Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => Politics & Current Affairs => Topic started by: Rhiannon on August 13, 2018, 09:45:19 PM
-
Terrible mis-step or fake news?
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/aug/13/jeremy-corbyn-not-involved-munich-olympics-massacre-wreath-laying
-
Given it's now effectively admitted...
-
So does it matter?
-
Not sure whether it will be the thing that will bring an end to Corbyn, in fact I doubt that. But I think that it means the end will happen before the next election.
-
I don't think the Labour party have got a cat's chance in hell of winning an election until they give Corbyn the heave ho.
-
It's all right-wing dirt-digging and lies. JC for PM!
-
It's all right-wing dirt-digging and lies. JC for PM!
Please tell me that's you being ironic.
-
I don't think the Labour party have got a cat's chance in hell of winning an election until they give Corbyn the heave ho.
I don't think you've got a cat in hell's chance of making a coherent political statement, but that's just my opinion.
Boris - Burka (proven comments), The press: oh ain't he funny. It's just his way. Look at the cute way he tousles his own hair. He even made us a cup of tea. Let's see how far we can get our tongues up his arse.
Corbyn (anti-Semite, but not proven and given the stance he has taken on anti-Semitism over the years, a lie) The press: A threat to the very fabric of British society. Give me a fucking break.
NB This is not from my pov a gesture of support for Corbyn who I have reservations about for completely different reasons. Just an observation of the complete an utter bollocks some people will not only swallow, but enjoy chewing on the way down to their prejudiced gullets.
-
Please tell me that's you being ironic.
No, it bloody well isn't. I think JC is great.
-
No, it bloody well isn't. I think JC is great.
Peas in a pod. ;D
-
No, it bloody well isn't. I think JC is great.
So you are looking forward to him meeting with representatives from Britain First then.
-
One of my girls thought Corbyn was wonderful, but as had a bit of a rethink.
-
One of my girls thought Corbyn was wonderful, but as had a bit of a rethink.
I'd like him to be wonderful. Shame that he's actually a con-man.
-
It's all right-wing dirt-digging and lies. JC for PM!
Except he's admitted that in this case it isn't. It was his own words in the Morning Star that meant it isn't lies.
-
I'd like him to be wonderful. Shame that he's actually a con-man.
I think that overestimates him.
-
Sadly, whether Corbyn is a good man, a good Labour member, or even a good leader is no longer relevent. Elements of his own parliamentary party, combined with the main stream right wing media, have done an excellent job in blackening his name, making him toxic. A party leader's job, especially in opposition, is to unite that party behind him or her, making them a credible alternative leader in parliament. Corbyn seems incapable of this at a time when the Westminster parliament needs a strong, united main opposition party. Labour should be streets ahead of a hopelessly divided, self-obsessed Tory party in every opinion poll - but they are not - not by a long chalk. This must be put down to that party's leadership, and ultimately, Corbyn. At heart, I believe he is a decent man, but simply not the man to lead a party in crisis.
-
Mostly I agree with that, Jim, but I think he's also drinking the Kool-Aid supplied by his supporters. McDonnell when asked about comments that he made regarding the IRA apologised unreservedly. If Corbyn had the nous, he would have immediately appeared on TV saying that he was laying the wreath to his knowledge for those killed in Tunis, and had not been aware of the connection to the Munich killings, and apologised for not finding out about it at the time, and condemned what happened in Munich.
Instead we had the immediate claim from followers that it was fake news, which then was shown to be incorrect by Corbyn's own report, and even after that became clear his 'apology ' is weak and ambivalent, managing to portray himself as both naive and perhaps still not fully honest.
None of that means that I don't find the behaviour of some in his party in their attacks on him as deeply unpleadant, but there are also plenty of decent party members who see him as problematic in the extreme.
-
It's his approach to Brexit that has baffled me. Well, he is pro-Brexit, so he has carried May's bags for her. But I don't see another leader on the horizon, who?
-
It's his approach to Brexit that has baffled me. Well, he is pro-Brexit, so he has carried May's bags for her. But I don't see another leader on the horizon, who?
Too many in the Labour Party thinking of some new centrist party and conniving in the dining rooms of their posh London houses for anyone to be doing leadership.
-
Yes, he should clear up the confusion over wreaths for Black September, saying 'I was present', is meaningless.
-
Yes, he should clear up the confusion over wreaths for Black September, saying 'I was present', is meaningless.
And 'I think' isn't helpful either.
-
I'd like him to be wonderful. Shame that he's actually a con-man.
There is something about him which doesn't ring true.
-
There is something about him which doesn't ring true.
And....Theresa May, Tony Blair, Margaret Thatcher. If you waited for a leader of a political party to ring true you'll be cold in your grave.
-
Dear severely muddled,
What is the big fuss, the man simply see's the future!
Corbyn is not anti Semitic, and he is not a communist, is he a socialist? well explain to me what a socialist is.
The future, what are the facts?
1. Brexit, Corbyn is pro brexit and he would make a better negotiator over brexit than the Tory I don't give a fuck about Britain party.
2. Internet, our kids can't all be computer wizards, there needs to be real jobs out there.
3. Capitalism is a busted flush, it simply does not work, the Tory ideology of small government is history, we need to take all the basics of life back under government control, and we, the have's need to pay for it until future times when the have not's can also help pay their way.
4. The wealth of the world cannot simply be in the hands of a small percentage of the worlds population, they need to be taxed properly, taxation needs to be open and transparent.
5. Robots, they are here and they are taking our jobs, this is fact not fiction.
Commonsense and compassion must be the new words in politics and Corbyn has this in abundance, we can't simply going on taking we must start to give back, and this is not charity it is commonsense, if you have our kids future at heart then get behind Corbyn or people like him who see the future.
Gonnagle.
-
And....Theresa May, Tony Blair, Margaret Thatcher. If you waited for a leader of a political party to ring true you'll be cold in your grave.
I buy May much more than I buy Corbyn, even though I don't agree with her over Brexit.
-
And 'I think' isn't helpful either.
I thought he was being honest, probably not advisable.
-
I thought he was being honest, probably not advisable.
'I think' sounds evasive given the Morning Start article etc.
-
I say I think all the time, because my memory has gone. I can't remember what I did yesterday. But a politician can't admit that, far too human, and too old. But he needs to clarify it, if he can, and as NS said, state that he does not support Black September.
-
Interesting couple of threads on Twitter
https://mobile.twitter.com/YairWallach/status/1029036661458591745
-
I buy May much more than I buy Corbyn, even though I don't agree with her over Brexit.
Then to rearrange a previous moniker - fool.
-
I buy May much more than I buy Corbyn, even though I don't agree with her over Brexit.
No, they are both as scary as shit, just for different reasons.
-
I buy May much more than I buy Corbyn, even though I don't agree with her over Brexit.
What about her racist policy as Home Secretary?
-
So you are looking forward to him meeting with representatives from Britain First then.
Jaw-jaw is better than war-war. We eventually had to talk to the IRA.
-
I'm somewhat at a loss to explain why so few people are discussing the fact that the photographs of JC laying a wreath supposedly at the graves of the Black September terrorists who perpetrated the Munich massacre were taken in Tunis when said BS members are buried at the Sidi Munaidess cemetery in Tripoli, 320 miles away in another country.
Given that he's also been slated for attending the wedding of a Holocaust denier a full four years before the Holocaust-denying comments were made, perhaps he can bend the fabric of space-time as well as travel in time.
-
Jaw-jaw is better than war-war. We eventually had to talk to the IRA.
Indeed. Thatcher's stated official policy of not talking to terrorists kept the IRA atrocities going throughout the 1980s. We all remember the names, I'm sure. Though the biggest hypocrite in British politics for other reasons, it was under John Major that we finally had to get around the table and start talking. Hence the GFA, and the peace which has held - shakily at times, true - ever since.
Unfortunately if you're committed to peace at times you're going to have to hold your nose and talk to some deeply unsavoury characters.
-
I'm somewhat at a loss to explain why so few people are discussing the fact that the photographs of JC laying a wreath supposedly at the graves of the Black September terrorists who perpetrated the Munich massacre were taken in Tunis when said BS members are buried at the Sidi Munaidess cemetery in Tripoli, 320 miles away in another country.
Given that he's also been slated for attending the wedding of a Holocaust denier a full four years before the Holocaust-denying comments were made, perhaps he can bend the fabric of space-time as well as travel in time.
And the graves of the supposed leaders of Black September are buried in the graveyard he was in, and were who he was referring to in the Morning Star.
-
Supposed leaders?
-
Supposed leaders?
Those who are regarded as the leaders. Now if Corbyn were to argue they weren't your point might have some worth, since he has accepted it, it doesn't.
-
And the graves of the supposed leaders of Black September are buried in the graveyard he was in, and were who he was referring to in the Morning Star.
Their graves are buried in the graveyard?!
-
Their graves are buried in the graveyard?!
Mea culpa, I apologize unreservedly for the grammatical solecism. Pity Corbyn can't do that for his part in this.
-
Those who are regarded as the leaders. Now if Corbyn were to argue they weren't your point might have some worth, since he has accepted it, it doesn't.
So he has accepted that they were/are regarded as the leaders (by somebody or other) rather than that they actually were the leaders?
Thin gruel, isn't it? I'm not getting that hold-the-front-page feeling so far, tbh. X being thought of as Y, and X actually being Y being two different things, I mean.
-
So he has accepted that they were/are regarded as the leaders (by somebody or other) rather than that they actually were the leaders?
Thin gruel, isn't it? I'm not getting that hold-the-front-page feeling so far, tbh.
No, he hasn't challenged it all. And given that's the narrative he accepts it.
-
No, he hasn't challenged it all. And given that's the narrative he accepts it.
I feel the dead hand of a form of the NPF hovering over this. He hasn't challenged what? That these men were/are thought of as leaders by whoever, or that they actually were the leaders?
-
I feel the dead hand of a form of the NPF hovering over this. He hasn't challenged what?
That he was at a wreath laying, where wreaths were laid to the organisers of the Munich terrorist atrocity.
-
That he was at a wreath laying, where wreaths were laid to the organisers of the Munich terrorist atrocity.
He has said that his presence in Tunis had nothing to do with that. Is that a challenge?
-
He has said that his presence in Tunis had nothing to do with that. Is that a challenge?
He's said he thinks he wasn't involved. And it isn't a challenge to those having wreaths placed in their graves as being organisers of the Munich terrorist atrocity. And given he mentioned that as part of the Morning Star comment it shows he's either lying, didn't really understand what he was saying then, or didn't care enough about what was happening to find out.
-
There is something about him which doesn't ring true.
And can you imagine him dealing even half competently with diplomatic situations around the world. Yuck!
-
And can you imagine him dealing even half competently with diplomatic situations around the world. Yuck!
