A Strange Tinge To British Politics At The Moment

[Jericho]

Seven Shamurai, or "The Blair Rich Project" (as twitter has dubbed them) have splintered from the Labour party and are causing a bit of a stir.

One of their 'supposed' grievances with the Labour Party leadership is institutionalized racism within the party.

So it doesn't bode well for their future when within hours of their launching their new party, "The Independent Group", one of their ringleaders, er sorry, i mean, "Spokes Persons" goes on national television and describes ethnic minorities as having a "Funny Tinge",

https://news.sky.com/story/angela-smith-apologises-for-misspeaking-so-badly-as-labour-splitters-hit-with-racism-row-two-hours-after-launch-11641331

[peejaye]

Hi Jeri. The BBC as two main objectives; No.1 is to STOP Brexit & No.2 is to destroy, as they call it "Jeremy Corbyns Labour Party", not The Labour Party.
Personally; I said good riddance to those right wing Liberals, we need rid of the rest now like Hilary Benn, Rachel Reeves etc and replace them with good honest human beings who care about social issues, not Big Business, Billionaires and Banks! The BBC as been using those cunts to beat "JC" with a stick since the day he took charge.
The laughable thing is; What as this Independence Party got to offer from that other waste of fucking space The Liberal Democrats doesn't already offer? I suspect it's just a "Stop Brexit" Party?... as are the Lib Dems!

[broncofan]

I guess I have strong opinions about this but certainly don't want to offend anyone.

It is impossible to prove that someone's real grievance is racism if when they point to the racism they are accused of an ulterior motive like tax dodging or loyalty to a foreign state. I am aware that the position of Councillor is local but it is an elected one and since there have been literally dozens of Councillors who have said flagrantly antisemitic things you'd think it would represent a decent proxy for the prevalence of it in the party (truthfully it's even worse).

I'll give just a handful (it is harder off the top of my head but there's a deep reservoir): Holocaust denial, the statement that "Talmuds need executing", the statement that Jews only have synagogue security because of paranoia, a facebook post by a former MP who said that he used to have respect and empathy for Jews but doesn't any longer, the statement that Jewish newspapers have been infiltrated by Mossad, and a recent Labour official who said "Jews start all the wars". That last one was said by Mel Gibson as well, but I'm talking about a Labour official who seemed to like the statement enough to adopt it.

You'll notice that the statement that he doesn't have "respect or empathy" for Jews by Jim Sheridan seems almost benign in the middle there when in reality he is pretty baldly saying he doesn't like Jews. Ask yourself how a politician can post on his facebook page that he doesn't like Jews and think it would get a good reception? What would happen if he got the reception he expected? And if you think not respecting or empathizing with people is not the same as not liking them, please list the people you like but neither have respect nor empathy for.

Luciana Berger has faced waves of anti-Semitism directed at her on social media. The Labour party concealed violent threats against her by hiding behind process because they were embarrassed by the bad pr. When she complained about the anti-Semitism and said that she wanted them to deal with the anti-Semitism problem she faced deselection based on a pretext that amounted to a charge of disloyalty to the party and leader.

And I know that she supports Israel and that some Jews do as well (though what support means needs to be defined) and that several years ago an Israeli in a bar boasted about his influence, which as a Jew is something you never want to do because if you're unlucky others will exaggerate it for you. That one guy cannot be the cause of all of these British political figures saying really ugly things, nor can a large picture of a Jewish woman saying "anti-Semitism is a trick we use" that used to be circulated on neo-Nazi sites be as informative as the rank and file think it is.

But I'm sure nobody is really offended by the things they've seen, and it's all intended to thwart what could be a glorious government where stooges and traitors are rooted out and exposed.

[Jericho]

I guess I have strong opinions about this but certainly don't want to offend anyone.

The whole anti-semitism thing get's murkier by the second over here.
(Coincidentally, A bit like everything connected to the ING.)

I'm fucked if i can tell the difference between anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism any more. I used to think i knew the difference, but when Noam Chomsky gets labelled an anti-Semite....

Oh, and just for shits and giggles, google 'Joan Ryan one million pounds' (ING defector) (look for the video)).

I can't even say Oy Vey any more...And if ever two words summed things up perfectly!

[Jericho]

What as this Independence Party got to offer from that other waste of fucking space The Liberal Democrats doesn't already offer? I suspect it's just a "Stop Brexit" Party?... as are the Lib Dems!

So far, their policies are;

Stop Brexit (To be honest, I'd be a hypocrite if i said I was against that)
Split the vote and keep the tories in power (A bit like the old Gang of 4)
Carry on with 'Austerity'.
And, erm, I think that's about it at the moment.

Apparently, they've now been joined by three tories. Heidi Allen, Sarah Wollaston, and Anne Soubry (The same Anne Soubry who called Ed Milliband a cunt in parliament)

Oh, and apparently, one of the Labour defectors (unnamed as yet) has tried to access the Party Members Address Database.

Interesting times.

[broncofan]

The whole anti-semitism thing get's murkier by the second over here.
(Coincidentally, A bit like everything connected to the ING.)

I'm fucked if i can tell the difference between anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism any more. I used to think i knew the difference, but when Noam Chomsky gets labelled an anti-Semite....

Oh, and just for shits and giggles, google 'Joan Ryan one million pounds' (ING defector) (look for the video)).

I can't even say Oy Vey any more...And if ever two words summed things up perfectly!
I can tell the difference. There is a two thousand year history you could use as guidance.

I've seen really egregious instances of anti-Semitism that people will swear is only criticism of Israel. We've seen it on this site even. Some guy named Daphne something claimed a person can't criticize Israel without being called anti-Semitic. He then praised Hitler and I called him anti-Semitic. Like a conspiracy theorist he felt his point was proven. But did I say he was anti-Semitic because he praised Hitler or for his criticism of Israel? An enduring mystery.

