England into Fergie time but its not going to happen. Stout defence by NZ.
Its been a pretty disappointing winter.
Yes, great effort by the Kiwis to bat out the day, especially Sodhi at 8 with an unbeaten 56 in well over three hours.
Sadly, we don't have the attack to take 20 wickets in a test match outside English conditions.
Indeed, and if you don’t get 20 wickets you don’t win Test matches.
With hindsight we should have declared 10 overs earlier yesterday, but really we need to work hard in advance of next winter. Test cricket does seem to be polarising itself into a home advantage for most countries, the ICC need to take a good look at why that’s happening.
No, it really doesn't. Dealing with antisemitism is easy: if someone expresses antisemitic views, suspend them or throw them out, depending on the level of the offence.
It's quite simple. You have a fair process in place, and apply that process fairly. You do not prejudge or ignore.
That's what Labour's got wrong under Corbyn, and that's why they're getting pasted.
In fairness the only thing that has changed about our process it has got tougher and we weren't getting pasted about it before.
Blooming heck. If not studying the evidence, backing the accused, and blaming it all on some conspiracy against him is a tougher process, then I dread to think what the process was before!
Processes are all well and good. What matters is how it is implemented, and it's clear that Labour's would have made odd toilet paper: it would absorb any sh*t from the left cheek, and smear the right cheek.
David Baddiel has also come out against Guido’s line - he recently wrote a great pieces in the Times about the issue of antisemitism: https://twitter.com/baddiel/status/980942124362366977 This kind of stuff simply feeds into the beliefs many Corbyn supporters have that this about ‘attacking’ Corbyn, it actually makes it harder to deal with antisemitism.
No, it really doesn't. Dealing with antisemitism is easy: if someone expresses antisemitic views, suspend them or throw them out, depending on the level of the offence.
It's quite simple. You have a fair process in place, and apply that process fairly. You do not prejudge or ignore.
That's what Labour's got wrong under Corbyn, and that's why they're getting pasted.
(BTW, the same goes for other things such as Islamophobia or general racism as well, and applies to all parties and, for that matter, organisations).
In the case of Labour it does make it harder to deal with the issue at hand. The more Corbyn supporters think that this about an attack on Corbyn, the less likely the issue is going to be taken seriously and dealt with. In order for Labour to kick their antisemities out, the issue needs to be taken seriously in the first place.
But that's exactly the point! It wasn't being taken seriously.
Or worse, it was being judged through a political prism: if a Conservative or moderate Labour figure said it, it would be wrong. If a hard leftist says it, it's obviously fine and just a plot by other members against him.
Corbyn is being attacked because he, and his followers in the party, are doing wrong.
I agree Corbyn is being attacked because he’s handled this issue terribly. My point is, is that many of his followers do not agree with this. They, to some extent or another believe that this is an unfair or politically motivated attack on him. The Guido Story for them will feed into this way of thinking, and they’ll continue to not take the issue seriously.
I would have thought me saying that ‘it needs to be taken as seriously’ would imply that I don’t think the issue is being taken seriously within Labour under Corbyn.
Fair enough. But they were saying that is was all an unwarranted attack on Corbyn before this latest news, in fact from when this all started (just look at BJO on here). If they're too stupid to see there's a problem, then frankly they should be ignored. Especially after even Momentum have said there's a problem.
No, it really doesn't. Dealing with antisemitism is easy: if someone expresses antisemitic views, suspend them or throw them out, depending on the level of the offence.
It's quite simple. You have a fair process in place, and apply that process fairly. You do not prejudge or ignore.
That's what Labour's got wrong under Corbyn, and that's why they're getting pasted.
In fairness the only thing that has changed about our process it has got tougher and we weren't getting pasted about it before.
Blooming heck. If not studying the evidence, backing the accused, and blaming it all on some conspiracy against him is a tougher process, then I dread to think what the process was before!
Processes are all well and good. What matters is how it is implemented, and it's clear that Labour's would have made odd toilet paper: it would absorb any sh*t from the left cheek, and smear the right cheek.
All organisations, and political parties are no exception, suffer from unsavoury people getting involved. What matters is how they’re dealt with.
UKIP actually did a good job at quickly getting rid of BNP-types when their views became known, the key is to make sure that these people are expelled and told they’re not welcome back.
A six week suspension followed by reinstatement doesn’t cut it, Labour need to get rid of dozens of people, but that requires strong leadership and robust processes.
In addition to the picture Guido has 22:48 minutes of audio from the meeting, so a planned bit of espionage.
Two possibilities: 1. Corbyn genuinely loathes Israel and is not prepared to disguise the fact because he is entirely uncompromising. 2. Someone has told him there are votes in anti-Zionism. Both terrifying.
Many of the far left seem to be under the impression that the rest of the country hates the Jews as much as they do. Honestly, guys, we really don't. If there's one minority the country as a whole isn't even slightly sniffy about, it's the Jews.
I challenge this perception. Jews are not the most disliked minority group in England, but probably second on the list, with Muslims first. Dietary laws, Sabbath restrictions and dislike of intermarriage stops many Jews (and similarly Muslims, who also won't drink alcohol) from fully integrating in the host community. Groups that keep themselves separate tend to be the most disliked - they are perceived as not "one of us".
However, whenever Jews are in the news, whether it's the time of the year (e.g. Easter, Holocaust memorial day), less-than-decent behaviour by Israel, the misdemeanour of a Jewish entrepreneur, or bleating on about antisemitism, the level of dislike for Jews increases. At the moment, unfortunately, most of these issues are dominating the headlines. When they do, the number of antisemitic comments made unexpectedly by otherwise decent people increases; such views are usually sotto voce in England where expressing controversial views is "not the done thing" and no longer PC.
I wish such issues were out of the headlines; it is better for Jews to be neither seen nor heard.
England into Fergie time but its not going to happen. Stout defence by NZ.
Its been a pretty disappointing winter.
Yes, great effort by the Kiwis to bat out the day, especially Sodhi at 8 with an unbeaten 56 in well over three hours.
Aided by our lack of a decent leg spinner ... and that maybe one ball in ten from the seamers was aimed at the stumps. Leach had a decent debut, but bowled too full to target the footmarks.
Bottom line is that we are a very ordinary side with a handful of very good players.
In a statement last week, the group accused the Jewish Board of Deputies, Jewish Leadership Council and Jewish Labour Movement of "playing a dangerous game with people's lives".
Allegations linking Mr Corbyn to anti-Semitism were "the work of cynical manipulations by people whose express loyalty is to the Conservative Party and the right wing of the Labour Party ", it said.
Right so your evidence for the charge of 'The charge is that they don't take claims of anti-semitism seriously' is their accusation of JBoD, JLC and JLM combined with part of their statement earlier. Glad we finally got there.
No a group with years of fighting anti-semitism can't be charged by someone who didn't attend any of those protests against anti-semitism to not take fighting anti-semitism seriously because they disagreed with some other Jewish organisations.
The impression given is that Jeremy has gone out of his way to find the furthest from the mainstream Jewish organisation in the UK. All he’s succeeded in doing is to keep the story running.
I suspect he thought 1) they’re in the constituency, 2) they’re radical left (very much comfort zone) 3) they’re Jewish - so what could possibly go wrong. He’s just not very bright....
Yep, and all those around him advising have known him for years and seem happy to let him do his own thing. He needs to get an Alastair Campbell, and quickly.
But Corbyn HAS got his Alastair Campbell: Seamus Milne. The position isn't vacant as Jeremy doesn't see the problem. And that's the problem. Alastair Campbell would do a shit job with Corbyn, because Corbyn would not take his advice, would not go in the direction needed to close this story down.
Actually even Momentum pointed out _______________________________________ However, Momentum’s national coordinating group said it was possible both to accept that antisemitism was a problem on parts of the left while also accepting that Corbyn had been attacked “using this issue as a way to undermine his leadership”. _______________________________________
There is a difference between saying there is no anti-semitism and saying this issue has been used to attack him... it is possible for both to be true.
I also don't remember any posts from BJO stating there is no anti-semitism in Labour.
Also in reference to my previous post you were talking about the process to which I replied, the process (that is regarding suspensions and expulsions) has been toughened up with rules suggested by the JLM. The process in place didn't get changed (other than that toughening up mentioned) apart from that, the flaws in the process were already there.
Here is an interesting take, a guy who works on a pro-Israeli advocacy group in Brussels who actually doesn't like Corbyn, article is from a year ago mind.
David Baddiel has also come out against Guido’s line - he recently wrote a great pieces in the Times about the issue of antisemitism: https://twitter.com/baddiel/status/980942124362366977 This kind of stuff simply feeds into the beliefs many Corbyn supporters have that this about ‘attacking’ Corbyn, it actually makes it harder to deal with antisemitism.
No, it really doesn't. Dealing with antisemitism is easy: if someone expresses antisemitic views, suspend them or throw them out, depending on the level of the offence.
It's quite simple. You have a fair process in place, and apply that process fairly. You do not prejudge or ignore.
That's what Labour's got wrong under Corbyn, and that's why they're getting pasted.
(BTW, the same goes for other things such as Islamophobia or general racism as well, and applies to all parties and, for that matter, organisations).
In the case of Labour it does make it harder to deal with the issue at hand. The more Corbyn supporters think that this about an attack on Corbyn, the less likely the issue is going to be taken seriously and dealt with. In order for Labour to kick their antisemities out, the issue needs to be taken seriously in the first place.
But that's exactly the point! It wasn't being taken seriously.
Or worse, it was being judged through a political prism: if a Conservative or moderate Labour figure said it, it would be wrong. If a hard leftist says it, it's obviously fine and just a plot by other members against him.
Corbyn is being attacked because he, and his followers in the party, are doing wrong.
I agree Corbyn is being attacked because he’s handled this issue terribly. My point is, is that many of his followers do not agree with this. They, to some extent or another believe that this is an unfair or politically motivated attack on him. The Guido Story for them will feed into this way of thinking, and they’ll continue to not take the issue seriously.
I would have thought me saying that ‘it needs to be taken as seriously’ would imply that I don’t think the issue is being taken seriously within Labour under Corbyn.
Corbyn and the faithful will never change. The reason is Palestine . Unfortunately many of the pro Palestinians do not accept the state of Israel ' s right to exist in any form . I'm not convinced Corbyn does either.
In addition to the picture Guido has 22:48 minutes of audio from the meeting, so a planned bit of espionage.
Two possibilities: 1. Corbyn genuinely loathes Israel and is not prepared to disguise the fact because he is entirely uncompromising. 2. Someone has told him there are votes in anti-Zionism. Both terrifying.
Many of the far left seem to be under the impression that the rest of the country hates the Jews as much as they do. Honestly, guys, we really don't. If there's one minority the country as a whole isn't even slightly sniffy about, it's the Jews.
I challenge this perception. Jews are not the most disliked minority group in England, but probably second on the list, with Muslims first. Dietary laws, Sabbath restrictions and dislike of intermarriage stops many Jews (and similarly Muslims, who also won't drink alcohol) from fully integrating in the host community. Groups that keep themselves separate tend to be the most disliked - they are perceived as not "one of us".
However, whenever Jews are in the news, whether it's the time of the year (e.g. Easter, Holocaust memorial day), less-than-decent behaviour by Israel, the misdemeanour of a Jewish entrepreneur, or bleating on about antisemitism, the level of dislike for Jews increases. At the moment, unfortunately, most of these issues are dominating the headlines. When they do, the number of antisemitic comments made unexpectedly by otherwise decent people increases; such views are usually sotto voce in England where expressing controversial views is "not the done thing" and no longer PC.
