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

@sun_tzu
That kind of polemics/trolling doesn't help at all. It's a misuse of an important issue and will have nothing but negative effects.
 
Surely we should be dealing with anti-Semitic comments like that. Imagine if that came from a Corbyn supporter on twitter.
 
@Eboue i had an even longer post written out but I’ll leave it for the sake of our time, etc. Enough to say that while I don’t share the basic assumptions which underlie your approach to this conflict, we could legitimately discuss and argue over any of your points without it ever crossing my mind that antisemitism was a motivating factor in your critique. I’ll just comment on the fifth point though, because it presents an opportunity to look at just how I feel the popular contemporary leftist critique of Israel tends to leave spaces to be filled by antisemitic discourse.



It is of course the nature of the left to focus on the power relations it deems define the conflict and issue its support accordingly. I think this approach has its limitations but it's completely legitimate as long as it's just the start of the analysis, not the end of it. A good old-fashioned Marxist approach to the conflict would strive to identify the roots of the apparent power imbalance by applying the classic critiques of imperialism and nationalism to the conflict, identifying the various material factors which produced it and continue to prolong it, while honestly and without hesitation accounting for everything that complicates a purely black-and-white assessment (this is the approach taken by the Marxist Arabist Maxime Rodinson who wrote one of my favorite books on this conflict, Israel and the Arabs).

Unfortunately I think today an influential (though perhaps not particularly large) section of the left has little interest or time for this kind of approach, it prefers a reflexive analysis based to some degree on the identification of the conflicting parties with the identity and racial politics which have come to dominate so much leftist discourse in the West. The idea that there are clear-cut divisions between certain privileged groups and the not so privileged - a valuable approach generally in my opinion, but always problematic when applied to the Jews because antisemitism requires at least some Jews to be perceived as privileged and powerful in order to flourish. So Israel becomes the privileged White Man in the Middle East, or worse the successful powerful Jew, imposing itself on a basically defenseless subaltern people, and no further explanation is really needed since all we need to understand are these relations of power.

Problems arise when this simple approach is confronted with complicating factors. Some obvious examples would be: the antisemitism which drove the original Zionist project and ultimately produced the Holocaust; the fact that about half the Jewish-Israeli population is descended from the MENA region; the very real and genuine historical, cultural, religious and emotional ties Jews have always maintained with the contested land; the genuine liberal strain that exists in Israeli society; the very real security challenges Israel faces in the region; the sorry state of politics in the surrounding hostile region; and the fact that the regional confrontation with Israel over the decades has been channeled primarily through two ideologies - Arab nationalism and Islamism - which are inherently illiberal, intolerant, and some might argue fascist in nature. Acknowledgement of these things needn't alter the ultimate conclusion that Israel is the oppressor and the Palestinians the oppressed. But without an honest accounting for them in the analysis, they will be ignored, minimized, distorted or denied when raised, and lazy, reflexive, conspiratorial and in some cases antisemitic rhetoric will fill the gap (hence "it's AIPAC" or "Zionist controlled-media!").

So Zionists are resented for having suffered the Holocaust which they now employ to secure their privileged status, while being told they are actually implicated in the Holocaust (or else the Holocaust is explained away in some fashion); Mizrachi Jews are told they're suffering from a false consciousness; Ashkenazi Jews are dismissed as the descendants of the Khazars; Israeli Jewish victims of Palestinian terrorism are told they themselves are responsible since they are represented by a "baby-killing" military; Israeli liberalism is an insincere facade used to "-wash" Israel of its crimes for a Western audience; Arab dictatorships are simply serving the Zionist agenda and nothing more; and the "resistance" is actually an authentic and legitimate left-wing socialist response in Middle Eastern garb. What this all looks like to any Jew with any kind of attachment to Israel (i.e. most of them) is a collective attempt to dismiss their history and narrative as contrived, fraudulent, and nefarious; so that even in cases where no antisemitic implication is intended or indeed even explicitly apparent, there is a natural tendency to see antisemitism nonetheless. I do think many Zionists could be more understanding of the ways that well-meaning people can get sucked into this kind of discourse. And of course there will be those who seek to cynically employ "antisemitism" in any case - in an age where so much political discourse places premium value on the idea of a hierarchy of victimhood, it would be extremely strange to find that Jews alone were somehow immune to the temptations of the race to the bottom.

