I think that that piece is a good example of the problem. Corbyn is suggesting that Israel is stirring up trouble between the new Egyptian government (in 2012) and the Palestinians.
It is an entirely credible accusation. The previous Egyptian government was the main source of weaponry for Gaza which was a significant thorn in Israel's side. Of course they would seek to disrupt that relationship given the opportunity. If you ask cui bono the answer is clearly Israel.
There are some peculiar bits such as the Ramadan suggestion. The fact that it was Egyptian bombers doing the bombing is somewhat glided over. But what makes this suspicion that a government with a long track record of seeking to divide and rule its opponents (for entirely understandable reasons) anti-Semitic? I am not sure I see it.
The issue is that Israel is the assumption that there was just one potential source of the trouble: it's not as if there are no disaffected extremist groups in Egypt who want to cause trouble with no outside aid, and there are other countries in the region aside from Israel who might stick an oar in.
There are many countries in the region who have, as you put it: " a government with a long track record of seeking to divide and rule its opponents"
It's the assumption that it must be Israel, and not internal or a.n.other country, that makes it an utterly cr@p claim. And that assumption with no evidence is anti-Semitic IMO.
Bright blue skies and 27°C at 10am in Budapest. So far it’s not looking like there’s going to be any rain, but there’s five hours to go before the race starts.
From what I've read and seen, I'd class Corbyn as a 'passive' anti-Semite. He'd never dream of himself as being one, but he's all too willing to fall into classic anti-Semitic thinking. Because he can't be racist because he's been anti-racist all his life ...
As you say, the problems with this sort of thinking extends outside the UK: groups that are 'oppressed' in this country might be the 'oppressors' in other countries.
This is the key piece of insight. How is it possible to say anti-semitic things whilst claiming not to be anti-semitic? Because you don't know what anti-Semitism actually is. I've been making this exact point on the biggest Labour Facebook group - that statements about "there is no anti-Semitism" and "Jeremy is a staunch anti-racist are so often immediately followed by comments that are basic anti-semitism.
They don't hate Jews. They will tell you in detail how they fight against racism and for all those oppressed by it. And its true - they genuinely aren't racist or anti-semitic. They just think that Israel is a disgusting racist endevour oppressing the palestinians and that it is illegitimate and that its supportwrs use their power and wealth to suppress their right to criticise it and all these Jews complaining about anti-Semitism are part of a monied powerful conspiracy against their beloved Jeremy (peace be upon him) and before they complain about antisemitism how about they apologise for the actions of Israel.
Passive anti-semitism. A wonderful summation by JosiasJessop
Thanks. When all this mess started and Corbyn said: "I am not an anti-Semite," I posted on here that I wish a journalist would ask him a follow-up question: "What is anti-Semitism?"
Brexit has also bred a deep smugness in progressive circles. And what progressives do not seem to realise is that this attitude has the capacity to totally destroy the alliance that we used to call the Left. Or maybe, depressingly, it is already too late.
It's bucketing down here in Cannock. We've had 19 hours of rain.
Is it too soon to start complaining about this?
The first hour or so of rain was a bit of a novelty then I wanted my beautiful summer back.
Everyone who complained that it was 'too warm' or 'too sunny' this is on your heads!
In regards to the some Labour MPs breaking away I'm sure Dan Hodges is just building my hopes up falsely again...
Why do you want this?
There are a small number of post-Corbyn entryists who have been busily spinning a basic line. That Corbynism is a revolution. That the powers that be (money/neo-liberals/Tories/Blairites - they're all the same) are conspiring to stop it, and that to complete the revolution and bring abiut True Socialism the real enemy of the Labour Party must be purged - the Labour Party.
We must have mandatory reselection so that we can deselect our MPs (even though we already can), we must relect all Labour party employees because the last lot conspired against Jeremy (officially not true says Jennie Formby), we must be able to elect council leaders because our councillors are Blairite.
So of course Jezziah wants rid of Labour MPs. They - like me - are the true enemy.
I think that that piece is a good example of the problem. Corbyn is suggesting that Israel is stirring up trouble between the new Egyptian government (in 2012) and the Palestinians.
It is an entirely credible accusation. The previous Egyptian government was the main source of weaponry for Gaza which was a significant thorn in Israel's side. Of course they would seek to disrupt that relationship given the opportunity. If you ask cui bono the answer is clearly Israel.
There are some peculiar bits such as the Ramadan suggestion. The fact that it was Egyptian bombers doing the bombing is somewhat glided over. But what makes this suspicion that a government with a long track record of seeking to divide and rule its opponents (for entirely understandable reasons) anti-Semitic? I am not sure I see it.
The issue is that Israel is the assumption that there was just one potential source of the trouble: it's not as if there are no disaffected extremist groups in Egypt who want to cause trouble with no outside aid, and there are other countries in the region aside from Israel who might stick an oar in.
There are many countries in the region who have, as you put it: " a government with a long track record of seeking to divide and rule its opponents"
It's the assumption that it must be Israel, and not internal or a.n.other country, that makes it an utterly cr@p claim. And that assumption with no evidence is anti-Semitic IMO.
Brexit has also bred a deep smugness in progressive circles. And what progressives do not seem to realise is that this attitude has the capacity to totally destroy the alliance that we used to call the Left. Or maybe, depressingly, it is already too late.
What utter rot - it’s widely and observed that people vote against their own economic interests on a regular basis. The continued existence of the Republicans as a party of government in the US demonstrates that pretty conclusively.
Bright blue skies and 27°C at 10am in Budapest. So far it’s not looking like there’s going to be any rain, but there’s five hours to go before the race starts.
The consensus forecast (which could always be wrong) is very hot indeed, with track temps possibly exceeding 60 deg. That would not be great news for the Mercs, although if they hold the lead at the start, it gives a huge advantage in tyre management.
Sort of on topic - got an email about voting on candidates to Labours NEC recently. Never heard of most of them, but found the tone of some of their pitches a bit depressing. "Vote for me because I am implacably opposed to an alternative faction within Labour" didn't give me a great deal of hope for reduced in-party squabbling....
I refuse to vote for any candidate on a 'slate'. They should all be there as individuals.
The fact I ended up voting for Eddie Izzard goes to show what a state we are in.
It's bucketing down here in Cannock. We've had 19 hours of rain.
Is it too soon to start complaining about this?
The first hour or so of rain was a bit of a novelty then I wanted my beautiful summer back.
Everyone who complained that it was 'too warm' or 'too sunny' this is on your heads!
In regards to the some Labour MPs breaking away I'm sure Dan Hodges is just building my hopes up falsely again...
Why do you want this?
There are a small number of post-Corbyn entryists who have been busily spinning a basic line. That Corbynism is a revolution. That the powers that be (money/neo-liberals/Tories/Blairites - they're all the same) are conspiring to stop it, and that to complete the revolution and bring abiut True Socialism the real enemy of the Labour Party must be purged - the Labour Party.
We must have mandatory reselection so that we can deselect our MPs (even though we already can), we must relect all Labour party employees because the last lot conspired against Jeremy (officially not true says Jennie Formby), we must be able to elect council leaders because our councillors are Blairite.
So of course Jezziah wants rid of Labour MPs. They - like me - are the true enemy.
Are you in favour of Primaries in the US ? Would you like Primaries to select Labour Party candidates ? Or, would you prefer job for life ?
I am sure as far as you are concerned Kate Hoey has the right to be MP until she decided to hang up her boots. I also believe she can stand as a candidate in every election - but not as the Labour candidate. It is not a freehold.
It's bucketing down here in Cannock. We've had 19 hours of rain.
Is it too soon to start complaining about this?
The first hour or so of rain was a bit of a novelty then I wanted my beautiful summer back.
Everyone who complained that it was 'too warm' or 'too sunny' this is on your heads!
In regards to the some Labour MPs breaking away I'm sure Dan Hodges is just building my hopes up falsely again...
Why do you want this?
I want some of them to leave, Hodges article had a number around 15. Clearly if you look at Ian Austin's twitter he isn't happy, there was a tweet he wrote complaining about something to do with Labour, the left or Corbyn (which is the majority of his tweets) everyone was basically telling him to just leave the party, those outside those inside, those who hate the left those who are left wing.
I mean really if you believe Corbyn and the left are all these horrible things and constantly just agitate against the party then wouldn't both sides be better off in different parties?
John Woodcock was an obvious one as well.
More than happy to keep MPs such as Liz Kendall, Stella Creasy the overwhelming majority really. Those that are going to spread Guido Fawkes propaganda against Labour supporters could probably oppose the same people more effectively from a different party.
Having them is a drag on the Labour parties ability to attract and keep voters, the loss of votes directly to them will be countered by not having John Woodcock current Labour MP (as an example) there to give a quote or a news story to help discredit Labour.
Bright blue skies and 27°C at 10am in Budapest. So far it’s not looking like there’s going to be any rain, but there’s five hours to go before the race starts.
The consensus forecast (which could always be wrong) is very hot indeed, with track temps possibly exceeding 60 deg. That would not be great news for the Mercs, although if they hold the lead at the start, it gives a huge advantage in tyre management.
That’s very hot indeed, hotter than Silverstone a few weeks ago and as you say more likely to advantage Ferrari over Mercedes. Tyre strategy is of course much more open than usual, as the wet qualifying session gives a free choice of rubber to start the race.
Dan Hodges in the Mail on Sunday, reckons there is a going to be a breakaway by a group of Labour MPs in the PLP.
Dan Hodges might be right but does have rather a track record over the years of letting wishful thinking cloud his crystal ball.
Yes. I have had several conversations with fellow Labour members this week and there is general agreement that corbyns handling of this issue has been a disaster (several new members who joined since 2015 took this line, it's not just the pre-Corbyn generation). But no one mentioned a breakaway as a possible response. It's not a live issue. I can't think of more than a handful of members in my CLP who might be attracted to a new party.
Just like the SDP breakaway the vast majority will stay put even people who cannot stand Corbyn. I will not leave the Labour Party because it is my party. After the 80's came Blair and there was a reaction after that. That is life and that is how it should be.
WE did have a very good leader in Ed Miliband. But the right wing press saw to that.
I think that that piece is a good example of the problem. Corbyn is suggesting that Israel is stirring up trouble between the new Egyptian government (in 2012) and the Palestinians.
It is an entirely credible accusation. The previous Egyptian government was the main source of weaponry for Gaza which was a significant thorn in Israel's side. Of course they would seek to disrupt that relationship given the opportunity. If you ask cui bono the answer is clearly Israel.
There are some peculiar bits such as the Ramadan suggestion. The fact that it was Egyptian bombers doing the bombing is somewhat glided over. But what makes this suspicion that a government with a long track record of seeking to divide and rule its opponents (for entirely understandable reasons) anti-Semitic? I am not sure I see it.
The issue is that Israel is the assumption that there was just one potential source of the trouble: it's not as if there are no disaffected extremist groups in Egypt who want to cause trouble with no outside aid, and there are other countries in the region aside from Israel who might stick an oar in.
There are many countries in the region who have, as you put it: " a government with a long track record of seeking to divide and rule its opponents"
It's the assumption that it must be Israel, and not internal or a.n.other country, that makes it an utterly cr@p claim. And that assumption with no evidence is anti-Semitic IMO.
It's bucketing down here in Cannock. We've had 19 hours of rain.
Is it too soon to start complaining about this?
The first hour or so of rain was a bit of a novelty then I wanted my beautiful summer back.
Everyone who complained that it was 'too warm' or 'too sunny' this is on your heads!
In regards to the some Labour MPs breaking away I'm sure Dan Hodges is just building my hopes up falsely again...
Why do you want this?
I want some of them to leave, Hodges article had a number around 15. Clearly if you look at Ian Austin's twitter he isn't happy, there was a tweet he wrote complaining about something to do with Labour, the left or Corbyn (which is the majority of his tweets) everyone was basically telling him to just leave the party, those outside those inside, those who hate the left those who are left wing.
I mean really if you believe Corbyn and the left are all these horrible things and constantly just agitate against the party then wouldn't both sides be better off in different parties?
John Woodcock was an obvious one as well.
More than happy to keep MPs such as Liz Kendall, Stella Creasy the overwhelming majority really. Those that are going to spread Guido Fawkes propaganda against Labour supporters could probably oppose the same people more effectively from a different party.
Having them is a drag on the Labour parties ability to attract and keep voters, the loss of votes directly to them will be countered by not having John Woodcock current Labour MP (as an example) there to give a quote or a news story to help discredit Labour.
I refer you to the result in Greenwich, in the general election of 1906. You may find it instructive.
As you may find the general election of 1983 instructive.
Of course, both those warnings apply to the Conservatives as well...
It's bucketing down here in Cannock. We've had 19 hours of rain.
Is it too soon to start complaining about this?
The first hour or so of rain was a bit of a novelty then I wanted my beautiful summer back.
Everyone who complained that it was 'too warm' or 'too sunny' this is on your heads!
In regards to the some Labour MPs breaking away I'm sure Dan Hodges is just building my hopes up falsely again...
Why do you want this?
I want some of them to leave, Hodges article had a number around 15. Clearly if you look at Ian Austin's twitter he isn't happy, there was a tweet he wrote complaining about something to do with Labour, the left or Corbyn (which is the majority of his tweets) everyone was basically telling him to just leave the party, those outside those inside, those who hate the left those who are left wing.
I mean really if you believe Corbyn and the left are all these horrible things and constantly just agitate against the party then wouldn't both sides be better off in different parties?
John Woodcock was an obvious one as well.
More than happy to keep MPs such as Liz Kendall, Stella Creasy the overwhelming majority really. Those that are going to spread Guido Fawkes propaganda against Labour supporters could probably oppose the same people more effectively from a different party.
Having them is a drag on the Labour parties ability to attract and keep voters, the loss of votes directly to them will be countered by not having John Woodcock current Labour MP (as an example) there to give a quote or a news story to help discredit Labour.