I wish such issues were out of the headlines; it is better for Jews to be neither seen nor heard.
Dislike of Jews increases with Easter and Holocaust memorial day ? Better for them to be neither seen nor heard ?
Anti-Semites used to be people who don't like Jews. Then it became people Jews don't like. It now seems to include Jews right wing websites don't like.
Yes, I don't have a problem with Corbyn meeing a Jewish group (however irritatingly titled) that doesn't support Israel. The idea that if you're Jewish than you MUST sympathise with the country (as I do, and I'm not Jewish) is held only by extremists on both sides - nationalist Zionists who feel it ought to be in your genes, and anti-semites who think that it automatically is in your genes.
Clearly there needs to be prompt action to review all the pending complaints. But I don't think further speeches and outreach meetings are required. Corbyn's stated position is fine, and the serious critics are not saying it isn't, but that they want action, which is not his job (people who demand that he personally goes around judging each case are being deliberately mischievous). Corbyn needs to get back to the day job of leading the Opposition on the main issues of the day that most people care about.
F1: from the gossip column, F1 bigwigs are thinking of changing qualifying to a sprint race.
Qualifying works well. They need to fiddle with aero, maybe changing to ground effect, to improve races. Dicking about with qualifying is not the priority.
Anti-Semites used to be people who don't like Jews. Then it became people Jews don't like. It now seems to include Jews right wing websites don't like.
Yes, I don't have a problem with Corbyn meeing a Jewish group (however irritatingly titled) that doesn't support Israel. The idea that if you're Jewish than you MUST sympathise with the country (as I do, and I'm not Jewish) is held only by extremists on both sides - nationalist Zionists who feel it ought to be in your genes, and anti-semites who think that it automatically is in your genes.
Clearly there needs to be prompt action to review all the pending complaints. But I don't think further speeches and outreach meetings are required. Corbyn's stated position is fine, and the serious critics are not saying it isn't, but that they want action, which is not his job (people who demand that he personally goes around judging each case are being deliberately mischievous). Corbyn needs to get back to the day job of leading the Opposition on the main issues of the day that most people care about.
While I don't really have a problem with the Jewdas thing (though Hugo Rifkind nicely explains why some do), Corbyn's stated position is that he is a "militant against antisemetism". Frankly, he has provided zero evidence of that.
Anti-Semites used to be people who don't like Jews. Then it became people Jews don't like. It now seems to include Jews right wing websites don't like.
Yes, I don't have a problem with Corbyn meeing a Jewish group (however irritatingly titled) that doesn't support Israel. The idea that if you're Jewish than you MUST sympathise with the country (as I do, and I'm not Jewish) is held only by extremists on both sides - nationalist Zionists who feel it ought to be in your genes, and anti-semites who think that it automatically is in your genes.
Clearly there needs to be prompt action to review all the pending complaints. But I don't think further speeches and outreach meetings are required. Corbyn's stated position is fine, and the serious critics are not saying it isn't, but that they want action, which is not his job (people who demand that he personally goes around judging each case are being deliberately mischievous). Corbyn needs to get back to the day job of leading the Opposition on the main issues of the day that most people care about.
That's an interesting position. You are right that he shouldn't be the one judging all the cases (after all, he seems utterly unsuited for that).
But he is the party leader. It is his responsibility to see that the party has robust processes in place over many issues, including antisemitism, and to ensure those processes are followed freely and fairly to all parties involved.
By placing Shawcroft in her role - one she was utterly unsuited for - he shows that he holds such processes in contempt. It is hard not to conclude that she was not picked for any skill, but because of her political positioning - and one she disastrously took into account during her short tenure.
A fish rots from the head. This entire scandal has occurred because of his actions, past and present. Corbyn *is* the problem, which is why he's getting such bad press.
And I would add that he is not unique in this - as I said with the Lib Dems and Rennard, too many people in all political parties put political reliability over what is right.
Corbyn was a fool to attend this event. Anyone with a working political radar could, would and should have told him so. He lost the right to go places in a personal capacity when he accepted the leadership. Everything he does or says is as Jeremy Corbyn. That line from the party is just ludicrous.
And this is nothing about Jeremy being an honourable man not wanting to desert his friends. It is about him not seeing the political consequences of doing it in the current.climate.
He has ensured more coverage for this issue. Something that his team could and should have prevented.
Anti-Semites used to be people who don't like Jews. Then it became people Jews don't like. It now seems to include Jews right wing websites don't like.
Yes, I don't have a problem with Corbyn meeing a Jewish group (however irritatingly titled) that doesn't support Israel. The idea that if you're Jewish than you MUST sympathise with the country (as I do, and I'm not Jewish) is held only by extremists on both sides - nationalist Zionists who feel it ought to be in your genes, and anti-semites who think that it automatically is in your genes.
Clearly there needs to be prompt action to review all the pending complaints. But I don't think further speeches and outreach meetings are required. Corbyn's stated position is fine, and the serious critics are not saying it isn't, but that they want action, which is not his job (people who demand that he personally goes around judging each case are being deliberately mischievous). Corbyn needs to get back to the day job of leading the Opposition on the main issues of the day that most people care about.
Thanks, Mr P. I’m beginning to suspect that part at least of ‘the problem’ stems from the Three-Quidders, some of whom openly joined the Party just to create mischief short-term, and some of whom took the opportunity so that they could do so at a later date.
For me, as one who is horrified at some at least of the policies of our Government your last sentence points out exactly the proper course of action for the Leader of the Opposition.
"Corbyn's stated position is fine, and the serious critics are not saying it isn't, but that they want action, which is not his job."
True, but his tendency to actively seek out anti-semites to consort with shouldn't be his job either if he wants to retain credibility. I accept he's a pacifist, but some of his mates aren't.
Had he met with the Israeli government and the UVF, he could be claim to be even-handed, even if misguided. Calling Hamas 'friends' isn't a good look if you want to be a referee and not a supporter.
It will die away and tells us nothing we didn't already know, but it is politically inept. Had Mrs May been fraternising with hate groups, I doubt the labour party would give her a free pass.
But that's politics, hypocrisy is the name of the game.
He's a self made man, the popular Governor of a swing state; he was Chair of the National Governors Association. In the old days, that was the perfect CV (sorry, Resume) for a run at the White House.
Would he be popular in the "Rust Belt"? Well, I think the better question is: will any of Trump's policies have done anything to resurrect Ohio, Pennsylvania and the like?
If not, then they may well be voting against Trump irrespective of who the Democratic candidate is. And if so, then Trump is getting re-elected in 2020.
He's heading off to Iowa to stump for the Democratic nomination. I think he's 10x the candidate Clinton, or Warren is, and he's more than a decade younger than Trump, Biden or Sanders.
Is he the presumptive favourite, or anything like that? No, obviously not. But - if he runs - he probably shouldn't be more than an 8-1 shot for the nomination, and that's assuming that Biden throws his hat into the ring.
I think he's value at anything above about 50-1, and if he runs, I think that should be more like 15 or 20-1.
I just backed him a 199/1 for President. Much better value than the 26/1 for the nomination. [Now 120/1]. Also put a few quid on Sherrod Brown at 259/1.
In a statement last week, the group accused the Jewish Board of Deputies, Jewish Leadership Council and Jewish Labour Movement of "playing a dangerous game with people's lives".
Allegations linking Mr Corbyn to anti-Semitism were "the work of cynical manipulations by people whose express loyalty is to the Conservative Party and the right wing of the Labour Party ", it said.
Right so your evidence for the charge of 'The charge is that they don't take claims of anti-semitism seriously' is their accusation of JBoD, JLC and JLM combined with part of their statement earlier. Glad we finally got there.
No a group with years of fighting anti-semitism can't be charged by someone who didn't attend any of those protests against anti-semitism to not take fighting anti-semitism seriously because they disagreed with some other Jewish organisations.
You surely don't expect the Tory frothers on here to be posting the truth, lies and partisanship all the way for them. Lucky for Jeremy that hanging is banned.
Corbyn was a fool to attend this event. Anyone with a working political radar could, would and should have told him so. He lost the right to go places in a personal capacity when he accepted the leadership. Everything he does or says is as Jeremy Corbyn. That line from the party is just ludicrous.
And this is nothing about Jeremy being an honourable man not wanting to desert his friends. It is about him not seeing the political consequences of doing it in the current.climate.
He has ensured more coverage for this issue. Something that his team could and should have prevented.
If he hadn't gone, the story would have been that he had refused to attend a meeting with Jews in his own constituency.
Anti-Semites used to be people who don't like Jews. Then it became people Jews don't like. It now seems to include Jews right wing websites don't like.
Yes, I don't have a problem with Corbyn meeing a Jewish group (however irritatingly titled) that doesn't support Israel. The idea that if you're Jewish than you MUST sympathise with the country (as I do, and I'm not Jewish) is held only by extremists on both sides - nationalist Zionists who feel it ought to be in your genes, and anti-semites who think that it automatically is in your genes.
Clearly there needs to be prompt action to review all the pending complaints. But I don't think further speeches and outreach meetings are required. Corbyn's stated position is fine, and the serious critics are not saying it isn't, but that they want action, which is not his job (people who demand that he personally goes around judging each case are being deliberately mischievous). Corbyn needs to get back to the day job of leading the Opposition on the main issues of the day that most people care about.
Thanks, Mr P. I’m beginning to suspect that part at least of ‘the problem’ stems from the Three-Quidders, some of whom openly joined the Party just to create mischief short-term, and some of whom took the opportunity so that they could do so at a later date.
For me, as one who is horrified at some at least of the policies of our Government your last sentence points out exactly the proper course of action for the Leader of the Opposition.
What an (ahem) interesting comment. The problem isn't the Three Quidders: the problem is Corbyn and his leadership of Labour. The Three-Quidders didn't put Shawcroft in that position; they didn't force her to act in that way; they didn't force Corbyn not to react when the trouble first surfaced. They didn't give Corbyn his backstory.
It's a problem totally created by, and kept going by, Corbyn. He could so easily have stemmed this within the first day.
From the BBC story: "Jewdas has accused the Jewish Board of Deputies, Jewish Leadership Council and Jewish Labour Movement of "playing a dangerous game" and previously dismissed anti-Semitism allegations as right-wing smears."
The problem with Corbyn's meeting with Jewdas* is it looks like he is siding against the Jewish Board of Deputies, Jewish Leadership Council and Jewish Labour Movement, just at the moment where giving them the finger might not be entirely wise....
* if ever there was a dumb name created by "smart" people. Maybe they could go into the kosher take-away business next: Jewdas's Carry-out......
Kevin Schofield - @PolhomeEditor: Jon Lansman on Jeremy Corbyn's presence at Jewdas Seder: "It was his night off, his office didn't know he was there. This isn't as significant as it's being made out." #r4today
Kevin Schofield - @PolhomeEditor: Jon Lansman on Jeremy Corbyn's presence at Jewdas Seder: "It was his night off, his office didn't know he was there. This isn't as significant as it's being made out." #r4today
Bollocks
You don't get a night off as Leader of the Opposition
Anti-Semites used to be people who don't like Jews. Then it became people Jews don't like. It now seems to include Jews right wing websites don't like.