Here's a tip: if someone is accusing a random Jewish people of working for a foreign state and has no evidence, that is anti-Semitic. If a Jewish person points to one of the super egregious examples of anti-Semitism I posted above and is accused of only objecting to it in order to defend Israel, that's anti-Semitic. Israel is by many being used as a pretext to harass random Jewish people.

Let's try this one out for size. Derek Hatton, who was recently admitted to the Labour party and today suspended again said, "Jewish people with any sense of humanity need to start speaking out publicly against the ruthless murdering being carried out by Israel." That statement includes a criticism of Israel but insist that British Jews have a special obligation to condemn a state they've never lived in. Does somebody of Iranian descent who has never lived in Iran have to condemn Iran when they hang innocent people? Or is this a unique thing...

Is Noam Chomsky anti-Semitic? I don't think so. Is he a good character witness to say the Labour party is not anti-Semitic? I can't think of a worse one. Noam Chomsky once said that Robert Faurisson is not anti-Semitic and that he sees no "anti-Semitic implication in Holocaust denial." Not even an implication! One thing I know is that being Jewish does not mean someone cannot say something anti-Semitic. Gilad Atzmon, who is Jewish, said that to burn a synagogue is a rational act. That's anti-Semitic no matter who says it.

The other thing those mps are against is the spread of anti-Semitic conspiracy theories. I've seen Labour members on twitter with timelines of JC support who read David Icke. I've seen some who defend Gilad Atzmon. It's gotten to the point where every Jewish person who complains about anti-Semitism is then accused of some nefarious action. For a conspiracy theorist, the idiotic claims they spread are self-proving.

I'm just curious Jericho: Did you read my first post and the examples I provided? I can't find left-wing politicians in the U.S., even at the local level, who have said similar things. I can find right-wingers who do, but nobody on the left. Were any of those ambiguous?

[broncofan]

Derek Hatton, who was recently admitted to the Labour party and today suspended again said, "Jewish people with any sense of humanity need to start speaking out publicly against the ruthless murdering being carried out by Israel." That statement includes a criticism of Israel but insist that British Jews have a special obligation to condemn a state they've never lived in. Does somebody of Iranian descent who has never lived in Iran have to condemn Iran when they hang innocent people? Or is this a unique thing...

Now that Hatton has been suspended Corbyn twitter is filled with people who think the statement is normal. Would it be normal to demand any other ethnic minority condemn a state they've never lived in and aren't citizens of? I know it happens, but would it ever be considered by those on the left to be an acceptable demand? Jews have been in Britain since Oliver Cromwell. Why should there be any assumption about what they think of Israel nor demands that they speak with one voice on any issue?

[Stavros]

A few points to make about the defections and what has motivated them.

1) I think it is too early to know if the Labour and Tory defections are a blip, or the beginning of a re-alignment in party politics. When the 'Gang of Four' walked out of Labour in 1981, the Labour Party had adopted as party policy Unilateral Nuclear Disarmament and withdrawal from the European Union, it was also engaged in an ongoing reform of party democracy that had begun with the Campaign for Labour Party Democracy in the 1970s, but was twisting in and out of absurd positions because of the Trade Unions block voting at Conference; and the 'Gang of Four' were senior and experienced politicians three of whom were household names. Against them was the Thatcher government at its weakest, having presented Parliament with a budget of such savage cuts even Chancellor Geoffrey Howe later conceded he might have gone too far. 1981 was also the year the reform of Education was begun which transformed university departments into commercial enterprises in some cases, in others split them ideologically, and in others led to complete closures -but who needs Classics, right? And note: Labour lost, and the SDP was a major success before it imploded with a poor party organization and personality squabbles. And it was Thatcher who went on to win two more elections.

For these defections to mean anything, other than a protest, at least 30 or more Labour MPs need to leave, and I would suggest an equivalent number of Tories too. In Labour, this must put pressure on deputy leader Tom Watson and Yvette Cooper, and they must calculate soon if they can rescue Labour as Neil Kinnock did in the 1980s or give up on the basis that Labour is now so thoroughly in the control of Momentum it is not possible to be a social democrat and remain a member.

2) Anna Soubry has alleged the Conservative Party has been infiltrated by UKIP, ex-UKIP members and who knows who else -and she is right. An organizing force in this, the Leave.eu campaign group openly boasts about its intentions and its achievemets. On its website it boasts that 25,000 people have joined Conservative Associations in England with the sole purpose of de-selecting MPs, identified once as 'the Dirty Dozen' there are now 13 on their list, labelled 'Traitors' just in case you weren't sure why. Note too the language that calls for people to 'make the Conservatives Conservative again'. We all know where that comes from, and it is no surprise that behind this campaign is Aaron Banks, long-time 'bad boy of Brexit', personal friend of Nigel Farage, a so-called 'multi-millionaire' who met the Russian ambassador five times during the 2016 campaign -but not the US Ambassador who one asssumes was not interested, ditto Nigeria, Chile, Japan and so on- and who could not possibly have been given a USP stick which he gave to Nigel to gave it to Julian Assange. Note too that on the Leave.eu website Damian Collins is on the right, the Chairman of the House of Commons Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport who called in Banks and his colleague Andy Wigmore to explain their involvement in the 2016 Referendum, the two of them walking out half-way through with smirks on their faces, treating Parliament with contempt. Aaron Banks is an anti-Conservative, having been banned from joining his local Conservative Association in North-West Leicestershire.