And so much more convenient to have dissenters leave of their own volition rather than have to go through the trouble of getting rid of them.
Brexit has also bred a deep smugness in progressive circles. And what progressives do not seem to realise is that this attitude has the capacity to totally destroy the alliance that we used to call the Left. Or maybe, depressingly, it is already too late.
Mr. B, wonder what the odds are on the probable one stop race becoming a two-stopper.
One stop is the best strategy, as the medium tyres will probably last long enough, and track position is way more important here than raw pace. Everyone has plenty of tyres though, so maybe the Red Bulls might try something different with two drivers who are out of position but good at overtaking. Mercedes might also try something different if Ferrari get ahead at the start.
It's bucketing down here in Cannock. We've had 19 hours of rain.
Is it too soon to start complaining about this?
The first hour or so of rain was a bit of a novelty then I wanted my beautiful summer back.
Everyone who complained that it was 'too warm' or 'too sunny' this is on your heads!
In regards to the some Labour MPs breaking away I'm sure Dan Hodges is just building my hopes up falsely again...
Why do you want this?
I want some of them to leave, Hodges article had a number around 15. Clearly if you look at Ian Austin's twitter he isn't happy, there was a tweet he wrote complaining about something to do with Labour, the left or Corbyn (which is the majority of his tweets) everyone was basically telling him to just leave the party, those outside those inside, those who hate the left those who are left wing.
I mean really if you believe Corbyn and the left are all these horrible things and constantly just agitate against the party then wouldn't both sides be better off in different parties?
John Woodcock was an obvious one as well.
More than happy to keep MPs such as Liz Kendall, Stella Creasy the overwhelming majority really. Those that are going to spread Guido Fawkes propaganda against Labour supporters could probably oppose the same people more effectively from a different party.
Having them is a drag on the Labour parties ability to attract and keep voters, the loss of votes directly to them will be countered by not having John Woodcock current Labour MP (as an example) there to give a quote or a news story to help discredit Labour.
It wouldn't just be those 15 MPs. There will be many members who agree with them, and others who may not agree with them, but see them as being honourable fellow travellers. In many cases you'll be losing their support as well.
And after those 15, there will be others, until Labour becomes an insular, one-minded group of utter asshats. "If you don't agree with us, p*ss off" is not inclusive.
It's bucketing down here in Cannock. We've had 19 hours of rain.
Is it too soon to start complaining about this?
The first hour or so of rain was a bit of a novelty then I wanted my beautiful summer back.
Everyone who complained that it was 'too warm' or 'too sunny' this is on your heads!
In regards to the some Labour MPs breaking away I'm sure Dan Hodges is just building my hopes up falsely again...
Why do you want this?
I want some of them to leave, Hodges article had a number around 15. Clearly if you look at Ian Austin's twitter he isn't happy, there was a tweet he wrote complaining about something to do with Labour, the left or Corbyn (which is the majority of his tweets) everyone was basically telling him to just leave the party, those outside those inside, those who hate the left those who are left wing.
I mean really if you believe Corbyn and the left are all these horrible things and constantly just agitate against the party then wouldn't both sides be better off in different parties?
John Woodcock was an obvious one as well.
More than happy to keep MPs such as Liz Kendall, Stella Creasy the overwhelming majority really. Those that are going to spread Guido Fawkes propaganda against Labour supporters could probably oppose the same people more effectively from a different party.
Having them is a drag on the Labour parties ability to attract and keep voters, the loss of votes directly to them will be countered by not having John Woodcock current Labour MP (as an example) there to give a quote or a news story to help discredit Labour.
I would like Kate Hoey, Frank Field, John Mann, the other one and one or two more out ! They belong somewhere else. They can get elected themselves if they are so bloody good. In some of their seats, Labour will still win with them standing against the official Labour candidate. In one or two, the Tories will win. That is the price we have to pay for one cycle.
It's bucketing down here in Cannock. We've had 19 hours of rain.
Is it too soon to start complaining about this?
The first hour or so of rain was a bit of a novelty then I wanted my beautiful summer back.
Everyone who complained that it was 'too warm' or 'too sunny' this is on your heads!
In regards to the some Labour MPs breaking away I'm sure Dan Hodges is just building my hopes up falsely again...
Why do you want this?
I want some of them to leave, Hodges article had a number around 15. Clearly if you look at Ian Austin's twitter he isn't happy, there was a tweet he wrote complaining about something to do with Labour, the left or Corbyn (which is the majority of his tweets) everyone was basically telling him to just leave the party, those outside those inside, those who hate the left those who are left wing.
I mean really if you believe Corbyn and the left are all these horrible things and constantly just agitate against the party then wouldn't both sides be better off in different parties?
John Woodcock was an obvious one as well.
More than happy to keep MPs such as Liz Kendall, Stella Creasy the overwhelming majority really. Those that are going to spread Guido Fawkes propaganda against Labour supporters could probably oppose the same people more effectively from a different party.
Having them is a drag on the Labour parties ability to attract and keep voters, the loss of votes directly to them will be countered by not having John Woodcock current Labour MP (as an example) there to give a quote or a news story to help discredit Labour.
It wouldn't just be those 15 MPs. There will be many members who agree with them, and others who may not agree with them, but see them as being honourable fellow travellers. In many cases you'll be losing their support as well.
And after those 15, there will be others, until Labour becomes an insular, one-minded group of utter asshats. "If you don't agree with us, p*ss off" is not inclusive.
I doubt even 15 will leave. You clearly do not know the Labour Party.
It's bucketing down here in Cannock. We've had 19 hours of rain.
Is it too soon to start complaining about this?
The first hour or so of rain was a bit of a novelty then I wanted my beautiful summer back.
Everyone who complained that it was 'too warm' or 'too sunny' this is on your heads!
In regards to the some Labour MPs breaking away I'm sure Dan Hodges is just building my hopes up falsely again...
Why do you want this?
There are a small number of post-Corbyn entryists who have been busily spinning a basic line. That Corbynism is a revolution. That the powers that be (money/neo-liberals/Tories/Blairites - they're all the same) are conspiring to stop it, and that to complete the revolution and bring abiut True Socialism the real enemy of the Labour Party must be purged - the Labour Party.
We must have mandatory reselection so that we can deselect our MPs (even though we already can), we must relect all Labour party employees because the last lot conspired against Jeremy (officially not true says Jennie Formby), we must be able to elect council leaders because our councillors are Blairite.
So of course Jezziah wants rid of Labour MPs. They - like me - are the true enemy.
I think it is an evolution rather than a revolution. Those on both sides who think its communism or some kind of crazy hard left thing are very much getting carried away with themselves, I think both groups feed off each other to an extent on that. The right wing rave about how crazy and left wing they are and the left wing then feels like they are some exciting revolutionary force. All whilst presenting something that is a bit to the left of Ed, who despite the media hype wasn't a communist either.
To be honest you seem to have as propaganda driven a view as the one you imagine me to have. I'm happy to see a small number of the MPs who've gone out their way to cause trouble like Woodcock go. We currently have a procedure for changing MP they wanted one with a lower threshold, if the change didn't actually change anything I imagine there would be much less complaining about it.
I think that that piece is a good example of the problem. Corbyn is suggesting that Israel is stirring up trouble between the new Egyptian government (in 2012) and the Palestinians.
It is an entirely credible accusation. The previous Egyptian government was the main source of weaponry for Gaza which was a significant thorn in Israel's side. Of course they would seek to disrupt that relationship given the opportunity. If you ask cui bono the answer is clearly Israel.
There are some peculiar bits such as the Ramadan suggestion. The fact that it was Egyptian bombers doing the bombing is somewhat glided over. But what makes this suspicion that a government with a long track record of seeking to divide and rule its opponents (for entirely understandable reasons) anti-Semitic? I am not sure I see it.
The issue is that Israel is the assumption that there was just one potential source of the trouble: it's not as if there are no disaffected extremist groups in Egypt who want to cause trouble with no outside aid, and there are other countries in the region aside from Israel who might stick an oar in.
There are many countries in the region who have, as you put it: " a government with a long track record of seeking to divide and rule its opponents"
It's the assumption that it must be Israel, and not internal or a.n.other country, that makes it an utterly cr@p claim. And that assumption with no evidence is anti-Semitic IMO.
The simplest answer is often the correct one. I doubt 'it's all Israel's fault' is the simplest answer.
The accusation is that Corbyn was being anti-Semetic because he claimed to see the "hand of Israel" in the disputes between the Palestinians and the new Egyptian government which had resulted in violence between them. My point is that he may well have been right and that there was nothing obviously anti-Semitic in saying so.
Dan Hodges in the Mail on Sunday, reckons there is a going to be a breakaway by a group of Labour MPs in the PLP.
Dan Hodges might be right but does have rather a track record over the years of letting wishful thinking cloud his crystal ball.
Yes. I have had several conversations with fellow Labour members this week and there is general agreement that corbyns handling of this issue has been a disaster (several new members who joined since 2015 took this line, it's not just the pre-Corbyn generation). But no one mentioned a breakaway as a possible response. It's not a live issue. I can't think of more than a handful of members in my CLP who might be attracted to a new party.
Just like the SDP breakaway the vast majority will stay put even people who cannot stand Corbyn. I will not leave the Labour Party because it is my party. After the 80's came Blair and there was a reaction after that. That is life and that is how it should be.
WE did have a very good leader in Ed Miliband. But the right wing press saw to that.
I thought Ed was okay but I think it was more the general perception of him as unPrime ministerial than the press treatment that did for him. We can't prove these things of course. I do wonder about those 'Blairites' who undermined him and then ended up with Brexit and Corbyn.
It's bucketing down here in Cannock. We've had 19 hours of rain.
Is it too soon to start complaining about this?
The first hour or so of rain was a bit of a novelty then I wanted my beautiful summer back.
Everyone who complained that it was 'too warm' or 'too sunny' this is on your heads!
In regards to the some Labour MPs breaking away I'm sure Dan Hodges is just building my hopes up falsely again...
Why do you want this?
I want some of them to leave, Hodges article had a number around 15. Clearly if you look at Ian Austin's twitter he isn't happy, there was a tweet he wrote complaining about something to do with Labour, the left or Corbyn (which is the majority of his tweets) everyone was basically telling him to just leave the party, those outside those inside, those who hate the left those who are left wing.
I mean really if you believe Corbyn and the left are all these horrible things and constantly just agitate against the party then wouldn't both sides be better off in different parties?
John Woodcock was an obvious one as well.
More than happy to keep MPs such as Liz Kendall, Stella Creasy the overwhelming majority really. Those that are going to spread Guido Fawkes propaganda against Labour supporters could probably oppose the same people more effectively from a different party.
Having them is a drag on the Labour parties ability to attract and keep voters, the loss of votes directly to them will be countered by not having John Woodcock current Labour MP (as an example) there to give a quote or a news story to help discredit Labour.
It wouldn't just be those 15 MPs. There will be many members who agree with them, and others who may not agree with them, but see them as being honourable fellow travellers. In many cases you'll be losing their support as well.
And after those 15, there will be others, until Labour becomes an insular, one-minded group of utter asshats. "If you don't agree with us, p*ss off" is not inclusive.
I doubt even 15 will leave. You clearly do not know the Labour Party.
I think I agree with your first sentence; tribalism counts. But you can only push people so far, witness the formation of the SDP.
Brexit has also bred a deep smugness in progressive circles. And what progressives do not seem to realise is that this attitude has the capacity to totally destroy the alliance that we used to call the Left. Or maybe, depressingly, it is already too late.
What utter rot
Not. Smug. At. All.
Your self awareness and punctuation skills seem a little iffy.
I think that that piece is a good example of the problem. Corbyn is suggesting that Israel is stirring up trouble between the new Egyptian government (in 2012) and the Palestinians.
It is an entirely credible accusation. The previous Egyptian government was the main source of weaponry for Gaza which was a significant thorn in Israel's side. Of course they would seek to disrupt that relationship given the opportunity. If you ask cui bono the answer is clearly Israel.
There are some peculiar bits such as the Ramadan suggestion. The fact that it was Egyptian bombers doing the bombing is somewhat glided over. But what makes this suspicion that a government with a long track record of seeking to divide and rule its opponents (for entirely understandable reasons) anti-Semitic? I am not sure I see it.
The issue is that Israel is the assumption that there was just one potential source of the trouble: it's not as if there are no disaffected extremist groups in Egypt who want to cause trouble with no outside aid, and there are other countries in the region aside from Israel who might stick an oar in.
There are many countries in the region who have, as you put it: " a government with a long track record of seeking to divide and rule its opponents"
It's the assumption that it must be Israel, and not internal or a.n.other country, that makes it an utterly cr@p claim. And that assumption with no evidence is anti-Semitic IMO.
The simplest answer is often the correct one. I doubt 'it's all Israel's fault' is the simplest answer.
The accusation is that Corbyn was being anti-Semetic because he claimed to see the "hand of Israel" in the disputes between the Palestinians and the new Egyptian government which had resulted in violence between them. My point is that he may well have been right and that there was nothing obviously anti-Semitic in saying so.
It was his first and only answer; there are much more obvious answers he could have given.
Why is his first thought to blame Israel, if there are many other options?
I have not read the IHRA definition of anti-semitism. Indeed, I have not read the Labour party version either.
In what way, are the two significantly different ?
IHRA = International Holocaust Remembrance Association. There are 31 member countries.
Significant differences are around examples of antisemitism in the IHRA definition that are omitted in Labour's. These are:
- Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations. (Labour's text says this is wrong but, unlike the IHRA version, does not quote it as an example of antisemitism)
- Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavour.
- Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis. (Labour's text directly contradicts this example, saying it is not antisemitism unless there is evidence of anti-Semitic intent)
Note that the IHRA's definition does not preclude criticism of Israel. It is fine, for example, to say that Israel has racist policies or has acted in a racist manner. But it is not fine to say that it's very existence is a racist endeavour.
