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)_/¯
There were two clauses in a scenario where there are multiple options. You have to try quite hard to gloss over those other options.
Besides, as Jezziah shows, it's quite hard for Corbynites to see anti-Semitism when it is in their own faction of the party...
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.
No longer a member so don't have any first hand experience but to what extent has the membership been taken over by bods from the myriad far left groups that used to oppose Labour? Friends have told me that the party now has some very strange bedfellows. I can understand some of the young new momentum types drifting off but have the far left seen their chance to control the party maintain a long-term grip on it? Be genuinely interested in your take on that
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 no question that Jenkins was the intellectual heft behind the new party. A brilliant Home Secretary, a successful Chancellor and the former President of the European Commission, it was only his courtesy and modesty that stopped him from being totally dominant. Those of us from a wet Tory background rather liked the harder edge Owen gave and Shirley was such a good speaker she was worth waiting and waiting for. I am sure Bill had some good points too.
I agree that any new party cannot simply be New Labour2. It needs to reach beyond the Labour Party to become truly centrist. That means some of the Euro enthusiasts still in the Conservatives and those in the Lib Dems. Agreeing a distinct platform for such a party is going to be difficult.
His/hers is a real and influential voice in politics today.
As soon as we find someone who shares that username capable of writing a thread up to the standards of other thread writers I shall second that suggestion.
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)_/¯
For clarity we should kick out anti-Semites regardless of their views on Palestine or anything else, you (Edmund) are correct in your interpretation.
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.
The original SDP included a Tory defector (Christopher Brocklebank-Fowler). Did it make much difference? I doubt it. For something similar to appear a genuinely centrist option rather than labour split, I think you'd need (1) the number of Tory MPs defecting to be not completely swamped by ex-Labour ones, and (2) defections at a proportional seniority - which if an SDP2 attracted a fair number of ex-Cab/ShadCab members, means attracting at least one Tory ex-cabinet minister.
I don't think that's at all likely.
The grand strategy of an SDP2 should be to shunt rLab so far left that the splitters occupies the space Labour always did, rather than merging with the LDs one way or another and trying to squash in between Con and rLab. To that end, focussing on Con defectors is a distraction.
I appreciate that from a partisan point of view, this analysis helps the Tories, so I'm not without an interest. I still think it's right though.
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 no question that Jenkins was the intellectual heft behind the new party. A brilliant Home Secretary, a successful Chancellor and the former President of the European Commission, it was only his courtesy and modesty that stopped him from being totally dominant. Those of us from a wet Tory background rather liked the harder edge Owen gave and Shirley was such a good speaker she was worth waiting and waiting for. I am sure Bill had some good points too.
I agree that any new party cannot simply be New Labour2. It needs to reach beyond the Labour Party to become truly centrist. That means some of the Euro enthusiasts still in the Conservatives and those in the Lib Dems. Agreeing a distinct platform for such a party is going to be difficult.
The SDP had everything going for them, except the most important thing of all. Luck.
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.
I live as you know in East Ham which is probably one of the strongest CLPs out there.
At the recent local elections, there was a churn of about a third in the Labour Group with de-selections, reselections and retirements while the big development was the ousting of Sir Robin Wales (the Mayor) in a ballot of Labour members in favour of Rokhsana Fiaz. Sir Robin had been around for years and was firmly in the Blairite camp so I'd agree the Party has moved.
Parties do that - the Liberal and then Liberal Democrat Party I joined died in the fire of the Coalition. Somewhere between two thirds and three quarters of the members of the LDs now joined after 2015 - they are very different and that will change the character of the party in time.
I don't know about the Conservatives - I do get a sense the members who joined in the latter part of the Blair/Brown years are different from those who lived through the Thatcher/Major years. I think Cameron embodied a renaissance of conservatism among 30 and 40 somethings in the mid noughties as a response perhaps to Iraq and the nature of Blair in particular.
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.
Except he didn't. I'm actually a Zionist myself (which traditionally is defined as believing that Israel should exist and be protected, although some use it to support illegal West Bank settlement and other policies), and I was on the executive of Labour Friends of Israel, but I think the claims by some who should know better that anti-Zionism is the same as anti-Semitism are ridiculous. Anti-Zionism is an opinion about the Middle East. Anti-semitism is hatred of individuals and communities in Britain. In 40 years of acquaintance, I've never heard Corbyn express hatred for anyone at all.
In particular, the belief of both keen Zionists and real anti-semites that all Jews identify with Israel (and therefore that being hostile to Israel and in particular to Israeli expansion is the same thing as being hostile to Jews) is itself anti-semitic. Why should all Jewish people hold any particular opinion? They don't.
But I think we've got as far as we're going to with that particular debate - people either believe he is or he isn't, and it's got way beyond the point where accepting the ILHR examples etc. will make any difference. In my opinion he should make one more speech on the issue and conclude by saying that as party leader and potential PM he now has to concentrate on other issues and will not be commenting further (FWIW I don't plan to either). 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.
No longer a member so don't have any first hand experience but to what extent has the membership been taken over by bods from the myriad far left groups that used to oppose Labour? Friends have told me that the party now has some very strange bedfellows. I can understand some of the young new momentum types drifting off but have the far left seen their chance to control the party maintain a long-term grip on it? Be genuinely interested in your take on that
We've had entryism but its a small scale problem. The vast majority of new members are genuinely new to politics from what I have seen. The problem with the small number of nutters is that they are vocal and organised. But they are also stupid - they genuinely think their views are the only views. Which makes it very difficult for them to carry the opinions of the rest of the membership.
Even within Momentum, the "People's Momentum" crap has meant that instead of a few entryists running the show they actually have to have votes and that means new enthusiasts in charge rather than crazies.
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
A wonderful story is told of a Victorian Wee Free preacher preaching on Galatians 5:13-15. The preacher decided to define neighbour. 'Does it just mean our fellows here in Scotland? No! It means the Arab in his desert, the African in his tribe, the Chinaman in his far palace, and the Turk in his Empire.'
Pause.
'Yea, even the very Englishman is our neighbour too.'
In all this furore over Corbyn has anyone noticed that TM is just getting on with being Prime Minister. Her Africa trip seems to be receiving quite a few compliments including from Bill Gates and she is talking up UK business post Brexit in a big way
In the meantime Barnier seems to have been on the road to Damascus with a marked friendly and co-operative attitude, Dominic Raab seems to have recovered from his rather sweaty news conference and David Lidington quietly gets on with negotiations as the de facto deputy PM
Compared to David Davis and Boris Johnson there does now appear to a be a professional team in charge, backed up by Olly Robbins, and the prize for TM will almost certainly be a deal by the late Autumn
The hard brexiteers and remainers will not like it but in the end the Country will be relieved and indeed TM could well see a further improvement in her ratings
While all this is going on and TM still has her faults I for one am pleased she is our Prime Minister and expect he to see out 2019 but at sometime she will stand down before the election, probably with a reasonable legacy. Much better I expect than most anyone could have predicted
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 no question that Jenkins was the intellectual heft behind the new party. A brilliant Home Secretary, a successful Chancellor and the former President of the European Commission, it was only his courtesy and modesty that stopped him from being totally dominant. Those of us from a wet Tory background rather liked the harder edge Owen gave and Shirley was such a good speaker she was worth waiting and waiting for. I am sure Bill had some good points too.
I agree that any new party cannot simply be New Labour2. It needs to reach beyond the Labour Party to become truly centrist. That means some of the Euro enthusiasts still in the Conservatives and those in the Lib Dems. Agreeing a distinct platform for such a party is going to be difficult.
The SDP had everything going for them, except the most important thing of all. Luck.
It was a one off experience but it did teach a young DavidL how incredibly hard it is to start a party from scratch and make it effective. It might be easier in these days of social media and mobile phones or it might be harder, I am not sure. Certainly co-ordination in those days was an incredible challenge.
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.
The figures are bankers Rothschild, Rockefeller, Morgan, Warburg, industrialist Carnegie and occultist Aleister Crowley.
