Jeremy Corbyn - Not Not Labour Party(?), not a Communist (BBC)

Sweet Square said:
https://evolvepolitics.com/yougov-p...amatically-since-jeremy-corbyn-became-leader/

But this actual happens



https://www.jewishvoiceforlabour.or...icism-disallows-legitmate-criticism-of-isrel/



Again from the same article
Click to expand...

But that article doesn't contradict what I said? I'm not referring to a 'hypothetical State of Israel', I'm simply arguing that there is a difference between 'some of the Israeli Governments policies are racist' and 'the existence of the Israeli state is a racist endeavour'. Surely that's obvious?

I don't really see how the rest of the article is relevant. If those events genuinely weren't anti-Semitic then (as the article notes) they're covered by the 'could', and the provisio that
“criticism of Israel similar to that levelled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic”. If in practice that 'could... with context' is being ignored, then I don't really see how Labour's changes propose to solve it as the issue is with implementation rather than the IHRA examples themselves.

At any rate, I'm not convinced by the examples given here. Omar Barghouti addressed the European Parliament in March, a student union event was perhaps hastily cancelled (having seen SU events about Israel I would not be willing to bet that it wasn't cancelled for legitimate reasons without more information) and the Barnet proposal wasn't debated because it was referred for legal advice.

If those are the best examples then maybe the case isn't that strong?
 
It's interesting looking at how some people need the debate framed else end up looking ridiculous.

Essentially:

1) IHRA would prevent criticism of Israel (we have to ignore the bit where it specifically spells out that it doesn't.)

2) Labour does not have a problem with antisemitism

3) Jeremy Corbyn is right to address Labour's problem with antisemitism (we have to use cognitive dissonance for this one)

4) Tom Watson is wrong to want Labour to address its problem with antisemitism (number 2 is back in play, in case you're keeping score)

5) An organisation to set up to defend Corbyn against antisemitism is an independent, adjudicative authority when it comes to accusations made against Jeremy Corbyn of antisemitism.

It's ballsy, I'll give you that. But that's where we are
 
Oscie said:
5) An organisation to set up to defend Corbyn against antisemitism is an independent, adjudicative authority when it comes to accusations made against Jeremy Corbyn of antisemitism.
Click to expand...
Good point, we should defer to Stephen "destroying the left will save western civilisation" Pollard and no one else.
 
NinjaFletch said:
But that article doesn't contradict what I said? I'm not referring to a 'hypothetical State of Israel', I'm simply arguing that there is a difference between 'some of the Israeli Governments policies are racist' and 'the existence of the Israeli state is a racist endeavour'. Surely that's obvious?
Click to expand...
Well no because we aren't just talking about some Israeli policies but for Palestine's the Israeli state has always been and is a racist endeavour.

Another concern, he said, were the illustrative examples, such as “denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, such as by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavour”.

Tomlinson said: “Unless such a claim was informed by hatred of Jews, it would not be anti-Semitic to assert that as Israel defines itself as a Jewish state and thereby by race, and that because non-Jewish Israelis and non-Jews under its jurisdiction are discriminated against, the State of Israel is currently a racist endeavour.”

https://jewishnews.timesofisrael.com/hugh-tomlinson-ihra/
Click to expand...
NinjaFletch said:
If those are the best examples then maybe the case isn't that strong?
Click to expand...
But the fact is people have tried to use to stop criticism from Palestine's. This something the labour party(Considering it a pro Palestine party) should considered. Also I image Palestine activists engaging with the Labour Party as well so the party right has to fine a line that works for everyone.
 
Oscie said:
It's interesting looking at how some people need the debate framed else end up looking ridiculous.

Essentially:

1) IHRA would prevent criticism of Israel (we have to ignore the bit where it specifically spells out that it doesn't.)
Click to expand...

Except it had already been used to prevent criticism of Israel
 
Oscie said:
As above, it's an organisation set up by Corbyn supporters with the sole purpose of defending Corbyn, that describes itself as "entirely secular". It wasn't even established until 2017, until Corbyn and the party was and Corbyn were already marred in rows over antisemitism.