Pity our current PM is a lying incompetent racist though.
-
What about her racist policy as Home Secretary?
Name me a politician who has not made a mistake or three, but they are all human beings. I get the impression sometimes (here and elsewhere) that people imagine there will one day be a perfect PM who has never made mistakes. If there were such a paragon of virtue, he/she would be useless as a PM since he/she would not understand what it was to make mistakes. The most important thing is to learn from them, and at the moment we have a PM who is doing the best she can. Name me one person who could step in and do better, not only with Brexit but on the world stage.
I can hear the gasps of horror already!!,
-
Name me a politician who has not made a mistake or three, but they are all human beings. I get the impression sometimes (here and elsewhere) that people imagine there will one day be a perfect PM who has never made mistakes. If there were such a paragon of virtue, he/she would be useless as a PM since he/she would not understand what it was to make mistakes. The most important thing is to learn from them, and at the moment we have a PM who is doing the best she can. Name me one person who could step in and do better, not only with Brexit but on the world stage.
I can hear the gasps of horror already!!,
Which just makes you a hypocrite as regards Cotbyn. And I don't think being racist and lying is a mistake. May is a disaster. As to who could do better, anyone who isn't a racist lying incompetent.
-
Which just makes you a hypocrite as regards Cotbyn. And I don't think being racist and lying is a mistake. May is a disaster. As to who could do better, anyone who isn't a racist lying incompetent.
Okay, name one.
-
Okay, name one.
I note you avoided your hypocrisy as regards Corbyn. Better than May? In her own party, Dominic Grieve - He isn't a lying racist incompetent. In Labour Yvette Cooper. In the Lib Dems - Vince is way better than the lying racist incompetent, and I don't think that highly of him. In the Bats Philippe Whitford, in the Greens Caroline Lucas.
-
I note you avoided your hypocrisy as regards Corbyn.
In analytical terms, it might have been classified as hypocritical, but one of the reasons I tend very much to avoid political topics is that I am not interested in all such accusations.
Better than May? In her own party, Dominic Grieve - He isn't a lying racist incompetent. In Labour Yvette Cooper. In the Lib Dems - Vince is way better than the lying racist incompetent, and I don't think that highly of him. In the Bats Philippe Whitford, in the Greens Caroline Lucas.
You are probably right about the first three, but Caroline Lucas? No way. [/quote]
I shall now read only here!
-
In analytical terms, it might have been classified as hypocritical, but one of the reasons I tend very much to avoid political topics is that I am not interested in all such accusations.You are probably right about the first three, but Caroline Lucas? No way.
I shall now read only here!
I don't think it makes any difference what the topic is about, nor do I even know why you think putting the word 'analytical' in front of terms does here. It reads like you are saying if one analyses it, then yes, you are a hypocrite.
And since Caroline Lucas isn't a racist liar, then yes she is way better than May.
-
And can you imagine him dealing even half competently with diplomatic situations around the world. Yuck!
I think Corbyn might be good at person to person stuff, whereas May is stiff and robotic. Of course, their ideas are pretty different. Brexit has shown how poor the Tories are at this kind of thing, Davis seemed ignorant and out of his depth, Raab ditto, so Barnier looked rather pityingly at them. Johnson is a klutz. I agree that Grieve seems intelligent and reasonable.
-
I think Corbyn might be good at person to person stuff, whereas May is stiff and robotic. Of course, their ideas are pretty different. Brexit has shown how poor the Tories are at this kind of thing, Davis seemed ignorant and out of his depth, Raab ditto, so Barnier looked rather pityingly at them. Johnson is a klutz. I agree that Grieve seems intelligent and reasonable.
Johnson isn't a klutz. It's a carefully planned persona to allow him to appeal as some sort of buffoon everyman which is exactly what he isn't.
-
Name me a politician who has not made a mistake or three, but they are all human beings. I get the impression sometimes (here and elsewhere) that people imagine there will one day be a perfect PM who has never made mistakes. If there were such a paragon of virtue, he/she would be useless as a PM since he/she would not understand what it was to make mistakes. The most important thing is to learn from them, and at the moment we have a PM who is doing the best she can. Name me one person who could step in and do better, not only with Brexit but on the world stage.
I can hear the gasps of horror already!!,
Oh, puhleeze! May is both an utter incompetent and a heartless bitch, not merely abasically good person who's made afewregrettable mistakes. Jeremy Corbyn, by contrast, has a long record of fighting against injustice and for the underdog, and would be a great labour PM, even if he has made a few silly statements. He's not even all that left, on the long view: no more so than Wilson or Attlee. Politics generally has moved so far to the right since Thatcher's [spits] day that even Wilson would seem like a left-wing firebrand today.
-
Oh, puhleeze! May is both an utter incompetent and a heartless bitch, not merely abasically good person who's made afewregrettable mistakes. Jeremy Corbyn, by contrast, has a long record of fighting against injustice and for the underdog, and would be a great labour PM, even if he has made a few silly statements. He's not even all that left, on the long view: no more so than Wilson or Attlee. Politics generally has moved so far to the right since Thatcher's [spits] day that even Wilson would seem like a left-wing firebrand today.
I cautiously agree with you tho' wonder if JC might be out of his depth as PM, he doesn't appear to know how to handle situations like the antisemitic accusations, & agree with Gonners post on page 1.
Link to Morning Star article:- https://morningstaronline.co.uk/article/labour-rejects-mail-allegations-corbyn-laid-wreath-terrorists-grave
-
Dear severely muddled,
What is the big fuss, the man simply see's the future!
Corbyn is not anti Semitic, and he is not a communist, is he a socialist? well explain to me what a socialist is.
The future, what are the facts?
1. Brexit, Corbyn is pro brexit and he would make a better negotiator over brexit than the Tory I don't give a fuck about Britain party.
2. Internet, our kids can't all be computer wizards, there needs to be real jobs out there.
3. Capitalism is a busted flush, it simply does not work, the Tory ideology of small government is history, we need to take all the basics of life back under government control, and we, the have's need to pay for it until future times when the have not's can also help pay their way.
4. The wealth of the world cannot simply be in the hands of a small percentage of the worlds population, they need to be taxed properly, taxation needs to be open and transparent.
5. Robots, they are here and they are taking our jobs, this is fact not fiction.
Commonsense and compassion must be the new words in politics and Corbyn has this in abundance, we can't simply going on taking we must start to give back, and this is not charity it is commonsense, if you have our kids future at heart then get behind Corbyn or people like him who see the future.
Gonnagle.
So when he said he was anti Brexit he was lying?
-
So when he said he was anti Brexit he was lying?
I didn't know he had stated as much so explicitly. (Admittedly, I don't follow these things in wearisome detail, so I may well have missed it). The one well-known comment he made which I can recall is that on balance he was 70% in favour of staying in the EU provided it underwent/undergoes thoroughgoing top-to-bottom reform.
The use of the word lying also precludes the possibility that someone can change their mind and support something they earlier opposed and vice versa.
-
I didn't know he had stated as much so explicitly. (Admittedly, I don't follow these things in wearisome detail, so I may well have missed it). The one well-known comment he made which I can recall is that on balance he was 70% in favour of staying in the EU provided it underwent/undergoes thoroughgoing top-to-bottom reform.
The use of the word lying also precludes the possibility that someone can change their mind and support something they earlier opposed and vice versa.
And he campaigned however lukewarm for Remain. And yes, he could change his mind, has he said that he did?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36430606
-
Been watching Corbyn's interview with Channel 4, and whatever other doubts, he is very clear condemning the Munich terrorist atrocity, so good for him
-
Quite funny to see the Daily Mail attempting to show the geography of the cemetery in Tunis, and the various graves of Palestinians. Apparently, there was a red canopy which ran alongside Black September graves, and Corbyn was definitely nearby. This all seems a bit, "you were in the same room as alleged terrorist X".
Ironically, Netanyahu has probably helped Corbyn by attacking him, since Israel has killed thousands of Palestinians in recent years. Who mourns them?
-
Yep, Netanyahu's attacks allows people to ignore Corbyn because Netanyahu is an evil dick.
-
Withering sarcasm can be heavy-handed, but can also be done well: https://tinyurl.com/y98xu8b9
-
Seems to me that many here are just wanting that little something to steady their hands as they put that cross next to Conservative at the next ballot.
Last time it was how Milibands father who was Jewish 'hated' the UK and when that was shown to be guff you were relieved when it was revealed how weird Miliband looked when he ate a Bacon sandwich.
-
Seems to me that many here are just wanting that little something to steady their hands as they put that cross next to Conservative at the next ballot.
Last time it was how Milibands father who was Jewish 'hated' the UK and when that was shown to be guff you were relieved when it was revealed how weird Miliband looked when he ate a Bacon sandwich.
Who are these 'many'?
-
Who are these 'many'?
I speak of those who in the face of the most incompetent, cruel and cynical government ever, still find great comfort in blaming and faultfinding the labour party and it's leader and as we have talked about that includes labour MP's.
-
I speak of those who in the face of the most incompetent, cruel and cynical government ever, still find great comfort in blaming and faultfinding the labour party and it's leader and as we have talked about that includes labour MP's.
But surely given that as you note this Labour MPs, and we have a party that is in some bizarre internal battle, any one else finding fault with the Labour Party is entirely reasonable.
-
But surely given that as you note this Labour MPs, and we have a party that is in some bizarre internal battle, any one else finding fault with the Labour Party is entirely reasonable.
Yes, but only fault finding labour smacks of excusing the tories and the SNP.
''All politicians are as bad'' just usually means ''I'LL BE STICKING WITH THE TORIES''.
And, ''I'm not voting'' is shorthand for ''I'd rather not vote than vote Labour''.
People are stuck in the political cycle Each Government has an average of 15 years at a time when it will result in them having to relearn all those recipes involving squirrels, rabbits and dormice.
-
Yes, but only fault finding labour smacks of excusing the tories and the SNP.
''All politicians are as bad'' just usually means ''I'LL BE STICKING WITH THE TORIES''.
And, ''I'm not voting'' is shorthand for ''I'd rather not vote than vote Labour''.
People are stuck in the political cycle Each Government has an average of 15 years at a time when it will result in them having to relearn all those recipes involving squirrels, rabbits and dormice.
This seems to be a reply to some other post.
-
Labour's continued struggle against itself.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/27/opinion/jeremy-corbyn-anti-semitism-labour-britain.html
-
Labour's continued struggle against itself.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/27/opinion/jeremy-corbyn-anti-semitism-labour-britain.html
And yet he remains in his job and I don't see that changing.
-
And yet he remains in his job and I don't see that changing.
Why should it, though? There was a leadership election and he won by a landslide (59.5%). There was a second one not long after and he picked up an even greater majority (61.8%). Labour membership has never been higher*; if my entirely anecdotal experience on Twitter is anything to go by, membership is climbing because people are seeing through the anti-Semitism smears as the politically-orchestrated campaign to get rid of him that it is.