Yes, I don't have a problem with Corbyn meeing a Jewish group (however irritatingly titled) that doesn't support Israel. The idea that if you're Jewish than you MUST sympathise with the country (as I do, and I'm not Jewish) is held only by extremists on both sides - nationalist Zionists who feel it ought to be in your genes, and anti-semites who think that it automatically is in your genes.
Clearly there needs to be prompt action to review all the pending complaints. But I don't think further speeches and outreach meetings are required. Corbyn's stated position is fine, and the serious critics are not saying it isn't, but that they want action, which is not his job (people who demand that he personally goes around judging each case are being deliberately mischievous). Corbyn needs to get back to the day job of leading the Opposition on the main issues of the day that most people care about.
Thanks, Mr P. I’m beginning to suspect that part at least of ‘the problem’ stems from the Three-Quidders, some of whom openly joined the Party just to create mischief short-term, and some of whom took the opportunity so that they could do so at a later date.
For me, as one who is horrified at some at least of the policies of our Government your last sentence points out exactly the proper course of action for the Leader of the Opposition.
What an (ahem) interesting comment. The problem isn't the Three Quidders: the problem is Corbyn and his leadership of Labour. The Three-Quidders didn't put Shawcroft in that position; they didn't force her to act in that way; they didn't force Corbyn not to react when the trouble first surfaced. They didn't give Corbyn his backstory.
It's a problem totally created by, and kept going by, Corbyn. He could so easily have stemmed this within the first day.
Corbyn can't change what he has been for fifty years overnight. Nor can his coterie of Acolytes change their hero-worship. They will still brook no criticism of their man.
I doubt many of the mischief-making Three Quidders are still there. Or if they were, they may well have been amongst the wave of those resigning last week, just to make further mischief.
Corbyn was a fool to attend this event. Anyone with a working political radar could, would and should have told him so. He lost the right to go places in a personal capacity when he accepted the leadership. Everything he does or says is as Jeremy Corbyn. That line from the party is just ludicrous.
And this is nothing about Jeremy being an honourable man not wanting to desert his friends. It is about him not seeing the political consequences of doing it in the current.climate.
He has ensured more coverage for this issue. Something that his team could and should have prevented.
If he hadn't gone, the story would have been that he had refused to attend a meeting with Jews in his own constituency.
No it wouldn't. And you know it.
I get that you are an apologist for him - but be real, he is the one who made the decision to attend something that was going to ensure this story stayed in the news for at least another cycle.
Jon Lansman on Today saying people just need diversity training. Amazed that all their lifelong anti-racism campaigners need their consciousness raised.
In addition to the picture Guido has 22:48 minutes of audio from the meeting, so a planned bit of espionage.
Two possibilities: 1. Corbyn genuinely loathes Israel and is not prepared to disguise the fact because he is entirely uncompromising. 2. Someone has told him there are votes in anti-Zionism. Both terrifying.
Many of the far left seem to be under the impression that the rest of the country hates the Jews as much as they do. Honestly, guys, we really don't. If there's one minority the country as a whole isn't even slightly sniffy about, it's the Jews.
I challenge this perception. Jews are not the most disliked minority group in England, but probably second on the list, with Muslims first. Dietary laws, Sabbath restrictions and dislike of intermarriage stops many Jews (and similarly Muslims, who also won't drink alcohol) from fully integrating in the host community. Groups that keep themselves separate tend to be the most disliked - they are perceived as not "one of us".
However, whenever Jews are in the news, whether it's the time of the year (e.g. Easter, Holocaust memorial day), less-than-decent behaviour by Israel, the misdemeanour of a Jewish entrepreneur, or bleating on about antisemitism, the level of dislike for Jews increases. At the moment, unfortunately, most of these issues are dominating the headlines. When they do, the number of antisemitic comments made unexpectedly by otherwise decent people increases; such views are usually sotto voce in England where expressing controversial views is "not the done thing" and no longer PC.
I wish such issues were out of the headlines; it is better for Jews to be neither seen nor heard.
I'd like to bet that the majority of people in provincial Britain (which is most of it) don't know anyone who is visibly Jewish, wouldn't know an anti-Semitic trope if it came up and bit them on the bum, and are thoroughly bemused by the whole issue which is one they didn't realise existed.
Should he really be having dinner with people who are calling for the destruction of Israel?
This is an entirely different issue. That's a political stance I don't agree. But conflating it with the antisemitism issue (as this thread title does, and as several PB posters have) is patently absurd, when it's a Jewish group (unless we're going along with Ishamel Z's idea that these are Jewish people who somehow hate themselves).
Attending this dinner might arguably mean his foreign policy views are dangerous and wrong, and it might question whether he should be PM, but it doesn't show that he's "not treating the antisemitism crisis seriously", unless you're going to argue that this group is antisemitic.
I agree it's a stretch to say a Jewish group are themselves antisemitic (not a totally impossible stretch, but whatever). The problem here is surely that this group have called the current allegations "faux outrage" and "cynical manipulations" by Corbyn's political opponents - whereas Corbyn himself has belatedly stated that this isn't the case. The integrity of that statement, and his willingness to address the underlying issue, is surely called into severe question by his decision to attend this particular Seder.
Quite so. It's tied into the antisemitism scandal even if, being Jewish themselves, this group is unlikey to be antisemitic itself. Just an odd choice given the need to tackle the problem and be seen to tackle the problem. It's not like OGH is a pb tory.
Even if Corbyn believes the extent of the problem is being exaggerated to attack him , as many f his supporters do, it would be tactically unwise to say so, or hang around with those who do.
But the members think he's handling it well, so he probably has a good handle on what they will accept.
Kevin Schofield - @PolhomeEditor: Jon Lansman suggests some Labour MPs are using the anti-Semitism row to "opportunistically" attack Jeremy Corbyn. #r4today
Kevin Schofield - @PolhomeEditor: Jon Lansman suggests some Labour MPs are using the anti-Semitism row to "opportunistically" attack Jeremy Corbyn. #r4today
How long before non-Jewish people start denouncing Lansman as a bad Jew now?
Corbyn was a fool to attend this event. Anyone with a working political radar could, would and should have told him so. He lost the right to go places in a personal capacity when he accepted the leadership. Everything he does or says is as Jeremy Corbyn. That line from the party is just ludicrous.
And this is nothing about Jeremy being an honourable man not wanting to desert his friends. It is about him not seeing the political consequences of doing it in the current.climate.
He has ensured more coverage for this issue. Something that his team could and should have prevented.
If he hadn't gone, the story would have been that he had refused to attend a meeting with Jews in his own constituency.
No it wouldn't. And you know it.
I get that you are an apologist for him - but be real, he is the one who made the decision to attend something that was going to ensure this story stayed in the news for at least another cycle.
Kevin Schofield - @PolhomeEditor: Jon Lansman suggests some Labour MPs are using the anti-Semitism row to "opportunistically" attack Jeremy Corbyn. #r4today
Given enough time and space to air sometimes questionable opinions, the left always eats itself.
Kevin Schofield - @PolhomeEditor: Jon Lansman suggests some Labour MPs are using the anti-Semitism row to "opportunistically" attack Jeremy Corbyn. #r4today
Maybe but all the evidence suggests it is making no difference with Labour members who are the key group here
Corbyn was a fool to attend this event. Anyone with a working political radar could, would and should have told him so. He lost the right to go places in a personal capacity when he accepted the leadership. Everything he does or says is as Jeremy Corbyn. That line from the party is just ludicrous.
And this is nothing about Jeremy being an honourable man not wanting to desert his friends. It is about him not seeing the political consequences of doing it in the current.climate.
He has ensured more coverage for this issue. Something that his team could and should have prevented.
If he hadn't gone, the story would have been that he had refused to attend a meeting with Jews in his own constituency.
No it wouldn't. And you know it.
I get that you are an apologist for him - but be real, he is the one who made the decision to attend something that was going to ensure this story stayed in the news for at least another cycle.
I may be excessively cynical, but I suspect that Seamus Milne has made the calculation that there are more votes to be won by attracting muslims than repelling jews. Corbyn may not be anti-semite, but is just following his master's voice.
Kevin Schofield - @PolhomeEditor: Jon Lansman suggests some Labour MPs are using the anti-Semitism row to "opportunistically" attack Jeremy Corbyn. #r4today
How long before non-Jewish people start denouncing Lansman as a bad Jew now?
I think you'll find that most people are perfectly willing to listen politely to contrary views, as long as they're within the bounds of reasonable conversation. Lansman's entitled to his views and may even be right.
The problem is that Corbyn's Labour is not willing to accept contrary views.
But the reason why Corbyn's being attacked is irrelevant: unless you think accusations of sleaze against Tories in the 1990s should have been ignored because they were coming from Labour?
Anti-Semites used to be people who don't like Jews. Then it became people Jews don't like. It now seems to include Jews right wing websites don't like.
Yes, I don't have a problem with Corbyn meeing a Jewish group (however irritatingly titled) that doesn't support Israel. The idea that if you're Jewish than you MUST sympathise with the country (as I do, and I'm not Jewish) is held only by extremists on both sides - nationalist Zionists who feel it ought to be in your genes, and anti-semites who think that it automatically is in your genes.
Clearly there needs to be prompt action to review all the pending complaints. But I don't think further speeches and outreach meetings are required. Corbyn's stated position is fine, and the serious critics are not saying it isn't, but that they want action, which is not his job (people who demand that he personally goes around judging each case are being deliberately mischievous). Corbyn needs to get back to the day job of leading the Opposition on the main issues of the day that most people care about.
By placing Shawcroft in her role - one she was utterly unsuited for - he shows that he holds such processes in contempt. It is hard not to conclude that she was not picked for any skill, but because of her political positioning - and one she disastrously took into account during her short tenure.
Surely not, don't all such people write defences of people without taking the time to see what specifically they are accessed of?
I may be excessively cynical, but I suspect that Seamus Milne has wmade the calculation that there are more votes to be won by attracting muslims than repelling jews. Corbyn may not be anti-semite, but is just following his master's voice.
The real tragedy is this awful politics of identity - groups of voters being wooed as herds and voting as herds. Everyone should vote how they feel - not how their silly gang leader tells them to vote.
Corbyn was a fool to attend this event. Anyone with a working political radar could, would and should have told him so. He lost the right to go places in a personal capacity when he accepted the leadership. Everything he does or says is as Jeremy Corbyn. That line from the party is just ludicrous.
And this is nothing about Jeremy being an honourable man not wanting to desert his friends. It is about him not seeing the political consequences of doing it in the current.climate.
He has ensured more coverage for this issue. Something that his team could and should have prevented.
If he hadn't gone, the story would have been that he had refused to attend a meeting with Jews in his own constituency.
No it wouldn't. And you know it.
I get that you are an apologist for him - but be real, he is the one who made the decision to attend something that was going to ensure this story stayed in the news for at least another cycle.
I promise you that would have been a story.
It might well have been. But there are other groups he could and presumably will be meeting with, which woukd curtail that story while this one is being amplifued, because of the group being dismissive of the present scandal, leafing to legitimate questions of if he agrees with that.
At best a tactical misstep, even if they are not devil's incarnate as Guido thinks.
I may be excessively cynical, but I suspect that Seamus Milne has made the calculation that there are more votes to be won by attracting muslims than repelling jews. Corbyn may not be anti-semite, but is just following his master's voice.
Leave UK got a big pile on from the left for pointing that out in an ad last week. Just simple maths, 3m Muslim votes Vs 300k Jewish votes. Would McDonnell and Milne be that cynical? Perish the thought!