It's a pro-Corbyn organisation from someone who thinks being Jewish meant that she could defend the guy she championed from allegations of antisemtiism because "Oh, if she says it and she IS Jewish"...would somehow shut the debate down.

Pretending that somehow a "entirely secular" group ran by a staunch Corbyn supporter, set up for the sole purpose 11 months ago of defending Jeremy Corbyn in regards to antisemitism accusations, is somehow a credible source to cite when debating Jeremy Corbyn's antisemitism then either you're taking the piss or you thought Chuckevision was reality TV. You might as well claim UKIP doesn't have a homophobia problem because of that gay candidate they had in Scotland

"Hahaha, wrong kind of gay is he?"

Yes, yes he fecking is.
Click to expand...
Oscie your amazing :lol:

Well anyway here's some other jewish people as well

As Jews, we reject the myth that it's antisemitic to call Israel racist

https://www.independent.co.uk/voice...-bds-jewish-coalition-palestine-a8458601.html

Oscie said:
"Hahaha, wrong kind of gay is he?"

Yes, yes he fecking is.
Click to expand...
Also I'm pretty sure that actually is homophobic.
 
Sweet Square said:
Well no because we aren't just talking about some Israeli policies but for Palestine's the Israeli state has always been and is a racist endeavour.



But the fact is people have tried to use to stop criticism from Palestine's. This something the labour party(Considering it a pro Palestine party) should considered. Also I image Palestine activists engaging with the Labour Party as well so the party right has to fine a line that works for everyone.
Click to expand...

Which, putting aside everything else, they have demonstrably not done. Nor have they succeeded in explaining why their version is necessary, or why it is preferable.
 
Should that necessarily be the parties top priority at the moment? I get there are certain MP's in the party who don't necessarily represent Labour values and who'd be better off elsewhere but I get the impression the party would be better focusing their energy on opposing the government instead of continuing to focus on internal divisions.
 
Oscie said:
As above, it's an organisation set up by Corbyn supporters with the sole purpose of defending Corbyn, that describes itself as "entirely secular". It wasn't even established until 2017, until Corbyn and the party was and Corbyn were already marred in rows over antisemitism.

It's a pro-Corbyn organisation from someone who thinks being Jewish meant that she could defend the guy she championed from allegations of antisemtiism because "Oh, if she says it and she IS Jewish"...would somehow shut the debate down.

Pretending that somehow a "entirely secular" group ran by a staunch Corbyn supporter, set up for the sole purpose 11 months ago of defending Jeremy Corbyn in regards to antisemitism accusations, is somehow a credible source to cite when debating Jeremy Corbyn's antisemitism then either you're taking the piss or you thought Chuckevision was reality TV. You might as well claim UKIP doesn't have a homophobia problem because of that gay candidate they had in Scotland

"Hahaha, wrong kind of gay is he?"

Yes, yes he fecking is.
Click to expand...
Interesting that you essentially use the phrase ‘pro-Corbyn’ as a negative. It’s not in itself.

Also, why does the date an organisation is set up have any relevance? When should an organisation meant to air views of the many Jews who support Corbyn have been set up for it to be valid in your eyes?
 
Nuts said:
Interesting that you essentially use the phrase ‘pro-Corbyn’ as a negative. It’s not in itself.

Also, why does the date an organisation is set up have any relevance? When should an organisation meant to air views of the many Jews who support Corbyn have been set up for it to be valid in your eyes?
Click to expand...

It has a lot of relevance because it was set up at the time of allegations of antisemitism with the intent of defending the leader against allegations of antisemitism.

And that's fine, what isn't fine is to cite them as some kind of neutral authority on the issue of whether the person they were established to defend against allegations of antisemitism, is soft on antisemitism. I think that's fairly self-evident. The Boris Johnson Appreciation Society of Muslims who think PC has Gone Mad, est August 2018, also wouldn't be an authority on whether that prick was being offensive this week, even if it were run by a Muslim, again for fairly obvious reasons.

Listening to the wider Jewish community there are reservations either about overt antisemitism, or antisemitism creep and tolerance of 'soft' antisemitism. You can disagree but Jewish Voice for Labour is no more an independent, credible voice on this than the ERG or Tax Payers Alliance are on matters they spout bollocks about.
 