Before I start, understand that I am typing this from a phone and it won't be well organized.

It seems to me that you are saying that a) there is a good deal of antisemitism on the left and b) even stuff that isnt antisemitism can seem that way to most jews. My main response is that a) there really isn't that much and it is almost always immediately called out (in my experiences) and b) the people who see antisemitism everywhere need to be better at evaluating. This isnt 1933 and they arent in gdansk. Israel is the major power in the region, had nuclear weapons, has a more advanced military than its regional rivals and has the support of the major superpower. Their position is safer than most people in recorded history and much safer than their immediate neighbors. I understand that it's natural to recognize historical persecution and be wary but that doesnt excuse the actions of the state of Israel and in my opinion it doesn't excuse the vigor with which they equate any criticism of Zionism with anti semitism. If Armenians or Vietnamese or native Americans or some other group which had a history of being historically persecuted were to engage like Zionists do, I think the same skepticism would exist on the left. I'd further say that equating criticism with israel with antisemitism weakens the charges of true antisemitism when it exists.

As for your list of things that should be acknowledged, I think most of them are. The left that I identify with isnt enamored with the Arab nationalism or Islamism. I think my views on Islam as a religion are well documented on here. I think we acknowledge the threats that Israel faces but still disagree with the vastly disproportionate responses and continued oppression the state engages in. I dont need to go point by point but I generally reject the idea that any more than a small minority on the left opposes Israeli actions as a base reaction.

Ilhan Omar has today been disgracefully thrown under the bus again by her fellow Democrats so I'll finish by giving an example of the point I made above. The story started with a republican threatening Omar and Tlaib over their support of BDS, to which Omar said the republicans position was "all about the benjamins". A firestorm ignited disingenuously suggesting that was an anti semitic remark, when in fact all lobbying is about the Benjamins. If she criticized ted Cruz for being in the pocket of the oil industry with that same line no one would say anything. Instead we get Zionists taking a legitimate anti semitic trope throughout history and applying it to a statement that wasn't anti semitic in order to bash their political opponents. Meanwhile these people say nothing about an alliance with Orban or about Trump having Gorka in the white house or Steve King as a staunch supporter of israel. I think the accusation of anti semitism has become a cudgel used in bad faith against political opponents. I dont follow British politics that much so I dont want to state definitively but it sure seems like the attacks on Corbyn are more of the same.
 
John Harris, oh wow, he's the authority on everything

He is a left leaning journo who goes out and actually reports. His question - why do anti semites think Labour is the party for them - is still unanswered by you.
 
He is a left leaning journo who goes out and actually reports. His question - why do anti semites think Labour is the party for them - is still unanswered by you.

I've read his work and it's shite. He can't get over the left turn of Labour. Like many he thinks being anti Israel is antisemitic
 
He is a left leaning journo who goes out and actually reports.
Thats being kind. Also didn't he spend two years going around the country reporting the ''real'' views of the British people only to then call the election completely wrong. Hence why he now works at the IT department at The Guardian.

why do anti semites think Labour is the party for them - is still unanswered by you.
By comparing these responses with the data from the polls of the British population that we commissioned YouGov to undertake, we can pinpoint the problem. The YouGov data shows, for example, that Labour Party supporters are less likely to be antisemitic than other voters, so the cause of British Jews’ discontentment with the Labour Party must be the way that it has very publicly failed to robustly deal with the antisemites in its ranks. This means that the Labour Party has fallen out of step with its core supporters, who are generally less likely to hold antisemitic beliefs.
https://antisemitism.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/Antisemitism-Barometer-2017.pdf
 
It seems to me that you are saying that a) there is a good deal of antisemitism on the left and b) even stuff that isnt antisemitism can seem that way to most jews.

On (a) what I said was that the approach taken to the conflict by an influential though unquantifiable section of the left leaves gaps/spaces in the analysis which are often filled by reflexive antisemitic discourse. On (b) I said "even in cases where no antisemitic implication is intended or indeed even explicitly apparent" - I'm sure you're aware that a lack of racist intent does not necessarily = lack of racism, and that racist rhetoric is often delivered through implicit means. So you have me wrong on both counts there.