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.
Except he didn't. I'm actually a Zionist myself (which traditionally is defined as believing that Israel should exist and be protected, although some use it to support illegal West Bank settlement and other policies), and I was on the executive of Labour Friends of Israel, but I think the claims by some who should know better that anti-Zionism is the same as anti-Semitism are ridiculous. Anti-Zionism is an opinion about the Middle East. Anti-semitism is hatred of individuals and communities in Britain. In 40 years of acquaintance, I've never heard Corbyn express hatred for anyone at all.
In particular, the belief of both keen Zionists and real anti-semites that all Jews identify with Israel (and therefore that being hostile to Israel and in particular to Israeli expansion is the same thing as being hostile to Jews) is itself anti-semitic. Why should all Jewish people hold any particular opinion? They don't.
But I think we've got as far as we're going to with that particular debate - people either believe he is or he isn't, and it's got way beyond the point where accepting the ILHR examples etc. will make any difference. In my opinion he should make one more speech on the issue and conclude by saying that as party leader and potential PM he now has to concentrate on other issues and will not be commenting further (FWIW I don't plan to either). 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.
Interesting, and in my view at least, conflicting opinions from the 2 Davids on SPD 2. DavidL it has to be truly centrist, David Herdson it has to replace Labour by shoving it out the way.
From an electoral success POV I think David Herdson is right, trying to fit between the 2 major parties, even if they are perceived as being far apart and get the middle ground is just probably not going to work.
Even if you can get around all the problems and get the eqaulish ex Labour and ex Tory so you can look like a mixture rather than just a split off from one of the parties you would have to work minor miracles just to end up with the same result as the SDP of an impressive vote share but beaten in almost every seat by one of the parties.
Although I don't actually see how you shove Labour off to the left and take their ground either, a new party could happen and could retain seats maybe even win some but I just really can't see it getting anywhere in any major way, the SDP who ultimately failed seem to have much more going for them.
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.
The figures are bankers Rothschild, Rockefeller, Morgan, Warburg, industrialist Carnegie and occultist Aleister Crowley.
Rothschild of course being the 'bogey man/keyword' which comes up time and time again.
His/hers is a real and influential voice in politics today.
As soon as we find someone who shares that username capable of writing a thread up to the standards of other thread writers I shall second that suggestion.
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)_/¯
For clarity we should kick out anti-Semites regardless of their views on Palestine or anything else, you (Edmund) are correct in your interpretation.
But if the party shares your incapacity to actually see blatant anti-Semitism (witness that picture as one example), then there is little hope of that, is there?
It will be: "Hang on, this fellow is a good fellow traveller. It's obvious his comments were not anti-Semitic as he's a good fellow traveller, and therefore must have been anti-Zionist comments instead."
That is where the IHRA comes in useful, and it's odd that Labour think it's necessary to water them down.
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
A wonderful story is told of a Victorian Wee Free preacher preaching on Galatians 5:13-15. The preacher decided to define neighbour. 'Does it just mean our fellows here in Scotland? No! It means the Arab in his desert, the African in his tribe, the Chinaman in his far palace, and the Turk in his Empire.'
Pause.
'Yea, even the very Englishman is our neighbour too.'
Spot on. I have been close to Scotland most of my life having moved to Berwick on Tweed in 1954 and well remember in those days Wendy Wood (the then Alex Salmond) used to appear in the early hours of the morning and draw a line over middle of the border bridge and mark SCOTLAND on the north side. As it was cleaned off she would repeat it from time to time. Of course Berwick has changed hands between Scotland and England 13 times
The original SDP included a Tory defector (Christopher Brocklebank-Fowler). Did it make much difference? I doubt it. For something similar to appear a genuinely centrist option rather than labour split, I think you'd need (1) the number of Tory MPs defecting to be not completely swamped by ex-Labour ones, and (2) defections at a proportional seniority - which if an SDP2 attracted a fair number of ex-Cab/ShadCab members, means attracting at least one Tory ex-cabinet minister.
I don't think that's at all likely.
The grand strategy of an SDP2 should be to shunt rLab so far left that the splitters occupies the space Labour always did, rather than merging with the LDs one way or another and trying to squash in between Con and rLab. To that end, focussing on Con defectors is a distraction.
I appreciate that from a partisan point of view, this analysis helps the Tories, so I'm not without an interest. I still think it's right though.
I was told a very interesting story by another MP as to why Christopher Brocklebank-Fowler was the only Tory MP to join the SDP.....
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.
On the other side of the fence the same holds true for charlatans such as Rees-Mogg or Johnson.
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.
Except he didn't. I'm actually a Zionist myself (which traditionally is defined as believing that Israel should exist and be protected, although some use it to support illegal West Bank settlement and other policies), and I was on the executive of Labour Friends of Israel, but I think the claims by some who should know better that anti-Zionism is the same as anti-Semitism are ridiculous. Anti-Zionism is an opinion about the Middle East. Anti-semitism is hatred of individuals and communities in Britain. In 40 years of acquaintance, I've never heard Corbyn express hatred for anyone at all.
In particular, the belief of both keen Zionists and real anti-semites that all Jews identify with Israel (and therefore that being hostile to Israel and in particular to Israeli expansion is the same thing as being hostile to Jews) is itself anti-semitic. Why should all Jewish people hold any particular opinion? They don't.
But I think we've got as far as we're going to with that particular debate - people either believe he is or he isn't, and it's got way beyond the point where accepting the ILHR examples etc. will make any difference. In my opinion he should make one more speech on the issue and conclude by saying that as party leader and potential PM he now has to concentrate on other issues and will not be commenting further (FWIW I don't plan to either). 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.
+10
I want to hear that speech. I want him to explain what exactly he means when he says he is not zionist and I particularly want to hear what the foreign policy of a government with him as PM will be wrt Israel and Middle East.
Despite all the heat and noise, am I none the wiser what will happen under a Lab government wrt to foreign policy.
As soon as we find someone who shares that username capable of writing a thread up to the standards of other thread writers I shall second that suggestion.
Rubbish - you are well able to do that right now. Speaking as a relative thread header writer newbie, I can also say that it focuses your mind on the validity of the point you are making as you know sods like all the PB contributors will be looking to tear it apart at the earliest opportunity.
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.
Except he didn't. I'm actually a Zionist myself (which traditionally is defined as believing that Israel should exist and be protected, although some use it to support illegal West Bank settlement and other policies), and I was on the executive of Labour Friends of Israel, but I think the claims by some who should know better that anti-Zionism is the same as anti-Semitism are ridiculous. Anti-Zionism is an opinion about the Middle East. Anti-semitism is hatred of individuals and communities in Britain. In 40 years of acquaintance, I've never heard Corbyn express hatred for anyone at all.
In particular, the belief of both keen Zionists and real anti-semites that all Jews identify with Israel (and therefore that being hostile to Israel and in particular to Israeli expansion is the same thing as being hostile to Jews) is itself anti-semitic. Why should all Jewish people hold any particular opinion? They don't.
But I think we've got as far as we're going to with that particular debate - people either believe he is or he isn't, and it's got way beyond the point where accepting the ILHR examples etc. will make any difference. In my opinion he should make one more speech on the issue and conclude by saying that as party leader and potential PM he now has to concentrate on other issues and will not be commenting further (FWIW I don't plan to either). 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.
+10
I want to hear that speech. I want him to explain what exactly he means when he says he is not zionist and I particularly want to hear what the foreign policy of a government with him as PM will be wrt Israel and Middle East.
Despite all the heat and noise, am I none the wiser what will happen under a Lab government wrt to foreign policy.
The sort of thing that the Shadow Foreign Secretary might be setting out? It's not obvious and that may be because the SFS has not been told?