A further concern is that Labour's text says that something is not antisemitism unless there is evidence of anti-Semitic intent. This is not only against the Macpherson principle, it is contrary to the law on discrimination. You only have to show that you have been discriminated against on the basis of a protected characteristic, not that there was intent.
And just to repeat, the IHRA is clear that criticism of Israel is allowed provided the criticism is not anti-Semitic. Their definition is not intended to prevent criticism of Israel.
It's bucketing down here in Cannock. We've had 19 hours of rain.
Is it too soon to start complaining about this?
The first hour or so of rain was a bit of a novelty then I wanted my beautiful summer back.
Everyone who complained that it was 'too warm' or 'too sunny' this is on your heads!
In regards to the some Labour MPs breaking away I'm sure Dan Hodges is just building my hopes up falsely again...
Why do you want this?
I want some of them to leave, Hodges article had a number around 15. Clearly if you look at Ian Austin's twitter he isn't happy, there was a tweet he wrote complaining about something to do with Labour, the left or Corbyn (which is the majority of his tweets) everyone was basically telling him to just leave the party, those outside those inside, those who hate the left those who are left wing.
I mean really if you believe Corbyn and the left are all these horrible things and constantly just agitate against the party then wouldn't both sides be better off in different parties?
John Woodcock was an obvious one as well.
More than happy to keep MPs such as Liz Kendall, Stella Creasy the overwhelming majority really. Those that are going to spread Guido Fawkes propaganda against Labour supporters could probably oppose the same people more effectively from a different party.
Having them is a drag on the Labour parties ability to attract and keep voters, the loss of votes directly to them will be countered by not having John Woodcock current Labour MP (as an example) there to give a quote or a news story to help discredit Labour.
If Labour splits and Labour loses the centre left vote it is over for Corbyn. He can kiss power goodbye.
I think that that piece is a good example of the problem. Corbyn is suggesting that Israel is stirring up trouble between the new Egyptian government (in 2012) and the Palestinians.
It is an entirely credible accusation. The previous Egyptian government was the main source of weaponry for Gaza which was a significant thorn in Israel's side. Of course they would seek to disrupt that relationship given the opportunity. If you ask cui bono the answer is clearly Israel.
There are some peculiar bits such as the Ramadan suggestion. The fact that it was Egyptian bombers doing the bombing is somewhat glided over. But what makes this suspicion that a government with a long track record of seeking to divide and rule its opponents (for entirely understandable reasons) anti-Semitic? I am not sure I see it.
The issue is that Israel is the assumption that there was just one potential source of the trouble: it's not as if there are no disaffected extremist groups in Egypt who want to cause trouble with no outside aid, and there are other countries in the region aside from Israel who might stick an oar in.
There are many countries in the region who have, as you put it: " a government with a long track record of seeking to divide and rule its opponents"
It's the assumption that it must be Israel, and not internal or a.n.other country, that makes it an utterly cr@p claim. And that assumption with no evidence is anti-Semitic IMO.
The simplest answer is often the correct one. I doubt 'it's all Israel's fault' is the simplest answer.
The accusation is that Corbyn was being anti-Semetic because he claimed to see the "hand of Israel" in the disputes between the Palestinians and the new Egyptian government which had resulted in violence between them. My point is that he may well have been right and that there was nothing obviously anti-Semitic in saying so.
There is a section which will call Corbyn an anti-semetic regardless of anything he says on topics where Israel is concerned.
It's bucketing down here in Cannock. We've had 19 hours of rain.
Is it too soon to start complaining about this?
The first hour or so of rain was a bit of a novelty then I wanted my beautiful summer back.
Everyone who complained that it was 'too warm' or 'too sunny' this is on your heads!
In regards to the some Labour MPs breaking away I'm sure Dan Hodges is just building my hopes up falsely again...
Why do you want this?
It wouldn't just be those 15 MPs. There will be many members who agree with them, and others who may not agree with them, but see them as being honourable fellow travellers. In many cases you'll be losing their support as well.
And after those 15, there will be others, until Labour becomes an insular, one-minded group of utter asshats. "If you don't agree with us, p*ss off" is not inclusive.
It takes two to tango. Whilst many on PB being to the right of the current Labour party will see the side of the person leaving whose on the right of the party that isn't going to be true for many in Labour. I can't see the next manifesto being radically different from the last one, which is something that a large number of the Labour MPs are happy to get behind.
I am doubtful it'll come to pass but if it does it will be the relatively small group because the others, for a mix of reasons such as attachment to the party, no more ideological closeness to the leavers than the leadership and lots of other reasons will stick with the party.
If you don't agree with us we will complain and try and burn the house down until we leave is not very inclusive either. If they could attract serious numbers they would have made a move already. The problem is the number of them unhappy to leave is too small leaving them as a slightly bigger Lib Dems rather than part of any serious force.
They could join up with the Lib Dems and be approaching SNP size, this isn't a very enticing prospect for most Labour MPs.
I have not read the IHRA definition of anti-semitism. Indeed, I have not read the Labour party version either.
In what way, are the two significantly different ?
IHRA = International Holocaust Remembrance Association. There are 31 member countries.
Significant differences are around examples of antisemitism in the IHRA definition that are omitted in Labour's. These are:
- Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations. (Labour's text says this is wrong but, unlike the IHRA version, does not quote it as an example of antisemitism)
- Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavour.
- Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis. (Labour's text directly contradicts this example, saying it is not antisemitism unless there is evidence of anti-Semitic intent)
Note that the IHRA's definition does not preclude criticism of Israel. It is fine, for example, to say that Israel has racist policies or has acted in a racist manner. But it is not fine to say that it's very existence is a racist endeavour.
A further concern is that Labour's text says that something is not antisemitism unless there is evidence of anti-Semitic intent. This is not only against the Macpherson principle, it is contrary to the law on discrimination. You only have to show that you have been discriminated against on the basis of a protected characteristic, not that there was intent.
And just to repeat, the IHRA is clear that criticism of Israel is allowed provided the criticism is not anti-Semitic. Their definition is not intended to prevent criticism of Israel.
- "Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavour."
So if the State of Israel denies the right of self-determination to non-Jews in Israel as per their latest legislation, then that is OK ?
!And just to repeat, the IHRA is clear that criticism of Israel is allowed provided the criticism is not anti-Semitic."
And who decides if the criticism is anti-semetic or not ?
I did not realise that the IHRA had members from only 31 countries.
It's bucketing down here in Cannock. We've had 19 hours of rain.
Is it too soon to start complaining about this?
The first hour or so of rain was a bit of a novelty then I wanted my beautiful summer back.
Everyone who complained that it was 'too warm' or 'too sunny' this is on your heads!
In regards to the some Labour MPs breaking away I'm sure Dan Hodges is just building my hopes up falsely again...
Why do you want this?
It wouldn't just be those 15 MPs. There will be many members who agree with them, and others who may not agree with them, but see them as being honourable fellow travellers. In many cases you'll be losing their support as well.
And after those 15, there will be others, until Labour becomes an insular, one-minded group of utter asshats. "If you don't agree with us, p*ss off" is not inclusive.
It takes two to tango. Whilst many on PB being to the right of the current Labour party will see the side of the person leaving whose on the right of the party that isn't going to be true for many in Labour. I can't see the next manifesto being radically different from the last one, which is something that a large number of the Labour MPs are happy to get behind.
I am doubtful it'll come to pass but if it does it will be the relatively small group because the others, for a mix of reasons such as attachment to the party, no more ideological closeness to the leavers than the leadership and lots of other reasons will stick with the party.
If you don't agree with us we will complain and try and burn the house down until we leave is not very inclusive either. If they could attract serious numbers they would have made a move already. The problem is the number of them unhappy to leave is too small leaving them as a slightly bigger Lib Dems rather than part of any serious force.
They could join up with the Lib Dems and be approaching SNP size, this isn't a very enticing prospect for most Labour MPs.
Problem is that Jezza can’t expect loyalty. His whole career is an exercise in disloyalty.
I have not read the IHRA definition of anti-semitism. Indeed, I have not read the Labour party version either.
In what way, are the two significantly different ?
IHRA = International Holocaust Remembrance Association. There are 31 member countries.
Significant differences are around examples of antisemitism in the IHRA definition that are omitted in Labour's. These are:
- Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations. (Labour's text says this is wrong but, unlike the IHRA version, does not quote it as an example of antisemitism)
- Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavour.
- Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis. (Labour's text directly contradicts this example, saying it is not antisemitism unless there is evidence of anti-Semitic intent)
Note that the IHRA's definition does not preclude criticism of Israel. It is fine, for example, to say that Israel has racist policies or has acted in a racist manner. But it is not fine to say that it's very existence is a racist endeavour.
A further concern is that Labour's text says that something is not antisemitism unless there is evidence of anti-Semitic intent. This is not only against the Macpherson principle, it is contrary to the law on discrimination. You only have to show that you have been discriminated against on the basis of a protected characteristic, not that there was intent.
And just to repeat, the IHRA is clear that criticism of Israel is allowed provided the criticism is not anti-Semitic. Their definition is not intended to prevent criticism of Israel.
It is incomprehensible that Labour should be standing alone to try and rewrite the principles of what is anti-Semitism.
And it might be less egregious if it was just some esoteric drafting exercise. If it didn't have an active problem. But there are regular examples of just why there IS a real life, actual problem with anti-Semitic attitudes expressed by Labour Party members.
It is easy to see why elected Labour MPs want to distance themselves from a party that has chosen to go in this direction. But frankly, if they haven't the balls to walk away from it, they should leave politics.
It's bucketing down here in Cannock. We've had 19 hours of rain.
Is it too soon to start complaining about this?
Personally I would like summer back, thank you. Weather like this we can save for November.
I'ts wet and windy here in Dorset but it's not going to fix the drought... 7mm of rain in the past 24 hours means we've had precisely 10mm since the beginning of June (versus 75-80mm normally). We might get another 5-10mm today but then warm dry weather returns according to the Met Office.
Still, you have to feel for the poor sods at this weekend's Camp Bestival near Lulworth - talk about bad luck!
It's hard for me to take seriously claims that the Labour Party is anti-semitic for a number of reason. It's an absurd posture for any serious Party but for one with such strong historic links to the Jews the mere suggestion jars.
I suspect this reflects nothing more than a bit of unattractive posturing that pleases the more 'right-on' members but it cannot be justified, and is of course electorally harmful, as the current Hodge/Austin publicity illustrates.
It's not the Labour Party any more though. It's being run by and for people who've spent their lives flitting between the semi-permeable membrane between Labour and the conspiracist revolutionary far left - who unlike Labour, who as you rightly say have historic links to the Jewish community, have their own tradition of tolerating and often promoting anti-Semitism.
It goes right back to Marx and his essay 'On the Jewish Question' - which sets up the idea that Jewish identity is antagonistic to an emancipated socialist state because it promotes loyalty to a community rather than the grand project - an early example of the 'dual loyalties' trope that has caused so much consternation at the moment because it's the most egregious omission from Labour's new code compared to the IHRA examples. That runs right through Soviet communism (where Jews were often the first to be accused of plots), before getting a turbocharge in the 70s and 80s when the new hard left took up the Palestinian cause as the defining example of western and capitalist imperialism - and which neatly fitted with the older ideas of Jews as counter-revolutionaries with an interest in thwarting moves to overthrow the corrupt world order.
Corbyn isn't a restoration of any broader Labour tradition but a hostile imposition of that culture on to a Labour Party that admirably distanced itself from hard core Marxism almost upon its foundation - a distinction that is arguably the main reason it was able to be successful and become the template for parties of the left - because it committed to working within and improving the political system rather than overthrowing it in pursuit of its goals.
Corbyn and his ilk have always existed in the strange area on the far left of Labour, where they sit within the party but make common cause with those who think it's been mistaken from the start and should become a radical, revolutionary one - but are now in charge and moving to achieve that. It's no surprise that they've brought their conspiratorial anti-Semitism with them, and Corbyn is now trying to institutionalise it by codifying the excuses because doing otherwise would mean admitting there's a darkness at the heart of his project.
It's bucketing down here in Cannock. We've had 19 hours of rain.
Is it too soon to start complaining about this?
Personally I would like summer back, thank you. Weather like this we can save for November.
I'ts wet and windy here in Dorset but it's not going to fix the drought... 7mm of rain in the past 24 hours means we've had precisely 10mm since the beginning of June (versus 75-80mm normally). We might get another 5-10mm today but then warm dry weather returns according to the Met Office.
Still, you have to feel for the poor sods at this weekend's Camp Bestival near Lulworth - talk about bad luck!
It's Totnes Show today. It's main organisor must be Unlucky Alf......
It's hard for me to take seriously claims that the Labour Party is anti-semitic for a number of reason. It's an absurd posture for any serious Party but for one with such strong historic links to the Jews the mere suggestion jars.
I suspect this reflects nothing more than a bit of unattractive posturing that pleases the more 'right-on' members but it cannot be justified, and is of course electorally harmful, as the current Hodge/Austin publicity illustrates.
It's not the Labour Party any more though. It's being run by and for people who've spent their lives flitting between the semi-permeable membrane between Labour and the conspiracist revolutionary far left - who unlike Labour, who as you rightly say have historic links to the Jewish community, have their own tradition of tolerating and often promoting anti-Semitism.
It goes right back to Marx and his essay 'On the Jewish Question' - which sets up the idea that Jewish identity is antagonistic to an emancipated socialist state because it promotes loyalty to a community rather than the grand project - an early example of the 'dual loyalties' trope that has caused so much consternation at the moment because it's the most egregious omission from Labour's new code compared to the IHRA examples. That runs right through Soviet communism (where Jews were often the first to be accused of plots), before getting a turbocharge in the 70s and 80s when the new hard left took up the Palestinian cause as the defining example of western and capitalist imperialism - and which neatly fitted with the older ideas of Jews as counter-revolutionaries with an interest in thwarting moves to overthrow the corrupt world order.