I may be excessively cynical, but I suspect that Seamus Milne has made the calculation that there are more votes to be won by attracting muslims than repelling jews. Corbyn may not be anti-semite, but is just following his master's voice.
Which woud be
a) repulsive
b) stupid politics. The muslims are already inside the Labour tent. Labour already has the MPs in those seats where they represent a significant body of votes. So Labour might attract a few more ex-BNPers too. But to counterbalance, they are likely to lose a mass of people from the centre and soft-left (maybe even a few on the hard-left) who just find it totally unacceptable for a party to pander to anti-semitism.
Kevin Schofield - @PolhomeEditor: Jon Lansman suggests some Labour MPs are using the anti-Semitism row to "opportunistically" attack Jeremy Corbyn. #r4today
Maybe but all the evidence suggests it is making no difference with Labour members who are the key group here
Surely it’s Labour voters who are the key group here, with elections a month away?
In addition to the picture Guido has 22:48 minutes of audio from the meeting, so a planned bit of espionage.
Two possibilities: 1. Corbyn genuinely loathes Israel and is not prepared to disguise the fact because he is entirely uncompromising. 2. Someone has told him there are votes in anti-Zionism. Both terrifying.
Many of the far left seem to be under the impression that the rest of the country hates the Jews as much as they do. Honestly, guys, we really don't. If there's one minority the country as a whole isn't even slightly sniffy about, it's the Jews.
Jews are not the most disliked minority group in England, but probably second on the list, with Muslims first. Dietary laws, Sabbath restrictions and dislike of intermarriage stops many Jews (and similarly Muslims, who also won't drink alcohol) from fully integrating Groups that keep themselves separate tend to be the most disliked - they are perceived as not "one of us".
However, whenever Jews are in the news, whether it's the time of the year (e.g. Easter, Holocaust memorial day), less-than-decent behaviour by Israel, the misdemeanour of a Jewish entrepreneur, or bleating on about antisemitism, the level of dislike for Jews increases. At the moment, unfortunately, most of these issues are dominating the headlines. When they do, the number of antisemitic comments made unexpectedly by otherwise decent people increases; such views are usually sotto voce in England where expressing controversial views is "not the done thing" and no longer PC.
I wish such issues were out of the headlines; it is better for Jews to be neither seen nor heard.
I'd like to bet that the majority of people in provincial Britain (which is most of it) don't know anyone who is visibly Jewish, wouldn't know an anti-Semitic trope if it came up and bit them on the bum, and are thoroughly bemused by the whole issue which is one they didn't realise existed.
One of the rare insightful posts on this subject. I've come to the conclusion (belatedly) that this is a completely confected issue containing not a germ of truth and I say this as someone who is Jewish and not a fan of Corbyn. For this to have any credence whatsoever you would have to find someone from the Jewish community (a community that is growing by the minute!) who might take offence.
I have yet to meet such a person other than those who are using it as a surrogate for their support of Israeli or their support of right wing causes (which Israel now is) Orr from the ultra orthodox community a totally segregated community who have no desire to integrate. In fact to do so is forbidden.
Please could one of our gentile posters who is currently up in arms (cyclefree S.O.) and explain who is being offended and by what?
I may be excessively cynical, but I suspect that Seamus Milne has made the calculation that there are more votes to be won by attracting muslims than repelling jews. Corbyn may not be anti-semite, but is just following his master's voice.
Which woud be
a) repulsive
b) stupid politics. The muslims are already inside the Labour tent. Labour already has the MPs in those seats where they represent a significant body of votes. So Labour might attract a few more ex-BNPers too. But to counterbalance, they are likely to lose a mass of people from the centre and soft-left (maybe even a few on the hard-left) who just find it totally unacceptable for a party to pander to anti-semitism.
I don't think regular people care as much about tolerance of bigotry against a small minority as you might hope. Maybe if Corbyn himself had come out with a foul mouthed rant, but when he is just ignoring it on the part of others, people's solidarity doesn't stretch that far sadly.
David Baddiel has also come out against Guido’s line - he recently wrote a great pieces in the Times about the issue of antisemitism: https://twitter.com/baddiel/status/980942124362366977 This kind of stuff simply feeds into the beliefs many Corbyn supporters have that this about ‘attacking’ Corbyn, it actually makes it harder to deal with antisemitism.
No, it really doesn't. Dealing with antisemitism is easy: if someone expresses antisemitic views, suspend them or throw them out, depending on the level of the offence.
It's quite simple. You have a fair process in place, and apply that process fairly. You do not prejudge or ignore.
That's what Labour's got wrong under Corbyn, and that's why they're getting pasted.
(BTW, the same goes for other things such as Islamophobia or general racism as well, and applies to all parties and, for that matter, organisations).
In the case of Labour it does make it harder to deal with the issue at hand. The more Corbyn supporters think that this about an attack on Corbyn, the less likely the issue is going to be taken seriously and dealt with. In order for Labour to kick their antisemities out, the issue needs to be taken seriously in the first place.
But that's exactly the point! It wasn't being taken seriously.
Or worse, it was being judged through a political prism: if a Conservative or moderate Labour figure said it, it would be wrong. If a hard leftist says it, it's obviously fine and just a plot by other members against him.
Corbyn is being attacked because he, and his followers in the party, are doing wrong.
I agree Corbyn is being attacked because he’s handled this issue terribly. My point is, is that many of his followers do not agree with this. They, to some extent or another believe that this is an unfair or politically motivated attack on him. The Guido Story for them will feed into this way of thinking, and they’ll continue to not take the issue seriously.
I would have thought me saying that ‘it needs to be taken as seriously’ would imply that I don’t think the issue is being taken seriously within Labour under Corbyn.
That many of his supporters are either racist or quite happy to put up with racists so long as they agree with him is the issue.
Its 2018, we shouldn't need to convince people to take antisemitism or any other form of racism seriously.
Kevin Schofield - @PolhomeEditor: Jon Lansman suggests some Labour MPs are using the anti-Semitism row to "opportunistically" attack Jeremy Corbyn. #r4today
Maybe but all the evidence suggests it is making no difference with Labour members who are the key group here
Surely it’s Labour voters who are the key group here, with elections a month away?
Is there any suggestion they are diverging from the members on this? I find it hard to believe the elections will be effected. The most keen are the ones who turnout in locals, so probably closer to the core membership, who are content or ecstatic with Corbyn. .if they have concerns, well, they are locals and it's easy for someone to disassociate from bad press nationally and focus on local good they want labour to do. Add in elections in places getting very labour happy like London, and I think they are still in for a good night, and if the tories are relying on this mess to appreciably aid them, they may be disappointed.
On another note, I'd not heard about thus,despicable punish a Muslim day threats, I hope no incidents occur.
Kevin Schofield - @PolhomeEditor: Jon Lansman on Jeremy Corbyn's presence at Jewdas Seder: "It was his night off, his office didn't know he was there. This isn't as significant as it's being made out." #r4today
Bollocks
You don't get a night off as Leader of the Opposition
Funnily enough it was ken livingstone who was so central to confirming being in ones official capacity or not is very important when it comes to actual mis conduct, at least in terms of standards regimes, with the case around him and that journalist he insulted.
But the premise is true in practical terms for top politicians.
Kevin Schofield - @PolhomeEditor: Jon Lansman suggests some Labour MPs are using the anti-Semitism row to "opportunistically" attack Jeremy Corbyn. #r4today
Maybe but all the evidence suggests it is making no difference with Labour members who are the key group here
Surely it’s Labour voters who are the key group here, with elections a month away?
No polling evidence it is making a big impact with them either so far, though it might help the Tories hold Barnet
Corbyn was a fool to attend this event. Anyone with a working political radar could, would and should have told him so. He lost the right to go places in a personal capacity when he accepted the leadership. Everything he does or says is as Jeremy Corbyn. That line from the party is just ludicrous.
And this is nothing about Jeremy being an honourable man not wanting to desert his friends. It is about him not seeing the political consequences of doing it in the current.climate.
He has ensured more coverage for this issue. Something that his team could and should have prevented.
If he hadn't gone, the story would have been that he had refused to attend a meeting with Jews in his own constituency.
No it wouldn't. And you know it.
I get that you are an apologist for him - but be real, he is the one who made the decision to attend something that was going to ensure this story stayed in the news for at least another cycle.
You possess the gift of telepathy?
The alternative is that he is easily led. Which do you prefer in your party leader?
Kevin Schofield - @PolhomeEditor: Jon Lansman suggests some Labour MPs are using the anti-Semitism row to "opportunistically" attack Jeremy Corbyn. #r4today
How long before non-Jewish people start denouncing Lansman as a bad Jew now?
I think you'll find that most people are perfectly willing to listen politely to contrary views, as long as they're within the bounds of reasonable conversation. Lansman's entitled to his views and may even be right.
The problem is that Corbyn's Labour is not willing to accept contrary views.
But the reason why Corbyn's being attacked is irrelevant: unless you think accusations of sleaze against Tories in the 1990s should have been ignored because they were coming from Labour?
There have been plenty of non Jews calling out people on their Jewishness for holding the 'wrong' views, or even implying they are anti-semitic, even some who have written of the BNP.
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2009/nov/04/guido-fawkes-blogger-gossip ________________________________________ At Hull, Staines even wrote a letter suggesting that the FCS had "some common ground", as he puts it now, with the British National party. _________________________________________
Corbyn's Labour party had a shadow cabinet from across the party, the problem was they decided they didn't want to compromise. It isn't Corbyn that forced that situation.
If it is Labour MPs joining in then I would say it is very relevant. I expect right wing newspapers or Conservatives to attack us regardless of the truth of any accusations, I will counter the accusations if I think they are false though and point out the reason for them.
I'd like to bet that the majority of people in provincial Britain (which is most of it) don't know anyone who is visibly Jewish, wouldn't know an anti-Semitic trope if it came up and bit them on the bum, and are thoroughly bemused by the whole issue which is one they didn't realise existed.
You would lose your bet. There are plenty of Jewish people outside London and most people would know what anti-Semitism looks like because it is a key plank of the school curriculum and has been for thirty years.
A more realistic question would be, how much will those who are already committed to Corbyn care? After all, the Tories' supporters in the media went big on Corbyn's past last year, and though so far as I can see they didn't make a single thing up - indeed they downplayed one or two things, presumably fearing costly if futile libel actions - it was dismissed as 'fake news' and 'media smears.'
My instinct is that those who support his policies - the ones where he promised free nationalisation of utilities, free tuition fees, free new roads and railways and lower taxes - are not going to be bothered about the fact that he doesn't care how racist he and his supporters appear.
I'd like to bet that the majority of people in provincial Britain (which is most of it) don't know anyone who is visibly Jewish, wouldn't know an anti-Semitic trope if it came up and bit them on the bum, and are thoroughly bemused by the whole issue which is one they didn't realise existed.
This is a very fair point and for all the political advantage some on here are trying to wring from this morning's news coverage, there is an uncomfortable sense the history we all appreciate and understand isn't a history that's known in parts of wider society.
The terrible sufferings of the European Jewish Community in the 1930s and 1940s would, it was hoped by those who revealed it, stand as a monument for all time to inhumanity and would become an indelible aspect of the psyche of all humanity but of course it hasn't.
