Mediaboss Marketing

James, 24, Rochdale

Occupation Student

Voting record Labour in 2017; Brexit party in the European elections of 2019; Tory in the 2019 general election; Lib Dem in the most recent local elections

Amuse bouche James is adamant that nothing amusing or unusual has ever happened to him

Occupation Statutory childrens social worker

Voting record Voted Ukip once and Labour twice

Amuse bouche Is in the habit of giving gifts with her face printed on them

James I thought she was going to be one of these over-the-top liberals, where every statement is a question.

Charlotte Neither of us was what the other expected. We got on more than we thought we would.

James I had shish kebab, mango chicken and some other thing

Charlotte We basically got small plates of street food, all kinds of picky bits.

James lemon lollipops!

Charlotte James believes in small government, hes very libertarian. That comes out in a lot of different ways. He went to boarding school, a fee-paying school, so I was giving him a bit of stick. He said, No, my family arent wealthy it was a school for blind kids. My mum and dad got the local authority to pay for it. So I said, How can you say you believe in small government, then, because you would never have got that opportunity?

James I would call myself a libertarian, but Im not a full-on anarcho-capitalist. Education is different. Im talking about where the state intrudes into your life CCTV, privacy issues, Covid restrictions. The cost when it comes to people being able to maximise their economic potential and get forward in life was too high.

Charlotte I said to him, Its not just about us its about vulnerable people. And he wasnt having that. Hes a bit younger. With Covid, my life didnt change much. His education stopped, his social life stopped.

Sign up to our Inside Saturday newsletter for an exclusive behind-the-scenes look at the making of the magazines biggest features, as well as a curated list of our weekly highlights.

James I had quite a valuable internship cancelled because of Covid lockdowns. Ironically, it was with the WHO. I felt as if the world had become single track, the only focus was on Covid.

Charlotte In lockdown, with my job, I was still in and out of peoples houses, little ones snotting and sneezing; that was scary. Early on, no one had PPE. We were told to avoid face-to-face work if possible but also: Dont wear a mask, because the kids will be scared.

James I understood that completely. Obviously some people were in a far higher-risk situation than others.

James I supported leave and Id vote leave again, but I also think Brexit hasnt been a good thing for Britain. Thats about the way the governments handled it theyve done it so badly, and its caused so many issues for the country, the labour and goods shortages. She didnt have a problem with goods shortages, because shes not a fan of massive consumerism.

Charlotte It was funny that we both voted leave. I thought I was going to meet some big remainer. With the labour shortages, wages will have to rise that was what I hoped to see. I see the EU as a capitalist institution. If somebodys more well-off, I can see the benefit. If youre on the bones of your arse, youre not going to benefit from freedom of movement.

James My ideal world would involve no borders between nations in terms of immigration. I saw the EU border system as discriminatory. There has to be a benefit to being an EU member, and one of those benefits has to be preferential treatment. Its rare I will fall out with someone over politics, because my politics are so weird.

Charlotte We agreed on statues whats the need to take them down? Nobodys saying their behaviour was OK, but these people were of their time. But then were not people with black heritage. If your ancestors had suffered in the slave trade, you might feel differently.

James Were anti-racist. There should be more explanation of context, but we shouldnt rush to take them down.

James Shes one of the closest people to my political views Ive found in a long time. We talked for so long, we went to the pub down the road.

Charlotte Were a bit nerdy were interested in stuff other people arent.

James and Charlotte ate at Bombay Brew, Rochdale

Want to meet someone from across the divide? Click here to find out more

Originally posted here:
Dining across the divide: I thought she was going to be an over-the-top liberal - The Guardian

JNS.org Pro-Israel liberals took particular pleasure last month in mocking the latest evidence that Jews on the far left know no limits in their hatred for Israel.

The object of their derision was Jewish Currents, a far-left publication that issued a formal apology to its readers for accepting an advertisement from the Dorot Fellowship for a 10-month-long fellowship program for American Jews in Israel. But as much as its hard not to laugh at the contortions those on the far-left go through to maintain their standing as good Jews in the eyes of their antisemitic ideological allies, mainstream Jewish groups that are still trying to promote a two-state solution with the Palestinians may be the ones who have lost touch with reality.