This isnt 1933 and they arent in gdansk. Israel is the major power in the region, had nuclear weapons, has a more advanced military than its regional rivals and has the support of the major superpower. Their position is safer than most people in recorded history and much safer than their immediate neighbors. I understand that it's natural to recognize historical persecution and be wary but that doesnt excuse the actions of the state of Israel...

...Ilhan Omar...in fact all lobbying is about the Benjamins

Like I said, I disagree with your reading of the conflict and Israel's regional position, but it's not really relevant to this discussion. I'm not asking you or the left to excuse Israel or change your position on the conflict. I'm asking for a thorough, honest understanding of the various complex dynamics at work. Not bone-headed, thoughtless analysis which explains nothing but produces glib soundbites on Twitter which have David Duke and Richard Spencer nodding with approval. So for example a mention of the role of AIPAC in the US-Israel alliance should just be the start of the conversation, not the end of it, and it should carefully consider all the alternative factors which drive the alliance, of which there are many (for a good old-fashioned left-wing analysis I'd recommend Chomsky in Fateful Triangle, p. 47-94). Omar's time would be much better spent considering the various reasons why a vast majority of Americans still tend to favour the Israeli side in the conflict and attempting to undermine those reasons - not by claiming "it's all about the Benjamins" (it's not), but by meticulously spelling out for Americans the conditions imposed on Palestinians in the territories, highlighting the militarism of the Israeli state, its dubious regional/international alliances, its wars, its illiberal political order and identity, etc. There are legitimate criticisms to be made on all these and other fronts without a whiff of an antisemitic image or trope, and she has the national platform to do so (and just in case it doesn't go without saying, I agree the attacks on Omar are far worse than anything she's done).

Or to give another example more relevant to this thread, when asked his opinion about a jihadi attack in the Sinai which targeted Israeli soldiers, Corbyn should have discussed the conditions in the Sinai which have given rise to such groups, the growth of jihadist ideology in the region as a whole, and the various ways the policies of the Egyptian and Israeli governments have helped fuel this growth. Instead he simply claimed to see "the hand of Israel" behind the attack, and he did it on the propaganda arm of an antisemitic Islamist regime. Which leads me to...

As for your list of things that should be acknowledged, I think most of them are. The left that I identify with isnt enamored with the Arab nationalism or Islamism. I think my views on Islam as a religion are well documented on here. I think we acknowledge the threats that Israel faces but still disagree with the vastly disproportionate responses and continued oppression the state engages in. I dont need to go point by point but I generally reject the idea that any more than a small minority on the left opposes Israeli actions as a base reaction

The part of the left I am talking about is or has been quite enamored with these things over the years. I got interested in politics during the 18-month period between 9/11 and the Iraq War. The charge towards war left me sickened, but then there was that side of the left which responded not just with criticism of US militarism and all that, but with a defense of Saddam and, when the war got underway, the insurgency which grew in response. We had people like Galloway glorifying the jihadis and John Pilger pragmatically arguing that the cost of supporting the insurgency was worth bearing in the face of the American war machine (these two of course denounced the same jihadis as soon as they turned their guns on the anti-American dictator in Syria later on). This is the left I have always identified Corbyn with since I've been aware of him, long before he became Labour Party leader. I generally thought of him as a cuddly, boring and inoffensive version of George Galloway. Corbyn himself was one of the founders of the Stop the War Coalition which tried to legitimise the insurgency in October 2004 (by which point the nature of the insurgency was quite clear). He has marched under Hezbollah flags, called Hamas and Hezbollah "friends", invited Islamists to parliament, and conducted propaganda work for an explicitly Islamist regime. Similar indifference to the nature of these movements can be found across the section of the left I'm on about (see for example Ken Livingstone's comments on Yusuf al-Qaradawi). I didn't just pluck the "authentic and legitimate left-wing socialist response in Middle Eastern garb" out of my arse; here's a quote from Judith Butler - "understanding Hamas, Hezbollah as social movements that are progressive, that are on the Left, that are part of a global Left, is extremely important." And before Islamism merged as a real force, this was the same section of the left which threw its weight behind the Arab nationalist movement represented by the likes of Nasser and the PLO.

That's just one example but the same applies to the rest of those points - I have encountered them all regularly over a long time being engaged in this conversation. Perhaps you haven't and perhaps the trend isn't nearly as strong in the US as it is in Europe (that is a point mentioned in this article on the Gaza = Auschwitz analogy). Fair enough.
 
