Great article thanks but I have to agree with others. As the (A-level) physicists will confirm, inertia can mean nothing changes for quite some time and then when it does change why wouldn't it be for an equally bonkers or, for the country's well being, dangerous leader?
The leadership might be old but the membership is young and still looking for a fight to take to The Man.
Newton’s First Law is taught at GCSE, so not even A-level.
BTW what do people think of the absolutely excellent suggestion this morning that Physics teachers (along with one or two other subjects) should be paid more?
I have never quite understood why History teachers, of whom there are five for every four places, should be rated the same in salary terms as physics or maths teachers, where every one teacher can have their pick of five places. We have some freedoms over our pay structure and I believe that after some nifty footwork by the SLT I am paid less than our sole specialist physics teacher. Since he is worth his weight in gold, I have taken care not to know or create a fuss about this.
We already have different structures for bursaries, golden hellos etc for these people - why not extend it to salary?
I suppose the only possible issue is that if we compared it with the salaries physics graduates could earn in industry, banking or academia, schools would struggle to fund them.
Hmm ..... at the risk of being controversial, given the lamentable knowledge of history shown by many in public life, we should be paying history teachers more.
Are you saying that Labour should stop trying to resolve the allegations of anti-semitism made against some of its members, that it should stop trying to resolve the concerns the Jewish community has, that it should now simply ignore this issue?
Yes. His critics have gone beyond the point that any reasonable compromise is possible. We should say what we genuinely think - which IMO is strong opposition to anti-semitism and openness to any opinion about the Middle East not involving terror and war - and move on. People will make up their own minds on what's reasonable and what's not. His critics can post all the videos of speeches in 2002 or whenever that they want, but it's a mistake to engage every time.
And, following my own advice, that's all I'm posting on the subject for now.
"I'm actually a Zionist myself (which traditionally is defined as believing that Israel should exist and be protected,"
On that basis, I'm Spartacus too, although, I wouldn't have supported the establishment of Israel in 1948. But what's done is done.
Incidentally, I asked a Corbynite friend if I was an antisemite because when I worked in the pharmaceutical industry, we had to elect trustees of the pension fund. We had a choice between two people. All we had to go on was a brief resume of their careers, but one was Jewish and one wasn't.
We elected the Jewish man by a landslide because we assumed he would be good, and careful with our money. My friend thought about this and decided we were all racist. However Jezza definitely wasn't, but he would say that, wouldn't he?
"Politically I feel like the Labour party has shifted, there are things that are just accepted within Labour now that were not before"
Yes. Like anti-Semitism.
I can't imagine our position on Israel-Palestine will change much, although it hasn't really changed much since Ed anyway. The papers may not need to cover for Islamophobia at that point to the same extent.
I also note you deliberately confuse 'anti-Semtiism' with 'Israel-Palestine'. That doesn't exactly help your case.
His support for the East End mural showing hook-nosed Jewish bankers oppressing black people had nothing to do with the Israel-Palestine issue.
Unless you are well-versed in antisemitic tropes, you might not recognise the mural as one, or at least I didn't. Nor apparently did Corbyn's enemies who took until this year to complain about a mural removed in 2012.
Come off it. Anyone who watched the first 15 minutes of the World at War episode on the Holocaust would have recognised the image as anti-semitic, anyone who even had a passing acquaintance with 20th century history would recognise this, let alone someone who claims that he has fought against racism all his life and who uses his mother fighting against Mosley at Cable Street as part of his defence.
The problem was it wasn't obvious that some of the people around the table were supposed to be Jewish.
If they had some obvious identifying Jewish mark, so this wasn't just some generalised Europeans or the west oppressing the rest of the world artwork but specifically Jews oppressing the rest of the world it would have been more obvious.
But without knowing what the people he drew looked like I couldn't actually tell after the 'artist' said two were Jewish which ones were Jewish and which ones were the white people. They all just looked like old white men to me....
Great article thanks but I have to agree with others. As the (A-level) physicists will confirm, inertia can mean nothing changes for quite some time and then when it does change why wouldn't it be for an equally bonkers or, for the country's well being, dangerous leader?
The leadership might be old but the membership is young and still looking for a fight to take to The Man.
Newton’s First Law is taught at GCSE, so not even A-level.
BTW what do people think of the absolutely excellent suggestion this morning that Physics teachers (along with one or two other subjects) should be paid more?
I have never quite understood why History teachers, of whom there are five for every four places, should be rated the same in salary terms as physics or maths teachers, where every one teacher can have their pick of five places. We have some freedoms over our pay structure and I believe that after some nifty footwork by the SLT I am paid less than our sole specialist physics teacher. Since he is worth his weight in gold, I have taken care not to know or create a fuss about this.
We already have different structures for bursaries, golden hellos etc for these people - why not extend it to salary?
I suppose the only possible issue is that if we compared it with the salaries physics graduates could earn in industry, banking or academia, schools would struggle to fund them.
Hmm ..... at the risk of being controversial, given the lamentable knowledge of history shown by many in public life, we should be paying history teachers more.
Perhaps pupils should be taught something other than NATO, Nukes and Nazis?
Mr. HYUFD, just another excuse. If a Boris or Mogg-type became Con leader and the polls shifted to Labour, said 'moderates' would then say they couldn't risk leaving Labour and splitting their vote because it might let the Evil Tories win. If a Boris or Mogg-type became Con leader and the polls moved to the blues, said 'moderates' would claim they should stay and that after inevitable defeat Corbyn et al. would resign.
The end point, staying with Labour, is known. The rationalisation is all that changes.
Some will but the prospect of deselections would focus the minds of other Labour MPs plus if Boris or Mogg led the Tories Tory MPs like Soubry, Grieve, Wollaston etc may be willing to defect to a new centrist party too
IIRC Wollaston only joined the Tories after she was selected as a candidate in an open primary.
I think that is wrong; it was a formal Conservative Party primary, so would only have been open to party members to stand. She campaigned in that primary on a non-party basis though.
Great article thanks but I have to agree with others. As the (A-level) physicists will confirm, inertia can mean nothing changes for quite some time and then when it does change why wouldn't it be for an equally bonkers or, for the country's well being, dangerous leader?
The leadership might be old but the membership is young and still looking for a fight to take to The Man.
Newton’s First Law is taught at GCSE, so not even A-level.
BTW what do people think of the absolutely excellent suggestion this morning that Physics teachers (along with one or two other subjects) should be paid more?
I have never quite understood why History teachers, of whom there are five for every four places, should be rated the same in salary terms as physics or maths teachers, where every one teacher can have their pick of five places. We have some freedoms over our pay structure and I believe that after some nifty footwork by the SLT I am paid less than our sole specialist physics teacher. Since he is worth his weight in gold, I have taken care not to know or create a fuss about this.
We already have different structures for bursaries, golden hellos etc for these people - why not extend it to salary?
I suppose the only possible issue is that if we compared it with the salaries physics graduates could earn in industry, banking or academia, schools would struggle to fund them.
STEM teachers should be paid more on average than arts and humanities teachers as they would likely earn more in the outside world on average than arts and humanities teachers would (which is also why more History, English, Languages and Geography graduates become teachers than Maths, Physics, Chemistry and IT graduates)
That does not really follow but in any case, is it always true? Especially when physics graduates joining banks, and the like, are ruled out? I'm not sure "the market" values science and engineering as much as we might hope.
Why are you ruling out those becoming bankers? I made a conscious decision nearly thirty years ago to become a teacher rather than go into the better paid banking or accounting world, but many of my fellows did not.
The problem is that the two are confused. The IHRA definition and examples do define some criticism of Israel as anti-semitic.
Has Jezza ever made an anti-semitic comment outside the context of his support for Palestine?
I thought his comments about British Jews not getting English irony despite living here most of their lives fell into that category.
SNIPPED
I think all this is a huge oppportunity cost for Labour and our ratings will decline further until we stop giving the issue oxygen by constantly trying to resolve it - and I think that's why some, though not all, of the critics want to prolong it.
Are you saying that Labour should stop trying to resolve the allegations of anti-semitism made against some of its members, that it should stop trying to resolve the concerns the Jewish community has, that it should now simply ignore this issue?
One suspects yes, because that's what the leadership thinks. Loyalists are loyal and transfer their support to the then current leadership come hell or high water. Plus, and one wouldn't want to tar specific individuals with this, a base calculation about seats and voting numbers between competing religious minorities.
If that really is what @NickPalmer (and Labour) think, the next time there is some moron in the Tory party (or any other party) saying something offensive and horrible about Muslims or black people or women or gays or the disabled or whoever, then that party will be able to point to Labour and say, nah, we’re going to ignore this, like you because we don’t want to give our critics on this issue any more oxygen.
I mean, really?
Until Labour do deal with this issue, they completely undermine any claim to be anti-racist or to criticise others for their faults.
Anyway, thank you to @RochdalePioneers for an interesting header. I would be surprised if there were a split. A lack of ideas and courage are the reason why. And loyalty to your people has a stronger claim on the human heart than reason. Much easier to rationalise why you should stay than break out into the unknown.
While a great article, comment of the day must go to @TheJezziah.
Labour's plans to turn the UK into a country which has utterly destroyed itself were "too ambitious". Don't worry @TheJezziah I'm sure if in power Labour will give it their best shot.
I don't think it is even about talent or effort, I'm just not sure we can really 'become Venezuela' as in copy what happened even if we wanted to...
"I'm actually a Zionist myself (which traditionally is defined as believing that Israel should exist and be protected,"
On that basis, I'm Spartacus too, although, I wouldn't have supported the establishment of Israel in 1948. But what's done is done.
Incidentally, I asked a Corbynite friend if I was an antisemite because when I worked in the pharmaceutical industry, we had to elect trustees of the pension fund. We had a choice between two people. All we had to go on was a brief resume of their careers, but one was Jewish and one wasn't.
We elected the Jewish man by a landslide because we assumed he would be good, and careful with our money. My friend thought about this and decided we were all racist. However Jezza definitely wasn't, but he would say that, wouldn't he?
Whatever, I'll still sleep tonight.
It is actually a racist stereotype but in the circumstances you used it sort of a positive one. People who think Jewish people are good with money and think that is a good thing are probably okay in day to day life, maybe they'll cause offence if they are not careful but that is mostly relatively harmless. It is those who think Jewish people are good with money and so secretly control the world such is their mastery of the world finances or some other crazy stuff that are the problem.
Are you saying that Labour should stop trying to resolve the allegations of anti-semitism made against some of its members, that it should stop trying to resolve the concerns the Jewish community has, that it should now simply ignore this issue?
Yes. His critics have gone beyond the point that any reasonable compromise is possible. We should say what we genuinely think - which IMO is strong opposition to anti-semitism and openness to any opinion about the Middle East not involving terror and war - and move on. People will make up their own minds on what's reasonable and what's not. His critics can post all the videos of speeches in 2002 or whenever that they want, but it's a mistake to engage every time.
And, following my own advice, that's all I'm posting on the subject for now.
People are saying what they think. They think that Israel is a racist construct. They are saying that Israel should not exist and the Jews have no right to self-determination. They are saying that the entire row was concocted by powerful Jews across the globe driving their own agenda. They are saying that Margaret Hodge can't claim to have been the victim of anti-semitic abuse until she answers for Israeli action in the West Bank.
All of these things are anti-semitic. I'm on a large Labour Facebook forum and the mods have had to remove scores of comments from verified party members which are saying all these things. People then demand freedom of speech, and then denounce action against them as a Tory/Blairire (the same thing apparently) plot.
We cannot allow people to say what they want. Not now. Because what some of them say is anti-semitic. And the ones saying it are all cultists.
Great article thanks but I have to agree with others. As the (A-level) physicists will confirm, inertia can mean nothing changes for quite some time and then when it does change why wouldn't it be for an equally bonkers or, for the country's well being, dangerous leader?
The leadership might be old but the membership is young and still looking for a fight to take to The Man.
Newton’s First Law is taught at GCSE, so not even A-level.
BTW what do people think of the absolutely excellent suggestion this morning that Physics teachers (along with one or two other subjects) should be paid more?
I have never quite understood why History teachers, of whom there are five for every four places, should be rated the same in salary terms as physics or maths teachers, where every one teacher can have their pick of five places. We have some freedoms over our pay structure and I believe that after some nifty footwork by the SLT I am paid less than our sole specialist physics teacher. Since he is worth his weight in gold, I have taken care not to know or create a fuss about this.
We already have different structures for bursaries, golden hellos etc for these people - why not extend it to salary?
I suppose the only possible issue is that if we compared it with the salaries physics graduates could earn in industry, banking or academia, schools would struggle to fund them.
Hmm ..... at the risk of being controversial, given the lamentable knowledge of history shown by many in public life, we should be paying history teachers more.
Perhaps pupils should be taught something other than NATO, Nukes and Nazis?
It's not the content that's necessarily the issue at the moment. It would however have helped enormously if we had had a marking criteria for GCSEs before the exams had been set (indeed, according to some information I have, being modified after they were even sat).
Great article thanks but I have to agree with others. As the (A-level) physicists will confirm, inertia can mean nothing changes for quite some time and then when it does change why wouldn't it be for an equally bonkers or, for the country's well being, dangerous leader?
The leadership might be old but the membership is young and still looking for a fight to take to The Man.
Newton’s First Law is taught at GCSE, so not even A-level.
BTW what do people think of the absolutely excellent suggestion this morning that Physics teachers (along with one or two other subjects) should be paid more?
I have never quite understood why History teachers, of whom there are five for every four places, should be rated the same in salary terms as physics or maths teachers, where every one teacher can have their pick of five places. We have some freedoms over our pay structure and I believe that after some nifty footwork by the SLT I am paid less than our sole specialist physics teacher. Since he is worth his weight in gold, I have taken care not to know or create a fuss about this.
We already have different structures for bursaries, golden hellos etc for these people - why not extend it to salary?
I suppose the only possible issue is that if we compared it with the salaries physics graduates could earn in industry, banking or academia, schools would struggle to fund them.
Hmm ..... at the risk of being controversial, given the lamentable knowledge of history shown by many in public life, we should be paying history teachers more.
Can I screenshot that and send it to the Head?
The Head might read it as saying that history teachers are completely ineffectual.
Thank you for the interesting piece, Rochdale. I wouldn't argue with most of it - after all, "liberal" Conservatives had to sit through the agonies of the Hague, IDS and Howard leaderships before they had their chance to regain control of the party so "waiting it out" is probably the sensible option.