Oscie said:
It has a lot of relevance because it was set up at the time of allegations of antisemitism with the intent of defending the leader against allegations of antisemitism.

And that's fine, what isn't fine is to cite them as some kind of neutral authority on the issue of whether the person they were established to defend against allegations of antisemitism, is soft on antisemitism. I think that's fairly self-evident. The Boris Johnson Appreciation Society of Muslims who think PC has Gone Mad, est August 2018, also wouldn't be an authority on whether that prick was being offensive this week, even if it were run by a Muslim, again for fairly obvious reasons.

Listening to the wider Jewish community there are reservations either about overt antisemitism, or antisemitism creep and tolerance of 'soft' antisemitism. You can disagree but Jewish Voice for Labour is no more an independent, credible voice on this than the ERG or Tax Payers Alliance are on matters they spout bollocks about.
Click to expand...
You warn against using pro-Corbyn groups as a ‘neutral authority’ and then you go and write your last sentence with advice for me to ‘listen to the wider Jewish community’.

You do realise that a lot of that ‘wider Jewish community’ support Corbyn in all this?

What gives you the right to use the phrase ‘wider Jewish community’ with the assumption that they all collectively feel a ‘tolerance of soft anti-semitism’ and yet you seek, clearly, to diminish the argument of any Jewish group that says that’s not the case?
 
Cheesy said:
Should that necessarily be the parties top priority at the moment? I get there are certain MP's in the party who don't necessarily represent Labour values and who'd be better off elsewhere but I get the impression the party would be better focusing their energy on opposing the government instead of continuing to focus on internal divisions.
Click to expand...
I would say that Corbyn tried, in 2016, to have the ‘broad church’ feel and include his critics. They don’t want to be included, clearly, and it is them that seek to keep internal division on the agenda.

If everyone in the PLP pulled with Corbyn, the result would be a foregone conclusion. If they don’t want to then what’s left, sadly, but to get rid of them?
 
Nuts said:
I would say that Corbyn tried, in 2016, to have the ‘broad church’ feel and include his critics. They don’t want to be included, clearly, and it is them that seek to keep internal division on the agenda.

If everyone in the PLP pulled with Corbyn, the result would be a foregone conclusion. If they don’t want to then what’s left, sadly, but to get rid of them?
Click to expand...

I dunno, it's a tricky one. I'd argue that in after last year's election there was a growing acceptance of Corbyn within the party for a while, partly because the argument he couldn't win an election or come close to doing so had been diminished by Labour's unexpected result.

He's consistently been undermined by voices from within the party, but at the same time you could argue that they've got every right to speak out on his fairly meek opposition to a hard Brexit and that doing so shouldn't result in mandatory reselection. There are obviously types like Hoey and a few others who should ideally be removed from Labour as soon as possible.
 
Nuts said:
You warn against using pro-Corbyn groups as a ‘neutral authority’ and then you go and write your last sentence with advice for me to ‘listen to the wider Jewish community’.

You do realise that a lot of that ‘wider Jewish community’ support Corbyn in all this?

What gives you the right to use the phrase ‘wider Jewish community’ with the assumption that they all collectively feel a ‘tolerance of soft anti-semitism’ and yet you seek, clearly, to diminish the argument of any Jewish group that says that’s not the case?
Click to expand...

Hang on, you can't challenge Oscie's 'assumption' that the 'wider Jewish community' don't support Corbyn with an equally unfounded assertion that they do.

Even if we're being generous and ignore the fact that the supposed '40 groups' who spoke out recently, which Sweet Square posted above, were largely comprised of the same members as each other they pale in comparison to the voices expressing concern with Corbyn's leadership on this issue, and the last time Jews were polled on Labour and anti-semitism 80% thought Labour was too soft on it.

Yes, there are problems with that evidence, but at least there is evidence. Your viewpoint is completely reliant on the fanciful assertion that JVL speak for anyone other than themselves, a viewpoint which we can fairly safely say is publicly debated.
 
NinjaFletch said:
Hang on, you can't challenge Oscie's 'assumption' that the 'wider Jewish community' don't support Corbyn with an equally unfounded assertion that they do.