Last edited:
On (a) what I said was that the approach taken to the conflict by an influential though unquantifiable section of the left leaves gaps/spaces in the analysis which are often filled by reflexive antisemitic discourse. On (b) I said "even in cases where no antisemitic implication is intended or indeed even explicitly apparent" - I'm sure you're aware that a lack of racist intent does not necessarily = lack of racism, and that racist rhetoric is often delivered through implicit means. So you have me wrong on both counts there.



Like I said, I disagree with your reading of the conflict and Israel's regional position, but it's not really relevant to this discussion. I'm not asking you or the left to excuse Israel or change your position on the conflict. I'm asking for a thorough, honest understanding of the various complex dynamics at work. Not bone-headed, thoughtless analysis which explains nothing but produces glib soundbites on Twitter which have David Duke and Richard Spencer nodding with approval. So for example a mention of the role of AIPAC in the US-Israel alliance should just be the start of the conversation, not the end of it, and it should carefully consider all the alternative factors which drive the alliance, of which there are many (for a good old-fashioned left-wing analysis I'd recommend Chomsky in Fateful Triangle, p. 47-94). Omar's time would be much better spent considering the various reasons why a vast majority of Americans still tend to favour the Israeli side in the conflict and attempting to undermine those reasons - not by claiming "it's all about the Benjamins" (it's not), but by meticulously spelling out for Americans the conditions imposed on Palestinians in the territories, highlighting the militarism of the Israeli state, its dubious regional/international alliances, its wars, its illiberal political order and identity, etc. There are legitimate criticisms to be made on all these and other fronts without a whiff of an antisemitic image or trope, and she has the national platform to do so (and just in case it doesn't go without saying, I agree the attacks on Omar are far worse than anything she's done).

Or to give another example more relevant to this thread, when asked his opinion about a jihadi attack in the Sinai which targeted Israeli soldiers, Corbyn should have discussed the conditions in the Sinai which have given rise to such groups, the growth of jihadist ideology in the region as a whole, and the various ways the policies of the Egyptian and Israeli governments have helped fuel this growth. Instead he simply claimed to see "the hand of Israel" behind the attack, and he did it on the propaganda arm of an antisemitic Islamist regime. Which leads me to...



The part of the left I am talking about is or has been quite enamored with these things over the years. I got interested in politics during the 18-month period between 9/11 and the Iraq War. The charge towards war left me sickened, but then there was that side of the left which responded not just with criticism of US militarism and all that, but with a defense of Saddam and, when the war got underway, the insurgency which grew in response. We had people like Galloway glorifying the jihadis and John Pilger pragmatically arguing that the cost of supporting the insurgency was worth bearing in the face of the American war machine (these two of course denounced the same jihadis as soon as they turned their guns on the anti-American dictator in Syria later on). This is the left I have always identified Corbyn with since I've been aware of him, long before he became Labour Party leader. I generally thought of him as a cuddly, boring and inoffensive version of George Galloway. Corbyn himself was one of the founders of the Stop the War Coalition which tried to legitimise the insurgency in October 2004 (by which point the nature of the insurgency was quite clear). He has marched under Hezbollah flags, called Hamas and Hezbollah "friends", invited Islamists to parliament, and conducted propaganda work for an explicitly Islamist regime. Similar indifference to the nature of these movements can be found across the section of the left I'm on about (see for example Ken Livingstone's comments on Yusuf al-Qaradawi). I didn't just pluck the "authentic and legitimate left-wing socialist response in Middle Eastern garb" out of my arse; here's a quote from Judith Butler - "understanding Hamas, Hezbollah as social movements that are progressive, that are on the Left, that are part of a global Left, is extremely important." And before Islamism merged as a real force, this was the same section of the left which threw its weight behind the Arab nationalist movement represented by the likes of Nasser and the PLO.

That's just one example but the same applies to the rest of those points - I have encountered them all regularly over a long time being engaged in this conversation. Perhaps you haven't and perhaps the trend isn't nearly as strong in the US as it is in Europe (that is a point mentioned in this article on the Gaza = Auschwitz analogy). Fair enough.