That option also guarantees that even if they fall back in 2022 (as many on here seem to hope and believe), Labour will still be the only credible alternative Government and in 2027, under a new leader, facing a stale Conservative Party in power for more than a decade and a half, that may well be the recipe for a 1997-style victory.
History though doesn't repeat with such symmetry in my experience.
When the SDP was formed in 1981, three quarters of those joining in the first month had never been in any political party. I remember splitting them into the Xs and the Ys - the Xs were those who had been ex-Labour or ex-Conservative and the Ys for "why have you decided to join a political party?".
The Ys were the ones with the enthusiasm and the ideas but the Xs were the ones with the activist knowledge and that holds true even with the changes in how political parties engage with voters from 1981 to 2018.
I suspect the same was true of En Marche and this is the unquantifiable - a groundswell of new inexperienced people wanting to engage in the political process.
The other truth is a new party based on a schism primarily from Labour (unless the schism is replicated within the Conservatives) will guarantee Conservative electoral dominance for an extended period (again, another reason why Conservative activists, in particular, agitate for a Labour schism) because, putting it crudely:
40-40-10 guarantees either a Hung Parliament or a very small majority 40-30-20 is a landslide 35-35-20 is also a Hung Parliament
To take it into En Marche territory 25-25-40 is also a landslide and for a brief moment in 1981-82 that seemed feasible if not likely.
Because its a cult, and an increasingly overblown paranoid one, people will leave when He does. I already know members who say this. They are not interested in the Labour Party or the movement. They are interested in Him. So when the talk is about rule changes or the makeup of the NEC, remember that all these can change again. I do not anticipate - nor do I want - a return to New Labour, nor do I want a wholesale change in policy direction. What we need to be less batshit crazy, and the ending of the cult will go a long way towards that.
I think you are being far too optimistic. With Momentum the structures have been put in place to continue the manipulation of the party by the far left, and those structures and the sectarianism will outlast Corbyn. Yes there will be a bit of infighting on the far left as there is now, but when it matters they will put that aside. I don't share your implied view that the people who joined up to support Corbyn will absent themselves from a new leadership election. There will be a duly nominated successor chosen because she is beyond any question "ideologically sound". Every effort will be made to portray her as the Messiah Mk II and she will be duly nominated by the Messiah Mk I. She will carry the day in spite of her patent lack of electoral appeal or general talent.
Prior to that, what I fear will happen on the left is something between your 1 and 2, that is a half hearted split that further weakens the electoral prospects of the organisation that still calls itself "The Labour Party" and leaves the cult further in control of the party, but still impotent in electoral terms.
Great article thanks but I have to agree with others. As the (A-level) physicists will confirm, inertia can mean nothing changes for quite some time and then when it does change why wouldn't it be for an equally bonkers or, for the country's well being, dangerous leader?
The leadership might be old but the membership is young and still looking for a fight to take to The Man.
Newton’s First Law is taught at GCSE, so not even A-level.
BTW what do people think of the absolutely excellent suggestion this morning that Physics teachers (along with one or two other subjects) should be paid more?
I have never quite understood why History teachers, of whom there are five for every four places, should be rated the same in salary terms as physics or maths teachers, where every one teacher can have their pick of five places. We have some freedoms over our pay structure and I believe that after some nifty footwork by the SLT I am paid less than our sole specialist physics teacher. Since he is worth his weight in gold, I have taken care not to know or create a fuss about this.
We already have different structures for bursaries, golden hellos etc for these people - why not extend it to salary?
I suppose the only possible issue is that if we compared it with the salaries physics graduates could earn in industry, banking or academia, schools would struggle to fund them.
Hmm ..... at the risk of being controversial, given the lamentable knowledge of history shown by many in public life, we should be paying history teachers more.
Can I screenshot that and send it to the Head?
The Head might read it as saying that history teachers are completely ineffectual.
Great article thanks but I have to agree with others. As the (A-level) physicists will confirm, inertia can mean nothing changes for quite some time and then when it does change why wouldn't it be for an equally bonkers or, for the country's well being, dangerous leader?
The leadership might be old but the membership is young and still looking for a fight to take to The Man.
Newton’s First Law is taught at GCSE, so not even A-level.
BTW what do people think of the absolutely excellent suggestion this morning that Physics teachers (along with one or two other subjects) should be paid more?
I have never quite understood why History teachers, of whom there are five for every four places, should be rated the same in salary terms as physics or maths teachers, where every one teacher can have their pick of five places. We have some freedoms over our pay structure and I believe that after some nifty footwork by the SLT I am paid less than our sole specialist physics teacher. Since he is worth his weight in gold, I have taken care not to know or create a fuss about this.
We already have different structures for bursaries, golden hellos etc for these people - why not extend it to salary?
I suppose the only possible issue is that if we compared it with the salaries physics graduates could earn in industry, banking or academia, schools would struggle to fund them.
Hmm ..... at the risk of being controversial, given the lamentable knowledge of history shown by many in public life, we should be paying history teachers more.
Perhaps pupils should be taught something other than NATO, Nukes and Nazis?
Perhaps the public at large should fully learn about the secondary school history syllabus, before passing comment?
Thanks RP for a very interesting header and follow-up posts. I haven't had time to read everyone else's comments.
I agree that the most likely outcome is that nothing will happen - no splits, no new party, no further attempt to unseat Jezza.
The natural centre of gravity in the Labour Party is soft left. After the swings to Blair and Corbyn, I expect us to return to that position within the next 5 years.
Great article thanks but I have to agree with others. As the (A-level) physicists will confirm, inertia can mean nothing changes for quite some time and then when it does change why wouldn't it be for an equally bonkers or, for the country's well being, dangerous leader?
The leadership might be old but the membership is young and still looking for a fight to take to The Man.
Newton’s First Law is taught at GCSE, so not even A-level.
BTW what do people think of the absolutely excellent suggestion this morning that Physics teachers (along with one or two other subjects) should be paid more?
I have never quite understood why History teachers, of whom there are five for every four places, should be rated the same in salary terms as physics or maths teachers, where every one teacher can have their pick of five places. We have some freedoms over our pay structure and I believe that after some nifty footwork by the SLT I am paid less than our sole specialist physics teacher. Since he is worth his weight in gold, I have taken care not to know or create a fuss about this.
We already have different structures for bursaries, golden hellos etc for these people - why not extend it to salary?
I suppose the only possible issue is that if we compared it with the salaries physics graduates could earn in industry, banking or academia, schools would struggle to fund them.
STEM teachers should be paid more on average than arts and humanities teachers as they would likely earn more in the outside world on average than arts and humanities teachers would (which is also why more History, English, Languages and Geography graduates become teachers than Maths, Physics, Chemistry and IT graduates)
That does not really follow but in any case, is it always true? Especially when physics graduates joining banks, and the like, are ruled out? I'm not sure "the market" values science and engineering as much as we might hope.
Why are you ruling out those becoming bankers? I made a conscious decision nearly thirty years ago to become a teacher rather than go into the better paid banking or accounting world, but many of my fellows did not.
If the question is how does "the market" value physicists qua physicists, or chemists qua chemists, then the answer is, sadly, a damn sight less than it values them as "quants" in the City.
Great article thanks but I have to agree with others. As the (A-level) physicists will confirm, inertia can mean nothing changes for quite some time and then when it does change why wouldn't it be for an equally bonkers or, for the country's well being, dangerous leader?
The leadership might be old but the membership is young and still looking for a fight to take to The Man.
Newton’s First Law is taught at GCSE, so not even A-level.
BTW what do people think of the absolutely excellent suggestion this morning that Physics teachers (along with one or two other subjects) should be paid more?
I have never quite understood why History teachers, of whom there are five for every four places, should be rated the same in salary terms as physics or maths teachers, where every one teacher can have their pick of five places. We have some freedoms over our pay structure and I believe that after some nifty footwork by the SLT I am paid less than our sole specialist physics teacher. Since he is worth his weight in gold, I have taken care not to know or create a fuss about this.
We already have different structures for bursaries, golden hellos etc for these people - why not extend it to salary?
I suppose the only possible issue is that if we compared it with the salaries physics graduates could earn in industry, banking or academia, schools would struggle to fund them.
Hmm ..... at the risk of being controversial, given the lamentable knowledge of history shown by many in public life, we should be paying history teachers more.
Great article thanks but I have to agree with others. As the (A-level) physicists will confirm, inertia can mean nothing changes for quite some time and then when it does change why wouldn't it be for an equally bonkers or, for the country's well being, dangerous leader?
The leadership might be old but the membership is young and still looking for a fight to take to The Man.
Newton’s First Law is taught at GCSE, so not even A-level.
BTW what do people think of the absolutely excellent suggestion this morning that Physics teachers (along with one or two other subjects) should be paid more?
I have never quite understood why History teachers, of whom there are five for every four places, should be rated the same in salary terms as physics or maths teachers, where every one teacher can have their pick of five places. We have some freedoms over our pay structure and I believe that after some nifty footwork by the SLT I am paid less than our sole specialist physics teacher. Since he is worth his weight in gold, I have taken care not to know or create a fuss about this.
We already have different structures for bursaries, golden hellos etc for these people - why not extend it to salary?
I suppose the only possible issue is that if we compared it with the salaries physics graduates could earn in industry, banking or academia, schools would struggle to fund them.
STEM teachers should be paid more on average than arts and humanities teachers as they would likely earn more in the outside world on average than arts and humanities teachers would (which is also why more History, English, Languages and Geography graduates become teachers than Maths, Physics, Chemistry and IT graduates)
That does not really follow but in any case, is it always true? Especially when physics graduates joining banks, and the like, are ruled out? I'm not sure "the market" values science and engineering as much as we might hope.
Why are you ruling out those becoming bankers? I made a conscious decision nearly thirty years ago to become a teacher rather than go into the better paid banking or accounting world, but many of my fellows did not.
Well done, good choice. Stayed in physics (biophysics) and then got family and then a job. Would have loved to have taught physics. I flirted with it a couple of times, but the pay and the conditions are a real barrier.
Ken was in the party for years before Corbyn become leader, Naz Shah's comments that were pulled up were made before Corbyn become leader, almost all the comments complained about from Corbyn were made before Corbyn became leader. Those who think things magically changed when Corbyn became leader might think things have magically changed back or they might not. Their thinking won't have much reflection in reality though.
I imagine the next leader will probably have a bladder as well so there is a risk that they too would use the toilet.
How many excuse will you have to make before you start thinking that you are stretching credulity a little thin?
I'm not saying things 'magically changed': they have, however, got much worse under anti-Semite Jeremy Corbyn.
They were just as bad under anti semite Ed Miliband, in fact I've seen things to suggest worse.
Of course neither Ed nor Jeremy are anti semites, merely opposed to the occupation of Palestinians.
Ed Miliband was not a raving, ranting anti-Semite. Jeremy Corbyn is.
Under Ed Miliband, the anti-Semites in Labour had a quieter voice. Under Corbyn, they're screaming. And worse, honourable Labour members are excusing anti-Semitism because it's by *their* team.
Ed Miliband is just as much a raving ranting anti-Semite as Jeremy Corbyn is.
The anti-Semites were just as loud in Labour then, we were turning Maureen Lipman into a Tory and Harrysplace was kicking into full swing reporting on Labour anti-Semitism.
Ed Miliband just had the cover of actually being Jewish whilst opposing the occupation of Palestine but it still doesn't change his opposition to it.
"Ed Miliband is just as much a raving ranting anti-Semite as Jeremy Corbyn is."
No, he really was not. And those voices - which as you say did exist - have been emboldened by Corbyn's own anti-Semitism and one-eyed, unrealistic views on the troubles in the ME.
I'd also wonder whether all those new party members are more likely to share his views or, worse, to develop such views because their hero has them. We've already seen BJO disappear down that particular rabbit-hole.
The problem is that the two are confused. The IHRA definition and examples do define some criticism of Israel as anti-semitic.
Has Jezza ever made an anti-semitic comment outside the context of his support for Palestine?
I thought his comments about British Jews not getting English irony despite living here most of their lives fell into that category.
SNIPPED
I think all this is a huge oppportunity cost for Labour and our ratings will decline further until we stop giving the issue oxygen by constantly trying to resolve it - and I think that's why some, though not all, of the critics want to prolong it.
Are you saying that Labour should stop trying to resolve the allegations of anti-semitism made against some of its members, that it should stop trying to resolve the concerns the Jewish community has, that it should now simply ignore this issue?
One suspects yes, because that's what the leadership thinks. Loyalists are loyal and transfer their support to the then current leadership come hell or high water. Plus, and one wouldn't want to tar specific individuals with this, a base calculation about seats and voting numbers between competing religious minorities.
If that really is what @NickPalmer (and Labour) think, the next time there is some moron in the Tory party (or any other party) saying something offensive and horrible about Muslims or black people or women or gays or the disabled or whoever, then that party will be able to point to Labour and say, nah, we’re going to ignore this, like you because we don’t want to give our critics on this issue any more oxygen.
I mean, really?
Until Labour do deal with this issue, they completely undermine any claim to be anti-racist or to criticise others for their faults.
Anyway, thank you to @RochdalePioneers for an interesting header. I would be surprised if there were a split. A lack of ideas and courage are the reason why. And loyalty to your people has a stronger claim on the human heart than reason. Much easier to rationalise why you should stay than break out into the unknown.
I don't want to speak for Nick but my position (which I suspect is something close to his) would be to kick out anti-Semites but ignore the constant media storm and concentrate on what we would want to do in government, basically being the opposition. The media can continue to talk about whatever they want to talk about, Labour can engage voters other ways if they are not interested in policy discussions.
Great article thanks but I have to agree with others. As the (A-level) physicists will confirm, inertia can mean nothing changes for quite some time and then when it does change why wouldn't it be for an equally bonkers or, for the country's well being, dangerous leader?
The leadership might be old but the membership is young and still looking for a fight to take to The Man.
Newton’s First Law is taught at GCSE, so not even A-level.
BTW what do people think of the absolutely excellent suggestion this morning that Physics teachers (along with one or two other subjects) should be paid more?
I have never quite understood why History teachers, of whom there are five for every four places, should be rated the same in salary terms as physics or maths teachers, where every one teacher can have their pick of five places. We have some freedoms over our pay structure and I believe that after some nifty footwork by the SLT I am paid less than our sole specialist physics teacher. Since he is worth his weight in gold, I have taken care not to know or create a fuss about this.
