Languish.org

Rebecca Long Bailey - the Corbyn camp's candidate - has launched her campaign with this piece in Tribune:

QuoteTo Win We Must Unite All of Labour's Heartlands
By
    Rebecca Long-Bailey

The election result was devastating. But with the climate crisis spiralling and the far-right on the march, we must regroup for the struggles ahead. Our task is to build a winning vision of a socialist future, and this task has never been more urgent.

Many candidates in the leadership election say they will not return to the triangulation and Tory-lite policies that held our party back before Jeremy. But we need a leader that can be trusted with our socialist agenda. A leader who is totally committed to the policies and has the political backbone to defend them. We need a proud socialist to lead the Labour Party, driven by their principles and an unwavering determination to see democratic socialism in our lifetime.

For all of these reasons and more, I have decided to stand for election to become the next leader of our Party. I don't just agree with the policies, I've spent the last four years writing them. Labour's Green New Deal, our plans to radically democratise the economy and to renew the high streets of towns across the country are the foundations for an economic transformation that will combat the climate crisis and hand back wealth and power to ordinary people.

It is true that one reason we lost the election was that Labour's campaign lacked a coherent narrative. But this was a failure of campaign strategy, not of our socialist programme. Labour's Green New Deal is the most ambitious agenda for tackling climate change of any major political party. And throughout the election it was tragically undersold.

Not only did it provide a compelling frame for our entire economic programme, it was most popular in those deindustrialised regions where we suffered our most devastating losses: the North West, the West Midlands and the North East. The popularity of our Green New Deal bridges the divides in our electoral coalition, with huge support in the cities and marginals in the South East too. It should have been a core part of our offer: this is how Labour will help you take back control.

I developed these policies with every part of our movement, working with trade unions, grassroots campaigners, school climate strikers, and countless party members. I've held meetings around the country, ensuring that the Green New Deal and our agenda for a democratic economy has the interests of communities at its heart. This is how policy should be made – by our movement and from the bottom up – and as leader you can trust me to open up Labour's policy process to the movement at every level.

There is nothing our movement cannot achieve. I truly believe that. Already we've demonstrated determination and resilience the political establishment did not expect. And while it's easy to become disheartened seeing images of Australia burning and Jakarta flooded, remember that you're part of a courageous movement of millions of people who are ready to stake everything for a better world.

Under the leadership of Jeremy Corbyn we've drawn upon the collective knowledge and experience of that movement to develop a radical, ambitious socialist vision for the future. This is our greatest strength, and we need a leader who comes from and will stay true to that movement.

But an ambitious socialist vision is only the first step. We also need to rebuild our electoral coalition and implement our vision. Labour's path to victory lies in reuniting all our heartlands, from the communities that voted to leave in the North and Midlands, to those in Scotland who abandoned Labour in 2015 and our growing young, diverse strongholds in cities. 

For some, there will be a temptation to compromise on our anti-racist and internationalist principles. Let me be clear: as leader I will never throw migrants or BAME communities under the bus. Never again will our party put 'controls on immigration' on a mug. It would be a betrayal of our principles, and of our core supporters and activists. We must defeat Johnson and the nationalist right, never pander to them.

While our heartlands are diverse, there is a common cause that underlies the rejection of our party from Durham to Dundee: people across these islands are sick of the British state's distant and undemocratic institutions. They have no trust in politicians to deliver, and have a deep desire for political as well as economic transformation.

Time and again this showed on the doorstep. We struggled to marry our ambitious programme with voters' fundamental lack of trust in politicians. We had no plan to overhaul a broken political system and voters came to see Labour as part of the problem, another bunch of politicians making promises we couldn't keep. We've also, at times, been too close to the establishment we are meant to be taking on – whether cosying up to Rupert Murdoch, joining forces with David Cameron in the Better Together campaign in 2014 or turning our focus inwards on parliamentary manoeuvring for the last year.

To win, we need to rebuild Labour as an insurgent force and offer a vision for a new democracy. We must go to war with the political establishment, pledging a constitutional revolution that sweeps away the House of Lords, takes big money out of politics and radically shifts power away from Westminster. My vision of a democratic, decarbonised economy alongside a new democracy that hands power and wealth back to ordinary people is one that can win. It can unite all of Labour's heartlands, from our young, diverse strongholds in English cities to Scotland, Wales, and de-industrialised areas in the Midlands and North.

I haven't rushed to announce my candidacy because I wanted to take time to reflect following the devastating results in December. I didn't emerge from the election with a ready-made leadership campaign because my every effort during the election went into campaigning for a Labour victory. I'm not driven by personal ambition, but by my principles and an unwavering desire to change our country and our world for the better.

And those principles have led me here. I'm not your typical politician. I'm not a millionaire or a landlord, and I didn't go to a posh school. Instead I'm a lifelong socialist, dedicated to our movement and determined to do my bit. You're as likely to see me on a picket line as you are at the dispatch box, and you can trust me to fight the establishment tooth and nail.

We can't wait five years to effect change in people's lives. We must begin organising in communities now, and resist the Tories every step of the way — in parliament, on the streets, and in our workplaces. As leader, I will stand shoulder to shoulder with you – in every campaign against Tory cuts, with every minority community and all migrants against Johnson's hateful agenda, and with trade unions in every struggle to protect workers' rights.

We have a mountain to climb, comrades, and the crises we face are stark. But we have our socialist vision, a path to victory and most importantly, we have each other. More than ever, Nye Bevan's words ring true: "There is only one hope for humanity, and that is democratic socialism." Our strength, determination and resilience will prevail. Together, we can do this.

I'm not overwhelmed. Basically we don't need to change anything about policies or approach, it's just an issue of media management and strategy. I also think given that all other candidates have addressed the anti-semitism issue that it's telling that the candidate closest to the leadership has nothing to say about it. I can't think I've ever seen a more "maintain the course/keep the status quo" pitch in my life, which is astonishing after the biggest defeat since the 30s.

It's also so much weaker than Angela Rayner's campaign launch for deputy leader. RLB also did her first media including a couple of interview which went badly - she gave Corbyn 10 out of 10 for leader (as a reminder: he lost almost a quarter of Labour seats; when he took over the Tories had about 50 seats more than Labour, they now have 160) and blamed the media for savaging him and Labour for not having a good enough "rebuttal unit". Again - no actual failure of the leadership, just a bad media strategy and campaign. Apparently her slow start is causing a little bit of concern for her supporters.

Tellingly not only did the Corbyn camp back RLB over Rayner, some of the leadership such as John McDonnell are even backing Richard Burgon (:bleeding:) for deputy leader which is striking because he is a far worse politician. But I think he is part of their faction, as is RLB, whereas Rayner's always been a little bit independent/soft left.

First hustings in front of the Parliamentary Labour Party was this evening. General view is that Emily Thornberry and Clive Lewis may not have enough MP support to get on the ballot. Most did okay though, to quote the New Statesman: "most MPs present agreed that all were at least varying degrees of passable, and that none irredeemably humiliated themselves." :lol:

But by all accounts Lisa Nandy had a breakout night and was very, very impressive. I think from what I've seen her analysis of what went wrong and how to improve is the most developed and interesting. Still feels like it'll be Starmer/Rayner, but it's worth remembering that Corbyn wasn't winning (because most people didn't know who he was, and the people who did didn't like him) until two things happened: Labour whipped an abstention on the benefits bill (a Tory trap) except for Corbyn who voted against and the first leadership debate. If Nandy does as well in the debate she could win (?!? :ph34r: :wub:).

One can only conclude that the Labour Party is not interested in governing ever again.

I can see a few glimmers there, some small cracks.
Its definitely true that Corbyn and the media aside, the reason Labour lost was less about individual policies and more about a lack of focus and strategy. Instead of concentrating on some core election winning policies they just kept throwing out new ones. Which, nice as they were, just distracted and made others less believable.

But moaning about Tory lite. You can really see the appeal to the idiots on the far left there. And have to love the sly dig that the centre left aren't real socialists.
Labour has to stop doing this. Corbynites have entirely swallowed the Tory narrative that everything that is wrong is because of Labour, they happily go along with saying Blair was absolutely awful and then saying "Yeah but he wasn't real Labour!".
They have to stop letting Tories write the narrative.
Was Blair perfect? No. Should he have accomplished more? Yes. Was he a million times better than anyone since? God yes.


Nandy- what I've seen of her I'm not a fan. Whether surrendering on brexit would have won the last election is a question that will forever go unanswered, now isn't the time to do that
Though wouldn't it be fun if Varadakar keeps his job and she becomes PM? Half-Indians FTW.

Starmer remains my first choice. The only real point against him is that he's a man... Which...Well I'm all for equality and it would be great to one day see a female PM who isn't utterly horrid, but excluding the best candidate just because they have the wrong bits isn't right.

It is really annoying how blatantly obvious the far-left's interest in tackling climate change is. They have just realised they can attach their social engineering projects on this topic.

What would constitute "democratic socialism in our lifetime," and when that's reached would the Labour Party say I guess we've achieved all we need to?

Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 08, 2020, 06:24:57 AM
What would constitute "democratic socialism in our lifetime," and when that's reached would the Labour Party say I guess we've achieved all we need to?

I fail to see how that snarky comment I've noted in bold is warranted.

I fail to see how you fail to see.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 08, 2020, 06:24:57 AM
What would constitute "democratic socialism in our lifetime," and when that's reached would the Labour Party say I guess we've achieved all we need to?

Then they become the Champions of the status quo.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 08, 2020, 06:35:42 AM
I fail to see how you fail to see.

Because they've actually said nothing that suggests their work would be done if they achieve such a goal.

Quote from: garbon on January 08, 2020, 06:39:56 AM
Because they've actually said nothing that suggests their work would be done if they achieve such a goal.

Of course.  As Eddie said they can work to maintain the status quo.

Seen on ITV's twitter account:

QuoteHow does Rebecca Long-Bailey have fun?

'My favourite hobby is having a Chinese takeaway and probably watching a Netflix box set on a Friday night with my husband.'

Sounds perfectly normal.

Quote from: Tamas on January 08, 2020, 05:45:47 AM
It is really annoying how blatantly obvious the far-left's interest in tackling climate change is. They have just realised they can attach their social engineering projects on this topic.

And what's wrong with that?
A lot of green policies also come under criticism as just being ways to make money.
There are a lot of people making a decent amount from green business.
Saving the planet is important. That people from  both the left and right are trying to promote ways to do this is a good thing.

J. Philips leader and Starmer or Raynor for deputy, my recipe for a Labour return to sanity.

Oh and a Kinnock style attack on momentum (militant)

Quote from: garbon on January 08, 2020, 07:53:21 AM
Seen on ITV's twitter account:

QuoteHow does Rebecca Long-Bailey have fun?

'My favourite hobby is having a Chinese takeaway and probably watching a Netflix box set on a Friday night with my husband.'

Exploiting victims of zero hour contracts on a weekly basis I see.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 08, 2020, 06:24:57 AM
What would constitute "democratic socialism in our lifetime," and when that's reached would the Labour Party say I guess we've achieved all we need to?

Presumably the people within the Labour party who wish to attain democratic socialism will work to maintain it and those who ascribe to another form of politics will attempt to move the party and the country in that direction - you know politics as usual.

Is Labour still relevant? How many antisemitic parties does the UK need?

They will always be relevant.  Whether they are competitive will depend on the next leader.

Quote from: crazy canuck on January 08, 2020, 12:04:39 PM
They will always be relevant.  Whether they are competitive will depend on the next leader.

I'm not sure that's necessarily true. The could become irrelevant if another party were to rise in their place.

Quote from: garbon on January 08, 2020, 12:07:50 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on January 08, 2020, 12:04:39 PM
They will always be relevant.  Whether they are competitive will depend on the next leader.

I'm not sure that's necessarily true. The could become irrelevant if another party were to rise in their place.

Fair point.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 08, 2020, 06:35:42 AM
I fail to see how you fail to see.

The blind leading the blind.

Quote from: Tyr on January 08, 2020, 04:57:50 AM
I can see a few glimmers there, some small cracks.
Its definitely true that Corbyn and the media aside, the reason Labour lost was less about individual policies and more about a lack of focus and strategy. Instead of concentrating on some core election winning policies they just kept throwing out new ones. Which, nice as they were, just distracted and made others less believable.

Also if you have loads of nice, popular, expensive policies that haven't been introduced to the public before (eg free broadband) so it's a surprise - they're not thrilled. They just don't believe you and if they don't believe the manifesto is credible then it doesn't how many popular policies you have.

QuoteBut moaning about Tory lite. You can really see the appeal to the idiots on the far left there. And have to love the sly dig that the centre left aren't real socialists.
Labour has to stop doing this. Corbynites have entirely swallowed the Tory narrative that everything that is wrong is because of Labour, they happily go along with saying Blair was absolutely awful and then saying "Yeah but he wasn't real Labour!".
They have to stop letting Tories write the narrative.
Was Blair perfect? No. Should he have accomplished more? Yes. Was he a million times better than anyone since? God yes.

GORDO! :wub: :contract:

This is who Corbyn and his team are though. They are factional politicians. As I say you can see it with the way they're endorsing Burgon (one of the crew) over Dawn Butler (voted for Burnham in 2015) or Rayner (voted for Ed Miliband in 2015) despite the fact that both of the last two are far, far better candidates and broadly agree on policy with them. They may agree but they're not in the team.

QuoteNandy- what I've seen of her I'm not a fan. Whether surrendering on brexit would have won the last election is a question that will forever go unanswered, now isn't the time to do that
Though wouldn't it be fun if Varadakar keeps his job and she becomes PM? Half-Indians FTW.

Interesting. I thought you'd love Nandy. She's the first memed leadership candidate ("all I want is functional bus network" :lol:), all about devolution and regionalism and actually using the regions as a campaigning base for the national party - e.g. the Preston model, the way Labour councils are disrupting the energy market etc.

On Brexit - I remember when May's deal was voted down and the two groups who were cheering was remainers and hard-core Brexiteers. And at that point I thought someone's made a catastriphic misjudgement, and I wasn't sure who. Now, in retrospect, I do wonder if remainers would've have been better doing what Nandy and Kinnock were doing and instead of betting everything on a second referendum they spent their time trying to shape Brexit. If they'd turned up to Nr 10 and said - we have 70-100 votes that can pass your deal but we want full alignment on workers rights, consumer rights, the environment, customs union, the Norway model whatever.

QuoteStarmer remains my first choice. The only real point against him is that he's a man... Which...Well I'm all for equality and it would be great to one day see a female PM who isn't utterly horrid, but excluding the best candidate just because they have the wrong bits isn't right.

I think his pitch was excellent, but I'm not concvinced by him and I don't know what his solution is to where Labour is.

His record as DPP will come up and it will be a liability. I think it'll hurt him in the Labour campaign first (lots of very dodgy prosecution decisions with the police), but then some of his record will hurt him vs the Tories too (the collapse in rape convictions and trials started on his watch partly due to some policy decisions).

Edit: There's a new contender! :o

Barry Gardiner's going to throw his hat into the ring. Apparently Unite and some of the other Corbyn inclined unions are a bit worried about RLB and have approached Gardiner to run. Older white man, years in Parliament, very popular with the grass-roots.....what could possibly go wrong.

QuoteInteresting. I thought you'd love Nandy. She's the first memed leadership candidate ("all I want is functional bus network" :lol:), all about devolution and regionalism and actually using the regions as a campaigning base for the national party - e.g. the Preston model, the way Labour councils are disrupting the energy market etc.

I've not seen this bus quote. Good if so.

On the Preston model. Eghh.... That's a tricky one. The trouble with the way it is now becoming a talking point is it seems to be in the wrong form.
There are too basic ways the preston model can go which I call the north Korea model and the polder model. With populist brexit things very much seem to be blowing towards the former. A belief that Britain is excellent and doesn't need anyone else and the entire reason the north is so poor is london actively sucking out wealth. This is the kind of idiocy that sees some in the north opposing HS2.
I'm more in favour of a polder model. Buy local where possible, but local doesn't necesarily mean in the same town. Inter-City rivalries are a huge problem that really holds the north back.
Make efforts to focus spending in steadily building places up to a level where they can stand as working class bastions, free of the lumpens tides, connected to the country and world at large in a virtuous cycle of wealth creation.
It's harsh and means some more remote areas will have to wait until it is their turn. But its the most efficient way to use our resources. Spread the core areas well enough and most people should benefit from them even if they don't directly live in them. The every town for themselves approach that some seem to see as the way forward is little different to what we have now.

Quote
On Brexit - I remember when May's deal was voted down and the two groups who were cheering was remainers and hard-core Brexiteers. And at that point I thought someone's made a catastriphic misjudgement, and I wasn't sure who. Now, in retrospect, I do wonder if remainers would've have been better doing what Nandy and Kinnock were doing and instead of betting everything on a second referendum they spent their time trying to shape Brexit. If they'd turned up to Nr 10 and said - we have 70-100 votes that can pass your deal but we want full alignment on workers rights, consumer rights, the environment, customs union, the Norway model whatever.

Labour were doing that though. The problems were
1: they were also pushing for an election that may didn't want.
2: may was too committed to a hard Brexit and didn't want to be seen to be selling out her party.

Quote from: Tyr on January 09, 2020, 05:37:34 AM
On the Preston model. Eghh.... That's a tricky one. The trouble with the way it is now becoming a talking point is it seems to be in the wrong form.
There are too basic ways the preston model can go which I call the north Korea model and the polder model. With populist brexit things very much seem to be blowing towards the former. A belief that Britain is excellent and doesn't need anyone else and the entire reason the north is so poor is london actively sucking out wealth. This is the kind of idiocy that sees some in the north opposing HS2.
I'm more in favour of a polder model. Buy local where possible, but local doesn't necesarily mean in the same town. Inter-City rivalries are a huge problem that really holds the north back.
Make efforts to focus spending in steadily building places up to a level where they can stand as working class bastions, free of the lumpens tides, connected to the country and world at large in a virtuous cycle of wealth creation.
It's harsh and means some more remote areas will have to wait until it is their turn. But its the most efficient way to use our resources. Spread the core areas well enough and most people should benefit from them even if they don't directly live in them. The every town for themselves approach that some seem to see as the way forward is little different to what we have now.

