No it doesn't.
Jeremy Corbyn - Not Not Labour Party(?), not a Communist (BBC)
- Thread starter unchanged_lineup
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
No it doesn't.
Of course some are bots. Unfortunately if you happen to personally know vocal Labour supporters on social media you'd know that a far higher proportion of them than you'd like are very, very real.
They have adopted the full definition, they haven't adopted all the examples. Here's a thread which sums up nicely why that's a daft fecking move:
It also touches on why you can't separate the current debate about Labour's ham-fisted implementation of the IHRA from previous recent scandals involving Labour and anti-semitism.
Well ok then the examples
https://www.holocaustremembrance.com/working-definition-antisemitism
But these people aren't showing up at all when the membership is polled and you would think they if so in grained in the party.
It's a good thread but it's right that Labour haven't adopted the example - ''by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavour'' just on anti racist principle alone as Barnaby Raine mentions it makes the Palestine people and their history almost invisible.
That still doesn't say what you posted previously.
Oh christ your not one of those people who thinks the example is fine because it says a state of Israel.
I'd like to see this polling. At any rate, I don't think anyone is suggesting that anti-semitism is the norm, but rather there's a sizeable minority who the Labour leader has been uncomfortably close to in the past and that when concerns have been raised they've been dismissed out of hand.
My feelings on that are covered by number 18 and 19 in the tweet thread I quoted, but either way. I can't help but think that, that line is being deliberately misquoted to pretend like it says 'the State of Isreal can't be accused of being racist' so people can get indignant about how the IHRA definition stops them from calling out the Isreali treatment of Palestinian citizens, whilst it's meant to refer to the original idea that their should be a state for Jewish people.
There we go.
https://evolvepolitics.com/yougov-p...amatically-since-jeremy-corbyn-became-leader/
But this actual happens
https://www.jewishvoiceforlabour.or...icism-disallows-legitmate-criticism-of-isrel/
Again from the same article
On the 'About us' page of Jewish Voice for Labour.
"We oppose attempts to widen the definition of antisemitism beyond its meaning of hostility towards or discrimination against Jews as Jews."
That's a heck of a thing for a Jewish group to think defines them as a group. Maybe BMEforLabour.org's website goes on a rant about how people cry racism too much. In fact it seems to have been established only in 2017 and founded by Corbyn cheerleaders with the specific purpose of defending their guy against accusations of antisemitism.
Not sure it's really a source worth paying attention to unless we're going to accept Muslim Women for Letterbox Analogies when we're talking about how Boris definitely wasn't being Islamophobic this week.
"We oppose attempts to widen the definition of antisemitism beyond its meaning of hostility towards or discrimination against Jews as Jews."
That's a heck of a thing for a Jewish group to think defines them as a group. Maybe BMEforLabour.org's website goes on a rant about how people cry racism too much. In fact it seems to have been established only in 2017 and founded by Corbyn cheerleaders with the specific purpose of defending their guy against accusations of antisemitism.
Not sure it's really a source worth paying attention to unless we're going to accept Muslim Women for Letterbox Analogies when we're talking about how Boris definitely wasn't being Islamophobic this week.
Last edited:
Not the right type of jew for you then ?
Not the right type of jew for you then ?
As above, it's an organisation set up by Corbyn supporters with the sole purpose of defending Corbyn, that describes itself as "entirely secular". It wasn't even established until 2017, until Corbyn and the party was and Corbyn were already marred in rows over antisemitism.
It's a pro-Corbyn organisation from someone who thinks being Jewish meant that she could defend the guy she championed from allegations of antisemtiism because "Oh, if she says it and she IS Jewish"...would somehow shut the debate down.
Pretending that somehow a "entirely secular" group ran by a staunch Corbyn supporter, set up for the sole purpose 11 months ago of defending Jeremy Corbyn in regards to antisemitism accusations, is somehow a credible source to cite when debating Jeremy Corbyn's antisemitism then either you're taking the piss or you thought Chuckevision was reality TV. You might as well claim UKIP doesn't have a homophobia problem because of that gay candidate they had in Scotland
"Hahaha, wrong kind of gay is he?"
Yes, yes he fecking is.
But that article doesn't contradict what I said? I'm not referring to a 'hypothetical State of Israel', I'm simply arguing that there is a difference between 'some of the Israeli Governments policies are racist' and 'the existence of the Israeli state is a racist endeavour'. Surely that's obvious?
I don't really see how the rest of the article is relevant. If those events genuinely weren't anti-Semitic then (as the article notes) they're covered by the 'could', and the provisio that
“criticism of Israel similar to that levelled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic”. If in practice that 'could... with context' is being ignored, then I don't really see how Labour's changes propose to solve it as the issue is with implementation rather than the IHRA examples themselves.