This is not a conspiracy, it is an open campaign by refugees from UKIP and points right to enter the Conservative Party to target anyone who does not regard the 2016 Referendum result as scripture, while the language of betrayal and worse is unworthy of even the Conservative Party. Crucially, Theresa May has failed to take action to have identifiable people expelled from the party just as she has failed to prevent the European Research Group becoming a 'party inside the party' with its ties to the Republican government in the USA -we still do not know what was said to them at a secret meeting last September attended by John Bolton who violated basic diplomatic protocol by not informing the British Government he was attending a meeting in Parliament -not that he cares about protocol.
https://leave.eu/deselect-these-shameful-tory-mps/

3) The point about May is relevant to Labour because Jeremy Corbyn has failed to combat the anti-semitism in the party, apparently delegating the responsibility to people who, like him 'do not expel socialists from a socialist party' which is what Corbyn and others said of Derek Hatton and Militant in the 1980s. The reluctance to take serious action has both undermined the party and smeared it with a reputation which in some cases it might not deserve, but in others is cruelly exposed as an undeniable truth.
Even if you factor in the hopeless shambles Labour has made of Brexit -voting for the Referendum in 2015, votig in favour of Article 50 and the Withdrawal Act in 2017, then utterly incapable of producing a coherent Brexit plan other than 'a Customs Union arrangement' that is EU membershp in all but name contradicts its own policy, you may say well Brexit is harder than anyone thought -but this is supposed to be the official Opposition to the Government not its official Butler.

As for the anti-semitism, read the quotes below and weep, from the House of Commons debate on anti-semitism. The link has the moving speech by Luciana Berger, but the unedited examples provided by Ruth Smeeth MP are nails in this coffin. Are those using Labour hashtags actual members? I assume so. Maybe Labour should cancel all its twitter feeds, but if the issue of Israel and the Palestinians is at the core, then the urgent task of holding Israel to account for its governance of the Occupied Territories - and the Palestinian authority for its rank incompetence- is actually being ignored for a campaign that is simply abuse and nothing else, and that is not politics. Thus, Smeeth records the abuse she has received from people using Labour or Labour identified twitter accounts:

“Hang yourself you vile treacherous Zionist Tory filth. You are a cancer of humanity.”
“Ruth Smeeth is a Zionist—she has no shame—and trades on the murder of Jews by Hitler—whom the Zionists betrayed.”
“Ruth Smeeth must surely be travelling 1st class to Tel Aviv with all that slush. After all, she’s complicit in trying to bring Corbyn down.”
“First job for Jeremy Corbyn tomorrow—expel the Zionist BICOM smear hag bitch Ruth Smeeth from the Party.”
“This Ruth Smeeth bitch is Britainophobic, we need to cleanse our nation of these types.”
“#JC4PM Deselect Ruth Smeeth ASAP. Poke the pig—get all Zionist child killer scum out of Labour.”
“You are a spy! You are evil, satanic! Leave! #Labour #Corbyn.”
“Ruth you are a Zionist plant, I’m ashamed you are in Labour. Better suited to the murderous Knesset! #I Support Ken.”
“Your fellow traitor Tony Blair abolished hanging for treason. Your kind need to leave before we bring it back #Smeeth Is Filth.”
“The gallows would be a fine and fitting place for this dyke piece of Yid shit to swing from.”
https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2018-04-17/debates/9D70B2B4-39D7-4241-ACF8-13F7DFD8AEB2/Anti-Semitism

Had I not left the Labour Party when I did in 1987, I would certainly not be a member now. And I am pleased to say I have not voted for it since 1997; I am utterly dismayed at what has happened to a party with such a noble, honourable tradition of promoting and defending human rights, but a party that has now stabbed the people of this country in the back and is unfit to govern.

We may be on the cusp of the most fundamental shift in party politics since the emergence of the Labour Party in 1900. That both Labour and Conservative parties are in crisis means either they will get through it somehow, or fall apart. But if the latter, and we don't know how Brexit will affect the system, my biggest fear is that the gap between them will be filled with some kind of populist, English party that parrots the 'Globalism' or 'Patriotism' agenda that is poisoning 243 years of democracy in the US and undermining democracy in Europe. And for what? Some ideal vision of purity? Socialism? A country free of foreigners? We are facing a long term transition in capitalism which is challenging the old ways in which we have worked, and this rump of neo-Nazis, fascists and dried-out Leninists want to re-stage the battles of the 20th Century using the language of hatred and confrontation?

Obama said it: We are better than this. And we are. But we are caught somewhere between hope and despair, and in the UK right now there is little to hope for.

[Jericho]

I'm just curious Jericho: Did you read my first post and the examples I provided? I can't find left-wing politicians in the U.S., even at the local level, who have said similar things. I can find right-wingers who do, but nobody on the left. Were any of those ambiguous?

I tend to assume people will naturally read between the lines. I'll try and be more specific and less facetious this time (and hopefully, not use too many 'but's).

But, why are we talking about anti-Semitism anyway?
She was talking about the 'funny tinge' of BAME minorities, but we've slipped into this.

Aside from that, For the most part, I'm in total agreement with you.
(Maybe we should start a separate thread?)

But, As I said, things over here are getting murky and lines are blurring!

Of your examples, obviously, the one I'm most familiar with is Luciana Berger. No ifs or buts about that, the abuse she's received was/and is fucking disgraceful, and it's been handled dreadfully.

Now, does that make Luciana Berger above genuine criticism of her performance as a Labour mp, a Labour MP who was about to jump ship?

Apparently, it does.
There's no middle ground. You criticise her now, you're an anti-Semite, no ifs, buts, or explanations.
And that's not right either, no one is above criticism (IMO, except me of course...And who ever's holding atm.)

And that's what's going on over here right now.
You mentioned Hatton, and i agree, but, if people want to, it's not hard to turn that argument on it's head.


btw, granted my history's a little sketchy, but I think Jews were here long before Cromwell! ;-)

[broncofan]

Fair point about Cromwell. We were there and then we weren't and then we were.

I apologize that I've focused on anti-Semitism when that's not the entire topic. Angela Smith's racist comment is relevant, but I'm not sure I agree that the thread was completely about her comment. My interpretation is that it's about the break away Labour politicians who stated as their primary grievances anti-Semitism and Brexit.