In all this furore over Corbyn has anyone noticed that TM is just getting on with being Prime Minister. Her Africa trip seems to be receiving quite a few compliments including from Bill Gates and she is talking up UK business post Brexit in a big way
In the meantime Barnier seems to have been on the road to Damascus with a marked friendly and co-operative attitude, Dominic Raab seems to have recovered from his rather sweaty news conference and David Lidington quietly gets on with negotiations as the de facto deputy PM
Compared to David Davis and Boris Johnson there does now appear to a be a professional team in charge, backed up by Olly Robbins, and the prize for TM will almost certainly be a deal by the late Autumn
The hard brexiteers and remainers will not like it but in the end the Country will be relieved and indeed TM could well see a further improvement in her ratings
While all this is going on and TM still has her faults I for one am pleased she is our Prime Minister and expect he to see out 2019 but at sometime she will stand down before the election, probably with a reasonable legacy. Much better I expect than most anyone could have predicted
quite so Mr G
the deadline has focussed minds and toned down the rhetoric
it simply puts in context the old saying nobody knows and everybody lies, which roughly sums up the commentary on Brexit for the last 2 years
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.
My money remains firmly on Emily Thornberry. Who isn't a cult member.
No longer a member so don't have any first hand experience but to what extent has the membership been taken over by bods from the myriad far left groups that used to oppose Labour? Friends have told me that the party now has some very strange bedfellows. I can understand some of the young new momentum types drifting off but have the far left seen their chance to control the party maintain a long-term grip on it? Be genuinely interested in your take on that
My experience in Leeds was that an organisation outside of the Labour Party was able to organise its members to join Labour, mobilise them to attend a selection meeting and ensure that their preferred candidates were selected for the council elections.
I'm not talking about Momentum, I'm talking about the local Mosque.
As soon as we find someone who shares that username capable of writing a thread up to the standards of other thread writers I shall second that suggestion.
Rubbish - you are well able to do that right now. Speaking as a relative thread header writer newbie, I can also say that it focuses your mind on the validity of the point you are making as you know sods like all the PB contributors will be looking to tear it apart at the earliest opportunity.
I hope not everyone on PB wants to tear apart a thought through contribution even if you do not share the contributors politics
Indeed I like to think in general I get on quite well on here with quite a few posters who are not conservatives
While all this is going on and TM still has her faults I for one am pleased she is our Prime Minister and expect he to see out 2019 but at sometime she will stand down before the election, probably with a reasonable legacy. Much better I expect than most anyone could have predicted
While all this is going on and TM still has her faults I for one am pleased she is our Prime Minister and expect he to see out 2019 but at sometime she will stand down before the election, probably with a reasonable legacy. Much better I expect than most anyone could have predicted
She'll probably win Strictly as well.
Now I think that is pushing it a bit far but she certainly dances better than I can !!!!
Yougov reports a similiar gender split, albeit they hav the Swedish Democrats generally higher Sweden, Sifo poll: Women V-LEFT: 13% SD-ECR: 11% Men SD-ECR: 27% V: 9% Field work: 23/08/18 – 28/08/18 Sample size: 2,928 #val2018 #svpol #valet2018
The male-female split on the Swedish Democrats is astounding.
As soon as we find someone who shares that username capable of writing a thread up to the standards of other thread writers I shall second that suggestion.
Rubbish - you are well able to do that right now. Speaking as a relative thread header writer newbie, I can also say that it focuses your mind on the validity of the point you are making as you know sods like all the PB contributors will be looking to tear it apart at the earliest opportunity.
I'd encourage everyone to have a go at writing a thread header, whatever their politics. The good news is that you soon realise that most people usually reply to the thread that they think you have written rather than the one that you actually have written, which takes the pressure off quite a bit.
While all this is going on and TM still has her faults I for one am pleased she is our Prime Minister and expect he to see out 2019 but at sometime she will stand down before the election, probably with a reasonable legacy. Much better I expect than most anyone could have predicted
She'll probably win Strictly as well.
Maybe she can persuade BoJo to do I'm a Celebrity?
In all this furore over Corbyn has anyone noticed that TM is just getting on with being Prime Minister. Her Africa trip seems to be receiving quite a few compliments including from Bill Gates and she is talking up UK business post Brexit in a big way
In the meantime Barnier seems to have been on the road to Damascus with a marked friendly and co-operative attitude, Dominic Raab seems to have recovered from his rather sweaty news conference and David Lidington quietly gets on with negotiations as the de facto deputy PM
Compared to David Davis and Boris Johnson there does now appear to a be a professional team in charge, backed up by Olly Robbins, and the prize for TM will almost certainly be a deal by the late Autumn
The hard brexiteers and remainers will not like it but in the end the Country will be relieved and indeed TM could well see a further improvement in her ratings
While all this is going on and TM still has her faults I for one am pleased she is our Prime Minister and expect he to see out 2019 but at sometime she will stand down before the election, probably with a reasonable legacy. Much better I expect than most anyone could have predicted
quite so Mr G
the deadline has focussed minds and toned down the rhetoric
it simply puts in context the old saying nobody knows and everybody lies, which roughly sums up the commentary on Brexit for the last 2 years
The problem is despite all the positive rhetoric, we're still no closer to solving the Northern Ireland border problem.
The original SDP included a Tory defector (Christopher Brocklebank-Fowler). Did it make much difference? I doubt it. For something similar to appear a genuinely centrist option rather than labour split, I think you'd need (1) the number of Tory MPs defecting to be not completely swamped by ex-Labour ones, and (2) defections at a proportional seniority - which if an SDP2 attracted a fair number of ex-Cab/ShadCab members, means attracting at least one Tory ex-cabinet minister.
I don't think that's at all likely.
The grand strategy of an SDP2 should be to shunt rLab so far left that the splitters occupies the space Labour always did, rather than merging with the LDs one way or another and trying to squash in between Con and rLab. To that end, focussing on Con defectors is a distraction.
I appreciate that from a partisan point of view, this analysis helps the Tories, so I'm not without an interest. I still think it's right though.
I was told a very interesting story by another MP as to why Christopher Brocklebank-Fowler was the only Tory MP to join the SDP.....
He then joined Blair's New Labour in 1996.
To me, that was ultimately the fatal flaw in the SDP. All of its leadership came from the left. If they had attracted the likes of Jim Prior from the wets I think they would have formed at least one government but he stayed put. It is why I disagree with David Herdson. A Labour only split now might help the Tories but it won't offer an alternative government.
While all this is going on and TM still has her faults I for one am pleased she is our Prime Minister and expect he to see out 2019 but at sometime she will stand down before the election, probably with a reasonable legacy. Much better I expect than most anyone could have predicted
She'll probably win Strictly as well.
Maybe she can persuade BoJo to do I'm a Celebrity?
As long as they leave off the subtitle, I think many people would be very happy to see that...
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.
My experience working at Cheltenham is that targeted pay is ineffective, though of course our good people could easily quintuple their package by moving to one of the tech giants (when I 'retired', my next role paid about triple, but I was a washed up has-been at 50 ).
My wife was a teacher, but retired this year and it was the sheer out-of-class workload and administrivia that decided her, rather than the pay (which, while modest by professional standards was pretty good for the provinces).
There needs to be a serious, and I mean serious, effort to make sure teachers are only doing their core job. Recruit more support staff to do the analysis and measuring, if our obsession with constantly weighing pigs must be indulged.
Thanks to Rochdale Pioneers for an excellent article. He expresses the dilemma of the sane wing of the Labour Party very well.
What I think might be missing from his analysis is the sheer moral incongruity of remaining in the Labour Party under Corbyn - with fellow-travellers claiming a blatantly anti-Semitic mural can't be anti-Semitic because Corbyn liked it. How much moral crap like this are decent Labour supporters prepared to accept? It doesn't all come down to political calculation, there's a moral and principles aspect as well.
Of course, if like RP you think this is a temporary aberration in the party, you might well conclude that it's better to stay and fight for Labour to return to its roots as a mainstream political party. However, as I wrote in my article of a few days ago, from the other side of the political divide it doesn't look likely to me at least that this is going to happen anytime soon, except possibly if Corbyn leads Labour to a massive defeat at the next election. Even then there's no guarantee.
