Politics Thread (encompassing Brexit) - 21 June 2017 onwards

[Guest MattP]

7 minutes ago, Finnegan said:

 

I didn't say there was rife racism at tory events, I said you could probably do an expose of right wing party membership and equally find people with ridiculously offensive views. 

 

Because the point is that there are people with ridiculously offensive views everywhere, in every party, in all walks of life. 

 

But the story is always going to be about Labour and antisemitism just the same as it's always going to be about UKIP and racism/nationalism. 

 

The focus is clearly going to be more on the left than the right when it comes to antisemitism because the left tends to lean towards Palestine and the right tends to lean towards Israel, it's one of these oddly entrenched sides that people feel obligated to take. That and you're more likely to find Labour MPs pandering to inner city Muslim communities by making populist statements regards Israel/Judaism. 

 

Again, I'm not claiming there isn't an issue with (real) antisemitism in the labour party, I'm just saying that the vast, enormous majority of Labour members, supporters and politicians likely couldn't actually give much of a shit one way or another about Judaism and Israel and that the story gets sensationalised because it sells. 

 

Something you're always happy to jump on. Any anti Labour story and you come in here like "ah, they're completely damned this time, there's no way back from this, labour are ****ed now, this is the final nail in their coffin, rah rah!" Then whatever story it is largely blows off, doesn't really do much to their polling, the world moves on and a few weeks later you find something else to buy the sensational view about. 

 

Not just you, either, Buce and ozleicester and whoever else tend to do the opposite. It's what makes discussing politics on here so dull these days. I've never known this place as entrenched and polarised as now. Or maybe it's just that I'm a lot less passionate as I used to be. 

I just typed out a massive reply and lost it and I've got work to do so I can't be arsed again, sorry.

 

I don't think the argument is about finding the people, it's about what action you take, the Tories and UKIP boot these people out when they are found, the officials in Labour do everything they can to keep them in, that's the problem many have with it.

 

As for the bit about proclaiming the death of Labour because of these things, far from it - I actually think this will help rather than hinder Labour long term, there are places in Britain (like I mentioned Bradford) where this opinion regarding Jews is actually quite popular and those areas will expand, this will win them more votes than they'll lose and they probably know that.

[Guest MattP]

4 minutes ago, Voll Blau said:

Yeah, except almost the entirety of the nation's popular press.

Which sort of helped them in the end, instead of focusing on the ridiculous policy of these people (which would have exposed them as Student Union illiterates and political fantasists) the press went for personality and almost made them victims.

 

Very similar across the Atlantic with Trump and his followers.

[Finnegan]

Are you suggesting you believe the Labour Party will deliberately promote their own antisemitism in order to win Muslim votes? 

[Guest MattP]

Just now, Finnegan said:

Are you suggesting you believe the Labour Party will deliberately promote their own antisemitism in order to win Muslim votes? 

Not sure about promotion, but I've no doubt they'll happily turn a blind eye, you talk like it hasn't happened in the past with things that should be completely unacceptable to a party that is supposed to support equality.

 

I mean they have been prepared to organise sex-segregated rallies to win the Muslim vote in Birmingham - http://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/midlands-news/labour-defends-election-rally-men-9180321

 

In Stoke it was "Vote Labour or "go to hell" (what what it's worth I'll take the latter) - https://www.libdems.org.uk/lib_dems_call_on_labour_to_condemn_misinformation_in_stoke_by_election

 

We don't even need to go into Rotherham do we again where the Labour council and party members at the top of the police force they even looked the other way whilst thousands of girls were tortured and raped by Muslim grooming gangs because they didn't want to upset community relations.

 

Let's be honest compared to what they have done previously for the Muslim vote a bit of anti-semitism is actually pretty small fry.

[Carl the Llama]

42 minutes ago, MattP said:

Questioning the legitimacy of Israel is absolutely fine, may I ask who has said they have a problem with this? I've just re-read the last few posts and I can't see anyone who has a problem with that, of the Labour fringe events want to discuss that no one has an issue with it as far as I can see, they will however have an issue with Jews being expelled from the party being cheered.

 

Speaking of the truth any evidence of this rife Tory racism at fringe events?

You are aware that there was a holocaust education fringe event, right?  I only ask because you're making out like nobody in Labour wants to address this issue.