* 552,000 as of January this year, the most recent figures I could find. The Tories stand at 124,000. Lib Dems probably about 12, I imagine.
-
If there was an obvious alternative, there would be an alternative. But who?
-
If there was an obvious alternative, there would be an alternative. But who?
In a sense, the who is not the issue here. The labour Party is currently in a battle, which allows the chaotic govt to not be opposed properly, about what is it for.
-
Why should it, though? There was a leadership election and he won by a landslide (59.5%). There was a second one not long after and he picked up an even greater majority (61.8%). Labour membership has never been higher*; if my entirely anecdotal experience on Twitter is anything to go by, membership is climbing because people are seeing through the anti-Semitism smears as the politically-orchestrated campaign to get rid of him that it is.
* 552,000 as of January this year, the most recent figures I could find. The Tories stand at 124,000. Lib Dems probably about 12, I imagine.
Or people want to think he isn't really antisemitic and it's all just a cunning plot because he's lovely Jeremy who doesn't eat meat and is very peace loving and makes us all feel lovely.
And Jewish Labour supporters who are withdrawing their support are being told to shut the fuck up because they don't know what they are talking about. It's getting embarrassing.
-
If there was an obvious alternative, there would be an alternative. But who?
There isn't. The people who (a) want him as leader, (b) are able to make him leader and (c) actually did make him leader, twice - the membership - are presumably happy with him and don't want an alternative.
-
Or people want to think he isn't really antisemitic and it's all just a cunning plot because he's lovely Jeremy who doesn't eat meat and is very peace loving and makes us all feel lovely.
And Jewish Labour supporters who are withdrawing their support are being told to shut the fuck up because they don't know what they are talking about. It's getting embarrassing.
That's only the MI-5 fake accounts doing that!
-
In a sense, the who is not the issue here. The labour Party is currently in a battle, which allows the chaotic govt to not be opposed properly, about what is it for.
Well, I think the who is also an issue. The obvious alternative is Starmer, but will he get support? No idea. The left might walk away.
-
Or people want to think he isn't really antisemitic and it's all just a cunning plot because he's lovely Jeremy who doesn't eat meat and is very peace loving and makes us all feel lovely.
And Jewish Labour supporters who are withdrawing their support are being told to shut the fuck up because they don't know what they are talking about. It's getting embarrassing.
Which Jewish Labour supporters?
https://tinyurl.com/y99mynwb ('Rebuttals' section).
There's certainly something embarrassing about it all; though I would put the embarrassment elsewhere.
-
Which Jewish Labour supporters?
https://tinyurl.com/y99mynwb ('Rebuttals' section).
Well my friends aside, what about the chap in NS's article?
I really don't like people wanting to leave this country because of what is happening with our political system, whether they are EU members or Jews. Increasingly Labour looks like it doesn't give a fuck. We expect np difference from the Right, but Labour? Really?
-
I would think that pro-Israel people are voting Tory, aren't they?
-
I would think that pro-Israel people are voting Tory, aren't they?
I think few people give a shit outside of the Jewish population, who - come on - vote left.
-
Well, I think the who is also an issue. The obvious alternative is Starmer, but will he get support? No idea. The left might walk away.
He's not going to get elected by the membership. Shaker and Rhiannon are right in that I don't see any candidate with a chance of winning in the current membership against Corbyn. If there were some reason that he decided to stand down, illness for example, then I would expect McDonnell to win easily were he to stand. That doesn't get away from the fact that the current biggest battle the Labour Party is fighting is with itself,
-
That doesn't get away from the fact that the current biggest battle the Labour Party is fighting is with itself,
In a different area that's been the case since the 1990s, though, when people who belong in the Tory party thought that they should be in the Labour party.
-
In a different area that's been the case since the 1990s, though, when people who belong in the Tory party thought that they should be in the Labour party.
It's always the case to a greater or lessor extent in large parties, and indeed even in minuscule parties but it's allowing a govt in disarray currently to have a free ride.
-
I would think that pro-Israel people are voting Tory, aren't they?
I can only cover this anecdotally but I've noticed a number of Jewish friends in the Labour Party moving almost without thinking to a more pro Israel tone of late because they seem to fear that their previous support for Palestinian rights, is being used in an anti semitic way. Perhaps it's just part of a generalised move to more extreme positions that seems to me to be happening.
-
It's always the case to a greater or lessor extent in large parties, and indeed even in minuscule parties but it's allowing a govt in disarray currently to have a free ride.
Absolutely true - which makes the shit-stirring of Hodge and her cronies all the more unforgivable.
-
Absolutely true - which makes the shit-stirring of Hodge and her cronies all the more unforgivable.
Why single her out?
-
Absolutely true - which makes the shit-stirring of Hodge and her cronies all the more unforgivable.
That, of course, assumes the motivations of everyone who might criticise is then shit stirring. It's a dysfunctional party that doesn't know what it's for, and while that continues, I can see no reason why anyone should vote for it. (that it's not unique in being in that position isn't a big recommendation in my view)
-
Why single her out?
I didn't. I would have singled her out if I'd said "Hodge" and left it at that. What I actually wrote was "Hodge and her cronies" - in other words, those of the same ilk who want their twice-democratically-elected leader out of the job.
-
That, of course, assumes the motivations of everyone who might criticise is then shit stirring.
Which to me seems self-evident. It isn't about 'criticism' any more and hasn't been in a long time.
It's a dysfunctional party that doesn't know what it's for
The manifesto states what it's for. That's the rationale of having a manifesto. It's the Blairites in a democratic socialist party that don't seem to know what they're for.
-
I didn't. I would have singled her out if I'd said "Hodge" and left it at that. What I actually wrote was "Hodge and her cronies" - in other words, those of the same ilk who want their twice-democratically-elected leader out of the job.
Could that not be because on Hodge's part she sees him as antisemitic?
-
Which Jewish Labour supporters?
https://tinyurl.com/y99mynwb ('Rebuttals' section).
There's certainly something embarrassing about it all; though I would put the embarrassment elsewhere.
How many of those rebuttals come post the emergence of this speech?
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/aug/24/jeremy-corbyn-antisemitism-labour-zionists-2013-speech
And In her 2016 report on antisemitism in the Labour party, Shami Chakrabarti wrote: “Crucially, I have heard testimony and heard for myself first hand, the way in which the word ‘Zionist’ has been used personally, abusively, or as a euphemism for ‘Jew’, even in relation to some people with no stated position or even a critical position on the historic formation or development of modern Israel. This has clearly happened so often over a number of years as to raise some alarm bells in Jewish communities.” She concluded: “My advice to critics of the Israeli state and/or government is to use the term ‘Zionist’ advisedly, carefully and never euphemistically or as part of personal abuse.”
-
Could that not be because on Hodge's part she sees him as antisemitic?
What she sees and what is actually the case are at variance. Example: people - in my experience it tends to be older people - experience or merely hear about one example of crime and think that crime is at record levels. Their perception is of sky-high crime even when the evidence shows the opposite. Perception trumps reality.
The alternative scenario is that she and her fellow travellers don't actually believe that Corbyn is personally anti-Semitic but they'll use it as a stick to beat him with anyway in their efforts to unseat him.
-
What she sees and what is actually the case are at variance. Example: people - in my experience it tends to be older people - experience or merely hear about one example of crime and think that crime is at record levels. Their perception is of sky-high crime even when the evidence shows the opposite. Perception trumps reality.
The alternative scenario is that she and her fellow travellers don't actually believe that Corbyn is personally anti-Semitic but they'll use it as a stick to beat him with anyway in their efforts to unseat him.
And yet she is Jewish. If his comments were about black people, and Hodge were black, would it be equally acceptable to dismiss her objections as opportunism?
-
And yet she is Jewish. If his comments were about black people
- which they wouldn't be, so this smacks of whataboutery -
and Hodge were black, would it be equally acceptable to dismiss her objections as opportunism?
It wouldn't change the point about perception of x not necessarily bearing any relationship in reality to x. In modern times accusing someone of being racist is among the worst slurs you can throw against anyone. It can be grounded in fact - i.e. when somebody actually is racist - or it can be a cynical ploy aimed at character assassination, an ad hom.. Opportunism, as you put it.
-
And yet she is Jewish. If his comments were about black people, and Hodge were black, would it be equally acceptable to dismiss her objections as opportunism?
To be fair, there is a large amount of jewsplaining going on on both sides. Michael Rosen has been continually told he's a 'useful Jew' for defending Corbyn.
-
To be fair, there is a large amount of jewsplaining going on on both sides. Michael Rosen has been continually told he's a 'useful Jew' for defending Corbyn.
Indeed;
‘As-a-Jew’, ‘useful Jewish idiot’, ‘barely a Jew’, ‘wrong Jew’, ‘bad Jew’, ‘poodle Jew’...
Quotes from his Twitter feed.
-
- which they wouldn't be, so this smacks of whataboutery -
It wouldn't change the point about perception of x not necessarily bearing any relationship in reality to x. In modern times accusing someone of being racist is among the worst slurs you can throw against anyone. It can be grounded in fact - i.e. when somebody actually is racist - or it can be a cynical ploy aimed at character assassination. Opportunism, as you put it.
You are sure that is what Hodge is doing? I'd have thought that someone Jewish is better placed to understand antisemitism than you or I; clearly you think differently.
-
To be fair, there is a large amount of jewsplaining going on on both sides. Michael Rosen has been continually told he's a 'useful Jew' for defending Corbyn.
I ws quite happy to believe the 'Jeremy isn't antisemitic' line, even though I thought he was maybe a bit naive at times. Then I noticed that more and more Jewish people are disagreeing with that. I knew that my friends are frightened of him, and always have been. but they are old enough to remember the War. That liberal voices are increasingly speaking out is different.
That said, it's a concern anyway that a senior politician has conducted himself in such a manner that people are frightened and want to leave the country.
-
You are sure that is what Hodge is doing?
I'm sure that that's exactly what it looks like, yes.
Thoughtful, considered criticism would have been given a free pass, certainly by me. Calling Corbyn (it has been alleged) an "anti-Semite" and a "fucking racist" doesn't meet my criteria for thoughtful, considered criticism.
Hodge referred to this alleged incident only to dispute/deny that she had used the word "fucking". She didn't want to be thought of as using swears but the rest was fine by her, apparently.
-
I'm sure that that's exactly what it looks like, yes.
Thoughtful, considered criticism would have been given a free pass, certainly by me. Calling Corbyn (it has been alleged) an "anti-Semite" and a "fucking racist" doesn't meet my criteria for thoughtful, considered criticism.
Hodge referred to this alleged incident only to dispute/deny that she had used the word "fucking". She didn't want to be thought of as using swears but the rest was fine by her, apparently.