In all this furore over Corbyn has anyone noticed that TM is just getting on with being Prime Minister. Her Africa trip seems to be receiving quite a few compliments including from Bill Gates and she is talking up UK business post Brexit in a big way
In the meantime Barnier seems to have been on the road to Damascus with a marked friendly and co-operative attitude, Dominic Raab seems to have recovered from his rather sweaty news conference and David Lidington quietly gets on with negotiations as the de facto deputy PM
Compared to David Davis and Boris Johnson there does now appear to a be a professional team in charge, backed up by Olly Robbins, and the prize for TM will almost certainly be a deal by the late Autumn
The hard brexiteers and remainers will not like it but in the end the Country will be relieved and indeed TM could well see a further improvement in her ratings
While all this is going on and TM still has her faults I for one am pleased she is our Prime Minister and expect he to see out 2019 but at sometime she will stand down before the election, probably with a reasonable legacy. Much better I expect than most anyone could have predicted
quite so Mr G
the deadline has focussed minds and toned down the rhetoric
it simply puts in context the old saying nobody knows and everybody lies, which roughly sums up the commentary on Brexit for the last 2 years
The problem is despite all the positive rhetoric, we're still no closer to solving the Northern Ireland border problem.
Miraculously one will now appear,
NI was only ever a negotiation ploy as it was a UK pressure point. In the scale of EU\UK trading its about 0,6 % of total trade. You dont base an agreement on the margins,
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)_/¯
For clarity we should kick out anti-Semites regardless of their views on Palestine or anything else, you (Edmund) are correct in your interpretation.
But if the party shares your incapacity to actually see blatant anti-Semitism (witness that picture as one example), then there is little hope of that, is there?
It will be: "Hang on, this fellow is a good fellow traveller. It's obvious his comments were not anti-Semitic as he's a good fellow traveller, and therefore must have been anti-Zionist comments instead."
That is where the IHRA comes in useful, and it's odd that Labour think it's necessary to water them down.
Actually we adopted it, it is only examples related to Israel which we didn't, which is were the anti-Semitism anti Palestinian occupation part comes in. Happy to kick out anti-Semites, not happy to kick people out because they oppose the occupation of Palestine.
You'll be relieved to know (almost as relieved as I am) that I shall be nowhere near disciplinary or dispute panels, I value my sanity far too much.
As soon as we find someone who shares that username capable of writing a thread up to the standards of other thread writers I shall second that suggestion.
Rubbish - you are well able to do that right now. Speaking as a relative thread header writer newbie, I can also say that it focuses your mind on the validity of the point you are making as you know sods like all the PB contributors will be looking to tear it apart at the earliest opportunity.
I'd encourage everyone to have a go at writing a thread header, whatever their politics. The good news is that you soon realise that most people usually reply to the thread that they think you have written rather than the one that you actually have written, which takes the pressure off quite a bit.
The most difficult bit in my experience is keeping it short. Mike is brilliant at writing pithy headers.
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.
On the other side of the fence the same holds true for charlatans such as Rees-Mogg or Johnson.
While I share your dim view of JRM and BoJo, neither of them are any where near the levers of power in the party, as is right and proper. Of course, both represent the King-across-the-water to some Tory Jacobites, but I think the consensus is that neither really represent an improvement on May. Which is sad, now I think of it.
As soon as we find someone who shares that username capable of writing a thread up to the standards of other thread writers I shall second that suggestion.
Rubbish - you are well able to do that right now. Speaking as a relative thread header writer newbie, I can also say that it focuses your mind on the validity of the point you are making as you know sods like all the PB contributors will be looking to tear it apart at the earliest opportunity.
I'd encourage everyone to have a go at writing a thread header, whatever their politics. The good news is that you soon realise that most people usually reply to the thread that they think you have written rather than the one that you actually have written, which takes the pressure off quite a bit.
The most difficult bit in my experience is keeping it short. Mike is brilliant at writing pithy headers.
The basic rule is in FPTP there is only room for two main parties. Any third party has to kill one of the others to succeed.
So the analysis is right, the only way a centerist party would thrieve is if it quickly supplanted 'Labour' as the party of the left, which is highly unlikely given it's history and strength of brand.
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)_/¯
For clarity we should kick out anti-Semites regardless of their views on Palestine or anything else, you (Edmund) are correct in your interpretation.
But if the party shares your incapacity to actually see blatant anti-Semitism (witness that picture as one example), then there is little hope of that, is there?
It will be: "Hang on, this fellow is a good fellow traveller. It's obvious his comments were not anti-Semitic as he's a good fellow traveller, and therefore must have been anti-Zionist comments instead."
That is where the IHRA comes in useful, and it's odd that Labour think it's necessary to water them down.
Actually we adopted it, it is only examples related to Israel which we didn't, which is were the anti-Semitism anti Palestinian occupation part comes in. Happy to kick out anti-Semites, not happy to kick people out because they oppose the occupation of Palestine.
You'll be relieved to know (almost as relieved as I am) that I shall be nowhere near disciplinary or dispute panels, I value my sanity far too much.
No, Labour adopted it in part: and the parts you missed out are telling. It allows exactly the same confusion that you repeatedly fall into to occur. The examples were there for a reason.
I'm glad you won't be on any panel, as you're evidently unable to detect anti-Semitism when it is staring you in your face.
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)_/¯
For clarity we should kick out anti-Semites regardless of their views on Palestine or anything else, you (Edmund) are correct in your interpretation.
But if the party shares your incapacity to actually see blatant anti-Semitism (witness that picture as one example), then there is little hope of that, is there?
It will be: "Hang on, this fellow is a good fellow traveller. It's obvious his comments were not anti-Semitic as he's a good fellow traveller, and therefore must have been anti-Zionist comments instead."
That is where the IHRA comes in useful, and it's odd that Labour think it's necessary to water them down.
Actually we adopted it, it is only examples related to Israel which we didn't, which is were the anti-Semitism anti Palestinian occupation part comes in. Happy to kick out anti-Semites, not happy to kick people out because they oppose the occupation of Palestine.
You'll be relieved to know (almost as relieved as I am) that I shall be nowhere near disciplinary or dispute panels, I value my sanity far too much.
The IHRA definition clearly says "Criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic." So what's the problem? Which Israel example is unreasonable in that context and why?
In all this furore over Corbyn has anyone noticed that TM is just getting on with being Prime Minister. Her Africa trip seems to be receiving quite a few compliments including from Bill Gates and she is talking up UK business post Brexit in a big way
In the meantime Barnier seems to have been on the road to Damascus with a marked friendly and co-operative attitude, Dominic Raab seems to have recovered from his rather sweaty news conference and David Lidington quietly gets on with negotiations as the de facto deputy PM
Compared to David Davis and Boris Johnson there does now appear to a be a professional team in charge, backed up by Olly Robbins, and the prize for TM will almost certainly be a deal by the late Autumn
The hard brexiteers and remainers will not like it but in the end the Country will be relieved and indeed TM could well see a further improvement in her ratings
While all this is going on and TM still has her faults I for one am pleased she is our Prime Minister and expect he to see out 2019 but at sometime she will stand down before the election, probably with a reasonable legacy. Much better I expect than most anyone could have predicted
quite so Mr G
the deadline has focussed minds and toned down the rhetoric
it simply puts in context the old saying nobody knows and everybody lies, which roughly sums up the commentary on Brexit for the last 2 years
The problem is despite all the positive rhetoric, we're still no closer to solving the Northern Ireland border problem.
Looks as even with that a compromise is in the offing
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)_/¯
For clarity we should kick out anti-Semites regardless of their views on Palestine or anything else, you (Edmund) are correct in your interpretation.
But if the party shares your incapacity to actually see blatant anti-Semitism (witness that picture as one example), then there is little hope of that, is there?
It will be: "Hang on, this fellow is a good fellow traveller. It's obvious his comments were not anti-Semitic as he's a good fellow traveller, and therefore must have been anti-Zionist comments instead."