[Carl the Llama]

And just to clarify Matt, I am not a labour voter, I've never paid for labour membership unlike you (so really you've done more to support the party than I ever have even if it was an attempt at sabotage), I just think you're not being anywhere near as balanced on this subject as you are when it comes to accusations levied against the right-wing, for instance racists hiding behind anti-immigration to legitimise their views.  If you want free speech then you have to tolerate the nut-jobs hiding in the grey area on the edge of outright illegal behaviour.  I'm sure that's an argument you've put forward in your own words on here in the past so I hope you can see what we're getting at here.

[Guest MattP]

2 minutes ago, Carl the Llama said:

And just to clarify Matt, I am not a labour voter, I've never paid for labour membership unlike you (so really you've done more to support the party than I ever have even if it was an attempt at sabotage), I just think you're not being anywhere near as balanced on this subject as you are when it comes to accusations levied against the right-wing, for instance racists hiding behind anti-immigration to legitimise their views.  If you want free speech then you have to tolerate the nut-jobs hiding in the grey area on the edge of outright illegal behaviour.  I'm sure that's an argument you've put forward in your own words on here in the past so I hope you can see what we're getting at here.

I didn't pay for Labour membership, I paid to be a supporter and as I posted on here at the time, didn't actually use my vote in the end as I said it was unethical.

 

I don't think this is a freedom of speech issue, it's about a party that is supposed to be one that doesn't tolerate bigotry doing so, I'm sick of hearing this "We're talking about Israel" line trotted out to try and hide what's blatent anti-semitism. None of the stuff that is being talked about from this Labour conference so far, the Naz Shah episode, Ken Livingstone, Jackie Walker or Vicki can seriously be decribed as "talking about Israel" or anything to do with the Palestine conflict. But we are going around in circles here.

 

Anyway let's see if the motion passes today at the conference, I'm absolutely certain it will after the events of this morning and if it doesn't then it will tell you everything you need to to know.

[Carl the Llama]

9 minutes ago, MattP said:

I didn't pay for Labour membership, I paid to be a supporter and as I posted on here at the time, didn't actually use my vote in the end as I said it was unethical.

 

I don't think this is a freedom of speech issue, it's about a party that is supposed to be one that doesn't tolerate bigotry doing so, I'm sick of hearing this "We're talking about Israel" line trotted out to try and hide what's blatent anti-semitism. None of the stuff that is being talked about from this Labour conference so far, the Naz Shah episode, Ken Livingstone, Jackie Walker or Vicki can seriously be decribed as "talking about Israel" or anything to do with the Palestine conflict. But we are going around in circles here.

 

Anyway let's see if the motion passes today at the conference, I'm absolutely certain it will after the events of this morning and if it doesn't then it will tell you everything you need to to know.

That's exactly my point.  You and I agree on this. I'm just saying that although the problem clearly exists it's no easier to solve than the racists on the right who say "we're talking about immigration".  You can't punish people for airing views that don't technically incite hatred however certain you may be that it stems from bigotry.  For further examples see:  You defending Trump.

Edited 26 September 2017 by Carl the Llama
addition: In Trump's case he has actually called for violence at his rallies so it's not quite a perfect example.

[Guest MattP]

1 minute ago, Carl the Llama said:

That's exactly my point.  You and I agree on this. I'm just saying that although the problem clearly exists it's no easier to solve than the racists on the right who say "we're talking about immigration".  You can't punish people for airing views that don't technically incite hatred however certain you may be that it stems from bigotry.  For further examples see:  You defending Trump.

I still think there is a massive difference in the sort of thing we have seen with regards to what high profile Labour members have done and someone hiding behind immigration debates to pursue racism (have you got an example of this from a major political party?), for a start a lot of the former is blatent.

 

I'll defend Trump if I think he's being treated unfairly, but I stand by my original opinions, I wouldn't have voted for him and I don't think he's a capable President - but I don't see how this is relevant to talking about the way Labour punishes people who share photos of people with big noses calling them Jews.

[Carl the Llama]

Just now, MattP said:

I still think there is a massive difference in the sort of thing we have seen with regards to what high profile Labour members have done and someone hiding behind immigration debates to pursue racism (have you got an example of this from a major political party?), for a start a lot of the former is blatent.

 

I'll defend Trump if I think he's being treated unfairly, but I stand by my original opinions, I wouldn't have voted for him and I don't think he's a capable President - but I don't see how this is relevant to talking about the way Labour punishes people who share photos of people with big noses calling them Jews.

I think you can probably guess the answer to that question.  

 

As for Trump I think it's a very good comparison given your history of defending his controversial tweets, many of which have been analogous to the photo sharing you mention (that gif of the CNN logo being beaten up in a wrestling ring for one example off the top of my head) and sticking up for his campaign antics which included many unsavoury comments about minorities and at one point went as far as outright telling his supporters he'll provide them with legal support if they hit protesters, all of which went completely unpunished.  I actually can't think of a better equivalency of unpunished 'hate' speech in recent politics.