I don't think her point is everyone should do the Preston model:

QuoteThis change starts with empowering people to make change themselves. We've been a decade out of power in Westminster, changing our leaders, and commissioning reports and focus groups from offices in central London just to hear what is happening in the country. If we were trying to reinforce the sense that we just don't get it, we couldn't do better than this.

Yet out there in the country, Labour is creating change – from Preston council, which has used local assets to grow the economy, to Nottingham, which set up its own energy company to help the poorest. As shadow secretary of state for energy and climate change, I brought 60 Labour councils together to defend the Paris agreement and cut the UK's carbon footprint by 10% by switching to clean energy. Quietly and unsung, we disrupted the power of the big six energy companies. It is this on-the-ground activism that will pave the way back to government.

I think after an eleciton in which it was striking how little used Andy Burnham, Steve Rotherham etc were used that actually building up with local government success and ideas isn't a bad idea.

Quote
Labour were doing that though. The problems were
1: they were also pushing for an election that may didn't want.
2: may was too committed to a hard Brexit and didn't want to be seen to be selling out her party.

I don't think it's a Labour issue - though I don't buy for one second the idea that the Labour leadership and Theresa May would ever do a deal - I think it was a little wider about remainers. If you talked about negotiating what Brexit should look like, even if it was trying to make it a soft Brexit, then you'd be outflanked by second referendum remainers. The gravity of the hard-line leavers and remainers destroyed any chance of compromise, and then the leavers won the election.

Another point that may mean nothing - or maybe it does.

Clive Lewis (who won't get the nominations to go to the next round but is running for leader) has suggested separating the Scottish Labour Party in part, to enable them to take a non-unionist position on independence. Striking and follows on from Corbyn's luke-warmishness, it's interesting how it's been figures in the English Labour Party who basically seem to sympathise with Scottish independence, while in Scotland the people who are still in the Labour Party are often there because it's the left-wing unionist party.

This isn't entirely unprecedented mind. Before Ruth Davidson won the leadership of the Scottish Tory Party, her main competition was proposing separating the Scottish Tory Party from the national model (though remaining unionist) on the CDU-CSU model.

All of the candidates, saving perhaps RLB, are a step up (return to normalcy) for the Labour, as the ordinary man or women in the street can relate to them and understand where they're coming from unlike Corbyn, who appealed most to the party activist and some of his opinions were ideological pure but baffling to many. 

The Thorns passed the first hurdle by the skin of her teeth! :w00t:

First hustings for the Labour Party.

These have been a little controversial because they were basically all in places Labour did well which may not be the best approach when you've just lost 60 seats. I think they have now added a few areas.

By all accounts it was a dreadful format - 40 seconds per response so no real debate just soundbites. All quite low energy. Philips was the only one who tried to attack/go for other candidates' ideas. Thornberry apparently quite good. But it doesn't feel like this changed anything.

Lisa Nandy also did well in her interview with Andrew Neil which is positive.

Jess Phillips dropped out :(

Some current mood indications in Labour :mellow:
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EOz5j3dW4AAthZS?format=png&name=small)
I really, really hope Long-Bailey loses because those 32% need to fuck off into the Greens/Lib Dems/Socialist Workers :lol:

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EOz5jOLX4AESDY5?format=png&name=small)
:bleeding: Corbyn would win again. (Also as a long-term Wilson fanboi I'm delighted at the way his reputation's come up again).

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EOz5k84XkAYW-oD?format=png&name=small)
:hmm:

The second makes me cry. The Blair hysteria most of all.

The last... Sounds weasley. Labour from its foundation was about creating a better society and improving the lot of the working class and by extension the very working class ourselves. The middle one stinks a bit too much of those who moan labour is out of touch because it isn't racist. White working class tribalism is not labour.

If you look at the Favorable - Unfavorable margin, Miliband, Smith, Atlee, and Wilson all beat out Corbyn.  So there is somewhat of a silver lining there.
Smith has the second best favorability margin (after Wilson) and even Gaitskell's favorable are almost 3 times as higher as his unfavorables.  So it appears that dropping dead can help . . .

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 21, 2020, 05:15:56 PM
If you look at the Favorable - Unfavorable margin, Miliband, Smith, Atlee, and Wilson all beat out Corbyn.  So there is somewhat of a silver lining there.
Smith has the second best favorability margin (after Wilson) and even Gaitskell's favorable are almost 3 times as higher as his unfavorables.  So it appears that dropping dead can help . . .

I am mildly thrilled at the surprising enthusiasm for Gaitskell :w00t:

QuoteThe second makes me cry. The Blair hysteria most of all.

Yeah. But it's sort of expected. I'm surprised at the anti-Kinnock feeling out there :mellow:  :hmm:

Edit: Oh and meanwhile the Tories are on 47% in the latest poll :weep:

Edit: Also happy at the solid 18% who are still angry at Ramsay MacDonald, 90 years on.

Since it's a survey of *members,* those are by definition the Corbyn fringe, no?

Quote from: Sheilbh on January 21, 2020, 04:55:47 PM
Jess Phillips dropped out :(

:bleeding: Corbyn would win again. (Also as a long-term Wilson fanboi I'm delighted at the way his reputation's come up again).

Indeed sad about Phillips's exit.

Yes I've alway like Wilson from 1970 election certainly.  :bowler:

I was surprised that ties with the unions is so strong that a leadership must drop out if she cannot get their endorsement despite the fact this is popular within the party itself.

Quote from: crazy canuck on January 22, 2020, 12:39:21 PM
I was surprised that ties with the unions is so strong that a leadership must drop out if she cannot get their endorsement despite the fact this is popular within the party itself.

It's a bit of an overstatement to say she's popular. She is popular with a certain part of the party and loathed by the Corbynites. She's probably the most divisive candidate in that everyone has an opinion about her.

So you need either 3 nominations by an affiliate, 2 of which need to be a union representing 5% of the total. So other affiliates are groups like the Fabians, the Jewish Labour Movement, Chinese for Labour etc. Or you can get the nomination of, I think 33, Constituency Labour Parties.

I think Phillips would have struggled on either front.

Lisa Nandy made it through! :w00t: Backed by GMB and NUM unions and Chinese for Labour affiliate group (sadly they've been getting loads of racist abuse all day after this). She has taken the sensible approach as the dark horse of doing all the media she can and, again, did very well in an Andrew Neil interview - which is not easy.

I also enjoyed her morning tour of the studios slapping down various hosts. To Piers Morgan after he said there's nothing to do with race or gender in the Meghan Markle coverage it's just that people don't like her: "If you don't mind me saying, how on earth would you know? As someone who's never had to deal with ingrained prejudice?"

Then when Nick Robinson asked who her favourite past Labour Leader is and then said she was carefully avoiding answering the question. Her response "well it's a daft question" :lol:

Nothing to do with race or gender, you just don't like Americans.  :(

Put it this way, last time a royal married one of us, he had to abdicate his throne.

Quote from: Eddie Teach on January 22, 2020, 05:20:19 PM
Nothing to do with race or gender, you just don't like Americans.  :(

Put it this way, last time a royal married one of us, he had to abdicate his throne.

Problem more about that royal's nazi sympathies than hatred of Americans. But a close second I grant you  :D

Quote from: Eddie Teach on January 22, 2020, 05:20:19 PM
Nothing to do with race or gender, you just don't like Americans.  :(

Put it this way, last time a royal married one of us, he had to abdicate his throne.

:lol: That could be part of it. I did enjoy the Buzzfeed piece contrasting the same paper's headlines about the same behaviour. My favourite were the first couple:
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/ellievhall/meghan-markle-kate-middleton-double-standards-royal

Oz Katerji is doing an interesting podcast on Corbynism - the Post-Mortem.

First episode on anti-semitism with Adam Wagner (human rights lawyer), Jonathan Freedland (Guardian columnist) and Adam Langleben (formerly of the Jewish Labour Movement).

Interesting reports of a surge of about 20% in the Labour membership.

Generally theory seems to be these are moderates who left during the Corbyn years returning. A big chunk wanted to vote for Jess Phillips are are now a bit homeless. Some want to go for Starmer or Nandy.

Apparently the Labour left are resigning themselves to Starmer leading and saying they'll need to "keep organised". Suggests they already suspect he'll be a Kinnock.

That's the crazies all over. Would rather have no labour govrnment than an impure one.

Quote from: Tyr on January 25, 2020, 05:24:20 AM
That's the crazies all over. Would rather have no labour govrnment than an insane one.

fyp

So the Labour Party has reported Keir Starmer's campaign to the regulator for a data breach. And there are rumours the leadership/executive could use it in an attempt to disqualify his candidacy :blink:

Hard left will always hard left in the end :bleeding:

It seems to be more than just the hard left on this one. It's getting a lot of coverage from the pro tory media. Way above what could be rationally expected of such a story.
It seems they really are afraid of having a top barrister to call out Johnsons nonsense.

Well it's the Labour leadership that reported him and the Labour leadership that might (or not - it is very bold) use the party rulebook to disqualify him.

Speaking of top barristers (who routinely used to outperform Johnson when she shadowed him), Emily Thornberry couldn't get the support of enough affiliates or constituencies to make the final round. She was never going to win and I have issues with her, but I will miss her 20 B&H a day tones and sense of humour at all of these events.

It's only a council by-election but lots of people hyperventilating about this result in Middlesbrough (the previous councillor - elected as a Conservative - stood down because he's now being prosecuted on child pornography charges :bleeding:).

From what I can see on Twitter, left Twitter is split between people mainly blaming the Lib Dems and people suggesting that maybe this sort of thing is a little bit of a warning sign for Labour.

QuoteCoulby Newham (Middlesbrough) result:

CON: 49.0% (-0.1)
LAB: 19.9% (-31.0)
LDEM: 18.4% (+18.4)
IND: 6.4% (+6.4)
IND: 6.3% (+6.3)

Conservative HOLD.

Chgs. w/ 2019

The tories are riding high in Middlesbrough at the moment. The mayor is a tory and he's very good at pr. Recently the council bought back some abandoned industrial land for a low price and is promising to use it for all manner of wonderful things and generally spouting brexity rhetoric around it.

How is it a conservative hold if labour got 50.9% last time?

Quote from: Eddie Teach on February 22, 2020, 03:38:07 PM
How is it a conservative hold if labour got 50.9% last time?

Most (all?) council wards are multi-member. So in this case there are three councillors. It's historically an area Labour does well in so they stood three candidates and their only opponent was one Tory. So overall the vote was 51% Labour, 49% Tory but the result was two Labour councillors, one Tory.

The councillor who has since been charged with child sexual abuse and hasn't attended the council for over 6 months (prompting an automatic by-election) was the Tory councillor, which is why it's a Tory hold.

Ballots are out.
For leader it's clear to me. I've been a fan of Keir for a while.
Deputy however is one I shall have to do more research on. None stand out as particularly great.

I really like Angela Rayner for Deputy. But I think I'll go second preference for her after Ian Murray just because I think we need a Scottish voice at the top table. If Labour can't start to win Scotland back then they need to win up to and including Jacob Rees-Mogg's seat to win a majority. Which is a challenge.

I'll be voting Nandy, then I'm not sure if RLB or Starmer for second choice. I think they'll both be fairly catastrophic.

How's Starmer catastrophic?

Nandy will probably be my second choice. Though I think that will likely prove fairly irrelevant. Starmer is almost certain to be in the top 2。

Honestly the biggest issue with Keir Starmer is he gives me massive Ed Miliband vibes. I never really understood the appeal of him either.

There's other points too - but I think that's probably the biggest reasons.

I've no doubt he'd do well in the Commons, like William Hague (and Johnson, unlike Blair, is lazy and won't be particularly well-briefed), but will possibly get similar results. The best I think Starmer can achieve is something like Kinnock where he slowly recovers but not actually enough to win.

On the other hand no party's won four elections in a row - which is something on Labour's side.

Someone knew has announced they're running for Lib Dem leader - and I had genuinely forgotten (a) the Lib Dems exist and (b) are having a leadership contest.

In part, that reflects on them, but in part it took me back to New Labour. It's going to be weird getting used to a government with a majority and politics "as normal" again - the opposition is typically irrelevant and what really matters is the opposition within officialdom or the governing party.

If only politics was normal again. The Tories unchained.... It's a return to the dark days of the 80s rather than new Labour alas.

It's weird to think as it certainly didn't seem it at the time but the Blair government was our golden age wasn't it :(

Queen Victoria was your golden age.

On the leadership election, apparently there's a lot of complaints of missing ballot papers.
I recall reading they said if you've an email address on file they will do it digitally only (!!!). I wonder how many of these missing ballots are old folk who don't realise it has been mailed to them or even, far worse, wrong email addresses on file.

Quote from: Eddie Teach on March 08, 2020, 05:17:50 PM
Queen Victoria was your golden age.

I was speaking of modern Britain.
But even extending it out... The victorian age was not a great time to be alive.

It seems a much more optimistic era than today.

Quote from: Tyr on March 09, 2020, 05:01:26 AM
On the leadership election, apparently there's a lot of complaints of missing ballot papers.
I recall reading they said if you've an email address on file they will do it digitally only (!!!). I wonder how many of these missing ballots are old folk who don't realise it has been mailed to them or even, far worse, wrong email addresses on file.

Interesting - I hadn't received mine and was beginning to wonder.

Quote from: Eddie Teach on March 09, 2020, 05:07:22 AM
It seems a much more optimistic era than today.

The late 90s was also a pretty optimistic era.

Quote from: Eddie Teach on March 09, 2020, 05:07:22 AM
It seems a much more optimistic era than today.

Sure. But thats more reflective of the belief a golden age is just round the corner.
Things weren't actually that great in the day to day.

Quote from: Sheilbh on March 08, 2020, 02:35:05 PM
Someone knew has announced they're running for Lib Dem leader - and I had genuinely forgotten (a) the Lib Dems exist and (b) are having a leadership contest.

They shall rise again! I mean...probably not if they couldn't take advantage of the current melt down by the two major parties I am not sure what it would take.

But hey it is nice they can pull in 10% or whatever every election. Compared to US third parties they are a political juggernaut.

Quote from: Tyr on March 10, 2020, 10:26:38 AM

Quote from: Eddie Teach on March 09, 2020, 05:07:22 AM
It seems a much more optimistic era than today.

Sure. But thats more reflective of the belief a golden age is just round the corner.
Things weren't actually that great in the day to day.

I don't think it was optimistic at all. There was a layer and a class of society that were optimistic. Even within that layer I don't know if I'd say it was optimistic in full, the reasons for their optimism were often also undermining certainties in a very uncomfortable way.

But, you know, read your Engels or even certain of the great Victorian novelists - it wasn't an optimistic era.

Quote from: Valmy on March 10, 2020, 10:29:31 AM

Quote from: Sheilbh on March 08, 2020, 02:35:05 PM
Someone knew has announced they're running for Lib Dem leader - and I had genuinely forgotten (a) the Lib Dems exist and (b) are having a leadership contest.

They shall rise again! I mean...probably not if they couldn't take advantage of the current melt down by the two major parties I am not sure what it would take.

But hey it is nice they can pull in 10% or whatever every election. Compared to US third parties they are a political juggernaut.

Yeah, look at the Libertarian Party in the US, and their performance in 2016.  Both major parties somehow manage to nominate candidates of whom the voters had higher negative than positive views, and the Libertarian candidate, despite being able to get on the ballot everywhere, still doesn't pull in even 5% of the popular vote.  If the Libertarian Party can't do any better than that under the circumstances of 2016, it's hard to see how they ever will.

Yeah - I mean both of our systems are kind of designed to produce those sorts of results though. So with the Lib Dems or Libertarians it isn't enough that you dislike both parties, you also need to be fairly relaxed about who comes to power. In 2019 here a significant chunk of Tory-leaning potential Lib Dem voters looked at the possibility of a Corbyn premiership and voted Tory and the opposite happened for lefty Lib Dems in university towns etc.

Our system isn't about expressing a preference, it's about choosing between two alternative governing parties.

I have voted :goodboy:

Yup.  It's a tipping point issue.  Or maybe a coordination problem, taking from game theory.  If enough people start to think of Republican as the wasted vote, they will vote Libertarian instead.

The Labour National Executive Council have appointed a new General Secretary, David Evans, who was previously Deputy General Secretary in 1999-2001 :ph34r:

The Labour left, in accordance with their traditions, ran about 17 different slates of candidates for the NEC and, unexpectedly, lost control of it when Starmer was elected. And now someone who was last in a similar position in the Blair years is in charge of Labour Party admin (a powerful tool in the intra-party wars).

Now admittedly one of the other main candidates was a guy who'd previously backed Class War (a really unpleasant anarchist group - they try and ruin almost every protest I've ever been on by deciding the best way to participate in a march is to smash up x business <_<), so the left's still there. But surprisingly weak and divided.

Quote from: Valmy on March 10, 2020, 10:29:31 AM

Quote from: Sheilbh on March 08, 2020, 02:35:05 PM
Someone knew has announced they're running for Lib Dem leader - and I had genuinely forgotten (a) the Lib Dems exist and (b) are having a leadership contest.

They shall rise again! I mean...probably not if they couldn't take advantage of the current melt down by the two major parties I am not sure what it would take.

But hey it is nice they can pull in 10% or whatever every election. Compared to US third parties they are a political juggernaut.

Incidentally, Valmy, the Lib Dems have done a review of their performance in the 2019 election. I'm not saying it's damning, but it's a 61 page document and the "The Positives" section lasts three pages, and the review includes the sub-heading "The election: a high speed car crash" :lol: :console:

Quote from: Sheilbh on May 26, 2020, 04:03:01 PM
"The election: a high speed car crash" :lol: :console:

Really it kind of sums up the whole party since 2010.

Quote from: Valmy on May 26, 2020, 08:57:19 PM

Quote from: Sheilbh on May 26, 2020, 04:03:01 PM
"The election: a high speed car crash" :lol: :console:

Really it kind of sums up the whole party since 2010.

They did pretty well in 2017-19 under Vince Cable. In retrospect, he should have stayed on as leader.

Quote from: Valmy on May 26, 2020, 08:57:19 PM

Quote from: Sheilbh on May 26, 2020, 04:03:01 PM
"The election: a high speed car crash" :lol: :console:

Really it kind of sums up the whole party since 2010.

I'm really not sure what their natural constituency is. They seem like a place to park your protest vote.