That is where the IHRA comes in useful, and it's odd that Labour think it's necessary to water them down.
Actually we adopted it, it is only examples related to Israel which we didn't, which is were the anti-Semitism anti Palestinian occupation part comes in. Happy to kick out anti-Semites, not happy to kick people out because they oppose the occupation of Palestine.
You'll be relieved to know (almost as relieved as I am) that I shall be nowhere near disciplinary or dispute panels, I value my sanity far too much.
No, Labour adopted it in part: and the parts you missed out are telling. It allows exactly the same confusion that you repeatedly fall into to occur. The examples were there for a reason.
I'm glad you won't be on any panel, as you're evidently unable to detect anti-Semitism when it is staring you in your face.
We adopted all of it but examples that related to Israel as criticism of a country is radically different from criticism of a group of people by their race or religion. The latter is racism, the former is not.
Similar to my reasons to be glad you are not in the Labour party then, someone who is so readily accepting of Islamophobia has no place in Labour.
In all this furore over Corbyn has anyone noticed that TM is just getting on with being Prime Minister. Her Africa trip seems to be receiving quite a few compliments including from Bill Gates and she is talking up UK business post Brexit in a big way
Shush! The children are squabbling in the playground.....meanwhile European Heads of government are starting to pay attention and the Brexit negotiations will move from the "technical" to the "political", M. Barnier's star is setting slowly and the Fudge Factory is cranking up production.....the EU has enough fires of its own without wanting to start an almighty blaze on its western flank.....
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.....
I'd say that someone would have to make a complaint, and then we would see.
Salmond's claim for the Judicial Review is (quoting the beeboids):
"Mr Salmond claims that the subsequent investigation into the allegations against him by senior Scottish government civil servants was "unfair and unjust".
Access to the accusations made against you, and to know the identity of your accusers, is a basic point of natural justice / legal principle, and on those points he is correct to question the process.
The last thing we need is organisations (whether Universities or the Scottish Government) running their own kangaroo courts without proper process or representation. We all know about Obama's Title IX shambles in the US education system.
So on this one I support Salmond's right to launch a Judicial Review. Not so clear on the Crowd Funding, though.
As soon as we find someone who shares that username capable of writing a thread up to the standards of other thread writers I shall second that suggestion.
Rubbish - you are well able to do that right now. Speaking as a relative thread header writer newbie, I can also say that it focuses your mind on the validity of the point you are making as you know sods like all the PB contributors will be looking to tear it apart at the earliest opportunity.
I'd encourage everyone to have a go at writing a thread header, whatever their politics. The good news is that you soon realise that most people usually reply to the thread that they think you have written rather than the one that you actually have written, which takes the pressure off quite a bit.
The most difficult bit in my experience is keeping it short. Mike is brilliant at writing pithy headers.
Absolutely. He makes it look very easy.
It isn’t.
Indeed. I had to cut whole paragraphs out of this piece...
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.
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?
They won't kick out the antisemites, because that would require the upper reaches of the party to be purged of a huge swathe of Corbyn's supporters and comrades-for-decades, and probably Corbyn himself.
That is why they will need some effective loopholes in their antisemitism definition even if they adopt the full IHRA wording, through which many Corbynistas can wriggle.
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)_/¯
For clarity we should kick out anti-Semites regardless of their views on Palestine or anything else, you (Edmund) are correct in your interpretation.
But if the party shares your incapacity to actually see blatant anti-Semitism (witness that picture as one example), then there is little hope of that, is there?
It will be: "Hang on, this fellow is a good fellow traveller. It's obvious his comments were not anti-Semitic as he's a good fellow traveller, and therefore must have been anti-Zionist comments instead."
That is where the IHRA comes in useful, and it's odd that Labour think it's necessary to water them down.
Actually we adopted it, it is only examples related to Israel which we didn't, which is were the anti-Semitism anti Palestinian occupation part comes in. Happy to kick out anti-Semites, not happy to kick people out because they oppose the occupation of Palestine.
You'll be relieved to know (almost as relieved as I am) that I shall be nowhere near disciplinary or dispute panels, I value my sanity far too much.
The IHRA definition clearly says "Criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic." So what's the problem? Which Israel example is unreasonable in that context and why?
This gives example of criticism of Israel being shut down and other places were the definition has run into problems on the basis of the conflation of anti-Semitism with criticism of Israel.
I believe the original author has even stated concerns about it being used for that purpose.
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)_/¯
For clarity we should kick out anti-Semites regardless of their views on Palestine or anything else, you (Edmund) are correct in your interpretation.
But if the party shares your incapacity to actually see blatant anti-Semitism (witness that picture as one example), then there is little hope of that, is there?
It will be: "Hang on, this fellow is a good fellow traveller. It's obvious his comments were not anti-Semitic as he's a good fellow traveller, and therefore must have been anti-Zionist comments instead."
That is where the IHRA comes in useful, and it's odd that Labour think it's necessary to water them down.
Actually we adopted it, it is only examples related to Israel which we didn't, which is were the anti-Semitism anti Palestinian occupation part comes in. Happy to kick out anti-Semites, not happy to kick people out because they oppose the occupation of Palestine.
You'll be relieved to know (almost as relieved as I am) that I shall be nowhere near disciplinary or dispute panels, I value my sanity far too much.
No, Labour adopted it in part: and the parts you missed out are telling. It allows exactly the same confusion that you repeatedly fall into to occur. The examples were there for a reason.
I'm glad you won't be on any panel, as you're evidently unable to detect anti-Semitism when it is staring you in your face.
We adopted all of it but examples that related to Israel as criticism of a country is radically different from criticism of a group of people by their race or religion. The latter is racism, the former is not.
Similar to my reasons to be glad you are not in the Labour party then, someone who is so readily accepting of Islamophobia has no place in Labour.
Again criticism of Israel is specifically permitted within the definition. Criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic.
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.....
Access to the accusations made against you, and to know the identity of your accusers, is a basic point of natural justice / legal principle, and on those points he is correct to question the process.
Agree everyone involved deserves justice - but I also worry about organisations 'investigating' complaints themselves before deciding to go to the Police (if at all) - see the Catholic Church.
Why did it take 8 months, to conclude the police should be involved? Surely that's a matter for the Police to decide?
I'd broadly agree with his wait it out strategy. But my concern is 'how long'?
Regarding Emily vs Rebecca – I agree it is likely to come down to a straight fight between these two ladies.
Obviously they represent quite different constituencies, both literally and metaphorically.
Rebecca is the left's starlet and will appeal to northern and working class wing of the party, whereas Emily is the standard bearer of Metropolitana.
However, I think Emily probably outfoxes Rebecca in a leadership contest – although Rebecca, a self-made solicitor, is much brighter than many give her credit for. The blonde barmaid casting she receives on here is unkind and ungallant but in some way is part of her appeal to Labour's traditional wing.
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)_/¯
For clarity we should kick out anti-Semites regardless of their views on Palestine or anything else, you (Edmund) are correct in your interpretation.
But if the party shares your incapacity to actually see blatant anti-Semitism (witness that picture as one example), then there is little hope of that, is there?
It will be: "Hang on, this fellow is a good fellow traveller. It's obvious his comments were not anti-Semitic as he's a good fellow traveller, and therefore must have been anti-Zionist comments instead."
That is where the IHRA comes in useful, and it's odd that Labour think it's necessary to water them down.
Actually we adopted it, it is only examples related to Israel which we didn't, which is were the anti-Semitism anti Palestinian occupation part comes in. Happy to kick out anti-Semites, not happy to kick people out because they oppose the occupation of Palestine.
You'll be relieved to know (almost as relieved as I am) that I shall be nowhere near disciplinary or dispute panels, I value my sanity far too much.
No, Labour adopted it in part: and the parts you missed out are telling. It allows exactly the same confusion that you repeatedly fall into to occur. The examples were there for a reason.
I'm glad you won't be on any panel, as you're evidently unable to detect anti-Semitism when it is staring you in your face.
.