 

Btw blatant is spelled with two 'a's, no 'e'.  

[Guest MattP]

3 minutes ago, Carl the Llama said:

I think you can probably guess the answer to that question.  

 

As for Trump I think it's a very good comparison given your history of defending his controversial tweets, many of which have been analogous to the photo sharing you mention (that gif of the CNN logo being beaten up in a wrestling ring for one example off the top of my head) and sticking up for his campaign antics which included many unsavoury comments about minorities and at one point went as far as outright telling his supporters he'll provide them with legal support if they hit protesters, all of which went completely unpunished.  I actually can't think of a better equivalency of unpunished 'hate' speech in recent politics.

 

Btw blatant is spelled with two 'a's, no 'e'.  

Thank you, much appreciated. We'll have to agree to disagree on this. I just don't think this is comparable at all, defending a mildly amusing tweet of a wrestler beating up a CNN face just isn't in the same ballpark as MP's sharing pictures on Facebook of moving countries to America or making reference to the nose size of Jews.

 

It was obviously stupid to say he'll provide legal support to those who hit protesters (not sure if it's an "e" or an "o" with the plural noun so forgive me) but is that really hate speech? Not for me. Just a bit of silly bombastic rhetoric. Not on the same to cheering ejecting Jews from a political party.

[Captain...]

The links posted were full of anti-Israel anti-zionist quotes from prominent anti-zionist Jews, anti-semitism is the persecution of Jewish people. Anti-zionism may be no better than anti-semitism, but call things what they are. Certain Labour members have very strong views against Israel that need to be held up to scrutiny. But calling them anti-semitic at every turn muddies the waters and allows these comments to be defended as anti zionism. All the direct quotes were anti-zionism, but all the response has been arguing the semantics of semitism when the questions need to be:

 

Should there be a strong anti-Isreal element in a major UK political party? There are certainly questions to be asked over that country, but potentially turning a powerful, developed and nuclear nation, currently an ally in an unstable region into an enemy, cannot be wise.

Should Palestinian legitimacy be a leading concern of a major UK political party? As much as I want a happy clappy utopia of free love and no borders, there really are bigger issues for us at the moment, and this has never been our battle.

Will a Labour government try to take an active role in the Isreali/Palestinian peace process and if so what will it be?

 

 

 

[Carl the Llama]

17 minutes ago, MattP said:

Thank you, much appreciated. We'll have to agree to disagree on this. I just don't think this is comparable at all, defending a mildly amusing tweet of a wrestler beating up a CNN face just isn't in the same ballpark as MP's sharing pictures on Facebook of moving countries to America or making reference to the nose size of Jews.

Agreed it's not the same ballpark but it's the same ballgame of sharing images to promote hostility towards a designated target (in one case the news media - his obsession with maligning them is not a good sign for freedom of speech - in the other case Jews).

 

9 minutes ago, MattP said:

It was obviously stupid to say he'll provide legal support to those who hit protesters (not sure if it's an "e" or an "o" with the plural noun so forgive me) but is that really hate speech? Not for me. Just a bit of silly bombastic rhetoric. Not on the same to cheering ejecting Jews from a political party.

"Who's going to pay for the wall?"

 

And yes we will have to agree to disagree if you can't see the equivalency between cheering anti-Semitic sentiment and cheering anti-Mexican sentiment.   Btw I've not actually seen the cheering of ejecting Jews, I'm just kinda taking your word for it on this.

[Guest MattP]

Finally we do seem to have some acknowledgement that Labour policy may see wealth flee the country and they are planning for it, pleased to see this as I get the feeling some of the people inside the party think this is impossible when in reality it's extremely likely.

 

https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/political-parties/labour-party/jeremy-corbyn/news/89291/john-mcdonnell-labour-preparing

Quote

 

The Shadow Chancellor last night said “scenario plans” were being worked up by teams of experts in case a fledgling administration faces “a potential assault”.

A huge crash in the value of sterling and investors pulling their cash out of the UK are scenarios currently under scrutiny, he revealed.

And most intriguingly, he said one team was working on “war game-type scenario-planning”.

The team in question is headed by Richard Barbrook, founder of the group ‘Class Wargames’ which plays out political and military struggles in a board game.

A website for the group - which was behind the Corbyn Run computer game - describes it as “the training ground of tomorrow’s communist insurgents”.