Corbyn isn't a restoration of any broader Labour tradition but a hostile imposition of that culture on to a Labour Party that admirably distanced itself from hard core Marxism almost upon its foundation - a distinction that is arguably the main reason it was able to be successful and become the template for parties of the left - because it committed to working within and improving the political system rather than overthrowing it in pursuit of its goals.
Corbyn and his ilk have always existed in the strange area on the far left of Labour, where they sit within the party but make common cause with those who think it's been mistaken from the start and should become a radical, revolutionary one - but are now in charge and moving to achieve that. It's no surprise that they've brought their conspiratorial anti-Semitism with them, and Corbyn is now trying to institutionalise it by codifying the excuses because doing otherwise would mean admitting there's a darkness at the heart of his project.
It's bucketing down here in Cannock. We've had 19 hours of rain.
Is it too soon to start complaining about this?
The first hour or so of rain was a bit of a novelty then I wanted my beautiful summer back.
Everyone who complained that it was 'too warm' or 'too sunny' this is on your heads!
In regards to the some Labour MPs breaking away I'm sure Dan Hodges is just building my hopes up falsely again...
Why do you want this?
It wouldn't just be those 15 MPs. There will be many members who agree with them, and others who may not agree with them, but see them as being honourable fellow travellers. In many cases you'll be losing their support as well.
And after those 15, there will be others, until Labour becomes an insular, one-minded group of utter asshats. "If you don't agree with us, p*ss off" is not inclusive.
It takes two to tango. Whilst many on PB being to the right of the current Labour party will see the side of the person leaving whose on the right of the party that isn't going to be true for many in Labour. I can't see the next manifesto being radically different from the last one, which is something that a large number of the Labour MPs are happy to get behind.
I am doubtful it'll come to pass but if it does it will be the relatively small group because the others, for a mix of reasons such as attachment to the party, no more ideological closeness to the leavers than the leadership and lots of other reasons will stick with the party.
If you don't agree with us we will complain and try and burn the house down until we leave is not very inclusive either. If they could attract serious numbers they would have made a move already. The problem is the number of them unhappy to leave is too small leaving them as a slightly bigger Lib Dems rather than part of any serious force.
They could join up with the Lib Dems and be approaching SNP size, this isn't a very enticing prospect for most Labour MPs.
The example of what happened to Labour people who defected to the SDP is not one which will encourage MP’s who enjoy their status.
I have not read the IHRA definition of anti-semitism. Indeed, I have not read the Labour party version either.
In what way, are the two significantly different ?
IHRA = International Holocaust Remembrance Association. There are 31 member countries.
Significant differences are around examples of antisemitism in the IHRA definition that are omitted in Labour's. These are:
- Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations. (Labour's text says this is wrong but, unlike the IHRA version, does not quote it as an example of antisemitism)
- Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavour.
- Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis. (Labour's text directly contradicts this example, saying it is not antisemitism unless there is evidence of anti-Semitic intent)
Note that the IHRA's definition does not preclude criticism of Israel. It is fine, for example, to say that Israel has racist policies or has acted in a racist manner. But it is not fine to say that it's very existence is a racist endeavour.
A further concern is that Labour's text says that something is not antisemitism unless there is evidence of anti-Semitic intent. This is not only against the Macpherson principle, it is contrary to the law on discrimination. You only have to show that you have been discriminated against on the basis of a protected characteristic, not that there was intent.
And just to repeat, the IHRA is clear that criticism of Israel is allowed provided the criticism is not anti-Semitic. Their definition is not intended to prevent criticism of Israel.
Except of course the problem is when it is used to shut down criticism of Israel...
Sort of on topic - got an email about voting on candidates to Labours NEC recently. Never heard of most of them, but found the tone of some of their pitches a bit depressing. "Vote for me because I am implacably opposed to an alternative faction within Labour" didn't give me a great deal of hope for reduced in-party squabbling....
I refuse to vote for any candidate on a 'slate'. They should all be there as individuals.
The fact I ended up voting for Eddie Izzard goes to show what a state we are in.
Yes I also dislike the idea of slates. It feels a bit like someone asking you which side are you on in the war, when really what I am looking for is peace. Eddie Izzard seems okay to me. I think I'll also vote for Ann Black.
The stuff in the official candidate statements is pretty boilerplate and only really interesting to see who is allied with who.
If someone with a deeper knowledge of the Labour party were to do a thread header, I'd certainly be interested!
I have not read the IHRA definition of anti-semitism. Indeed, I have not read the Labour party version either.
In what way, are the two significantly different ?
IHRA = International Holocaust Remembrance Association. There are 31 member countries.
Significant differences are around examples of antisemitism in the IHRA definition that are omitted in Labour's. These are:
- Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations. (Labour's text says this is wrong but, unlike the IHRA version, does not quote it as an example of antisemitism)
- Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavour.
- Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis. (Labour's text directly contradicts this example, saying it is not antisemitism unless there is evidence of anti-Semitic intent)
Note that the IHRA's definition does not preclude criticism of Israel. It is fine, for example, to say that Israel has racist policies or has acted in a racist manner. But it is not fine to say that it's very existence is a racist endeavour.
A further concern is that Labour's text says that something is not antisemitism unless there is evidence of anti-Semitic intent. This is not only against the Macpherson principle, it is contrary to the law on discrimination. You only have to show that you have been discriminated against on the basis of a protected characteristic, not that there was intent.
And just to repeat, the IHRA is clear that criticism of Israel is allowed provided the criticism is not anti-Semitic. Their definition is not intended to prevent criticism of Israel.
Except of course the problem is when it is used to shut down criticism of Israel...
It's bucketing down here in Cannock. We've had 19 hours of rain.
Is it too soon to start complaining about this?
The first hour or so of rain was a bit of a novelty then I wanted my beautiful summer back.
Everyone who complained that it was 'too warm' or 'too sunny' this is on your heads!
In regards to the some Labour MPs breaking away I'm sure Dan Hodges is just building my hopes up falsely again...
Why do you want this?
It wouldn't just be those 15 MPs. There will be many members who agree with them, and others who may not agree with them, but see them as being honourable fellow travellers. In many cases you'll be losing their support as well.
And after those 15, there will be others, until Labour becomes an insular, one-minded group of utter asshats. "If you don't agree with us, p*ss off" is not inclusive.
It takes two to tango. Whilst many on PB being to the right of the current Labour party will see the side of the person leaving whose on the right of the party that isn't going to be true for many in Labour. I can't see the next manifesto being radically different from the last one, which is something that a large number of the Labour MPs are happy to get behind.
I am doubtful it'll come to pass but if it does it will be the relatively small group because the others, for a mix of reasons such as attachment to the party, no more ideological closeness to the leavers than the leadership and lots of other reasons will stick with the party.
If you don't agree with us we will complain and try and burn the house down until we leave is not very inclusive either. If they could attract serious numbers they would have made a move already. The problem is the number of them unhappy to leave is too small leaving them as a slightly bigger Lib Dems rather than part of any serious force.
They could join up with the Lib Dems and be approaching SNP size, this isn't a very enticing prospect for most Labour MPs.
Problem is that Jezza can’t expect loyalty. His whole career is an exercise in disloyalty.
I don't think personal loyalty to Jezza will be a factor in anyone's decision, those who do feel personally loyal to him are probably happy anyway. It is the other factors that will keep the vast majority there.
It's not the Labour Party any more though. It's being run by and for people who've spent their lives flitting between the semi-permeable membrane between Labour and the conspiracist revolutionary far left - who unlike Labour, who as you rightly say have historic links to the Jewish community, have their own tradition of tolerating and often promoting anti-Semitism.
That runs right through Soviet communism (where Jews were often the first to be accused of plots), before getting a turbocharge in the 70s and 80s when the new hard left took up the Palestinian cause as the defining example of western and capitalist imperialism - and which neatly fitted with the older ideas of Jews as counter-revolutionaries with an interest in thwarting moves to overthrow the corrupt world order.
Corbyn isn't a restoration of any broader Labour tradition but a hostile imposition of that culture on to a Labour Party that admirably distanced itself from hard core Marxism almost upon its foundation - a distinction that is arguably the main reason it was able to be successful and become the template for parties of the left - because it committed to working within and improving the political system rather than overthrowing it in pursuit of its goals.
Corbyn and his ilk have always existed in the strange area on the far left of Labour, where they sit within the party but make common cause with those who think it's been mistaken from the start and should become a radical, revolutionary one - but are now in charge and moving to achieve that. It's no surprise that they've brought their conspiratorial anti-Semitism with them, and Corbyn is now trying to institutionalise it by codifying the excuses because doing otherwise would mean admitting there's a darkness at the heart of his project.
Presumably the very Jewish at the top end Momentum is a key part in spreading this conspiratorial anti-Semitism. Given that it is, aside from Corbyn, pretty much the driving force behind the current leadership of the Labour party and a huge part of the reason it is still in place.
Presumably when they are not coming up with policy or trying to rally votes for Labour or Corbyn specifically they sit around and come up with conspiracies to spread about themselves.... because.... well to be honest at this point I get a bit stuck.... I guess we just have to abandon logic this point and say that once you get to a certain distance left on the left right scale it is okay to pretend they are no longer Jewish and now we can just call them anti-Semites.
Luckily these crazy Jewish people who spread conspiracies about themselves have people like MJW to call them out on their racism...
@TheJezziah That is a good point, it will also mean we won't have multiple deselection stories going on during the election campaign. You seem to share your leader’s lack of appreciation for irony.
There are rumours that Grayling may be about to uncancel the not-not-not-cancelled TransPennine Electrification.
This has been rather a farce for over a decade now. If it does go ahead, let's' hope they've learnt the lessons from the messes on the GW and Edinburgh-Glasgow schemes.
They haven't.
Network Rail simply can't cope, and there's simply not enough skilled people in the UK supply chain to deliver all these projects.
I have not read the IHRA definition of anti-semitism. Indeed, I have not read the Labour party version either.
In what way, are the two significantly different ?
IHRA = International Holocaust Remembrance Association. There are 31 member countries.
Significant differences are around examples of antisemitism in the IHRA definition that are omitted in Labour's. These are:
- Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations. (Labour's text says this is wrong but, unlike the IHRA version, does not quote it as an example of antisemitism)
- Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavour.
- Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis. (Labour's text directly contradicts this example, saying it is not antisemitism unless there is evidence of anti-Semitic intent)
Note that the IHRA's definition does not preclude criticism of Israel. It is fine, for example, to say that Israel has racist policies or has acted in a racist manner. But it is not fine to say that it's very existence is a racist endeavour.
A further concern is that Labour's text says that something is not antisemitism unless there is evidence of anti-Semitic intent. This is not only against the Macpherson principle, it is contrary to the law on discrimination. You only have to show that you have been discriminated against on the basis of a protected characteristic, not that there was intent.
And just to repeat, the IHRA is clear that criticism of Israel is allowed provided the criticism is not anti-Semitic. Their definition is not intended to prevent criticism of Israel.
Except of course the problem is when it is used to shut down criticism of Israel...
Do you agree or disagree with Mahmoud Abbas that it was a mistake for the Arabs to reject the 1947 Partition Plan?
Did I answer this post?
Genuine question, I remember typing out an answer at one point and later looking for it and not finding it so apologies if I didn't as you asked yesterday.
Purely in terms of land you would have to say undoubtedly yes, with a simple calculation of what they have now versus what they were offered in the plan.
I would be reluctant to criticise though as I imagine if say a good part of Britain was given away to a foreign people then I imagine British people and probably myself would fight back against that even if that possibly meant we could lose more land by doing so.
There are rumours that Grayling may be about to uncancel the not-not-not-cancelled TransPennine Electrification.
This has been rather a farce for over a decade now. If it does go ahead, let's' hope they've learnt the lessons from the messes on the GW and Edinburgh-Glasgow schemes.
They haven't.
Network Rail simply can't cope, and there's simply not enough skilled people in the UK supply chain to deliver all these projects.
I am sure as far as you are concerned Kate Hoey has the right to be MP until she decided to hang up her boots. I also believe she can stand as a candidate in every election - but not as the Labour candidate. It is not a freehold.
Yes, I keep reading this exact argument - "urgh, we have to have reselection or its a job for life". Except that it isn't. You want shut of an MP who has lost the confidence of the CLP, go ahead and get shut. Hoey and Field have just both lost votes of no confidence - those CLPs if they so chose can move next to a trigger ballot and start the process of an open selection.
My neighbouring CLP removed their MP under the current rules. Except that the entryist wazzocks trying to destroy the party keep insisting that it can't be done. Because under their 2015 = Year Zero approach it hasn't already been done as it was BC (Before Corbyn (blessed be His name)). I had a similar argument with a local senior activist who when I responded to Corbyn's British Jobs for British Workers policy by quoting Brown he insisted Brown was a slogan and Corbyn was a principled policy. When I pointed to the policy in the 2010 manifesto and that Corbyn's speech was not policy as not adopted by Conference, he once again accused me of undermining Him.
Its a cult. As Blairism was. Only this time they are more than happy to argue that the sky is green and call you a Tory for pointing out that its Blue.
IHRA = International Holocaust Remembrance Association. There are 31 member countries.
Significant differences are around examples of antisemitism in the IHRA definition that are omitted in Labour's. These are:
- Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations. (Labour's text says this is wrong but, unlike the IHRA version, does not quote it as an example of antisemitism)
- Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavour.
- Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis. (Labour's text directly contradicts this example, saying it is not antisemitism unless there is evidence of anti-Semitic intent)
Note that the IHRA's definition does not preclude criticism of Israel. It is fine, for example, to say that Israel has racist policies or has acted in a racist manner. But it is not fine to say that it's very existence is a racist endeavour.