I think Angela Smith's comment is being used to claim that she is hypocritical and that her stated reason for leaving (institutionalized racism) couldn't be her real reason. And while I don't consider bigotry to other groups any less serious, isn't the point of bringing up Smith's comment to assert that she's hypocritical? It's impeachment of her credibility rather than the central issue. And since you agreed with the splitters about Brexit, doesn't that kind of narrow down the debate:tongue: . Anyhow, I think your last point was conciliatory, so I will follow in suit and concede some things.

A prominent twitter person called someone anti-Semitic because they had 88 in their screen name. 88 is sometimes code for Heil Hitler because h is the eighth letter of the alphabet. It was not my pleasure to inform this person that it was a thousand times more likely that the person they were arguing with was born in 1988 than that they were a Hitler lover. I have seen claims of anti-Semitism that I disagree with. Some were in good faith but way off base and by people who know nothing and some were in bad faith. I do believe it muddies the waters but I try pretty hard to point out things that look more like disguised abuse or something way over the line.

I'd also point out that while of course it's fair game to criticize Berger even while you feel bad about things said to her, I think there is a nexus between her perceived lack of loyalty and the abuse she's received. How much of the anger at her was at least partly based on her being very unhappy about this issue that affected her personally? But, yeah, if she really was someone who showed up to work drunk and high and didn't do anything, of course the fact that she's received abuse wouldn't make it out of bounds to point it out. My sense was that she's a very dedicated public servant who was very ticked about this issue and therefore seen as a thorn in the side of the party;

[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/episode/m0002p97/newsnight-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-lasharie-who-reportedly-linked-zionists-to-isis-appointed-deputy-mayor-of-kensington-and-chelsea-to-help-rebuild-trust-with-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-labours-councillor-clarke-found-berating-holocaust-victims-for-not-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.

[peejaye]

A Democrat....I'd of never guessed, I suppose that's what makes you such an expert on British Politics! You know nothing that's happening here.
I'd concentrate on what you're gunna do when Trump gets re-elected again.... hopefully!
Anything that fucks you lot off will always float my boat.

[broncofan]

A Democrat....I'd of never guessed, I suppose that's what makes you such an expert on British Politics! You know nothing that's happening here.
I'd concentrate on what you're gunna do when Trump gets re-elected again.... hopefully!
Anything that fucks you lot off will always float my boat.
You shouldn't have had to guess as I've said it a bunch of times and told you directly in one thread I'm American. Remembering would be easier.

I hope Trump doesn't get re-elected. I donated to Hillary's campaign and also canvassed for her. I would bet that I know more about each of these instances I've posted than you do, although I admit it has been tough trying to figure out context.

I find it very strange that Peter Willsman from NEC said that the complaints shouldn't be taken seriously because the Jewish community has "Trump fanatics" in it. Not only were Jewish people very underrepresented here as Trump supporters, you are a good example of the fact that there are many confused leftists among Corbyn supporters support Trump or see him as a lesser evil. It's a level of confusion I'll never understand, but you are not an anomaly.

Finally, I posted the evidence because it's relevant. The first post claims the MPs didn't have anything to defect over. I pointed out most have complained about institutional anti-Semitism and Brexit. People in the Corbyn movement have been eager to portray the anti-Semitism scandals as confected, or based on protecting Israel. If that were the case, wouldn't some of these comments look like attempts to criticize Israel that were scrutinized in bad faith? I just don't want there to be any confusion. I have seen criticism of Israel unfairly portrayed as anti-Semitism, but this isn't it, and I think conspiracy theorists are relying on the lefts tendency to assume that's the case to mainstream some very dangerous rhetoric.

[Jericho]

The first post pointed to "supposed" institutionalized racism. First of all, I believe nearly every one of the defectors has complained about anti-Semitism

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.



The thread was a starting point to the latest development in British politics, and the defectors 'given' reason for leaving the party.
In my opinion, you cannot cite racism within the party as a reason for leaving and then within hours of you first press conference come out with a racist statement and expect to be taken seriously. (We'll get back to Angela Smith and her comments later)


My first post, before you made any assumptions highlights *that*, and that alone. If you want to read anything else into it, that's on you.

But what am I supposed to take from that, so long as it's not anti-Semitism, racisms fine?
Or would you consider that to be jumping to conclusions that were never implied?

Right, now I've got that off my chest......


If you waiting for me to say there's no anti-Semitism in the Labour party, you're going to be waiting a long time.

There is.
There is anti-Semitism, Islamophobia, and racism against Black and Asian minorities.
But right now, it's at an historical low. Lower than when the Party had a Jewish leader, Ed Milliband (And if you want to get outraged, how about taking a pop at the british press for how they destroyed his chances because of his inability to eat a bacon sandwich - Or perhaps you don't think there was a subtext there?)

You mentioned Hatton, I was going to let it go, but since you seem determend. Yes, he appled for membership of the Labour Party - When his comment (a 2012 tweet) came to light, two days later, his mebership was suspended (regarding his comment that all british jews should condemn Israel, don't think they getting singled out, british muslims get the same everytime Daesh/ISIL is in the news, and that aint right, either).




If it's about the defections, then I'm curious about Luciana Berger.



The case of Luciana Berger is indeed troubling and I have no real answer, only background.

Of the prosecuted cases of anti-semitism, two were connected to labour party members, of the oline abuse, we can all speculate, but that's all it would be, speculation.
But, that's no excuse for the way her case was handled, it was abysmally bad.

The two votes of no confidence tabled against her were brought about because of her undermining of the party leadership and refusal to endorse a Labour government in a television inteview, And, the suspicion that she was actively working against the Labour party. Which, by that time, she was.
Both 'offences' grounds for a vote of no confidence by her CLP

Btw, both tabled by Jewish members of Wavertree CLP - But I guess they were the 'wrong type of jews' (Another of Angela Smith's little 'gaffes').

Wavertree cLP were virtually bullied into withdrawing their VONCs by party chairman Tom Watson who defended Berger, and was subsequently left with egg on his face, days later.

It could well be argued that if her case had been handled better, She may not have left, and is probably justified in at least one of her given reasons for leaving.