At any rate, I'm not convinced by the examples given here. Omar Barghouti addressed the European Parliament in March, a student union event was perhaps hastily cancelled (having seen SU events about Israel I would not be willing to bet that it wasn't cancelled for legitimate reasons without more information) and the Barnet proposal wasn't debated because it was referred for legal advice.
If those are the best examples then maybe the case isn't that strong?
It's interesting looking at how some people need the debate framed else end up looking ridiculous.
Essentially:
1) IHRA would prevent criticism of Israel (we have to ignore the bit where it specifically spells out that it doesn't.)
2) Labour does not have a problem with antisemitism
3) Jeremy Corbyn is right to address Labour's problem with antisemitism (we have to use cognitive dissonance for this one)
4) Tom Watson is wrong to want Labour to address its problem with antisemitism (number 2 is back in play, in case you're keeping score)
5) An organisation to set up to defend Corbyn against antisemitism is an independent, adjudicative authority when it comes to accusations made against Jeremy Corbyn of antisemitism.
It's ballsy, I'll give you that. But that's where we are
Essentially:
1) IHRA would prevent criticism of Israel (we have to ignore the bit where it specifically spells out that it doesn't.)
2) Labour does not have a problem with antisemitism
3) Jeremy Corbyn is right to address Labour's problem with antisemitism (we have to use cognitive dissonance for this one)
4) Tom Watson is wrong to want Labour to address its problem with antisemitism (number 2 is back in play, in case you're keeping score)
5) An organisation to set up to defend Corbyn against antisemitism is an independent, adjudicative authority when it comes to accusations made against Jeremy Corbyn of antisemitism.
It's ballsy, I'll give you that. But that's where we are
Good point, we should defer to Stephen "destroying the left will save western civilisation" Pollard and no one else.
Well no because we aren't just talking about some Israeli policies but for Palestine's the Israeli state has always been and is a racist endeavour.
But the fact is people have tried to use to stop criticism from Palestine's. This something the labour party(Considering it a pro Palestine party) should considered. Also I image Palestine activists engaging with the Labour Party as well so the party right has to fine a line that works for everyone.
Except it had already been used to prevent criticism of Israel
Oscie your amazing
Well anyway here's some other jewish people as well
As Jews, we reject the myth that it's antisemitic to call Israel racist
https://www.independent.co.uk/voice...-bds-jewish-coalition-palestine-a8458601.html
Also I'm pretty sure that actually is homophobic.
Which, putting aside everything else, they have demonstrably not done. Nor have they succeeded in explaining why their version is necessary, or why it is preferable.
Yeah I think we can agree on that.
Unite taking no more shite from MP's
Should that necessarily be the parties top priority at the moment? I get there are certain MP's in the party who don't necessarily represent Labour values and who'd be better off elsewhere but I get the impression the party would be better focusing their energy on opposing the government instead of continuing to focus on internal divisions.
Interesting that you essentially use the phrase ‘pro-Corbyn’ as a negative. It’s not in itself.
Also, why does the date an organisation is set up have any relevance? When should an organisation meant to air views of the many Jews who support Corbyn have been set up for it to be valid in your eyes?
It has a lot of relevance because it was set up at the time of allegations of antisemitism with the intent of defending the leader against allegations of antisemitism.
And that's fine, what isn't fine is to cite them as some kind of neutral authority on the issue of whether the person they were established to defend against allegations of antisemitism, is soft on antisemitism. I think that's fairly self-evident. The Boris Johnson Appreciation Society of Muslims who think PC has Gone Mad, est August 2018, also wouldn't be an authority on whether that prick was being offensive this week, even if it were run by a Muslim, again for fairly obvious reasons.
Listening to the wider Jewish community there are reservations either about overt antisemitism, or antisemitism creep and tolerance of 'soft' antisemitism. You can disagree but Jewish Voice for Labour is no more an independent, credible voice on this than the ERG or Tax Payers Alliance are on matters they spout bollocks about.
You warn against using pro-Corbyn groups as a ‘neutral authority’ and then you go and write your last sentence with advice for me to ‘listen to the wider Jewish community’.
You do realise that a lot of that ‘wider Jewish community’ support Corbyn in all this?
What gives you the right to use the phrase ‘wider Jewish community’ with the assumption that they all collectively feel a ‘tolerance of soft anti-semitism’ and yet you seek, clearly, to diminish the argument of any Jewish group that says that’s not the case?
I would say that Corbyn tried, in 2016, to have the ‘broad church’ feel and include his critics. They don’t want to be included, clearly, and it is them that seek to keep internal division on the agenda.
If everyone in the PLP pulled with Corbyn, the result would be a foregone conclusion. If they don’t want to then what’s left, sadly, but to get rid of them?
I dunno, it's a tricky one. I'd argue that in after last year's election there was a growing acceptance of Corbyn within the party for a while, partly because the argument he couldn't win an election or come close to doing so had been diminished by Labour's unexpected result.