A further concern is that Labour's text says that something is not antisemitism unless there is evidence of anti-Semitic intent. This is not only against the Macpherson principle, it is contrary to the law on discrimination. You only have to show that you have been discriminated against on the basis of a protected characteristic, not that there was intent.
And just to repeat, the IHRA is clear that criticism of Israel is allowed provided the criticism is not anti-Semitic. Their definition is not intended to prevent criticism of Israel.
Thanks for posting that.
The idea of racial groups having a "right to self-determination" is obviously wrong. We don't generally say the Kurds have a right to self-determination, or the Yazidis, or the Inuit. Creating countries with the goal of them being dominated one race is a terrible idea, the more so when it's going to be done in places that already have people of other races living in them.
Even if you disagree with me on this, I think it's obviously idiotic to suggest that I must be opposing single-racially-dominated countries because *I'm* a racist, and that I should therefore be drummed out of respectable political parties.
It may be that this definition was just created by people who hadn't thought it through, but does look to me like an attempt to constrain criticism of Israel by requiring adherence to premises that fair-minded people wouldn't necessarily accept.
Until I saw the detail of this I'd just assumed this was another case of the Corbyn people being Trottery-addled morons, but reading it I don't really see how it could be brought into the party rules.
The UK is rapidly becoming a country with no one capable of governing. On the right we have the Conservatives, the traditional party of government, tearing itself to pieces over Europe. On the left we have the Labour party seemingly at the point of splitting, in part, and unbelievably, over an argument about whether it is anti-semitic to call jews nazis or not.
Add in to the mix, the decline of Liberals, and the imminent arrival on the scene of the English Patriots Party of Banks, Robinson and Farage and you have a recipe for years of chaos.
The UK is rapidly becoming a country with no one capable of governing. On the right we have the Conservatives, the traditional party of government, tearing itself to pieces over Europe. On the left we have the Labour party seemingly at the point of splitting, in part, and unbelievably, over an argument about whether it is anti-semitic to call jews nazis or not.
Add in to the mix, the decline of Liberals, and the imminent arrival on the scene of the English Patriots Party of Banks, Robinson and Farage and you have a recipe for years of chaos.
Is there any way out of this mess?
Eventually, one emerges. The UK seemed ungovernable between the late Sixties and the Miners's Strike. Then things settled down for 25 years or so.
As many of you will note I'm not exactly a happy bunny. Everything is a conspiracy. An example for you - I was told in all seriousness by a formerly sane long-standing member now lost to the Kali Mar that candidate selection was a plot by our CLP Executive to impose their choice of candidate. Despite the EC having refused to impose a candidate in his own ward at a selection meeting that zero ward members had attended, several of them himself included having chosen to boycott in favour of going to kiss the ring of NEC candidates on the "#JC9" Mofuckingmentum slate who were meeting fellow cultists in a neighbouring town.
I have no idea what the solution is, but MPs poncing off to join the LibDems isn't it. Party politics doesn't matter for the next 12 months - all that matters is avoiding Crash Brexit. And on that front I am happy to work with anyone regardless of party. Still, in a leave voting town running for council 5 weeks after Brexit it could be fun in the Spring. We've either gone off the cliff in which case most voters will be traumatised by the chaos and we're good, or there has been fudge and they are angry that the promised manna has not descended from heaven.
I know it’s a cliched statement nowadays, but Labour really should be doing better in the polls considering what’s happening in the governing party.
That they’re not reveals deep unease about a Corbyn government. Interestingly, I think you could probably swap Corbyn for a generic left winger and they’d probably leap to a good or modest lead.
I am sure as far as you are concerned Kate Hoey has the right to be MP until she decided to hang up her boots. I also believe she can stand as a candidate in every election - but not as the Labour candidate. It is not a freehold.
Yes, I keep reading this exact argument - "urgh, we have to have reselection or its a job for life". Except that it isn't. You want shut of an MP who has lost the confidence of the CLP, go ahead and get shut. Hoey and Field have just both lost votes of no confidence - those CLPs if they so chose can move next to a trigger ballot and start the process of an open selection.
My neighbouring CLP removed their MP under the current rules. Except that the entryist wazzocks trying to destroy the party keep insisting that it can't be done. Because under their 2015 = Year Zero approach it hasn't already been done as it was BC (Before Corbyn (blessed be His name)). I had a similar argument with a local senior activist who when I responded to Corbyn's British Jobs for British Workers policy by quoting Brown he insisted Brown was a slogan and Corbyn was a principled policy. When I pointed to the policy in the 2010 manifesto and that Corbyn's speech was not policy as not adopted by Conference, he once again accused me of undermining Him.
Its a cult. As Blairism was. Only this time they are more than happy to argue that the sky is green and call you a Tory for pointing out that its Blue.
It is possibly a case of 6 of one half a dozen of the other, your post to me came in with a whole set of presumptions about my view which were wrong. Given that and perhaps passionate disagreement are you maybe just both talking past each ignoring each others points and in the odd quiet moment thinking about how they are wrong about everything and you are right when you don't bother to pay any attention to the other person.
As for the getting called Tories both sides have been labelled by the other and had the labels used as insults, from Blairite to trot to far left to red tory etc.
The ones who think their side is innocent and only the other side did wrong are lying to themselves.
The UK is rapidly becoming a country with no one capable of governing. On the right we have the Conservatives, the traditional party of government, tearing itself to pieces over Europe. On the left we have the Labour party seemingly at the point of splitting, in part, and unbelievably, over an argument about whether it is anti-semitic to call jews nazis or not.
Add in to the mix, the decline of Liberals, and the imminent arrival on the scene of the English Patriots Party of Banks, Robinson and Farage and you have a recipe for years of chaos.
The UK is rapidly becoming a country with no one capable of governing. On the right we have the Conservatives, the traditional party of government, tearing itself to pieces over Europe. On the left we have the Labour party seemingly at the point of splitting, in part, and unbelievably, over an argument about whether it is anti-semitic to call jews nazis or not.
Add in to the mix, the decline of Liberals, and the imminent arrival on the scene of the English Patriots Party of Banks, Robinson and Farage and you have a recipe for years of chaos.
Is there any way out of this mess?
Dissolve the UK and become EU members in our own right.
It might go a long way to neutralising a lot of those leftist tropes that have their roots in anti-imperialism. It would also diffuse the destructive expressions of English nationalism that Banks et al are trying to exploit.
It would allow a more normal political debate in Scotland between the SNP, Labour and the Conservatives about how to govern the country, rather than seeing everything through the prism of independence.
The UK is past its sell-by date. It's time to put it out of its misery.
Sort of on topic - got an email about voting on candidates to Labours NEC recently. Never heard of most of them, but found the tone of some of their pitches a bit depressing. "Vote for me because I am implacably opposed to an alternative faction within Labour" didn't give me a great deal of hope for reduced in-party squabbling....
I refuse to vote for any candidate on a 'slate'. They should all be there as individuals.
The fact I ended up voting for Eddie Izzard goes to show what a state we are in.
Yes I also dislike the idea of slates. It feels a bit like someone asking you which side are you on in the war, when really what I am looking for is peace. Eddie Izzard seems okay to me. I think I'll also vote for Ann Black.
The stuff in the official candidate statements is pretty boilerplate and only really interesting to see who is allied with who.
If someone with a deeper knowledge of the Labour party were to do a thread header, I'd certainly be interested!
You're in the wrong party if you dislike slates.
You also need a more appropriate voting system for internal elections.
It is possibly a case of 6 of one half a dozen of the other, your post to me came in with a whole set of presumptions about my view which were wrong. Given that and perhaps passionate disagreement are you maybe just both talking past each ignoring each others points and in the odd quiet moment thinking about how they are wrong about everything and you are right when you don't bother to pay any attention to the other person.
As for the getting called Tories both sides have been labelled by the other and had the labels used as insults, from Blairite to trot to far left to red tory etc.
The ones who think their side is innocent and only the other side did wrong are lying to themselves.
My personal view is that both extremes are mad. The Continuity New Labour mob seem to have missed that Blair went batshit crazy and started defending dictators for cash, and spent his time as middle east peace envoy largely calling for military action. A return to 2005 would be political madness and its right that they keep getting called out over it.
At the same time decent and principled chap though Jeremy is the crazy people around him are certifiable. I wasn't talking about you specifically but unless "Jezziah" is ironic you do display Kali Mar tendencies. Momentum is a phage upon this party - as Progress was before it - and I would like the rule book to be imposed to proscribe both of these external non-affiliated private lobby groups.
You are right that differences of opinion can quickly escalate - thats just politics. My issue is that we now have differences of fact. Its apparently perfectly sane to argue that we won elections that we lost, to argue over basics of mathematics, to argue as my friend (and he IS a friend) did that non-imposition of a candidate proves imposition of a candidate etc.
Finally, I would take many of these criticisms of Corbyn more seriously if any of the these people also showed the slightest sympathy for Palestinians, whose lands were seized without reparations, illegal [ in international law ] settlements built on their lands. Orchards, which provided their livelihood destroyed to build these wretched settlements.
One or two will have a sentence buried in an avalanche of attack on Corbyn. The others won't even bother.
Huge injustices including the murder of 6m Jews took place in Europe barely 75 years ago. But I am not sure why Palestinians should pay for that.
In reality, the summary is, that Israel cannot be criticised even in the month when it flagrantly created a law which said only Jews have the right of self-determination in Israel. So much for equality ?
Quite the contrary. Many of us on here have criticised Israel and managed to do so without calling Jews Zio-Nazis (which is what Labour are keen to do). On the day the law was passed I criticised it in severe terms on here. As I recall I was one of the few on here who did so. I do not recall you saying anything about it.
Before opining on the matter perhaps you might learn a few historical facts, such as the fact that the international community voted to give the Palestinians a state at the same time as it did so for Jews, the fact that Jews had been living in that area for years and years and had bought land which had bern freely sold to them by Arabs living there, that the Palestinian leadership in the 1930’s consciously allied itself with the Nazis (Google Amin al-Husseini), that the Palestinians stupidly refused the offer of a state instead and chose war and lost.
There is no-one on here who does not want the Palestinians to have a homeland and a state. But I (and I hope others) of us do not want the price of that to be the extinction of Israel and the slaughter of Jews (something wanted by Hamas, for instance) or the expulsion of Jews (something done by every Arab state in the 1930’s and 1940’s, without compensation or restitution and without any intention of allowing Jews to return, something conveniently forgooten by those who claim Palestinians are the only victims). Incidentally, Jews lived in Iraq for far longer than any of those other groups over which the Left cries crocodile tears and yet the total destruction of that community is something which excites no pity or interest. Such double standards from those claiming to be concerned about peoples’ loss of homes.
I have not read the IHRA definition of anti-semitism. Indeed, I have not read the Labour party version either.
In what way, are the two significantly different ?
One post I read said the IHRA definition should be implemented because it was accepted by the Board of Deputies for Jewish people.
Should we also implement a standard on Islamophobia agreed by the Chief Imam of Makkah ? I, for one, would not immediately agree with that one. In fact, my question will be , who is he ? Just like the BoD. To me they should, of course, have an opinion like everyone else. But no statement should be there just because the BoD is OK with it. That cannot be a condition.
Isn't it the case that today , just like the Church of England of old, that the BoD is the Tory party in prayer in a Synagogue ?
I take it the I in IHRA stands for International. Who agreed the statement of behalf of the International community ? How was that body made up ?
Finally, I would take many of these criticisms of Corbyn more seriously if any of the these people also showed the slightest sympathy for Palestinians, whose lands were seized without reparations, illegal [ in international law ] settlements built on their lands. Orchards, which provided their livelihood destroyed to build these wretched settlements.
One or two will have a sentence buried in an avalanche of attack on Corbyn. The others won't even bother.
Huge injustices including the murder of 6m Jews took place in Europe barely 75 years ago. But I am not sure why Palestinians should pay for that.
In reality, the summary is, that Israel cannot be criticised even in the month when it flagrantly created a law which said only Jews have the right of self-determination in Israel. So much for equality ?
One can savagely criticise Israel (many Jews do) without having to argue that Hitler had a point, that Jews drink blood, or that the holocaust is an invention of the zionists (all of which points have been made by Labour councillors, including my own).
The UK is rapidly becoming a country with no one capable of governing. On the right we have the Conservatives, the traditional party of government, tearing itself to pieces over Europe. On the left we have the Labour party seemingly at the point of splitting, in part, and unbelievably, over an argument about whether it is anti-semitic to call jews nazis or not.
Add in to the mix, the decline of Liberals, and the imminent arrival on the scene of the English Patriots Party of Banks, Robinson and Farage and you have a recipe for years of chaos.
Is there any way out of this mess?
Eventually, one emerges. The UK seemed ungovernable between the late Sixties and the Miners's Strike. Then things settled down for 25 years or so.
Yes there is some truth in that, but the forces that threatened to make the UK ungovernable in the 1970s were outside parliament. The political structure continued to function and politicians in both main parties tried, not always effectively, to find solutions.
Now it is the political structure which is the source of the problem. Politicians have locked the UK in a burning house and thrown away the key. And many of them are actively stoking the fire. This was not the case in the 1970s.
I have not read the IHRA definition of anti-semitism. Indeed, I have not read the Labour party version either.
In what way, are the two significantly different ?
snip
Note that the IHRA's definition does not preclude criticism of Israel. It is fine, for example, to say that Israel has racist policies or has acted in a racist manner. But it is not fine to say that it's very existence is a racist endeavour.
A further concern is that Labour's text says that something is not antisemitism unless there is evidence of anti-Semitic intent. This is not only against the Macpherson principle, it is contrary to the law on discrimination. You only have to show that you have been discriminated against on the basis of a protected characteristic, not that there was intent.
And just to repeat, the IHRA is clear that criticism of Israel is allowed provided the criticism is not anti-Semitic. Their definition is not intended to prevent criticism of Israel.
Except of course the problem is when it is used to shut down criticism of Israel...