Quote from: Eddie Teach on May 27, 2020, 11:33:59 AM

Quote from: Valmy on May 26, 2020, 08:57:19 PM

Quote from: Sheilbh on May 26, 2020, 04:03:01 PM
"The election: a high speed car crash" :lol: :console:

Really it kind of sums up the whole party since 2010.

I'm really not sure what their natural constituency is. They seem like a place to park your protest vote.

They are the Liberals, hence why they are called the Liberals...well mellowed with social democratic interventionist stuff. And I think that was the problem. Until 2010 they were the place to park your protest vote. But they did actually have a Liberal agenda and when everybody realized that they got clobbered in 2015. Liberalism is pretty unpopular these days.

Quote from: PJL on May 27, 2020, 11:27:40 AM
They did pretty well in 2017-19 under Vince Cable. In retrospect, he should have stayed on as leader.

If you go by total votes this last election was their best performance since 2010...but under the circumstances it was a disaster, the Brexit/Corbyn stuff should have given them an opening and it just didn't. Also the fact they used to be so strong in Scotland which is now SNP territory is also a huge problem that the party is unlikely to ever overcome.

Ok, but American liberals would fit fine in Labour.

Quote from: Eddie Teach on May 27, 2020, 01:21:25 PM
Ok, but American liberals would fit fine in Labour.

No way. The Progressives would but not the Liberals. You may not tell unless you spend a lot of time talking to Democrats but those two groups do not exactly get along great these days.

I don't talk politics much outside of Languish. And I'm not sure how you're defining "liberal". If you mean people who are afraid of Bernie, I would say centrist or moderate.

Quote from: Eddie Teach on May 27, 2020, 01:28:03 PM
I don't talk politics much outside of Languish. And I'm not sure how you're defining "liberal". If you mean people who are afraid of Bernie, I would say centrist or moderate.

I am defining it...the way it normally is defined. Liberals and neo-Liberals are the "centrists" and "moderates" that Progressives really dislike. And they refer to them as liberals or neo-liberals and hey we even identify ourselves that way. So I am not sure what way you are defining it.

But even so in the UK Liberalism is generally considered to be pro things like the EU, which Labour is at best ambivalent about. Acting like they are the same and can all live in the same party comfortably is not true as evidenced by how hated the Lib-Dems are by many Labour voters.

Ok, so you're saying "classical" liberalism has made a comeback? The term is no longer associated with more robust government programs?

Quote from: Eddie Teach on May 27, 2020, 01:34:13 PM
Ok, so you're saying "classical" liberalism has made a comeback? The term is no longer associated with more robust government programs?

Oh so was the Soviet Union a liberal state then since it had such robust government programs?

I am not sure what "classical liberalism" means exactly here. They are not minarchists or anarcho-Liberals. And would you classify moderate and centrist democrats as being opposed to government programs? I don't think the robustness of government programs has anything to do with it...or everything that is not an anarchist would be a liberal and that would be silly.

I would say being in favor of free trade and international cooperation while working to ease social problems to prevserve social stability and equal opportunity while also trying to be fiscally responsibly would be modern liberal traits. Neo-Liberalism.

Quote from: Eddie Teach on May 27, 2020, 01:34:13 PM
Ok, so you're saying "classical" liberalism has made a comeback? The term is no longer associated with more robust government programs?

No. I think the left of Democratic party are always moaning about "liberals" by which they mean centrists in the Democrats who are basically in the liberal tradition. I mean liberalism, certainly in the UK, always had a bit of robust government program about it - unemployment insurance, pensions etc were great Liberal Party reforms.

QuoteBut even so in the UK Liberalism is generally considered to be pro things like the EU, which Labour is at best ambivalent about. Acting like they are the same and can all live in the same party comfortably is not true as evidenced by how hated the Lib-Dems are by many Labour voters.

That's what happens when you form a coalition with the Tories. Every single thing that Cameron and Osborne did between 2010-5 they did on the back of Lib Dem votes - I'd certainly never vote for them again.

Quote
No way. The Progressives would but not the Liberals. You may not tell unless you spend a lot of time talking to Democrats but those two groups do not exactly get along great these days.

I think that's over-stated and depends what you mean by the Labour Party - the Democrats don't really have anything like the hard left tradition, most progressive Democrats would be comfortable on the soft left and there are still centrists who yearn for the days of Blair and Clinton in Labour (especially the Parliamentary Labour Party).

Obviously this is within a very difficult political context - you know just look at the way Tories talk about "our NHS" in this crisis.

Quote from: Sheilbh on May 27, 2020, 01:44:42 PM
That's what happens when you form a coalition with the Tories. Every single thing that Cameron and Osborne did between 2010-5 they did on the back of Lib Dem votes - I'd certainly never vote for them again.

Yep. They were not as leftist and counter-establishment as people thought they were. Have the Lib-Dems ever speculated as to how they might have acted differently or are the at peace with it?

Quote
I think that's over-stated and depends what you mean by the Labour Party - the Democrats don't really have anything like the hard left tradition, most progressive Democrats would be comfortable on the soft left and there are still centrists who yearn for the days of Blair and Clinton in Labour (especially the Parliamentary Labour Party).

I was simplifying a bit. But we have our more extreme leftists to, they are just less influential...for now.

QuoteObviously this is within a very difficult political context - you know just look at the way Tories talk about "our NHS" in this crisis.

Correct. But I do think the Lib-Dems have a distinct position from both Labour and the Tories. How do you see it?

Quote from: Valmy on May 27, 2020, 01:55:41 PM
Yep. They were not as leftist and counter-establishment as people thought they were. Have the Lib-Dems ever speculated as to how they might have acted differently or are the at peace with it?

I think they regret it. I think there are two big regrets. One is that they should have rejected a formal coalition and gone for a confidence and supply agreement so, subject to negotiations each time, they would back the government on the budget and any matters of confidence, but could otherwise vote freely. The other is that within coalition they were quite bad at really identifying Lib Dem "results" and part of the reason for this is that Nick Clegg decided to take the role of Deputy Prime Minister, which is nice but basically pointless in the UK system (it's not even a real job - we don't have a Deputy PM at the minute) and had a very general "job" of constitutional reform (but failed to win the AV Referendum). I think now they would accept he should've demanded a real job, say Home Secretary, and delivered in that so they could appoint to Lib Dem achievements.

But they're fairly at peace with it. The Lib Dems are the most internally democratic party in the UK, so they actually had to have a special one day Federal Conference to vote to endorse the coalition agreement (the Federal Executive and parliamentary party voted to accept it but it needed to be endorsed by the rank and file). Because of that I think they are reasonably at peace that they all made this decision.

QuoteI was simplifying a bit. But we have our more extreme leftists to, they are just less influential...for now.

Yeah. I just think there's no-one quite like the Corbyn, McDonnell, Livingston wing of politics that I can think of in America - there is no comparison with anyone both in terms of the politics but also their primary goal which was always winning control of the Labour Party and internal reform. That's a bigger priority for the hard left in the UK than anyone in the Democrats.

QuoteCorrect. But I do think the Lib-Dems have a distinct position from both Labour and the Tories. How do you see it?

Honestly I don't know what the Lib Dems are "for" any more. And I mean that literally I don't know what any of their policies or positions are - I think they're in the middle of another leadership election, but it's easy to forget (I checked - apparently it's been postponed until 2021).

They are different, but honestly I don't know how I'd describe them at the minute and I don't know how I'd describe them post-2015 except very anti-Brexit. That may be part of the issue - they're not clear enough what they are.

Quote from: Sheilbh on May 27, 2020, 01:44:42 PM
No. I think the left of Democratic party are always moaning about "liberals" by which they mean centrists in the Democrats who are basically in the liberal tradition.

The left wing of the Democratic party never uses the word in that way.  Liberal by itself is still used here to mean progressive/lefty.  Neo-liberal is different, and can be used pejoratively, but in my impression is not used as commonly here as it is in Europe.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 27, 2020, 02:20:14 PM
The left wing of the Democratic party never uses the word in that way. 

Do you follow American lefties on social media? They are always moaning about liberals and contrasting themselves to liberals.

Quote from: Sheilbh on May 27, 2020, 02:23:19 PM
Do you follow American lefties on social media? They are always moaning about liberals and contrasting themselves to liberals.

Fair enough.  I am 100% social media free.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 27, 2020, 02:20:14 PM

Quote from: Sheilbh on May 27, 2020, 01:44:42 PM
No. I think the left of Democratic party are always moaning about "liberals" by which they mean centrists in the Democrats who are basically in the liberal tradition.

The left wing of the Democratic party never uses the word in that way.  Liberal by itself is still used here to mean progressive/lefty.  Neo-liberal is different, and can be used pejoratively, but in my impression is not used as commonly here as it is in Europe.

Not in my experience, but being one of the liberals perhaps I am just used to, and sensitive to, being attacked using that word :P

Yeah - I think there's a generational thing too. I'd say probably since Bernie 2016, but obviously it had been percolating before that, a lot on the Democratic left identify as socialists which would've been anathema for almost any Democrats even 15 years ago. They draw a contrast with liberals - Buttigieg, Klobuchar etc are liberals or centrists (and it is used in the classical sense: permissive socially, fiscally conservative - I mean literally the only people who still worry about deficits are the New Democrats and their successors).

Weirdly progressives and social democrats don't really seem to exist.

There's something similar on the left in the UK actually - I think it's part of the kind of weird social media/online driven cross-pollination between the left in the UK and US despite being quite different.

Quote from: Sheilbh on May 27, 2020, 02:30:35 PM
(and it is used in the classical sense: permissive socially, fiscally conservative - I mean literally the only people who still worry about deficits are the New Democrats and their successors).

Well...I think Rand Paul worries about it to sometimes. But yeah :(

Quote from: Sheilbh on May 27, 2020, 02:16:10 PM
Yeah. I just think there's no-one quite like the Corbyn, McDonnell, Livingston wing of politics that I can think of in America - there is no comparison with anyone both in terms of the politics but also their primary goal which was always winning control of the Labour Party and internal reform. That's a bigger priority for the hard left in the UK than anyone in the Democrats.

Corbyn and those guys certainly have their fans over here, but yeah not among the actual politicians. Also a big difference is how you cannot really win control of a party in one big fight, it takes a very long time of winning lots of different elections...though usually the Presidential Primary can go a long way. See McGovern (1972) and Goldwater (1964), sure they got destroyed in the general election but those primaries were more about shifting ideological control of their respective parties than actually becoming President with both going up against popular incumbents.

I can't stand it when americanised idiots use liberal to mean the centre left.

Social democrat not existing... Meh. Socialist covers that and is a lot snappier. Have to wonder though whether there's an element of purposeful trolling from the American left in choosing that word over there though

Quote from: Valmy on May 27, 2020, 02:41:43 PM
Corbyn and those guys certainly have their fans over here, but yeah not among the actual politicians. Also a big difference is how you cannot really win control of a party in one big fight, it takes a very long time of winning lots of different elections...though usually the Presidential Primary can go a long way. See McGovern and Goldwater, sure they got destroyed in the general election but those primaries were more about shifting ideological control of their respective parties than actually becoming President with both going up against popular incumbents.

Yeah. I think there are politicians who have aligned themselves with Corbyn who then normally retreat from that because they realise quite how toxic his views are in the US - especially the anti-semitism issue.

And also yeah - the intra-party fights in the Labour party last decades (if you're super-interested/sad I cannot recommend enough the Wilderness Years documentary: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3XrO72C1WQ0). It isn't just a case of winning the leadership you need to win the elections to the various executive committees and policy-making committees and rule-making (a particular obsession of the hard left) committees. In the 80s and 90s there were about 10 years of internicine bureaucratic fights over control over Labour Party.

Similarly with Corbyn, he won in 2015 but I don't think it was until 2019 that he managed to get his supporters in a majority on the key committees. Keir Starmer's been lucky (and the left split), so he's actually won most of those key positions in one election. It normally takes a lot of time with a lot of lengthy bureaucratic fights on the way. One of the great abilities of the hard left is to wear down their opponents willingness to attend yet another meeting (literally if you read memoirs of the 80s one of the key things the moderate wing does is learn the rule-book and start attending every meeting to beat the hard left at their own game) :lol:

Edit: Sorry had wrong link for documentary.

Quote from: Sheilbh on May 27, 2020, 02:16:10 PM
I think now they would accept he should've demanded a real job, say Home Secretary, and delivered in that so they could appoint to Lib Dem achievements.

While I agree he should have demanded a real job rather than a sinecure position I am not sure Home Secretary would be the best one to have given the historical unpopularity of incumbents in that position.

Of course, for Clegg the biggest problem with having a ministerial position in a coalition in a country that rarely has coalitions is that he would have seemed to be subordinate to Cameron in both substance and appearance. The PM takes the credit, the minister takes the blame. I assume the thinking was that as Deputy PM some of the PM's credit would redound on him while he could retain the impression of being a partner and not a subordinate so that the blame would stick to Cameron.

It didn't work.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 27, 2020, 02:25:23 PM

Quote from: Sheilbh on May 27, 2020, 02:23:19 PM
Do you follow American lefties on social media? They are always moaning about liberals and contrasting themselves to liberals.

Fair enough.  I am 100% social media free.

There is an old Phil Ochs song on the same theme, long predating social media.

Quote from: Valmy on May 26, 2020, 08:57:19 PM

Quote from: Sheilbh on May 26, 2020, 04:03:01 PM
"The election: a high speed car crash" :lol: :console:

Really it kind of sums up the whole party since 2010.

:lol: Another one for you Valmy.

The Government announced gatherings of up to 6 people are allowed and a twitter friend commented "Lib Dem conference gets the go ahead" :lol: :console:

Quote from: Sheilbh on May 28, 2020, 01:31:30 PM
The Government announced gatherings of up to 6 people are allowed and a twitter friend commented "Lib Dem conference gets the go ahead" :lol: :console:

Hey! They got 11.6% of the vote that at least means they could get a few dozen in there.

Quote from: Sheilbh on May 28, 2020, 01:31:30 PM

Quote from: Valmy on May 26, 2020, 08:57:19 PM

Quote from: Sheilbh on May 26, 2020, 04:03:01 PM
"The election: a high speed car crash" :lol: :console:

Really it kind of sums up the whole party since 2010.

:lol: Another one for you Valmy.

The Government announced gatherings of up to 6 people are allowed and a twitter friend commented "Lib Dem conference gets the go ahead" :lol: :console:

:lol:

QuoteYoung Blue Labour
@BlueYoungLabour
·
3h
In our bio we previously referred to Blue Labour's tenets as "Work, Family and Tradition". We were told that this is actually the slogan of Vichy France. We have updated it to the real Blue Labour slogan of "Work, Family and Community". Apologies for any offence caused.

:lol: :bleeding:

Well it was Patrie, not tradition, so community is probably a better translation anyway  :lol:

I have a poster suggestion for them:

(https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/dissidence/images/4/4c/Mar%C3%A9chal.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20180828140151&path-prefix=fr)

Corbyn ne passe pas

Quote from: Valmy on June 16, 2020, 02:00:52 PM
Well it was Patrie, not tradition, so community is probably a better translation anyway  :lol:



Corbyn ne passe pas

Besides, Pétain culturally appropriated the motto from the Parti Social Français.  :P
The first French mass conservative/right-wing party that is.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Social_Party (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Social_Party)

So Maxine Peake - who is a wonderful actress - did an interview. And she was very positive about Corbyn. But she also commented on BLM and said that "systemic racism is a global issue. The tactics used by police in America, kneeling on George Floyd's neck, that was learnt from seminars with Israeli secret services." There is truly nothing Jews aren't responsible for.

Rebecca Long-Bailey (Corbynite leaderhip candidate and Shadow Education Secretary) retweeted the article saying "Maxine Peake is an absolute diamond". She later clarified "I retweeted Maxine Peake's article because of her significant achievements and because the thrust of her argument is to stay in the Labour Party. It wasn't intended to be an endorsement of all aspects of the article."

Keir Starmer has now fired Long-Bailey from the shadow cabinet for promoting an anti-semitic conspiracy theory, which is impressive. Moved quickly and showed he's being serious on anti-semitism. Also just good to see a frontline figure face consequences for sharing or promoting content with defence that it's generally right and only includes a soupcon of anti-semitism.

Quote from: Sheilbh on June 25, 2020, 09:17:11 AM
Keir Starmer has now fired Long-Bailey from the shadow cabinet for promoting an anti-semitic conspiracy theory, which is impressive. Moved quickly and showed he's being serious on anti-semitism. Also just good to see a frontline figure face consequences for sharing or promoting content with defence that it's generally right and only includes a soupcon of anti-semitism.

He probably isn't also sad to see her go.

Well, quite. Another Corbynite who was fired from the shadow cabinet during Starmer's first re-shuffle has commented: "What has Sir Keir got against Northern socialists from working class backgrounds?"

I feel like in this case it's probably the racism, but I could be wrong  :hmm:

Edit: And Long-Bailey's tweeted her statement:

Quote1.Today I retweeted an interview that my constituent and stalwart Labour Party supporter Maxine Peake gave to the Independent. Its main thrust was anger with the Conservative Government's handling of the current emergency and a call for Labour Party unity.
2.These are sentiments are shared by everyone in our movement and millions of people in our country. I learned that many people were concerned by references to international sharing of training and restraint techniques between police and security forces.
3.In no way was my retweet an intention to endorse every part of that article.
4.I wished to acknowledge these concerns and duly issued a clarification of my retweet, with the wording agreed in advance by the Labour Party Leader's Office, but after posting I was subsequently instructed to take both this agreed clarification and my original retweet down.
5.I could not do this in good conscience without the issuing of a press statement of clarification. I had asked to discuss these matters with Keir before agreeing what further action to take, but sadly he had already made his decision.
6.I am proud of the policies we have developed within the party from our Green Industrial Revolution to a National Education Service and I will never stop working for the change our communities need to see.
7.I am clear that I shall continue to support the Labour Party in Parliament under Keir Starmer's leadership, to represent the people of Salford and Eccles and work towards a more equal, peaceful and sustainable world./quote]

"I tried to express support for the Jew haters and acknowledge those who dislike Jew hating and it didn't work."

Can't believe we've gone this long with no reference to Keir Dulea from 2001.

Looks to me like he was looking for an excuse.