Could that be because she thinks he is antisemitic?
-
Could that be because she thinks he is antisemitic?
Which you have already said (#93) and I have already responded to (#95; #97).
-
Which you have already said (#93) and I have already responded to (#95; #97).
None of your responses actually address that though, do they?
-
I'm sure that that's exactly what it looks like, yes.
Thoughtful, considered criticism would have been given a free pass, certainly by me. Calling Corbyn (it has been alleged) an "anti-Semite" and a "fucking racist" doesn't meet my criteria for thoughtful, considered criticism.
Hodge referred to this alleged incident only to dispute/deny that she had used the word "fucking". She didn't want to be thought of as using swears but the rest was fine by her, apparently.
Why would calmness be somehow more indicative of the truth of the feeling of the person which your post seems to imply ?
-
Why would calmness be somehow more indicative of the truth of the feeling of the person which your post seems to imply ?
I actually find the evidence from Labour MPs that she was 'furious' and acted in anger more likely to be indicative of genuine feeling on her part.
-
I actually find the evidence from Labour MPs that she was 'furious' and acted in anger more likely to be indicative of genuine feeling on her part.
Because effing and jeffing (or perhaps not; I wouldn't like to give the impression that she uses bad language or anything) in somebody's face is always indicative of a carefully marshalled, thoughtful, evidence-based case.
-
Because effing and jeffing (or perhaps not; I wouldn't like to give the impression that she uses bad language or anything) in somebody's face is always indicative of a carefully marshalled, thoughtful, evidence-based case.
Which she denied. Although I find something very weaselly in the 'miss, she swore at me!' argument. I've seen its use first hand and it is a pathetic one when used by a supposed adult.
You can't have it both ways. Either this is calculated opportunism on her part or genuine but misplaced feeling. Which is it?
-
Because effing and jeffing (or perhaps not; I wouldn't like to give the impression that she uses bad language or anything) in somebody's face is always indicative of a carefully marshalled, thoughtful, evidence-based case.
That's a non sequitur to the point in the post you were replying to.
-
Which she denied.
To my knowledge the only bit she denied was the allegation that she used the F-word.
Although I find something very weaselly in the 'miss, she swore at me!' argument. I've seen its use first hand and it is a pathetic one when used by a supposed adult.
You can't have it both ways. Either this is calculated opportunism on her part or genuine but misplaced feeling. Which is it?
Actually you can have it both ways in this context. It could indeed very well be both in differing proportions.
I have no idea which as I'm not in a position to know; I'm refuting the excluded middle fallacy that says it has to be either this or that. Just because Hodge is Jewish doesn't mean that she has cornered the market on correctly and accurately identifying true anti-Semitism in every case. In fact, it could reasonably be argued that while minority groups of whatever kind - religious/ethic/sexual or whatever - might be more alert to discriminatory actions and language, the discrimination radar might be so hyper-sensitive that it sees bigotry where none exists.
-
None of your responses actually address that though, do they?
As far as I'm concerned they do, yes. That's why I wrote them.
-
To my knowledge the only bit she denied was the allegation that she used the F-word.
Actually you can have it both ways in this context. It could indeed very well be both in differing proportions.
I have no idea which as I'm not in a position to know; I'm refuting the excluded middle fallacy that says it has to be either this or that. Just because Hodge is Jewish doesn't mean that she has cornered the market on correctly and accurately identifying true anti-Semitism in every case. In fact, it could reasonably be argued that while minority groups of whatever kind - religious/ethic/sexual or whatever - might be more alert to discriminatory actions and language, the discrimination radar might be so hyper-sensitive that it sees bigotry where none exists.
So you are saying anyone who is Jewish and is worried can be ignored by you because you are not Jewish? Really?
-
In fact, it could reasonably be argued that while minority groups of whatever kind - religious/ethic/sexual or whatever - might be more alert to discriminatory actions and language, the discrimination radar might be so hyper-sensitive that it sees bigotry where none exists.
In which case she isn't merely an opportunist, is she?
-
That's a non sequitur to the point in the post you were replying to.
Not in my view. Rhiannon thinks - for goodness only knows whatever reason - that reports of Hodge being "furious" somehow makes her feelings more likely to be true and accurate than if she had delivered her criticism in a reasonable manner with what she perceives to be evidence of anti-Semitism carefully marshalled:
I actually find the evidence from Labour MPs that she was 'furious' and acted in anger more likely to be indicative of genuine feeling on her part.
To me this is, frankly, horseshit. It elevates the feelings of the moment over evidence, perception over fact. In response I wrote:
Because effing and jeffing (or perhaps not; I wouldn't like to give the impression that she uses bad language or anything) in somebody's face is always indicative of a carefully marshalled, thoughtful, evidence-based case.
That was sarcasm, not a non sequitur.
-
In which case she isn't merely an opportunist, is she?
I have no idea which as I'm not in a position to know; I'm refuting the excluded middle fallacy that says it has to be either this or that.
Thank goodness for copy and paste.
-
So you are saying anyone who is Jewish and is worried can be ignored by you because you are not Jewish? Really?
No.
Question(s) of my own in return.
Is the perception of discriminatory language always and in every case matched in reality?
Is it possible that people sometimes see discriminatory language where no discrimination exists?
-
Not in my view. Rhiannon thinks - for goodness only knows whatever reason - that reports of Hodge being "furious" somehow makes her feelings more likely to be true and accurate than if she had delivered her criticism in a reasonable manner with what she perceives to be evidence of anti-Semitism carefully marshalled:
To me this is, frankly, horseshit. I wrote:
That was sarcasm, not a non sequitur.
it's a non sequitur because the case being argued wasn't that there was 'a carefully marshalled, thoughtful, evidence-based case.' I didn't say that it wasn't sarcasm just that it was irrelevant sarcasm.
-
No.
Question(s) of my own in return.
Is the perception of discriminatory language always and in every case matched in reality?
Is it possible that people sometimes see discriminatory language where no discrimination exists?
Perfectly possible. But what I wouldn't suggest as any useful indicator as to whether that is correct is to suggest that because someone is of a monority, we look more askance their claim than not, which is what your post suggests.
-
Absolutely true - which makes the shit-stirring of Hodge and her cronies all the more unforgivable.
You seem pretty sure here as to what Hodge's motives are.
Thank goodness for the quote facility.
-
it's a non sequitur because the case being argued wasn't that there was 'a carefully marshalled, thoughtful, evidence-based case.'
Exactly! There wasn't; there was only (allegedly) someone out of control throwing around slurs in the heat of the moment, and yet (allegedly) being furious and calling someone an anti-Semite and a fucking racist is somehow magically indicative of having the truth on your side.
I didn't say that it wasn't sarcasm just that it was irrelevant sarcasm.
I never find it irrelevant, but that's just me.
-
Perfectly possible.
Grand.
In this case too, or only in others?
But what I wouldn't suggest as any useful indicator as to whether that is correct is to suggest that because someone is of a monority, we look more askance their claim than not, which is what your post suggests.
No, that's not what I'm suggesting.
-
Exactly! There wasn't; there was only (allegedly) someone out of control throwing around slurs in the heat of the moment, and yet (allegedly) being furious and calling someone an anti-Semite and a fucking racist is somehow magically indicative of having the truth on your side. I never find it irrelevant, but that's just me.
And no one has said that the truth is magically on their side by swearing. Just some misrepresentation to add to your non sequitur
-
You seem pretty sure here as to what Hodge's motives are.
Thank goodness for the quote facility.
You are sure that is what Hodge is doing?
I'm sure that that's exactly what it looks like, yes.
-
Grand.
In this case too, or only in others?
No, that's not what I'm suggesting.
Isn't it? In what way? When you wrote
'In fact, it could reasonably be argued that while minority groups of whatever kind - religious/ethic/sexual or whatever - might be more alert to discriminatory actions and language, the discrimination radar might be so hyper-sensitive that it sees bigotry where none exists.'
What were you suggesting about how we treat claims of bigotry from minority groups?
-
Exactly! There wasn't; there was only (allegedly) someone out of control throwing around slurs in the heat of the moment, and yet (allegedly) being furious and calling someone an anti-Semite and a fucking racist is somehow magically indicative of having the truth on your side.
Which wasn't what I said.I did not use the term 'truth', I said 'genuine feeling'. Labour MPs have stated that Hodge was furious (are they also making up shit?); unless she is an actress worthy of a BAFTA let's assume she was genuinely angry. That anger may be misplaced, and does not indicate truth (something you just made up) but also it does not indicate your cold, calculated plotting.
Why did you single out Hodge and not those others who are critical of Corbyn?
-
And no one has said that the truth is magically on their side by swearing. Just some misrepresentation to add to your non sequitur
To me it's pretty clearly implied in Rhiannon's #107:
I actually find the evidence from Labour MPs that she was 'furious' and acted in anger more likely to be indicative of genuine feeling on her part.
and it's Jesuitical evasiveness to pretend otherwise.
What I haven't gone into yet is why "genuine feeling" is thought of as the benchmark of anything. Let us suppose the accounts are accurate and Hodge was genuinely (presumably as opposed to only apparently) furious. So what? What does this point to? Does losing her rag add to her views of Corbyn and criticism of his leadership? How does it?
Oh, and it still isn't a non sequitur.
-
Which wasn't what I said.I did not use the term 'truth', I said 'genuine feeling'. Labour MPs have stated that Hodge was furious (are they also making up shit?); unless she is an actress worthy of a BAFTA let's assume she was genuinely angry. That anger may be misplaced, and does not indicate truth (something you just made up) but also it does not indicate your cold, calculated plotting.
It could, of course be any of those. How would I know? I base my opinions on what evidence I can gather.
Why did you single out Hodge and not those others who are critical of Corbyn?
I didn't. I would have singled her out if I'd said "Hodge" and left it at that. What I actually wrote was "Hodge and her cronies" - in other words, those of the same ilk who want their twice-democratically-elected leader out of the job.
-
To me it's pretty clearly implied in Rhiannon's #107:
and it's Jesuitical evasiveness to pretend otherwise.
What I haven't gone into yet is why "genuine feeling" is thought of as the benchmark of anything. Let us suppose the accounts are accurate and Hodge was genuinely (presumably as opposed to only apparently) furious. So what? What does this point to? Does losing her rag add to her views of Corbyn and criticism of his leadership? How does it?
Oh, and it still isn't a non sequitur.
No, she suggested that it is more likely that someone being emotional about something is not dissembling about their motivation. Nothing about magic, nothing about certainty.
No one has claimed it as a benchmark just asked you why it might be useful in determining the truth of someone's opinion. No one said that it adds to whether she is right.
And sarcasm, irony or synecdoche about points not made is a non sequitur.
-
What were you suggesting about how we treat claims of bigotry from minority groups?