To what extent it resonates in any way with those in a modern society disinterested in and uncaring of their own history is hard to know but the ignorance of what was has allowed older and deeper prejudices to re-emerge and for those who do study their history you'll find many ordinary people stood with the residents of Cable Street against the BUF in 1936.
That's the problem though - the "past" means nothing to too many. In the present, the problems of society and the solutions to those problems and the source for someone to blame for actual personal failings and perceived societal failings takes people in different directions and blaming those who look, think and act "different" is nothing new.
Wrong type of jews. OK. Jezza has hung drawn and quartered Guido and his slavering idiot followers on their own petards here. Good one Jez.
You might perhaps actually take note of what most people are saying is the issue rather than what you wish most people were saying. Guido always takes things too far, he's a partisan it's what he does, but that doesn't mean meeting s group which has been dismissive of the current scandal was a sensible move for corbyn. If you think the scandal deserves dismissing Corbyn disagrees, so this will not have helped hin even if it does not end up hurting him
Kevin Schofield - @PolhomeEditor: Jon Lansman suggests some Labour MPs are using the anti-Semitism row to "opportunistically" attack Jeremy Corbyn. #r4today
How long before non-Jewish people start denouncing Lansman as a bad Jew now?
I think you'll find that most people are perfectly willing to listen politely to contrary views, as long as they're within the bounds of reasonable conversation. Lansman's entitled to his views and may even be right.
The problem is that Corbyn's Labour is not willing to accept contrary views.
But the reason why Corbyn's being attacked is irrelevant: unless you think accusations of sleaze against Tories in the 1990s should have been ignored because they were coming from Labour?
There have been plenty of non Jews calling out people on their Jewishness for holding the 'wrong' views, or even implying they are anti-semitic, even some who have written of the BNP.
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2009/nov/04/guido-fawkes-blogger-gossip ________________________________________ At Hull, Staines even wrote a letter suggesting that the FCS had "some common ground", as he puts it now, with the British National party. _________________________________________
Corbyn's Labour party had a shadow cabinet from across the party, the problem was they decided they didn't want to compromise. It isn't Corbyn that forced that situation.
If it is Labour MPs joining in then I would say it is very relevant. I expect right wing newspapers or Conservatives to attack us regardless of the truth of any accusations, I will counter the accusations if I think they are false though and point out the reason for them.
LOL. Corbyn wouldn't understand the word 'compromise' if it stood naked in front of him and wriggled suggestively. OTOH, moderate Labour were perfectly willing to have Corbyn in the party for decades, even when he voted against his own party.
Your definition of 'compromise' appears to be: "agree with everything Jezza says and does"!
Wrong type of jews. OK. Jezza has hung drawn and quartered Guido and his slavering idiot followers on their own petards here. Good one Jez.
You might perhaps actually take note of what most people are saying is the issue rather than what you wish most people were saying. Guido always takes things too far, he's a partisan it's what he does, but that doesn't mean meeting s group which has been dismissive of the current scandal was a sensible move for corbyn. If you think the scandal deserves dismissing Corbyn disagrees, so this will not have helped hin even if it does not end up hurting him
I have to disagree to be honest, the backlash against this story has in some places once again made Corbyn look better. Much like the communist spy nonsense, although without the Ben Bradley apology payoff, they have overplayed their hand and made themselves look like propagandists who smear rather than actual news.
One of the things that has always drove Corbyn to an extent is the OTT accusations thrown at him and the negative reaction to that, I can easily see this adding to that list.
Well, actually he said the Treasury cut funding for the training needed for the roll-out of the bowel scope screening programme. And it was probably Philip Hammond anyway. Still, that Jeremy Corbyn, eh?
Wrong type of jews. OK. Jezza has hung drawn and quartered Guido and his slavering idiot followers on their own petards here. Good one Jez.
You might perhaps actually take note of what most people are saying is the issue rather than what you wish most people were saying. Guido always takes things too far, he's a partisan it's what he does, but that doesn't mean meeting s group which has been dismissive of the current scandal was a sensible move for corbyn. If you think the scandal deserves dismissing Corbyn disagrees, so this will not have helped hin even if it does not end up hurting him
I have to disagree to be honest, the backlash against this story has in some places once again made Corbyn look better. Much like the communist spy nonsense, although without the Ben Bradley apology payoff, they have overplayed their hand and made themselves look like propagandists who smear rather than actual news.
One of the things that has always drove Corbyn to an extent is the OTT accusations thrown at him and the negative reaction to that, I can easily see this adding to that list.
On what alternate plane of reality has it made him look better? Even leaving aside the original issues with Shawcroft, his handling of the issue has been inept. This latest problem - whether you think it is right or wrong - would obviously be used against him, and he willingly went along.
The terrible sufferings of the European Jewish Community in the 1930s and 1940s would, it was hoped by those who revealed it, stand as a monument for all time to inhumanity and would become an indelible aspect of the psyche of all humanity but of course it hasn't.
To what extent it resonates in any way with those in a modern society disinterested in and uncaring of their own history is hard to know but the ignorance of what was has allowed older and deeper prejudices to re-emerge and for those who do study their history you'll find many ordinary people stood with the residents of Cable Street against the BUF in 1936.
That's the problem though - the "past" means nothing to too many. In the present, the problems of society and the solutions to those problems and the source for someone to blame for actual personal failings and perceived societal failings takes people in different directions and blaming those who look, think and act "different" is nothing new.
The Labour Party under Corbyn seems prepared to accept those terrible sufferings of the European Jewish Community to be overtaken by - as they would see it - the equivalent (or, crazily, worse) sufferings the modern state of Israel is inflicting on Palestinians. Surely it is possible to fight modern day injustice without sweeping the most egregious event of the twentieth century under the carpet?
Anti-Semites used to be people who don't like Jews. Then it became people Jews don't like. It now seems to include Jews right wing websites don't like.
Yes, I don't have a problem with Corbyn meeing a Jewish group (however irritatingly titled) that doesn't support Israel. The idea that if you're Jewish than you MUST sympathise with the country (as I do, and I'm not Jewish) is held only by extremists on both sides - nationalist Zionists who feel it ought to be in your genes, and anti-semites who think that it automatically is in your genes.
Clearly there needs to be prompt action to review all the pending complaints. But I don't think further speeches and outreach meetings are required. Corbyn's stated position is fine, and the serious critics are not saying it isn't, but that they want action, which is not his job (people who demand that he personally goes around judging each case are being deliberately mischievous). Corbyn needs to get back to the day job of leading the Opposition on the main issues of the day that most people care about.
Thanks, Mr P. I’m beginning to suspect that part at least of ‘the problem’ stems from the Three-Quidders, some of whom openly joined the Party just to create mischief short-term, and some of whom took the opportunity so that they could do so at a later date.
For me, as one who is horrified at some at least of the policies of our Government your last sentence points out exactly the proper course of action for the Leader of the Opposition.
What an (ahem) interesting comment. The problem isn't the Three Quidders: the problem is Corbyn and his leadership of Labour. The Three-Quidders didn't put Shawcroft in that position; they didn't force her to act in that way; they didn't force Corbyn not to react when the trouble first surfaced. They didn't give Corbyn his backstory.
It's a problem totally created by, and kept going by, Corbyn. He could so easily have stemmed this within the first day.
What exactly are you trying to insinuate by that first sentence?
Just for the record I’m not a member, now, of any political party. I was a member of the Labour Party for a couple of years some 60 years ago. I was a member of the Liberals from 1966-80 or so (can’t remember when it lapsed) and I was a 'contracted out' member of a Trade Union from 1990-2003.
Jeremy Corbyn spending Passover with a Jewish group is anti-Semitism?
Jeremy Corbyn spending passover with a group of Jews who are anti-[a different group of] Jews gives those who are not Jewish the all-clear Labour Party-wise to criticise Jews.
Once again Jez has ridden out a smear storm and made it look ridiculous. Will his many enemies, driven demented by corbyn derangement syndrome, never learn?
Kevin Schofield - @PolhomeEditor: Jon Lansman suggests some Labour MPs are using the anti-Semitism row to "opportunistically" attack Jeremy Corbyn. #r4today
How long before non-Jewish people start denouncing Lansman as a bad Jew now?
There have been plenty of non Jews calling out people on their Jewishness for holding the 'wrong' views, or even implying they are anti-semitic, even some who have written of the BNP.
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2009/nov/04/guido-fawkes-blogger-gossip ________________________________________ At Hull, Staines even wrote a letter suggesting that the FCS had "some common ground", as he puts it now, with the British National party. _________________________________________
Corbyn's Labour party had a shadow cabinet from across the party, the problem was they decided they didn't want to compromise. It isn't Corbyn that forced that situation.
If it is Labour MPs joining in then I would say it is very relevant. I expect right wing newspapers or Conservatives to attack us regardless of the truth of any accusations, I will counter the accusations if I think they are false though and point out the reason for them.
LOL. Corbyn wouldn't understand the word 'compromise' if it stood naked in front of him and wriggled suggestively. OTOH, moderate Labour were perfectly willing to have Corbyn in the party for decades, even when he voted against his own party.
Your definition of 'compromise' appears to be: "agree with everything Jezza says and does"!
Corbyn picked a shadow cabinet from across the party, they resigned, Corbyn helped create a manifesto that the whole party agreed to that included things like Trident renewal.
A small group in the PLP refuse to compromise with the leadership or the membership or the rest of the PLP. Given the fact that everyone else is compromising and working together apart from them then they must be the the ones who refuse to compromise.
Corbyn has been perfectly willing to have others in the party, his response seemed to be exactly the same as Tony Blair's when people wanted to deselect Dianne Abbot, up to the local party to decide. Which is what he has said about deselection. Somehow because Corbyn is left wing this means something different.
Anti-Semites used to be people who don't like Jews. Then it became people Jews don't like. It now seems to include Jews right wing websites don't like.
Yes, I don't have a problem with Corbyn meeing a Jewish group (however irritatingly titled) that doesn't support Israel. The idea that if you're Jewish than you MUST sympathise with the country (as I do, and I'm not Jewish) is held only by extremists on both sides - nationalist Zionists who feel it ought to be in your genes, and anti-semites who think that it automatically is in your genes.
Clearly there needs to be prompt action to review all the pending complaints. But I don't think further speeches and outreach meetings are required. Corbyn's stated position is fine, and the serious critics are not saying it isn't, but that they want action, which is not his job (people who demand that he personally goes around judging each case are being deliberately mischievous). Corbyn needs to get back to the day job of leading the Opposition on the main issues of the day that most people care about.
Thanks, Mr P. I’m beginning to suspect that part at least of ‘the problem’ stems from the Three-Quidders, some of whom openly joined the Party just to create mischief short-term, and some of whom took the opportunity so that they could do so at a later date.
For me, as one who is horrified at some at least of the policies of our Government your last sentence points out exactly the proper course of action for the Leader of the Opposition.
What an (ahem) interesting comment. The problem isn't the Three Quidders: the problem is Corbyn and his leadership of Labour. The Three-Quidders didn't put Shawcroft in that position; they didn't force her to act in that way; they didn't force Corbyn not to react when the trouble first surfaced. They didn't give Corbyn his backstory.
It's a problem totally created by, and kept going by, Corbyn. He could so easily have stemmed this within the first day.
What exactly are you trying to insinuate by that first sentence?
Just for the record I’m not a member, now, of any political party. I was a member of the Labour Party for a couple of years some 60 years ago. I was a member of the Liberals from 1966-80 or so (can’t remember when it lapsed) and I was a 'contracted out' member of a Trade Union from 1990-2003.