Mr McDonnell said Labour was putting together “detailed implementation manuals” and even drafting legislation so it can “hit the deck running” if elected.

“It tries to answer the question about what happens when or if they come for us,” he told a Momentum event on the fringes of the annual Labour party conference in Brighton.

“What if there is a run on the pound? What happens if there is this concept of capital flight? I don’t think there will be but you never know so we’ve got to scenario-plan for that.

“People want to know we are ready and they want to know we have got a response to anything that could happen. If we can demonstrate that, that will calm things down as well because there will [inaudible] have a reaction.”

 

 

[Carl the Llama]

23 minutes ago, MattP said:

Finally we do seem to have some acknowledgement that Labour policy may see wealth flee the country and they are planning for it

Quote

“What if there is a run on the pound? What happens if there is this concept of capital flight? I don’t think there will be but you never know so we’ve got to scenario-plan for that.

I know we're all guilty to some extent of seeing what we want to see when it comes to politics and the debates surrounding it but come on dude.

 

I'm far more concerned by his talk of communist insurgency.

[Guest MattP]

11 minutes ago, Carl the Llama said:

I know we're all guilty to some extent of seeing what we want to see when it comes to politics and the debates surrounding it but come on dude.

 

I'm far more concerned by his talk of communist insurgency.

No point being concerned about stuff that's already happened

 

The commies didn't even stand candidates last year (first time since 1920), threw their support behind Labour instead - http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/general-election-uk-communist-party-no-candidates-jeremy-corbyn-labour-support-first-1920-a7699761.html

Edited 26 September 2017 by MattP

[leicsmac]

1 hour ago, MattP said:

I still think there is a massive difference in the sort of thing we have seen with regards to what high profile Labour members have done and someone hiding behind immigration debates to pursue racism (have you got an example of this from a major political party?), for a start a lot of the former is blatent.

 

I'll defend Trump if I think he's being treated unfairly, but I stand by my original opinions, I wouldn't have voted for him and I don't think he's a capable President - but I don't see how this is relevant to talking about the way Labour punishes people who share photos of people with big noses calling them Jews.

 

With respect Matt, and I apologise unreservedly if this comes across as too personal - while you have maintained before and now that you wouldn't have voted for Trump...I find it hard to understand that you would then choose to defend him if you perceived him as being treated unfairly unless there was at least some tacit support for him and his actions there? Surely if the bolded above was the case, you wouldn't mind or would at least understand the pasting he is getting due to the decisions of his administration?

 

I'm sorry, but I'm finding it hard to reconcile your view as put here and your posts in the US threads from last year to now on this one.

 

Carl makes a good point btw about there at least being a certain equivalency between Labour members speaking anti-Semitic vileness and Trumps "bombastic rhetoric" that he continues to spout (especially as his supporters take such rhetoric absolutely at face value by and large, it's a classic dog-whistle).

[Guest MattP]

4 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

With respect Matt, and I apologise unreservedly if this comes across as too personal - while you have maintained before and now that you wouldn't have voted for Trump...I find it hard to understand that you would then choose to defend him if you perceived him as being treated unfairly unless there was at least some tacit support for him and his actions there? Surely if the bolded above was the case, you wouldn't mind or would at least understand the pasting he is getting due to the decisions of his administration?

That's just total nonsense, the idea you can't defend someone unless you sort of agree with them in some way is very silly. The abuse Denis Skinner received last week was absolutely horrific and I stood up for him, but I barely agree with a single thing of what he says, I stood up for Corbyn when his own MP's were beating him over the head, I wouldn't vote for him,

 

Someone has to try and provide some balance in that Trump thread, you get twenty posts of am often irrelevant Tweet when it's something bad and not a sound when he talks Saudi Arabia out of going to war. It's actually a bit of a joke and I don't really know why I still bother posting in it as the agenda is pretty clear.

[leicsmac]

1 minute ago, MattP said:

That's just total nonsense, the idea you can't defend someone unless you sort of agree with them in some way is very silly. The abuse Denis Skinner received last week was absolutely horrific and I stood up for him, but I barely agree with a single thing of what he says, I stood up for Corbyn when his own MP's were beating him over the head, I wouldn't vote for him,

 

Someone has to try and provide some balance in that Trump thread, you get twenty posts of am often irrelevant Tweet when it's something bad and not a sound when he talks Saudi Arabia out of going to war. It's actually a bit of a joke and I don't really know why I still bother posting in it as the agenda is pretty clear.