We already have different structures for bursaries, golden hellos etc for these people - why not extend it to salary?
I suppose the only possible issue is that if we compared it with the salaries physics graduates could earn in industry, banking or academia, schools would struggle to fund them.
Hmm ..... at the risk of being controversial, given the lamentable knowledge of history shown by many in public life, we should be paying history teachers more.
Just to add - another thing which united the Ys was their admiration and support for an individual member of the Gang of Four. I often heard the newer SDP members say "I never voted Labour but I always liked Roy Jenkins" and some would say the same about Shirley Williams (I never heard the same respect for Owen).
One of the ingredients of that early SDP success was the cross-party identification with one of the new SDP leaders - that may be harder to replicate nowadays.
"I'm actually a Zionist myself (which traditionally is defined as believing that Israel should exist and be protected,"
On that basis, I'm Spartacus too, although, I wouldn't have supported the establishment of Israel in 1948. But what's done is done.
Incidentally, I asked a Corbynite friend if I was an antisemite because when I worked in the pharmaceutical industry, we had to elect trustees of the pension fund. We had a choice between two people. All we had to go on was a brief resume of their careers, but one was Jewish and one wasn't.
We elected the Jewish man by a landslide because we assumed he would be good, and careful with our money. My friend thought about this and decided we were all racist. However Jezza definitely wasn't, but he would say that, wouldn't he?
Whatever, I'll still sleep tonight.
Nah racist or not if you were overseeing its management the pension fund was evidently in very bad hands.
Thanks RP for a very interesting header and follow-up posts. I haven't had time to read everyone else's comments.
I agree that the most likely outcome is that nothing will happen - no splits, no new party, no further attempt to unseat Jezza.
The natural centre of gravity in the Labour Party is soft left. After the swings to Blair and Corbyn, I expect us to return to that position within the next 5 years.
How will that happen?
If the rumours of long-standing members leaving the party and being replaced with more newcomers, might it be that the party is being skewed in a particular direction that will be hard to shift?
Are you saying that Labour should stop trying to resolve the allegations of anti-semitism made against some of its members, that it should stop trying to resolve the concerns the Jewish community has, that it should now simply ignore this issue?
Yes. His critics have gone beyond the point that any reasonable compromise is possible. We should say what we genuinely think - which IMO is strong opposition to anti-semitism and openness to any opinion about the Middle East not involving terror and war - and move on. People will make up their own minds on what's reasonable and what's not. His critics can post all the videos of speeches in 2002 or whenever that they want, but it's a mistake to engage every time.
And, following my own advice, that's all I'm posting on the subject for now.
Extraordinarily depressing. A party which refuses to investigate allegations of racism against Jews is not displaying strong opposition against anti-semitism.
Oh well, at least now we know that we can ignore any comments by Labour on the racism of others. It’ll save time I suppose.
A few people have raised the lack of ideas of the right of the party. I disagree - they have plenty of ideas based on 13 years of Labour in government. During the 1st leadership contest its not that Kendall or Cooper had nothing to say. Its just that (in my opinion) they had nothing new to say and wanted to basically maintain and evolve the core philosophies of New Labour. Whose time has been and gone.
What frustrates me is that neither hard left nor hard right is trying to come up with a platform for the future. There are significant structural issues in the economy that need sorting - housing swallows increasing amounts of people's income, expensive medical treatment is letting people live longer, pensions don't keep up with the cost of living, automation and the internet threaten whole sectors of the economy we rely on etc.
McDonnell has some genuinely interesting ideas, but gets carried away. The manifesto position of "create regional state owned businesses to compete against the big energy providers" (sensible) gets turned into "renationalise Thames Water" (stupid). Then again listen if can stay awake to Chris Leslie, who seems to think that the Tories haven't made the right cuts and that a NuLabour government should do austerity properly. Its the battles of the past, not the future. And its not just a Labour issue, the Tories have zero to say that is new either.
The problem is that the two are confused. The IHRA definition and examples do define some criticism of Israel as anti-semitic.
Has Jezza ever made an anti-semitic comment outside the context of his support for Palestine?
I thought his comments about British Jews not getting English irony despite living here most of their lives fell into that category.
SNIPPED
I think all this is a huge oppportunity cost for Labour and our ratings will decline further until we stop giving the issue oxygen by constantly trying to resolve it - and I think that's why some, though not all, of the critics want to prolong it.
Are you saying that Labour should stop trying to resolve the allegations of anti-semitism made against some of its members, that it should stop trying to resolve the concerns the Jewish community has, that it should now simply ignore this issue?
One suspects yes, because that's what the leadership thinks. Loyalists are loyal and transfer their support to the then current leadership come hell or high water. Plus, and one wouldn't want to tar specific individuals with this, a base calculation about seats and voting numbers between competing religious minorities.
If that really is what @NickPalmer (and Labour) think, the next time there is some moron in the Tory party (or any other party) saying something offensive and horrible about Muslims or black people or women or gays or the disabled or whoever, then that party will be able to point to Labour and say, nah, we’re going to ignore this, like you because we don’t want to give our critics on this issue any more oxygen.
I mean, really?
Until Labour do deal with this issue, they completely undermine any claim to be anti-racist or to criticise others for their faults.
Anyway, thank you to @RochdalePioneers for an interesting header. I would be surprised if there were a split. A lack of ideas and courage are the reason why. And loyalty to your people has a stronger claim on the human heart than reason. Much easier to rationalise why you should stay than break out into the unknown.
I don't want to speak for Nick but my position (which I suspect is something close to his) would be to kick out anti-Semites ... (snip)
You're going to kick out Corbyn? Wow.
And that's the issue. You - and sadly too much of Labour - are incapable of seeing anti-Semitism when it is staring you in the face - especially when it is by a fellow traveller.
Great article thanks but I have to agree with others. As the (A-level) physicists will confirm, inertia can mean nothing changes for quite some time and then when it does change why wouldn't it be for an equally bonkers or, for the country's well being, dangerous leader?
The leadership might be old but the membership is young and still looking for a fight to take to The Man.
Newton’s First Law is taught at GCSE, so not even A-level.
BTW what do people think of the absolutely excellent suggestion this morning that Physics teachers (along with one or two other subjects) should be paid more?
I have never quite understood why History teachers, of whom there are five for every four places, should be rated the same in salary terms as physics or maths teachers, where every one teacher can have their pick of five places. We have some freedoms over our pay structure and I believe that after some nifty footwork by the SLT I am paid less than our sole specialist physics teacher. Since he is worth his weight in gold, I have taken care not to know or create a fuss about this.
We already have different structures for bursaries, golden hellos etc for these people - why not extend it to salary?
I suppose the only possible issue is that if we compared it with the salaries physics graduates could earn in industry, banking or academia, schools would struggle to fund them.
Hmm ..... at the risk of being controversial, given the lamentable knowledge of history shown by many in public life, we should be paying history teachers more.
Perhaps pupils should be taught something other than NATO, Nukes and Nazis?
It seems to show that the last of those was not covered well.
Ken was in the party for years before Corbyn become leader, Naz Shah's comments that were pulled up were made before Corbyn become leader, almost all the comments complained about from Corbyn were made before Corbyn became leader. Those who think things magically changed when Corbyn became leader might think things have magically changed back or they might not. Their thinking won't have much reflection in reality though.
I imagine the next leader will probably have a bladder as well so there is a risk that they too would use the toilet.
How many excuse will you have to make before you start thinking that you are stretching credulity a little thin?
I'm not saying things 'magically changed': they have, however, got much worse under anti-Semite Jeremy Corbyn.
They were just as bad under anti semite Ed Miliband, in fact I've seen things to suggest worse.
Of course neither Ed nor Jeremy are anti semites, merely opposed to the occupation of Palestinians.
Ed Miliband was not a raving, ranting anti-Semite. Jeremy Corbyn is.
Under Ed Miliband, the anti-Semites in Labour had a quieter voice. Under Corbyn, they're screaming. And worse, honourable Labour members are excusing anti-Semitism because it's by *their* team.
Ed Miliband is just as much a raving ranting anti-Semite as Jeremy Corbyn is.
The anti-Semites were just as loud in Labour then, we were turning Maureen Lipman into a Tory and Harrysplace was kicking into full swing reporting on Labour anti-Semitism.
Ed Miliband just had the cover of actually being Jewish whilst opposing the occupation of Palestine but it still doesn't change his opposition to it.
"Ed Miliband is just as much a raving ranting anti-Semite as Jeremy Corbyn is."
No, he really was not. And those voices - which as you say did exist - have been emboldened by Corbyn's own anti-Semitism and one-eyed, unrealistic views on the troubles in the ME.
I'd also wonder whether all those new party members are more likely to share his views or, worse, to develop such views because their hero has them. We've already seen BJO disappear down that particular rabbit-hole.
Yes he is. There were Labour people making anti-Semitic remarks and Ed Miliband shares policy with Corbyn in regards to Israel-Palestine.
Accusing BJO of being an anti-Semite now? on what basis?
If you want to vote for an Islamophobic party that works with the likes of Bannon just do it and be proud about it, don't dress it up as being about opposing anti-Semitism, it just cheapens it.
Great article thanks but I have to agree with others. As the (A-level) physicists will confirm, inertia can mean nothing changes for quite some time and then when it does change why wouldn't it be for an equally bonkers or, for the country's well being, dangerous leader?
The leadership might be old but the membership is young and still looking for a fight to take to The Man.
Newton’s First Law is taught at GCSE, so not even A-level.
BTW what do people think of the absolutely excellent suggestion this morning that Physics teachers (along with one or two other subjects) should be paid more?
I have never quite understood why History teachers, of whom there are five for every four places, should be rated the same in salary terms as physics or maths teachers, where every one teacher can have their pick of five places. We have some freedoms over our pay structure and I believe that after some nifty footwork by the SLT I am paid less than our sole specialist physics teacher. Since he is worth his weight in gold, I have taken care not to know or create a fuss about this.
We already have different structures for bursaries, golden hellos etc for these people - why not extend it to salary?
I suppose the only possible issue is that if we compared it with the salaries physics graduates could earn in industry, banking or academia, schools would struggle to fund them.
Hmm ..... at the risk of being controversial, given the lamentable knowledge of history shown by many in public life, we should be paying history teachers more.
Perhaps pupils should be taught something other than NATO, Nukes and Nazis?
It's not the content that's necessarily the issue at the moment. It would however have helped enormously if we had had a marking criteria for GCSEs before the exams had been set (indeed, according to some information I have, being modified after they were even sat).
Being taught about the Nazi seems a bloody good idea at the moment, the way the world is going. I do hope there is an emphasis on how it all started.
People are saying what they think. They think that Israel is a racist construct. They are saying that Israel should not exist and the Jews have no right to self-determination...
All of these things are anti-semitic.
They're not. They're statements about international politics that you disagree with. It's quite possible that some of the people saying them *are* anti-semitic, especially when you see it mixed up with various global banking conspiracies and things, but these statements in themselves are not.
Specifically, nobody has a right to racial self-determination. Not Inuits, not Kurds, not white people. Racial self-determination is stupid and dangerous. A state founded on racial self-determination is a racist construct, that's the entire point.
The problem is that the two are confused. The IHRA definition and examples do define some criticism of Israel as anti-semitic.
Has Jezza ever made an anti-semitic comment outside the context of his support for Palestine?
I thought his comments about British Jews not getting English irony despite living here most of their lives fell into that category.
SNIPPED
I think all this is a huge oppportunity cost for Labour and our ratings will decline further until we stop giving the issue oxygen by constantly trying to resolve it - and I think that's why some, though not all, of the critics want to prolong it.
Are you saying that Labour should stop trying to resolve the allegations of anti-semitism made against some of its members, that it should stop trying to resolve the concerns the Jewish community has, that it should now simply ignore this issue?
One suspects yes, because that's what the leadership thinks. Loyalists are loyal and transfer their support to the then current leadership come hell or high water. Plus, and one wouldn't want to tar specific individuals with this, a base calculation about seats and voting numbers between competing religious minorities.
If that really is what @NickPalmer (and Labour) think, the next time there is some moron in the Tory party (or any other party) saying something offensive and horrible about Muslims or black people or women or gays or the disabled or whoever, then that party will be able to point to Labour and say, nah, we’re going to ignore this, like you because we don’t want to give our critics on this issue any more oxygen.
I don't want to speak for Nick but my position (which I suspect is something close to his) would be to kick out anti-Semites ... (snip)
You're going to kick out Corbyn? Wow.
And that's the issue. You - and sadly too much of Labour - are incapable of seeing anti-Semitism when it is staring you in the face - especially when it is by a fellow traveller.
Well yes this is the crux of the problem, we will kick out anti-Semites. We won't kick out people who oppose the occupation of Palestine. This will be a problem for some people, these people should be ignored.
"Nah racist or not if you were overseeing its management the pension fund was evidently in very bad hands."
That's why no one would have voted for me if I'd stood.
As for racism, I've always assumed that that everyone is a little racist, black and Asian people too. But I'm the same age as Jezza and Nick, so at that age, embarrassment and shame have been consigned to a box labelled 'no longer required.'
Salmond’s fundraising must be one of the fastest and most successful efforts ever.
Whatever it says though about Salmond’s pull, I can’t see this ending well for the SNP or for the Indy cause.
Which is why it may benefit SLAB. The people have to vote for someone.
But SLAB currently have an English born leader - which is never great for a party trying to win over nationalist voters back to their side.
Plus that leader is not exactly oozing personality or charisma. He does not seem to be breaking through. And that makes their task harder.
People don't have to vote for anyone. They can choose to stay at home.
I am not sure Richard Leonard is a reason to leave the house on polling day.
Not only an English leader but an English Labour leader who is as extreme as anyone has seen.
The SNP are not going to lose much sleep over labour and overall I doubt it will shift many votes
If just 5,000 voters stay at home in the right/wrong (delete according to political view) places, Labour could pick up 10 seats. That's just Labour. 5,000 more in some different places hands six more to the Tories/Liberal Democrats. That's very nearly half the SNP's seats gone.
I'm not saying this will happen, just that for a number of reasons this is a scandal that could have unusually wide political repercussions, whatever the actual outcome.