Again criticism of Israel is specifically permitted within the definition. Criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic.
In all this furore over Corbyn has anyone noticed that TM is just getting on with being Prime Minister. Her Africa trip seems to be receiving quite a few compliments including from Bill Gates and she is talking up UK business post Brexit in a big way
Shush! The children are squabbling in the playground.....meanwhile European Heads of government are starting to pay attention and the Brexit negotiations will move from the "technical" to the "political", M. Barnier's star is setting slowly and the Fudge Factory is cranking up production.....the EU has enough fires of its own without wanting to start an almighty blaze on its western flank.....
quite
it has been a consistent feature of the last 2 years that while the UK media scream Brexit stories they are rarely mirrored in the european press. Europeans have enough on their plate and just want the deed done.
Today Figaro is going with Macron bewailing the French, Die Welt and FAZ are going with Chemnitz and Islam and the Paddies are going with Dublin versus Tyrone on Sunday.
In all this furore over Corbyn has anyone noticed that TM is just getting on with being Prime Minister. Her Africa trip seems to be receiving quite a few compliments including from Bill Gates and she is talking up UK business post Brexit in a big way
Shush! The children are squabbling in the playground.....meanwhile European Heads of government are starting to pay attention and the Brexit negotiations will move from the "technical" to the "political", M. Barnier's star is setting slowly and the Fudge Factory is cranking up production.....the EU has enough fires of its own without wanting to start an almighty blaze on its western flank.....
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)_/¯
For clarity we should kick out anti-Semites regardless of their views on Palestine or anything else, you (Edmund) are correct in your interpretation.
But if the party shares your incapacity to actually see blatant anti-Semitism (witness that picture as one example), then there is little hope of that, is there?
It will be: "Hang on, this fellow is a good fellow traveller. It's obvious his comments were not anti-Semitic as he's a good fellow traveller, and therefore must have been anti-Zionist comments instead."
That is where the IHRA comes in useful, and it's odd that Labour think it's necessary to water them down.
Actually we adopted it, it is only examples related to Israel which we didn't, which is were the anti-Semitism anti Palestinian occupation part comes in. Happy to kick out anti-Semites, not happy to kick people out because they oppose the occupation of Palestine.
You'll be relieved to know (almost as relieved as I am) that I shall be nowhere near disciplinary or dispute panels, I value my sanity far too much.
No, Labour adopted it in part: and the parts you missed out are telling. It allows exactly the same confusion that you repeatedly fall into to occur. The examples were there for a reason.
I'm glad you won't be on any panel, as you're evidently unable to detect anti-Semitism when it is staring you in your face.
We adopted all of it but examples that related to Israel as criticism of a country is radically different from criticism of a group of people by their race or religion. The latter is racism, the former is not.
Similar to my reasons to be glad you are not in the Labour party then, someone who is so readily accepting of Islamophobia has no place in Labour.
"someone who is so readily accepting of Islamophobia"
Wow. Just wow.
Go on, give examples please, because now you're just being really, really stupid. And nasty.
The IHRA definition clearly says "Criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic." So what's the problem? Which Israel example is unreasonable in that context and why?
This gives example of criticism of Israel being shut down and other places were the definition has run into problems on the basis of the conflation of anti-Semitism with criticism of Israel.
I believe the original author has even stated concerns about it being used for that purpose.
Actually that gives details about one universities interpretation of a different (but similar) definition. That's not the same thing. The examples are here and they make it explicitly clear that criticism of Israel is permissible: https://www.holocaustremembrance.com/working-definition-antisemitism
So which example do you have an issue with?
Do you have a problem with: "Accusing the Jews as a people, or Israel as a state, of inventing or exaggerating the Holocaust"?
It's perfectly possible to oppose the occupation of Palestine and be an anti-Semite. What would you do about such people?
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)_/¯
For clarity we should kick out anti-Semites regardless of their views on Palestine or anything else, you (Edmund) are correct in your interpretation.
But if the party shares your incapacity to actually see blatant anti-Semitism (witness that picture as one example), then there is little hope of that, is there?
It will be: "Hang on, this fellow is a good fellow traveller. It's obvious his comments were not anti-Semitic as he's a good fellow traveller, and therefore must have been anti-Zionist comments instead."
That is where the IHRA comes in useful, and it's odd that Labour think it's necessary to water them down.
Actually we adopted it, it is only examples related to Israel which we didn't, which is were the anti-Semitism anti Palestinian occupation part comes in. Happy to kick out anti-Semites, not happy to kick people out because they oppose the occupation of Palestine.
You'll be relieved to know (almost as relieved as I am) that I shall be nowhere near disciplinary or dispute panels, I value my sanity far too much.
No, Labour adopted it in part: and the parts you missed out are telling. It allows exactly the same confusion that you repeatedly fall into to occur. The examples were there for a reason.
I'm glad you won't be on any panel, as you're evidently unable to detect anti-Semitism when it is staring you in your face.
We adopted all of it but examples that related to Israel as criticism of a country is radically different from criticism of a group of people by their race or religion. The latter is racism, the former is not.
Similar to my reasons to be glad you are not in the Labour party then, someone who is so readily accepting of Islamophobia has no place in Labour.
"someone who is so readily accepting of Islamophobia"
Wow. Just wow.
Go on, give examples please, because now you're just being really, really stupid. And nasty.
You. Voted. Conservative. At. The. Last. Election.
Mr. Eagles, I regular condemn you for your many failures on historical understanding, so kudos for the correct pluralisation of 'dominatrix'.
Although it does make me wonder if many an apex means 'apices'.
My dictionary reckons either apices or apexes are okay. I’ve seen both used in the context of motorsport.
Speaking of which, I know it’s a boring bet but 1.89 for Vettel to be on the top step of the Monza podium on Sunday afternoon seems value even this far out.
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)_/¯
For clarity we should kick out anti-Semites regardless of their views on Palestine or anything else, you (Edmund) are correct in your interpretation.
But if the party shares your incapacity to actually see blatant anti-Semitism (witness that picture as one example), then there is little hope of that, is there?
It will be: "Hang on, this fellow is a good fellow traveller. It's obvious his comments were not anti-Semitic as he's a good fellow traveller, and therefore must have been anti-Zionist comments instead."
That is where the IHRA comes in useful, and it's odd that Labour think it's necessary to water them down.
Actually we adopted it, it is only examples related to Israel which we didn't, which is were the anti-Semitism anti Palestinian occupation part comes in. Happy to kick out anti-Semites, not happy to kick people out because they oppose the occupation of Palestine.
You'll be relieved to know (almost as relieved as I am) that I shall be nowhere near disciplinary or dispute panels, I value my sanity far too much.
You are an apologist for Britain's first anti-Semitic major party leader of modern times. He is nothing short of a disgrace, and all right-thinking people should unequivocally condemn what he said, and the racist actions of many of his followers. Anti-Semitism is racism, ergo the once great Labour Party is currently headed by a racist bigot, nothing less.
It's perfectly possible to oppose the occupation of Palestine and be an anti-Semite. What would you do about such people?
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)_/¯
For clarity we should kick out anti-Semites regardless of their views on Palestine or anything else, you (Edmund) are correct in your interpretation.
But if the party shares your incapacity to actually see blatant anti-Semitism (witness that picture as one example), then there is little hope of that, is there?
It will be: "Hang on, this fellow is a good fellow traveller. It's obvious his comments were not anti-Semitic as he's a good fellow traveller, and therefore must have been anti-Zionist comments instead."
That is where the IHRA comes in useful, and it's odd that Labour think it's necessary to water them down.
Actually we adopted it, it is only examples related to Israel which we didn't, which is were the anti-Semitism anti Palestinian occupation part comes in. Happy to kick out anti-Semites, not happy to kick people out because they oppose the occupation of Palestine.
You'll be relieved to know (almost as relieved as I am) that I shall be nowhere near disciplinary or dispute panels, I value my sanity far too much.