The fellowship was explicitly pitched as open to both Zionists and non-Zionists, and requires participants to return to the US upon completion of their stay rather than remaining in Israel. Many of its past graduates have gone on to careers in progressive groups that are bitterly critical of the Jewish state, like J Street and the New Israel Fund, and are vocal Israel-bashers. But the mere fact that this program took place in Israel was enough to generate a backlash against the magazine. Within a day, its editor issued a public apology, claiming that it was not in line with our values and had somehow not been vetted properly. That seemed to imply that the values of Jewish Currents consist of support for boycotts of Israel.

Jewish Currents was founded in 1946 as an organ of Communist Party USA. It tottered along for decades as an organ of red diaper babies still trying to justify the Stalinism of their deluded parents, even as it retreated a bit from their ideological extremism. Eventually even that limited audience died out, and the publication merged for a few years with the socialists of the group formerly known as the Workmens Circle, before collapsing altogether. But it was revived in 2018 by a new generation of radicals and scored something of a coup in 2020 when author Peter Beinart, the former tribune of liberal Zionism-turned dedicated anti-Zionist, left The Forward and joined its ranks.

This publication ought to be one of the preferred outlets of members of anti-Zionist and antisemitic groups like Jewish Voice for Peace and Students for Justice in Palestine. But the audience of Jewish Currents remains small, perhaps because in its target demographic, the appetite may be limited for any title that includes the word Jewish.

Still, some of the mockery of Jewish Currents from liberal Zionists who still believe in Israels right to exist struck me as a bit hollow.

There are still many more American Jews who define themselves as liberal Zionists than those who identify with the anti-Zionist radicals at Jewish Currents. But the shift in the Democratic Party base in favor of anti-Israel figures like Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) as well as her openly antisemitic Squad colleagues like Reps. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) and Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.), and away from the aging moderates who still claim to be allies of the Jewish state, cant be ignored. People who read Jewish Currents and it is telling that AOC follows it on Twitter are illustrative of a tiny minority of American Jewry. But anti-Zionism is becoming less of an outlier position if not altogether respectable among Jewish elites in fields like journalism, something that is reflected constantly in the pages of publications like The New York Times.

Jews who think, like so many antisemites, that one Jewish state on the planet is one too many are setting themselves up for disappointment. The nearly 7 million Jews who live in Israel arent about to acquiesce to their extinction of their state. But the notion that a two-state solution involving the creation of what would actually be a second independent Palestinian state, along with the one in all but name currently ruled by Hamas in Gaza, is no more realistic than Beinarts fantasies about the end of Zionism.

The reason is that the ambitions of the Palestinians are more in tune with the values of Jewish Currents than they are with those who claim to be both pro-peace and pro-Israel. That was confirmed for the umpteenth time by a recent item published in Haaretz.

The article by anti-Zionist journalist Amira Hass was a reaction to the recent visit of Palestinian Authority leader Mahmoud Abbas to the home of Israeli Defense Minister Benny Gantz. The meeting, at which Gantz made some concessions on financial support and other matters to Abbas without getting anything in return, was denounced by right-wing members of Israels governing coalition.

Gantzs critics were correct that appeasing Abbas while the PA still funds terrorism is wrong. But the move could be defended as being little different from past decisions by former Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his right-wing governments to allow funding to flow to Abbas and even, albeit indirectly via Qatar, to Hamas. The justification is that while Abbas and his Hamas rivals will never make peace with Israel, it is in the interest of the Jewish state to keep the Fatah government of the West Bank afloat and even to ensure the same for Hamas rule in Gaza if it will help motivate these bad actors to maintain relative quiet.

Yet it also stirred the hopes of some Jewish liberals that the meeting was a harbinger of future peace talks that would, with the proper amount of pressure coming from the Biden administration, mean that their two-state hopes are not dead.