My comment was fairly straightforward. You were attempting to to shift the blame from Corbyn to a group within Labour. I put 'interesting' in italics as it is interesting and, IMO, utterly wrong-headed and unhelpful.
Once again Jez has ridden out a smear storm and made it look ridiculous. Will his many enemies, driven demented by corbyn derangement syndrome, never learn?
@Karen Pollock - @KarenPollock100: It was clearly deliberate. No question of intent. Mocking. And disrespectful. #EnoughIsEnough
rustinpeace - @rustinpeace00: Karen Pollock is the Chief Executive of the Holocaust Educational Trust. She's absolutely right of course - just the latest in a long line of Corbyn's personal disgraces.
I'd like to bet that the majority of people in provincial Britain (which is most of it) don't know anyone who is visibly Jewish, wouldn't know an anti-Semitic trope if it came up and bit them on the bum, and are thoroughly bemused by the whole issue which is one they didn't realise existed.
You would lose your bet. There are plenty of Jewish people outside London and most people would know what anti-Semitism looks like because it is a key plank of the school curriculum and has been for thirty years.
A more realistic question would be, how much will those who are already committed to Corbyn care? After all, the Tories' supporters in the media went big on Corbyn's past last year, and though so far as I can see they didn't make a single thing up - indeed they downplayed one or two things, presumably fearing costly if futile libel actions - it was dismissed as 'fake news' and 'media smears.'
My instinct is that those who support his policies - the ones where he promised free nationalisation of utilities, free tuition fees, free new roads and railways and lower taxes - are not going to be bothered about the fact that he doesn't care how racist he and his supporters appear.
The bigger political issue is how many of Corbyn's Coaliton - the 40% he constructed last June - are looking at this unfolding issue, seeing how badly the Prime Ministerial credibilty of Corbyn has come out of it, catching the whiff of anti-semitism and are thinking to themselves "I didn't sign up for this...." If Labour takes a 2% or more hit in the polls on the back of this, then JCWNBPM.
Once again Jez has ridden out a smear storm and made it look ridiculous. Will his many enemies, driven demented by corbyn derangement syndrome, never learn?
I don't think this has helped Corbyn at all. This issue won't turn millions of people away from Labour, but it helps to reinforce the view that May is the safer option.
I'd like to bet that the majority of people in provincial Britain (which is most of it) don't know anyone who is visibly Jewish, wouldn't know an anti-Semitic trope if it came up and bit them on the bum, and are thoroughly bemused by the whole issue which is one they didn't realise existed.
You would lose your bet. There are plenty of Jewish people outside London and most people would know what anti-Semitism looks like because it is a key plank of the school curriculum and has been for thirty years.
A more realistic question would be, how much will those who are already committed to Corbyn care? After all, the Tories' supporters in the media went big on Corbyn's past last year, and though so far as I can see they didn't make a single thing up - indeed they downplayed one or two things, presumably fearing costly if futile libel actions - it was dismissed as 'fake news' and 'media smears.'
My instinct is that those who support his policies - the ones where he promised free nationalisation of utilities, free tuition fees, free new roads and railways and lower taxes - are not going to be bothered about the fact that he doesn't care how racist he and his supporters appear.
In my prep school in North Wales there were 100 boys. Of these there were three Jews and one Roman Catholic. On Sundays I used to watch this solitary figure walk down the road to his church alone and think there was something odd and slightly dark about him being a Roman Catholic. Being one of the three Jews we just sat in a classroom and chilled (as they might say now). I can't say I remember anti Semitism being part of the school curriculum but perhaps that was introduced later?
Wrong type of jews. OK. Jezza has hung drawn and quartered Guido and his slavering idiot followers on their own petards here. Good one Jez.
You might perhaps actually take note of what most people are saying is the issue rather than what you wish most people were saying. Guido always takes things too far, he's a partisan it's what he does, but that doesn't mean meeting s group which has been dismissive of the current scandal was a sensible move for corbyn. If you think the scandal deserves dismissing Corbyn disagrees, so this will not have helped hin even if it does not end up hurting him
I have to disagree to be honest, the backlash against this story has in some places once again made Corbyn look better. Much like the communist spy nonsense, although without the Ben Bradley apology payoff, they have overplayed their hand and made themselves look like propagandists who smear rather than actual news.
One of the things that has always drove Corbyn to an extent is the OTT accusations thrown at him and the negative reaction to that, I can easily see this adding to that list.
On what alternate plane of reality has it made him look better? Even leaving aside the original issues with Shawcroft, his handling of the issue has been inept. This latest problem - whether you think it is right or wrong - would obviously be used against him, and he willingly went along.
Non Jewish people accusing Jews of being anti-semites or somehow encouraging anti-semitism is playing pretty badly with people. Saying that Corbyn meeting a Jewish group is somehow further proof of anti-semitism scandal just makes the whole thing seem questionable. If you go OTT in attacking people you discredit attacks on them.
I'd like to bet that the majority of people in provincial Britain (which is most of it) don't know anyone who is visibly Jewish, wouldn't know an anti-Semitic trope if it came up and bit them on the bum, and are thoroughly bemused by the whole issue which is one they didn't realise existed.
You would lose your bet. There are plenty of Jewish people outside London and most people would know what anti-Semitism looks like because it is a key plank of the school curriculum and has been for thirty years.
A more realistic question would be, how much will those who are already committed to Corbyn care? After all, the Tories' supporters in the media went big on Corbyn's past last year, and though so far as I can see they didn't make a single thing up - indeed they downplayed one or two things, presumably fearing costly if futile libel actions - it was dismissed as 'fake news' and 'media smears.'
My instinct is that those who support his policies - the ones where he promised free nationalisation of utilities, free tuition fees, free new roads and railways and lower taxes - are not going to be bothered about the fact that he doesn't care how racist he and his supporters appear.
The bigger political issue is how many of Corbyn's Coaliton - the 40% he constructed last June - are looking at this unfolding issue, seeing how badly the Prime Ministerial credibilty of Corbyn has come out of it, catching the whiff of anti-semitism and are thinking to themselves "I didn't sign up for this...." If Labour takes a 2% or more hit in the polls on the back of this, then JCWNBPM.
To which I must add the caveat - as long as the Tories do not lose an equivalent or greater share of the vote.
Which given they haven't covered themselves in glory in the last year, recent improvements notwithstanding, seems eminently possible.
Anti-Semites used to be people who don't like Jews. Then it became people Jews don't like. It now seems to include Jews right wing websites don't like.
Clearly there needs to be prompt action to review all the pending complaints. But I don't think further speeches and outreach meetings are required. Corbyn's stated position is fine, and the serious critics are not saying it isn't, but that they want action, which is not his job (people who demand that he personally goes around judging each case are being deliberately mischievous). Corbyn needs to get back to the day job of leading the Opposition on the main issues of the day that most people care about.
Thanks, Mr P. I’m beginning to suspect that part at least of ‘the problem’ stems from the Three-Quidders, some of whom openly joined the Party just to create mischief short-term, and some of whom took the opportunity so that they could do so at a later date.
For me, as one who is horrified at some at least of the policies of our Government your last sentence points out exactly the proper course of action for the Leader of the Opposition.
What an (ahem) interesting comment. The problem isn't the Three Quidders: the problem is Corbyn and his leadership of Labour. The Three-Quidders didn't put Shawcroft in that position; they didn't force her to act in that way; they didn't force Corbyn not to react when the trouble first surfaced. They didn't give Corbyn his backstory.
It's a problem totally created by, and kept going by, Corbyn. He could so easily have stemmed this within the first day.
What exactly are you trying to insinuate by that first sentence?
Just for the record I’m not a member, now, of any political party. I was a member of the Labour Party for a couple of years some 60 years ago. I was a member of the Liberals from 1966-80 or so (can’t remember when it lapsed) and I was a 'contracted out' member of a Trade Union from 1990-2003.
My comment was fairly straightforward. You were attempting to to shift the blame from Corbyn to a group within Labour. I put 'interesting' in italics as it is interesting and, IMO, utterly wrong-headed and unhelpful.
Well, we’ve all seen the effect of ‘social media infiltrators’ on all sorts of activities and organisations. The foolish (IMHO) idea of 'Three-quidders’ was quite likely (again IMHO) quite likely to come back and bite Labour on the bum.
It's really not complicated. If you want to show your support for the Jewish people there are far better choices available to you, than hanging around with crackpot anti-Zionists. Jewdas might not be anti-semites but their views will offend most mainstream Jewish people.
It's a bit like going to dinner with the Westboro Baptist Church to show he's fine with Christianity.
From the comments this group have made in the past, it is a bit like a politician being accused of being an islamophobe and of all the groups they could celebrate eid with, they choose CAGE, then wonder why there is a bit of an uproar.
From the comments this group have made in the past, it is a bit like a politician being accused of being an islamophobe and of all the groups they could celebrate eid with, they choose CAGE, then wonder why there is a bit of an uproar.
Exactly. This is dead simple stuff to understand, unless you are a Corbynite.
I'd like to bet that the majority of people in provincial Britain (which is most of it) don't know anyone who is visibly Jewish, wouldn't know an anti-Semitic trope if it came up and bit them on the bum, and are thoroughly bemused by the whole issue which is one they didn't realise existed.
You would lose your bet. There are plenty of Jewish people outside London and most people would know what anti-Semitism looks like because it is a key plank of the school curriculum and has been for thirty years.
A more realistic question would be, how much will those who are already committed to Corbyn care? After all, the Tories' supporters in the media went big on Corbyn's past last year, and though so far as I can see they didn't make a single thing up - indeed they downplayed one or two things, presumably fearing costly if futile libel actions - it was dismissed as 'fake news' and 'media smears.'
My instinct is that those who support his policies - the ones where he promised free nationalisation of utilities, free tuition fees, free new roads and railways and lower taxes - are not going to be bothered about the fact that he doesn't care how racist he and his supporters appear.
In my prep school in North Wales there were 100 boys. Of these there were three Jews and one Roman Catholic. On Sundays I used to watch this solitary figure walk down the road to his church alone and think there was something odd and slightly dark about him being a Roman Catholic. Being one of the three Jews we just sat in a classroom and chilled (as they might say now). I can't say I remember anti Semitism being part of the school curriculum but perhaps that was introduced later?
As wilful and perverse misunderstanding of a post goes, that's a good one. Worthy of Corbyn or Campbell themselves.
Edit - and Holocaust studies would normally be secondary school level.
I'd like to bet that the majority of people in provincial Britain (which is most of it) don't know anyone who is visibly Jewish, wouldn't know an anti-Semitic trope if it came up and bit them on the bum, and are thoroughly bemused by the whole issue which is one they didn't realise existed.
You would lose your bet. There are plenty of Jewish people outside London and most people would know what anti-Semitism looks like because it is a key plank of the school curriculum and has been for thirty years.
A more realistic question would be, how much will those who are already committed to Corbyn care? After all, the Tories' supporters in the media went big on Corbyn's past last year, and though so far as I can see they didn't make a single thing up - indeed they downplayed one or two things, presumably fearing costly if futile libel actions - it was dismissed as 'fake news' and 'media smears.'
My instinct is that those who support his policies - the ones where he promised free nationalisation of utilities, free tuition fees, free new roads and railways and lower taxes - are not going to be bothered about the fact that he doesn't care how racist he and his supporters appear.