Putting aside @SeantT's typically over the top comments yesterday evening the thing that seems odd to me about this is that if Salmond is like this then (a) there would be dozens of examples and (b) Nicola and other SNP leaders must know what he is like as they have worked with this man for more than 30 years. How many drink laden conferences have they attended together, how many times have they engaged with enthusiastic supporters etc?
It seems very odd to me that there are 2 complainants rather than dozens. In the Me Too atmosphere we live in I would have expected others to come forward. It may happen yet of course.
Thank you for the interesting piece, Rochdale. I wouldn't argue with most of it - after all, "liberal" Conservatives had to sit through the agonies of the Hague, IDS and Howard leaderships before they had their chance to regain control of the party so "waiting it out" is probably the sensible option.
That option also guarantees that even if they fall back in 2022 (as many on here seem to hope and believe), Labour will still be the only credible alternative Government and in 2027, under a new leader, facing a stale Conservative Party in power for more than a decade and a half, that may well be the recipe for a 1997-style victory.
History though doesn't repeat with such symmetry in my experience.
When the SDP was formed in 1981, three quarters of those joining in the first month had never been in any political party. I remember splitting them into the Xs and the Ys - the Xs were those who had been ex-Labour or ex-Conservative and the Ys for "why have you decided to join a political party?".
The Ys were the ones with the enthusiasm and the ideas but the Xs were the ones with the activist knowledge and that holds true even with the changes in how political parties engage with voters from 1981 to 2018.
I suspect the same was true of En Marche and this is the unquantifiable - a groundswell of new inexperienced people wanting to engage in the political process.
The other truth is a new party based on a schism primarily from Labour (unless the schism is replicated within the Conservatives) will guarantee Conservative electoral dominance for an extended period (again, another reason why Conservative activists, in particular, agitate for a Labour schism) because, putting it crudely:
40-40-10 guarantees either a Hung Parliament or a very small majority 40-30-20 is a landslide 35-35-20 is also a Hung Parliament
To take it into En Marche territory 25-25-40 is also a landslide and for a brief moment in 1981-82 that seemed feasible if not likely.
Of course a strong populist anti immigration party would hit the Tories as FN have hit Les Republicains if the Tories do BINO or No Brexit
Great article thanks but I have to agree with others. As the (A-level) physicists will confirm, inertia can mean nothing changes for quite some time and then when it does change why wouldn't it be for an equally bonkers or, for the country's well being, dangerous leader?
The leadership might be old but the membership is young and still looking for a fight to take to The Man.
Newton’s First Law is taught at GCSE, so not even A-level.
BTW what do people think of the absolutely excellent suggestion this morning that Physics teachers (along with one or two other subjects) should be paid more?
We already have different structures for bursaries, golden hellos etc for these people - why not extend it to salary?
I suppose the only possible issue is that if we compared it with the salaries physics graduates could earn in industry, banking or academia, schools would struggle to fund them.
STEM teachers should be paid more on average than arts and humanities teachers as they would likely earn more in the outside world on average than arts and humanities teachers would (which is also why more History, English, Languages and Geography graduates become teachers than Maths, Physics, Chemistry and IT graduates)
That does not really follow but in any case, is it always true? Especially when physics graduates joining banks, and the like, are ruled out? I'm not sure "the market" values science and engineering as much as we might hope.
Why are you ruling out those becoming bankers? I made a conscious decision nearly thirty years ago to become a teacher rather than go into the better paid banking or accounting world, but many of my fellows did not.
Well done, good choice. Stayed in physics (biophysics) and then got family and then a job. Would have loved to have taught physics. I flirted with it a couple of times, but the pay and the conditions are a real barrier.
Pay is OK as long as I don’t meet up with too many friends from university, but the fact that I’ve been on holiday since about the middle of July makes up for a lot. Having said that, I’m off to school now to get some things sorted out ready for next week when we officially go back.
Great article thanks but I have to agree with others. As the (A-level) physicists will confirm, inertia can mean nothing changes for quite some time and then when it does change why wouldn't it be for an equally bonkers or, for the country's well being, dangerous leader?
The leadership might be old but the membership is young and still looking for a fight to take to The Man.
Newton’s First Law is taught at GCSE, so not even A-level.
BTW what do people think of the absolutely excellent suggestion this morning that Physics teachers (along with one or two other subjects) should be paid more?
I have never quite understood why History teachers, of whom there are five for every four places, should be rated the same in salary terms as physics or maths teachers, where every one teacher can have their pick of five places. We have some freedoms over our pay structure and I believe that after some nifty footwork by the SLT I am paid less than our sole specialist physics teacher. Since he is worth his weight in gold, I have taken care not to know or create a fuss about this.
We already have different structures for bursaries, golden hellos etc for these people - why not extend it to salary?
I suppose the only possible issue is that if we compared it with the salaries physics graduates could earn in industry, banking or academia, schools would struggle to fund them.
Hmm ..... at the risk of being controversial, given the lamentable knowledge of history shown by many in public life, we should be paying history teachers more.
Perhaps pupils should be taught something other than NATO, Nukes and Nazis?
Oh yes, British history from 1066 onwards. The French Revolution and Napoleon. The rise and fall of Empires - Roman, Persian, Byzantium, Ottoman, British. Ancient Greece. The American War of Independence. Continental European history from 1815 to 1914. WW1.
I’m not sure there would be much time for the 20th century. I have cribbed much of what I learnt at school which gave me a good chronological understanding of British and European history until the start of the 20th century (and this was just up to O-level standard). Much of the rest I learnt at university or through private reading. There are so many marvellous history books being written and good documentaries I fail to see how anyone can avoid being enthused by the subject. History tells us who we are and it is a wonderfully interesting and varied story.
Salmond’s fundraising must be one of the fastest and most successful efforts ever.
Whatever it says though about Salmond’s pull, I can’t see this ending well for the SNP or for the Indy cause.
Which is why it may benefit SLAB. The people have to vote for someone.
But SLAB currently have an English born leader - which is never great for a party trying to win over nationalist voters back to their side.
Plus that leader is not exactly oozing personality or charisma. He does not seem to be breaking through. And that makes their task harder.
People don't have to vote for anyone. They can choose to stay at home.
I am not sure Richard Leonard is a reason to leave the house on polling day.
Richard Leonard may have been born and raised in Yorkshire but he attended the University of Stirling and has lived and worked in Scotland ever since
The only people to express concern about Leonard's 'Englishness' were anonymous SLab sources. Otoh folk across the board have suggested he might be a bit crap. To be fair to him this does not make him exceptional in the current SLab line up.
What else would you expect from the Scotland hating HYUFD
"Nah racist or not if you were overseeing its management the pension fund was evidently in very bad hands."
That's why no one would have voted for me if I'd stood.
As for racism, I've always assumed that that everyone is a little racist, black and Asian people too. But I'm the same age as Jezza and Nick, so at that age, embarrassment and shame have been consigned to a box labelled 'no longer required.'
Salmond’s fundraising must be one of the fastest and most successful efforts ever.
Whatever it says though about Salmond’s pull, I can’t see this ending well for the SNP or for the Indy cause.
Which is why it may benefit SLAB. The people have to vote for someone.
But SLAB currently have an English born leader - which is never great for a party trying to win over nationalist voters back to their side.
Plus that leader is not exactly oozing personality or charisma. He does not seem to be breaking through. And that makes their task harder.
People don't have to vote for anyone. They can choose to stay at home.
I am not sure Richard Leonard is a reason to leave the house on polling day.
Richard Leonard may have been born and raised in Yorkshire but he attended the University of Stirling and has lived and worked in Scotland ever since
The only people to express concern about Leonard's 'Englishness' were anonymous SLab sources. Otoh folk across the board have suggested he might be a bit crap. To be fair to him this does not make him exceptional in the current SLab line up.
What else would you expect from the Scotland hating HYUFD
Salmond’s fundraising must be one of the fastest and most successful efforts ever.
Whatever it says though about Salmond’s pull, I can’t see this ending well for the SNP or for the Indy cause.
Which is why it may benefit SLAB. The people have to vote for someone.
But SLAB currently have an English born leader - which is never great for a party trying to win over nationalist voters back to their side.
Plus that leader is not exactly oozing personality or charisma. He does not seem to be breaking through. And that makes their task harder.
People don't have to vote for anyone. They can choose to stay at home.
I am not sure Richard Leonard is a reason to leave the house on polling day.
Not only an English leader but an English Labour leader who is as extreme as anyone has seen.
The SNP are not going to lose much sleep over labour and overall I doubt it will shift many votes
If just 5,000 voters stay at home in the right/wrong (delete according to political view) places, Labour could pick up 10 seats. That's just Labour. 5,000 more in some different places hands six more to the Tories/Liberal Democrats. That's very nearly half the SNP's seats gone.
I'm not saying this will happen, just that for a number of reasons this is a scandal that could have unusually wide political repercussions, whatever the actual outcome.
ydoethur, methinks Big G knows a bit more of Scottish politics than your good self. More likely to increase votes. Tories and Labour do nothing about similar things with their people , unlike the SNP who did not brush it under the carpet.
You are currently adopting a "My Party, right or wrong" stance. Despite knowing much is wrong. Very wrong.
Just don't expect the voters to be so sanguine.
And the activists of other parties will be doubly determined to point out that even Labour's own members are "sick to the back teeth of Corbyn and the dross that surround him". And doubly determined to keep them from power.
Thats what we were told last Spring, but it didn't happen that way did it?
I don't expect the next election to be a re-run of 2017, but the anger that a lot of voters have with how the country is being run is not going away.
A bit of redistribution sounds very good if you are a graduate in Generation Rent, struggling to make ends meet without any savings, unable to afford social care, or merely being fleeced every day for a poor rail service.
There are some nasty pieces of work on the hard left, but Left Populism has probably more electoral potential than Right Populism, particulary if Brexit fails to deliver for the people of Hartlepool, South Wales and Cornwall.
An unexpected outcome of the fall of Salmond may also be the return of SLAB to electoral success, at least at the Westminster level.
"Politically I feel like the Labour party has shifted, there are things that are just accepted within Labour now that were not before"
Yes. Like anti-Semitism.
I can't imagine our position on Israel-Palestine will change much, although it hasn't really changed much since Ed anyway. The papers may not need to cover for Islamophobia at that point to the same extent.
I also note you deliberately confuse 'anti-Semtiism' with 'Israel-Palestine'. That doesn't exactly help your case.
His support for the East End mural showing hook-nosed Jewish bankers oppressing black people had nothing to do with the Israel-Palestine issue.
Unless you are well-versed in antisemitic tropes, you might not recognise the mural as one, or at least I didn't. Nor apparently did Corbyn's enemies who took until this year to complain about a mural removed in 2012.
Come off it. Anyone who watched the first 15 minutes of the World at War episode on the Holocaust would have recognised the image as anti-semitic, anyone who even had a passing acquaintance with 20th century history would recognise this, let alone someone who claims that he has fought against racism all his life and who uses his mother fighting against Mosley at Cable Street as part of his defence.
The problem was it wasn't obvious that some of the people around the table were supposed to be Jewish.
If they had some obvious identifying Jewish mark, so this wasn't just some generalised Europeans or the west oppressing the rest of the world artwork but specifically Jews oppressing the rest of the world it would have been more obvious.
But without knowing what the people he drew looked like I couldn't actually tell after the 'artist' said two were Jewish which ones were Jewish and which ones were the white people. They all just looked like old white men to me....
Look at it, for heaven’s sake. It is pretty much a carbon copy of standard anti-semitic pictures of Jews available in any textbook covering Germany in the 1930’s.
I think you are being far too optimistic. With Momentum the structures have been put in place to continue the manipulation of the party by the far left, and those structures and the sectarianism will outlast Corbyn. Yes there will be a bit of infighting on the far left as there is now, but when it matters they will put that aside. I don't share your implied view that the people who joined up to support Corbyn will absent themselves from a new leadership election. There will be a duly nominated successor chosen because she is beyond any question "ideologically sound". Every effort will be made to portray her as the Messiah Mk II and she will be duly nominated by the Messiah Mk I. She will carry the day in spite of her patent lack of electoral appeal or general talent.
Prior to that, what I fear will happen on the left is something between your 1 and 2, that is a half hearted split that further weakens the electoral prospects of the organisation that still calls itself "The Labour Party" and leaves the cult further in control of the party, but still impotent in electoral terms.
Momentum won't last. Started by Lansman to run Jeremy's 1st leadership campaign its now supposed to be "People's Momentum" by the members for the members. But its STILL owned by Lansman and he is now public enemy number one having betrayed the movement by binning Willsman. Without any semblance of a leader you then get regional and sub-regional committees organising themselves, and that already makes it very patchy nationally. I know that Momentum has had an impact in some places, in others its barely there.
I do understand your points about a new messiah and I had shared them until this summer. But now its gone way beyond sanity - Corbyn has been propelled into sainthood as uniquely right all the time, the man who has never been wrong. Yes, Popes get replaced. The problem for the cult now is that nobody else can ever be anything more than a pale imitation of the great man. And besides which is Lansman can become the enemy then any of them can. Who is there who can replace Him? Even if the rules end up as 5% of MPs to nominate with whom do you replace Him?
My money remains firmly on Emily Thornberry. Who isn't a cult member.
Salmond’s fundraising must be one of the fastest and most successful efforts ever.
Whatever it says though about Salmond’s pull, I can’t see this ending well for the SNP or for the Indy cause.
Which is why it may benefit SLAB. The people have to vote for someone.
But SLAB currently have an English born leader - which is never great for a party trying to win over nationalist voters back to their side.
Plus that leader is not exactly oozing personality or charisma. He does not seem to be breaking through. And that makes their task harder.
People don't have to vote for anyone. They can choose to stay at home.
I am not sure Richard Leonard is a reason to leave the house on polling day.
Being English is no handicap whatsoever, the fact he is absolutely crap is the real issue and being the best they have puts the tin hat on it. He cannot string two words together.
Salmond’s fundraising must be one of the fastest and most successful efforts ever.
Whatever it says though about Salmond’s pull, I can’t see this ending well for the SNP or for the Indy cause.
Which is why it may benefit SLAB. The people have to vote for someone.
But SLAB currently have an English born leader - which is never great for a party trying to win over nationalist voters back to their side.
Plus that leader is not exactly oozing personality or charisma. He does not seem to be breaking through. And that makes their task harder.
People don't have to vote for anyone. They can choose to stay at home.
I am not sure Richard Leonard is a reason to leave the house on polling day.
