A Strange Tinge To British Politics At The Moment

[filghy2]

More than 80% of the parliamentary party voted to remove Corbyn in 2106. That seems to suggest that there's a deeper problem with his leadership than a few disgruntled people and it can't be papered over indefinitely.

Three Conservative MPs have just left their party, so we could see significant splits in both parties. Labour has been moving to the left and the Conservatives to the right, which doesn't seem sustainable. Both seem to have come under substantial influence or control from factions that are focused on ideological purity and opposed to compromise. If both parties continue along their present direction I wonder if we could see a major realignment.

I know the first past the post system makes it hard for minor parties, but it could happen if both parties abandon the centre and a centre party is able to achieve a critical mass of support. Labour replaced the Liberals as the alternative major party in the 1920s because there was a big gap on the left that wasn't being filled.

[broncofan]

Both seem to have come under substantial influence or control from factions that are focused on ideological purity and opposed to compromise. .

There is a tendency on the poles to focus on ideological purity and to see "centrists" as indistinguishable from those on the opposite end of the spectrum.

But I also see a lot of tribalism on the poles as well. I see more fidelity to party brand and to particular individuals than to the ideas themselves.

I haven't studied political science but what would you make of someone whitewashing human rights violations of a former socialist country? The former is not showing an ideological commitment to socialism per se but is defending their brand and the people viewed as associated with socialism, even when it has morphed into a completely different monster.

Someone who wanted socialized health care and was unwilling to compromise is an ideological purist. But what about the person who tolerates those who violate every principle they claim to hold sacred simply because they're seen as being on the side of the good? In my not very objective view, this kind of behavior is at the heart of the crisis. On the far right and far left, you see people justify things they would not tolerate from the other party.

[filghy2]

There is a tendency on the poles to focus on ideological purity and to see "centrists" as indistinguishable from those on the opposite end of the spectrum.

But I also see a lot of tribalism on the poles as well. I see more fidelity to party brand and to particular individuals than to the ideas themselves.

It's interesting that this seems to be happening recently after a long period in which the major parties in many countries tended to converge towards the centre and put aside ideology. It used to be conventional wisdom that this was the only way to win elections.

Part of the reason why politics changed is that when things went wrong voters were inclined to blame the mainstream centrist politicians and listen to those who claimed to offer a different approach. When times are less favourable people tend to become more receptive to zero-sum thinking that blames some other group for their misfortunes.

Another factor may be that a much smaller proportion of voters joins political parties than used to be the case. Those who do tend to be people with strong views that may not be representative of what the general electorate thinks. To be selected, leaders need to appeal to the party membership, which tends to pull them to the right or left.

I think another factor pulling the parties to the extremes is the changes in media, which mean that people can now choose to be exposed only to views and 'ínformation' that fits their preconceptions.

I don't think hypocrisy on human rights is new. People on the left made excuses for the Soviet Union and China in the past. Those on the right also made excuses for right-wing dictatorships who were anti-communist.

[Stavros]

As a coda to my previous post I watched the BBC-2 Newsnight programme in which Anna Soubry was asked if she had spoken to Theresa May about her concerns. The relevant remarks are between 12 and 14 minutes in the link below. Soubry, and the argument is relevant whether the person voted leave, or remain in Soubry's case, argued that the UK needs a cllose relationship with the Single Market and the Customs Union, that it is what business want, and she could get it passed in the Commons -May's response was to look at Soubry 'as if I was an alien'. Soubry then argues that Theresa May has a fundamental problem with the principle of free movement, and that a rigid view of immigration makes it hard for May to concede any ground on her insistence that the UK is 'leaving the Single Market'. That this is also a key issue for the ERG and other hard core Brexiteers is due to immigration being one of the most central, but toxic issues in the Referendum campaign, and since.

If Theresa May has difficulty talking to Anna Soubry about immigration and the Single Market, the press this morning is reporting that Jeremy Corbyn did not sit down and talk to Luciana Berger about the problems she was having, but according to one of Corbyn's supporters, it was up to her to go and see him -as if the leadership had no idea what was going on and was not going to do anything unless prompted by someone else. It appears that just as, at Prime Minister's Questions in the Commons yesterday, neither Theresa May nor Jeremy Corbyn referred to the defections taking place in their own parties, neither wants to address the issues that for outsiders are so blatant: the stanglehold the ERG has on May's EU policy, the poison of anti-semitism in Labour.