The bigger political issue is how many of Corbyn's Coaliton - the 40% he constructed last June - are looking at this unfolding issue, seeing how badly the Prime Ministerial credibilty of Corbyn has come out of it, catching the whiff of anti-semitism and are thinking to themselves "I didn't sign up for this...." If Labour takes a 2% or more hit in the polls on the back of this, then JCWNBPM.
To which I must add the caveat - as long as the Tories do not lose an equivalent or greater share of the vote.
Which given they haven't covered themselves in glory in the last year, recent improvements notwithstanding, seems eminently possible.
Where are the votes going to go? UKIP is dead, and the Lib dems are nowhere.
I'd like to bet that the majority of people in provincial Britain (which is most of it) don't know anyone who is visibly Jewish, wouldn't know an anti-Semitic trope if it came up and bit them on the bum, and are thoroughly bemused by the whole issue which is one they didn't realise existed.
You would lose your bet. There are plenty of Jewish people outside London and most people would know what anti-Semitism looks like because it is a key plank of the school curriculum and has been for thirty years.
A more realistic question would be, how much will those who are already committed to Corbyn care? After all, the Tories' supporters in the media went big on Corbyn's past last year, and though so far as I can see they didn't make a single thing up - indeed they downplayed one or two things, presumably fearing costly if futile libel actions - it was dismissed as 'fake news' and 'media smears.'
My instinct is that those who support his policies - the ones where he promised free nationalisation of utilities, free tuition fees, free new roads and railways and lower taxes - are not going to be bothered about the fact that he doesn't care how racist he and his supporters appear.
In my prep school in North Wales there were 100 boys. Of these there were three Jews and one Roman Catholic. On Sundays I used to watch this solitary figure walk down the road to his church alone and think there was something odd and slightly dark about him being a Roman Catholic. Being one of the three Jews we just sat in a classroom and chilled (as they might say now). I can't say I remember anti Semitism being part of the school curriculum but perhaps that was introduced later?
There's a deeper question here: when do views such as Islamophobia and Antisemitism become ingrained in a person? I look at my three year-old son and he's got no such traits: he seems to accept people as they are. I can say the same for the kids he plays with. Gender and colour appear to be irrelevant at that age.
So if they are not born with such views, when do people start blaming Jews for the ills of the world, and why?
Wrong type of jews. OK. Jezza has hung drawn and quartered Guido and his slavering idiot followers on their own petards here. Good one Jez.
You might perhaps actually take note of what most people are saying is the issue rather than what you wish most people were saying. Guido always takes things too far, he's a partisan it's what he does, but that doesn't mean meeting s group which has been dismissive of the current scandal was a sensible move for corbyn. If you think the scandal deserves dismissing Corbyn disagrees, so this will not have helped hin even if it does not end up hurting him
I have to disagree to be honest, the backlash against this story has in some places once again made Corbyn look better. Much like the communist spy nonsense, although without the Ben Bradley apology payoff, they have overplayed their hand and made themselves look like propagandists who smear rather than actual news.
One of the things that has always drove Corbyn to an extent is the OTT accusations thrown at him and the negative reaction to that, I can easily see this adding to that list.
On what alternate plane of reality has it made him look better? Even leaving aside the original issues with Shawcroft, his handling of the issue has been inept. This latest problem - whether you think it is right or wrong - would obviously be used against him, and he willingly went along.
Non Jewish people accusing Jews of being anti-semites or somehow encouraging anti-semitism is playing pretty badly with people. Saying that Corbyn meeting a Jewish group is somehow further proof of anti-semitism scandal just makes the whole thing seem questionable. If you go OTT in attacking people you discredit attacks on them.
Nope, yet again you prefer not to see the obvious interpretation.
Just as previously you accepted that Corbyn's antics would make anti-semites feel more comfortable and emboldened within the Labour Party (please don't make me search for that comment in the archives), so you miss the point here.
Corbyn meeting playing the some of my best friends are Jews card was quite malevolently clever because his Jewish friends criticise heartily other Jews and hence, non-Jewish members of the Labour Party are yet again emboldened also to criticise Jews. Indeed some of these may even be bona fide anti-semites.
You know all this, though, so not sure why it needs to be spelled out.
Anti-Semites used to be people who don't like Jews. Then it became people Jews don't like. It now seems to include Jews right wing websites don't like.
Clearly there needs to be prompt action to review all the pending complaints. But I don't think further speeches and outreach meetings are required. Corbyn's stated position is fine, and the serious critics are not saying it isn't, but that they want action, which is not his job (people who demand that he personally goes around judging each case are being deliberately mischievous). Corbyn needs to get back to the day job of leading the Opposition on the main issues of the day that most people care about.
Thanks, Mr P. I’m beginning to suspect that part at least of ‘the problem’ stems from the Three-Quidders, some of whom openly joined the Party just to create mischief short-term, and some of whom took the opportunity so that they could do so at a later date.
For me, as one who is horrified at some at least of the policies of our Government your last sentence points out exactly the proper course of action for the Leader of the Opposition.
What an (ahem) interesting comment. The problem isn't the Three Quidders: the problem is Corbyn and his leadership of Labour. The Three-Quidders didn't put Shawcroft in that position; they didn't force her to act in that way; they didn't force Corbyn not to react when the trouble first surfaced. They didn't give Corbyn his backstory.
It's a problem totally created by, and kept going by, Corbyn. He could so easily have stemmed this within the first day.
What exactly are you trying to insinuate by that first sentence?
Just for the record I’m not a member, now, of any political party. I was a member of the Labour Party for a couple of years some 60 years ago. I was a member of the Liberals from 1966-80 or so (can’t remember when it lapsed) and I was a 'contracted out' member of a Trade Union from 1990-2003.
My comment was fairly straightforward. You were attempting to to shift the blame from Corbyn to a group within Labour. I put 'interesting' in italics as it is interesting and, IMO, utterly wrong-headed and unhelpful.
Well, we’ve all seen the effect of ‘social media infiltrators’ on all sorts of activities and organisations. The foolish (IMHO) idea of 'Three-quidders’ was quite likely (again IMHO) quite likely to come back and bite Labour on the bum.
Are you suggesting that Shawcroft is an infiltrator?
It's really not complicated. If you want to show your support for the Jewish people there are far better choices available to you, than hanging around with crackpot anti-Zionists. Jewdas might not be anti-semites but their views will offend most mainstream Jewish people.
It's a bit like going to dinner with the Westboro Baptist Church to show he's fine with Christianity.
Wrong type of jews. OK. Jezza has hung drawn and quartered Guido and his slavering idiot followers on their own petards here. Good one Jez.
You might perhaps actually take note of what most people are saying is the issue rather than what you wish most people were saying. Guido always takes things too far, he's a partisan it's what he does, but that doesn't mean meeting s group which has been dismissive of the current scandal was a sensible move for corbyn. If you think the scandal deserves dismissing Corbyn disagrees, so this will not have helped hin even if it does not end up hurting him
I have to disagree to be honest, the backlash against this story has in some places once again made Corbyn look better. Much like the communist spy nonsense, although without the Ben Bradley apology payoff, they have overplayed their hand and made themselves look like propagandists who smear rather than actual news.
One of the things that has always drove Corbyn to an extent is the OTT accusations thrown at him and the negative reaction to that, I can easily see this adding to that list.
On what alternate plane of reality has it made him look better? Even leaving aside the original issues with Shawcroft, his handling of the issue has been inept. This latest problem - whether you think it is right or wrong - would obviously be used against him, and he willingly went along.
Non Jewish people accusing Jews of being anti-semites or somehow encouraging anti-semitism is playing pretty badly with people. Saying that Corbyn meeting a Jewish group is somehow further proof of anti-semitism scandal just makes the whole thing seem questionable. If you go OTT in attacking people you discredit attacks on them.
Never, ever read an article by the late David Cesarani. His habit of declaring all Jews who didn't conform to his ideological agenda as 'that curious phenomenon, a self-hating Jew' would undoubtedly raise your hackles!
(That's a genuine piece of advice, BTW, not a feeble attempt at a joke.)
Once again Jez has ridden out a smear storm and made it look ridiculous. Will his many enemies, driven demented by corbyn derangement syndrome, never learn?
I sometimes can't quite believe it, the derangement really makes them abandon logic. It was all going fairly well for them... why blow it by trying to make out that a certain group of Jews are bad Jews so Corbyn meeting them is proof he is anti-semitic. Most people are just going to laugh at the idea!
Sticking him to some hating Jewish people because random Labour members had made anti-semitic comments is surely much safer ground, people baffle me sometimes.
Anti-Semites used to be people who don't like Jews. Then it became people Jews don't like. It now seems to include Jews right wing websites don't like.
Clearly there needs to be prompt action to review all the pending complaints. But I don't think further speeches and outreach meetings are required. Corbyn's stated position is fine, and the serious critics are not saying it isn't, but that they want action, which is not his job (people who demand that he personally goes around judging each case are being deliberately mischievous). Corbyn needs to get back to the day job of leading the Opposition on the main issues of the day that most people care about.
Thanks, Mr P. I’m beginning to suspect that part at least of ‘the problem’ stems from the Three-Quidders, some of whom openly joined the Party just to create mischief short-term, and some of whom took the opportunity so that they could do so at a later date.
For me, as one who is horrified at some at least of the policies of our Government your last sentence points out exactly the proper course of action for the Leader of the Opposition.
What an (ahem) interesting comment. The problem isn't the Three Quidders: the problem is Corbyn and his leadership of Labour. The Three-Quidders didn't put Shawcroft in that position; they didn't force her to act in that way; they didn't force Corbyn not to react when the trouble first surfaced. They didn't give Corbyn his backstory.
It's a problem totally created by, and kept going by, Corbyn. He could so easily have stemmed this within the first day.
What exactly are you trying to insinuate by that first sentence?
Just for the record I’m not a member, now, of any political party. I was a member of the Labour Party for a couple of years some 60 years ago. I was a member of the Liberals from 1966-80 or so (can’t remember when it lapsed) and I was a 'contracted out' member of a Trade Union from 1990-2003.
My comment was fairly straightforward. You were attempting to to shift the blame from Corbyn to a group within Labour. I put 'interesting' in italics as it is interesting and, IMO, utterly wrong-headed and unhelpful.
Well, we’ve all seen the effect of ‘social media infiltrators’ on all sorts of activities and organisations. The foolish (IMHO) idea of 'Three-quidders’ was quite likely (again IMHO) quite likely to come back and bite Labour on the bum.
Are you suggesting that Shawcroft is an infiltrator?
By and large the general public will not be paying attention to the detailed claim and counter-claim from the various factions on this.
What Corbyn's seder meeting with Jewdas has done is ensure yet another day of headlines that most voters will simply recognise as more of Labour and JC having a problem with anti-Semitism, and possibly the vitriol that flows between various left-wing factions.
To what extent that has an impact on voters is hard to tell - but more likely to be corrosive in the medium term.
The Mirror headline encapsulates the take home message for most passers-by:
"Jeremy Corbyn in fresh controversy after meeting with radical left-wing Jewish group amid anti-Semitism row"
Comments
With hindsight we should have declared 10 overs earlier yesterday, but really we need to work hard in advance of next winter. Test cricket does seem to be polarising itself into a home advantage for most countries, the ICC need to take a good look at why that’s happening.
Processes are all well and good. What matters is how it is implemented, and it's clear that Labour's would have made odd toilet paper: it would absorb any sh*t from the left cheek, and smear the right cheek.