Do you agree or disagree with Mahmoud Abbas that it was a mistake for the Arabs to reject the 1947 Partition Plan?
Did I answer this post?
Genuine question, I remember typing out an answer at one point and later looking for it and not finding it so apologies if I didn't as you asked yesterday.
Purely in terms of land you would have to say undoubtedly yes, with a simple calculation of what they have now versus what they were offered in the plan.
I would be reluctant to criticise though as I imagine if say a good part of Britain was given away to a foreign people then I imagine British people and probably myself would fight back against that even if that possibly meant we could lose more land by doing so.
I think the subtext of what Sunil is saying is that the Palestinians are responsible for their treatment by the Israelis so don't criticise Israel. That's why he added it to a comment about criticism of Israel.
Corbyn and his ilk have always existed in the strange area on the far left of Labour, where they sit within the party but make common cause with those who think it's been mistaken from the start and should become a radical, revolutionary one - but are now in charge and moving to achieve that. It's no surprise that they've brought their conspiratorial anti-Semitism with them, and Corbyn is now trying to institutionalise it by codifying the excuses because doing otherwise would mean admitting there's a darkness at the heart of his project.
Presumably the very Jewish at the top end Momentum is a key part in spreading this conspiratorial anti-Semitism. Given that it is, aside from Corbyn, pretty much the driving force behind the current leadership of the Labour party and a huge part of the reason it is still in place.
Luckily these crazy Jewish people who spread conspiracies about themselves have people like MJW to call them out on their racism...
You're talking about Jon Lansman. Lansman has himself admitted the hard left has an anti-Semitism problem and Momentum has issued statements acknowledging this. His judgement is that it isn't an inherent or terminal problem and that his loyalty to his political beliefs outweigh his worries about the anti-Semitic behaviour that Corbyn's leadership has brought to the surface. I don't know his thinking, but I'd guess he views it as a growing pain as the far left moves from the shadows to the mainstream and long ignored cranks come under scrutiny. Lots of others strongly disagree.
There will always be people who judge their commitment to a cause to outweigh other considerations, or who see a problem as surmountable. They're perfectly entitled to do so and approach it in their own way, while others totally disagree with them. Your line of argument would mean that the Tory Party can't possibly have racist strands of thinking because they have black or Muslim supporters - despite leading figures meeting Steve Bannon. The majority of people within their communities will disagree, like the vast majority Jews disagree with Lansman - neither's personal experience or decisions invalidate the other's, but with racism we tend not to ignore lots of members of a group's experience because some of their number feel that's not their experience or that they're able to brush it off as unimportant in the greater scheme of things.
And if you'd read the Marx essay, you'd realise that at the heart of left-wing anti-Semitism has always been the idea of ideological repentance - that you're ok as long as you're a faithful servant to the socialist or communist project, or later anti-imperialism - but that it's when you dissent that your Jewishness becomes grounds for heightened suspicion and, in Labour's current state, abuse.
The UK is rapidly becoming a country with no one capable of governing. On the right we have the Conservatives, the traditional party of government, tearing itself to pieces over Europe. On the left we have the Labour party seemingly at the point of splitting, in part, and unbelievably, over an argument about whether it is anti-semitic to call jews nazis or not.
Add in to the mix, the decline of Liberals, and the imminent arrival on the scene of the English Patriots Party of Banks, Robinson and Farage and you have a recipe for years of chaos.
Is there any way out of this mess?
Eventually, one emerges. The UK seemed ungovernable between the late Sixties and the Miners's Strike. Then things settled down for 25 years or so.
Yes there is some truth in that, but the forces that threatened to make the UK ungovernable in the 1970s were outside parliament. The political structure continued to function and politicians in both main parties tried, not always effectively, to find solutions.
Now it is the political structure which is the source of the problem. Politicians have locked the UK in a burning house and thrown away the key. And many of them are actively stoking the fire. This was not the case in the 1970s.
I agree. That was the point I was attempting to make. We don't have external problems to face, we have politics and politicians that have been poisoned by zealots on all sides.
I have not read the IHRA definition of anti-semitism. Indeed, I have not read the Labour party version either.
In what way, are the two significantly different ?
One post I read said the IHRA definition should be implemented because it was accepted by the Board of Deputies for Jewish people.
Should we also implement a standard on Islamophobia agreed by the Chief Imam of Makkah ? I, for one, would not immediately agree with that one. In fact, my question will be , who is he ? Just like the BoD. To me they should, of course, have an opinion like everyone else. But no statement should be there just because the BoD is OK with it. That cannot be a condition.
Isn't it the case that today , just like the Church of England of old, that the BoD is the Tory party in prayer in a Synagogue ?
I take it the I in IHRA stands for International. Who agreed the statement of behalf of the International community ? How was that body made up ?
Finally, I would take many of these criticisms of Corbyn more seriously if any of the these people also showed the slightest sympathy for Palestinians, whose lands were seized without reparations, illegal [ in international law ] settlements built on their lands. Orchards, which provided their livelihood destroyed to build these wretched settlements.
One or two will have a sentence buried in an avalanche of attack on Corbyn. The others won't even bother.
Huge injustices including the murder of 6m Jews took place in Europe barely 75 years ago. But I am not sure why Palestinians should pay for that.
In reality, the summary is, that Israel cannot be criticised even in the month when it flagrantly created a law which said only Jews have the right of self-determination in Israel. So much for equality ?
One can savagely criticise Israel (many Jews do) without having to argue that Hitler had a point, that Jews drink blood, or that the holocaust is an invention of the zionists (all of which points have been made by Labour councillors, including my own).
I also really don't see why you can't be hyper-critical of Israeli policy, without having to resort to the term 'Nazi'. It is either an indication of a lack of command of the english language or the user really does have an agenda about trying to equate the two.
Quite the contrary. Many of us on here have criticised Israel and managed to do so without calling Jews Zio-Nazis (which is what Labour are keen to do). On the day the law was passed I criticised it in severe terms on here. As I recall I was one of the few on here who did so. I do not recall you saying anything about it.
Before opining on the matter perhaps you might learn a few historical facts, such as the fact that the international community voted to give the Palestinians a state at the same time as it did so for Jews, the fact that Jews had been living in that area for years and years and had bought land which had bern freely sold to them by Arabs living there, that the Palestinian leadership in the 1930’s consciously allied itself with the Nazis (Google Amin al-Husseini), that the Palestinians stupidly refused the offer of a state instead and chose war and lost.
There is no-one on here who does not want the Palestinians to have a homeland and a state. But I (and I hope others) of us do not want the price of that to be the extinction of Israel and the slaughter of Jews (something wanted by Hamas, for instance) or the expulsion of Jews (something done by every Arab state in the 1930’s and 1940’s, without compensation or restitution and without any intention of allowing Jews to return, something conveniently forgooten by those who claim Palestinians are the only victims). Incidentally, Jews lived in Iraq for far longer than any of those other groups over which the Left cries crocodile tears and yet the total destruction of that community is something which excites no pity or interest. Such double standards from those claiming to be concerned about peoples’ loss of homes.
What I read was a long rant about the groups you were interested in and some crocodile tears about the Palestinians.
The UN 'having a vote' does not suddenly make it morally right to take Palestinians land. Many dark things have been done by a vote or by people voted in. A vote in itself does not give it morality.
Much of the Palestinian land was bought from absent landlords, you can imagine the problems it could cause it modern day Britain imagine the scenario in a much more rural agricultural Palestine were very few people owned the land they worked or the house they lived in.
Not that you give a damn, they deserved to lose their land in your eyes which is why you fail every time to come up with a good reason.
Probably plays fairly well in the Islamic community though.
Although all the seats with significant Muslim populations are Labour already.
This plays badly in areas with significant Jewish populations.
I don't want to get accused of anti semitism again but as I pointed out previously the idea of Labour doing it to win votes was always a bit stupid....
Which makes their unwillingness or inability to shut this story down even stupider since its not intentional.
But maybe it isn't so stupid - there's been very little direct impact, so the party doesn't need to care; it's not like most complaining are going anywhere.
I have not read the IHRA definition of anti-semitism. Indeed, I have not read the Labour party version either.
In what way, are the two significantly different ?
One post I read said the IHRA definition should be implemented because it was accepted by the Board of Deputies for Jewish people.
Should condition.
Isn't it the case that today , just like the Church of England of old, that the BoD is the Tory party in prayer in a Synagogue ?
I take it the I in IHRA stands for International. Who agreed the statement of behalf of the International community ? How was that body made up ?
Finally,settlements.
One or two will have a sentence buried in an avalanche of attack on Corbyn. The others won't even bother.
Huge injustices including the murder of 6m Jews took place in Europe barely 75 years ago. But I am not sure why Palestinians should pay for that.
In reality, the summary is, that Israel cannot be criticised even in the month when it flagrantly created a law which said only Jews have the right of self-determination in Israel. So much for equality ?
One can savagely criticise Israel (many Jews do) without having to argue that Hitler had a point, that Jews drink blood, or that the holocaust is an invention of the zionists (all of which points have been made by Labour councillors, including my own).
I also really don't see why you can't be hyper-critical of Israeli policy, without having to resort to the term 'Nazi'. It is either an indication of a lack of command of the english language or the user really does have an agenda about trying to equate the two.
The Nazis killed millions of Jews systematically in order to wipe them from the face of the earth. There are no Jews in the UK - or anywhere in Europe, for that matter - who will not have relatives killed by the Nazis. All my Jewish friends do. For all its faults, and my God there are plenty, Israel is not seeking to do what the Nazis did. In fact, even under Netanyahu - a despicable individual leading a despicable government - Israel does not even come close to emulating the Nazis. Anyone who equates the two is clearly being anti-Semitic.
Jezziah. Labour policy is for a Two State Solution. Which by its definition means the Labour Party supports a secure and peaceful Israeli state as much as it does a secure and peaceful Palestinian state.
Do you agree? from your last rant I do hope you don't drop into the "Israel shouldn't exist" group of members...
It's not the Labour Party any more though. It's being run by and for people who've spent their lives flitting between the semi-permeable membrane between Labour and the conspiracist revolutionary far left - who unlike Labour, who as you rightly say have historic links to the Jewish community, have their own tradition of tolerating and often promoting anti-Semitism.
That order.
Corbyn its goals.
Corbyn and his ilk have always existed in the strange area on the far left of Labour, where they sit within the party but make common cause with those who think it's been mistaken from the start and should become a radical, revolutionary one - but are now in charge and moving to achieve that. It's no surprise that they've brought their conspiratorial anti-Semitism with them, and Corbyn is now trying to institutionalise it by codifying the excuses because doing otherwise would mean admitting there's a darkness at the heart of his project.
Presumably the very Jewish at the top end Momentum is a key part in spreading this conspiratorial anti-Semitism. Given that it is, aside from Corbyn, pretty much the driving force behind the current leadership of the Labour party and a huge part of the reason it is still in place.
Presumably when they are not coming up with policy or trying to rally votes for Labour or Corbyn specifically they sit around and come up with conspiracies to spread about themselves.... because.... well to be honest at this point I get a bit stuck.... I guess we just have to abandon logic this point and say that once you get to a certain distance left on the left right scale it is okay to pretend they are no longer Jewish and now we can just call them anti-Semites.
Luckily these crazy Jewish people who spread conspiracies about themselves have people like MJW to call them out on their racism...
Thus, the existence of this man proves that Donald Trump does not have a racist bone in his body:
I have not read the IHRA definition of anti-semitism. Indeed, I have not read the Labour party version either.
In what way, are the two significantly different ?
One post I read said the IHRA definition should be implemented because it was accepted by the Board of Deputies for Jewish people.
Should condition.
Isn't it the case that today , just like the Church of England of old, that the BoD is the Tory party in prayer in a Synagogue ?
I take it the I in IHRA stands for International. Who agreed the statement of behalf of the International community ? How was that body made up ?
Finally,settlements.
One or two will have a sentence buried in an avalanche of attack on Corbyn. The others won't even bother.
Huge injustices including the murder of 6m Jews took place in Europe barely 75 years ago. But I am not sure why Palestinians should pay for that.
In reality, the summary is, that Israel cannot be criticised even in the month when it flagrantly created a law which said only Jews have the right of self-determination in Israel. So much for equality ?
One can savagely criticise Israel (many Jews do) without having to argue that Hitler had a point, that Jews drink blood, or that the holocaust is an invention of the zionists (all of which points have been made by Labour councillors, including my own).
I also really don't see why you can't be hyper-critical of Israeli policy, without having to resort to the term 'Nazi'. It is either an indication of a lack of command of the english language or the user really does have an agenda about trying to equate the two.
The Nazis killed millions of Jews systematically in order to wipe them from the face of the earth. There are no Jews in the UK - or anywhere in Europe, for that matter - who will not have relatives killed by the Nazis. All my Jewish friends do. For all its faults, and my God there are plenty, Israel is not seeking to do what the Nazis did. In fact, even under Netanyahu - a despicable individual leading a despicable government - Israel does not even come close to emulating the Nazis. Anyone who equates the two is clearly being anti-Semitic.
The UK is rapidly becoming a country with no one capable of governing. On the right we have the Conservatives, the traditional party of government, tearing itself to pieces over Europe. On the left we have the Labour party seemingly at the point of splitting, in part, and unbelievably, over an argument about whether it is anti-semitic to call jews nazis or not.
Add in to the mix, the decline of Liberals, and the imminent arrival on the scene of the English Patriots Party of Banks, Robinson and Farage and you have a recipe for years of chaos.
Is there any way out of this mess?
Eventually, one emerges. The UK seemed ungovernable between the late Sixties and the Miners's Strike. Then things settled down for 25 years or so.
I have not read the IHRA definition of anti-semitism. Indeed, I have not read the Labour party version either.
In what way, are the two significantly different ?
One post I read said the IHRA definition should be implemented because it was accepted by the Board of Deputies for Jewish people.