Even if we're being generous and ignore the fact that the supposed '40 groups' who spoke out recently, which Sweet Square posted above, were largely comprised of the same members as each other they pale in comparison to the voices expressing concern with Corbyn's leadership on this issue, and the last time Jews were polled on Labour and anti-semitism 80% thought Labour was too soft on it.

Yes, there are problems with that evidence, but at least there is evidence. Your viewpoint is completely reliant on the fanciful assertion that JVL speak for anyone other than themselves, a viewpoint which we can fairly safely say is publicly debated.
Click to expand...
Sorry, but you’ve put an awful lot of words in my mouth and really misrepresented me.

I so clearly said that some of the ‘wider Jewish community’ are against this movement against Corbyn, not all. And I was clearly taking issue with Oscie’s post where he only mentioned those who are, essentially, anti-Corbyn.

Surely it’s obvious that he can’t claim to know what the ‘wider Jewish community’ think, any more than you or I can.
 
Nuts said:
Sorry, but you’ve put an awful lot of words in my mouth and really misrepresented me.

I so clearly said that some of the ‘wider Jewish community’ are against this movement against Corbyn, not all. And I was clearly taking issue with Oscie’s post where he only mentioned those who are, essentially, anti-Corbyn.

Surely it’s obvious that he can’t claim to know what the ‘wider Jewish community’ think, any more than you or I can.
Click to expand...

You said 'a lot' of the Jewish community - the post above would indicate the majority feel Labour have been quite soft on this, even if it's not necessarily an opinion shared by all.
 
Cheesy said:
Should that necessarily be the parties top priority at the moment? I get there are certain MP's in the party who don't necessarily represent Labour values and who'd be better off elsewhere but I get the impression the party would be better focusing their energy on opposing the government instead of continuing to focus on internal divisions.
Click to expand...
It's going to be difficult enough for any future left labour government with pressure from the civil service, finance capital, the press etc. If the party can control some of this by getting rid of MP's who will be nothing more than a massive pain in the arse then it should in my opinion.
 
Nuts said:
Surely it’s obvious that he can’t claim to know what the ‘wider Jewish community’ think, any more than you or I can.
Click to expand...

We can deduce from stuff like this:

The Attitudes of British Jews Towards Israel
(2015 survey conducted at City University London)

The most pertinent finding in the context of this discussion:

"British Jews are strongly attached to Israel. The vast majority of our respondents support its right to exist as a
Jewish state (90%), express pride in its cultural and scientific achievements (84%), see it as a vibrant and open
democracy (78%) and say that it forms some part of their identity as Jews (93%)."
http://yachad.org.uk/wp-content/upl...Towards-Israel-Yachad-Ipsos-Mori-Nov-2015.pdf
 
Nuts said:
Sorry, but you’ve put an awful lot of words in my mouth and really misrepresented me.

I so clearly said that some of the ‘wider Jewish community’ are against this movement against Corbyn, not all. And I was clearly taking issue with Oscie’s post where he only mentioned those who are, essentially, anti-Corbyn.

Surely it’s obvious that he can’t claim to know what the ‘wider Jewish community’ think, any more than you or I can.
Click to expand...

What you said was 'a lot of that ‘wider Jewish community’ support Corbyn in all this' a point which there is little to no evidence of, and, on the contrary, is demonstrably not true from the evidence (flawed and party political as it may be) we do have.
 
2cents said:
We can deduce from stuff like this:

The Attitudes of British Jews Towards Israel
(2015 survey conducted at City University London)

The most pertinent finding in the context of this discussion:

"British Jews are strongly attached to Israel. The vast majority of our respondents support its right to exist as a
Jewish state (90%), express pride in its cultural and scientific achievements (84%), see it as a vibrant and open
democracy (78%) and say that it forms some part of their identity as Jews (93%)."
Click to expand...

A bit alarming that 78% of respondents believe Israel to be a vibrant and open democracy while only 48% believe non-Jewish Israelis should enjoy equal rights in determining their country's future.
 
Ekkie Thump said:
A bit alarming that 78% of respondents believe Israel to be a vibrant and open democracy while only 48% believe non-Jewish Israelis should enjoy equal rights in determining their country's future.
Click to expand...