That we treat them on the basis of whatever evidence there is and don't place "genuine feeling" (which seems to mean losing your rag) over it.
-
No, she suggested that it is more likely that someone being emotional about something is not dissembling about their motivation. Nothing about magic, nothing about certainty.
No one has claimed it as a benchmark just asked you why it might be useful in determining the truth of someone's opinion.
I don't think it's useful in the slightest. Rhiannon appears to and I think she's utterly wrong to do so.
I wouldn't say it's a salutary trait in an elected representative in a discussion with their leader, would you?
-
I don't think it's useful in the slightest. Rhiannon appears to and I think she's utterly wrong to do so.
That's a wilful misrepresentation of what I said.
-
I don't think it's useful in the slightest. Rhiannon appears to and I think she's utterly wrong to do so.
I don't think Rhiannon has suggested anything about 'usefulness'. Nice combination of misrepresentation and evasion though
-
That's a wilful misrepresentation of what I said.
You might feel that it's misrepresentation but it's not wilful on my part. I'm basing my replies on what's been written. Why did you bring Hodge's "genuine feeling" into it? What does that demonstrate? What does it serve?
-
I don't think Rhiannon has suggested anything about 'usefulness'.
Then why bring Hodge's "genuine feeling" into it?
-
Then why bring Hodge's "genuine feeling" into it?
I think you will find that was up with your stirring up comment.
-
You might feel that it's misrepresentation but it's not wilful on my part. I'm basing my replies on what's been written. Why did you bring Hodge's "genuine feeling" into it? What does that demonstrate? What does it serve?
You think she is merely 'stirring up' I see evidence - not proof - that points to genuine feeling. Do you see? It's a counter-argument to the point that you made. Without much evidence for that, if we are honest.
-
You think she is merely 'stirring up' I see evidence - not proof - that points to genuine feeling. Do you see? It's a counter-argument to the point that you made.
What I don't see is what Hodge's feelings being genuine has to do with anything.
-
What I don't see is what Hodge's feelings being genuine has to do with anything.
Because it negates your view of her as a plotting shit stirrer.
-
Because it negates your view of her as a plotting shit stirrer.
No it doesn't. See #111.
-
No it doesn't. See #111.
Which was a concession that you made only after it had been pointed out to you that her feelings appeared to be genuine. Before that you just described her as a 'stirrer', along with her cronies, with no evidence and no such qualification as to her possible feeling and motivation.
-
Which was a concession that you made only after it had been pointed out to you that her feelings appeared to be genuine.
Genuineness of feeling is irrelevant. I don't treat feelings as a reliable guide to anything.
Before that you just described her as a 'stirrer', along with her cronies, with no evidence and no such qualification as to her possible feeling and motivation.
I believe that the evidence is in her activities these past few weeks to be found in any media platform; that's to say, what's been reported as to her behaviour. I'm not claiming that the reports are accurate, but they're all we have to go on and my conclusions are based on that.
-
Genuineness of feeling is irrelevant. I don't treat feelings as a reliable guide to anything.
I believe that the evidence is in her activities these past few weeks to be found in any media platform; that's to say, what's been reported as to her behaviour. I'm not claiming that the reports are accurate, but they're all we have to go on and my conclusions are based on that.
No, feelings are often absolute bollockry when it comes to judging the accuracy of any situation. That doesn't change though that she may have been genuinely angry rather than coldly and opportunistically plotting.
All I've seen are reports of Hodge being angry, and standing by being angry, and then being told that actually it was all forgotten about.
I'm still interested in why you've focussed on Hodge, and not some others who most definitely are plotting to oust Corbyn.
-
John McDonnell sees genuine anger born of misunderstanding, not plotting and shit stirring.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/margaret-hodge-jeremy-corbyn-antisemtisim-labour-party-john-mdonnell-mp-a8462741.html
-
No, feelings are often absolute bollockry when it comes to judging the accuracy of any situation. That doesn't change though that she may have been genuinely angry rather than coldly and opportunistically plotting.
Being genuinely angry is no indicator much less guarantor that what you're angry about is rationally justified though. Anger is very often - I would say more often than not - an irrational emotion itself. It's possible to be legitimately and rationally angry - at injustice or suffering for example - but the descriptions of Hodge's behaviour suggest someone irrationally out of control engaged in a one-sided slagging contest with in effect their boss.
My perception of cynical opportunistic plotting is based partly on such evidence as to her behaviour as we have but also timing. This was identified by NS pages ago (#86). We have a government in disarray described somewhere or other (I forget) a few days ago as the most shambolic government we've ever known*. There's more than enough to hammer the Tories into the ground on as far as Brisbane, but instead we're seeing one would-be smear and slur after another, one more accusation of Corbyn as an anti-Semite/traitor/terrorist sympathiser dribbling out every few days. These attempts at undermining Corbyn have been matters of public record for years, because they're based on photographs and recordings made years ago. And yet said photos and recordings, floating around in the ether for 3/4/5/6/7/8/9/10 years or more, are all coming along like buses right now, piling up like a multiple car-crash on the motorway. That's sufficient to leave me in no real doubt that it's a deliberate and orchestrated campaign not merely by a largely right-wing-dominated print media but by his ideological opponents in the party that he leads, even though he's true to the historical vision, the aims, goals and principles of the Labour Party and they're not.
I'm still interested in why you've focussed on Hodge, and not some others who most definitely are plotting to oust Corbyn.
I'm not focussed on Hodge in particular to the exclusion of all others, hence why I added: "... and her cronies". She was no more than the first example that sprang to mind while I was writing of the kind of Blairites in the PLP who want nothing more than to see Corbyn gone over the hills and far away.
That she's the only one to my knowledge alleged to have called Corbyn an anti-Semite and a fucking racist to his face isn't incidental, though.
* Not that I set too much store by that; almost any government according to its detractors is the worst one we've ever had until the next one.
-
John McDonnell sees genuine anger born of misunderstanding, not plotting and shit stirring.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/margaret-hodge-jeremy-corbyn-antisemtisim-labour-party-john-mdonnell-mp-a8462741.html
Bless his cotton socks.
Apparently I'm vastly more cynical than John McDonnell.
-
Bless his cotton socks.
Apparently I'm vastly more cynical than John McDonnell.
And which one of the two of you knows Hodge, has spoken to Hodge, and has a personal involvement in the incident, and which one is relying on the internet?
-
Being genuinely angry is no indicator much less guarantor that what you're angry about is rationally justified though. Anger is very often - I would say more often than not - an irrational emotion itself. It's possible to be legitimately and rationally angry - at injustice or suffering for example - but the descriptions of Hodge's behaviour suggest someone irrationally out of control engaged in a one-sided slagging contest with in effect their boss.
My perception of cynical opportunistic plotting is based partly on such evidence as to her behaviour as we have but also timing. This was identified by NS pages ago. We have a government in disarray described somewhere or other (I forget) a few days ago as the most shambolic government we've ever known*. There's more than enough to hammer the Tories into the ground on as far as Brisbane, but instead we're seeing one would-be smear and slur after another, one more accusation of Corbyn as an anti-Semite/traitor/terrorist sympathiser dribbling out every few days. These attempts at undermining Corbyn have been matters of public record for years, because they're based on photographs and recordings made years ago. And yet said photos and recordings, floating around in the ether for 3/4/5/6/7/8/9/10 years or more, are all coming along like buses right now, piling up like a multiple car-crash on the motorway. That's sufficient to leave me in no real doubt that it's a deliberate and orchestrated campaign not merely by a largely right-wing-dominated print media but by his ideological opponents in the party that he leads, even though he's true to the historical vision, the aims, goals and principles of the Labour Party and they're not.
I'm not focussed on Hodge in particular to the exclusion of all others, hence why I added: "... and her cronies". She was no more than the first example that sprang to mind while I was writing of the kind of Blairites in the PLP who want nothing more than to see Corbyn gone over the hills and far away.
That she's the only one to my knowledge alleged to have called Corbyn an anti-Semite and a fucking racist to his face isn't incidental, though.
* Not that I set too much store by that; almost any government according to its detractors is the worst one we've ever had until the next one.
I was going to reply but I got to 'slagging contest with in effect their boss' and gave up for laughing.
-
And which one of the two of you knows Hodge, has spoken to Hodge, and has a personal involvement in the incident, and which one is relying on the internet?
I certainly don't know her and haven't spoken to her, but there's nothing in the article that indicates that McDonnell had any personal involvement in the incident itself - unless you mean after the fact.
Aren't you relying on the internet when you surmise that Hodge's outburst was based on genuine feeling?
-
That we treat them on the basis of whatever evidence there is and don't place "genuine feeling" (which seems to mean losing your rag) over it.
So why would you have argued that their being a minority made the claim in some way questionable? Youseem to be contradicting yourself.
And again no one has said, other than your misrepresentation, that being genuinely angry makes it more likely to be true.
-
So why would you have argued that their being a minority made the claim in some way questionable? Youseem to be contradicting yourself.
No. The questionable bit was on my part - questioning that what is perceived to be bigoted/discriminatory actions or words always actually is. People can be hyper-sensitive and perceive slights where none are intended. People can be simply wrong. Unless you disagree with this, we're on the same page.
And again no one has said, other than your misrepresentation, that being genuinely angry makes it more likely to be true.
Why mention "genuine feeling" then? What's the relevance? Why bring it in at all?
-
I certainly don't know her and haven't spoken to her, but there's nothing in the article that indicates that McDonnell had any personal involvement in the incident itself - unless you mean after the fact.
Aren't you relying on the internet when you surmise that Hodge's outburst was based on genuine feeling?
I don't know that it was; I have seen evidence to suggest that it was genuine, but really nothing to suggest that it wasn't.
You know that the Labour Shadow Chancellor wasn't in the House when Hodge confronted Corbyn?
-
Why mention "genuine feeling" then? What's the relevance? Why bring it in at all?
Are you just deliberately ignoring the posts made on this point? No one other than you when you have continually misrepresented posts said anything about it making the accusation true, Rather repeatedly pointed out that it's about whether it was more likely to be a genuine statement of feelings as opposed to some deliberate shit stirring. Which is what the post you replied to originally with your misrepresentation stated.
-
I don't know that it was; I have seen evidence to suggest that it was genuine, but really nothing to suggest that it wasn't.
So presumably the rational stance is to suspend judgement. Though I'm still confused as to exactly what relevance Hodge's rage at Corbyn being based on "genuine feeling" has to anything.
You know that the Labour Shadow Chancellor wasn't in the House when Hodge confronted Corbyn?
Apparently so.
-
So presumably the rational stance is to suspend judgement. Though I'm still confused as to exactly what relevance Hodge's rage at Corbyn being based on "genuine feeling" has to anything.
Apparently so.
And yet he is still party to more information on it than you are.