Should condition.
Isn't it the case that today , just like the Church of England of old, that the BoD is the Tory party in prayer in a Synagogue ?
I take it the I in IHRA stands for International. Who agreed the statement of behalf of the International community ? How was that body made up ?
Finally,settlements.
One or two will have a sentence buried in an avalanche of attack on Corbyn. The others won't even bother.
Huge injustices including the murder of 6m Jews took place in Europe barely 75 years ago. But I am not sure why Palestinians should pay for that.
In reality, the summary is, that Israel cannot be criticised even in the month when it flagrantly created a law which said only Jews have the right of self-determination in Israel. So much for equality ?
One can savagely criticise Israel (many Jews do) without having to argue that Hitler had a point, that Jews drink blood, or that the holocaust is an invention of the zionists (all of which points have been made by Labour councillors, including my own).
I also really don't see why you can't be hyper-critical of Israeli policy, without having to resort to the term 'Nazi'. It is either an indication of a lack of command of the english language or the user really does have an agenda about trying to equate the two.
The Nazis killed millions of Jews systematically in order to wipe them from the face of the earth. There are no Jews in the UK - or anywhere in Europe, for that matter - who will not have relatives killed by the Nazis. All my Jewish friends do. For all its faults, and my God there are plenty, Israel is not seeking to do what the Nazis did. In fact, even under Netanyahu - a despicable individual leading a despicable government - Israel does not even come close to emulating the Nazis. Anyone who equates the two is clearly being anti-Semitic.
One could argue that the Arab population of Palestine has in fact *increased* since 1948.
The UK is rapidly becoming a country with no one capable of governing. On the right we have the Conservatives, the traditional party of government, tearing itself to pieces over Europe. On the left we have the Labour party seemingly at the point of splitting, in part, and unbelievably, over an argument about whether it is anti-semitic to call jews nazis or not.
Add in to the mix, the decline of Liberals, and the imminent arrival on the scene of the English Patriots Party of Banks, Robinson and Farage and you have a recipe for years of chaos.
Is there any way out of this mess?
Eventually, one emerges. The UK seemed ungovernable between the late Sixties and the Miners's Strike. Then things settled down for 25 years or so.
Wasn’t anywhere near as bad as this.
Rubbish
Literally.
Rubbish piling up in the streets, power outages, huge swings in oil prices, massive inflation and high interest rates. This characterised the 70s.
We have a disagreement that hasn’t yet led to anything other than an economy which continues to grow.
Do you agree or disagree with Mahmoud Abbas that it was a mistake for the Arabs to reject the 1947 Partition Plan?
Did I answer this post?
Genuine question, I remember typing out an answer at one point and later looking for it and not finding it so apologies if I didn't as you asked yesterday.
Purely in terms of land you would have to say undoubtedly yes, with a simple calculation of what they have now versus what they were offered in the plan.
I would be reluctant to criticise though as I imagine if say a good part of Britain was given away to a foreign people then I imagine British people and probably myself would fight back against that even if that possibly meant we could lose more land by doing so.
I think the subtext of what Sunil is saying is that the Palestinians are responsible for their treatment by the Israelis so don't criticise Israel. That's why he added it to a comment about criticism of Israel.
To give an example it is sort of like a mugger beating you up and taking your wallet and your phone, or instead you freely give him you wallet.
If you know the end result you would give him your wallet but if someone comes up to you trying to rob you then you will defend yourself. You could argue that given my example you are to blame for getting beaten up and losing the phone, which you are in a roundabout way.
Or to take it back to the actual thing I don't think any people would have done any differently in the Palestinians situation, it is hard to blame them for not taking a deal others wouldn't have and for defending themselves when others would have.
Do you agree or disagree with Mahmoud Abbas that it was a mistake for the Arabs to reject the 1947 Partition Plan?
Did I answer this post?
Genuine question, I remember typing out an answer at one point and later looking for it and not finding it so apologies if I didn't as you asked yesterday.
Purely in terms of land you would have to say undoubtedly yes, with a simple calculation of what they have now versus what they were offered in the plan.
I would be reluctant to criticise though as I imagine if say a good part of Britain was given away to a foreign people then I imagine British people and probably myself would fight back against that even if that possibly meant we could lose more land by doing so.
I think the subtext of what Sunil is saying is that the Palestinians are responsible for their treatment by the Israelis so don't criticise Israel. That's why he added it to a comment about criticism of Israel.
To give an example it is sort of like a mugger beating you up and taking your wallet and your phone, or instead you freely give him you wallet.
If you know the end result you would give him your wallet but if someone comes up to you trying to rob you then you will defend yourself. You could argue that given my example you are to blame for getting beaten up and losing the phone, which you are in a roundabout way.
Or to take it back to the actual thing I don't think any people would have done any differently in the Palestinians situation, it is hard to blame them for not taking a deal others wouldn't have and for defending themselves when others would have.
Funnily enough, the far left only seems to be interested in how Palestinians are treated by the Israelis. There seems to be far less concern for them when they are in other countries. Why is that, do you think?
I’ll believe Labour moderates will break away when I see it. There’s always talk these days of a new centrist party or of Labour moderates splitting away. Dan Hodges has said several times on his twitter feed that he ‘thinks’ this will happen (which doesn’t exactly inspire confidence it will happen). He’s also implied that it’s some way off telling his readers to look out for September and when we Brexit in March as key dates. I don’t know why they’re waiting. Might as well walk now....
As for the centre left vote, Corbynistas presumably either don’t care about it or believe that it won’t move away from them. We did hear prior to the 2017 GE how Corbynism would lead to centre left voters abandoning Labour, with the assumption being they’d go to the LDs. And well, that didn’t exactly happen. The big problem for these prospective break away parties is that other that Stop Brexit and Stop Corbyn they don’t seem to have many ideas. In other words, it’s like a duplicate version of the LDs atm.
Before opining on the matter perhaps you might learn a few historical facts, such as the fact that the international community voted to give the Palestinians a state at the same time as it did so for Jews, the fact that Jews had been living in that area for years and years and had bought land which had bern freely sold to them by Arabs living there, that the Palestinian leadership in the 1930’s consciously allied itself with the Nazis (Google Amin al-Husseini), that the Palestinians stupidly refused the offer of a state instead and chose war and lost.
There is no-one on here who does not want the Palestinians to have a homeland and a state. But I (and I hope others) of us do not want the price of that to be the extinction of Israel and the slaughter of Jews (something wanted by Hamas, for instance) or the expulsion of Jews (something done by every Arab state in the 1930’s and 1940’s, without compensation or restitution and without any intention of allowing Jews to return, something conveniently forgooten by those who claim Palestinians are the only victims). Incidentally, Jews lived in Iraq for far longer than any of those other groups over which the Left cries crocodile tears and yet the total destruction of that community is something which excites no pity or interest. Such double standards from those claiming to be concerned about peoples’ loss of homes.
What I read was a long rant about the groups you were interested in and some crocodile tears about the Palestinians.
The UN 'having a vote' does not suddenly make it morally right to take Palestinians land. Many dark things have been done by a vote or by people voted in. A vote in itself does not give it morality.
Much of the Palestinian land was bought from absent landlords, you can imagine the problems it could cause it modern day Britain imagine the scenario in a much more rural agricultural Palestine were very few people owned the land they worked or the house they lived in.
Not that you give a damn, they deserved to lose their land in your eyes which is why you fail every time to come up with a good reason.
To say the whole Palestine/Israel business is a mess is to gravely understate the situation. Decisions have been made and acted upon for reasons which had no connection with the interests of the people of the region. The principle that 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend’ has been used to ‘justify’ all sorts of things. Is there a way forward which satisfies everyone, even in part; TBH I don’t think there is!
The UK is rapidly becoming a country with no one capable of governing. On the right we have the Conservatives, the traditional party of government, tearing itself to pieces over Europe. On the left we have the Labour party seemingly at the point of splitting, in part, and unbelievably, over an argument about whether it is anti-semitic to call jews nazis or not.
Add in to the mix, the decline of Liberals, and the imminent arrival on the scene of the English Patriots Party of Banks, Robinson and Farage and you have a recipe for years of chaos.
Is there any way out of this mess?
Eventually, one emerges. The UK seemed ungovernable between the late Sixties and the Miners's Strike. Then things settled down for 25 years or so.
The Nazis killed millions of Jews systematically in order to wipe them from the face of the earth. There are no Jews in the UK - or anywhere in Europe, for that matter - who will not have relatives killed by the Nazis. All my Jewish friends do. For all its faults, and my God there are plenty, Israel is not seeking to do what the Nazis did. In fact, even under Netanyahu - a despicable individual leading a despicable government - Israel does not even come close to emulating the Nazis. Anyone who equates the two is clearly being anti-Semitic.
"Equating" sounds like it means "saying they are as bad as the Nazis", which is obviously ridiculous and may indeed suggest the speaker is an anti-semite, rather than just a fuckwit.
But the text that @bprh47bridge posted up-thread says
drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.
In the US discussion of Trump's immigration policies people often draw comparisons to the Nazis. The Nazis used a lot of techniques in pursuit of their authoritarian and racist goals and sometimes authoritarian and/or racist governments use the same techniques. When they do, I think it's right to say so.
Obviously this comparison can be over-used and is often made stupidly, but policing that should be the job of normal social sanctions (Godwin's Law etc) not party rules that call you a racist and get you thrown out.
That said, the political ground is absolutely fertile for a new party. Rubbish Conservative Government, horrendous Labour Opposition, Lib Dems still practically invisible. If ever there were a time for a new party, it's now.
One thing I will say is that Corbynistas (at least on twitter, anyway) do seem to try to argue that moderate MPs always defend Israel. It’s not true though - those such as Streeting (from what I’ve seen on his twitter feed) have been pretty critical of Netanyahu‘s government.
One thing I will say is that Corbynistas (at least on twitter, anyway) do seem to try to argue that moderate MPs always defend Israel. It’s not true though - those such as Streeting (from what I’ve seen on his twitter feed) have been pretty critical of Netanyahu‘s government.
They attacked David Baddiel over his appearance on Frankie Boyle. They then accused him of writing that Tracey Ullman sketch. They then accused him of being an Israeli stooge. His replies with some very sweary denunciation of Israel only proved his complicity in the conspiracy (false flag...)
The thread doesnt seem to mention right-wing Labour MP Ian Austin launched into a verbal tirade against fellow MP – and party Chair Ian Lavery – in the division lobby of the House of Commons just before the parliamentary recess.
So loud and aggressive was the prolonged outburst that MPs heard it before they saw it, with Austin calling Lavery a ‘w*nker’ and a ‘f*cking b*stard’:
It appears right wing Labour types require anger management lessons
Comments
There are many countries in the region who have, as you put it: " a government with a long track record of seeking to divide and rule its opponents"
It's the assumption that it must be Israel, and not internal or a.n.other country, that makes it an utterly cr@p claim. And that assumption with no evidence is anti-Semitic IMO.
It's probably a bit late now.
Brexit has also bred a deep smugness in progressive circles. And what progressives do not seem to realise is that this attitude has the capacity to totally destroy the alliance that we used to call the Left. Or maybe, depressingly, it is already too late.
We must have mandatory reselection so that we can deselect our MPs (even though we already can), we must relect all Labour party employees because the last lot conspired against Jeremy (officially not true says Jennie Formby), we must be able to elect council leaders because our councillors are Blairite.
So of course Jezziah wants rid of Labour MPs. They - like me - are the true enemy.
And smugness is far from a liberal monopoly....
The fact I ended up voting for Eddie Izzard goes to show what a state we are in.
I am sure as far as you are concerned Kate Hoey has the right to be MP until she decided to hang up her boots. I also believe she can stand as a candidate in every election - but not as the Labour candidate. It is not a freehold.
I mean really if you believe Corbyn and the left are all these horrible things and constantly just agitate against the party then wouldn't both sides be better off in different parties?
John Woodcock was an obvious one as well.
More than happy to keep MPs such as Liz Kendall, Stella Creasy the overwhelming majority really. Those that are going to spread Guido Fawkes propaganda against Labour supporters could probably oppose the same people more effectively from a different party.
Having them is a drag on the Labour parties ability to attract and keep voters, the loss of votes directly to them will be countered by not having John Woodcock current Labour MP (as an example) there to give a quote or a news story to help discredit Labour.
WE did have a very good leader in Ed Miliband. But the right wing press saw to that.
The simplest answer is often the correct one. I doubt 'it's all Israel's fault' is the simplest answer.
As you may find the general election of 1983 instructive.
Of course, both those warnings apply to the Conservatives as well...
Have a good morning.
And after those 15, there will be others, until Labour becomes an insular, one-minded group of utter asshats. "If you don't agree with us, p*ss off" is not inclusive.
To be honest you seem to have as propaganda driven a view as the one you imagine me to have. I'm happy to see a small number of the MPs who've gone out their way to cause trouble like Woodcock go. We currently have a procedure for changing MP they wanted one with a lower threshold, if the change didn't actually change anything I imagine there would be much less complaining about it.
Also, there's the possibility of rain, given how unpredictable things have been.
Why is his first thought to blame Israel, if there are many other options?
Significant differences are around examples of antisemitism in the IHRA definition that are omitted in Labour's. These are:
- Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations. (Labour's text says this is wrong but, unlike the IHRA version, does not quote it as an example of antisemitism)
- Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavour.
- Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis. (Labour's text directly contradicts this example, saying it is not antisemitism unless there is evidence of anti-Semitic intent)
Note that the IHRA's definition does not preclude criticism of Israel. It is fine, for example, to say that Israel has racist policies or has acted in a racist manner. But it is not fine to say that it's very existence is a racist endeavour.
A further concern is that Labour's text says that something is not antisemitism unless there is evidence of anti-Semitic intent. This is not only against the Macpherson principle, it is contrary to the law on discrimination. You only have to show that you have been discriminated against on the basis of a protected characteristic, not that there was intent.