Vibrant and open democracy for Jews more like. I’d wager a bulk of the 78% don’t consider the non-Jewish Israelis to be legitimate citizens.

I’m sure the white citizens of South Africa who supported apartheid considered the country to be a vibrant and open democracy pre 1994.
 
Oscie said:
The Boris Johnson Appreciation Society of Muslims who think PC has Gone Mad, est August 2018, also wouldn't be an authority on whether that prick was being offensive this week, even if it were run by a Muslim, again for fairly obvious reasons.
Click to expand...

It was just a matter of time...

 


Which is nothing compared with going to a protest about things, that neoliberal Scottish fascist should keep his mouth shut.
 
Oscie said:


Which is nothing compared with going to a protest about things, that neoliberal Scottish fascist should keep his mouth shut.
Click to expand...


The problem with New Labour was that it never had any real ambition to change the status quo, which meant that the change they brought about didn't stick. The majority of the policies mentioned in that video were designed to put sticking plasters on inequalities instead of actually curing them and the money that paid for them came from an economic plan that was always going to fail eventually. They followed Thatcher down the path of making financial services the keystone of our economy and ignoring everything else and when the economic crash came, shock-horror the money wasn't there anymore. It was always unsustainable and I'm sure Brown always knew that, he was just hoping that by the time the shit hit the fan with the global economy they wouldn't still be in power.

The reason they sound good when you read them out in a speech is because they were designed to. Firstly it's a speech written to big up his government's achievements, of course it's going to sound convincing, and secondly New Labour was about marketing success as much as actually achieving it. It was short-term goal orientated, and obviously short-termism is nothing new in politics, but it's part of the reason New Labour's legacy was so easy to pick apart and really, with the majorities they had for the first 8 years the sky was the limit for that government. They could have changed the country as radically as Thatcher did, instead half the stuff he talks about in that speech was gone by the end of the coalition, and we're still stuck with billions of £s of PFI contracts, shitty privatised infrastructure fleecing us, a London-obsessed economy centred on financial services etc. from Blair/Brown's time + 8 years of Tory shit.
 
jeff_goldblum said:
The problem with New Labour was that it never had any real ambition to change the status quo, which meant that the change they brought about didn't stick. The majority of the policies mentioned in that video were designed to put sticking plasters on inequalities instead of actually curing them and the money that paid for them came from an economic plan that was always going to fail eventually. They followed Thatcher down the path of making financial services the keystone of our economy and ignoring everything else and when the economic crash came, shock-horror the money wasn't there anymore. It was always unsustainable and I'm sure Brown always knew that, he was just hoping that by the time the shit hit the fan with the global economy they wouldn't still be in power.

The reason they sound good when you read them out in a speech is because they were designed to. Firstly it's a speech written to big up his government's achievements, of course it's going to sound convincing, and secondly New Labour was about marketing success as much as actually achieving it. It was short-term goal orientated, and obviously short-termism is nothing new in politics, but it's part of the reason New Labour's legacy was so easy to pick apart and really, with the majorities they had for the first 8 years the sky was the limit for that government. They could have changed the country as radically as Thatcher did, instead half the stuff he talks about in that speech was gone by the end of the coalition, and we're still stuck with billions of £s of PFI contracts, shitty privatised infrastructure fleecing us, a London-obsessed economy centred on financial services etc. from Blair/Brown's time + 8 years of Tory shit.
Click to expand...

Good post. Much as I disagree with him plenty I actually have an inkling of respect for Brown - I think he was more closely aligned with left-wing ideals than Blair ever was, and his handling of the financial crisis was fairly respectable and earned him a lot of respect internationally even though he mostly got savaged domestically. But yeah, as you say so much more could have been achieved in those first two terms. The excuse earlier on for Labour basically following Tory spending plans during their first four years in power was waved off as them being too afraid of deviating from the Tory agenda - to the contrary you could say New Labour just didn't agree all that much with the Tories economically on the general direction of the economy, at the least in the sense of being incredibly neoliberal.
 
Indeed. Accused of 'Kafkaesque obfuscation' regarding the definition of antisemitism. How hard can it be? A cynic would be of the opinion that they just want to swerve an issue that will continue raise its ugly head.
 