Richard Leonard may have been born and raised in Yorkshire but he attended the University of Stirling and has lived and worked in Scotland ever since
The only people to express concern about Leonard's 'Englishness' were anonymous SLab sources. Otoh folk across the board have suggested he might be a bit crap. To be fair to him this does not make him exceptional in the current SLab line up.
What else would you expect from the Scotland hating HYUFD
Scotnat hating not Scotland hating
One can just imagine the wailing and gnashing of teeth from you and your ilk if someone stated that they hate Tories.
Newton’s First Law is taught at GCSE, so not even A-level.
BTW what do people think of the absolutely excellent suggestion this morning that Physics teachers (along with one or two other subjects) should be paid more?
We already have different structures for bursaries, golden hellos etc for these people - why not extend it to salary?
I suppose the only possible issue is that if we compared it with the salaries physics graduates could earn in industry, banking or academia, schools would struggle to fund them.
Hmm ..... at the risk of being controversial, given the lamentable knowledge of history shown by many in public life, we should be paying history teachers more.
Perhaps pupils should be taught something other than NATO, Nukes and Nazis?
It's not the content that's necessarily the issue at the moment. It would however have helped enormously if we had had a marking criteria for GCSEs before the exams had been set (indeed, according to some information I have, being modified after they were even sat).
Being taught about the Nazi seems a bloody good idea at the moment, the way the world is going. I do hope there is an emphasis on how it all started.
It started off low level, a modern day hypothetical might see a party start with trying to use fear of an unpopular minority in a mayoral election say. It might step up a few notches in a national referendum campaign where the same minority is once again utilised by major figures within the party to secure a result. You could even perhaps have a big figure from within the party who recently (with some others from the party) met with a questionable foreign figure (Bannon) then employ some dog whistling regarding how they look against said minority in a big splash with his first column back. Who knows where it would go from there but if it were to happen it could start slowly like that.
The problem is that the two are confused. The IHRA definition and examples do define some criticism of Israel as anti-semitic.
Has Jezza ever made an anti-semitic comment outside the context of his support for Palestine?
I thought his comments about British Jews not getting English irony despite living here most of their lives fell into that category.
SNIPPED
I think all this is a huge oppportunity cost for Labour and our ratings will decline further until we stop giving the issue oxygen by constantly trying to resolve it - and I think that's why some, though not all, of the critics want to prolong it.
Are you saying that Labour should stop trying to resolve the allegations of anti-semitism made against some of its members, that it should stop trying to resolve the concerns the Jewish community has, that it should now simply ignore this issue?
One suspects yes, because that's what the leadership thinks. Loyalists are loyal and transfer their support to the then current leadership come hell or high water. Plus, and one wouldn't want to tar specific individuals with this, a base calculation about seats and voting numbers between competing religious minorities.
If that really is what @NickPalmer (and Labour) think, the next time there is some moron in the Tory party (or any other party) saying something offensive and horrible about Muslims or black people or women or gays or the disabled or whoever, then that party will be able to point to Labour and say, nah, we’re going to ignore this, like you because we don’t want to give our critics on this issue any more oxygen.
I mean, really?
Until Labour do deal with this issue, they completely undermine any claim to be anti-racist or to criticise others for their faults.
Anyway, thank you to @RochdalePioneers for an interesting header. I would be surprised if there were a split. A lack of ideas and courage are the reason why. And loyalty to your people has a stronger claim on the human heart than reason. Much easier to rationalise why you should stay than break out into the unknown.
LOL, as if the Tories do anything in the first place says it all.
Salmond’s fundraising must be one of the fastest and most successful efforts ever.
Whatever it says though about Salmond’s pull, I can’t see this ending well for the SNP or for the Indy cause.
Which is why it may benefit SLAB. The people have to vote for someone.
But SLAB currently have an English born leader - which is never great for a party trying to win over nationalist voters back to their side.
Plus that leader is not exactly oozing personality or charisma. He does not seem to be breaking through. And that makes their task harder.
People don't have to vote for anyone. They can choose to stay at home.
I am not sure Richard Leonard is a reason to leave the house on polling day.
Not only an English leader but an English Labour leader who is as extreme as anyone has seen.
The SNP are not going to lose much sleep over labour and overall I doubt it will shift many votes
If just 5,000 voters stay at home in the right/wrong (delete according to political view) places, Labour could pick up 10 seats. That's just Labour. 5,000 more in some different places hands six more to the Tories/Liberal Democrats. That's very nearly half the SNP's seats gone.
I'm not saying this will happen, just that for a number of reasons this is a scandal that could have unusually wide political repercussions, whatever the actual outcome.
ydoethur, methinks Big G knows a bit more of Scottish politics than your good self. More likely to increase votes. Tories and Labour do nothing about similar things with their people , unlike the SNP who did not brush it under the carpet.
Very possibly he does. He has after all lived there and has close family there.
I'm just pointing out why there may be wider ramifications. You are free to disagree and knowing you I'm sure you will
I think you are being far too optimistic. With Momentum the structures have been put in place to continue the manipulation of the party by the far left, and those structures and the sectarianism will outlast Corbyn. Yes there will be a bit of infighting on the far left as there is now, but when it matters they will put that aside. I don't share your implied view that the people who joined up to support Corbyn will absent themselves from a new leadership election. There will be a duly nominated successor chosen because she is beyond any question "ideologically sound". Every effort will be made to portray her as the Messiah Mk II and she will be duly nominated by the Messiah Mk I. She will carry the day in spite of her patent lack of electoral appeal or general talent.
Prior to that, what I fear will happen on the left is something between your 1 and 2, that is a half hearted split that further weakens the electoral prospects of the organisation that still calls itself "The Labour Party" and leaves the cult further in control of the party, but still impotent in electoral terms.
Momentum won't last. Started by Lansman to run Jeremy's 1st leadership campaign its now supposed to be "People's Momentum" by the members for the members. But its STILL owned by Lansman and he is now public enemy number one having betrayed the movement by binning Willsman. Without any semblance of a leader you then get regional and sub-regional committees organising themselves, and that already makes it very patchy nationally. I know that Momentum has had an impact in some places, in others its barely there.
I do understand your points about a new messiah and I had shared them until this summer. But now its gone way beyond sanity - Corbyn has been propelled into sainthood as uniquely right all the time, the man who has never been wrong. Yes, Popes get replaced. The problem for the cult now is that nobody else can ever be anything more than a pale imitation of the great man. And besides which is Lansman can become the enemy then any of them can. Who is there who can replace Him? Even if the rules end up as 5% of MPs to nominate with whom do you replace Him?
My money remains firmly on Emily Thornberry. Who isn't a cult member.
The Left will split. It always does.
Question is will it split before they get into government or afterwards?
Salmond’s fundraising must be one of the fastest and most successful efforts ever.
Whatever it says though about Salmond’s pull, I can’t see this ending well for the SNP or for the Indy cause.
Which is why it may benefit SLAB. The people have to vote for someone.
But SLAB currently have an English born leader - which is never great for a party trying to win over nationalist voters back to their side.
Plus that leader is not exactly oozing personality or charisma. He does not seem to be breaking through. And that makes their task harder.
People don't have to vote for anyone. They can choose to stay at home.
I am not sure Richard Leonard is a reason to leave the house on polling day.
Richard Leonard may have been born and raised in Yorkshire but he attended the University of Stirling and has lived and worked in Scotland ever since
The only people to express concern about Leonard's 'Englishness' were anonymous SLab sources. Otoh folk across the board have suggested he might be a bit crap. To be fair to him this does not make him exceptional in the current SLab line up.
What else would you expect from the Scotland hating HYUFD
Scotnat hating not Scotland hating
most of the population in other words and just for their politics, dear dear.
Isn't there currently a Criminal Investigation into the allegations against Mr Salmond? Whether anything comes of them, we don't know, but Police Scotland are involved.
I know his appeal is for funds to support a challenge to the process the Scottish government followed - but the Crowdfunder Condition anything related is very broad.....and his appeal relates to something relating to a criminal investigation.....
Great article thanks but I have to agree with others. As the (A-level) physicists will confirm, inertia can mean nothing changes for quite some time and then when it does change why wouldn't it be for an equally bonkers or, for the country's well being, dangerous leader?
The leadership might be old but the membership is young and still looking for a fight to take to The Man.
Newton’s First Law is taught at GCSE, so not even A-level.
BTW what do people think of the absolutely excellent suggestion this morning that Physics teachers (along with one or two other subjects) should be paid more?
We already have different structures for bursaries, golden hellos etc for these people - why not extend it to salary?
I suppose the only possible issue is that if we compared it with the salaries physics graduates could earn in industry, banking or academia, schools would struggle to fund them.
STEM teachers should be paid more on average than arts and humanities teachers as they would likely earn more in the outside world on average than arts and humanities teachers would (which is also why more History, English, Languages and Geography graduates become teachers than Maths, Physics, Chemistry and IT graduates)
That does not really follow but in any case, is it always true? Especially when physics graduates joining banks, and the like, are ruled out? I'm not sure "the market" values science and engineering as much as we might hope.
Why are you ruling out those becoming bankers? I made a conscious decision nearly thirty years ago to become a teacher rather than go into the better paid banking or accounting world, but many of my fellows did not.
Well done, good choice. Stayed in physics (biophysics) and then got family and then a job. Would have loved to have taught physics. I flirted with it a couple of times, but the pay and the conditions are a real barrier.
Pay is OK as long as I don’t meet up with too many friends from university, but the fact that I’ve been on holiday since about the middle of July makes up for a lot. Having said that, I’m off to school now to get some things sorted out ready for next week when we officially go back.
You must also get a buzz now and again when you really bring out the best in a child, money cannot buy that.
Salmond’s fundraising must be one of the fastest and most successful efforts ever.
Whatever it says though about Salmond’s pull, I can’t see this ending well for the SNP or for the Indy cause.
Which is why it may benefit SLAB. The people have to vote for someone.
But SLAB currently have an English born leader - which is never great for a party trying to win over nationalist voters back to their side.
Plus that leader is not exactly oozing personality or charisma. He does not seem to be breaking through. And that makes their task harder.
People don't have to vote for anyone. They can choose to stay at home.
I am not sure Richard Leonard is a reason to leave the house on polling day.
Richard Leonard may have been born and raised in Yorkshire but he attended the University of Stirling and has lived and worked in Scotland ever since
The only people to express concern about Leonard's 'Englishness' were anonymous SLab sources. Otoh folk across the board have suggested he might be a bit crap. To be fair to him this does not make him exceptional in the current SLab line up.
What else would you expect from the Scotland hating HYUFD
Scotnat hating not Scotland hating
most of the population in other words and just for their politics, dear dear.
People are people and they come in all flavours and opinions. Young people tend to bracket everything into black and white - nothing to do with skin colour - but it explains why social media can be fraught.
I'm sure if I met Jezza, I'd find him congenial, as long as we kept him off the subject of politics. Or manhole covers.
I think all this is a huge oppportunity cost for Labour and our ratings will decline further until we stop giving the issue oxygen by constantly trying to resolve it - and I think that's why some, though not all, of the critics want to prolong it.
Are you saying that Labour should stop trying to resolve the allegations of anti-semitism made against some of its members, that it should stop trying to resolve the concerns the Jewish community has, that it should now simply ignore this issue?
One suspects yes, because that's what the leadership thinks. Loyalists are loyal and transfer their support to the then current leadership come hell or high water. Plus, and one wouldn't want to tar specific individuals with this, a base calculation about seats and voting numbers between competing religious minorities.
If that really is what @NickPalmer (and Labour) think, the next time there is some moron in the Tory party (or any other party) saying something offensive and horrible about Muslims or black people or women or gays or the disabled or whoever, then that party will be able to point to Labour and say, nah, we’re going to ignore this, like you because we don’t want to give our critics on this issue any more oxygen.
I don't want to speak for Nick but my position (which I suspect is something close to his) would be to kick out anti-Semites ... (snip)
You're going to kick out Corbyn? Wow.
And that's the issue. You - and sadly too much of Labour - are incapable of seeing anti-Semitism when it is staring you in the face - especially when it is by a fellow traveller.
Well yes this is the crux of the problem, we will kick out anti-Semites. We won't kick out people who oppose the occupation of Palestine. This will be a problem for some people, these people should be ignored.
And if there are people who are both (note: not the former because of the latter but independent of that issue) what will the party do?
To the rest of us it looks as if the party is saying that anti-semites really don’t exist as the accusation is just a cover for attacking their support for Palestinians so no action is needed.
It is I may say one of the best rationalisations I have heard and I can see it being used and adapted for all sorts of purposes.
And @NickPalmer has said upthread that he thinks no further action should be taken at all, which is somewhat less even than your position.
Salmond’s fundraising must be one of the fastest and most successful efforts ever.
Whatever it says though about Salmond’s pull, I can’t see this ending well for the SNP or for the Indy cause.
Which is why it may benefit SLAB. The people have to vote for someone.
But SLAB currently have an English born leader - which is never great for a party trying to win over nationalist voters back to their side.
Plus that leader is not exactly oozing personality or charisma. He does not seem to be breaking through. And that makes their task harder.
People don't have to vote for anyone. They can choose to stay at home.
I am not sure Richard Leonard is a reason to leave the house on polling day.
Not only an English leader but an English Labour leader who is as extreme as anyone has seen.
The SNP are not going to lose much sleep over labour and overall I doubt it will shift many votes
If just 5,000 voters stay at home in the right/wrong (delete according to political view) places, Labour could pick up 10 seats. That's just Labour. 5,000 more in some different places hands six more to the Tories/Liberal Democrats. That's very nearly half the SNP's seats gone.
I'm not saying this will happen, just that for a number of reasons this is a scandal that could have unusually wide political repercussions, whatever the actual outcome.
ydoethur, methinks Big G knows a bit more of Scottish politics than your good self. More likely to increase votes. Tories and Labour do nothing about similar things with their people , unlike the SNP who did not brush it under the carpet.
Very possibly he does. He has after all lived there and has close family there.
I'm just pointing out why there may be wider ramifications. You are free to disagree and knowing you I'm sure you will
ydoethur, we will always agree to disagree as gentlemen should. I hope I am right and you are wrong.
Just to add - another thing which united the Ys was their admiration and support for an individual member of the Gang of Four. I often heard the newer SDP members say "I never voted Labour but I always liked Roy Jenkins" and some would say the same about Shirley Williams (I never heard the same respect for Owen).