He's consistently been undermined by voices from within the party, but at the same time you could argue that they've got every right to speak out on his fairly meek opposition to a hard Brexit and that doing so shouldn't result in mandatory reselection. There are obviously types like Hoey and a few others who should ideally be removed from Labour as soon as possible.
Hang on, you can't challenge Oscie's 'assumption' that the 'wider Jewish community' don't support Corbyn with an equally unfounded assertion that they do.
Even if we're being generous and ignore the fact that the supposed '40 groups' who spoke out recently, which Sweet Square posted above, were largely comprised of the same members as each other they pale in comparison to the voices expressing concern with Corbyn's leadership on this issue, and the last time Jews were polled on Labour and anti-semitism 80% thought Labour was too soft on it.
Yes, there are problems with that evidence, but at least there is evidence. Your viewpoint is completely reliant on the fanciful assertion that JVL speak for anyone other than themselves, a viewpoint which we can fairly safely say is publicly debated.
Sorry, but you’ve put an awful lot of words in my mouth and really misrepresented me.
I so clearly said that some of the ‘wider Jewish community’ are against this movement against Corbyn, not all. And I was clearly taking issue with Oscie’s post where he only mentioned those who are, essentially, anti-Corbyn.
Surely it’s obvious that he can’t claim to know what the ‘wider Jewish community’ think, any more than you or I can.
You said 'a lot' of the Jewish community - the post above would indicate the majority feel Labour have been quite soft on this, even if it's not necessarily an opinion shared by all.
It's going to be difficult enough for any future left labour government with pressure from the civil service, finance capital, the press etc. If the party can control some of this by getting rid of MP's who will be nothing more than a massive pain in the arse then it should in my opinion.
We can deduce from stuff like this:
The Attitudes of British Jews Towards Israel
(2015 survey conducted at City University London)
The most pertinent finding in the context of this discussion:
"British Jews are strongly attached to Israel. The vast majority of our respondents support its right to exist as a
Jewish state (90%), express pride in its cultural and scientific achievements (84%), see it as a vibrant and open
democracy (78%) and say that it forms some part of their identity as Jews (93%)."
http://yachad.org.uk/wp-content/upl...Towards-Israel-Yachad-Ipsos-Mori-Nov-2015.pdf
What you said was 'a lot of that ‘wider Jewish community’ support Corbyn in all this' a point which there is little to no evidence of, and, on the contrary, is demonstrably not true from the evidence (flawed and party political as it may be) we do have.
A bit alarming that 78% of respondents believe Israel to be a vibrant and open democracy while only 48% believe non-Jewish Israelis should enjoy equal rights in determining their country's future.
Vibrant and open democracy for Jews more like. I’d wager a bulk of the 78% don’t consider the non-Jewish Israelis to be legitimate citizens.
I’m sure the white citizens of South Africa who supported apartheid considered the country to be a vibrant and open democracy pre 1994.
Wait, wasn’t he in favour of defending their right to wear it?
Which is nothing compared with going to a protest about things, that neoliberal Scottish fascist should keep his mouth shut.
The problem with New Labour was that it never had any real ambition to change the status quo, which meant that the change they brought about didn't stick. The majority of the policies mentioned in that video were designed to put sticking plasters on inequalities instead of actually curing them and the money that paid for them came from an economic plan that was always going to fail eventually. They followed Thatcher down the path of making financial services the keystone of our economy and ignoring everything else and when the economic crash came, shock-horror the money wasn't there anymore. It was always unsustainable and I'm sure Brown always knew that, he was just hoping that by the time the shit hit the fan with the global economy they wouldn't still be in power.
The reason they sound good when you read them out in a speech is because they were designed to. Firstly it's a speech written to big up his government's achievements, of course it's going to sound convincing, and secondly New Labour was about marketing success as much as actually achieving it. It was short-term goal orientated, and obviously short-termism is nothing new in politics, but it's part of the reason New Labour's legacy was so easy to pick apart and really, with the majorities they had for the first 8 years the sky was the limit for that government. They could have changed the country as radically as Thatcher did, instead half the stuff he talks about in that speech was gone by the end of the coalition, and we're still stuck with billions of £s of PFI contracts, shitty privatised infrastructure fleecing us, a London-obsessed economy centred on financial services etc. from Blair/Brown's time + 8 years of Tory shit.
Not exactly great.
Good post. Much as I disagree with him plenty I actually have an inkling of respect for Brown - I think he was more closely aligned with left-wing ideals than Blair ever was, and his handling of the financial crisis was fairly respectable and earned him a lot of respect internationally even though he mostly got savaged domestically. But yeah, as you say so much more could have been achieved in those first two terms. The excuse earlier on for Labour basically following Tory spending plans during their first four years in power was waved off as them being too afraid of deviating from the Tory agenda - to the contrary you could say New Labour just didn't agree all that much with the Tories economically on the general direction of the economy, at the least in the sense of being incredibly neoliberal.