No, Labour adopted it in part: and the parts you missed out are telling. It allows exactly the same confusion that you repeatedly fall into to occur. The examples were there for a reason.
I'm glad you won't be on any panel, as you're evidently unable to detect anti-Semitism when it is staring you in your face.
We adopted all of it but examples that related to Israel as criticism of a country is radically different from criticism of a group of people by their race or religion. The latter is racism, the former is not.
Similar to my reasons to be glad you are not in the Labour party then, someone who is so readily accepting of Islamophobia has no place in Labour.
"someone who is so readily accepting of Islamophobia"
Wow. Just wow.
Go on, give examples please, because now you're just being really, really stupid. And nasty.
You. Voted. Conservative. At. The. Last. Election.
What was 'Islamophobic' about the Conservative manifesto?
I'd broadly agree with his wait it out strategy. But my concern is 'how long'?
Regarding Emily vs Rebecca – I agree it is likely to come down to a straight fight between these two ladies.
Obviously they represent quite different constituencies, both literally and metaphorically.
Rebecca is the left's starlet and will appeal to northern and working class wing of the party, whereas Emily is the standard bearer of Metropolitana.
However, I think Emily probably outfoxes Rebecca in a leadership contest – although Rebecca, a self-made solicitor, is much brighter than many give her credit for. The blonde barmaid casting she receives on here is unkind and ungallant but in some way is part of her appeal to Labour's traditional wing.
Not having a go at you personally, but there does seem to be some wishful thinking. How is it that on say Brexit all the old fogies will die off and the young will take over but in Labour the old farts will wait it out and the young Corbynites will fall into line ?
"someone who is so readily accepting of Islamophobia"
Wow. Just wow.
Go on, give examples please, because now you're just being really, really stupid. And nasty.
You. Voted. Conservative. At. The. Last. Election.
Did I? In the last few years I've also voted Lib Dem, Green, Indy and yes, Labour. And you have evidently missed the many, many occasions I have called out Islamaphobia on here and elsewhere.
You might also want to consider that I'm married to a Turkish lady.
Today Figaro is going with Macron bewailing the French, Die Welt and FAZ are going with Chemnitz and Islam and the Paddies are going with Dublin versus Tyrone on Sunday.
Heh. I thought for a minute that somebody had written a comic opera about it.
The subtitle - "The Useless Precaution" - would fit.
It's perfectly possible to oppose the occupation of Palestine and be an anti-Semite. What would you do about such people?
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)_/¯
For clarity we should kick out anti-Semites regardless of their views on Palestine or anything else, you (Edmund) are correct in your interpretation.
But if the party shares your incapacity to actually see blatant anti-Semitism (witness that picture as one example), then there is little hope of that, is there?
It will be: "Hang on, this fellow is a good fellow traveller. It's obvious his comments were not anti-Semitic as he's a good fellow traveller, and therefore must have been anti-Zionist comments instead."
That is where the IHRA comes in useful, and it's odd that Labour think it's necessary to water them down.
Actually we adopted it, it is only examples related to Israel which we didn't, which is were the anti-Semitism anti Palestinian occupation part comes in. Happy to kick out anti-Semites, not happy to kick people out because they oppose the occupation of Palestine.
You'll be relieved to know (almost as relieved as I am) that I shall be nowhere near disciplinary or dispute panels, I value my sanity far too much.
No, Labour adopted it in part: and the parts you missed out are telling. It allows exactly the same confusion that you repeatedly fall into to occur. The examples were there for a reason.
I'm glad you won't be on any panel, as you're evidently unable to detect anti-Semitism when it is staring you in your face.
We adopted all of it but examples that related to Israel as criticism of a country is radically different from criticism of a group of people by their race or religion. The latter is racism, the former is not.
Similar to my reasons to be glad you are not in the Labour party then, someone who is so readily accepting of Islamophobia has no place in Labour.
"someone who is so readily accepting of Islamophobia"
Wow. Just wow.
Go on, give examples please, because now you're just being really, really stupid. And nasty.
You. Voted. Conservative. At. The. Last. Election.
Root is a very lucky boy. Hopefully he can take advantage.
You were saying...
He's really out of form. Being captain is not helping him at all. I think we should take that off him and let him concentrate on being our best batsman for a while.
Root is a very lucky boy. Hopefully he can take advantage.
You were saying...
He's really out of form. Being captain is not helping him at all. I think we should take that off him and let him concentrate on being our best batsman for a while.
Good idea. We are woefully short of talent at the top of the order, as with the earlier Tests in this series it’s going to be the middle order making the runs.
The IHRA definition clearly says "Criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic." So what's the problem? Which Israel example is unreasonable in that context and why?
This gives example of criticism of Israel being shut down and other places were the definition has run into problems on the basis of the conflation of anti-Semitism with criticism of Israel.
I believe the original author has even stated concerns about it being used for that purpose.
Actually that gives details about one universities interpretation of a different (but similar) definition. That's not the same thing. The examples are here and they make it explicitly clear that criticism of Israel is permissible: https://www.holocaustremembrance.com/working-definition-antisemitism
So which example do you have an issue with?
Do you have a problem with: "Accusing the Jews as a people, or Israel as a state, of inventing or exaggerating the Holocaust"?
The article is also by one Ben White, who is a hardly an objective commentator.
I was one of the Ys. Until the SDP came along I never contemplated joining a political party.
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 no question that Jenkins was the intellectual heft behind the new party. A brilliant Home Secretary, a successful Chancellor and the former President of the European Commission, it was only his courtesy and modesty that stopped him from being totally dominant. Those of us from a wet Tory background rather liked the harder edge Owen gave and Shirley was such a good speaker she was worth waiting and waiting for. I am sure Bill had some good points too.
I agree that any new party cannot simply be New Labour2. It needs to reach beyond the Labour Party to become truly centrist. That means some of the Euro enthusiasts still in the Conservatives and those in the Lib Dems. Agreeing a distinct platform for such a party is going to be difficult.
The SDP had everything going for them, except the most important thing of all. Luck.
But, their offering was pretty insipid in an era where Britain was facing some serious problems.
Whilst many people baulked initially they ultimately concluded Mrs.Thatcher’s programme was probably necessary.
Root is a very lucky boy. Hopefully he can take advantage.
You were saying...
He's really out of form. Being captain is not helping him at all. I think we should take that off him and let him concentrate on being our best batsman for a while.
Good idea. We are woefully short of talent at the top of the order, as with the earlier Tests in this series it’s going to be the middle order making the runs.
I'd also like to get him back to number 4. With Jennings and Cook struggling to last more than a few overs he's in way too soon.
Comments
Besides, as Jezziah shows, it's quite hard for Corbynites to see anti-Semitism when it is in their own faction of the party...
I agree that any new party cannot simply be New Labour2. It needs to reach beyond the Labour Party to become truly centrist. That means some of the Euro enthusiasts still in the Conservatives and those in the Lib Dems. Agreeing a distinct platform for such a party is going to be difficult.
I don't think that's at all likely.
The grand strategy of an SDP2 should be to shunt rLab so far left that the splitters occupies the space Labour always did, rather than merging with the LDs one way or another and trying to squash in between Con and rLab. To that end, focussing on Con defectors is a distraction.
I appreciate that from a partisan point of view, this analysis helps the Tories, so I'm not without an interest. I still think it's right though.
At the recent local elections, there was a churn of about a third in the Labour Group with de-selections, reselections and retirements while the big development was the ousting of Sir Robin Wales (the Mayor) in a ballot of Labour members in favour of Rokhsana Fiaz. Sir Robin had been around for years and was firmly in the Blairite camp so I'd agree the Party has moved.
Parties do that - the Liberal and then Liberal Democrat Party I joined died in the fire of the Coalition. Somewhere between two thirds and three quarters of the members of the LDs now joined after 2015 - they are very different and that will change the character of the party in time.
I don't know about the Conservatives - I do get a sense the members who joined in the latter part of the Blair/Brown years are different from those who lived through the Thatcher/Major years. I think Cameron embodied a renaissance of conservatism among 30 and 40 somethings in the mid noughties as a response perhaps to Iraq and the nature of Blair in particular.