-
No. The questionable bit was on my part - questioning that what is perceived to be bigoted/discriminatory actions or words always actually is. People can be hyper-sensitive and perceive slights where none are intended. People can be simply wrong. Unless you disagree with this, we're on the same page.
Why mention "genuine feeling" then? What's the relevance? Why bring it in at all?
We aren't on the same page because of your repeated misrepresentation of what has been said on the thread. And also because I don't think that thinking minorities to be hypersensitive to discrimination and bigotry is a useful way to judge bigotry.
-
So presumably the rational stance is to suspend judgement. Though I'm still confused as to exactly what relevance Hodge's rage at Corbyn being based on "genuine feeling" has to anything.
Apparently so.
You haven't suspended judgement on Hodge.
-
Are you just deliberately ignoring the posts made on this point?
No. I'm not seeing anyone explain the relevance of "genuine feeling" to anything. I don't understand why it was brought into the conversation.
No one other than you when you have continually misrepresented posts said anything about it making the accusation true, Rather repeatedly pointed out that it's about whether it was more likely to be a genuine statement of feelings as opposed to some deliberate shit stirring.
... which is again an excluded middle fallacy in assuming that it can't be both.
-
You haven't suspended judgement on Hodge.
How so?
-
No. I'm not seeing anyone explain the relevance of "genuine feeling" to anything. I don't understand why it was brought into the conversation.
... which is again an excluded middle fallacy in assuming that it can't be both.
Because as has been covered multiple times, your non suspended judgement on Hodge, that it was shit stirring works in this case as an excluded middle. It was you that excluded the middle in your post by judging it as shit stirring. No middle allowed.
-
How so?
Her and her 'cronies' shit stirring.
-
Because as has been covered multiple times, your non suspended judgement on Hodge, that it was shit stirring works in this case as an excluded middle. It was you that excluded the middle in your post by judging it as shit stirring. No middle allowed.
Addressed in #111.
-
Her and her 'cronies' shit stirring.
Addressed in #145.
What is it with people needing repetition today?
-
Addressed in #145.
What is it with people needing repetition today?
Perhaps because you say addressed by when it isn't. You made a judgement, you then stated we shouldn't judge.145 does nothing to cover your inconsistency.
-
Addressed in #111.
No, it really isn't. That's just more of you misrepresenting people.
-
Perhaps because you say addressed by when it isn't.
It is addressed to my satisfaction.
Your satisfaction is no concern of mine.
-
No, it really isn't.
Yes, it really is.
That's just more of you misrepresenting people.
No, it really isn't.
-
It is addressed to my satisfaction.
Your satisfaction is no concern of mine.
If you are satisfied being wrong, there is very little that can be done about that. You made a judgement and then said judgements shouldn't be made. At the very least that is inconsistency.
-
Yes, it really is.No, it really isn't.
Well it is since to quote 111 no one has stated
Just because Hodge is Jewish doesn't mean that she has cornered the market on correctly and accurately identifying true anti-Semitism in every case.'
So stating that that is the position of either Rhiannon or I here is a misrepresentation
-
If you are satisfied being wrong, there is very little that can be done about that. You made a judgement and then said judgements shouldn't be made. At the very least that is inconsistency.
No, since the only time I said that suspending judgement being the rational choice was in relation to Hodge's outburst being based on "genuine feeling". The descriptions of her being furious (better still, genuinely furious ::) ) and the words attributed to her come third-hand and merit the same scepticism as we would treat any third-hand account.
-
Well it is since to quote 111 no one has stated
Just because Hodge is Jewish doesn't mean that she has cornered the market on correctly and accurately identifying true anti-Semitism in every case.'
So stating that that is the position of either Rhiannon or I here is a misrepresentation
I didn't say it was your position, so that's misrepresentation right there.
I definitely did say it was implied as soon as Rhiannon invoked "genuine feeling".
What's the relevance?
If it has none, why even raise it?
If it has some, what is it?
-
No, since the only time I said that suspending judgement being the rational choice was in relation to Hodge's outburst being based on "genuine feeling". The descriptions of her being furious (better still, genuinely furious ::) ) and the words attributed to her come third-hand and merit the same scepticism as we would treat any third-hand account.
Except your judgment of shit stirring which you made with certainty, is made with the same absence of knowledge, whereas Rhiannon argued that it was more likely that genuine feeling might be involved because of the swearing - no certainty involved there, But you seem to want to state your opinion as a certainty and anyone else can be dismissed because they don't have enough knowledge somehow.
-
I didn't say it was your position, so that's misrepresentation right there.
I definitely did say it was implied as soon as Rhiannon invoked "genuine feeling".
What's the relevance?
If it has none, why even raise it?
If it has some, what is it?
And again the reasoning for raising it has been covered many times including the post that raised it - why are you indulging in further misrepresentation by pretending it hasn't?
-
Except your judgment of shit stirring which you made with certainty
Nope - that was what #145 was for (and a few others).
Rhiannon argued that it was more likely that genuine feeling might be involved because of the swearing - no certainty involved there
The swearing part being the one factor in all this that Hodge actually addressed. Allegedly calling the leader of her party a racist and anti-Semite was apparently OK but calling him a fucking racist was over the line.
-
And again the reasoning for raising it has been covered many times including the post that raised it - why are you indulging in further misrepresentation by pretending it hasn't?
I'm not pretending when I say that nobody has yet demonstrated why Hodge's barney with Corbyn being based on "genuine feeling" has any relevance to anything at all. It's a bizarre, random comment not connected to anything relevant that I can see.
What it looks like is an attempt to say that if Hodge's outburst was based on "genuine feeling" then it's somehow more legitimate or at least more likely to be so. "Genuine" is a positive word. It's a term of approbation. If you want to buy a Rembrandt, or are handed a £10 note in the shops, you want the genuine article. Not a fake, the genuine thing.
-
Nope - that was what #145 was for (and a few others).
The swearing part being the one factor in all this that Hodge actually addressed. Allegedly calling the leader of her party a racist and anti-Semite was apparently OK but calling him a fucking racist was over the line.
Not sure why you are saying Nope. Did you portray the shit stirring accusation as certain? Yes. That you have made some arguments about why you think it doesn't remove your portrayal of it as certain.
Not sure what the relevance is about Hodge not arguing that she didn't call him an anti Semite. Are you saying that simply because she did it shows her to be shit stirring? How would you then challenge someone who you thought was being anti semitic?
-
I'm not pretending when I say that nobody has yet demonstrated why Hodge's barney with Corbyn being based on "genuine feeling" has any relevance to anything at all. It's a bizarre, random comment not connected to anything relevant that I can see.
Again it appears as if you need to misrepresent what is being said. Surely you understand that there is a difference between someone making an accusation that they don't believe to be true, and one that they do?
-
Again it appears as if you need to misrepresent what is being said. Surely you understand that there is a difference between someone making an accusation that they don't believe to be true, and one that they do?
I understand that genuineness of feeling amounts to three quarters of two thirds of fuck all when it comes to being factually accurate. Rhiannon has agreed as much.
I would go further and reiterate that an accusation made in temper is on balance less likely to be soundly based given that anger is frequently an irrational emotion. I automatically trust a shouted accusation spat out in temper less than a sober, evidence-based case. Who has never said something they didn't actually mean in the heat of the moment?
I also understand that the estimation of Hodge's genuineness is based on third-hand reports - the alleged opinions of those there at the time.
-
Well my friends aside, what about the chap in NS's article?
I really don't like people wanting to leave this country because of what is happening with our political system, whether they are EU members or Jews. Increasingly Labour looks like it doesn't give a fuck. We expect np difference from the Right, but Labour? Really?
If people want to leave the country because they buy into a particular narrative where they are the victims in all of this, not much anyone can do about it. I am not going to agree to believe something I don't believe to be true e.g. that Corbyn is antisemitic in order to stop them leaving the country - because in my opinion integrity is more important than people feeling unwelcome or leaving the country.
Are there any media articles where those feeling unwelcome and wanting to leave England express sympathy for the the Palestinian people feeling unwelcome and victimised by their illegal occupiers? I haven't looked but I hope there are. I see sympathy expressed for Corbyn and the Palestinians coming from certain sections of the Jewish community in Israel.
-
And yet she is Jewish. If his comments were about black people, and Hodge were black, would it be equally acceptable to dismiss her objections as opportunism?
I don't think it is the same. Corbyn was talking about a political difference of belief in 2013 regarding the Palestinian ambassador's speech about the history of Palestine and the criticism of this speech by some members of the audience who expressed a specific pro-Israel narrative, whom Corbyn then labelled as Zionist activists.
Holding a political opinion or belief and arguing or "berating" a speaker you disagree with is very different from having a particular pigment to your skin. I really don't see the problem with being "othered" based on your political opinion - politics is all about "othering" people who don't share your particular belief.
-
I'm sure that that's exactly what it looks like, yes.
Thoughtful, considered criticism would have been given a free pass, certainly by me. Calling Corbyn (it has been alleged) an "anti-Semite" and a "fucking racist" doesn't meet my criteria for thoughtful, considered criticism.
I hold the same view when posters start calling other posters names on here - no evidence of thoughtful, considered criticism. Just as easy to dismiss those posts as to dismiss Hodge's unedifying rant.
-
Are you just deliberately ignoring the posts made on this point? No one other than you when you have continually misrepresented posts said anything about it making the accusation true, Rather repeatedly pointed out that it's about whether it was more likely to be a genuine statement of feelings as opposed to some deliberate shit stirring. Which is what the post you replied to originally with your misrepresentation stated.
Maybe it started off as genuine feeling based on a misunderstanding and then developed into more of a confirmation bias where the mind becomes closed to benign alternatives because it is useful to the "cause" to keep being angry and feeling victimised.
The "cause" being that various people want to get rid of Corbyn - for a variety of political reasons, which may include, but is not limited to, being too pro-Palestinian in his views.
-
Holding a political opinion or belief and arguing or "berating" a speaker you disagree with is very different from having a particular pigment to your skin. I really don't see the problem with being "othered" based on your political opinion
The problem is that "othering" people doesn't stop them for voting for things you don't like. In fact it makes them more determined to shove your ideals up your arse by voting against them.
Edited:
politics is all about "othering" people who don't share your particular belief.
So it seems but it should be about persuading them to see things your way.
-
Oh I agree that what you describe is how politics should be - persuasion. I just don’t see it as a Corbyn-specific issue so the furore and microscopic emotion-driven analysis on Corbyn’s past works and actions and the accusations and media spin put on them all seems like a smear campaign rather than something credible that people can engage with and examine based on just the facts.
For example has anyone proved that the people buried in the cemetery in Tunisia had anything to do with the Munich massacres? Yet the mere suggestion is enough to try to “other” Corbyn. That’s the nature of Politics.