Quote from: Eddie Teach on June 25, 2020, 10:06:15 AM
Looks to me like he was looking for an excuse.

Yep. I think it was a case of putting her in the shadow cabinet so he's appointing the main Corbynite candidate, nice act of unity and letting them have enough rope to hang themselves so he could get rid. It surprises no-one that it took less than 6 months before they're almost reflexively sharing anti-semitic conspiracy theories.

Quote from: Sheilbh on June 25, 2020, 09:34:44 AM
Edit: And Long-Bailey's tweeted her statement:

Quote1.Today I retweeted an interview that my constituent and stalwart Labour Party supporter Maxine Peake gave to the Independent. Its main thrust was anger with the Conservative Government's handling of the current emergency and a call for Labour Party unity.
2.These are sentiments are shared by everyone in our movement and millions of people in our country. I learned that many people were concerned by references to international sharing of training and restraint techniques between police and security forces.
3.In no way was my retweet an intention to endorse every part of that article.
4.I wished to acknowledge these concerns and duly issued a clarification of my retweet, with the wording agreed in advance by the Labour Party Leader's Office, but after posting I was subsequently instructed to take both this agreed clarification and my original retweet down.
5.I could not do this in good conscience without the issuing of a press statement of clarification. I had asked to discuss these matters with Keir before agreeing what further action to take, but sadly he had already made his decision.
6.I am proud of the policies we have developed within the party from our Green Industrial Revolution to a National Education Service and I will never stop working for the change our communities need to see.
7.I am clear that I shall continue to support the Labour Party in Parliament under Keir Starmer's leadership, to represent the people of Salford and Eccles and work towards a more equal, peaceful and sustainable world.

And the party are apparently disputing point 4 on her statement. They say they spent several hours trying to convince her to take down the original tweet, but she refused to do so (and her apology didn't identify which bits of the interview she disagreed with). After that Starmer apparently felt he had no choice, though it is very helpful for him.

Solid raw politics. Tells shadow cabinet that he's in charge. Gets rid of a pretty crappy Corbynite. Tells the country that he's determined to get rid of anti-semitism in the party. Contrasts himself with Boris who wil stick to any of his friends no matter how toxic. Gets the Corbynite twitterati to melt down and hopefully fuck off.

Been a while since I voted Labour but I can see my way back.

+1

There is pressure on Starmer to reinstate her :

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-53187789

A bad mistake if he does I think.

Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on June 26, 2020, 08:37:30 AM
There is pressure on Starmer to reinstate her :

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-53187789

A bad mistake if he does I think.

If were to, he might as well resign.

Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on June 26, 2020, 08:37:30 AM
There is pressure on Starmer to reinstate her :

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-53187789

A bad mistake if he does I think.

He won't. This demonstrates how little the hard left matter now - amazing how quick and how far they've fallen. I think Momentum have launched a petition and in over 24 hours it's managed to get about 10k signatures.

At their peak they'd be able to get well over 100k on issues. Truth is the the appetite for long, grinding factional fights are very low and most Labour voters and members will just be thrilled at the leader doing well in the polls and at PMQs regularly and the party doing well in the polls.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/uk-politics-news-live-rebecca-long-bailey-keir-starmer-labour-boris-johnson-jenrick-a9586676.html

QuoteStarmer says meeting with left-wing Labour MPs was 'constructive' but did not change his mind

Sir Keir Starmer has commented on his meeting with left-wing Labour MPs today over the sacking of Rebecca Long-Bailey, saying the conversation had not changed his opinion on the matter.

The Labour leader said his meeting with the Socialist Campaign Group was "constructive and the tone was absolutely right" but it had ended in disagreement.

"We engaged for about an hour in discussion but my mind is made up on this. I took my decision yesterday and put my statement out yesterday," Sir Keir said.

The Campaign group said in its own statement that there was "significant disagreement" about Ms Long-Bailey's sacking but noted the conversation had taken place in a "mutually respectful manner."

:w00t:

Now Shadow Environment Minister Lloyd Russel-Moyle has been out saying that JK Rowling was "using her own sexual assault" to justify her trans comments. He's also a Corbynite who may go.

I feel like we should be able to simultaneously sympathise with JK Rowling over her assault and take issue with her comments. Those are separate issues.

In other news Starmer now leads in the polls. I believe this is the first time* a Labour leader's been ahead on this question since Gordon Brown, 13 years ago :bleeding: :weep:

QuoteWhich, if any, of the following people do you think would be the best prime minister?

Keir Starmer: 37% (+3)
Boris Johnson: 35% (=)

(*There was one poll in early 2019 when 18% preferred Jeremy Corbyn over 17% for Theresa May, but both were over-shadowed by the 57% who chose "none of the above" :lol: :weep:)

The Tories are still ahead in the polls and in the which party would you trust to govern polls. But Starmer's now in the position that Johnson's been in, and that Cameron and Blair had where he is ahead of his party.

I think he's right but foolish to say.

I am hoping (probably in vain) that Starmer's and Biden's leads in the polls indicate that people are (for the 102900th time in history) are realising that a big mouth is not enough to manage a country, especially in a crisis.

I think that Trump and Johnson rely on white, male and hetero privilege for much of their support, it is a reaction to the way that the world is changing. But the secular trends are against them as our societies become more pluralist and complicated. Once we have come to the end of this reactionary phase then we can hopefully move on. I think/hope that once the Republicans and the Tories have been defeated at the ballot box they will be out of power for 10+ years and will only return after they have accepted the modern world.

And hopefully labour will take their time in power to do the right thing and make the UK a democracy.

QuoteNow Shadow Environment Minister Lloyd Russel-Moyle has been out saying that JK Rowling was "using her own sexual assault" to justify her trans comments. He's also a Corbynite who may go.

I would agree with this.
Full sympathy for her with the assault et al. But, her timing in bringing it up right when she was under fire for transphobia... It did stink.
Of course pointing this out as a politician may not be the wisest move.

Unite, a large union headed by Len McCluskey who is a big Corbynite (but has had an interesting journey, he was previously very close to Tom Watson and the Brownite wing) has announced they'll cut their funding to Labour by 10%. They are one of the party's largest donors. They've also basically issued a warning that if Starmer moves any further away from the left then they'll probably cut funding more.

All of which is fine/normal. But I think the issues they've chosen this over are pretty disappointing. There were a group of whistleblowers in the Labour Party who appeared on Panorama with allegations of anti-semitism and mishandling of complaints etc in Labour HQ. This ended up leading to a dispute in the employment courts which would have resulted in lots of probably quite uncomfortable evidence coming out. One of Starmer's first decisions was to settle the cases and issue an apology to the whistleblowers. This has become a bit of a bugbear on the left because they say that Labour's legal advice was that they'd win and instead the whistleblowers as part of a culture of almost sabotage in Labour HQ - staffers who wanted Corbyn to fail and could not reconcile themselves to a left Labour Party. Obviously there's more to a court case than whether you win or lose - for example you might want to settle, even if you've got a good case, to avoid the slow-drip of revelations in evidence is particularly damaging for a political party.

But it just feels a bit disappointing/typical of the left that the issue they've decided to focus on is anti-semitism and internal party management. It's also kind of frustrating to see a union so annoyed at settling an employment case against whistleblowers. Unite's line is that it is an abuse of their members' money and opens Labour to other lawsuits. It's worth noting that Unite have spent over £1million defending (and losing)  a libel case by a former Labour MP - which arguably is more of an abuse of members' money than just settling (or, maybe, not libelling people/suing whistleblowers :bleeding:).

Quite the day in the Labour Party. The Equalities and Human Rights Commission issued their report and found the Labour Party was in breach of equalities legislation:

Quote
Labour responsible for harassment and discrimination, EHRC antisemitism inquiry finds

Equality and Human Rights Commission report says party responsible for three breaches of Equality Act
Peter Walker
@peterwalker99

Thu 29 Oct 2020 10.50 GMT
First published on Thu 29 Oct 2020 10.06 GMT

The Labour party has been found to be responsible for unlawful acts of harassment and discrimination over antisemitism in the party, following an investigation by the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC).

In a long-awaited report, the EHRC said there were "serious failings in the Labour party leadership in addressing antisemitism and an inadequate process for handling antisemitism complaints".

It said Labour under the leadership of Jeremy Corbyn was responsible for three breaches of the Equality Act, connected to harassment, political interference in antisemitism complaints and inadequate training for those handling the complaints.

The inquiry found that antisemitic comments by Ken Livingstone, the former London mayor; and Pam Bromley, a councillor in Rossendale, Lancashire, amounted to harassment of Jewish members under law, and this was "only the tip of the iceberg" of such behaviour.

The EHRC uncovered what it said was inappropriate interference in the complaints process over antisemitism by staff from Corbyn's office, with 23 instances found, including staff exerting influence on decisions on areas such as member suspensions or whether to investigate claims. Some of these decision were made "because of likely press interest rather than any formal criteria", it said.

While there was a wider culture of political interference in certain complaints, the report said this occurred more often in antisemitism cases, and was thus found to be discriminatory and unlawful.

In response, three of the UK's main Jewish organisations – the Board of Deputies of British Jews, the Jewish Leadership Council and the Community Security Trust – said in a joint statement that the EHRC's findings were "a damning verdict on what Labour did to Jews under Jeremy Corbyn and his allies".

Citing examples of poor practice in dealing with complaints about antisemitism, the EHRC said an email inbox for these "was largely left unmonitored for a number of years and no action taken on the majority of complaints forwarded to it". Of 70 files reviewed for the inquiry, 62 had records missing.

The inquiry found that this element of indirect discrimination against Jewish members – the lack of a proper complaints and disciplinary procedure – lasted until August 2020, four months into Keir Starmer's tenure, but was now being addressed.

The report details comments by Livingstone and Bromley that it says amounted to unlawful harassment, because they were found to have antisemitic themes or suggested complaints about antisemitism were faked or smears.

It notes that Bromley made repeated Facebook posts with antisemitic themes, for example defending references to the Rothschild banking group, and complaining about a "fog of fake accusations of antisemitism" and calling herself the victim of a "witch-hunt".

Complaints were made about her in May 2017, but Bromley was only suspended from the party in April 2018, a day after an article in the Times about her comments.

On Livingstone and Bromley, the report says: "As these people were acting as agents of the Labour party, the Labour party was legally responsible for their conduct. In each case, the EHRC considered the perception of those affected by the conduct, and Labour party members told the EHRC that the comments contributed to a hostile environment for Jewish and non-Jewish members."

The EHRC said these two cases were "only the tip of the iceberg", with 18 other instances where there was not enough evidence for a legal conclusion that the party was responsible for the conduct, covering councillors, candidates and constituency party officials.

It said there were "many more files" showing evidence of antisemitic conduct by a member who did not have a party role, meaning Labour could not be deemed responsible for them.

The report makes 11 recommendations, including an independent complaints process and clearer rules, an acknowledgement of the prior political interference, and proper training for those involved in handling complaints.

The joint statement from the three Jewish groups said the report "proves why British Jews were so distressed and it disgraces those who attacked us for speaking out against anti-Jewish racism".

The Jewish Labour Movement, which was among the groups that referred the party to the EHRC, said blame for what happened "lies firmly with those who held positions of leadership – those who possessed both power and influence to prevent the growth of anti-Jewish racism".

It said: "Antisemitism within the Labour party had serious consequences for many people, causing real emotional pain and despair to those who have given their lives to the Labour party. As the EHRC points out, it undermines confidence in our politics and the fabric of our democracy.

"It will now be for the Labour party to set out how they intend to eradicate anti-Jewish racism from our party. This will in part be achieved by implementing the legally binding actions set out of the EHRC's report in full and without delay.

Gideon Falter, the chief executive of Campaign Against Antisemitism, said: "The EHRC's report utterly vindicates Britain's Jews, who were accused of lying and exaggerating, acting as agents of another country and using their religion to 'smear' the Labour party."

Caroline Waters, the interim chair of the EHRC, said: "The Labour party made a commitment to zero tolerance for antisemitism. Our investigation has highlighted multiple areas where its approach and leadership to tackling antisemitism was insufficient. This is inexcusable and appeared to be a result of a lack of willingness to tackle antisemitism rather than an inability to do so."

The review was launched in 2019 after party whistleblowers alleged that Labour was institutionally antisemitic in its handling of complaints, and within local party structures.

Starmer subsequently said it was a day of shame for the Labour Party and people who reject the report or oppose fixing this issue have no place in the Labour Party. Inevitably Corbyn did just that, noting that "one antisemite is one too many, but the scale of the problem was also dramatically overstated for political reasons by our opponents inside and outside the party, as well as by much of the media. That combination hurt Jewish people and must never be repeated."

Starmer has now suspended Corbyn from the Labour Party and removed the whip.

Edit: Needless to say this will cause a massive fight within the party (a bit like the 80s) but is proper detoxification. I always felt there was a fairly high risk that Corbyn would say or do something that would probably require the leadership to suspend him. I didn't expect it would only take six months.

Edit: Also I suspect Starmer's been on the lookout for a "blood on the carpet" moment to show voters how he's changed the party and Corbyn has been very obliging to provide one like this.

Corbyn has a point. Totally the wrong time to say it of course but it's definitely fair to say the tories have far greater problems with unchecked racism yet the media focused on labours struggles to tackle it.

Yeah sure, Jeremy "not as bad as Hitler" Corbyn.

It is not germane whether the tories are as bad or worse; the point is that the Labour party was in breach of the equalities legislation.

Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on October 29, 2020, 08:30:17 AM
Yeah sure, Jeremy "not as bad as Hitler" Corbyn.

It is not germane whether the tories are as bad or worse; the point is that the Labour party was in breach of the equalities legislation.

Yes. And the other point is the reason the media were reporting this was because the Jewish Labour Movement and Jewish people in the Labour party were complaining about it for about two years before it became as big a story as it did. So this was building up before it was being widely reported outside of the Jewish press.

Edit: Also actually Starmer's line was if you think antisemitism is a smear or a factional attack then you've no place in the Labour Party.

Edit: And the other point is if the EHRC had found that the Tories were minimising racism against British Asians, in the way Corbyn's leadership office was in this report there would be universal outrage on the left rather than wondering why, say, the Guardian were publishing articles about it.

I also think it's kind of incredible after this type of report - on top of all the other reports - for Corbyn to say it wasn't his leadership but the media (the "fake news" to coin a phrase) that caused the real harm and pain to Jewish people. And it's worth remembering that aides in his team tried to get him to make a speech to the Jewish community to help solve this issue in 2017 when the media started reporting on it - but he never did because he always felt it was personally painful for him to be accused of tolerating racism and that any speech or apology would just encourage more attacks. Which is not exactly great leadership.

Typical Tyr reaction. Labour didn't "struggle" to "tackle" anti-semitism in the party. Quite the opposite. They (by which I mean Corbyn's allies) prevented investigations and stopped suspensions. Corbyn himself is clearly anti-semitic no matter how much he tries to deny it.

Seriously ballsy to suspend Corbyn. We will now see out and out civil war in the Labour party. It sounds like Starmer is OK with that if it gives Labour the chance to become electable again,

Quote from: Gups on October 29, 2020, 08:43:56 AM
Typical Tyr reaction. Labour didn't "struggle" to "tackle" anti-semitism in the party. Quite the opposite. They (by which I mean Corbyn's allies) prevented investigations and stopped suspensions. Corbyn himself is clearly anti-semitic no matter how much he tries to deny it.

Seriously ballsy to suspend Corbyn. We will now see out and out civil war in the Labour party. It sounds like Starmer is OK with that if it gives Labour the chance to become electable again,

:unsure:
"time and a place Jeremy...." is a typical reaction?
Thanks I guess?

"The Tories are worse" is a typical reaction. Incredibly and shamefully, it's not even true this time.

Quote from: Gups on October 29, 2020, 09:11:48 AM
"The Tories are worse" is a typical reaction. Incredibly and shamefully, it's not even true this time.

That was Corbyn's reaction.
Its true. Though really not the time to be coming out with it.

As an outside observer, to me there were a number of points where Corbyn could have very easily have made a speech and made it unequivocal that despite past comments showing support for Palestinians, he is not personally anti-Semitic, and that he is a vigorous supporter of Jewish Labour members, the Jewish people more broadly and etc. This sort of mea culpa speech isn't unheard of in politics, and is in some situations almost pro forma, the fact that he kept tippy-toeing around it to me, was strong evidence that his actual views on the Jews is not appropriate--he knows they are not appropriate, so he knew enough to at least suppress them, but those views made it impossible for him to do the sort of standard politician speech where you denounce bigotry and anti-semitism. I suspect like many of his persuasion, both in America and Britain, they simply cannot separate their distaste for Israeli policy on Palestine with the Jewish people more broadly, and that is fundamentally an anti-Semitic viewpoint.

Yeah. I mean for a long time he wouldn't even specifically deal with anti-semitism at all, he'd just say that he condemns "all forms of racism", which I always felt was a bit revealing.

The incident that I think was worst on this was the recording of him, in 2013, where he says Zionists "having lived in this country for a very long time, probably all their lives, they don't understand English irony". I can't think of a non-racist explanation of that line or sentiment - and it's pub bore racism.

Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on October 29, 2020, 09:28:29 AM
As an outside observer, to me there were a number of points where Corbyn could have very easily have made a speech and made it unequivocal that despite past comments showing support for Palestinians, he is not personally anti-Semitic, and that he is a vigorous supporter of Jewish Labour members, the Jewish people more broadly and etc. This sort of mea culpa speech isn't unheard of in politics, and is in some situations almost pro forma, the fact that he kept tippy-toeing around it to me, was strong evidence that his actual views on the Jews is not appropriate--he knows they are not appropriate, so he knew enough to at least suppress them, but those views made it impossible for him to do the sort of standard politician speech where you denounce bigotry and anti-semitism. I suspect like many of his persuasion, both in America and Britain, they simply cannot separate their distaste for Israeli policy on Palestine with the Jewish people more broadly, and that is fundamentally an anti-Semitic viewpoint.

The trouble with this is there's no clear separation with both sides often muddying the waters.
On the one hand you do have those who are very pro-Palestine/anti-Israel and mix this up with being anti Jewish in general.
But on the other you have those who are very anti-Palestine/Pro-Israel and keen to paint any criticism of Israel as anti-semitism.
There's so much toxicity and bad faith flying around all over the place.
These extremes aren't helped by the number of ignorant people who end up falling into one camp or the other and the very real interplaying issues of Islamophobia and its defenders/opponents.
The whole thing needs putting firmly to rest asap.

Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on October 29, 2020, 09:28:29 AM
As an outside observer, to me there were a number of points where Corbyn could have very easily have made a speech and made it unequivocal that despite past comments showing support for Palestinians, he is not personally anti-Semitic, and that he is a vigorous supporter of Jewish Labour members, the Jewish people more broadly and etc. This sort of mea culpa speech isn't unheard of in politics, and is in some situations almost pro forma, the fact that he kept tippy-toeing around it to me, was strong evidence that his actual views on the Jews is not appropriate--he knows they are not appropriate, so he knew enough to at least suppress them, but those views made it impossible for him to do the sort of standard politician speech where you denounce bigotry and anti-semitism. I suspect like many of his persuasion, both in America and Britain, they simply cannot separate their distaste for Israeli policy on Palestine with the Jewish people more broadly, and that is fundamentally an anti-Semitic viewpoint.

I think that's about 90% accurate. The only part I'd take issue with is the proposition that Corbyn (and this is true of others with similar views too) knows his views are inappropriate. He just can't perceive of himself as racist in any way and theerfore assumes that anyone who questions him has a different agenda.

Corbs should have known Starmer is not here to play.

I know this is very much not the issue, but all the photos/footage of Corbyn today show him with a mask on under his nose which I just don't understand :blink:

I see people doing it on the streets and buses (not in building very much so far) and I just want to ask what they think the mask is doing if it just covers their mouth. It's the most baffling thing.

It is a bit like his remain campaigning  :lol:

But why is he wearing his mask like that, especially with the paparazzi flocking around him? Using Occam's razor we can only conclude he is a fucking idiot.

Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on October 29, 2020, 12:43:47 PM
But why is he wearing his mask like that, especially with the paparazzi flocking around him? Using Occam's razor we can only conclude he is a fucking idiot.

Yeah. I mean I know his brother is a crank. But I've always thought there is a chance that once he's not in a leadership position Corbyn could go fully in that direction. And it wouldn't entirely shock me if he had theories about covid - especially given that he wears the mask like that, he's over 70 but was always in the Commons even during the first wave when it was virtual and had that dinner party with more people than he was allowed. At best it's just not great visible leadership on this, but part of me wonders if he is maybe going a little bit the way of his brother.

Interesting point on the mask thing.
The last I heard of Corbyn in the news it was him getting in trouble for a houseparty despite lockdown.
He does strike as the type to get a bit wrapped up with the left wing minority of the covidiots doesn't he...

Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on October 29, 2020, 12:43:47 PM
It is a bit like his remain campaigning  :lol:

But why is he wearing his mask like that, especially with the paparazzi flocking around him? Using Occam's razor we can only conclude he is a fucking idiot.

I think we all came to that conclusion a while ago.

Quote from: Tyr on October 29, 2020, 12:55:21 PM
Interesting point on the mask thing.
The last I heard of Corbyn in the news it was him getting in trouble for a houseparty despite lockdown.
He does strike as the type to get a bit wrapped up with the left wing minority of the covidiots doesn't he...

His brother is a leader of that group

It seems a bit weird to me to remain active in an antisemitic party like Labour. My dealbreakers when it comes to political parties are way milder than widespread antisemitism in leading circles. If they genuinely feel that they can reform the rotten structure then good luck, and I mean it. I remain skeptical that such a thing is possible though. If the UK is anything like Sweden many people in the mainstream Left really dislike Jews.

A consequence of first-past-the-post; both the tories and Labour are huge coalitions rather than parties and both have unsavoury elements within their ranks.

Massively disagree that labour is an antisemitic party.
That this whole anti semitism mess is even happening should be proof of that.
Most people on the left in my experience don't care about Jewish people. It's just not an issue in the 21st century.
Israel /Palestine isn't even a particularly core issue to most. There's other closer to home things to worry about.

Quote from: Tyr on October 29, 2020, 01:12:42 PM
Massively disagree that labour is an antisemitic party.
That this whole anti semitism mess is even happening should be proof of that.
Most people on the left in my experience don't care about Jewish people. It's just not an issue in the 21st century.
Israel /Palestine isn't even a particularly core issue to most. There's other closer to home things to worry about.

I agree that most people on the left don't care about Jewish people which is why significant minority in the labor party is allowed to be actively antisemetic.  We have a similar situation among the right concerning minorities.

Quote from: Tyr on October 29, 2020, 01:12:42 PM

Most people on the left in my experience don't care about Jewish people. It's just not an issue in the 21st century.

This is everything you need to know about the British left and especially Tyr.

Quote from: chipwich on October 29, 2020, 04:51:37 PM

Quote from: Tyr on October 29, 2020, 01:12:42 PM

Most people on the left in my experience don't care about Jewish people. It's just not an issue in the 21st century.

This is everything you need to know about the British left and especially Tyr.

That they aren't particularly obsessed with Israel?
Not sure mentioning one global issue that isn't top of the priority list gives you all that much of an insight.

Quote from: chipwich on October 29, 2020, 04:51:37 PM

Quote from: Tyr on October 29, 2020, 01:12:42 PM

Most people on the left in my experience don't care about Jewish people. It's just not an issue in the 21st century.

This is everything you need to know about the British left and especially Tyr.

I am pretty sure you would also need to know about labour's position on taxation policy, labour rights, you know stuff that matters to the labour party.

Quote from: chipwich on October 29, 2020, 04:51:37 PM

Quote from: Tyr on October 29, 2020, 01:12:42 PM

Most people on the left in my experience don't care about Jewish people. It's just not an issue in the 21st century.

This is everything you need to know about the British left and especially Tyr.

Maybe if you're Bibi Netanyahu.

Quote from: Razgovory on October 29, 2020, 01:21:52 PM

Quote from: Tyr on October 29, 2020, 01:12:42 PM
Massively disagree that labour is an antisemitic party.
That this whole anti semitism mess is even happening should be proof of that.
Most people on the left in my experience don't care about Jewish people. It's just not an issue in the 21st century.
Israel /Palestine isn't even a particularly core issue to most. There's other closer to home things to worry about.

I agree that most people on the left don't care about Jewish people which is why significant minority in the labor party is allowed to be actively antisemetic.  We have a similar situation among the right concerning minorities.

Ish.
That it was barely imagined that it could even be an issue is definitely core to the problem.
But that it is a significant minority who hold these beliefs... Not really.
Let's not forget the core of the issue was less about any anti semitic words or actions in themselves and more that the whole process for reporting and dealing with these allegations was a complete mess.

Yes, really.  I don't think you realize you are digging yourself into a hole here.

QuoteMost people on the left in my experience don't care about Jewish people.

Quotelet's not forget the core of the issue was less about any anti semitic words or actions in themselves and more that the whole process for reporting and dealing with these allegations was a complete mess.

I mean, you really don't get it, do you? 

"Don't care about" can have different meanings Raz.  Gotcha not awarded.

Quote from: Razgovory on October 29, 2020, 06:49:49 PM
Yes, really.  I don't think you realize you are digging yourself into a hole here.

QuoteMost people on the left in my experience don't care about Jewish people.

Quotelet's not forget the core of the issue was less about any anti semitic words or actions in themselves and more that the whole process for reporting and dealing with these allegations was a complete mess.

I mean, you really don't get it, do you?

Dont care about in this context means, could not care less whether someone is Jewish or not and could not care less what is happening with the state of Israel.  the UK has other things to worry about and really why should anyone care whether someone else is Jewish. 

At least if I am reading Tyr right.

Quote from: crazy canuck on October 29, 2020, 09:02:29 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on October 29, 2020, 06:49:49 PM
Yes, really.  I don't think you realize you are digging yourself into a hole here.

QuoteMost people on the left in my experience don't care about Jewish people.

Quotelet's not forget the core of the issue was less about any anti semitic words or actions in themselves and more that the whole process for reporting and dealing with these allegations was a complete mess.

I mean, you really don't get it, do you?

Dont care about in this context means, could not care less whether someone is Jewish or not and could not care less what is happening with the state of Israel.  the UK has other things to worry about and really why should anyone care whether someone else is Jewish. 

At least if I am reading Tyr right.

This is a theme you see with people in the US concerning black people.  "I'm not racist!  I don't see color!"

Quote from: Razgovory on October 29, 2020, 09:45:37 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on October 29, 2020, 09:02:29 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on October 29, 2020, 06:49:49 PM
Yes, really.  I don't think you realize you are digging yourself into a hole here.

QuoteMost people on the left in my experience don't care about Jewish people.

Quotelet's not forget the core of the issue was less about any anti semitic words or actions in themselves and more that the whole process for reporting and dealing with these allegations was a complete mess.

I mean, you really don't get it, do you?

Dont care about in this context means, could not care less whether someone is Jewish or not and could not care less what is happening with the state of Israel.  the UK has other things to worry about and really why should anyone care whether someone else is Jewish. 

At least if I am reading Tyr right.

This is a theme you see with people in the US concerning black people.  "I'm not racist!  I don't see color!"

I dont think it is the same thing. 

I think you need more than protestations of innocence to prove guilt.

Quote from: Tyr on October 29, 2020, 01:12:42 PM
Most people on the left in my experience don't care about Jewish people. It's just not an issue in the 21st century.

Why not? Why do they not care about Jewish people?

Seems harsh.

Quote from: Tyr on October 29, 2020, 01:12:42 PM
Massively disagree that labour is an antisemitic party.
That this whole anti semitism mess is even happening should be proof of that.
Most people on the left in my experience don't care about Jewish people. It's just not an issue in the 21st century.
Israel /Palestine isn't even a particularly core issue to most. There's other closer to home things to worry about.

But that doesn't necessarily matter.

There's a part of the left that is obsessional about Israel/Palestine and a lot of them end up basically taking view that are anti-semitic. I think there's a reasonable chance Corbyn is in this group. The Community Support Trust and the Jewish press were reporting their deep concerns at stuff Corbyn was saying and events he was attending etc when he was just a backbencher, and the "Foreign Minister of the Left".

That group can make life really unpleasant for, say, Jewish Labour Party members. The issue is those complaints weren't taken seriously, the investigations into them were politicised and that basically meant the effect for Jewish people was one of discrimination.

I think the ECHR drew a comparison with the number of mechanisms for investigating complaints around sexual harassment and the way rules were introduced in that to avoid politicisation and make it almost quasi-judicial.

To use that comparison if you were saying the left as a whole isn't misogynist and doesn't sexually harass women, but there is a group who do that's probably a fair point (for almost any group in society). So the next stage is what happens if women raise those issues/complain about it. Is there a complaints mechanism? Are those complaints taken seriously? Are they interfered with for political purposes by the leadership? Because even if it's only a minority that are being misogynist and harassing women, if there's no way for women to fairly complain about that and take action then their experience is going to be of a misogynist party/instution.

That point is what institutional racism/misogyny/anti-semitism means in the UK context since the MacPherson report on the Met.

Edit: And similarly, which is Starmer's point, the experience of women making complaints in that example and the leadership or their outrunners saying it's all a smear, it's a factional fight, it's the media hyping things. We know what that is - it's the way Trump deals with allegations of sexual harassment. That whole line of it's a smear/factional fight etc is part of the problem. In this case it's just gaslighting the Jewish community.

Quote from: Valmy on October 29, 2020, 11:18:20 PM

Quote from: Tyr on October 29, 2020, 01:12:42 PM
Most people on the left in my experience don't care about Jewish people. It's just not an issue in the 21st century.

Why not? Why do they not care about Jewish people?

Seems harsh.

I don't think that's what Tyr means. It's not the "Donald Trump doesn't care about black people" type of not caring.
I think he means he has no strong feelings either way and it's not a topic that comes up much, if at all.
That's how I'm reading it, but I might be mistaken.

Quote from: Maladict on October 30, 2020, 05:40:10 AM

Quote from: Valmy on October 29, 2020, 11:18:20 PM

Quote from: Tyr on October 29, 2020, 01:12:42 PM
Most people on the left in my experience don't care about Jewish people. It's just not an issue in the 21st century.

Why not? Why do they not care about Jewish people?

Seems harsh.

I don't think that's what Tyr means. It's not the "Donald Trump doesn't care about black people" type of not caring.
I think he means he has no strong feelings either way and it's not a topic that comes up much, if at all.
That's how I'm reading it, but I might be mistaken.

Yes.
Basically anti semitism just isn't seen as much of an issue either way by most people. It isn't a common thing to see the right coming up with these days so nobody gets particularly worked up about defending against it, and obviously hating a specific ethnic/religious group is dumb and not in line with standard left wing thinking. Jews in the UK tend to be super integrated and secular (round here being one of the few exceptions) so not many people really think about it.
Which of course will have contributed to a blindness to those who do get really wrapped up in Israel/Palestine matters and make stupid connections.

I slightly disagree - or I'd re-phrase that.

I think you are right that most people don't care about the Jewish community as in they don't think about them really. It's not a major thing.

But I think people do care about anti-semitism. I remember reading from numerous Labour campaigners in 2019 that anti-semitism was coming up on the doorstep in areas with almost no Jewish community at all. So it was clear that people noticed there was a controversy in Labour about anti-semitism, they noticed the Board of Deputies and the Chief Rabbi coming out with their comments (which is unprecedented) and I think that mattered. I don't think it's like there's some deep feeling there but I think there is a sense - and it's possibly a legacy of the war - that if Jews are up in arms about someone they're probably a wrong'un. People may not have had deeply developed thoughts on anti-semitism or Corbyn, but they noticed that lots of Jewish groups had problems with Corbyn and that was enough to be a red flag.

I'd also add that I don't think we can say hating a specific ethnic/religious group is not in line with standard left wing thinking when in the 1890s you already have the discourse in the German SPD that anti-semitism the "socialism of fools". I think if you've had almost 150 years of a political tradition having an identified issue with a form of racism you can't say that's alien. That's how long there's been anti-semitism on the left which has been identified as a problem. I think that's why it's actually really important that parties and leaders on the left make sure that they keep firewalls up, they gatekeep etc so that tendence that exists on the left doesn't get a foothold in the mainstream establishment parties.

An example of this was I saw a number of people in the Green Party yesterday talking about the fact that they may get a lot of ex Labour members who have left because Corbyn's been suspended. They were rightly pointing out they need to very carefully vet those applications to make sure they keep the bit of the left that really, really cares about Jews out of their party.

I was thinking more before this became a talking point there.

Of course this all blew up into a big thing out of nowhere in the run up to the last election. The media endlessly going on about it told lots of normal people it was a serious issue and Labour was a firmly anti semitic party. The party's spectacular failures to handle it and let it build from a small thing into an election loser needs part of the blame of course, but then the anti-semitism complaints aren't the only thing they made a mess of there.

When this was all unfolding the main emotions I saw from the left were bafflement and anger. It was something so far outside of their area of concern that to them it could only be a completely manufactured media stitch up.  Before all this happened Israel had been dropping down the list of talking points for a decade.

The lesson I'd take from this is less one of Labour being especially racist and more a lesson in how Labour needs to drastically improve its complaints handling and learn how to manage the media properly.

But it didn't come out of nowhere. The Community Security Trust and the Jewish press covered Corbyn when he was a backbencher - eg this article from 2012 (following the arrest of a Palestinian preacher who has used the blood libel - literally "we [Muslims] have never allowed ourselves to knead [the dough for] the bread that breaks the fast in the holy month of Ramadan with children's blood. Whoever wants a more thorough explanation, let him ask what used to happen to some children in Europe, whose blood was mixed in with the dough of the [Jewish] holy bread." and was scheduled to do an event with Corbyn):
https://cst.org.uk/news/blog/2012/05/01/lessons-from-nick-griffin-and-jeremy-corbyn

The Jewish Chronicle and other bits of the Jewish press were reporting about anti-semitism in the Labour Party rising and not being dealt with throughout 2015-17 and in that time there were increasingly vocal complaints from the Jewish Labour Movement, Jewish councillors and Jewish activists. It didn't come out of nowhere after 2017 - it came from that and the key starting point for me was the mural and it was the media discovering that (Corbyn's comments about the mural were covered at the time by the Jewish press). I always thought Corbyn's record would make him unelectable but I expected it to be IRA-sympathising not anti-semitism. But this often happens - there is an issue/perception with a politician that sort of goes into the mainstream media long after some people started covering it.

I get what you're saying about how people on the left perceived it but look at it from the other side. If you're a Jewish Labour you know that Corbyn's got a record of dubious events/comments etc, you face racism, you complain about it and it's not handled properly - you know this is happening to others in your community, you know that the Jewish press is reporting incidents from across the country about this. That bigotry that you're dealing with then gets national attention and your "allies" on the left think it's a smear campaign, a manufactured Tory media stitch-up. It must be really upsetting.

And I don't think the failure in the complaints handling was some inevitability - the ECHR actually says this failure only seemed to happen with complaints about anti-semitism, there were very detailed procedures that were followed for complaints about sexual harassment or other forms of racism. Personally I think the reason it failed and the leader's office was interfering was because the people who were being complained against were allies of the leader and, probably, that if he wasn't leader Corbyn would be receiving complaints like this.

Edit: Also - presenting this without any comment - the editor of the pro-Corbyn alternative media site the Canary on Radio 4 this morning: "a tiny group of obscenely powerful people"  is behind the "witchhunt" against Corbyn.

Quote from: crazy canuck on October 29, 2020, 10:11:39 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on October 29, 2020, 09:45:37 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on October 29, 2020, 09:02:29 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on October 29, 2020, 06:49:49 PM
Yes, really.  I don't think you realize you are digging yourself into a hole here.

QuoteMost people on the left in my experience don't care about Jewish people.

Quotelet's not forget the core of the issue was less about any anti semitic words or actions in themselves and more that the whole process for reporting and dealing with these allegations was a complete mess.

I mean, you really don't get it, do you?

Dont care about in this context means, could not care less whether someone is Jewish or not and could not care less what is happening with the state of Israel.  the UK has other things to worry about and really why should anyone care whether someone else is Jewish. 

At least if I am reading Tyr right.

This is a theme you see with people in the US concerning black people.  "I'm not racist!  I don't see color!"