Of the other defections, in part, a weaponized smear.
(But Even Chuka baulked at calling Jeremy Corbyn an anti-Semite)
What's the best way to cause as much damage as possible.
If someone accuses you of racism, how do you defend against it?
Not me guv, i got a jewish friend! - No, doesn't cut it, does it.

Remember that counterweight you're so fond of?
It swings both ways, did they jump before they were pushed?




You had your first show trial of a Jewish dissident.


That's a disgusting accusation, worthy of your President. I'll not respond to it further.

Since this has devolved into being about anti-Semitism...

Of your citations of anti-Semitism, I agree.
It has no place in the labour party, and more should be done to combat it.
(If you think I'm being conciliatory, don't, i'm not).

To those ends, what can be done?
Labour have already adopted the IHRA definition of anti-Semitism
(How many other Political parties in the United Kingdom have?)

https://labourlist.org/2019/02/jennie-formby-provides-numbers-on-labour-antisemitism-cases/
Could/should more be done, absolutely.

More to follow...........

[broncofan]

You don't have racism of every kind in your party. There have been eighty elected officials and party officials who have made anti-Semitic comments worthy of a Neo-Nazi forum. By all means, post the number of councilors who have made other types of racist comments. You clearly used Angela Smith's comment to claim all of the Mps including one who was a victim of anti-Semitism was not sincere.

As for a comment worthy of Trump, there is one person in the thread who is a Trump supporter, and it is Peejaye who is also a Corbyn supporter. By all means pretend it's an aberration.

This is not a boast, but I've investigated employment discrimination cases, none of which had to do with anti-Semitism. Your claim that I am only interested in anti-Semitism is crazy and almost seems like a tactic.

There is a long history of people pretending that Jews who are seeking respite from anti-Semitism are really seeking special treatment. Solzhenitsyn, the great Russian writer, wrote that Jews in gulags received special treatment. If there is extra focus on anti-Semitism in your party, it's because not only is it a rampant problem but it comes with the most maddening forms of denial that only exacerbate its effects.

Nobody has talked about the "wrong kind of Jew." What many in your party have done is use people who have Jewish background to traffic in some of the ugliest rhetoric about other Jews imaginable. Elleanne Greene is Jewish and was a signatory recently of a letter on Corbyn's behalf. She was also the administrator of Palestine Live, a forum with rhetoric so ugly it was indistinguishable from a Neo-Nazi forum. I posted the material. You cannot refuse to be acquainted with the facts, mischaracterize them, and expect me to be okay with it just because what you said is coherent even if it's not true.

As for Derek Hatton, I said exactly what you're conceding. Yes, some people claim Muslims should condemn ISIS. They are called out for doing so. They are not defended by the number of people who defended Hatton. They were everywhere. I think you know that. So while what Hatton said about Jews does have an analogue to Muslims, are there lots of people insisting it's fair comment on the left? That would be wrong. Every day I see exactly this sort of comment directed at Jews in Britain. I don't see it here.

I read your first post. It brought up the defecting Mps and their reasons for defecting. It used Angela Smith's wrongful comment as impeachment, and was both dismissive of what they were objecting to and vague. That doesn't mean anti-Semitism isn't a primary issue for them. It is.

BTW, I did write about what was said about Ed Milliband, on this very forum. You're free to be wrong even while you say things that sound superficially convincing but are contradicted by the facts. I'm sure there is more to come.

[broncofan]

About you being conciliatory; You're correct, I read your post again and realized you were just being dishonest. People who say outrageously anti-semitic things are not kicked out of the party. People who are suspended are still given platforms. As I said, Chris Williamson circulated a petition supporting Gilad Atzmon. It's insane that someone would do that. I don't believe he didn't know who Atzmon is.

Since people know when public figures and officials make anti-Semitic statements, they are a decent proxy for the prevalence of anti-Semitism in the party. You acknowledge the statements I put forward were anti-Semitic, but there are many more. They are simply not taken seriously and the party has become so desensitized to anti-Semitism that someone like Jim Sheridan can say he has neither respect nor empathy for Jews and find himself back in the party within four or five months.

The reason I said you're using Angela Smith's comment as a counter-weight is because you are. I called it a racist comment, but you used it to say not only is she not sincere about Labour bigotry but also that neither is anyone else.

And it's hilarious you would say "worthy of (my) president" when I have never supported the guy and have written hundreds of posts about him. Unlike me, Peejaye has written his support of him and you are generally indifferent. I can talk more about Luciana Berger. She was subjected to abuse on twitter, much of which I've seen that was largely based on her Jewishness and her refusal to stick to the script and say it was a minor problem. Every instance of institutional bigotry will come with a pretext. That is the nature of cases like this. Her supposed disloyalty and the abuse she received were practically inextricable and the person who put forward the motion called her a "disruptive Zionist".

You cannot say things that are plainly not true and expect me to go along with it. When you imply that you brought up Angela Smith's comment to discuss racism in general one can go read your first post. It was, as I said, to cast doubt on the sincerity of people complaining about anti-Semitism in your party.

Edit: btw read the first post, which you wrote. It was about defectors from Labour. I've seen two reasons proffered. Brexit and institutional anti-Semitism. You agree with them about Brexit. And as I said, it's fine to use someone's statement to point out hypocrisy for that one person. I have trouble believing you can even pretend anti-Semitism is not a major part of the discussion.

[Jericho]

You don't have racism of every kind in your party. .

Excuse me?

[Jericho]

Nobody has talked about the "wrong kind of Jew."

When Corbyn celebrated passover with ajewish group from his local constituency (jewdas) he was accused of associating with the 'wrong kind of jew" - By Angela Smith.

But hey, there's no other kind of racism in the labour party, Happy Days, eh!


I've indulged you long enough.

Your comment regarding 'show trial' was worthy of your president (whether you support him or not)

Now, racism in the democratic party, is there any?