One of the ingredients of that early SDP success was the cross-party identification with one of the new SDP leaders - that may be harder to replicate nowadays.
I agree.
I also feel liberals can work with Social Democrats. I'm not sure that would be true with most identified as unhappy in the current Labour party. There is too much of an authoritarian element, or at least that is how it feels. That might just be a hangover from Blair.
Salmond’s fundraising must be one of the fastest and most successful efforts ever.
Whatever it says though about Salmond’s pull, I can’t see this ending well for the SNP or for the Indy cause.
Which is why it may benefit SLAB. The people have to vote for someone.
But SLAB currently have an English born leader - which is never great for a party trying to win over nationalist voters back to their side.
Plus that leader is not exactly oozing personality or charisma. He does not seem to be breaking through. And that makes their task harder.
People don't have to vote for anyone. They can choose to stay at home.
I am not sure Richard Leonard is a reason to leave the house on polling day.
Richard Leonard may have been born and raised in Yorkshire but he attended the University of Stirling and has lived and worked in Scotland ever since
The only people to express concern about Leonard's 'Englishness' were anonymous SLab sources. Otoh folk across the board have suggested he might be a bit crap. To be fair to him this does not make him exceptional in the current SLab line up.
What else would you expect from the Scotland hating HYUFD
Scotnat hating not Scotland hating
most of the population in other words and just for their politics, dear dear.
It depends what people think the changes are that Corbyn has made...
Politically I feel like the Labour party has shifted, there are things that are just accepted within Labour now that were not before and I can't see that suddenly shifting after Corbyn. A candidate who made a pitch to go back would not be successful IMO.
I can't see the changes to the method of electing a leader brought in under Corbyn changing too suddenly either, it will probably remain a member driven party.
The plans to base the British economy on a natural resource whose price will fall below what it is worth to extract will probably be shelved, but to be honest I always thought the turn Britain into Venezuela project was a bit too ambitious and there hadn't been any real planning done just false promises from unreliable sources...
Edit: Those who would expect a dramatic departure from the last manifesto (as in well to the right) under a new leader would probably be very disappointed. Those who think Corbyn is evil for various reasons but haven't actually got a problem with his policies may be pleased. Although I would expect the right wing papers to come up with hundreds of reasons why the new left wing leader is also evil for various reasons so I'm not sure there is much difference in the end....
"Politically I feel like the Labour party has shifted, there are things that are just accepted within Labour now that were not before"
Yes. Like anti-Semitism.
I can't imagine our position on Israel-Palestine will change much, although it hasn't really changed much since Ed anyway. The papers may not need to cover for Islamophobia at that point to the same extent.
I also note you deliberately confuse 'anti-Semtiism' with 'Israel-Palestine'. That doesn't exactly help your case.
The problem is that the two are confused. The IHRA definition and examples do define some criticism of Israel as anti-semitic.
Has Jezza ever made an anti-semitic comment outside the context of his support for Palestine?
His support for the East End mural showing hook-nosed Jewish bankers oppressing black people had nothing to do with the Israel-Palestine issue.
Unless you are well-versed in antisemitic tropes, you might not recognise the mural as one, or at least I didn't. Nor apparently did Corbyn's enemies who took until this year to complain about a mural removed in 2012.
You would think that someone who has "fought racism all his life" would be "well-versed in antisemitic tropes".
My money remains firmly on Emily Thornberry. Who isn't a cult member.
yes Yes YES!
I am very green if The Colonel takes over.
I will be MUCH better off if either Stephen Kinnock or Jonathan Ashworth become leader, that said, and I wouldn't know Jonathan Ashworth from a bar of soap if he were standing in front of me.
It depends what people think the changes are that Corbyn has made...
I can't see the Labour party going back to pro privatisation or shying away from nationalisation as much as it did pre Corbyn (for a couple of decades). I can't see the Labour party going back to being as pro war as it was under Blair.
Politically I feel like the Labour party has shifted, there are things that are just accepted within Labour now that were not before and I can't see that suddenly shifting after Corbyn. A candidate who made a pitch to go back would not be successful IMO.
I can't see the changes to the method of electing a leader brought in under Corbyn changing too suddenly either, it will probably remain a member driven party.
New Labour is dead. It died in 2010 when Ed Milliband won. The change in policy direction was under Ed, not Jeremy. So I entirely agree - we aren't going back to the policies of the 90s. Aside from a few noisy Blair Ultras most of the "moderates" don't want that either. Its not the manifesto thats being objected to - the problem is that cultists can't separate out their own worship for Him with facts, because everything BC (Before Corbyn) was basically Tory.
BTW, the Labour Party is not and has never been a member driven party. It is on paper and has been since Blair smashed the union block vote and brought about One Member One Vote. On paper members input into policy via the National Policy Forum and then vote for it at Conference. In practice most of our policies come from the leader and his team - its as true under Corbyn as it was true under Blair. Even when we have a policy passed by conference the leader can ignore it and say the opposite as Jeremy has over Trident and Europe.
"Politically I feel like the Labour party has shifted, there are things that are just accepted within Labour now that were not before"
Yes. Like anti-Semitism.
I can't imagine our position on Israel-Palestine will change much, although it hasn't really changed much since Ed anyway. The papers may not need to cover for Islamophobia at that point to the same extent.
I also note you deliberately confuse 'anti-Semtiism' with 'Israel-Palestine'. That doesn't exactly help your case.
The problem was it wasn't obvious that some of the people around the table were supposed to be Jewish.
If they had some obvious identifying Jewish mark, so this wasn't just some generalised Europeans or the west oppressing the rest of the world artwork but specifically Jews oppressing the rest of the world it would have been more obvious.
But without knowing what the people he drew looked like I couldn't actually tell after the 'artist' said two were Jewish which ones were Jewish and which ones were the white people. They all just looked like old white men to me....
Look at it, for heaven’s sake. It is pretty much a carbon copy of standard anti-semitic pictures of Jews available in any textbook covering Germany in the 1930’s.
There is nothing wrong (maybe claims of accuracy) with claiming white men run/rule the world and oppress others. Looking back historically there is some truth to the claim. These days the picture is much more mixed but white men certainly have more money and power than their numbers would simply indicate.
There is certainly something wrong with making the same claim about Jewish people.
Which is where we get back to the point that they weren't obviously Jewish as all 4 people at the table looked the same. He drew the Jewish people to look the same as the old white guys.
Wouldn't the 1930's nazi party for one not have had non Jewish white people there or if they did have the Jewish people looking (and presumably acting) much differently from the white people. I can't imagine much Nazi propaganda would have included white people as oppressors looking indistinguishable from Jewish people.
"Politically I feel like the Labour party has shifted, there are things that are just accepted within Labour now that were not before"
Yes. Like anti-Semitism.
I can't imagine our position on Israel-Palestine will change much, although it hasn't really changed much since Ed anyway. The papers may not need to cover for Islamophobia at that point to the same extent.
I also note you deliberately confuse 'anti-Semtiism' with 'Israel-Palestine'. That doesn't exactly help your case.
The problem was it wasn't obvious that some of the people around the table were supposed to be Jewish.
If they had some obvious identifying Jewish mark, so this wasn't just some generalised Europeans or the west oppressing the rest of the world artwork but specifically Jews oppressing the rest of the world it would have been more obvious.
But without knowing what the people he drew looked like I couldn't actually tell after the 'artist' said two were Jewish which ones were Jewish and which ones were the white people. They all just looked like old white men to me....
Look at it, for heaven’s sake. It is pretty much a carbon copy of standard anti-semitic pictures of Jews available in any textbook covering Germany in the 1930’s.
There is nothing wrong (maybe claims of accuracy) with claiming white men run/rule the world and oppress others. Looking back historically there is some truth to the claim. These days the picture is much more mixed but white men certainly have more money and power than their numbers would simply indicate.
There is certainly something wrong with making the same claim about Jewish people.
Which is where we get back to the point that they weren't obviously Jewish as all 4 people at the table looked the same. He drew the Jewish people to look the same as the old white guys.
Wouldn't the 1930's nazi party for one not have had non Jewish white people there or if they did have the Jewish people looking (and presumably acting) much differently from the white people. I can't imagine much Nazi propaganda would have included white people as oppressors looking indistinguishable from Jewish people.
I wouldn't pretend to be an expert on the internal workings of the Labour Party, but in my experience, inertia often wins out against radical change. There will be a lot of cant spoken to justify it, but essentially people are too lazy and risk adverse to upset the apple cart.
I do slightly object to the implied equivalence between Michael Foot and Corbyn.
Foot was (in my opinion) profoundly wrong about almost everything. He was also a charming, intelligent man of principle and a patriot. Corbyn is none of those things.
On topic, I tend to agree with RP. Holding tight and riding out the storm is the most likely plan for most people because it's least trouble, because there's a good chance that it will be the best option, and because it avoids making a breach with people and and organisation with which they've invested a lot of time, energy, money and emotion.
But - and this is a big but - there is a limit and it may be that a decision cannot be put off. *If* there is a serious split at the top of Labour - i.e. among senior MPs - then that forces the question on every other member: stay or go. That said, for it to work politically, such a split would need to be justifiable to the public and to Party members. The drip-drip of antisemitism is not enough: the question would be 'why now?', to which it's likely that there'd be no good answer. More, any potential defectors cannot announce red lines in advance, as that would imply that they'd already made the key mental leap of leaving in principle - they were no longer 'of the movement'.
For the moment, there is no purge and there are no deselections. Sure, the leadership, NEC and party officials have been gained by the left but they can be won back in time, while the PLP remains pro-centre. And selections indicate that the PLP is not shifting rapidly to the left, nor is it likely do so in 2022. And while that continues, or while there is no other trigger sufficiently big and sharp enough to prompt a Limehouse2, long-term activists, including councillors and MPs, will wait for the phenomenon to blow itself out, one way or another.
The problem is that the two are confused. The IHRA definition and examples do define some criticism of Israel as anti-semitic.
Has Jezza ever made an anti-semitic comment outside the context of his support for Palestine?
I thought his comments about British Jews not getting English irony despite living here most of their lives fell into that category.
SNIPPED
I think all this is a huge oppportunity cost for Labour and our ratings will decline further until we stop giving the issue oxygen by constantly trying to resolve it - and I think that's why some, though not all, of the critics want to prolong it.
Are you saying that Labour should stop trying to resolve the allegations of anti-semitism made against some of its members, that it should stop trying to resolve the concerns the Jewish community has, that it should now simply ignore this issue?
One suspects yes, because that's what the leadership thinks. Loyalists are loyal and transfer their support to the then current leadership come hell or high water. Plus, and one wouldn't want to tar specific individuals with this, a base calculation about seats and voting numbers between competing religious minorities.
If that really is what @NickPalmer (and Labour) think, the next time there is some moron in the Tory party (or any other party) saying something offensive and horrible about Muslims or black people or women or gays or the disabled or whoever, then that party will be able to point to Labour and say, nah, we’re going to ignore this, like you because we don’t want to give our critics on this issue any more oxygen.
I don't want to speak for Nick but my position (which I suspect is something close to his) would be to kick out anti-Semites ... (snip)
You're going to kick out Corbyn? Wow.
And that's the issue. You - and sadly too much of Labour - are incapable of seeing anti-Semitism when it is staring you in the face - especially when it is by a fellow traveller.
Well yes this is the crux of the problem, we will kick out anti-Semites. We won't kick out people who oppose the occupation of Palestine. This will be a problem for some people, these people should be ignored.
It's perfectly possible to oppose the occupation of Palestine and be an anti-Semite. What would you do about such people?
Also, so you think that it's possible to go too far in opposing the occupation of Palestine? That some words or actions in opposing might be a bit much?
The other truth is a new party based on a schism primarily from Labour (unless the schism is replicated within the Conservatives) will guarantee Conservative electoral dominance for an extended period (again, another reason why Conservative activists, in particular, agitate for a Labour schism) because, putting it crudely:
40-40-10 guarantees either a Hung Parliament or a very small majority 40-30-20 is a landslide 35-35-20 is also a Hung Parliament
To take it into En Marche territory 25-25-40 is also a landslide and for a brief moment in 1981-82 that seemed feasible if not likely.
Of course a strong populist anti immigration party would hit the Tories as FN have hit Les Republicains if the Tories do BINO or No Brexit
I think the prospects of NUKIP (New UKIP - you saw it here first) are about as good as SDP 2. The Conservative Party has consistently and persistently learnt the first lesson of politics - "if you don't hang together, you'll all hang separately".
I'd also mention UKIP was far from being a refuge solely for Conservatives - its composition varied from seat to seat and region to region. It attracted voters from all parties and none but the degrees of attraction varied considerably.
I wouldn't pretend to be an expert on the internal workings of the Labour Party, but in my experience, inertia often wins out against radical change. There will be a lot of cant spoken to justify it, but essentially people are too lazy and risk adverse to upset the apple cart.
I do slightly object to the implied equivalence between Michael Foot and Corbyn.
Foot was (in my opinion) profoundly wrong about almost everything. He was also a charming, intelligent man of principle and a patriot. Corbyn is none of those things.
Well, apart from being profoundly wrong about almost everything!
There is nothing wrong (maybe claims of accuracy) with claiming white men run/rule the world and oppress others. Looking back historically there is some truth to the claim. These days the picture is much more mixed but white men certainly have more money and power than their numbers would simply indicate.
There is certainly something wrong with making the same claim about Jewish people.
Which is where we get back to the point that they weren't obviously Jewish as all 4 people at the table looked the same. He drew the Jewish people to look the same as the old white guys.
Wouldn't the 1930's nazi party for one not have had non Jewish white people there or if they did have the Jewish people looking (and presumably acting) much differently from the white people. I can't imagine much Nazi propaganda would have included white people as oppressors looking indistinguishable from Jewish people.
I often agree with a lot of what you say & props to you for taking on the herd consensus here, but defending the acceptability of that rubbishy painting is not a hill on which to die. Its implications and intentions were as pure as those of Farage's Breaking Point poster.
No-one knows anything. Least of all the “Europe” editors of our national newspapers, who think they get it in a way no-one else does because they’ve had a couple of off the record briefings from a couple of EU mandarins.
A deal quite close to Chequers will be done, because both sides want one, and both sides will have been working on it for some time.
The politics demands it doesn’t “violate” the single market, nor breach the UK’s red lines, so a deal will be done that allows both sides to claim it does neither.