UKIP actually did a good job at quickly getting rid of BNP-types when their views became known, the key is to make sure that these people are expelled and told they’re not welcome back.
A six week suspension followed by reinstatement doesn’t cut it, Labour need to get rid of dozens of people, but that requires strong leadership and robust processes.
However, whenever Jews are in the news, whether it's the time of the year (e.g. Easter, Holocaust memorial day), less-than-decent behaviour by Israel, the misdemeanour of a Jewish entrepreneur, or bleating on about antisemitism, the level of dislike for Jews increases. At the moment, unfortunately, most of these issues are dominating the headlines. When they do, the number of antisemitic comments made unexpectedly by otherwise decent people increases; such views are usually sotto voce in England where expressing controversial views is "not the done thing" and no longer PC.
I wish such issues were out of the headlines; it is better for Jews to be neither seen nor heard.
He’s on the right side of everything - Momentum should just go and join the Tories.
Leach had a decent debut, but bowled too full to target the footmarks.
Bottom line is that we are a very ordinary side with a handful of very good players.
_______________________________________
However, Momentum’s national coordinating group said it was possible both to accept that antisemitism was a problem on parts of the left while also accepting that Corbyn had been attacked “using this issue as a way to undermine his leadership”.
_______________________________________
There is a difference between saying there is no anti-semitism and saying this issue has been used to attack him... it is possible for both to be true.
I also don't remember any posts from BJO stating there is no anti-semitism in Labour.
Also in reference to my previous post you were talking about the process to which I replied, the process (that is regarding suspensions and expulsions) has been toughened up with rules suggested by the JLM. The process in place didn't get changed (other than that toughening up mentioned) apart from that, the flaws in the process were already there.
Here is an interesting take, a guy who works on a pro-Israeli advocacy group in Brussels who actually doesn't like Corbyn, article is from a year ago mind.
http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/how-uk-labour-moderates-played-the-jewish-card-and-why-they-used-us-to-do-it/
But in retrospect the decision of Chakrabarti to join the Labour party and then to give her a peerage was a total PR disaster.
Better for them to be neither seen nor heard ?
I think PB has its own antisemetism problem.
Clearly there needs to be prompt action to review all the pending complaints. But I don't think further speeches and outreach meetings are required. Corbyn's stated position is fine, and the serious critics are not saying it isn't, but that they want action, which is not his job (people who demand that he personally goes around judging each case are being deliberately mischievous). Corbyn needs to get back to the day job of leading the Opposition on the main issues of the day that most people care about.
F1: from the gossip column, F1 bigwigs are thinking of changing qualifying to a sprint race.
Qualifying works well. They need to fiddle with aero, maybe changing to ground effect, to improve races. Dicking about with qualifying is not the priority.
On-topic: quelle surprise.
Frankly, he has provided zero evidence of that.
But he is the party leader. It is his responsibility to see that the party has robust processes in place over many issues, including antisemitism, and to ensure those processes are followed freely and fairly to all parties involved.
By placing Shawcroft in her role - one she was utterly unsuited for - he shows that he holds such processes in contempt. It is hard not to conclude that she was not picked for any skill, but because of her political positioning - and one she disastrously took into account during her short tenure.
A fish rots from the head. This entire scandal has occurred because of his actions, past and present. Corbyn *is* the problem, which is why he's getting such bad press.
And I would add that he is not unique in this - as I said with the Lib Dems and Rennard, too many people in all political parties put political reliability over what is right.
And this is nothing about Jeremy being an honourable man not wanting to desert his friends. It is about him not seeing the political consequences of doing it in the current.climate.
He has ensured more coverage for this issue. Something that his team could and should have prevented.
For me, as one who is horrified at some at least of the policies of our Government your last sentence points out exactly the proper course of action for the Leader of the Opposition.
"Corbyn's stated position is fine, and the serious critics are not saying it isn't, but that they want action, which is not his job."
True, but his tendency to actively seek out anti-semites to consort with shouldn't be his job either if he wants to retain credibility. I accept he's a pacifist, but some of his mates aren't.
Had he met with the Israeli government and the UVF, he could be claim to be even-handed, even if misguided. Calling Hamas 'friends' isn't a good look if you want to be a referee and not a supporter.
It will die away and tells us nothing we didn't already know, but it is politically inept. Had Mrs May been fraternising with hate groups, I doubt the labour party would give her a free pass.
But that's politics, hypocrisy is the name of the game.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-43624231
It's a problem totally created by, and kept going by, Corbyn. He could so easily have stemmed this within the first day.
The problem with Corbyn's meeting with Jewdas* is it looks like he is siding against the Jewish Board of Deputies, Jewish Leadership Council and Jewish Labour Movement, just at the moment where giving them the finger might not be entirely wise....
* if ever there was a dumb name created by "smart" people. Maybe they could go into the kosher take-away business next: Jewdas's Carry-out......
You don't get a night off as Leader of the Opposition
I doubt many of the mischief-making Three Quidders are still there. Or if they were, they may well have been amongst the wave of those resigning last week, just to make further mischief.
I get that you are an apologist for him - but be real, he is the one who made the decision to attend something that was going to ensure this story stayed in the news for at least another cycle.
Even if Corbyn believes the extent of the problem is being exaggerated to attack him , as many f his supporters do, it would be tactically unwise to say so, or hang around with those who do.
But the members think he's handling it well, so he probably has a good handle on what they will accept.
''Twas ever thus.
The problem is that Corbyn's Labour is not willing to accept contrary views.
But the reason why Corbyn's being attacked is irrelevant: unless you think accusations of sleaze against Tories in the 1990s should have been ignored because they were coming from Labour?
At best a tactical misstep, even if they are not devil's incarnate as Guido thinks.
a) repulsive
b) stupid politics. The muslims are already inside the Labour tent. Labour already has the MPs in those seats where they represent a significant body of votes. So Labour might attract a few more ex-BNPers too. But to counterbalance, they are likely to lose a mass of people from the centre and soft-left (maybe even a few on the hard-left) who just find it totally unacceptable for a party to pander to anti-semitism.
I have yet to meet such a person other than those who are using it as a surrogate for their support of Israeli or their support of right wing causes (which Israel now is) Orr from the ultra orthodox community a totally segregated community who have no desire to integrate. In fact to do so is forbidden.
Please could one of our gentile posters who is currently up in arms (cyclefree S.O.) and explain who is being offended and by what?
Its 2018, we shouldn't need to convince people to take antisemitism or any other form of racism seriously.
On another note, I'd not heard about thus,despicable punish a Muslim day threats, I hope no incidents occur.
But the premise is true in practical terms for top politicians.
Plus they hate capitalism, which got Guido riled up.
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2009/nov/04/guido-fawkes-blogger-gossip
________________________________________
At Hull, Staines even wrote a letter suggesting that the FCS had "some common ground", as he puts it now, with the British National party.
_________________________________________
Corbyn's Labour party had a shadow cabinet from across the party, the problem was they decided they didn't want to compromise. It isn't Corbyn that forced that situation.
If it is Labour MPs joining in then I would say it is very relevant. I expect right wing newspapers or Conservatives to attack us regardless of the truth of any accusations, I will counter the accusations if I think they are false though and point out the reason for them.
A more realistic question would be, how much will those who are already committed to Corbyn care? After all, the Tories' supporters in the media went big on Corbyn's past last year, and though so far as I can see they didn't make a single thing up - indeed they downplayed one or two things, presumably fearing costly if futile libel actions - it was dismissed as 'fake news' and 'media smears.'
My instinct is that those who support his policies - the ones where he promised free nationalisation of utilities, free tuition fees, free new roads and railways and lower taxes - are not going to be bothered about the fact that he doesn't care how racist he and his supporters appear.
The terrible sufferings of the European Jewish Community in the 1930s and 1940s would, it was hoped by those who revealed it, stand as a monument for all time to inhumanity and would become an indelible aspect of the psyche of all humanity but of course it hasn't.
To what extent it resonates in any way with those in a modern society disinterested in and uncaring of their own history is hard to know but the ignorance of what was has allowed older and deeper prejudices to re-emerge and for those who do study their history you'll find many ordinary people stood with the residents of Cable Street against the BUF in 1936.
That's the problem though - the "past" means nothing to too many. In the present, the problems of society and the solutions to those problems and the source for someone to blame for actual personal failings and perceived societal failings takes people in different directions and blaming those who look, think and act "different" is nothing new.
Your definition of 'compromise' appears to be: "agree with everything Jezza says and does"!
One of the things that has always drove Corbyn to an extent is the OTT accusations thrown at him and the negative reaction to that, I can easily see this adding to that list.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5571341/Andrew-Lansley-reveals-bowel-cancer-blames-Treasury-opposing-scheme-catch-disease.html
Well, actually he said the Treasury cut funding for the training needed for the roll-out of the bowel scope screening programme. And it was probably Philip Hammond anyway. Still, that Jeremy Corbyn, eh?
Just for the record I’m not a member, now, of any political party. I was a member of the Labour Party for a couple of years some 60 years ago. I was a member of the Liberals from 1966-80 or so (can’t remember when it lapsed) and I was a 'contracted out' member of a Trade Union from 1990-2003.
Clear enough?
A small group in the PLP refuse to compromise with the leadership or the membership or the rest of the PLP. Given the fact that everyone else is compromising and working together apart from them then they must be the the ones who refuse to compromise.
Corbyn has been perfectly willing to have others in the party, his response seemed to be exactly the same as Tony Blair's when people wanted to deselect Dianne Abbot, up to the local party to decide. Which is what he has said about deselection. Somehow because Corbyn is left wing this means something different.
rustinpeace - @rustinpeace00: Karen Pollock is the Chief Executive of the Holocaust Educational Trust. She's absolutely right of course - just the latest in a long line of Corbyn's personal disgraces.
Yeah, Corbyn has totally ridden out this storm...
Which given they haven't covered themselves in glory in the last year, recent improvements notwithstanding, seems eminently possible.
It's a bit like going to dinner with the Westboro Baptist Church to show he's fine with Christianity.
Edit - and Holocaust studies would normally be secondary school level.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-43620012
So if they are not born with such views, when do people start blaming Jews for the ills of the world, and why?
(Substitute Muslims, women etc as appropriate).
Just as previously you accepted that Corbyn's antics would make anti-semites feel more comfortable and emboldened within the Labour Party (please don't make me search for that comment in the archives), so you miss the point here.
Corbyn meeting playing the some of my best friends are Jews card was quite malevolently clever because his Jewish friends criticise heartily other Jews and hence, non-Jewish members of the Labour Party are yet again emboldened also to criticise Jews. Indeed some of these may even be bona fide anti-semites.
You know all this, though, so not sure why it needs to be spelled out.
(That's a genuine piece of advice, BTW, not a feeble attempt at a joke.)
Sticking him to some hating Jewish people because random Labour members had made anti-semitic comments is surely much safer ground, people baffle me sometimes.
What Corbyn's seder meeting with Jewdas has done is ensure yet another day of headlines that most voters will simply recognise as more of Labour and JC having a problem with anti-Semitism, and possibly the vitriol that flows between various left-wing factions.
To what extent that has an impact on voters is hard to tell - but more likely to be corrosive in the medium term.
The Mirror headline encapsulates the take home message for most passers-by:
"Jeremy Corbyn in fresh controversy after meeting with radical left-wing Jewish group amid anti-Semitism row"