And as we've come this far down the road, lets go all in.

What's your opinion of the State of Israel's treatment of the Palestinians (you did open the door on that, so...)

[peejaye]

This is probably my last post apparently. Just to clear it up; I am NOT a Trump fan, I just like irritating you Political right wing Liberals(UK) & Democrats(US) with your head so far up your own backsides. You really really don't understand people do you? Good riddance to you! Oh & good luck Jericho, the only genuine guy lurking in these very dark pages .....
adios amigos :cool:

[broncofan]

Every party will have some racist members and occasional racist scandals. My understanding from reading both articles and looking at the context of each scandal is that anti-semitism in Labour has been in the newsfor months, with an overwhelming percentage of the Jewish community believing it is institutional. I also believed and still believe that the MPs who stepped down were citing anti-semitism in particular as a problem in Labour.

That is not to say there is not some racism of other forms in the party but that you have not had such extreme conduct regarding other bigotry; ie. elected officials engaged in genocide denial, officials praising Hitler, and threatening violence to that community. If you have, then I’d love to talk about it.

There is a history in Labour of responding to claims ofanti-semitism by claiming that Jews are trying to monopolize the conversation.The most egregious example I saw was when a Labour party branch voted down a motion to condemn the synagogue shooting in Pittsburgh, one reason being thatthe language mentioned anti-semitism specifically and not racism generally. Recall, this was in response to a shooting in a synagogue of Jews.

This is the most extreme example but I don’t see the use of arguing that people who believe anti-semitism was a motivation for those stepping down are ignoring other forms of racism is useful or honest. The bigotry in the news and which most of the scandals have involved has been anti-semitism.

The second point regards whether someone is called “the wrong kind of Jew.” I would condemn those words specifically every time but I don’t think the criticism of Corbyn’s Passover was stated in those terms by everyone. The claim was that although the majority of the Jewish community believed there was an anti-semitism problem in Labour, Corbyn reached out to those who don’t believe there is. It is difficult for there to be a rapprochement of any sort with those who feel alienated if you only seek out those in the community who don’t believe there’s a problem.

But if anyone called Jewdas “traitors” or “self-haters” or “the wrong kind of Jew” I condemn that kind of talk completely. My understanding is that the complaint is that Corbyn was attempting to address Jewish concernsonly by seeking out those in the Jewish community who don’t have concerns about Labour.

Finally, my feeling is that the Luciana Berger motion was as close to a sham as I’ve seen. Every case of this sort goes through three stages. There is the initial claim of discrimination or retaliation, there is then the proffer of a legitimate non-discriminatory reason for the decision, and finally the analysis whether the proffered reason is the real reason or a pretext. Here, the first person who put the motion forward made it easy by calling Berger a “disruptive Zionist”. Others wanted a sanitized version to replace it but just because you replace the words doesn’t mean you erase the underlying motive. It was like when Trump came up with his Muslim ban and all sorts of motives were inferred from his election statements. Just because you eliminate them from the text doesn’t mean they didn’t motivate the decision.

There is some racism in the Democratic Party. I haven’t seen a lot of it that is this severe and pervasive, but if shown it I would at least learn what the claims are before dismissing them by discussing the motives ofthe people complaining.

I’ve spoken a little bit about Israel here. I believe Israel is committing continuing human rights violations in the West Bank. I’ve discussed the U.S. withdrawing aid from Israel. I am not and have never been a supporter of Likud or any related parties. I don’t support AIPAC and think that it does have an effect on legislation that is passed.

Peejaye-I don’t know how you can say you’re not a Trump supporter when you told me to focus on what I’d do if he got elected “hopefully”. What’s the hopefully doing there?

[Jericho]

I'm not denying anything, I've openly stated, there *is* a problem with A.S. within the party membership, along with other forms of racism (Case in point, Diane Abbot - The abuse she's received over the years has been absolutely horrific).

But, because of the players involved, with maybe the exception of Berger, I don't believe them when they cite A.S. as their 'reason' for leaving the labour party. But that they've used it as a smear to cause as much damage as possible to the left wing. Weaponizing it, for want of a better word.

You call it counterweight, I call it probable cause.
(They know damn well, If open selection becomes a reality, come the next election, they were gone).

And this is where it gets murky. I don't know how to write this down without it sounding (even to me) like some kind of fantastical conspiracy theory.

You can argue with me, you can disbelieve me, but I genuinely believe that.

And I'm going to have to leave it there for now, it's getting late. But I will try and clarify that tomorrow.

[broncofan]

I want to take some heat out of the thread. I think you're stating your honest beliefs and so am I. If you don't think they are being sincere, you're entitled to it. It's possible we both come to opposite conclusions honestly.

I realize my comments about some Labour supporters were hard-hitting but they weren't about every person in the party and while I've been very compulsive about it, I didn't set out to overstate things.

I looked through the thread and while initially I thought the "supposedly" meant that you weren't sure about the prevalence of anti-Semitism, a disagreement over that doesn't mean I thought you agreed with the statements I posted, only that you weren't aware of them. The stuff I complained to you about was discourse stuff; for instance what the conversation was about, whether "supposedly" was about the existence of the stuff they were complaining about or about their sincerity.

There is a difference between talking about a phenomenon you think exists within a party and assuming anyone in the party is guilty of it. Beyond that, I'm going to speculate that we got crossed up, each said things that irritate each other and feel strongly enough about the issues involved that it wasn't easy. It doesn't have to be a truce, but it's an explosive enough issue without being antagonistic with each other. Cease-fire maybe, but with you getting the last word on this particular subject?

BTW, I did think about the abuse I've heard Diane Abbott gets and wondered whether it was from Labour members or mostly from Tories directed at her.

[filghy2]

you are a good example of the fact that there are many confused leftists among Corbyn supporters support Trump or see him as a lesser evil. It's a level of confusion I'll never understand, but you are not an anomaly.


Anything that fucks you lot off will always float my boat.