What the apparent paralysis of these two party leaders does is create a permissive environment in which ideological purists with their biblical verses are given space to breathe and agitate, even if it brings the party into disrepute. While this may be caused by the inherent weaknesses in the divided parties, as Neil Kinnock showed in the 1980s and David Cameron to a lesser extent during his time as leader, if the leadership of the party does not take direct action against militants, and seek reforms to the party that make it more inclusive, the end result is not just bitterness and division,but defections and the prospect of losing power or never getting it at a general election.

For all the talk of the defectors supporting or opposing austerity, this wave of defections is about one policy: Brexit, and one fact: neither party knows how to manage it.

One small point for those who say the defectors must now resign their Parliamentary seats and fight a by-election. Legallly this is not necessary as MPs represent a place not a party, and can join and leave as many parties as they like, or sit as an independent. Morally it may be justified on the grounds that they were elected with the practical and financial support of the party, and that voters may have chosen them for their party affiliation rather than their character, though in many case MPs can earn enough support from voters for being good constituency MPs rather than party loyalty. For those Leave fanatics there is an intriguing example and it comes from their very own British Bulldog, Winston Churchill. Elected to the Commons as a Conservative in 1900 he fell out with his colleagues over the Tariff Reform crisis that shredded the party and led directly to the Liberal victory of 1906 -the Tories did not rule again until 1922. In 1904 Churchill defected to the Liberal Party. Did he resign his seat and fight a by-election? No, of course not.

The Newsnight link is here-
https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episod...night-20022019

[Jericho]

One small point for those who say the defectors must now resign their Parliamentary seats and fight a by-election. Legallly this is not necessary

Legally not...
But dude, You’re looking at things through the paradigm of the 20th century.

I thought by the time I got back, they'd at least have 'something' between them.
All i've learned is Soubry smokes me dope than snoop and their gang-hut is above a spoons called the Unicorn!

[filghy2]

Legally not...
But dude, You’re looking at things through the paradigm of the 20th century.

Isn't the paradigm of the 21st century that nobody resigns on account of a principle any more? I thought there used to be a principle that a PM would resign if they were defeated on a critical piece of legislation, or that a party leader would resign if they lost the confidence of their parliamentary colleagues.

[Jericho]

Isn't the paradigm of the 21st century that nobody resigns on account of a principle any more? I thought there used to be a principle that a PM would resign if they were defeated on a critical piece of legislation, or that a party leader would resign if they lost the confidence of their parliamentary colleagues.

Indeed...Unless of course, they had the support of the grass-roots membership.

Though, I think there's one we can both agree should resign instantly, it's Labour MP, Fiona Onasanya. Out of Jail for perverting the course of justice this morning, and back in the House tomorrow.

And I've only just learned this morning that she was still getting paid whilst she was in stir - It's a fucking joke!

If I can only hop Peterborough CLP will be holding another vote of No Confidence now she's out,

[broncofan]

Like I said on the last page, it's fairly obvious the thread is not about Angela Smith's comments as they have only been used as a counterweight to the claims of anti-semitism against Labour and haven't been mentioned since. If it's about the defections, then I'm curious about Luciana Berger, who as I said appears to have dedicated her professional life to combatting mental health issues. While every country has different laws, what she faced seemed to involve pretty common workplace issues that employment laws are intended to redress: harassment and retaliation for reporting it.

She was subjected to bigoted harassment, including threats. She was not told about the threats by the party leadership and when they became public, she hired security to protect her at events. She was then targeted by conspiracy theories on left-wing blogs that circulated photographs of her without security to imply she didn't really need them and was only trying to make the party look bad. The party leadership decided continuing with her deselection would look sinister to people who don't spend their days reading agitprop nonsense.

Had she said the anti-Semitism she suffered was no big deal, not an issue in Labour, and claimed Corbyn did a great job in addressing it she never would have faced deselection. So, in addition to the evidence I’m going to post below, you had your first show trial of a Jewish dissident.

