "guide" the public in a direction that puts more "value" on anti-semitism than it does on Islamaphobia.

Not saying it is right. It appears to be the case to me though.

I'd agree with that - it certainly seems to be more 'acceptable' to demonise the muslim population than the jewish population - but whether that make the latter less of an issue than the former is a much more complicated issue. There is a strong argument that prejudice which is accepted by default is more of an issue than prejudice where there is a greater media recognition that it is wrong.

What does seem beyond doubt is that both antisemitic and islamophobic incidents are on the rise and this is deeply worrying.

[ProfessorDavey]

That's not really my position. I think of those who the Tories are looking to get votes from a certain amount of them are Islamophobic, and the Tories are calculating that if they get the amount of Islamophobia 'right', they'll do better than without it.

But you agreed with Aruntraveller's interpretation of your post as meaning the public (you then defined as 'the voters') perceives anti-semitism as a bigger problem than Islamaphobia. Not just Tory voters, but 'the voters' - i.e. all voters.

So where is your evidence for this - that 'the voters' perceives anti-semitism as a bigger problem than Islamaphobia. That might be true, but I've seen no proper evidence to support this, rather than general media perceptions, but that is an entirely different matter as editorial slant comes into play.

[Nearly Sane]

But you agreed with Aruntraveller's interpretation of your post as meaning the public (you then defined as 'the voters') perceives anti-semitism as a bigger problem than Islamaphobia. Not just Tory voters, but 'the voters' - i.e. all voters.

So where is your evidence for this - that 'the voters' perceives anti-semitism as a bigger problem than Islamaphobia. That might be true, but I've seen no proper evidence to support this, rather than general media perceptions, but that is an entirely different matter as editorial slant comes into play.

Yes, I agreed with it as a general classification, and I provided a clarification in reply to you. So things have moved on.

[ProfessorDavey]

Yes, I agreed with it as a general classification, and I provided a clarification in reply to you. So things have moved on.

Which translates to 'I made a sweeping generalisation which I couldn't back up with evidence'. Hmmm.

[Nearly Sane]

Which translates to 'I made a sweeping generalisation which I couldn't back up with evidence'. Hmmm.

It really doesn't. I apologise that I wasn't clear.

[ProfessorDavey]

I apologise that I wasn't clear.

But you were clear - indeed you specifically clarified your position when you responded 'Yup' to Aruntraveller's interpretation of your post as meaning the public perceives anti-semitism as a bigger problem than Islamaphobia.

I then asked for clarification of what was meant by 'the public' and again you were clear that you meant 'the voters'.

So your position was entirely clear - specifically that you considered that the voters perceive anti-semitism as a bigger problem than Islamaphobia.

Yet when challenged to provide evidence you crumble, run away, distract, and apologise for not being clear!! But you were clear - the apology should be for making a claim that you cannot back up when challenged.

[Nearly Sane]

But you were clear - indeed you specifically clarified your position when you responded 'Yup' to Aruntraveller's interpretation of your post as meaning the public perceives anti-semitism as a bigger problem than Islamaphobia.

I then asked for clarification of what was meant by 'the public' and again you were clear that you meant 'the voters'.

So your position was entirely clear - specifically that you considered that the voters perceive anti-semitism as a bigger problem than Islamaphobia.

Yet when challenged to provide evidence you crumble, run away, distract, and apologise for not being clear!! But you were clear - the apology should be for making a claim that you cannot back up when challenged.

You might want to read the addition I put to the reply to Aruntraveller at 3.29, which is in itself a clarification.

[SteveH]

John Crace on Sunak on Galloway. Dumbfuck and Galloway - isn't that a Scottish council region?

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/mar/01/rishi-sunak-purposefully-grips-his-lectern-but-shows-he-has-no-grip-of-the-country

[Nearly Sane]

John Crace on Sunak on Galloway. Dumbfuck and Galloway - isn't that a Scottish council region?

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/mar/01/rishi-sunak-purposefully-grips-his-lectern-but-shows-he-has-no-grip-of-the-country

And Starmer backed Sunak all the way.

[Aruntraveller]

And Starmer backed Sunak all the way.

This is what I find so frustrating about Starmer, his caution. There's an electoral door that is stood ajar and instead of giving it a push to get it wide open he insists on putting a door stop underneath it.

[Nearly Sane]

This is what I find so frustrating about Starmer, his caution. There's an electoral door that is stood ajar and instead of giving it a push to get it wide open he insists on putting a door stop underneath it.

This is worse than caution. Sunak is attempting to use islamophobia as an electoral strategy, and Starmer is cheerleading it.