I dont think it is the same thing.

Please tell me how it is different.

I get where Tyr is coming from and understand sort of the political desire to not want to address or feel like you have to address it. To me it bears a lot of similarities to the Ilhan Omar stuff where she has said a number of things in her advocacy for ending Israeli occupation of Palestine, that have crossed over into anti-semitism. To be really generous to her, I'll simply note that in the U.S. we have a small number of left wing people who look at Israel as the modern day South Africa and really want to raise the issue of the U.S. putting political pressure on Israel to end settlements and occupation of Palestine. I do not have an issue per se with the existence of this movement, albeit I disagree with them on a number of key points. But take that baseline acceptable political position, and the unfortunate reality is a lot of people who hold these views, oddly seem to be "fellow travelers" with people who have outright anti-semitic views. Moreover, sometimes these people themselves repeat things said by those fellow travelers that are clearly anti-semitic. I think some of the people involve are actually anti-semitic. I have tried to give Ilhan Omar benefit of the doubt that she doesn't actually hate Jews, but the circle of people she is exposed to contains people who say anti-semitic things enough that she doesn't feel it is politically bad to just repeat them.

When you're a congresswoman that is problematic.

But I will say that when Omar made her first controversial comments, the infamous "It's all about the Benjamins baby" tweet, the Democratic House Leadership formally condemned her remarks the next day. Ilhan herself then apologized, and said she was educating herself on things that could be considered anti-Semitic tropes, and said she was unequivocally opposed to bigotry of all forms which specifically includes anti-Semitism.

I remember a lot of people on the left kinda having this opinion of "it's annoying we have to address this, it's a minor violation, the GOP is far worse, this is being into more than it is by Fox News etc etc", and I get it. But the reality is she was propagating a common anti-semitic trope, and it needed to be addressed. I think the fact it was forcefully addressed by leadership and she formally apologized within a day, was important.

She later made additional comments about how she did not think a person in congress should feel allegiance to foreign countries due to lobbying groups that advocate their interest. This caused a second round of uproar that was more divisive for the party because her comments were more textually neutral. While some senior Democrats condemned her statements, some senior Democrats (including Sanders) defended her this time around. Pelosi ended up passing a kind of fluff resolution condemning bigotry in the House in response. So to me it's still a bit up in the air Omar could be anti-Semitic, she could just be not very critically evaluating the sort of things she repeats from fellow travelers, but her most egregious stepping out of line I think was handled appropriately by the party and by her.

The perception I have of Corbyn is he's had a long history of incidents more serious than this and for which he has been much more resistant to unequivocally correcting with a mea culpa. I think there's some shared personality traits between Corbyn and Bernie Sanders in that both are radicals who get really stubborn when they feel they are being required to "politick" in a way they think is stupid. A big example for Bernie was how people kept pushing him to specifically speak to black American issues in 2016, Bernie didn't like that. I think Bernie is genuinely very progressive on racial issues, but he deeply believes his leftist economic reforms are the first, second and third best ways to address racial inequality. He deeply hates using time in speeches or public appearances speaking about things that he thinks just "placate" people, when he really wants to focus on his core issues. I think this refusal to sort of go through the typical Democratic politician hoops in the primary with the black community hurt him badly. I think it's telling he did much better at that stuff in 2020--he realized to challenge for the nomination he had to do some of these things. My perception of Corbyn is that he is even less willing than Bernie to make those sort of compromises, so in that there is some possibility maybe Corbyn isn't anti-semitic, this stubbornness makes it impossible for him to clearly enunciate it. At the end of the day though, some of Corbyn's dips into anti-semitism would make him broadly disqualifying as a political candidate in America (particularly because of how powerful our Jewish community is in the Democratic party, and for Republicans support of Israel is becoming so sacrosanct), and he might actually just be an anti-semite. It's also possible he's someone who has said and done a number of stupid things on the issue and he's just too stubborn to clean it up.

Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on October 30, 2020, 08:03:20 AM
But take that baseline acceptable political position, and the unfortunate reality is a lot of people who hold these views, oddly seem to be "fellow travelers" with people who have outright anti-semitic views.

Moreover, sometimes these people themselves repeat things said by those fellow travelers that are clearly anti-semitic. I think some of the people involve are actually anti-semitic. I have tried to give Ilhan Omar benefit of the doubt that she doesn't actually hate Jews, but the circle of people she is exposed to contains people who say anti-semitic things enough that she doesn't feel it is politically bad to just repeat them.

When you're a congresswoman that is problematic.

I would say the first part is unfortunate but unavoidable and should not reflect badly on that person. But this person, especially if holding public office, should make it very clear they do not wish to associate in any way with these fellow travelers.

I also think there are different ways of responding to this - and I think Ilhan Omar might fall into that category, I don't know.

There's a really good UK example in Naz Shah who before she became an MP posted some things that were anti-semitic. These came out after her election - she was suspended and condemned by Corbyn (crucially she was not very close to or an ally of Corbyn). She apologised properly and educated herself, including training with Jewish groups, to realise how what she had said was anti-semitic even if she isn't. And she's now an MP with a very good relationship with her local Jewish community who campaigns against Islamophobia and anti-semitism.

One of the really heartening things about this whole disgrace is that the Jewish and Muslim communities have supported each other. So the leading anti-Islamophobia charity in the UK has backed statements by the Board of Deputies etc about anti-semitism in politics, and vice versa.

Quote from: Razgovory on October 30, 2020, 07:02:58 AM

Quote from: crazy canuck on October 29, 2020, 10:11:39 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on October 29, 2020, 09:45:37 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on October 29, 2020, 09:02:29 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on October 29, 2020, 06:49:49 PM
Yes, really.  I don't think you realize you are digging yourself into a hole here.

QuoteMost people on the left in my experience don't care about Jewish people.

Quotelet's not forget the core of the issue was less about any anti semitic words or actions in themselves and more that the whole process for reporting and dealing with these allegations was a complete mess.

I mean, you really don't get it, do you?

Dont care about in this context means, could not care less whether someone is Jewish or not and could not care less what is happening with the state of Israel.  the UK has other things to worry about and really why should anyone care whether someone else is Jewish. 

At least if I am reading Tyr right.

This is a theme you see with people in the US concerning black people.  "I'm not racist!  I don't see color!"

I dont think it is the same thing.

Please tell me how it is different.

He is not claiming he does not see them, he is claiming he does not care.

So, coming at this in good faith is there some evidence somewhere of Corbyn and McDonell singing "throw the Jew Down the Well" or perhaps some hacked emails discussing zionist conspiracies or any of that kind of stuff. I've no doubt that there is, there's a huge amount of discussion being generated on lefty anti semitism in Labour ,so there must be and the fact that the damning evidence isn't at my fingertips is more of a testament to me not following the story closely enough.Comrade Corbyn keeps denying that he's an anti semite. That's largely irrelevant though because you can wave your hands like this....

Quote from: Sheilbh on October 30, 2020, 12:03:59 AM

There's a part of the left that is obsessional about Israel/Palestine and a lot of them end up basically taking view that are anti-semitic. I think there's a reasonable chance Corbyn is in this group.

and he's an anti semite.

He may very well be , anecdotally I've come across British people who say really bizarre anti semitic things casually that are absolutely jarring after living in the US for 24 years where anti semitism is a super fringe goose stepper past time.

I haven't read the report , only seen snippets posted here and there, but presumably if I take the time to dig into it, I'll find it pretty damning? Again, I'm just trying to make sense of this. 

Quote from: crazy canuck on October 30, 2020, 09:12:32 AM

He is not claiming he does not see them, he is claiming he does not care.

:mellow: When someone in the US claims that they don't see color they aren't saying there is something wrong with their eyes.

Quote from: Razgovory on October 30, 2020, 09:56:13 AM

Quote from: crazy canuck on October 30, 2020, 09:12:32 AM

He is not claiming he does not see them, he is claiming he does not care.

:mellow: When someone in the US claims that they don't see color they aren't saying there is something wrong with their eyes.

I have never understood that American claim.  How is it that someone does not see colour.  It is kind of like saying all lives matter - it completely ignores how people of colour have more difficult lives over all.

Quote from: fromtia on October 30, 2020, 09:51:42 AM

He may very well be , anecdotally I've come across British people who say really bizarre anti semitic things casually that are absolutely jarring after living in the US for 24 years where anti semitism is a super fringe goose stepper past time.

Can you give some examples? I'm not doubting it, just interested.

Quote from: Maladict on October 30, 2020, 10:15:54 AM


Can you give some examples? I'm not doubting it, just interested.

My Mum?

Quote from: fromtia on October 30, 2020, 09:51:42 AM
I haven't read the report , only seen snippets posted here and there, but presumably if I take the time to dig into it, I'll find it pretty damning? Again, I'm just trying to make sense of this.

Probably not.

It's drier than that because it's by the body that investigates breaches of the Equality Act so it's not really a big thing about whether or not there's anti-semitism (though, as they note there have been multiple reports by, for and about anti-semitism in the Labour Party in the last 5 years) but whether, in dealing with that, Labour's in breach of that law. It's more about institutional issues - so can a Jewish person complaining about anti-semitism get a fair go or not. They found there were examples of discrimination, harassment, political interference and a lack of leadership in dealing with anti-semitism as an institution.

QuoteHe may very well be , anecdotally I've come across British people who say really bizarre anti semitic things casually that are absolutely jarring after living in the US for 24 years where anti semitism is a super fringe goose stepper past time.

Yeah - the one thing he's done or said on this that really jarred with me was the line about Zionists not getting English irony despite living in this country for a long time and often their whole lives. Because it's just such a banal, pub bore, Nigel Farage a few pints down in the golf club bar kind of a remark. The mural incident was also pretty bad.

But my view is that it doesn't really matter whether Corbyn or Labour are anti-semitic or not. I don't particularly care what's going on in their soul, because the experience of Jewish Labour members, activists, councillors and MPs was that they were being victimised and when they complained nothing was done. And I think we spend too much time trying to work out what's going on in someone's head in whether they're racist or not, when we should focus on the experience of the minority group.

If you care about your Jewish party members or any other minority and they say that - then you just apologise and fix it until they don't feel that way. You don't spend ages loudly stating you're not racist and you're just being misunderstod or it's a smear campaign/factional argument. It's why I like how Naz Shah dealt with complaints about what she'd said in the past.

Quote from: Sheilbh on October 30, 2020, 10:25:07 AM
But my view is that it doesn't really matter whether Corbyn or Labour are anti-semitic or not. I don't particularly care what's going on in their soul, because the experience of Jewish Labour members, activists, councillors and MPs was that they were being victimised and when they complained nothing was done. And I think we spend too much time trying to work out what's going on in someone's head in whether they're racist or not, when we should focus on the experience of the minority group.

If you care about your Jewish party members or any other minority and they say that - then you just apologise and fix it until they don't feel that way. You don't spend ages loudly stating you're not racist and you're just being misunderstod or it's a smear campaign/factional argument. It's why I like how Naz Shah dealt with complaints about what she'd said in the past.

Well said.

Quote from: fromtia on October 30, 2020, 10:17:10 AM

Quote from: Maladict on October 30, 2020, 10:15:54 AM


Can you give some examples? I'm not doubting it, just interested.

My Mum?

Examples of what they say.

Quote from: Sheilbh on October 30, 2020, 10:25:07 AM
.
But my view is that it doesn't really matter whether Corbyn or Labour are anti-semitic or not. I don't particularly care what's going on in their soul, because the experience of Jewish Labour members, activists, councillors and MPs was that they were being victimised and when they complained nothing was done. And I think we spend too much time trying to work out what's going on in someone's head in whether they're racist or not, when we should focus on the experience of the minority group.

If you care about your Jewish party members or any other minority and they say that - then you just apologise and fix it until they don't feel that way. You don't spend ages loudly stating you're not racist and you're just being misunderstod or it's a smear campaign/factional argument. It's why I like how Naz Shah dealt with complaints about what she'd said in the past.

Well I certainly agree with you wholeheartedly in this regard.

Quote from: Maladict on October 30, 2020, 10:30:22 AM


Examples of what they say.

The sorts of "pub bore - nigel farage"  type thing that Sheilbh alludes to. Just to beat up on my mother for a moment - and shes a wonderful person - she lived in Tel Aviv for 12 years, worked for a EU organization building medical infrastructure for a putative Palestinian state, is a political conservative in the British sense and I think is overall supportive of Israel (whatever that means) but shes said things to me that I find totally bizarre - low grade "the jews" kind of stuff. Its possible that Im not understanding the context and She also says equally bizarre things about Palestinians, Egyptians and so on. Also Asians in general (despite the fact that her sons gf of 6 years is asian american). She has never said anything odd about black people or people from India or Pakistan. Overall a bit critical of immigrants - despite her one son being one, and her other son being married to one.

Quote from: fromtia on October 30, 2020, 10:46:27 AM

Quote from: Maladict on October 30, 2020, 10:30:22 AM
Examples of what they say.

- low grade "the jews" kind of stuff.

Right, still pretty vague  :P

So how is it different from American pub-bore-equivalent stuff, that makes it so jarring? Specifically because the Jews are singled out?

Quote from: Maladict on October 30, 2020, 11:02:36 AM


Right, still pretty vague  :P

So how is it different from American pub-bore-equivalent stuff, that makes it so jarring? Specifically because the Jews are singled out?

I hate to disappoint but I dont think I'm going to be able to offer you the juicy meat that you seek. It's been 24 years since I lived in the UK and I only go there once a year for two weeks at a time. I've only heard one antisemitic comment in 24 years in the US* but on numerous occasions (not just my mum) in the UK have had to grit my teeth through observations about jewish bankers controlling everything and so forth.

* "Do you mean that one guy with the Jew hair?"

Quote from: crazy canuck on October 30, 2020, 10:02:11 AM

Quote from: Razgovory on October 30, 2020, 09:56:13 AM

Quote from: crazy canuck on October 30, 2020, 09:12:32 AM

He is not claiming he does not see them, he is claiming he does not care.

:mellow: When someone in the US claims that they don't see color they aren't saying there is something wrong with their eyes.

I have never understood that American claim.  How is it that someone does not see colour.  It is kind of like saying all lives matter - it completely ignores how people of colour have more difficult lives over all.

When they say they say they don't see color they are trying to say that they don't care about color.  Hence the comparison to what Tyr was saying.

Happily, Labor lost the election and I think the labor party will be saved.  The Republican party on the other hand...

Quote from: fromtia on October 30, 2020, 11:09:56 AM


I hate to disappoint but I dont think I'm going to be able to offer you the juicy meat that you seek. It's been 24 years since I lived in the UK and I only go there once a year for two weeks at a time. I've only heard one antisemitic comment in 24 years in the US* but on numerous occasions (not just my mum) in the UK have had to grit my teeth through observations about jewish bankers controlling everything and so forth.

* "Do you mean that one guy with the Jew hair?"

fwiw I wasn't looking for anything juicy, I just find outsiders' observations of racism interesting.
It seems we often need to be told by outsiders how racist we are, before realizing it ourselves.

Quote from: Razgovory on October 30, 2020, 09:56:13 AM

Quote from: crazy canuck on October 30, 2020, 09:12:32 AM

He is not claiming he does not see them, he is claiming he does not care.

:mellow: When someone in the US claims that they don't see color they aren't saying there is something wrong with their eyes.

What I don't understand is what is the desired attitude here? That they put the colour of a person's skin in to the focus of how they deal with them? Or what?

Quote from: Tamas on October 30, 2020, 01:02:11 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on October 30, 2020, 09:56:13 AM

Quote from: crazy canuck on October 30, 2020, 09:12:32 AM

He is not claiming he does not see them, he is claiming he does not care.

:mellow: When someone in the US claims that they don't see color they aren't saying there is something wrong with their eyes.

What I don't understand is what is the desired attitude here? That they put the colour of a person's skin in to the focus of how they deal with them? Or what?

I don't know but not seeing color, while often done with noble intentions, tended to create blindness to systematic issues. So now we try to um...er...I guess keep ones background in mind while trying to treat people right. Or something.

You see it a lot from the fasc in the UK too. Most of it is disingenuous, though I suspect honest ignorance with some. The whole thing is I never mention racial issues, you're the only ones making a song and dance about being black. You're the real racist. If we stop mentioning black history month and BLM and all that then there will be no racism.
As an aside the people saying this very often of course do have negative attitudes to black people and are lying with the core statement of not seeing colour.

The key difference with anti semitism in the UK is that there isnt anything like the systematic racism against Jewish people in the UK that you get against black people in the US. As said Jewish people are super integrated and the majority of people don't think about someone being Jewish as a factor in how to view them at all. I've known people for years without realising they were Jewish. Which as mentioned carries its own issues as when incidences of anti semitism do crop up they're very outside of the normal and there's a lot of disbelief and no standard procedure with how to handle it.

Quote from: Maladict on October 30, 2020, 01:00:18 PM
fwiw I wasn't looking for anything juicy, I just find outsiders' observations of racism interesting.
It seems we often need to be told by outsiders how racist we are, before realizing it ourselves.

Yeah it's interesting because Fromtia's example from the US, I don't think that would fly in the UK.

I think part of what different cultures perceive as racist is their own social rules. So I know one friend lived in the Netherlands for a few years and found a far higher level of casual racism - aside from Zwarte Piet - which was normally justified from the Dutch perspective as being direct and honest. He gave the example of seeing someone on Tinder who put "no Arabs, no blacks" in their Tinder profile. He told us and we were all shocked by that, but he spoke with Dutch friends and they mainly thought that it was just telling people you're not interested and just being up-front.

So the flip-side of Dutch casual racism being seen as up-front or direct, I think very often in the UK you can get away with quite a lot of racism if you phrase it in a polite, non-aggressive, indirect way (which is maybe what would cause issues with the US example).

QuoteI don't know but not seeing color, while often done with noble intentions, tended to create blindness to systematic issues. So now we try to um...er...I guess keep ones background in mind while trying to treat people right. Or something.

I saw a piece somewhere recently on how this is still a big cultural conflict between the "Anglo-Saxons" and France but also other European countries, like Belgium and because they are member states the EU.