It's not about the Benjamins, they just spend that money for shits and giggles
 
Meanwhile, as everyone’s distracted, the Tories have reinstated a vile Islamophobe into the party after being initially suspended and he’s even been put up for an election.

 
https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2018/08/how-did-labour-lose-trust-britain-s-jews
Arguably, Labour's current malaise began not with Corbyn, but his predecessor, Ed Miliband. Though he was the party’s first Jewish leader, and expressed a desire to become the “first Jewish prime minister”, his relationship with the community was neither warm nor easy.

That Labour has historically been the “natural home” for British Jews is often invoked when expressing disbelief over anti-Semitism in its ranks. Less frequent are acknowledgements of the community's support for Thatcher, or even – shock horror – that British Jews do not think or vote as one.

Under Miliband, however, something changed: under his leadership, support for Labour among the Jewish community began to crater. The last poll of Jewish voters that gave the party a lead over the Conservatives was taken in the early days of his tenure. By its end, in 2015, polling showed just 14 per cent of Jewish voters were willing to back Labour (just one per cent more than its poll rating under Corbyn ahead of the 2017 election).

As with Corbyn, the roots of the problem can be traced to the Middle East. Miliband, the son of Holocaust refugees, did not grow up in the Jewish community but nonetheless made a concerted attempt to connect with it. His first overseas visit as leader was to Israel. Its conflict with Palestine would prove to be the issue that rendered his efforts pointless. His decision to whip Labour MPs to vote for a backbench motion in favour of recognising the state in October 2014 proved toxic.

This decision also compounded damage done during Operation Protective Edge three months previously, which saw Miliband direct fierce criticism at the Israeli government over its conduct in Gaza. “I defend Israel’s right to defend itself against rocket attacks,” he told Labour’s National Policy Forum. “But I cannot explain, justify, or defend the horrifying deaths of hundreds of Palestinians, including children and innocent civilians. And as a party we oppose the further escalation of violence we have seen with Israel’s invasion of Gaza.”

His rhetoric was criticised by Jewish community leaders. The Jewish Chronicle accused him of “knee-jerk criticism of a nation defending itself from terrorism”, while Kate Bearman, a former director of Labour Friends of Israel, quit the party in protest. The backlash presaged a bigger headache caused by the vote to recognise Palestine’s statehood in October, when the actress Maureen Lipman – a Labour supporter of several decades’ vintage – denounced Miliband in a headline-grabbing protest.

“Just when you thought it couldn't get any worse,” Lipman wrote in a polemic for Standpoint magazine that November. “Just when the anti-Semitism in France, Denmark, Norway, Hungary is mounting savagely, just when our cemeteries and synagogues and shops are once again under threat. Just when the virulence against a country defending itself, against 4,000 rockets and 32 tunnels inside its borders, as it has every right to do under the Geneva Convention, had been swept aside by the real pestilence of IS, in steps Mr Miliband to demand that the government recognise the state of Palestine alongside the state of Israel.”

Revealing she would not vote for Labour, she added: “I'm an actress, Ed, and I am often commended for my timing. Frankly, my dear, yours sucks.” So did the timing of her attack, as far as Labour’s electoral prospects were concerned. Several Jewish donors deserted the party. At the general election the following May, several north London marginals with large Jewish populations stayed stubbornly blue: Harrow East, Hendon, Finchley and Golders Green.

The lacklustre term of the party’s first Jewish leader – who has maintained a studious silence on the current crisis (aside from a single tweet calling for Labour to adopt the full IHRA definition) – ended with support among the Jewish community at its lowest for two decades. His rhetoric and shift in policy on the Israel-Palestine conflict was nonetheless welcomed by some British Jews – who, as commentary on Labour’s woes often neglects, are by no means universally supportive of the Israeli government. A 2015 poll found that 73 per cent thought Israel's approach to peace was damaging its standing in the world, with 71 per cent backing a two-state solution.

Around the time of Operation Protective Edge, Miliband's criticism of Israel was accompanied by an unequivocal condemnation of anti-Semitism. Calling for a “zero-tolerance approach”, he said: “The recent spate of incidents should serve as a wake-up call for anyone who thought the scourge of anti-Semitism had been defeated and that the idea of Jewish families fearful of living here in Britain was unthinkable.

“Some have told me how, for the first time in their lifetime, they are scared for their children’s future in our country. Others have expressed a general unease that this rise in anti-Semitism could signal that something has changed – or is changing – in Britain.”