-
I hold the same view when posters start calling other posters names on here - no evidence of thoughtful, considered criticism. Just as easy to dismiss those posts as to dismiss Hodge's unedifying rant.
She may have made an 'unedifying rant' or she may have been 'angry and dignified', depending on who you listen to and your point of view. Me, I don't know, But here are her reasons, and given her background I thunk she can be forgiven for her perceived 'hypersensitivity'.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jul/18/jeremy-corbyn-labour-antisemitism-margaret-hodge
My Jewish friend still have small wedding guest lists on one side of the family 'thanks to Hitler'.
-
For example has anyone proved that the people buried in the cemetery in Tunisia had anything to do with the Munich massacres? Yet the mere suggestion is enough to try to “other” Corbyn. That’s the nature of Politics.
It's also the nature of our right-wing press with its faux outrage. I try not to pay it too much attention.
-
Apparently, with regard to the cemetery, Corbyn was standing near the graves of men whom Israel claims, planned Munich. Guilty, m'lud.
-
Apparently, with regard to the cemetery, Corbyn was standing near the graves of men whom Israel claims, planned Munich. Guilty, m'lud.
Well I know Corbyn thinks he did something or other. Meh.
-
For example has anyone proved that the people buried in the cemetery in Tunisia had anything to do with the Munich massacres? Yet the mere suggestion is enough to try to “other” Corbyn. That’s the nature of Politics.
(1) No.
(2) He was "othered" on the day that he won the leadership election for the first time - the day I joined a political party for the first time in my life - since he was a democratic socialist in a party historically democratically socialist but for the previous twenty-odd years dominated by Thatcherites.
-
Well, yes.
-
She may have made an 'unedifying rant' or she may have been 'angry and dignified', depending on who you listen to and your point of view. Me, I don't know, But here are her reasons, and given her background I thunk she can be forgiven for her perceived 'hypersensitivity'.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jul/18/jeremy-corbyn-labour-antisemitism-margaret-hodge
My Jewish friend still have small wedding guest lists on one side of the family 'thanks to Hitler'.
Agreed. Absolutely she can be forgiven - for me that’s not the issue. I forgive my adult teenage daughter for any angry accusations aimed at me. I just won’t take her comments any more seriously than anyone else’s angry accusations - I want accusations backed up with evidence in order to take them seriously and I don’t consider as strong evidence her feelings of victimisation because Corbyn is critical of certain Israeli policies that seem designed by Israel to “other” Israel from those who are non-Zionists. I find all this talk of “othering” by supporters of a Jewish State somewhat ironic.
-
Yeah, but some people are out to get Corbyn, using any means. From the Daily Mail to the Guardian, it's guns blazing.
-
Seems like it.
I find Margaret Hodge's reasoning in her article (about why she called Corbyn an antisemite) wrong. People call other people Nazis - it's hyperbole - no one is seriously suggesting that there is any comparison in scale or intent to what the real Nazis did or intended to do to the Jewish people in Europe. Yes it's offensive to be called a Nazi even if you are not Jewish, but that's the point - it's supposed to be offensive as some people find the treatment of Palestinians under occupation abhorrent, and it is no less abhorrent just because the oppressor is Jewish. Yes being called a Nazi is even more offensive if you had family members killed by the real Nazis but I don't see the need to start outlawing offensive comparisons to political or historical figures on that basis.
Genghis Khan and his Mongol hordes wiped out more people than Hitler during their military expansion but maybe the autocratic brutal behaviours associated with Nazis is more widely known so the term "Nazi" is more widely used.
The Jewish community have had a lot of influence and input into the definitions of antisemitism and most of their examples that they want included have been accepted, so Margaret calling people antisemitic and trying to argue that all Jewish people's feelings have been completely ignored because a few examples of antisemitism have not been included sounds like activists trying to force people to accept their particular dogma rather than reasoned persuasion.
If some Muslim activists were arguing that it was Islamophobic to call a Muslim a "hebephile pig" for trying to marry a child, would we include that in the definition of Islamaphobia if they kicked up a big fuss, felt unwelcome and started leaving the country to live in another country where child brides were more socially acceptable?
I see no reason to support some blanket principle that the oppressed have a better understanding of reality because of the oppression they feel they have experienced as a result of their identity. If supporting oppressive policies against others who are not of your race or religion is part of your identity, then I think your identity should be open to challenge and criticism.
-
A worldwide coalition of Jewish groups has issued a joint statement condemning attempts to stifle criticism of Israel with false accusations of antisemitism.
https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/antisemitisim-jews-israel-labour-party-bds-jewish-coalition-palestine-a8458601.html
-
Genghis Khan and his Mongol hordes wiped out more people than Hitler during their military expansion but maybe the autocratic brutal behaviours associated with Nazis is more widely known so the term "Nazi" is more widely used.
Slightly off topic, but I seriously doubt this is true. The highest estimate I heard for the Mongol expansion was twelve million. This is quite an impressive achievement considering the size of the World population at the time and the fact that the Mongols only had edged weapons, but just the invasion of Russia by Nazi Germany resulted in the deaths of perhaps 40 million Russians and 10 million Germans.
-
The comparison to the Rivers of Blood speech by Jonathan Sacks seems to me way over the top. Thoughthat Aaron Bastani thinks that the first thing that should be done as regards the letter from the rabbis is investigate their records is disturbing
https://news.sky.com/story/jeremy-corbyn-is-an-anti-semite-ex-chief-rabbi-jonathan-sacks-claims-11484443
https://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/corbyn-media-supporters-attack-former-chief-rabbi-for-corbyn-comments-1.468977
-
Well, if prominent anti-Corbyn figures are right wing, and/or support the Tories, that seems relevant. I don't know anything about Sacks, but his comparison with Powell is barmy.
-
Well, if prominent anti-Corbyn figures are right wing, and/or support the Tories, that seems relevant. I don't know anything about Sacks, but his comparison with Powell is barmy.
I would think that the first thing you do is deal with any comments, not research the background of those making them in order to indulge in a bit of ad hom?
-
Slightly off topic, but I seriously doubt this is true. The highest estimate I heard for the Mongol expansion was twelve million. This is quite an impressive achievement considering the size of the World population at the time and the fact that the Mongols only had edged weapons, but just the invasion of Russia by Nazi Germany resulted in the deaths of perhaps 40 million Russians and 10 million Germans.
You sure? I read estimates between 40-70 million for the Mongol invasions. What are your sources for the lower estimate?
https://ipfs.io/ipfs/QmXoypizjW3WknFiJnKLwHCnL72vedxjQkDDP1mXWo6uco/wiki/List_of_wars_by_death_toll.html
-
Well, if prominent anti-Corbyn figures are right wing, and/or support the Tories, that seems relevant. I don't know anything about Sacks, but his comparison with Powell is barmy.
Yes and what Sacks said was incorrect too.
"It was divisive, hateful and like Powell's speech it undermines the existence of an entire group of British citizens by depicting them as essentially alien.
"We can only judge Jeremy Corbyn by his words and his actions. He has given support to racists, terrorists and dealers of hate who want to kill Jews and remove Israel from the map.
"When he implies that, however long they have lived here, Jews are not fully British, he is using the language of classic pre-war European anti-Semitism."
Jeremy referred to the Zionist activists who came up to speak to Manuel, not to an entire group of British citizens or to Jews.
I think it is important to investigate whether Sacks gives support to an Israeli government that engages in racist acts and policies and who terrorises Palestinian civilians.
-
You sure? I read estimates between 40-70 million for the Mongol invasions. What are your sources for the lower estimate?
https://ipfs.io/ipfs/QmXoypizjW3WknFiJnKLwHCnL72vedxjQkDDP1mXWo6uco/wiki/List_of_wars_by_death_toll.html
The Dan Carlin podcast on the Mongol Empire. Any estimate has to be taken with a pinch of salt, of course, especially from that time period, so either of us could be right.
-
Resigning Labour MP's should have done so in 2016.
-
Resigning Labour MP's should have done so in 2016.
Why? The anti Semitism row hadn’t been manufactured back then.
-
Ooft
https://www.thejc.com/comment/comment/howard-jacobson-speech-intelligence-squared-1.469525
-
Ooft
https://www.thejc.com/comment/comment/howard-jacobson-speech-intelligence-squared-1.469525
I don't think Corbyn is anti-semitic, just a naive fool. There's also the fact (as Jacobson alludes to) that he never expected to become party leader.
-
I don't think Corbyn is anti-semitic, just a naive fool.
I don't think he's either; he is however prey in the same way as so many are on the political left to making the Palestinians perpetual victims and therefore intrinsically worthy of support, and from there the line over which criticism of Israel becomes criticism of Jews starts to become decidedly fuzzy. Israel isn't a Jewish state; it's the Jewish state, as there's only one. It's a pet project of scads of left-leaning people in the West. It borders on a fetish, in fact.
-
I don't think Corbyn is anti-semitic, just a naive fool. There's also the fact (as Jacobson alludes to) that he never expected to become party leader.
I rate Jacobsen. Watched him pull the rug out from under a Christian friend's faith via a tv show once.
-
I don't think he's either; he is however prey in the same way as so many are on the political left to making the Palestinians perpetual victims and therefore intrinsically worthy of support, and from there the line over which criticism of Israel becomes criticism of Jews starts to become decidedly fuzzy. Israel isn't a Jewish state; it's the Jewish state, as there's only one. It's a pet project of scads of left-leaning people in the West. It borders on a fetish, in fact.
Agree with this.
-
And off we go again
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-45517094
-
I don't think he's either; he is however prey in the same way as so many are on the political left to making the Palestinians perpetual victims and therefore intrinsically worthy of support, and from there the line over which criticism of Israel becomes criticism of Jews starts to become decidedly fuzzy. Israel isn't a Jewish state; it's the Jewish state, as there's only one. It's a pet project of scads of left-leaning people in the West. It borders on a fetish, in fact.
I don't know about making Palestinians perpetual victims. There are coordinated, strategic plans to highlight and try to alleviate the daily hardships and problems caused by specific Israeli military action or government policies. I would see calling out Israel on racist, discriminatory or brutal policies as no different to calling out any other country on their racist, discriminatory or brutal policies.
While Israel continues to build illegal settlements on Palestinian land and continue to indulge in disproportionately violent attacks on Palestinian civilians, it would be strange not to highlight this. As much as it would be strange not to highlight instances where Palestinian people have victimised Israeli citizens, such as suicide bombings.
What I would say is if Corbyn has not been critical of the suicide bombing then that would be evidence of some kind of bias or prejudice to me.
-
And off we go again
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-45517094
I thought theories about politicians distracting people from or "burying" negative news in this way or trying to get political capital from an issue was a recurring theme in politics - various politicians have been accused of it. Is it antisemitic to raise the possibility that some Jewish politicians might be engaged in it as much as non-Jewish politicians?