I think the answer is summed up in that one sentence. Some people are motivated not by what they are for, but by what they are against (the politics of resentment). That means they are attracted to anyone who is against the same things, even though they may be for totally different things. "You lot" seems to be anyone who is well-educated, liberal-minded and internationalist in their outlook (the dreaded 'elites').

Some writers see Corbynism as just a left-wing version of Trump's populism, with the same tendency to divide the world into "us" and "them" and the same attraction to simplistic solutions.
https://unherd.com/2019/01/corbyns-intolerant-populism/
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jul/25/jeremy-corbyn-populist-democracy-mps

It looks like you've made it onto peejaye's hate list. Wear it as a badge of honour. If you are lucky he will block you and you will be spared the bile-filled responses.

[Jericho]

I want to take some heat out of the thread. I think you're stating your honest beliefs and so am I. If you don't think they are being sincere, you're entitled to it. It's possible we both come to opposite conclusions honestly.

BTW, I did think about the abuse I've heard Diane Abbott gets and wondered whether it was from Labour members or mostly from Tories directed at her.

Column A, Column B, probably both stiffened each others arsehairs a bit!

Yes, Diane, first female black mp. I think she gets abuse from all sides, but especially online right-wing shitheads. Read something about her recently. During the last election, apparently she got 10x more abuse than any other female mp online.
Tough old bird, bless her.

[Laphroaig]

Column A, Column B, probably both stiffened each others arsehairs a bit!

Yes, Diane, first female black mp. I think she gets abuse from all sides, but especially online right-wing shitheads. Read something about her recently. During the last election, apparently she got 10x more abuse than any other female mp online.
Tough old bird, bless her.

How much of the abuse of Diane Abbott is racially motivated though? I'm not saying there hasn't been any, but I haven't seen any directly targeting the colour of her skin. Black, white, red, blue or green, I don't care what colour she is, but little scares me more her in charge of anything. She is thick as two short planks...

[Jericho]

How much of the abuse of Diane Abbott is racially motivated though? I'm not saying there hasn't been any, but I haven't seen any directly targeting the colour of her skin. Black, white, red, blue or green, I don't care what colour she is, but little scares me more her in charge of anything. She is thick as two short planks...

In fairness, it has to be said, she has never done well in televised interviews, but her most notable trainwreck appearances of late were down to her illness.

And judging by her majority, her constituents would certainly disagree with you.

(plus, an amendment to my post about her, it wasn't 10x more abuse than any other female mp, it was 10x more abuse than *any* other mp).

[Laphroaig]

In fairness, it has to be said, she has never done well in televised interviews, but her most notable trainwreck appearances of late were down to her illness.

And judging by her majority, her constituents would certainly disagree with you.

(plus, an amendment to my post about her, it wasn't 10x more abuse than any other female mp, it was 10x more abuse than *any* other mp).

I don't know what her constituency is, but in some safe seats you could have Baldrick as a candidate and they'd still win as long as they were standing for the correct party.

I'm not convinced about the illness excuse. She hasn't been that much better recently.

[Jericho]

Hackney North and stoke Newington.
Which she's held since 86/87 something like that?
Qwik google.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diane_Abbott#2017_general_election
Type 2 diabetes.

[Stavros]

I cannot decide if social media has exposed views that have always existed but were not publicly expressed, or has created the opportunity to express them, to the point that it has legitimized them. Then I wonder why anyone would say such things, intended as they are to hurt.
Hurt, and harm leads directly to the politics of hate, not as some occasional heckle but as part of a plan. 'Tommy Robinson' is currently losing some of his social media outlets, in part because of his criminal activities, but in part because he has a plan, which is to rid the UK of certain people, beginnig with Muslims. Social Media is not an innocent tool in his case, but a weapon of hate. It may be a necessary part of an open democracy to tolerate those who wish to exploit it for their own ends, to the point that we must allow peple to say offensive things, but recommeding or even urging illegal actions is not among them. Luckily for us, 'Tommy Robinson' never hides his criminality, he seems to see it as a badge of honour, but hate speech is illegal too, not least if someone excited by the provocative abuse of Jewish MPs -or any MP- decides to confront them on the street and kill them, as happened with Jo Cox in 2016.

Even though I understand the way in which Margaret Thatcher would induce rage and anger, there was nothing to be gained from hurling verbal abuse at her in public, and in those days when I was in the Labour Party, it was something we deliberately did not do. It was always about the policy, not the person. It seems so bland now, but 'Maggie! Maggie! Maggie!, OUT! OUT! OUT! was as far as it got, and is as far as it should have gone, setting aside the campaigns of the Provisional IRA to kill her, occupying a different agenda from the one being discussed here.

The question is, has social media facilitated, been the engine of this hate, and can it be stopped? Or was it always there and will only go underground if banned?

Should governments and political parties abandon Twitter, for example? How many times have twitter posts been deleted, account holders forced to apologize for some inane or offensive remark? Facebook, I feel, is nearing the end of its curious life, or it may be in the process of changing its format, I don't use it so can't be sure, but having grown up in a world in which I was in my mid-30s before touching a computer, being on a list of people queueing up to use it, I have little connection to social media, other than Hung Angels and some occasional comments to articles in newspapers.

What strikes me about all this, is the lack of serious debate on serious issues, be it Brexit, Climate Change, Israel, Venezuela, you name it. The ability to shrink an argument into 150 words might be a useful tool in an age of instant communication, but it cannot replace a sustained argument opening up the full range of strengths and weaknesses in a policy. It suggests a world of instant gratification, instant knowledge, and instant opinion, but one which renders the serious trivial, the compex simple, and the important irrelevant.

Israel is a good case because for all the anti-semitic abuse that MPs receive, there is little if any relevance to Israel itself, as if abusing someone for being a 'zionist bitch' actually contained any valid comment, when clearly it does not. It doesn't tell me anything about Israel, and nothing at all about the person, because even if they declare themselves to be a Zionist, it doesn't tell me what that means because the term has more than one meaning over and above 'the right of return'. One might as well say 'I am a Democrat' without offering any further explanation as to what that means, or how democracy works.