And just to repeat, the IHRA is clear that criticism of Israel is allowed provided the criticism is not anti-Semitic. Their definition is not intended to prevent criticism of Israel.
That is a good point, it will also mean we won't have multiple deselection stories going on during the election campaign. It takes two to tango. Whilst many on PB being to the right of the current Labour party will see the side of the person leaving whose on the right of the party that isn't going to be true for many in Labour. I can't see the next manifesto being radically different from the last one, which is something that a large number of the Labour MPs are happy to get behind.
I am doubtful it'll come to pass but if it does it will be the relatively small group because the others, for a mix of reasons such as attachment to the party, no more ideological closeness to the leavers than the leadership and lots of other reasons will stick with the party.
If you don't agree with us we will complain and try and burn the house down until we leave is not very inclusive either. If they could attract serious numbers they would have made a move already. The problem is the number of them unhappy to leave is too small leaving them as a slightly bigger Lib Dems rather than part of any serious force.
They could join up with the Lib Dems and be approaching SNP size, this isn't a very enticing prospect for most Labour MPs.
So if the State of Israel denies the right of self-determination to non-Jews in Israel as per their latest legislation, then that is OK ?
!And just to repeat, the IHRA is clear that criticism of Israel is allowed provided the criticism is not anti-Semitic."
And who decides if the criticism is anti-semetic or not ?
I did not realise that the IHRA had members from only 31 countries.
And it might be less egregious if it was just some esoteric drafting exercise. If it didn't have an active problem. But there are regular examples of just why there IS a real life, actual problem with anti-Semitic attitudes expressed by Labour Party members.
It is easy to see why elected Labour MPs want to distance themselves from a party that has chosen to go in this direction. But frankly, if they haven't the balls to walk away from it, they should leave politics.
Still, you have to feel for the poor sods at this weekend's Camp Bestival near Lulworth - talk about bad luck!
It goes right back to Marx and his essay 'On the Jewish Question' - which sets up the idea that Jewish identity is antagonistic to an emancipated socialist state because it promotes loyalty to a community rather than the grand project - an early example of the 'dual loyalties' trope that has caused so much consternation at the moment because it's the most egregious omission from Labour's new code compared to the IHRA examples. That runs right through Soviet communism (where Jews were often the first to be accused of plots), before getting a turbocharge in the 70s and 80s when the new hard left took up the Palestinian cause as the defining example of western and capitalist imperialism - and which neatly fitted with the older ideas of Jews as counter-revolutionaries with an interest in thwarting moves to overthrow the corrupt world order.
Corbyn isn't a restoration of any broader Labour tradition but a hostile imposition of that culture on to a Labour Party that admirably distanced itself from hard core Marxism almost upon its foundation - a distinction that is arguably the main reason it was able to be successful and become the template for parties of the left - because it committed to working within and improving the political system rather than overthrowing it in pursuit of its goals.
Corbyn and his ilk have always existed in the strange area on the far left of Labour, where they sit within the party but make common cause with those who think it's been mistaken from the start and should become a radical, revolutionary one - but are now in charge and moving to achieve that. It's no surprise that they've brought their conspiratorial anti-Semitism with them, and Corbyn is now trying to institutionalise it by codifying the excuses because doing otherwise would mean admitting there's a darkness at the heart of his project.
"Aw, bugger......."
You are being interviewed in a TV studio. You are told of a terrorist attack within Egypt, and retaliatory strikes by the Egyptian government.
What do you say?
I'd suggest not what Corbyn said.
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2017/feb/27/university-wrong-to-ban-israeli-apartheid-week-event
The stuff in the official candidate statements is pretty boilerplate and only really interesting to see who is allied with who.
If someone with a deeper knowledge of the Labour party were to do a thread header, I'd certainly be interested!
@OldKingCole
Obviously you cannot say anything for certain but I do feel the breakaway lot would do really well to even do what the SDP did.
Presumably when they are not coming up with policy or trying to rally votes for Labour or Corbyn specifically they sit around and come up with conspiracies to spread about themselves.... because.... well to be honest at this point I get a bit stuck.... I guess we just have to abandon logic this point and say that once you get to a certain distance left on the left right scale it is okay to pretend they are no longer Jewish and now we can just call them anti-Semites.
Luckily these crazy Jewish people who spread conspiracies about themselves have people like MJW to call them out on their racism...
That is a good point, it will also mean we won't have multiple deselection stories going on during the election campaign.
You seem to share your leader’s lack of appreciation for irony.
Network Rail simply can't cope, and there's simply not enough skilled people in the UK supply chain to deliver all these projects.
Genuine question, I remember typing out an answer at one point and later looking for it and not finding it so apologies if I didn't as you asked yesterday.
Purely in terms of land you would have to say undoubtedly yes, with a simple calculation of what they have now versus what they were offered in the plan.
I would be reluctant to criticise though as I imagine if say a good part of Britain was given away to a foreign people then I imagine British people and probably myself would fight back against that even if that possibly meant we could lose more land by doing so.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8fc_A47_4is
If it goes on for a week or more, then I might agree with you.
My neighbouring CLP removed their MP under the current rules. Except that the entryist wazzocks trying to destroy the party keep insisting that it can't be done. Because under their 2015 = Year Zero approach it hasn't already been done as it was BC (Before Corbyn (blessed be His name)). I had a similar argument with a local senior activist who when I responded to Corbyn's British Jobs for British Workers policy by quoting Brown he insisted Brown was a slogan and Corbyn was a principled policy. When I pointed to the policy in the 2010 manifesto and that Corbyn's speech was not policy as not adopted by Conference, he once again accused me of undermining Him.
Its a cult. As Blairism was. Only this time they are more than happy to argue that the sky is green and call you a Tory for pointing out that its Blue.
The idea of racial groups having a "right to self-determination" is obviously wrong. We don't generally say the Kurds have a right to self-determination, or the Yazidis, or the Inuit. Creating countries with the goal of them being dominated one race is a terrible idea, the more so when it's going to be done in places that already have people of other races living in them.
Even if you disagree with me on this, I think it's obviously idiotic to suggest that I must be opposing single-racially-dominated countries because *I'm* a racist, and that I should therefore be drummed out of respectable political parties.
It may be that this definition was just created by people who hadn't thought it through, but does look to me like an attempt to constrain criticism of Israel by requiring adherence to premises that fair-minded people wouldn't necessarily accept.
Until I saw the detail of this I'd just assumed this was another case of the Corbyn people being Trottery-addled morons, but reading it I don't really see how it could be brought into the party rules.
The UK is rapidly becoming a country with no one capable of governing. On the right we have the Conservatives, the traditional party of government, tearing itself to pieces over Europe. On the left we have the Labour party seemingly at the point of splitting, in part, and unbelievably, over an argument about whether it is anti-semitic to call jews nazis or not.
Add in to the mix, the decline of Liberals, and the imminent arrival on the scene of the English Patriots Party of Banks, Robinson and Farage and you have a recipe for years of chaos.
Is there any way out of this mess?
I have no idea what the solution is, but MPs poncing off to join the LibDems isn't it. Party politics doesn't matter for the next 12 months - all that matters is avoiding Crash Brexit. And on that front I am happy to work with anyone regardless of party. Still, in a leave voting town running for council 5 weeks after Brexit it could be fun in the Spring. We've either gone off the cliff in which case most voters will be traumatised by the chaos and we're good, or there has been fudge and they are angry that the promised manna has not descended from heaven.
That they’re not reveals deep unease about a Corbyn government. Interestingly, I think you could probably swap Corbyn for a generic left winger and they’d probably leap to a good or modest lead.
As for the getting called Tories both sides have been labelled by the other and had the labels used as insults, from Blairite to trot to far left to red tory etc.
The ones who think their side is innocent and only the other side did wrong are lying to themselves.
It might go a long way to neutralising a lot of those leftist tropes that have their roots in anti-imperialism. It would also diffuse the destructive expressions of English nationalism that Banks et al are trying to exploit.
It would allow a more normal political debate in Scotland between the SNP, Labour and the Conservatives about how to govern the country, rather than seeing everything through the prism of independence.
The UK is past its sell-by date. It's time to put it out of its misery.
If only Brexit were so easily resolved.
You also need a more appropriate voting system for internal elections.
At the same time decent and principled chap though Jeremy is the crazy people around him are certifiable. I wasn't talking about you specifically but unless "Jezziah" is ironic you do display Kali Mar tendencies. Momentum is a phage upon this party - as Progress was before it - and I would like the rule book to be imposed to proscribe both of these external non-affiliated private lobby groups.
You are right that differences of opinion can quickly escalate - thats just politics. My issue is that we now have differences of fact. Its apparently perfectly sane to argue that we won elections that we lost, to argue over basics of mathematics, to argue as my friend (and he IS a friend) did that non-imposition of a candidate proves imposition of a candidate etc.
Before opining on the matter perhaps you might learn a few historical facts, such as the fact that the international community voted to give the Palestinians a state at the same time as it did so for Jews, the fact that Jews had been living in that area for years and years and had bought land which had bern freely sold to them by Arabs living there, that the Palestinian leadership in the 1930’s consciously allied itself with the Nazis (Google Amin al-Husseini), that the Palestinians stupidly refused the offer of a state instead and chose war and lost.
There is no-one on here who does not want the Palestinians to have a homeland and a state. But I (and I hope others) of us do not want the price of that to be the extinction of Israel and the slaughter of Jews (something wanted by Hamas, for instance) or the expulsion of Jews (something done by every Arab state in the 1930’s and 1940’s, without compensation or restitution and without any intention of allowing Jews to return, something conveniently forgooten by those who claim Palestinians are the only victims). Incidentally, Jews lived in Iraq for far longer than any of those other groups over which the Left cries crocodile tears and yet the total destruction of that community is something which excites no pity or interest. Such double standards from those claiming to be concerned about peoples’ loss of homes.
Now it is the political structure which is the source of the problem. Politicians have locked the UK in a burning house and thrown away the key. And many of them are actively stoking the fire. This was not the case in the 1970s.
There will always be people who judge their commitment to a cause to outweigh other considerations, or who see a problem as surmountable. They're perfectly entitled to do so and approach it in their own way, while others totally disagree with them. Your line of argument would mean that the Tory Party can't possibly have racist strands of thinking because they have black or Muslim supporters - despite leading figures meeting Steve Bannon. The majority of people within their communities will disagree, like the vast majority Jews disagree with Lansman - neither's personal experience or decisions invalidate the other's, but with racism we tend not to ignore lots of members of a group's experience because some of their number feel that's not their experience or that they're able to brush it off as unimportant in the greater scheme of things.
And if you'd read the Marx essay, you'd realise that at the heart of left-wing anti-Semitism has always been the idea of ideological repentance - that you're ok as long as you're a faithful servant to the socialist or communist project, or later anti-imperialism - but that it's when you dissent that your Jewishness becomes grounds for heightened suspicion and, in Labour's current state, abuse.
The UN 'having a vote' does not suddenly make it morally right to take Palestinians land. Many dark things have been done by a vote or by people voted in. A vote in itself does not give it morality.
Much of the Palestinian land was bought from absent landlords, you can imagine the problems it could cause it modern day Britain imagine the scenario in a much more rural agricultural Palestine were very few people owned the land they worked or the house they lived in.
Not that you give a damn, they deserved to lose their land in your eyes which is why you fail every time to come up with a good reason.
But maybe it isn't so stupid - there's been very little direct impact, so the party doesn't need to care; it's not like most complaining are going anywhere.
Do you agree? from your last rant I do hope you don't drop into the "Israel shouldn't exist" group of members...
http://uk.businessinsider.com/sheriff-david-clarke-trump-america-first-2017-9
Literally.
Rubbish piling up in the streets, power outages, huge swings in oil prices, massive inflation and high interest rates. This characterised the 70s.
We have a disagreement that hasn’t yet led to anything other than an economy which continues to grow.
If you know the end result you would give him your wallet but if someone comes up to you trying to rob you then you will defend yourself. You could argue that given my example you are to blame for getting beaten up and losing the phone, which you are in a roundabout way.
Or to take it back to the actual thing I don't think any people would have done any differently in the Palestinians situation, it is hard to blame them for not taking a deal others wouldn't have and for defending themselves when others would have.
As for the centre left vote, Corbynistas presumably either don’t care about it or believe that it won’t move away from them. We did hear prior to the 2017 GE how Corbynism would lead to centre left voters abandoning Labour, with the assumption being they’d go to the LDs. And well, that didn’t exactly happen. The big problem for these prospective break away parties is that other that Stop Brexit and Stop Corbyn they don’t seem to have many ideas. In other words, it’s like a duplicate version of the LDs atm.
Is there a way forward which satisfies everyone, even in part; TBH I don’t think there is!
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-40795660
But the text that @bprh47bridge posted up-thread says In the US discussion of Trump's immigration policies people often draw comparisons to the Nazis. The Nazis used a lot of techniques in pursuit of their authoritarian and racist goals and sometimes authoritarian and/or racist governments use the same techniques. When they do, I think it's right to say so.
Obviously this comparison can be over-used and is often made stupidly, but policing that should be the job of normal social sanctions (Godwin's Law etc) not party rules that call you a racist and get you thrown out.
That said, the political ground is absolutely fertile for a new party. Rubbish Conservative Government, horrendous Labour Opposition, Lib Dems still practically invisible. If ever there were a time for a new party, it's now.
All on Twitter.
The thread doesnt seem to mention right-wing Labour MP Ian Austin launched into a verbal tirade against fellow MP – and party Chair Ian Lavery – in the division lobby of the House of Commons just before the parliamentary recess.
So loud and aggressive was the prolonged outburst that MPs heard it before they saw it, with Austin calling Lavery a ‘w*nker’ and a ‘f*cking b*stard’:
It appears right wing Labour types require anger management lessons