Momentum won't last. Started by Lansman to run Jeremy's 1st leadership campaign its now supposed to be "People's Momentum" by the members for the members. But its STILL owned by Lansman and he is now public enemy number one having betrayed the movement by binning Willsman. Without any semblance of a leader you then get regional and sub-regional committees organising themselves, and that already makes it very patchy nationally. I know that Momentum has had an impact in some places, in others its barely there.
I do understand your points about a new messiah and I had shared them until this summer. But now its gone way beyond sanity - Corbyn has been propelled into sainthood as uniquely right all the time, the man who has never been wrong. Yes, Popes get replaced. The problem for the cult now is that nobody else can ever be anything more than a pale imitation of the great man. And besides which is Lansman can become the enemy then any of them can. Who is there who can replace Him? Even if the rules end up as 5% of MPs to nominate with whom do you replace Him?
My money remains firmly on Emily Thornberry. Who isn't a cult member.
I think you need to distinguish between the cult of followers and those competing to pull their strings. When it comes to a leadership contest, those trying to pull the strings will put their petty differences aside. I expect Long Bailey to be the annointed one, and if so at that point to become the favourite, that all on the far left will then get behind her and that Thornberry will be cast as the challenger from the "right". I would concede that Thornberry is doing a good job of keeping her head down and is clearly playing a long game, but equally those on the far left know too that she is not one of them. She would have a chance, but only an outside one, and as such I remain of the view that you are being far too optimistic.
what @NickPalmer (and Labour) think, the next time there is some moron in the Tory party (or any other party) saying something offensive and horrible about Muslims or black people or women or gays or the disabled or whoever, then that party will be able to point to Labour and say, nah, we’re going to ignore this, like you because we don’t want to give our critics on this issue any more oxygen.
I don't want to speak for Nick but my position (which I suspect is something close to his) would be to kick out anti-Semites ... (snip)
You're going to kick out Corbyn? Wow.
And that's the issue. You - and sadly too much of Labour - are incapable of seeing anti-Semitism when it is staring you in the face - especially when it is by a fellow traveller.
Well yes this is the crux of the problem, we will kick out anti-Semites. We won't kick out people who oppose the occupation of Palestine. This will be a problem for some people, these people should be ignored.
And if there are people who are both (note: not the former because of the latter but independent of that issue) what will the party do?
To the rest of us it looks as if the party is saying that anti-semites really don’t exist as the accusation is just a cover for attacking their support for Palestinians so no action is needed.
It is I may say one of the best rationalisations I have heard and I can see it being used and adapted for all sorts of purposes.
And @NickPalmer has said upthread that he thinks no further action should be taken at all, which is somewhat less even than your position.
As Nick isn't endlessly talking about this subject because he is smarter (or maybe just in this case wiser) I'll try to interpret his words. By further action he means the leadership / the party endlessly dancing around issuing statements on the issue and the like. Of course you can still pursue disciplinary procedures within the party, much like we would for a homophobic incident or any other type of rule breaking incident.
In fact the recent incident where we just called out the Enoch Powell comparison as stupid (in different words) would sum up my approach.
I think the voters are much more interested in what we would or can do for the country, let the right wing press storm away, it doesn't make a difference anyway and people will (and probably are) rapidly become bored of hearing about it.
Just to add - another thing which united the Ys was their admiration and support for an individual member of the Gang of Four. I often heard the newer SDP members say "I never voted Labour but I always liked Roy Jenkins" and some would say the same about Shirley Williams (I never heard the same respect for Owen).
One of the ingredients of that early SDP success was the cross-party identification with one of the new SDP leaders - that may be harder to replicate nowadays.
I was one of the Ys. Until the SDP came along I never contemplated joining a political party.
I am not so sure about the individual admiration though. I vaguely remember attending a conference in Harrogate. Shirley Williams' book, Politics is for People" was newly out and was the subject for much debate. It contained the idea that money spent on training should be put on the balance sheet of the company as an asset to encourage training. I was part of a group tasked with looking at that. Unfortunately, no one at all on the group, other than the convener, thought that this was an even vaguely sensible idea pointing out that unless we were to reintroduce slavery the realisation value of staff training by a creditor was less than minimal.
Each of the leaders had obvious flaws but the hope was that they could compensate for each other. And that is really the point: a single leader may inspire others but generally a party needs a group of like minded people willing to work together for a common aim. When you look at the ridiculous self importance of most of the remaining Blairites that looks even less likely.
On topic, I tend to agree with RP. Holding tight and riding out the storm is the most likely plan for most people because it's least trouble, because there's a good chance that it will be the best option, and because it avoids making a breach with people and and organisation with which they've invested a lot of time, energy, money and emotion.
But - and this is a big but - there is a limit and it may be that a decision cannot be put off. *If* there is a serious split at the top of Labour - i.e. among senior MPs - then that forces the question on every other member: stay or go. That said, for it to work politically, such a split would need to be justifiable to the public and to Party members. The drip-drip of antisemitism is not enough: the question would be 'why now?', to which it's likely that there'd be no good answer. More, any potential defectors cannot announce red lines in advance, as that would imply that they'd already made the key mental leap of leaving in principle - they were no longer 'of the movement'.
For the moment, there is no purge and there are no deselections. Sure, the leadership, NEC and party officials have been gained by the left but they can be won back in time, while the PLP remains pro-centre. And selections indicate that the PLP is not shifting rapidly to the left, nor is it likely do so in 2022. And while that continues, or while there is no other trigger sufficiently big and sharp enough to prompt a Limehouse2, long-term activists, including councillors and MPs, will wait for the phenomenon to blow itself out, one way or another.
There is a dearth of talent in politics at the moment - I think all would agree that. But if you are centre-left and interested in going into politics - are you REALLY going to put your heart and soul into working to get Corbyn elected?
I think Labour will bleed what talent it has, and it won't be replaced - other than by those very happy to hitch their wagon to Corbyn cultism. In ten years time it will just be a party of loons and losers.
Mr. Royale, recently been reading modern history/current events, about the two World Wars. Quite startling how wrong almost every nation/leader was about everything, if the histories I'm reading are accurate.
For the moment, there is no purge and there are no deselections. Sure, the leadership, NEC and party officials have been gained by the left but they can be won back in time, while the PLP remains pro-centre. And selections indicate that the PLP is not shifting rapidly to the left, nor is it likely do so in 2022. And while that continues, or while there is no other trigger sufficiently big and sharp enough to prompt a Limehouse2, long-term activists, including councillors and MPs, will wait for the phenomenon to blow itself out, one way or another.
There won't be a purge or deselections. The cult is demanding a full open selection process in every seat hoping that will bring about the removal of most sitting MPs. There are several similar proposals to this effect which will be composited and put to conference. I expect it will pass. And when it does what will change?
In almost every CLP with a Labour MP they will walk reselection. Most members are inactive - they pay us money every month (thanks!), they will vote for leader if there is another "chicken coup" but thats it. The active members are mostly the ones who have been there for decades, and even the newer activists aren't spending their time agitating against sitting MPs and councillors. Yes there are exceptions to the rule such as Harringey, but most will be fine.
Great article thanks but I have to agree with others. As the (A-level) physicists will confirm, inertia can mean nothing changes for quite some time and then when it does change why wouldn't it be for an equally bonkers or, for the country's well being, dangerous leader?
The leadership might be old but the membership is young and still looking for a fight to take to The Man.
Newton’s First Law is taught at GCSE, so not even A-level.
BTW what do people think of the absolutely excellent suggestion this morning that Physics teachers (along with one or two other subjects) should be paid more?
It's perfectly possible to oppose the occupation of Palestine and be an anti-Semite. What would you do about such people?
Kick them out obviously, I don't think anyone's suggesting that opposing the occupation of Palestine makes it OK to be an anti-Semite...
You should read what Jezziah wrote.
I did, and I think you have to try quite hard to interpret it as we should kick out anti-Semites unless they oppose the occupation of Palestine", but ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Salmond’s fundraising must be one of the fastest and most successful efforts ever.
Whatever it says though about Salmond’s pull, I can’t see this ending well for the SNP or for the Indy cause.
Which is why it may benefit SLAB. The people have to vote for someone.
But SLAB currently have an English born leader - which is never great for a party trying to win over nationalist voters back to their side.
Plus that leader is not exactly oozing personality or charisma. He does not seem to be breaking through. And that makes their task harder.
People don't have to vote for anyone. They can choose to stay at home.
I am not sure Richard Leonard is a reason to leave the house on polling day.
Richard Leonard may have been born and raised in Yorkshire but he attended the University of Stirling and has lived and worked in Scotland ever since
I have been out but just have to respond to this
You have no idea of how it works. If you are an Englishman you are an Englishman to the Scots no matter how long you have been in Scotland
I lived and worked in Edinburgh for 5 years then married a Scot from Lossiemouth and I am always an Englishman to my family (even though a half Welsh). Indeed when speaking of me one of my wife's Aunts was overheard saying
'You know he is an Englishman, but he is not so bad'
You really need to understand you do not understand the Scots
I think you need to distinguish between the cult of followers and those competing to pull their strings. When it comes to a leadership contest, those trying to pull the strings will put their petty differences aside. I expect Long Bailey to be the annointed one, and if so at that point to become the favourite, that all on the far left will then get behind her and that Thornberry will be cast as the challenger from the "right". I would concede that Thornberry is doing a good job of keeping her head down and is clearly playing a long game, but equally those on the far left know too that she is not one of them. She would have a chance, but only an outside one, and as such I remain of the view that you are being far too optimistic.
Those manipulating from the rear hate each other almost as much as they hate the Labour Party. Having scabbed off into various pro-Tory groups like Socialist Labour and NHA over the years, they're all back now hoping they can recreate the party in their own image. But the infighting is back and its getting stronger. Watch the battle over the NEC - support of Willsman over Lansman has become the pivotal battle.
The problem with Long-Bailey is "who?". Political leaders need umph. She has none.
I was one of the Ys. Until the SDP came along I never contemplated joining a political party.
I am not so sure about the individual admiration though. I vaguely remember attending a conference in Harrogate. Shirley Williams' book, Politics is for People" was newly out and was the subject for much debate. It contained the idea that money spent on training should be put on the balance sheet of the company as an asset to encourage training. I was part of a group tasked with looking at that. Unfortunately, no one at all on the group, other than the convener, thought that this was an even vaguely sensible idea pointing out that unless we were to reintroduce slavery the realisation value of staff training by a creditor was less than minimal.
Each of the leaders had obvious flaws but the hope was that they could compensate for each other. And that is really the point: a single leader may inspire others but generally a party needs a group of like minded people willing to work together for a common aim. When you look at the ridiculous self importance of most of the remaining Blairites that looks even less likely.
Your experience is or was slightly different to mine but no less valid. I think the Dimbleby Lecture by Jenkins started the ball rolling for a number of non-political people but politics was different and the personalities seemed bigger at the time.
I think your final point is hugely valid - unless you have a truly inspirational and charismatic leader the whole has to be greater than the sum of the parts. For all that he did and all that has been said since, Owen's addition to the Gang of Four was pivotal in pushing the Limehouse Declaration beyond narrow confines.
IF the founders of a new SDP included a Soubry or someone from the Conservative side it would instantly transform its prospects. Plenty on here will write off Soubry but she represents a strain of opinion in the Conservative Party which while marginalised now still exists.
There is nothing wrong (maybe claims of accuracy) with claiming white men run/rule the world and oppress others. Looking back historically there is some truth to the claim. These days the picture is much more mixed but white men certainly have more money and power than their numbers would simply indicate.
There is certainly something wrong with making the same claim about Jewish people.
Which is where we get back to the point that they weren't obviously Jewish as all 4 people at the table looked the same. He drew the Jewish people to look the same as the old white guys.
Wouldn't the 1930's nazi party for one not have had non Jewish white people there or if they did have the Jewish people looking (and presumably acting) much differently from the white people. I can't imagine much Nazi propaganda would have included white people as oppressors looking indistinguishable from Jewish people.
I often agree with a lot of what you say & props to you for taking on the herd consensus here, but defending the acceptability of that rubbishy painting is not a hill on which to die. Its implications and intentions were as pure as those of Farage's Breaking Point poster.
Thank you (for the nice bit)
Claiming that Jewish people rule the world, or any similarly minded trains of thought is racist. More than that it is stupid, although obviously racist is the worst part.
Complete with the artists description the anti-Semitism was visible my main contention without it it does simply look like a group of white guys, if I remember rightly there was some argument until the artist released his description, which claimed that two were Jewish and If I remember rightly there were 4 at the table so 2 were not and they all look pretty similar I couldn't for me the life of me do better than a random guess for which ones are Jewish and which ones are not.
I think you need to distinguish between the cult of followers and those competing to pull their strings. When it comes to a leadership contest, those trying to pull the strings will put their petty differences aside. I expect Long Bailey to be the annointed one, and if so at that point to become the favourite, that all on the far left will then get behind her and that Thornberry will be cast as the challenger from the "right". I would concede that Thornberry is doing a good job of keeping her head down and is clearly playing a long game, but equally those on the far left know too that she is not one of them. She would have a chance, but only an outside one, and as such I remain of the view that you are being far too optimistic.
Those manipulating from the rear hate each other almost as much as they hate the Labour Party. Having scabbed off into various pro-Tory groups like Socialist Labour and NHA over the years, they're all back now hoping they can recreate the party in their own image. But the infighting is back and its getting stronger. Watch the battle over the NEC - support of Willsman over Lansman has become the pivotal battle.
The problem with Long-Bailey is "who?". Political leaders need umph. She has none.
That's not an insuperable problem. Marionettes don't need umph.
The lead cloak of endorsement from Jeremy Corbyn will weigh down his successor with huge legitimacy problems when trying to lead, whoever that may be.
I'm still firmly expecting a deal to be done. The fury from the committed Leavers at the deal will be of tsunami proportions.
I expect a deal as well, But seems there's more fury from Remainers now, as they actively want Brexit to br such that either no-deal distaster or remain are the only two options.
It's likely the truth will as always come somewhere in the middle.
Comments
And, following my own advice, that's all I'm posting on the subject for now.
"I'm actually a Zionist myself (which traditionally is defined as believing that Israel should exist and be protected,"
On that basis, I'm Spartacus too, although, I wouldn't have supported the establishment of Israel in 1948. But what's done is done.