So I think that was in the context of the ongoing "Brussels so white" argument. The EU collects diversity statistics about their workforce but I think it only relates to gender and sexuality because race or religion are communal identities. It is really striking when you look at any pictures put out by any European institution - even things like the university in Florence - because basically everyone is white. The Anglo-Saxon view is exactly as you say if there are systemic issues you can't address them if you don't collect data to understand them. So you can't improve diversity if you don't measure it. But then the French approach is that by collecting data you are determining that individuals will be judged and treated based on their race/religion. I'm fairly in favour of the Anglo-Saxon approach personally, but they're both valid points.

Quote from: Razgovory on October 30, 2020, 12:32:49 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on October 30, 2020, 10:02:11 AM

Quote from: Razgovory on October 30, 2020, 09:56:13 AM

Quote from: crazy canuck on October 30, 2020, 09:12:32 AM

He is not claiming he does not see them, he is claiming he does not care.

:mellow: When someone in the US claims that they don't see color they aren't saying there is something wrong with their eyes.

I see.  then I withdraw my conclusion they are not related.
I have never understood that American claim.  How is it that someone does not see colour.  It is kind of like saying all lives matter - it completely ignores how people of colour have more difficult lives over all.

When they say they say they don't see color they are trying to say that they don't care about color.  Hence the comparison to what Tyr was saying.

then I withdraw my disagreement with you.

Quote from: Tyr on October 30, 2020, 01:29:14 PM
The key difference with anti semitism in the UK is that there isnt anything like the systematic racism against Jewish people in the UK that you get against black people in the US. As said Jewish people are super integrated and the majority of people don't think about someone being Jewish as a factor in how to view them at all. I've known people for years without realising they were Jewish. Which as mentioned carries its own issues as when incidences of anti semitism do crop up they're very outside of the normal and there's a lot of disbelief and no standard procedure with how to handle it.

I don't know if that necessarily means there's a lower level of bigotry, as much as that Jewish people are generally able to "pass". It's a bit similar to homophobia - there are loads of gays who people may never know are gay. I don't think that necessarily means anything about the level of homophobia. They're just not, generally visible minorities.

And a number of Synagogues in the UK require ongoing police protection and if you are visibly "Jewish" then you might face abuse. There's been several of those hidden camera things of someone spending a day wearing a kippah and they do get abused for it. There's also been the odd video of the bus or Tube racist having a go at visibly "Jewish" people.

Quote from: Sheilbh on October 30, 2020, 01:33:30 PM

Yeah it's interesting because Fromtia's example from the US, I don't think that would fly in the UK.

Well, the Jew Hair comment was an absolute eye watering corker. Young man was a little bit country, if you will.

Quote from: Maladict on October 30, 2020, 01:00:18 PM

fwiw I wasn't looking for anything juicy, I just find outsiders' observations of racism interesting.
It seems we often need to be told by outsiders how racist we are, before realizing it ourselves.

Ooh I remembered one - referring to Stoke Newington as Stoke Jewington. An otherwise charming and pleasant young fellow, but I thought that was an outlandish thing to say when I heard it. (In the UK, a few years ago)

Quote from: fromtia on October 30, 2020, 01:42:08 PM
Well, the Jew Hair comment was an absolute eye watering corker. Young man was a little bit country, if you will.

I learned about the Jewfro from Jewish friends and classmates.

Quote from: Sheilbh on October 30, 2020, 01:33:30 PM

I think part of what different cultures perceive as racist is their own social rules. So I know one friend lived in the Netherlands for a few years and found a far higher level of casual racism - aside from Zwarte Piet - which was normally justified from the Dutch perspective as being direct and honest. He gave the example of seeing someone on Tinder who put "no Arabs, no blacks" in their Tinder profile. He told us and we were all shocked by that, but he spoke with Dutch friends and they mainly thought that it was just telling people you're not interested and just being up-front.

So the flip-side of Dutch casual racism being seen as up-front or direct, I think very often in the UK you can get away with quite a lot of racism if you phrase it in a polite, non-aggressive, indirect way (which is maybe what would cause issues with the US example).

Yeah agreed, although the "no Arabs, no blacks" is a little too up-front even for me. :lol:
I've never seen that but I'm not surprised to be honest.

Quote from: fromtia on October 30, 2020, 01:44:25 PM
Ooh I remembered one - referring to Stoke Newington as Stoke Jewington. An otherwise charming and pleasant young fellow, but I thought that was an outlandish thing to say when I heard it. (In the UK, a few years ago)

Ah right, yes that kind of stuff would probably fly here.

Last year I was waiting for a train when about 50 or so football hooligans disembarked shouting 'Gas the Jews'. Their team was playing against Ajax, which wears its Jewish background as a badge. It's disconcerting as hell and utterly despicable, but this still happens regularly.

Quote from: Maladict on October 30, 2020, 02:04:11 PM
Last year I was waiting for a train when about 50 or so football hooligans disembarked shouting 'Gas the Jews'. Their team was playing against Ajax, which wears its Jewish background as a badge. It's disconcerting as hell and utterly despicable, but this still happens regularly.

Yeah. Football is separate. Spurs still get anti-semitic abuse like that (mainly from Chelsea, I think) but have their own issue with the "Yid Army" chants. David Baddiel's written about this:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/sep/17/david-cameron-yid-really-is-race-hate-word

Quote from: Sheilbh on October 30, 2020, 01:33:30 PM
So I think that was in the context of the ongoing "Brussels so white" argument [...] It is really striking when you look at any pictures put out by any European institution - even things like the university in Florence - because basically everyone is white.

it's a tangent on the labour party. Ponder it but no reply required:

[devil's advocate]Doesn't mean it's not diverse though. Plenty of cultures there. And I'm assuming not all of them will come from the same class either. And I can only hope not all of them adhere to the same set of ideas. And maybe a few of them aren't lawyertypes. There's more than just level of pigmentation to determine diversity.

these people saying "Brussels so white*", would they dare say the equivalent of the African Union? Or of ASEAN?
[/devil's advocate]

*That said: "Brussels so white" is clearly said by people who leave the city after working hours

Quote from: Sheilbh on October 30, 2020, 02:10:48 PM
Yeah. Football is separate.

I'm resigned to it happening in stadiums, apparently these people need some kind of release and that's probably the safest place to let it happen.
But seeing it in normal society, I can't get used to it.

Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on October 30, 2020, 02:41:38 PM
[devil's advocate]Doesn't mean it's not diverse though. Plenty of cultures there. And I'm assuming not all of them will come from the same class either. And I can only hope not all of them adhere to the same set of ideas. And maybe a few of them aren't lawyertypes. There's more than just level of pigmentation to determine diversity.

Absolutely - that's partly what the whole idea of intersectionality is about.

Quotethese people saying "Brussels so white*", would they dare say the equivalent of the African Union? Or of ASEAN?
[/devil's advocate]

*That said: "Brussels so white" is clearly said by people who leave the city after working hours

I think so but it would be focused on the minorities in the African Union or ASEAN. And it is focused on the EU, from one article about this:

QuoteThe EU may be respected for its defense of human rights worldwide but its own institutions have largely ignored evidence of racist harassment and violence across Europe, including at the hands of law enforcement agencies. Implementation of the EU's Race Equality Directive, which dates back to 2000 and calls on member countries to adopt legislation to address discrimination, also remains patchy. Few European leaders or policymakers challenged Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán's messaging on the need to protect a "besieged" Christian Europe from outsiders.

The EU institutions' own track record on racial diversity isn't very encouraging either. Although people from ethnic minority backgrounds make up around 10 percent of the EU's population — that's about 50 million people — they are severely underrepresented in EU bodies.

EU officials have become adept at talking about diversity in terms of the push to recruit and promote more women — but they routinely brush off questions regarding racial inclusion and diversity with statements that EU recruitment policies are "color blind."

A 2017 Diversity and Inclusion Charter promising to create "a better workplace for all — including women, staff with disabilities, lesbian, gay, bisexual, transsexual and intersex (LGBTI) staff and older staff" made no mention of the need to tackle the lack of ethnic and racial diversity within EU institutions. And according to the European Network Against Racism, women of color have largely not benefited from EU efforts to promote gender equality.

The EU has also fallen short in its response to the anti-racism protests sweeping across the Continent. Most European commissioners either stayed stoically silent or stumbled badly in their comments. When they did speak, they appeared either complacent as they deemed it unlikely that police brutality in Europe was as bad as in the U.S., or disingenuous in voicing surprise at Europe's racist reality.

It is ironic that one of the prime backers of a European Parliament resolution last week calling for EU action to combat structural racism, Pierrette Herzberger-Fofana, who is also Germany's first MEP of African descent, reported a traumatizing encounter with Belgian police the day before she spoke in plenary.

Commission President Ursula von der Leyen's speech in the Parliament last week sought to make amends, by acknowledging a lack of ethnic diversity in EU bodies and the need to fight both overt injustices and invisible biases.

But her message rang hollow to anti-racist groups who remember her praise for Greece as a "shield" against refugees and migrants and her stubborn commitment to tasking a commissioner to "protect" (later changed to "promote") a "European way of life," seen by many as a dog whistle to far-right populists.

It's fair to say von der Leyen and her team in the Commission are not used to grappling with racism in either their private or professional lives. Former British-Somali MEP Magid Magid isn't alone in questioning the potential relevance and impact of a debate on racial justice conducted by an all-white team of 27 women and men with no first-hand experience of racial discrimination.

The comments by Margaritas Schinas in the aftermath of the George Floyd killing were insane in their ignorance/arrogance:
"There is no doubt that Europe as a whole has been doing better than the United States in issues of race, also because we have better systems for social inclusion, protection, universal health care."
"And there's also a European tradition for protecting minorities, we have less issues than they have in the States."
"I do not think that we have issues now in Europe that blatantly pertain to police brutality or issues of race transcending into our systems, but we do have an issue in Europe, which is the issue of inequalities and income distribution — making the best for everyone of what we have."
"What I can say is that in Europe we keep our armies only for our foreign enemies."

My favourite was when he said Europe isn't complacent about this - but we are world champions in protecting minorities :lol:

Edit: And in their defence the Fundamental Rights Agency has done really good work on the "being black in Europe". But they publish the report and ultimately it's often about law enforcement which is a member state competence:
https://fra.europa.eu/sites/default/files/fra_uploads/fra-2018-being-black-in-the-eu_en.pdf

It'd be interesting to see similar research for other minority groups.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/nov/18/jeremy-corbyn-refused-labour-whip-despite-having-suspension-lifted

QuoteKeir Starmer denies Jeremy Corbyn Labour whip despite end of suspension

Keir Starmer has decided not to readmit his predecessor Jeremy Corbyn as a Labour MP, arguing that he has undermined efforts to restore the party's reputation in the Jewish community.

An NEC disciplinary panel lifted the suspension of Corbyn's party membership on Tuesday. That decision was made after he issued a conciliatory statement "clarifying" controversial remarks he made when the damning Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) report was published.

But in a strongly worded statement on Wednesday, Starmer said he would not be welcoming Corbyn back into the parliamentary Labour party (PLP).

"Jeremy Corbyn's actions in response to the EHRC report undermined and set back our work in restoring trust and confidence in the Labour party's ability to tackle antisemitism," Starmer said.

"In those circumstances, I have taken the decision not to restore the whip to Jeremy Corbyn. I will keep this situation under review."

Corbyn's supporters had insisted party rules meant he should be automatically readmitted, and the decision is likely to reignite the simmering civil war between Starmer and Labour leftwingers.

Starmer appeared to repudiate the NEC's decision, which was made under disciplinary rules now being reviewed as part of the response to the EHRC report.

He said: "The disciplinary process does not have the confidence of the Jewish community. That became clear once again yesterday.

"It is the task of my leadership to fix what I have inherited. That is what I am resolute in doing and I have asked for an independent process to be established as soon as possible."

I like that he got an easy way to get rid of a destabilising rival and used it.

This feels like the he's managed to find the worst of all worlds. Lifting the suspension has been criticised by Jewish Labour activists and doesn't satisfy the moderates, not returning the whip pisses off the left and Labour chaos/anti-semitism is a big story on the news again.

The factionalism and in-fighting that is in the political culture of the left (and this seems to happen globally) is crazy :bleeding:

Quote from: Sheilbh on November 18, 2020, 08:48:31 AM
This feels like the he's managed to find the worst of all worlds. Lifting the suspension has been criticised by Jewish Labour activists and doesn't satisfy the moderates, not returning the whip pisses off the left and Labour chaos/anti-semitism is a big story on the news again.

The factionalism and in-fighting that is in the political culture of the left (and this seems to happen globally) is crazy :bleeding:

It's not like the Tories are any better, they just do it with knives in backrooms as opposed to by committees.

Quote from: Tamas on November 18, 2020, 09:13:36 AM
It's not like the Tories are any better, they just do it with knives in backrooms as opposed to by committees.

The Tories are better at this because they don't do it in public.

If a leader is failing or going to cost the Tories an election they get rid of them (Thatcher, Iain Duncan Smith etc) - it's ruthless but it works because winning is what matters most. Labour publicly row (and the public hates divided parties) and will never get rid of a leader no matter how bad they're doing (Foot, Corbyn) - because winning your internal battle against the opposing Labour faction is what really matters. Every single left-wing campaign group I can think of (and there's been loads) has fallen apart because of infighting.

And I don't think it's just a UK thing - it took multiple inconclusive elections before PSOE and Podemos agreed to work together and just look at the endless fighst withing the Democrats. It's like everyone on the left basically thinks their views/faction would win if the other bits of the left would just get out their way. And Spain gives a useful example of how this wouldn't be any better if there was just a hard left and a centre left party - because PSOE and Podemos have loads of factional infighting too :lol: :weep: :bleeding:

Corbyn did poorly in the 2019 election, despite doing a great job in 17 and should slope off quietly. Trying to make him blow up and disappear and all left wingers with him, forever, by banging loudly the drum of anti-semtism accusations might not be the best course.

The Grauniad describes the EHRC report as damning, Shielbh says it's a bit dry. If Corbyn is an anti-semite, it ought be obvious at this point to a casual examination of the available facts. I take it on the word of other posters that the core of what's in this report is that as leader of the party he failed to respond energetically to complaints of ant-semitism in the party. That's bad, but expelling him for saying that he's not an anti semite, and that this accusation has been levelled against him for political ends isn't really reasonable. Can you defend yourself against an accusation of anti semitism? Or , once it's said out loud are you then obliged to accept your fate?

It's a dispiriting display of Labour infighting. I think expelling Corbyn was a mistake. Moving on and sidelining him politically makes sense, especially as he's widely hated by press and pundits. Is he an anti-semite? maybe? Let's see the evidence. Did he fail in his duty as party leader to vigorously protect party members from bigotry of any stripe? Sounds like he done gone fucked up.

Quote from: fromtia on November 18, 2020, 12:01:17 PM
Corbyn did poorly in the 2019 election, despite doing a great job in 17 and should slope off quietly. Trying to make him blow up and disappear and all left wingers with him, forever, by banging loudly the drum of anti-semtism accusations might not be the best course.

The Grauniad describes the EHRC report as damning, Shielbh says it's a bit dry. If Corbyn is an anti-semite, it ought be obvious at this point to a casual examination of the available facts. I take it on the word of other posters that the core of what's in this report is that as leader of the party he failed to respond energetically to complaints of ant-semitism in the party. That's bad, but expelling him for saying that he's not an anti semite, and that this accusation has been levelled against him for political ends isn't really reasonable. Can you defend yourself against an accusation of anti semitism? Or , once it's said out loud are you then obliged to accept your fate?

It's a dispiriting display of Labour infighting. I think expelling Corbyn was a mistake. Moving on and sidelining him politically makes sense, especially as he's widely hated by press and pundits. Is he an anti-semite? maybe? Let's see the evidence. Did he fail in his duty as party leader to vigorously protect party members from bigotry of any stripe? Sounds like he done gone fucked up.

I don't see why it matters if he is in his heart an anti-semite or not. Kind of like how it doesn't matter if Trump is actually a racist or not.

Quote from: fromtia on November 18, 2020, 12:01:17 PM
The Grauniad describes the EHRC report as damning, Shielbh says it's a bit dry. If Corbyn is an anti-semite, it ought be obvious at this point to a casual examination of the available facts. I take it on the word of other posters that the core of what's in this report is that as leader of the party he failed to respond energetically to complaints of ant-semitism in the party. That's bad, but expelling him for saying that he's not an anti semite, and that this accusation has been levelled against him for political ends isn't really reasonable. Can you defend yourself against an accusation of anti semitism? Or , once it's said out loud are you then obliged to accept your fate?

I think with institutional racism like this it is really difficult to defend yourself in the Corbyn sort of has. The core of the issue is a minority group saying they're experiencing discrimination and when they complain or try to do anything about it they are not treated equally. And it's core to this that the definition of what is or isn't discrimination is based on the people who are experiencing it, not the institution.

If your response to that is to say that it's being whipped out of proportion by the media as part of a smear campaign (especially when, as is the case with Jews, there is a rich history of racist tropes about that minority controlling the media), you're kind of proving the point. Because they complain about discrimination and that is not treated seriously because it is viewed as a media concoction/smear campaign. Now the motivation behind that may not be racist but from the experience of the person complaining that they've suffered discrimination but then sees the (former) leader on the news casting doubts on the severity or importance or widespreadness of the issue, that's exactly the issue - they complain and it's not treated the same.

To be honest it reminds me of US conservatives accusing people of race baiting for raising issues about race, or Cressida Dick saying the Met's issues with institutional racism are solved.

I think the reason he had the whip withdrawn was because the leadership had put out a statement saying they accepted the EHRC verdict, would work to fix the issue and that anyone who thought this was a smear campaign didn't belong in the Labour Party. Corbyn's statement just tested if they meant that.

QuoteIt's a dispiriting display of Labour infighting. I think expelling Corbyn was a mistake. Moving on and sidelining him politically makes sense, especially as he's widely hated by press and pundits. Is he an anti-semite? maybe? Let's see the evidence. Did he fail in his duty as party leader to vigorously protect party members from bigotry of any stripe? Sounds like he done gone fucked up.

As I say I don't particularly care whether he is or isn't. But I give it 6 months to a year before he does something that raises the issue again - like the Black September memorial event, or the blood libel preacher he shared a stage with. Before he was leader Corbyn would fairly regularly speak at events with people that other pro-Palestinian activists refused to platform and I think he'll revert to that now he's not leader.