But as Hass reported from Ramallah, when Abbas invited Palestinian intellectuals, writers and journalists to his headquarters to discuss this, those who thought he would give some outline of a political horizon for action were disappointed. Abbas did repeat his usual threats that the corrupt PA would collapse without more financial help, and that without even more Israeli concessions he would take drastic measures to revive the Palestinian cause. Abbas has been saying the same things throughout the 17 years of the four-year term to which he was elected as PA president, and his current threats are no more credible now than in the past.

But his main subject was something else. As Hass reported, To everyones surprise he expatiated at length about the origins of Ashkenazi Jews (Khazars who converted to Judaism, he says), and about the differences between Ashkenazim and Mizrahim, Jews from Arab and Islamic countries.

Even after being given a gift of concessions at no cost to himself, Abbas main obsession remains promulgating long-since-debunked conspiracy theories such as the one about the Khazars in order to delegitimize Jewish rights to their homeland. Nor should it be surprising to learn that a man whose doctoral dissertation supported Holocaust denial should be thinking along these lines.

With such a person who is, after all, the supposed moderate as opposed to the radicals of Hamas peace is impossible. And since the nature of Palestinian political culture makes it hard to imagine a less hateful thinker replacing him, that vindicates the position of the majority of Israelis who believe that the status quo must be maintained indefinitely since there is no other choice compatible with their countrys survival.

The distance between those Americans who deny the legitimacy of a Jewish state, and a Palestinian leader who promotes antisemitic conspiracy theories, isnt so great. But though their position is much more respectable than one grounded in hate, it is those Jews who cling to a belief in two states as a path to peace who are truly disconnected from Palestinian reality.

Jonathan S. Tobin is editor in chief of JNSJewish News Syndicate. Follow him on Twitter at: @jonathans_tobin.

See the original post:
Anti-Zionist Jews Are More in Tune With the Palestinians Than Jewish Liberals - Algemeiner

The Ontario Liberals are calling on the Doug Ford government to bring in the military to help long-term care homes and hospitals struggling amid a surge of COVID-19 cases.

The partys leader made the statement at a virtual news conference on Wednesday morning, saying that Quebec reached out for military assistance to help with its vaccine roll out and received it.

We believe that its so important to pick up the phone and call the prime minister, to reach out to the federal government to seek support and help from Canadas military to come into Ontario to help deal with the challenges that we have in both nursing homes and hospitals, Steven Del Duca said.

I dont want (Premier) Doug Ford to wait another week or two or five. I dont want to be scrambling at the last second. I want that conversation to occur today.

The Canadian Armed Forces were first deployed in Ontario in April 2020 to help seven long-term care homes grappling with severe COVID-19 outbreaks. The military has been utilized sporadically since then, helping at hospitals and nursing homes struggling amid outbreaks or severe staffing shortages.

More recently, in April 2021, three medical teams comprised of nursing officers, medical technicians and other Canadian Forces members were sent to Ontario hospitals to assist in intensive care.

Del Duca also asked that the premier recall the legislature and repeal Bill 124, which limits regular salary increases for nurses to one per cent for each 12-month period.

The bill was introduced by the Ford government in 2019 to ensure that increases in public sector compensation reflect the fiscal situation of the province.

We know how critically important that is because we are facing incredible burnout, incredible number of nurses in particular who are leaving the profession because they know in their heart the premier doesnt respect the work that they do, Del Duca said.

The Liberals are also calling for a speedier credential process for internationally trained nurses, to allow staff to be seconded at alternative hospital sites on an emergency basis, and for the government to invite other registered health professionals to participate in vaccinations in order to free up doctors and nurses.

Today we are urging Doug Ford to do the right thing. Take these five concrete suggestions, move on them urgently and position our health-care system so that it can continue to be resilient.

A spokesperson for the Minister of Health told CTV news Toronto in a statement they took swift action "to blunt transmission and prevent hospitals from becoming overwhelmed."