Fair enough. That Dennis Skinner came out and supported the line on Brexit wholeheartedly at that point (a decision I'm sure you agreed with) had nothing to do with the choice to defend him, then? FWIW, I absolutely agree that the abuse he got from Corbyn supporters for voting as his constituents wanted was beyond the pale and I'm glad you and others did defend him.

 

"Someone has to try and provide some balance in that Trump thread"...and when he does do some good stuff it's good to see you popping it up there. However, I'm not sure it's possible to provide proper balance on such a topic when the net result of the actions of his administration are so tipped in one direction. But...another question if you don't mind; why the need for balance for him in particular?

 

NB: I categorically won't deny I have a huge bias of my own in this matter - considering that a large swath of Trump supporters over here would happily see close friends of mine here disenfranchised, denied equal rights or worse simply because of their identity, I struggle to get past that.

[Strokes]

2 hours ago, Captain... said:

The links posted were full of anti-Israel anti-zionist quotes from prominent anti-zionist Jews, anti-semitism is the persecution of Jewish people. Anti-zionism may be no better than anti-semitism, but call things what they are. Certain Labour members have very strong views against Israel that need to be held up to scrutiny. But calling them anti-semitic at every turn muddies the waters and allows these comments to be defended as anti zionism. All the direct quotes were anti-zionism, but all the response has been arguing the semantics of semitism when the questions need to be:

 

Should there be a strong anti-Isreal element in a major UK political party? There are certainly questions to be asked over that country, but potentially turning a powerful, developed and nuclear nation, currently an ally in an unstable region into an enemy, cannot be wise.

Should Palestinian legitimacy be a leading concern of a major UK political party? As much as I want a happy clappy utopia of free love and no borders, there really are bigger issues for us at the moment, and this has never been our battle.

Will a Labour government try to take an active role in the Isreali/Palestinian peace process and if so what will it be?

 

 

 

We will just call it racist, given your definition a few weeks ago 

[Captain...]

8 minutes ago, Strokes said:

We will just call it racist, given your definition a few weeks ago 

I'm not 100% certain you can call anti-Israel racism, Israel is a country and whilst you could argue Israeli is a race, the  arguments seem to be against the existence of the country rather than persecuting the people.

 

Again all of this discussing the semantics of race/racism/prejudice detracts from the point, why is the Labour party so interested in Israel and what does that actually mean for the UK if they get elected?

Edited 26 September 2017 by Captain...

[Finnegan]

I don't think the Labour Party  as a whole are obsessively interested in Israel and I doubt Israel would feature much in their policy if they get back in with Corbyn. 

 

It's just Palestine is a fashionable generic lefty issue and so being cynics about Israel is par for the course. 

 

Like I said earlier, it doesn't make the more offensive views justifiable and Labour should do something about those but the whole thing is definitely sensationalised to sell the story. 

 

[Captain...]

I've just reread a couple of things and the comments were not at the Labour party conference, which is how I originally read it, but a fringe event that is not organised by the Labour Party, just run alongside the conference. I was pretty concerned when I thought this was part of the conference and they were deliberately giving this platform, but having read it again less so.

[Lionator]

Israel is certainly a war-mongering country, they're constantly poking other middle eastern countries with a stick although that may be expected given how they're a Jewish state in an Islamic part of the world. However I do feel that Labour are really shooting themselves in the foot by allowing people who hold bizarre views on the holocaust to have a platform, it is something that could be easily nipped in the bud but is chosen not to which is detrimental to the party and the right-wing media will always go to town on it.

[breadandcheese]

The Labour problem with anti-semitism is bizarre in that the party leaders have not shut it down.  That's what they're supposed to do.  Not encourage the free speech of crackpots as if it is legitimate debate, allowing them to spark off discussions that would make the AfD in Germany blush.

 

Labour should shut it down completely.  Israel is a fashionable issue to the left because it's seen through the prism of colonialism, which is a false assessment.  The discussions of anti-Zionism are really about the legitimacy of the country existing.  Is that really a route that Labour wants the party to go down, questioning the legitimacy of a country's existence?  The irony would not be lost if a bunch of anti-colonialist lefties start demanding an independent Middle Eastern country dismantles itself or has a regime change.

 

The fact is, wiser heads in the Labour party should prevail.  There is a middle position.  To be pro-Israel is not mutually exclusive to being pro-palestinian, which is how it is seen in these lunatic fringe meetings. My only guess for why Corbyn has not shut the lunatic fringe down is because he wrongly shares their assessment of Israel or because he knows, as Finnegan points out, that most voters don't give a sh*t about it as it doesn't concern them.

Edited 26 September 2017 by breadandcheese