Last edited:
One of the big problems has been the decision that you can be leader of the opposition and not bother with the media, not really have anything resembling a public relations strategy, only speak to an audience predetermined to be sympathetic and outside that communicate nearly exclusively through the 'no difficult questions asked' medium of social media. You can't and it isn't just the antisemitism issue that the mediaphobia has cost them, over 3 years they've consistently failed to push home any message successfully.

Oppositions vs very unpopular, disastrous, divided, mid-term governments should be setting the news/political agenda or at the very least be a major voice in the narrative of every political story. Corbyn's Labour party has been almost completely irrelevant to everything aside from stories specifically about him. You don't have to like the media to acknowledge their importance and how necessary it is for any party looking to win elections to fully engage. In the lead up to the last election was the only real time there was a Corbyn blitz in terms of the media, before and since he's been virtually a recluse.

For a Labour party with a cohesive, aggressive and coordinated media strategy and a leader willing to engage and be all over the media like flies around shit 24/7 in the two year period before hand, would have walked that last election. As it is even with the assist of the worst govt campaign ever in the history of campaigning, they still lost.
 
Last edited:
Cheesy said:
Good post. Much as I disagree with him plenty I actually have an inkling of respect for Brown - I think he was more closely aligned with left-wing ideals than Blair ever was, and his handling of the financial crisis was fairly respectable and earned him a lot of respect internationally even though he mostly got savaged domestically. But yeah, as you say so much more could have been achieved in those first two terms. The excuse earlier on for Labour basically following Tory spending plans during their first four years in power was waved off as them being too afraid of deviating from the Tory agenda - to the contrary you could say New Labour just didn't agree all that much with the Tories economically on the general direction of the economy, at the least in the sense of being incredibly neoliberal.
Click to expand...

The spending promise was for the first 2 years not 4. New labour promised in writing to govern from the centre / centre left so alll those people bemoaning that need to remember that was what they said they would do, and they got elected on the back of it. Ultimately Blairs job in the first term was to restore trust in Labour as a party of government which explains a lot of that caution. There’s not point in complaining about it, they won 3 elections because of it so who can say he was wrong? Labour only had a mandate for the things it promised to do, rather than the wish list you have for it.
 
nickm said:
The spending promise was for the first 2 years not 4. New labour promised in writing to govern from the centre / centre left so alll those people bemoaning that need to remember that was what they said they would do, and they got elected on the back of it. Ultimately Blairs job in the first term was to restore trust in Labour as a party of government which explains a lot of that caution. There’s not point in complaining about it, they won 3 elections because of it so who can say he was wrong? Labour only had a mandate for the things it promised to do, rather than the wish list you have for it.
Click to expand...

One of the problems is that a lot of people are wilfully ignorant of that time period and the achievements of Blair's government. A telltale sign is the use of the word 'neoliberal', it's become somewhat of a giveaway that someone's formed their views based on what they've seen someone else write on Facebook. It's quite the buzzword now for those who are not necessarily of the hard left through conviction, but because they think it's fashionable. Despite what others may think I come from a traditional Labour supporting family. It only tends to be people who suddenly realised that Corbynism was a trend they wanted to be seen to be a part of that the word 'neoliberal' is started to come into use.

The denigrating of the achievements of the Blair/Brown governments really didn't take hold until the last two or three years. Many staunch, hardline socialists even though they had their disagreements with the last Labour government would always acknowledge, welcome and share in the achievements. It's this new "I've seen someone mention neoliberal online so I'll now use it constantly and pretend to know what it means" lot that we've seen infiltrate the party post 2015 that the trashing of the Labour party's record in government has become de rigueur.
 
You happened to post a two-day old Tweet, nine minutes after someone else mentioned the subject that the Tweet was about, where the contents of the Tweet coincidentally seemed to challenge the point raised, but it was entirely coincidental?

Mind you not as coincidental as just happening to find yourself constantly surrounded by holocaust deniers, so you could be right.
 
Oscie said:
You happened to post a two-day old Tweet, nine minutes after someone else mentioned the subject that the Tweet was about, where the contents of the Tweet coincidentally seemed to challenge the point raised, but it was entirely coincidental?
Click to expand...
tenor.gif
 
You must log in or register to reply here.