Even within Momentum, the "People's Momentum" crap has meant that instead of a few entryists running the show they actually have to have votes and that means new enthusiasts in charge rather than crazies.
Pause.
'Yea, even the very Englishman is our neighbour too.'
In the meantime Barnier seems to have been on the road to Damascus with a marked friendly and co-operative attitude, Dominic Raab seems to have recovered from his rather sweaty news conference and David Lidington quietly gets on with negotiations as the de facto deputy PM
Compared to David Davis and Boris Johnson there does now appear to a be a professional team in charge, backed up by Olly Robbins, and the prize for TM will almost certainly be a deal by the late Autumn
The hard brexiteers and remainers will not like it but in the end the Country will be relieved and indeed TM could well see a further improvement in her ratings
While all this is going on and TM still has her faults I for one am pleased she is our Prime Minister and expect he to see out 2019 but at sometime she will stand down before the election, probably with a reasonable legacy. Much better I expect than most anyone could have predicted
From an electoral success POV I think David Herdson is right, trying to fit between the 2 major parties, even if they are perceived as being far apart and get the middle ground is just probably not going to work.
Even if you can get around all the problems and get the eqaulish ex Labour and ex Tory so you can look like a mixture rather than just a split off from one of the parties you would have to work minor miracles just to end up with the same result as the SDP of an impressive vote share but beaten in almost every seat by one of the parties.
Although I don't actually see how you shove Labour off to the left and take their ground either, a new party could happen and could retain seats maybe even win some but I just really can't see it getting anywhere in any major way, the SDP who ultimately failed seem to have much more going for them.
It will be:
"Hang on, this fellow is a good fellow traveller. It's obvious his comments were not anti-Semitic as he's a good fellow traveller, and therefore must have been anti-Zionist comments instead."
That is where the IHRA comes in useful, and it's odd that Labour think it's necessary to water them down.
He then joined Blair's New Labour in 1996.
Despite all the heat and noise, am I none the wiser what will happen under a Lab government wrt to foreign policy.
the deadline has focussed minds and toned down the rhetoric
it simply puts in context the old saying nobody knows and everybody lies, which roughly sums up the commentary on Brexit for the last 2 years
I'm not talking about Momentum, I'm talking about the local Mosque.
Indeed I like to think in general I get on quite well on here with quite a few posters who are not conservatives
Sweden, Sifo poll:
Women
V-LEFT: 13%
SD-ECR: 11%
Men
SD-ECR: 27%
V: 9%
Field work: 23/08/18 – 28/08/18
Sample size: 2,928
#val2018 #svpol #valet2018
The male-female split on the Swedish Democrats is astounding.
My wife was a teacher, but retired this year and it was the sheer out-of-class workload and administrivia that decided her, rather than the pay (which, while modest by professional standards was pretty good for the provinces).
There needs to be a serious, and I mean serious, effort to make sure teachers are only doing their core job. Recruit more support staff to do the analysis and measuring, if our obsession with constantly weighing pigs must be indulged.
What I think might be missing from his analysis is the sheer moral incongruity of remaining in the Labour Party under Corbyn - with fellow-travellers claiming a blatantly anti-Semitic mural can't be anti-Semitic because Corbyn liked it. How much moral crap like this are decent Labour supporters prepared to accept? It doesn't all come down to political calculation, there's a moral and principles aspect as well.
Of course, if like RP you think this is a temporary aberration in the party, you might well conclude that it's better to stay and fight for Labour to return to its roots as a mainstream political party. However, as I wrote in my article of a few days ago, from the other side of the political divide it doesn't look likely to me at least that this is going to happen anytime soon, except possibly if Corbyn leads Labour to a massive defeat at the next election. Even then there's no guarantee.
NI was only ever a negotiation ploy as it was a UK pressure point. In the scale of EU\UK trading its about 0,6 % of total trade. You dont base an agreement on the margins,
You'll be relieved to know (almost as relieved as I am) that I shall be nowhere near disciplinary or dispute panels, I value my sanity far too much.
It isn’t.
So the analysis is right, the only way a centerist party would thrieve is if it quickly supplanted 'Labour' as the party of the left, which is highly unlikely given it's history and strength of brand.
I'm glad you won't be on any panel, as you're evidently unable to detect anti-Semitism when it is staring you in your face.
This afternoon's thread for example discusses diverse subjects as electoral voting systems and dominatrices.
Similar to my reasons to be glad you are not in the Labour party then, someone who is so readily accepting of Islamophobia has no place in Labour.
Salmond's claim for the Judicial Review is (quoting the beeboids):
"Mr Salmond claims that the subsequent investigation into the allegations against him by senior Scottish government civil servants was "unfair and unjust".
He said he had been given no opportunity to "see and therefore to properly challenge the case against me" and that he had "not been allowed to see the evidence"."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-45333462
Access to the accusations made against you, and to know the identity of your accusers, is a basic point of natural justice / legal principle, and on those points he is correct to question the process.
The last thing we need is organisations (whether Universities or the Scottish Government) running their own kangaroo courts without proper process or representation. We all know about Obama's Title IX shambles in the US education system.
So on this one I support Salmond's right to launch a Judicial Review. Not so clear on the Crowd Funding, though.
Oh Louise..
Although it does make me wonder if many an apex means 'apices'.
That is why they will need some effective loopholes in their antisemitism definition even if they adopt the full IHRA wording, through which many Corbynistas can wriggle.
This gives example of criticism of Israel being shut down and other places were the definition has run into problems on the basis of the conflation of anti-Semitism with criticism of Israel.
I believe the original author has even stated concerns about it being used for that purpose.
Interesting piece, thanks.
I'd forgotten that the gang of Four had been put on appropriately sized boxes such that they were all the same height.
So which example is unreasonable in that context?
Coupled with an A in A Level History.
That's when exams were hard and marking was even harder.
Why did it take 8 months, to conclude the police should be involved? Surely that's a matter for the Police to decide?
I'd broadly agree with his wait it out strategy. But my concern is 'how long'?
Regarding Emily vs Rebecca – I agree it is likely to come down to a straight fight between these two ladies.
Obviously they represent quite different constituencies, both literally and metaphorically.
Rebecca is the left's starlet and will appeal to northern and working class wing of the party, whereas Emily is the standard bearer of Metropolitana.
However, I think Emily probably outfoxes Rebecca in a leadership contest – although Rebecca, a self-made solicitor, is much brighter than many give her credit for. The blonde barmaid casting she receives on here is unkind and ungallant but in some way is part of her appeal to Labour's traditional wing.
it has been a consistent feature of the last 2 years that while the UK media scream Brexit stories they are rarely mirrored in the european press. Europeans have enough on their plate and just want the deed done.
Today Figaro is going with Macron bewailing the French, Die Welt and FAZ are going with Chemnitz and Islam and the Paddies are going with Dublin versus Tyrone on Sunday.
Wow. Just wow.
Go on, give examples please, because now you're just being really, really stupid. And nasty.
So which example do you have an issue with?
Do you have a problem with: "Accusing the Jews as a people, or Israel as a state, of inventing or exaggerating the Holocaust"?
Speaking of which, I know it’s a boring bet but 1.89 for Vettel to be on the top step of the Monza podium on Sunday afternoon seems value even this far out.
You might also want to consider that I'm married to a Turkish lady.
Stop being an idiot.
The subtitle - "The Useless Precaution" - would fit.
quite so
though I remember getting O level past papers from the early 60s and thinking - shit, that's hard !
https://twitter.com/guyverhofstadt/status/1035106450857754626
https://www.indiatoday.in/sports/cricket/story/can-virat-kohli-s-india-emulate-don-bradman-s-australia-1322743-2018-08-24
Whilst many people baulked initially they ultimately concluded Mrs.Thatcher’s programme was probably necessary.
No idea why the Farage painting would be worth 25 grand. Clearly noone else think so either.