As parlous as Labour’s standing in the Jewish community was by the end of Miliband’s tenure, none could have predicted that, within the space of three years, it would be using eerily similar language to describe his successor – and that that successor would be Jeremy Corbyn.
 
I'd been writing bits of this reply over the past 2 days but it's disappeared, so from memory:

Reading a few of the posts from @2cents including the reply to me and the long reply to Eboue, I want back and thought about the basics of the accusations against Corbyn (at least as I understood them).
There was a lot of reporting about Corbyn early on which was quite scattergun - the only thing that stuck was "terrorist sympathiser", and that I realise now is very related to the anti-semitism. In fact that was one of the main lines of attack in the 2017 election, almost 2 years after he became leader. However, what was highlighted then was not "my friends in Hezbollah" but his attitude towards the IRA, his meeting with Gerry Adams at the height of the armed conflict, his condemnations of IRA violence that were seen as ambiguous or half-hearted, and his open support for one side - a united Ireland.

What clarified the links between this Ireland stuff and his Hezbollah/Hamas meetings was the post about the anti-Iraq war movement. It then makes sense to view his stances on Israel as an extension of his stances on Ireland, and his foreign policy generally, and that is what I have been doing (without consciously realising it). So he is associating with violent people because he believes their cause is just and under-served, or he is standing with the oppressed or whatever he sees it as. I think there are legitimate criticisms of that foreign policy, especially when it's used reductively, though I also think that someone with those attitudes has probably never been in power in the west previously and it will at the very least be interesting to see to what extent he can re-shape relations with Saudi Arabia, Iran, Israel, and the US.

For me the anti-semitism charges against him that have stuck the most are the association with Hamas and Hezbollah. He's been getting quite quick at removing party members, and there has been no suggestion of any personal antisemitism from him.* I guess that is why I take the anti-semitism accusations less seriously, since it seems to be related to his more general view of foreign policy than something specific against Jews. I don't think there is a credible way his election can lead to (say) attacks on synagogues in England, especially since he's (ironically for a Labour leader) running on a more-police, law-and-order platform.


*There's been a *lot* of negative reports abut him so I might be missing something.
 
On another note, this seems surprising.



I'm sure it won't come to a strike, which would be awkward.
 
On another note, this seems surprising.



I'm sure it won't come to a strike, which would be awkward.


It does hint at one of the problems that this current form of Labour would have in power though. When you're that close to the unions, you really have no choice but to say yes when they ask for improved terms for members, or you face accusations of hypocrisy.

But what happens if the unions start asking for improvements in terms that are completely OTT? Its not their role to worry about Government finances, its their role to campaign for their members, so Labour can hardly hope that they'll just be reasonable. In a weird way the unions are more of a threat to Labour than to the Tories. With the Tories, its a given that they'll be butting heads with the unions, no-one expects otherwise. But widespread action by the unions against the decisions of a Corbyn led Government? That could have all sorts of strange consequences.
 
It does hint at one of the problems that this current form of Labour would have in power though. When you're that close to the unions, you really have no choice but to say yes when they ask for improved terms for members, or you face accusations of hypocrisy.

But what happens if the unions start asking for improvements in terms that are completely OTT? Its not their role to worry about Government finances, its their role to campaign for their members, so Labour can hardly hope that they'll just be reasonable. In a weird way the unions are more of a threat to Labour than to the Tories. With the Tories, its a given that they'll be butting heads with the unions, no-one expects otherwise. But widespread action by the unions against the decisions of a Corbyn led Government? That could have all sorts of strange consequences.

The unions problem is probably one Corbyn's government would face in general if he got into power. Until now he's largely had the luxury of criticising governments from the backbenches/opposition (and he's often been right) but when any leader assumes office they're ultimately going to have to make difficult choices, and all undoubtedly compromise their principles at some point or another to stay in power if they have an idea that they agree with but doesn't sell well with the public in that particular moment.

Of course, if you're on the left, that's no reason not to vote Corbyn from a purely economical POV: even if he does compromise on some views for political self-gain, he'll still implement a lot more a leftist likes than any Tory or moderate Labour PM. But still, I do imagine you'd see some of the leftist elements of the party grow frustrated when the realities of the office see him making decisions they don't like or agree with on occasion. Which would undoubtedly happen.
 


And there it is, proof if it was ever needed that it's about Israel and not about antisemitism.