For example, is Israel an 'apartheid state'? A tweet could use the term a thousand times and never mean anything, or repeat a thousand times something that is contested, or wrong -but it could also be challenged in simple terms: 'Apartheid is based on Race, Zionism is based on Religion: Israel cannot, by definition be an apartheid state.' But even that reduction of reality into a few words requires more explanation to have real meaning, for otherwise it has no more depth than a slogan.

The point to me is crucial, because I see a difference between segregation and apartheid, and the sad fact that during and after the First Aliyah a form of segregation emerged in Ottoman Palestine that has carried over to the present day. But, a) it has not been universal and b) it was and has been practiced by the Arabs as well as the Jews, but to suggest a voluntary segregation seems nasty and deliberate, even imposed by government, when it may just be convenience in some cases, a matter of social geography in others. To truly understand not just why, but how Jews and Arabs came to live separate lives, requires a lot more detail than can be contained in a tweet, and in some cases -more than many would think- the details would reveal where and how those lives have not and are not separate at all.

So what appalls me about all this is the ignorance, and often from people with the intelligence to know better, whether it is a 'tired' Angela Smith, or some anonymous twit who can spend 6 hours a day abusing people from his bedroom, but can't spend two hours reading a book or an article in a learned journal that will offer him a perspective which may at least give pause for thought. A pause we woud all welcome.

[Laphroaig]

Hackney North and stoke Newington.
Which she's held since 86/87 something like that?
Qwik google.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diane_Abbott#2017_general_election
Type 2 diabetes.

I know it's been said she has diabetes. However, it was a very convenient excuse and if true showed questionable judgement for her to be in such a position when clearly unfit for the job. Whatever way you look at it, it's not good.

[Stavros]

I know it's been said she has diabetes. However, it was a very convenient excuse and if true showed questionable judgement for her to be in such a position when clearly unfit for the job. Whatever way you look at it, it's not good.

I have type 2 Diabetes, not sure if that is why I write so much...! I don't dislike Dianne Abbott, and the abuse she suffers is on a par or because of social media probably worse than the abuse hurled at Bernie Grant -I once saw graffiti on the London Underground which stated 'Who will kill Bernie Grant?'. I just don't think she is a good public speaker, but then I don't have much admiration for either Emily Thornberry or Barry Gardiner. We have two front benches, government and opposition that to me are the weakest intellectually, and in terms of charisma, than I can recall. And it is not about to change.

[broncofan]

I have type 2 Diabetes, not sure if that is why I write so much....
I recall you said in one of these threads that you take Metformin, but I wasn't going to say anything. My Dad has it and his Dad before him, even though neither had a significant weight problem, so Metformin is probably in my future at some point unless there's something better by then.

To respond to what you said in your previous post, I think social media contributes to the problem. To some extent it memorializes the abuse, but it also makes it harder to be open to different viewpoints and therefore encourages abuse as well. You pointed to several reasons: you can't make a nuanced argument in a short tweet.

Another big one is that connection is a big thing in politics, but you want that connection to be based on shared ideas and not brand or tribe. Twitter can be a visceral experience....I once got into an argument with a professional mma fighter and every time I got a tweet from him in my mentions, I felt like he was a hair away from being in my living room ready to put me in a kimura. But while new social media has some advantages, such as democratization of information and viewpoint, it creates sharp divisions, tribalistic thinking, and favors sound bytes over analysis. I think it is moving people to the poles within their respective parties.

[filghy2]

The other thing about social media (and the internet more generally) is that it makes it much easier for disgruntled people to find extremist views that reinforce their inclinations. There will always be people who become bigots because they grow up around bigots. But there are probably many people who might not go so far in that direction if it was harder to link up with extremist views.

Anonymity is definitely a big factor. I'm generally a conflict-avoider in personal interactions, but I find it harder to resist getting into arguments on the internet. Probably most of those abusing others on social media would be less inclined to do so publicly or in person where there might be consequences.

I'm not sure there is a lot that can be done about it. The social media platforms could do more to crack down on hate speech but there's a limit to how far they will go given they are driven by profit and are wary of criticism that they are censoring political views.

[Stavros]

House Resolution 183 condemns anti-semitism and Islamophobia. The summary sounds reasonable, but 23 Representatives, all of them Republican, voted against it, perhaps because they disagreed with the content of the Resolution which ranges far and wide in its attempt to condemn hate speech. The Summary describes

H.Res.183 - Condemning anti-Semitism as hateful expressions of intolerance that are contradictory to the values and aspirations that define the people of the United States and condemning anti-Muslim discrimination and bigotry against minorities as hateful expressions of intolerance that are contrary to the values and aspirations of the United States.

In addition to making references to murders at the Synagogue in Pittsburgh and the Church in Charleston, and the torchlight marches in Charlottesville, the Resolution also refers to Martin Luther King, the Dreyfus Affair, attacks on Muslims after 9/11, the Catholic faith of JFK and the internment of Japanese Americans during the Second World War. The full text is here-
https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-resolution/183/text

I don't know if this Resolution will change anything, and I don't doubt that individual Representatives will be part of or cause controversy because of the things they say, the words they use. I assume the Republicans who voted against were not comfortable with some of its clauses, Paul Gosar (Arizona) for example has invited the English criminal and rabble rouser 'Tommy Robinson' (aka Stephen Yaxley-Lennon) to 'address' Congress -though rant might be closer to the man's modus operandi, his latest stunt being the harassment of a journalist on whose door he hammered at 11pm and then 5 am in the morning) -because of Gosar's links to the Middle East Forum and 'Tommy Robinson' campaigns against Islam. There is a list of the Republicans who voted against the resolution here-
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-news-latest-congress-investigation-manaford-russia-mueller-a8813486.html