The first post pointed to "supposed" institutionalized racism. First of all, I believe nearly every one of the defectors has complained about anti-Semitism in particular, most of the disciplinary cases in Labour are focused on addressing the anti-semites who have been referred and it seems to be the party's racism du jour. If there have been as many high profile cases of other bigotry by elected officials in Labour please let me know.

I am going to post fifteen of the 80 or so major instances of anti-semitism from the party and we can discuss whether it's supposed or not. Compare it to the anti-racist parties of other countries:

1. Alan Bull-selected as a Labour Councilor. Holocaust denial and was defended by the head of claims Christine Shawcroft.
2. Ali Milani-Candidate for Labour councilor called Jews stingy, and used the word Jew as a pejorative. Not punished by party.
3. Andrew Slack- Pretty obvious stuff
https://antisemitism.uk/labour-refuses-to-say-what-will-happen-to-councillor-who-posted-image-of-hook-nosed-bloodthirsty-jew/
4. Aysebul Gurbuz-Labour Councillor, praised Hitler as the greatest man in history.
5. Beinazir Lasharie-Labour Councilor I think it's obvious https://antisemitism.uk/beinazir-las...ith-residents/
6.Billy Wells-Council Candidate "it's the super rich families of the Zionist lobby that control the world. Our world leaders sell their soul for greed and do the bidding of Israel."
7. Damien Enticott-Councilor "Hitler had a point." "Zionists should be put in concentration camps."
8. Dee Goulding-Councilor Holocaust denial. Claims that Jews aren't the Jews of the bible. Claims that Germans were the victims of the Holocaust.
9. George Mcmanus-serves on Uk Labour National Policy Forum stated "apparently electoral commission states that Watson received 50,000 from Jewish donors. At least Judas only got 30 pieces of silver". Class act.
10. Irfan Mohammed-Councillor shared a post claiming Jews received messages telling them not to go to work on 9/11.
11. John Clarke-Councillor the Rothschild's have "used usury as an imperial instrument to take over the world and all of its resources, including you and I”. Also a diatribe basically calling Jews during WWII cowards and ingrates. https://antisemitism.uk/racist-labou...fighting-back/
12. Mary Lockhart-Councillor Mossad infiltrated random Jewish newspapers in the Uk.
13. Mohammad Shabir-Councillor in Bradford Bradford claimed "Russian Orthodox Jews were involved in the sex trafficking trade — demand is particularly high among Charedim, the conservative Orthodox Jews, many of whom are regular clients of brothels…."
14. Nasreen Khan- Candidate- "what have the Jews done good in this world." Also chastised schools for "brainwashing us and our children into thinking Hitler was the bad guy.".
15. Roy Smart-Council Candidate. Holocaust Denier.

This doesn’t include a bunch of high profile stuff that would actually take time to discuss, but is the most obvious. I mentioned Jim Sheridan on the previous page and there are dozens and dozens more.

But three Holocaust deniers elected as Councillor. Not bad for supposed racism. One violent threat from an elected official. Also not bad. One Councillor who called Jews during WWII who lost their loved ones cowards. One conspiracy theorist who thinks no Jews died on 9/11. One who brought up Judas and silver to portray grasping, greedy Jews and their bribes. One Hitler lover!

Now isn’t it possible that some of these Mps think it’s a bit unusual to have this many cases, as serious as they are? Or nah? And of the people who say there’s no evidence and repeat it. Aren’t they liars?

So, as I said, on point because the first post said supposed racism. And this is the sort of thing MPs should resign over.

[peejaye]

No prizes for guessing which far right cunt as thumbed up that fucking bile!
There'e antisemitism within YOUR party too!

[broncofan]

No prizes for guessing which far right cunt as thumbed up that fucking bile!
There'e antisemitism within YOUR party too!

I bet you won't guess. I won't tell you either, but it's not one of your usual targets. My party is the Democratic party, which I have been registered in every term in the U.S. I shared evidence...I am often told there's none. Then I'm told there's some but it's not that bad. Then I shared it. The bile as you refer to it are the quotations from Labour Councillors and candidates.