Yep. So many people turning a blind eye to the amount of pockets being stuffed by Israel in west minister.
 
It does hint at one of the problems that this current form of Labour would have in power though. When you're that close to the unions, you really have no choice but to say yes when they ask for improved terms for members, or you face accusations of hypocrisy.

But what happens if the unions start asking for improvements in terms that are completely OTT? Its not their role to worry about Government finances, its their role to campaign for their members, so Labour can hardly hope that they'll just be reasonable. In a weird way the unions are more of a threat to Labour than to the Tories. With the Tories, its a given that they'll be butting heads with the unions, no-one expects otherwise. But widespread action by the unions against the decisions of a Corbyn led Government? That could have all sorts of strange consequences.

Didn't the Unions bring the Labour Party to its knees in the 70s though?
 


And there it is, proof if it was ever needed that it's about Israel and not about antisemitism.


Hodge is in the contingent of people to ignore on this issue really. No reasonable person would ignore that some have weaponised the issue to attack Corbyn and she's one of those who did and continues to do so.

I still think that's happening but it doesn't mean there isn't underlying issues as well with the membership, just not to scale discussed.
 
Didn't the Unions bring the Labour Party to its knees in the 70s though?

Very much so. They wanted to keep public sector wages down to try and row in runaway inflation that at one point had reached 25% (!) but while the Unions played ball for a while, in the end they got tired of taking real term pay cuts year on year and we had the biggest run of strikes in 50 years. Given that Callaghan had been so close to the Unions his authority was fatally undermined.

Of course, his replacement was Thatcher, who was probably the worst thing to ever happen to the Unions in the UK, so maybe they'd be a bit more circumspect this time round. But i wouldnt bet on it.
 
Very much so. They wanted to keep public sector wages down to try and row in runaway inflation that at one point had reached 25% (!) but while the Unions played ball for a while, in the end they got tired of taking real term pay cuts year on year and we had the biggest run of strikes in 50 years. Given that Callaghan had been so close to the Unions his authority was fatally undermined.

Of course, his replacement was Thatcher, who was probably the worst thing to ever happen to the Unions in the UK, so maybe they'd be a bit more circumspect this time round. But i wouldnt bet on it.

The best thing that Thatcher did was break the stranglehold of the unions. I dare say that's not a particularly popular opinion round here though :D
 
Listen to yourselves. It's frankly pathetic.

Just seen the hate on twitter for the ehrc from labour supporters, very sad. In its role in pushing equality duty its been genuinely life changing for many minority groups. But now labour supporters want to tarnish its name for taking up what seems to be an issue well within its remit, seemingly because labour should be seen as above suspicion and hence the rules shouldn’t apply to them. Sad times.
 
What's pathetic is the whole Antisemitic onslaught on Corbyn.

There's some balance to be had. I'll absolutely agree that there's a tendency for even the slightest criticism of Israel to often be dismissed as anti-semitism. Similarly I think there's a solid argument that Labour's in-house issues (like this) get a ton more treatment than similar ones within the Tory party, who've shown in the last couple of years they have their own deep-rooted problems in need of addressing.

But there's no doubt that some of the rhetoric that's come from Labour and people involved has been problematic, and there's something fairly sinister when you're seeing lots of Labour members dismissing what seems to be a majority view of the Jewish community that there's a significant problem that needs to be tackled.
 
Just seen the hate on twitter for the ehrc from labour supporters, very sad. In its role in pushing equality duty its been genuinely life changing for many minority groups. But now labour supporters want to tarnish its name for taking up what seems to be an issue well within its remit, seemingly because labour should be seen as above suspicion and hence the rules shouldn’t apply to them. Sad times.

The far left and the far right are just two sides of the same coin. Stuff like this just shows it.
 
That this House is appalled, but barely surprised, at the revelations in M15 files regarding the bizarre and inhumane proposals to use pigeons as flying bombs; recognises the important and live-saving role of carrier pigeons in two world wars and wonders at the lack of gratitude towards these gentle creatures; and believes that humans represent the most obscene, perverted, cruel, uncivilised and lethal species ever to inhabit the planet and looks forward to the day when the inevitable asteroid slams into the earth and wipes them out thus giving nature the opportunity to start again.

Sponsored: Jeremy Corbyn, 2004

https://edm.parliament.uk/early-day-motion/24837