-
I thought theories about politicians distracting people from or "burying" negative news in this way or trying to get political capital from an issue was a recurring theme in politics - various politicians have been accused of it. Is it antisemitic to raise the possibility that some Jewish politicians might be engaged in it as much as non-Jewish politicians?
So anyone suggesting anti semitism in the Labour party is either an Israeli govt politician or a dupe of them?
-
So anyone suggesting anti semitism in the Labour party is either an Israeli govt politician or a dupe of them?
That wasn't my point. What I was asking was: if non-Jewish politicians are also routinely accused of trying to bury or distract people from negative news by creating political rows or controversy or by trying to capitalise on political rows, is it antisemitic to make the same accusations against politicians who happen to be Jewish?
On the issue of lobbying, no I don't think everyone who makes accusations of antisemitism is an Israeli politician or a dupe of them. I think a lot of them genuinely believe there are pockets of antisemitism or supporters feel they have experienced antisemitism themselves. That doesn't mean that some Israeli politicians can't capitalise on this or ask people in the UK with whom they have links, to escalate accusations into a bigger row to create negative publicity and to keep up the pressure on UK politicians to try and achieve certain political goals, which might include distracting the media from focusing on other issues.
I remember going to a couple of talks at the House of Commons around the time of the 2nd Palestinian uprising (Intifada), which was attended by Palestinian spokespersons and negotiators. They were very clear on violence not being a solution to the situation. One of the requests that was made at the meeting though was that pro-Palestinian people in the UK should act in a more coordinated, effective way by copying the tactics of the pro-Israeli lobby in the UK or in the US. At another meeting people spoke about the tactics of AIPAC and resolved to learn from them. So people would sign up to receive an email where they were asked to contact their MPs and the media to protest about statements and stories that were unfavourable to the Palestinians. There was admiration expressed for the quick and effective way the pro-Israeli lobby mobilised supporters in Britain or the US to jump all over journalists and politicians who were unfavourable to Israel and demand answers, partly to educate but partly to try to make those politicians or journalists think twice before saying unfavourable things about Israel. Supporters would be asked to include key phrases when contacting journalists or politicians on the basis that repetition would make the argument more effective.
I even tried it myself - a few days after the meeting in the House of Commons, I got an email about a negative story and I called up Reuters, not expecting to get through to an actual journalist - it was very strange being put on speakerphone during an editorial meeting at Reuters, while I gave them my opinion on why their reporting on the Israeli - Palestinian conflict was biased against the Palestinians. They said they had had a few phone calls and emails that morning from various people making that same point and had finally decided to actually get a caller on the speakerphone so everyone in that team could hear, as they had not experienced this kind of a response to previous stories they had run. I didn't have time to get more involved but I know this ended up being a massive coordinated campaign aimed at Muslims to encourage them to become more politically active in a similar way to the pro-Israeli lobby. Not long after I started hearing the new phrase "the Muslim vote" being uttered in the media by politicians.
If, as it appears, this creation of "political rows" is part of the political tactics that some people employ, I am not really seeing what the issue is if Mark Serwotka wonders if this is is the case in relation to the antisemitism row.
-
The Labour party conference seems to be highly critical of Israel so am expecting more accusations of antisemitism. Corbyn repeated the statement he made when he visited Jordan a few months ago that a Labour government would recognise the Palestinian state. That certainly got a lot of applause at the conference, and lots of Palestinian flag waving in the audience, though not sure how likely it is that Corbyn's Labour party would get elected.
There was also a motion passed at the Labour conference calling for arms sales to Israel to be banned if Labour got into power. This is a nice gesture, but I don't think Israel buys that much from Britain. Corbyn has in the past said he would stop Britain's arms sales to Saudi Arabia. That generates far more money for the British economy, which may explain the failure by groups to stop the government's continued sales to a regime that uses them to bomb Yemen and Bahrain, resulting in many civilian deaths and injuries.
Not surprising then that Avi Gabbay, the leader of Israel's Labour Party (the main opposition party in Israel) suspended all formal relations with Corbyn a few months ago, though it continues to maintain relations with pro-Israel groups in the British Labour Party.
While some people have been branding Corbyn an antisemite, others have branded Gabbay as racist for some of his statements to the Media about Palestinians, which undermines various attempts in Britain to portray Israel's Labour Party as progressive or moderate allies for peace.
https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/israel-palestine-labor-party-gabbay-netanyahu-settlements-two-state-bds-movement-a8005136.html
These 2 Labour leaders are unlikely to ever see eye to eye on the Palestinian issue.
-
From Brexit thread so posting here, the view that Corbyn would be worse for UK than any Brexit outcome question was asked:-
Why?
Labour under Corbyn would leave us with a massive deficit.
This is from the IFS.
Increasing rates will raise less revenue in the medium to long run because firms would respond by investing less in the UK. This in turn would depress economic activity and lead to fewer jobs and lower wages. There is a very high degree of uncertainty about how large these effects are but estimates suggest that they may be substantial. The potential size of these effects is an indication of why the OECD and others judge corporation tax to have a particularly damaging effect on economic growth.
https://election2017.ifs.org.uk/article/labour-s-reversal-of-corporate-tax-cuts-would-raise-substantial-sums-but-comes-with-important-trade-offs
-
That wasn't my point. What I was asking was: if non-Jewish politicians are also routinely accused of trying to bury or distract people from negative news by creating political rows or controversy or by trying to capitalise on political rows, is it antisemitic to make the same accusations against politicians who happen to be Jewish?
On the issue of lobbying, no I don't think everyone who makes accusations of antisemitism is an Israeli politician or a dupe of them. I think a lot of them genuinely believe there are pockets of antisemitism or supporters feel they have experienced antisemitism themselves. That doesn't mean that some Israeli politicians can't capitalise on this or ask people in the UK with whom they have links, to escalate accusations into a bigger row to create negative publicity and to keep up the pressure on UK politicians to try and achieve certain political goals, which might include distracting the media from focusing on other issues.
I remember going to a couple of talks at the House of Commons around the time of the 2nd Palestinian uprising (Intifada), which was attended by Palestinian spokespersons and negotiators. They were very clear on violence not being a solution to the situation. One of the requests that was made at the meeting though was that pro-Palestinian people in the UK should act in a more coordinated, effective way by copying the tactics of the pro-Israeli lobby in the UK or in the US. At another meeting people spoke about the tactics of AIPAC and resolved to learn from them. So people would sign up to receive an email where they were asked to contact their MPs and the media to protest about statements and stories that were unfavourable to the Palestinians. There was admiration expressed for the quick and effective way the pro-Israeli lobby mobilised supporters in Britain or the US to jump all over journalists and politicians who were unfavourable to Israel and demand answers, partly to educate but partly to try to make those politicians or journalists think twice before saying unfavourable things about Israel. Supporters would be asked to include key phrases when contacting journalists or politicians on the basis that repetition would make the argument more effective.
I even tried it myself - a few days after the meeting in the House of Commons, I got an email about a negative story and I called up Reuters, not expecting to get through to an actual journalist - it was very strange being put on speakerphone during an editorial meeting at Reuters, while I gave them my opinion on why their reporting on the Israeli - Palestinian conflict was biased against the Palestinians. They said they had had a few phone calls and emails that morning from various people making that same point and had finally decided to actually get a caller on the speakerphone so everyone in that team could hear, as they had not experienced this kind of a response to previous stories they had run. I didn't have time to get more involved but I know this ended up being a massive coordinated campaign aimed at Muslims to encourage them to become more politically active in a similar way to the pro-Israeli lobby. Not long after I started hearing the new phrase "the Muslim vote" being uttered in the media by politicians.
If, as it appears, this creation of "political rows" is part of the political tactics that some people employ, I am not really seeing what the issue is if Mark Serwotka wonders if this is is the case in relation to the antisemitism row.
Actually, I think a lot of reporting in the UK is biased in favour of the Palestinians. We hear all about the Israeli attacks on Palestine, but rarely about Palestinian attacks on Israel. We gloss over the fact that Palestinian society is fairly regressive. If you are gay, or a woman, or you don't follow the state religion, you are definitely better off in Israel than in the Palestinian areas. We don't hear about any of that.
-
Actually, I think a lot of reporting in the UK is biased in favour of the Palestinians. We hear all about the Israeli attacks on Palestine, but rarely about Palestinian attacks on Israel. We gloss over the fact that Palestinian society is fairly regressive. If you are gay, or a woman, or you don't follow the state religion, you are definitely better off in Israel than in the Palestinian areas. We don't hear about any of that.
That was my point - it wasn't reported that way before - it was reported in a way that was more one-sided to the Israelis. But a coordinated campaign by supporters of the Palestinians in the UK appeared to change the way the media reported on the situation. So lobbying campaigns by ordinary members of the public seems to work in challenging the way the media reports things.
I don't think it is glossed over that Palestinian society can be regressive - it's just that there are only so many words you can put in a news report and the way sections of Palestinian society treat minorities is not always relevant to the immediate news story of a bomb, or the IDF firing on unarmed civilians protesting Israel bulldozing their homes and building Israeli settlements on stolen Palestinian land.
Also, when making a comparison between Israeli and Palestinian society, I think people will expect people in an area under brutal military occupation to react differently to the people who are part of the nation doing the occupying. There is also a wide disparity in terms of poverty between Israel and Palestine and schooling in the Palestinian state has been severely disrupted and poverty and limited education can be one of the factors for a society not becoming more tolerant.
https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/israel-palestine-conflict-universities-education-students-gaza-middle-east-a8594446.html
I would have to look at actual statistics comparing Palestinian and Israeli society and see if sociologists have identified causes for those statistics.
I know there was a UN report that apportioned some of the blame for domestic violence in the Palestinian state on the Israeli occupation.
https://www.jpost.com/Israel-News/Politics-And-Diplomacy/Israel-slams-UN-report-blaming-it-for-domestic-abuse-of-Palestinian-women-447198
-
Some interesting points but at the heart is surely Denis McShane not knowing what Labour is for!
https://prospect.org/article/british-labour’s-self-inflicted-marginalization?fbclid=IwAR2HSu5zrTy5yB9qrY79Ey9r0tAqJ55IAAiUm6_7oFAbw9nVqXsDPrbUK5U
-
Some interesting points but at the heart is surely Denis McShane not knowing what Labour is for!
https://prospect.org/article/british-labour’s-self-inflicted-marginalization?fbclid=IwAR2HSu5zrTy5yB9qrY79Ey9r0tAqJ55IAAiUm6_7oFAbw9nVqXsDPrbUK5U
Link that hasn't been munged by the quote in the URL
https://prospect.org/article/british-labour’s-self-inflicted-marginalization (https://prospect.org/article/british-labour’s-self-inflicted-marginalization)