"If the Del Duca Liberals werent asleep at the wheel they would know that two weeks ago our government issued a call to arms to allow more individuals to safely administer the COVID-19 vaccine, including but not limited to registered and retired health professionals, paramedics, dentists, and firefighters," Alexandra Hilkene said.

"We will continue to work with our health care and hospital partners to ensure they have the support they need and will not hesitate to take further action as needed."

The government did not say whether the premier was considering asking for military assistance.

View post:
Ontario Liberals call on Doug Ford to bring in military to help assist long-term care and hospitals - CTV News Toronto

Dont Look Up dramatically exposes the cynicism of the ruling class, who prioritise their own profits above saving the planet. But despite exposing the dead end of capitalism, the film ignores the potential for the working class to transform society.

Adam McKays satirical film Dont Look Up (available on Netflix) is one of the most divisive films of the year just gone.

The premise of the film is very simple. We follow astronomer and PhD student Kate (Jennifer Lawrance) and her supervisor, Prof Mindy (Leonardo DiCaprio), who have discovered an enormous comet heading straight towards Earth. They try to warn the world that there is a 99.7% chance that the planet will be destroyed.

Clearly, the comet is a metaphor for climate change. The 99.7% probability is a reference to the percentage of scientists who agree that climate change is happening and that human activity is responsible for it.

ALERT! This review contains significant plot spoilers.

Initially, when the astronomers attempt to alert the President of the existential threat, she reacts by calculating the effect of a possible decision on the upcoming mid-term elections. She ignores the threat when she concludes that telling people of the comet may not be advantageous to her mid-term electoral campaign.

Frustrated, the astronomers speak directly to the media. But they find that their news gets barely a mention, as it is squeezed between segments. They are told by the TV hosts that they need to keep it light, airy and fun. Theyre questioned over whether the comet is actually real, whether this is not all a lie, and whether the planet is actually in danger.

Only when the president drops in the polls does she decide to take action.

Kate tells her: I didn't vote for you. But this is obviously much bigger than my misgivings. So I will be 100% behind this effort. No matter how offensive I may find you.

In other words, she states that this is not a political question; that they should put aside their differences, and all come together.

BASH CEO, Peter Isherwell (Mark Rylance), is an obvious composite of Elon Musk, Mark Zuckerberg, Steve Jobs, and Jeff Bezos. He proposes mining the mineral resources on the comet, worth trillions of dollars. When his plan is leaked, the establishment launches a cynical campaign, explaining that mining the comet will create more jobs.

When the comet becomes visible in the night sky, the astronomers launch a Look Up campaign to convince the president to destroy it. The campaign is based on how liberals approach activism, i.e. raising awareness, asking the government politely to do something, with no involvement of workers or the masses.

In response, the President organises a Dont Look Up campaign, the supporters of which are clearly a sneering caricature of Trump supporters.

Meanwhile, Insherwells plan to mine rare minerals from the comet and shatter it into several harmless pieces fails. However, he, the president and a few hundred of the super-rich have a back-up plan to escape Earth on a spaceship and settle on another far-distant planet, leaving the ordinary people to die.

Dont Look Up is about how the capitalists despite having the resources and technology to solve the crisis prioritise their profits over saving the lives of the other 7.9bn people on the planet. To this effect, the film is good at exposing the cynical calculations of the establishment.

But where the film fails is its lack of any solution to this crisis facing humanity. This is ultimately since the film has been made from a liberal, not a socialist, point of view.

Of course, this is not the only film about a comet threatening our planet see Deep Impact and Armageddon, for example. However, it is extremely telling how confident these films are regarding saving humanity, in comparison to Dont Look Up.

Today, such illusions have been vaporised by the ruling class woeful response to the climate crisis and pandemic. It is true that if such issues are left to the capitalist class to solve, the result is that millions of ordinary people die.

Although the liberals are correct to not trust the conservative wing of the ruling class in solving these crises, they are incapable of seeing that the solution lies with the working class. In Dont Look Up, the working class is cynically portrayed as sheepish and stupid, simply as people who riot and loot.