Incidentally, I asked a Corbynite friend if I was an antisemite because when I worked in the pharmaceutical industry, we had to elect trustees of the pension fund. We had a choice between two people. All we had to go on was a brief resume of their careers, but one was Jewish and one wasn't.
We elected the Jewish man by a landslide because we assumed he would be good, and careful with our money. My friend thought about this and decided we were all racist. However Jezza definitely wasn't, but he would say that, wouldn't he?
Whatever, I'll still sleep tonight.
If they had some obvious identifying Jewish mark, so this wasn't just some generalised Europeans or the west oppressing the rest of the world artwork but specifically Jews oppressing the rest of the world it would have been more obvious.
But without knowing what the people he drew looked like I couldn't actually tell after the 'artist' said two were Jewish which ones were Jewish and which ones were the white people. They all just looked like old white men to me....
I mean, really?
Until Labour do deal with this issue, they completely undermine any claim to be anti-racist or to criticise others for their faults.
Anyway, thank you to @RochdalePioneers for an interesting header. I would be surprised if there were a split. A lack of ideas and courage are the reason why. And loyalty to your people has a stronger claim on the human heart than reason. Much easier to rationalise why you should stay than break out into the unknown.
All of these things are anti-semitic. I'm on a large Labour Facebook forum and the mods have had to remove scores of comments from verified party members which are saying all these things. People then demand freedom of speech, and then denounce action against them as a Tory/Blairire (the same thing apparently) plot.
We cannot allow people to say what they want. Not now. Because what some of them say is anti-semitic. And the ones saying it are all cultists.
Thank you for the interesting piece, Rochdale. I wouldn't argue with most of it - after all, "liberal" Conservatives had to sit through the agonies of the Hague, IDS and Howard leaderships before they had their chance to regain control of the party so "waiting it out" is probably the sensible option.
That option also guarantees that even if they fall back in 2022 (as many on here seem to hope and believe), Labour will still be the only credible alternative Government and in 2027, under a new leader, facing a stale Conservative Party in power for more than a decade and a half, that may well be the recipe for a 1997-style victory.
History though doesn't repeat with such symmetry in my experience.
When the SDP was formed in 1981, three quarters of those joining in the first month had never been in any political party. I remember splitting them into the Xs and the Ys - the Xs were those who had been ex-Labour or ex-Conservative and the Ys for "why have you decided to join a political party?".
The Ys were the ones with the enthusiasm and the ideas but the Xs were the ones with the activist knowledge and that holds true even with the changes in how political parties engage with voters from 1981 to 2018.
I suspect the same was true of En Marche and this is the unquantifiable - a groundswell of new inexperienced people wanting to engage in the political process.
The other truth is a new party based on a schism primarily from Labour (unless the schism is replicated within the Conservatives) will guarantee Conservative electoral dominance for an extended period (again, another reason why Conservative activists, in particular, agitate for a Labour schism) because, putting it crudely:
40-40-10 guarantees either a Hung Parliament or a very small majority
40-30-20 is a landslide
35-35-20 is also a Hung Parliament
To take it into En Marche territory 25-25-40 is also a landslide and for a brief moment in 1981-82 that seemed feasible if not likely.
Now you're not being provacative - you're being thick.
"I'm too stupid to see anti-semitism". Is that the line now?
Prior to that, what I fear will happen on the left is something between your 1 and 2, that is a half hearted split that further weakens the electoral prospects of the organisation that still calls itself "The Labour Party" and leaves the cult further in control of the party, but still impotent in electoral terms.
I agree that the most likely outcome is that nothing will happen - no splits, no new party, no further attempt to unseat Jezza.
The natural centre of gravity in the Labour Party is soft left. After the swings to Blair and Corbyn, I expect us to return to that position within the next 5 years.
No, he really was not. And those voices - which as you say did exist - have been emboldened by Corbyn's own anti-Semitism and one-eyed, unrealistic views on the troubles in the ME.
I'd also wonder whether all those new party members are more likely to share his views or, worse, to develop such views because their hero has them. We've already seen BJO disappear down that particular rabbit-hole.
One of the ingredients of that early SDP success was the cross-party identification with one of the new SDP leaders - that may be harder to replicate nowadays.
If the rumours of long-standing members leaving the party and being replaced with more newcomers, might it be that the party is being skewed in a particular direction that will be hard to shift?
Oh well, at least now we know that we can ignore any comments by Labour on the racism of others. It’ll save time I suppose.
What frustrates me is that neither hard left nor hard right is trying to come up with a platform for the future. There are significant structural issues in the economy that need sorting - housing swallows increasing amounts of people's income, expensive medical treatment is letting people live longer, pensions don't keep up with the cost of living, automation and the internet threaten whole sectors of the economy we rely on etc.
McDonnell has some genuinely interesting ideas, but gets carried away. The manifesto position of "create regional state owned businesses to compete against the big energy providers" (sensible) gets turned into "renationalise Thames Water" (stupid). Then again listen if can stay awake to Chris Leslie, who seems to think that the Tories haven't made the right cuts and that a NuLabour government should do austerity properly. Its the battles of the past, not the future. And its not just a Labour issue, the Tories have zero to say that is new either.
Just thought I'll put it out there,some on here already trying to shut that debate down with the phobia claim.
Accusing BJO of being an anti-Semite now? on what basis?
If you want to vote for an Islamophobic party that works with the likes of Bannon just do it and be proud about it, don't dress it up as being about opposing anti-Semitism, it just cheapens it.
Specifically, nobody has a right to racial self-determination. Not Inuits, not Kurds, not white people. Racial self-determination is stupid and dangerous. A state founded on racial self-determination is a racist construct, that's the entire point.
"Nah racist or not if you were overseeing its management the pension fund was evidently in very bad hands."
That's why no one would have voted for me if I'd stood.
As for racism, I've always assumed that that everyone is a little racist, black and Asian people too. But I'm the same age as Jezza and Nick, so at that age, embarrassment and shame have been consigned to a box labelled 'no longer required.'
I’m not sure there would be much time for the 20th century. I have cribbed much of what I learnt at school which gave me a good chronological understanding of British and European history until the start of the 20th century (and this was just up to O-level standard). Much of the rest I learnt at university or through private reading. There are so many marvellous history books being written and good documentaries I fail to see how anyone can avoid being enthused by the subject. History tells us who we are and it is a wonderfully interesting and varied story.
https://twitter.com/pmdfoster/status/1035073205671743488
I do understand your points about a new messiah and I had shared them until this summer. But now its gone way beyond sanity - Corbyn has been propelled into sainthood as uniquely right all the time, the man who has never been wrong. Yes, Popes get replaced. The problem for the cult now is that nobody else can ever be anything more than a pale imitation of the great man. And besides which is Lansman can become the enemy then any of them can. Who is there who can replace Him? Even if the rules end up as 5% of MPs to nominate with whom do you replace Him?
My money remains firmly on Emily Thornberry. Who isn't a cult member.
I'm just pointing out why there may be wider ramifications. You are free to disagree and knowing you I'm sure you will
Question is will it split before they get into government or afterwards?
Crowdfunder is not appropriate for:
Projects that involve loans, investments, equity, shares, or anything relating to a criminal investigation.
https://www.crowdfunder.co.uk/help/guidelines/
Isn't there currently a Criminal Investigation into the allegations against Mr Salmond? Whether anything comes of them, we don't know, but Police Scotland are involved.
I know his appeal is for funds to support a challenge to the process the Scottish government followed - but the Crowdfunder Condition anything related is very broad.....and his appeal relates to something relating to a criminal investigation.....
People are people and they come in all flavours and opinions. Young people tend to bracket everything into black and white - nothing to do with skin colour - but it explains why social media can be fraught.
I'm sure if I met Jezza, I'd find him congenial, as long as we kept him off the subject of politics. Or manhole covers.
To the rest of us it looks as if the party is saying that anti-semites really don’t exist as the accusation is just a cover for attacking their support for Palestinians so no action is needed.
It is I may say one of the best rationalisations I have heard and I can see it being used and adapted for all sorts of purposes.
And @NickPalmer has said upthread that he thinks no further action should be taken at all, which is somewhat less even than your position.
I also feel liberals can work with Social Democrats. I'm not sure that would be true with most identified as unhappy in the current Labour party. There is too much of an authoritarian element, or at least that is how it feels. That might just be a hangover from Blair.
I am very green if The Colonel takes over.
I will be MUCH better off if either Stephen Kinnock or Jonathan Ashworth become leader, that said, and I wouldn't know Jonathan Ashworth from a bar of soap if he were standing in front of me.
BTW, the Labour Party is not and has never been a member driven party. It is on paper and has been since Blair smashed the union block vote and brought about One Member One Vote. On paper members input into policy via the National Policy Forum and then vote for it at Conference. In practice most of our policies come from the leader and his team - its as true under Corbyn as it was true under Blair. Even when we have a policy passed by conference the leader can ignore it and say the opposite as Jeremy has over Trident and Europe.
Labour is a tribe, as many of the contributions to this thread demonstrate.
There is certainly something wrong with making the same claim about Jewish people.
Which is where we get back to the point that they weren't obviously Jewish as all 4 people at the table looked the same. He drew the Jewish people to look the same as the old white guys.
Wouldn't the 1930's nazi party for one not have had non Jewish white people there or if they did have the Jewish people looking (and presumably acting) much differently from the white people. I can't imagine much Nazi propaganda would have included white people as oppressors looking indistinguishable from Jewish people.
I do slightly object to the implied equivalence between Michael Foot and Corbyn.
Foot was (in my opinion) profoundly wrong about almost everything. He was also a charming, intelligent man of principle and a patriot. Corbyn is none of those things.
But - and this is a big but - there is a limit and it may be that a decision cannot be put off. *If* there is a serious split at the top of Labour - i.e. among senior MPs - then that forces the question on every other member: stay or go. That said, for it to work politically, such a split would need to be justifiable to the public and to Party members. The drip-drip of antisemitism is not enough: the question would be 'why now?', to which it's likely that there'd be no good answer. More, any potential defectors cannot announce red lines in advance, as that would imply that they'd already made the key mental leap of leaving in principle - they were no longer 'of the movement'.
For the moment, there is no purge and there are no deselections. Sure, the leadership, NEC and party officials have been gained by the left but they can be won back in time, while the PLP remains pro-centre. And selections indicate that the PLP is not shifting rapidly to the left, nor is it likely do so in 2022. And while that continues, or while there is no other trigger sufficiently big and sharp enough to prompt a Limehouse2, long-term activists, including councillors and MPs, will wait for the phenomenon to blow itself out, one way or another.
Also, so you think that it's possible to go too far in opposing the occupation of Palestine? That some words or actions in opposing might be a bit much?
I'd also mention UKIP was far from being a refuge solely for Conservatives - its composition varied from seat to seat and region to region. It attracted voters from all parties and none but the degrees of attraction varied considerably.
A deal quite close to Chequers will be done, because both sides want one, and both sides will have been working on it for some time.
The politics demands it doesn’t “violate” the single market, nor breach the UK’s red lines, so a deal will be done that allows both sides to claim it does neither.
In fact the recent incident where we just called out the Enoch Powell comparison as stupid (in different words) would sum up my approach.
I think the voters are much more interested in what we would or can do for the country, let the right wing press storm away, it doesn't make a difference anyway and people will (and probably are) rapidly become bored of hearing about it.
I am not so sure about the individual admiration though. I vaguely remember attending a conference in Harrogate. Shirley Williams' book, Politics is for People" was newly out and was the subject for much debate. It contained the idea that money spent on training should be put on the balance sheet of the company as an asset to encourage training. I was part of a group tasked with looking at that. Unfortunately, no one at all on the group, other than the convener, thought that this was an even vaguely sensible idea pointing out that unless we were to reintroduce slavery the realisation value of staff training by a creditor was less than minimal.
Each of the leaders had obvious flaws but the hope was that they could compensate for each other. And that is really the point: a single leader may inspire others but generally a party needs a group of like minded people willing to work together for a common aim. When you look at the ridiculous self importance of most of the remaining Blairites that looks even less likely.
I think Labour will bleed what talent it has, and it won't be replaced - other than by those very happy to hitch their wagon to Corbyn cultism. In ten years time it will just be a party of loons and losers.
His/hers is a real and influential voice in politics today.
https://twitter.com/brunobrussels/status/1035083702441844736?s=21
In almost every CLP with a Labour MP they will walk reselection. Most members are inactive - they pay us money every month (thanks!), they will vote for leader if there is another "chicken coup" but thats it. The active members are mostly the ones who have been there for decades, and even the newer activists aren't spending their time agitating against sitting MPs and councillors. Yes there are exceptions to the rule such as Harringey, but most will be fine.
You have no idea of how it works. If you are an Englishman you are an Englishman to the Scots no matter how long you have been in Scotland
I lived and worked in Edinburgh for 5 years then married a Scot from Lossiemouth and I am always an Englishman to my family (even though a half Welsh). Indeed when speaking of me one of my wife's Aunts was overheard saying
'You know he is an Englishman, but he is not so bad'
You really need to understand you do not understand the Scots
The problem with Long-Bailey is "who?". Political leaders need umph. She has none.
It will be interesting to see what the outcome of this is.
I think your final point is hugely valid - unless you have a truly inspirational and charismatic leader the whole has to be greater than the sum of the parts. For all that he did and all that has been said since, Owen's addition to the Gang of Four was pivotal in pushing the Limehouse Declaration beyond narrow confines.
IF the founders of a new SDP included a Soubry or someone from the Conservative side it would instantly transform its prospects. Plenty on here will write off Soubry but she represents a strain of opinion in the Conservative Party which while marginalised now still exists.
I'm still firmly expecting a deal to be done. The fury from the committed Leavers at the deal will be of tsunami proportions.
Claiming that Jewish people rule the world, or any similarly minded trains of thought is racist. More than that it is stupid, although obviously racist is the worst part.
Complete with the artists description the anti-Semitism was visible my main contention without it it does simply look like a group of white guys, if I remember rightly there was some argument until the artist released his description, which claimed that two were Jewish and If I remember rightly there were 4 at the table so 2 were not and they all look pretty similar I couldn't for me the life of me do better than a random guess for which ones are Jewish and which ones are not.
The lead cloak of endorsement from Jeremy Corbyn will weigh down his successor with huge legitimacy problems when trying to lead, whoever that may be.
It's likely the truth will as always come somewhere in the middle.