Quote from: Sheilbh on November 18, 2020, 12:35:06 PM

I think with institutional racism like this it is really difficult to defend yourself in the Corbyn sort of has. The core of the issue is a minority group saying they're experiencing discrimination and when they complain or try to do anything about it they are not treated equally. And it's core to this that the definition of what is or isn't discrimination is based on the people who are experiencing it, not the institution.

If your response to that is to say that it's being whipped out of proportion by the media as part of a smear campaign (especially when, as is the case with Jews, there is a rich history of racist tropes about that minority controlling the media), you're kind of proving the point. Because they complain about discrimination and that is not treated seriously because it is viewed as a media concoction/smear campaign. Now the motivation behind that may not be racist but from the experience of the person complaining that they've suffered discrimination but then sees the (former) leader on the news casting doubts on the severity or importance or widespreadness of the issue, that's exactly the issue - they complain and it's not treated the same.

I don't really disagree. Do you think it's outrageous to suggest the anti semitism charges against Corbyn are in part politically motivated, or do you think they are completely apolitical and based solely in a rightful opposition to bigotry and anti-semitism?

Quote from: Sheilbh on November 18, 2020, 12:35:06 PM
As I say I don't particularly care whether he is or isn't. But I give it 6 months to a year before he does something that raises the issue again - like the Black September memorial event, or the blood libel preacher he shared a stage with. Before he was leader Corbyn would fairly regularly speak at events with people that other pro-Palestinian activists refused to platform and I think he'll revert to that now he's not leader.

Well, does Ben Shapiro accept Alex Jones interpretation of Sandy Hook because they both appear on Rogan? No, that would be a foolish thing to say. I dont think we should so willingly accept that if you share a platform with someone you share their views, that's always struck me as the thin end of the "cancel culture" wedge. If I had been accused of anti-semitism, or whatever bigotry, I would be extremely careful about who I appeared with speaking publicly. That being said you are sort of waving your hands about a bit again with the he's an anti semite thing.

Quote from: fromtia on November 18, 2020, 12:48:38 PM


Well, does Ben Shapiro accept Alex Jones interpretation of Sandy Hook because they both appear on Rogan? No, that would be a foolish thing to say. I dont think we should so willingly accept that if you share a platform with someone you share their views, that's always struck me as the thin end of the "cancel culture" wedge. If I had been accused of anti-semitism, or whatever bigotry, I would be extremely careful about who I appeared with speaking publicly. That being said you are sort of waving your hands about a bit again with the he's an anti semite thing.

That's a reasonable position in most cases but Corbyn is a man who is extremely careful about who he shares a platform with. During the EU referndum campaign he refused to share a platform with Blair or Brown amongst others.

Quote from: Gups on November 18, 2020, 01:03:09 PM


That's a reasonable position in most cases but Corbyn is a man who is extremely careful about who he shares a platform with. During the EU referndum campaign he refused to share a platform with Blair or Brown amongst others.

If he purposefully refuses to appear in public with Brown or Blair for whatever reason, but happily appears alongside someone who says ridiculous things about jews then I would consider that really crap on his part.

Quote from: fromtia on November 18, 2020, 12:48:38 PM
I don't really disagree. Do you think it's outrageous to suggest the anti semitism charges against Corbyn are in part politically motivated, or do you think they are completely apolitical and based solely in a rightful opposition to bigotry and anti-semitism?

The Jewish press and Jewish organisations complained about Corbyn when he was a backbench MP. They continued to raise issues through 2015-17. And there were issues starting to simmer (sadly a number of issues in Merseyside) - so Jewish MPs were starting to receive more abuse and when they raised the issue of the abuse they received, they just got more. And this particularly targeted women MPs and was really nasty - death threat, rape threats etc. At that time Corbyn I think failed as a leader because most of those MPs were also on the right of the party and I think he viewed it purely in factional terms. Famously one MP who received numerous death and rape threats asked for a meeting with the leadership and never heard back.

But I think after 2017 it escalated - for two big reasons. There is a minority of anti-semites in the Labour Party, in factional terms they're normally on the same side as the left - and I think the left turned a bit of a blind eye to this presence. And there's always been something quite aggressive and laddish about the Labour left and the new media operation around it - and I think all of them felt vindicated and doubled down. I remember watching the 2017 results in a lock-in and generally having a great time, but there were a really aggressive group of Corbynish supporters, you know, chanting "salt the slug" whenever there was a moderate Labour MP on the TV. Sometimes it wasn't a very nice atmosphere because I think if you're not a straight, white man you're maybe a little more aware of how that atmosphere can turn quickly - and I imagine there was something similar going on for Jewish Labour members who would raise this issue at their party meetings and it would be interpreted as an attack on Corbyn/the left faction.

The other thing is I think the mainstream press took more interest. Some of that was probably not well-motivated - I struggle to take the Sun seriously as an anti-racist paper. But some of it probably reflects the fact that the complaints by Jewish activists and MPs were getting louder and louder, the Chief Rabbi and Board of Deputies (both supported by the UK's leading anti-Islamophobia campaign) made statements. If reports in the Jewish press didn't have any impact then you need to make it go national - and there was a story.

Plus all the stuff from Corbyn's past - that the Jewish press had covered - got reported by the national media which was previously stuff many Jews had known about, but wasn't in the mainstream consciousness.

As I say the "English irony" comment is the one I find most objectionable. I just can't get to a non-racist meaning of "Zionists" even if they've lived here for a long time or their whole lives not understanding "English irony". It just seems like bog-standard "they're not really one of us" racism. but even the mural thing back in 2012, where an artist painted this mural and posted a photo saying that it was  going to be painted over by the council:
(https://static.timesofisrael.com/blogs/uploads/2020/10/mural2-1024x640.jpg)
And Corbyn commented: "Why? You are in good company. Rockerfeller [sic] destroyed Diego Viera's [sic] mural because it includes a picture of Lenin." Either he just cannot recognise an obviously anti-semitic piece of art in front of him (it made me think of the Father Ted Nazi priest episode), or he agrees with his content. Neither option is great for a leader of the opposition.

QuoteWell, does Ben Shapiro accept Alex Jones interpretation of Sandy Hook because they both appear on Rogan? No, that would be a foolish thing to say. I dont think we should so willingly accept that if you share a platform with someone you share their views, that's always struck me as the thin end of the "cancel culture" wedge. If I had been accused of anti-semitism, or whatever bigotry, I would be extremely careful about who I appeared with speaking publicly. That being said you are sort of waving your hands about a bit again with the he's an anti semite thing.

But those aren't quite the same. If Ben Shapiro agreed to do a panel event with Alex Jones, then I'd have issues with that. It is the thin end of cancel culture - but the example I was thinking (I've forgotten the guys name) is someone who has written extensively on why the Holocaust is a hoax. He is also very pro-Palestinian, most pro-Palestinian activists and groups in the UK want nothing to do with him, but Corbyn would still do events with him.  You know I think if we had a Monday Club style Tory MP who kept on doing events with a Holocaust denier, or making comments about a group born in the UK not getting "English irony" we'd all know what to think of that MP. I don't really see the difference with Corbyn.

If you're an MP (especially if you're later leader of the opposition) I think you have to be careful who you host at events or share a stage with because you're not just a rando Twitter egg anymore :lol:

It's always a delight to read your posts Shielbh , thorough and thought provoking. It makes me feel a little bit self conscious about my own penchant for writing  irreverent telegrams.

The painting is obviously tedious and anti semitic I agree, poor judgement of Corbyn to defend it, or compare it to Rivieras work. Let the artist paint and draw whatever they please but if it's public art, then let the local council cover over hateful garbage.

Part of my questioning these accusations against Corbyn is bassed on my sympathy, in broad terms for his policy agenda. I am always sympathetic to an actual alternative to the neo liberal status quo, a return to the trente gloriueses, although I understand it's unlikely. Corbyn , from the outset seemed to be on the receiving end of an artillery barrage of negative press, absolutely hated in exquisite detail by all who commentated. He certainly had many shortcomings and seemed perpetually out of his depth on the national stage, but I feel bound to at least ask some rudimentary questions before accepting a truly alarming accusation as a truth.

Quote from: fromtia on November 18, 2020, 01:51:00 PM
It's always a delight to read your posts Shielbh , thorough and thought provoking. It makes me feel a little bit self conscious about my own penchant for writing  irreverent telegrams.

The painting is obviously tedious and anti semitic I agree, poor judgement of Corbyn to defend it, or compare it to Rivieras work. Let the artist paint and draw whatever they please but if it's public art, then let the local council cover over hateful garbage.

Part of my questioning these accusations against Corbyn is bassed on my sympathy, in broad terms for his policy agenda. I am always sympathetic to an actual alternative to the neo liberal status quo, a return to the trente gloriueses, although I understand it's unlikely. Corbyn , from the outset seemed to be on the receiving end of an artillery barrage of negative press, absolutely hated in exquisite detail by all who commentated. He certainly had many shortcomings and seemed perpetually out of his depth on the national stage, but I feel bound to at least ask some rudimentary questions before accepting a truly alarming accusation as a truth.

:blush: That's very kind.

To be honest I was always disappointed it was Corbyn because he is to me the most lightweight of the Labour left. I can't think of a single domestic policy issue he's ever focused on in his 30 year career - he was always the "foreign minister of the left" so while John McDonnell was thinking about how to change the UK economic system and Diane Abbott was thinking about policing issues, Corbyn was going to Cuba Solidarity Campaign events. I think there was something to the "magic grandpa" criticism that he was basically like a nice-ish, probably well-meaning, left-wing vicar and his supporters were particularly engaged by him/his personality and judged people based on their proximity to him. They were fans - a bit like Trump has fans.

I think John McDonnell or Diane Abbott are far more interesting, policy-focused and would have been far better leaders and advanced the left more. I'm not sure where the good ideas on the Labour left will come from - I still have hopes for Angela Rayner. So much of the UK left is just insanely nostalgic and conservative for some imagined post-war idyll. I blame Tony Benn - people talk about the influence WW2 has on UK politics and I think it's nowhere bigger than on the left: big, centralised public services run by a powerful ministry in London and Benn's obsession a sort of planning that is basically just the war economy. It just doesn't seem to engage with the world we live in. The US and European left seem far more engaged and coming up with far more interesting ideas.

And I think people will look back on Corbyn's leadership and the big issues will be anti-semitism, vacillating on Brexit and failing to win two elections leading to Boris Johnson, Prime Minister :bleeding: :x

Are those dudes in the mural well known historical Jews or generic Jewish bankers?

Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 18, 2020, 02:19:12 PM
Are those dudes in the mural well known historical Jews or generic Jewish bankers?

They are clearly the Jewish Monopoly Club of Stoke Newington having a final showdown on a Sunday night. Also controlling the world .

Quote from: fromtia on November 18, 2020, 02:21:14 PM
They are clearly the Jewish Monopoly Club of Stoke Newington having a final showdown on a Sunday night. Also controlling the world .

Well they should find a different table to play on!  :mad:

Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 18, 2020, 02:22:43 PM

Quote from: fromtia on November 18, 2020, 02:21:14 PM
They are clearly the Jewish Monopoly Club of Stoke Newington having a final showdown on a Sunday night. Also controlling the world .

Well they should find a different table to play on!  :mad:

Who are the bald people do you think? Is it like in The Matrix?

Quote from: Sheilbh on November 18, 2020, 02:19:00 PM

:blush: That's very kind.

To be honest I was always disappointed it was Corbyn because he is to me the most lightweight of the Labour left. I can't think of a single domestic policy issue he's ever focused on in his 30 year career - he was always the "foreign minister of the left" so while John McDonnell was thinking about how to change the UK economic system and Diane Abbott was thinking about policing issues, Corbyn was going to Cuba Solidarity Campaign events. I think there was something to the "magic grandpa" criticism that he was basically like a nice-ish, probably well-meaning, left-wing vicar and his supporters were particularly engaged by him/his personality and judged people based on their proximity to him. They were fans - a bit like Trump has fans.

I think John McDonnell or Diane Abbott are far more interesting, policy-focused and would have been far better leaders and advanced the left more. I'm not sure where the good ideas on the Labour left will come from - I still have hopes for Angela Rayner. So much of the UK left is just insanely nostalgic and conservative for some imagined post-war idyll. I blame Tony Benn - people talk about the influence WW2 has on UK politics and I think it's nowhere bigger than on the left: big, centralised public services run by a powerful ministry in London and Benn's obsession a sort of planning that is basically just the war economy. It just doesn't seem to engage with the world we live in. The US and European left seem far more engaged and coming up with far more interesting ideas.

And I think people will look back on Corbyn's leadership and the big issues will be anti-semitism, vacillating on Brexit and failing to win two elections leading to Boris Johnson, Prime Minister :bleeding: :x

Yeah I think that's a fair assesment of Corbyn. Part of his appeal for me, beyond policy was the kindly geography teacher from sixth form college in 1985 vibe that he had. Not polished or groomed or prepared at all, especially not early on. That appeals to people like me , but it doesn't play well outside of that audience and is quite the liability in a national election. The British electorate still wants a "Strong man" type, a Head Boy, a Soccer Captain who won't flinch when it's time to press the button. I think that one of the lessons of Corbyn ought to be that if you want to advance a left wing policy agenda you best bet is to do it in a technocratic and managerial way, polished and free of the trappings of Islington, Lentils or Angry Protests about events in distant places.

More sort of an Andrew Yang approach than a Bernie Sanders one to make a clumsy comparison.

I've come to enjoy watching Peter Hitchens do as sort of super-curmudgeon routine, I was obviously a fan of his brother for decades. I want to paraphrase one of his rants from Question Time* where he says something like "It's not absurd to expect the leader of Britains socialist party to be a socialist".

* He's a delight to watch a perfect living synthesis of the Hannibal Buress "Why are you booing?"/Rick Sanchez "I've seen what makes you cheer" memes.

Quote from: Sheilbh on November 18, 2020, 09:24:47 AMAnd Spain gives a useful example of how this wouldn't be any better if there was just a hard left and a centre left party - because PSOE and Podemos have loads of factional infighting too :lol: :weep: :bleeding:

Brits getting flabbergasted at the infighting within the Spanish left, a fine tradition since May 1937  :P  :(

So Labour just had elections to the National Executive Committee - I think it's a bit like the US Senate, so regularly refreshed rather than all up at once. But the election was a bit of a wash. The hard left won a few seats (I want to say 4 seats), the centre left won a little bit more (I think just 5). The big losers were the soft left who didn't do very well at all - but they had multiple "lists" going which didn't help.

But they've just had their first meeting which was meant to be the AGM followed by an away day on Zoom. The left are very angry about Corbyn not getting the whip back and also tried to move to get the Fire Brigades Union rep elected as chair (the leadership has been lobbying for Margaret Beckett instead). They then staged a "digital walkout" which was clearly pre-planned - apparently by Laura Pidcock (former MP) and Howard Beckett (FBU rep). Being a Zoom walkout, Beckett gave an angry speech denouncing everything and then apparently spent about a minute trying to leave the meeting :lol:

Apparently Beckett called the leadership "a disgrace" and Pidcock said it was a "disgraceful way to treat new members of the NEC". They've since sent a WhatsApp letter to the Labour General Secretary accusing Starmer of "promoting factional division within Labour" and mentioned "the Leaders decision to again promote factionalism". They add that they walked out "to show very clearly how factional the decisions of the current Labour Leader have become. We will be returning to future NEC meetings to be the legitimate voice of the membership and to continue to demand that the party unite and reject the current factional approach of the leader."

Mish Rahman who was on the hard left's slate has put their side of it:

QuoteSee new Tweets
Conversation
Mish Rahman
@mish_rahman
Yet again Starmer is trying to play games with democracy and undermine the role of trade unions within our Party. This latest factional attack on the FBU fits a worrying pattern of control-freakery reminiscent of the New Labour years.
There can be no Party unity until Starmer fully understands the need to work with the labour movement and the many tens of thousands of grassroots members who can help deliver a Labour Government.
Our walkout from the NEC today was to remind him of this, and to send a message that we will not put up with petty and repeated attacks on trade unions and members.

I'd just note it seems weird to make repeated accusations of factionalism after your faction stages a walkout - and all NEC members are elected in the same sort of way so they're all legitimate voices of the membership (and in the latest election the centre left candidate came first)....

The hard left in the 80s was very good at this sort of in-fighting because they never left meetings and they knew the rules. This seems a particularly futile stunt because the NEC meeting was still quorate after the walkout so they just proceeded to elect Margaret Beckett as chair and carry on with the AGM as normal just with no representatives from the hard left (an additional nuance is that the hard-left faction couldn't beat Margaret Beckett in 2017 so they changed the rules to elect a chair, they've now reverted back to 2017 and they are referring to "long-standing precedent") :lol:

It just feels really basic that you never walk-out if the meeting can carry on without you and they can still make decisions :blink:

All in all it feels very:
(https://www.leftfutures.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/The-Wilderness-Years-e1350132988490.jpg)
:(

Johnson and the Tory party are very lucky when it comes to opponents.

Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on November 24, 2020, 07:58:07 AM
Johnson and the Tory party are very lucky when it comes to opponents.

Yes. Sadly it is the custom of the Labour Party after a period in government to spend the next decade or more figthing internal factional battles (often about just how bad the last Labour government was) :bleeding:

Although Johnson is the first PM I can think of since Major who is routinely criticised for basically agreeing with whoever he spoke to last. There's Tory chuntering about this that Johnson just changes his mind constantly and is very influenced by whoever he spoke to last. Of course this is what happens when you choose a protean shapeshifter with no fixed ideology or values as your leader (I think this is why he needed Cummings so much - if you've got no idea what to do with power, hire someone who does have an idea).

There's now legal action to force the publication of letters or emails between Starmer and Corbyn. Apparently Corbyn's team think it will prove there was a deal around his suspension which Starmer has broken. I don't fully understand why they can't just publish them if that's what they want to do.

Edit: To change "no" to "now". Quite important apparently :lol: :blush:

Separately I love this poll question of Labour Party members:
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EnxT0jaXMAA3WcR?format=jpg&name=small)

Have to love a group whose ranking of recent Labour leaders is:
1 - Brown
2 - Miliband
3 - Starmer
4 - Corbyn
5 - Blair

:lol: :hmm:

Not fully sure they're desperate enough for power yet.