For example, the film mocks how some people might be attracted to the idea that mining the comet will create jobs. This is typical of how the liberal establishment fail to understand how Trump gained popularity within a section of the working class with his promises of revitalising the US economy.; especially when you consider that the alternative was the establishment figure head Clinton.

If the entire planet is at stake, with eight billion lives about to be lost, just for a potential opportunity to make the rich even richer, then a very reasonable suggestion would be to take matters into our own hands.

This film has been released in a period where millions worldwide have taken to the streets over the climate, Black Lives Matter, and against austerity. But the potential for the working class to take power into its own hands to solve the crisis is completely ignored throughout.

At the end of the film the protagonists realise that all is lost; they are doomed. Kate says: Im thankful that weve tried. But had they actually tried?

Asking the establishment politely to give up their profits through a toothless campaign was bound to get them nowhere. And as their campaign predictably failed, they resigned themselves to their fate, went back to their families, and sought comfort in religion.

The film is profoundly pessimistic and fatalistic: a reflection of the outlook of liberals who see only doom and gloom as capitalism further deteriorates. Whether on the climate question, the pandemic, or even sexism and racism, they have nothing to say. They are oblivious to the fact that as capitalism declines, a new society is struggling to be born.

We need to shape our own fate and take ownership over our future. Whilst the liberals sit and weep, we fight for a socialist society based on the needs of the working class.

Original post:
Review: Don't Look Up: Don't leave it to the liberals to save us - Socialist Appeal

Ahead of another critical Covid-era general budget and an upcoming series of state elections, noted economy & political commentator Swaminathan Aiyar said the very fate of reforms in India likely hangs on which way the UP verdict goes.

"A lot of liberals like me might be very happy to see BJP lose the UP elections, but from the point of view of the economy, a bad BJP loss would mean a sudden squeeze or sudden slowdown in the entire reform process and that would not be good for the economy," said Aiyar in an interview to ET Now.

As it is, reforms have already been kind of relegated to the backburner following the major fiasco on the farm laws. Aiyar notes that after being badly bitten by the farmers agitation, Modi govt itself wants to go easy and slow on reforms. While the three farm laws were the most visible casualties, other reform measures including monetisation and the four labour laws will suffer too, he says.

Aiyar says that a lot hinges on the UP outcome: if BJP does well, it will be a vindication that the farm protests didn't reflect the general mood and so, the govt will double down on reforms. It will bode well for the fate of the entire pending reform pipeline. And India needs this to happen, because a govt must learn to look beyond protests that any privatisation brings in its wake, he notes.

If, on the other hand, the BJP loses or does badly in UP, it will lead to panic in government circles regarding the unpopularity of reforms, Aiyar says. That will send a lot of negative signals to the government, and at a time when there already is a lot of sloth in the monetisation process, such signals will wreck the reform agenda, he adds.

Bad signals from UP will likely stall the already sputtering monetisation of assets, leaving the govt with no realistic chance of meeting its target, Aiyar notes. "The national monetisation pipeline is supposed to get lakhs of crores of rupees within a few years. Will that really happen with this kind of slowdown of reforms," he asks.

As an example, Aiyar cites the UP electricity reform case. It may be recalled here that attempts to reform the UP power sector a while ago had led to a serious loss of face for the authorities there. As soon as official announcements were made, the electricity staff ganged up and threatened to shut down the entire state, following which the government had to beat an ignominious retreat. This, when New Delhi's stated official power policy is all about privatising discoms.

After the UP lesson, the BJP is moving very cautiously even in places that are under its rule, such as Puducherry and Chandigarh, Aiyar observed. All this means the reform process will without doubt be in danger if BJP suffers a serious defeat in UP, and will get a boost if the party has a good victory, he added.

He said the UP poll outcome will be more important than the budget in deciding the economy's road ahead. With the budget coming after the polls, the budgetary announcements will depend on which way UP goes, he said, adding that budget & UP polls together constitute the big picture at the moment.

Go here to see the original:
A BJP loss in UP will be bad news for economy even if it makes liberals happy, says Swaminathan Aiyar - Economic Times