Politics Thread (encompassing Brexit) - 21 June 2017 onwards

[bovril]

10 hours ago, Strokes said:

I like to think I’m a 2, a 3 and a little bit of 1. Some day i hope to get the full house.

#goals

[Guest MattP]

2 hours ago, breadandcheese said:

I can't help feeling that Corbyn's opinion piece was aimed at appealing to the electorate up and down the country, rather than addressing the concerns that the Jewish community have with regards anti-Semitism. In which case, he's taken the PR route rather than addressing the issue. So the issue will rear it's head again as he fails to address the problem.

 

Let's not forget that despite his strong words in the article, he has never spoken out strongly when in the room with speakers who go beyond the pail.  He was sitting right there as Pete Wilsman delivered his diatribe.

 

I actually think this piece nails it in the Guardian.

https://amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/aug/03/corbynistas-politics-labour-leader?__twitter_impression=true

 

The #wearecorbyn hashtag is the first time I've seen anything like it in British politics. It's amusing as they are the opposition. But do corbynistas not see the irony that were they in power, it would be far more chilling and befitting of totalitarian tactics? You are either with or against.

 

That's exactly the problem, half the time he is actually sat there whilst all these anti-semites are saying it so his words are totally hollow.

 

Check out #jc9 when you get the time as well, UKIP had some complete cranks and fruitcakes in it but they are nothing compared to this lot on the edge of the Labour party now. Some of the conspiracy theories are warped beyond belief. 

[leicsmac]

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-44926417

 

Yes, this is a problem.

[Sharpe's Fox]

26 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-44926417

 

Yes, this is a problem.

Not for the EU. They’d rather neofascists be in power than any leftist government. At least they don’t trouble the lobbyists and industrialists.

[Guest MattP]

32 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-44926417

 

Yes, this is a problem.

No idea why he is doing it, not necessary and could even put people off - look how Obama trying to interfere in our referendum went down with people. 

 

The EU and the elite politicians can do this themselves with migration policy to change culture that isn't wanted by the majority, enforced austerity on nations and whatever else they'll find.

 

They might wake up before it does and address these concerns but I doubt it.

[leicsmac]

9 minutes ago, Sharpe's Fox said:

Not for the EU. They’d rather neofascists be in power than any leftist government. At least they don’t trouble the lobbyists and industrialists.

Depends whether or not the EU survives the neofascists as most of them seem to despise it, I think.

 

2 minutes ago, MattP said:

No idea why he is doing it, not necessary and could even put people off - look how Obama trying to interfere in our referendum went down with people. 

 

The EU and the elite politicians can do this themselves with migration policy to change culture that isn't wanted by the majority, enforced austerity on nations and whatever else they'll find.

 

They might wake up before it does and address these concerns but I doubt it.

He's doing it because he thinks it can work, I reckon - there's enough ethnocentric feeling through various places in Europe right now to make it happen. People have made the mistake if underestimating his ambition and his scope before in the US, to do so again here would be an even bigger one.

[Sharpe's Fox]

43 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Depends whether or not the EU survives the neofascists as most of them seem to despise it, I think.

The EU did a deal in an evening with the Italian Mussolini quoters to drown Africans in the Med but never did with the leftist Greek government as it threatened German exports. Shows that they are willing to compromise with fascists, even if as you say they hate the values of the federalist EU establishment, because they don’t threaten the economic consensus. Leftists who are genuine internationalists don’t get a look in because they do.

[leicsmac]

7 minutes ago, Sharpe's Fox said:

The EU did a deal in an evening with the Italian Mussolini quoters to drown Africans in the Med but never did with the leftist Greek government as it threatened German exports. Shows that they are willing to compromise with fascists, even if as you say they hate the values of the federalist EU establishment, because they don’t threaten the economic consensus. Leftists who are genuine internationalists don’t get a look in because they do.

2

Interesting.

 

And there's definitely something in the bolded sentence, which is unfortunate because international cooperation on many matters rather than buying into nationalism (as if pollution stops at the border to have its passport checked, for instance) is essential.

[DANGEROUS TIGER]

On ‎02‎/‎08‎/‎2018 at 18:36, Buce said:

 

He’s also dead. 

 

Pretty sure he means his son, DT. 

Oh, Hilary then. Well, he's not too bad.

[DANGEROUS TIGER]

20 hours ago, Buce said:

 

Yeah, because that's what I said, isn't it?

 

It was a tongue-in-cheek joke directed specifically at DT and I'll be surprised if it doesn't amuse him. If you were familiar with his posting record, you'd get it.

You're right , I did have a little chuckle.

[Guest MattP]

The absolute worst of Cameron again over the referendum.

 

No responsibility for calling it, his crap re-negotiation, not planning for either result, assuming project fear for work - it's all Gove's fault as he "betrayed" him.

[DANGEROUS TIGER]

The Labour party are ripping themselves apart at the moment, and tempers flaring, with respect to the Jewish A/S. Corbyn is trying to duck the mud pies, but not doing very well.  

 

 

[Guest MattP]

Anyone think Tom Watson can survive?

[Buce]

 

I thought it might be useful to post this:

 

Working Definition of Antisemitism

 

In the spirit of the Stockholm Declaration that states: “With humanity still scarred by …antisemitism and xenophobia the international community shares a solemn responsibility to fight those evils” the committee on Antisemitism and Holocaust Denial called the IHRA Plenary in Budapest 2015 to adopt the following working definition of antisemitism. 
 
On 26 May 2016, the Plenary in Bucharest decided to:
 

Adopt the following non-legally binding working definition of antisemitism:

“Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.”

 
To guide IHRA in its work, the following examples may serve as illustrations:
 
Manifestations might include the targeting of the state of Israel, conceived as a Jewish collectivity. However, criticism of Israel similar to that levelled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic. Antisemitism frequently charges Jews with conspiring to harm humanity, and it is often used to blame Jews for “why things go wrong.” It is expressed in speech, writing, visual forms and action, and employs sinister stereotypes and negative character traits.
 
Contemporary examples of antisemitism in public life, the media, schools, the workplace, and in the religious sphere could, taking into account the overall context, include, but are not limited to:

• Calling for, aiding, or justifying the killing or harming of Jews in the name of a radical ideology or an extremist view of religion.
   
• Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as collective — such as, especially but not exclusively, the myth about a world Jewish conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal institutions.
   
• Accusing Jews as a people of being responsible for real or imagined wrongdoing committed by a single Jewish person or group, or even for acts committed by non-Jews.
   
• Denying the fact, scope, mechanisms (e.g. gas chambers) or intentionality of the genocide of the Jewish people at the hands of National Socialist Germany and its supporters and accomplices during World War II (the Holocaust).
   
• Accusing the Jews as a people, or Israel as a state, of inventing or exaggerating the Holocaust.
   
• Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations.
   
• Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.
   
• Applying double standards by requiring of it a behaviour not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.
   
• Using the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism (e.g., claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel or Israelis.
   
• Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.
   
• Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel.
   

Antisemitic acts are criminal when they are so defined by law (for example, denial of the Holocaust or distribution of antisemitic materials in some countries).
 
Criminal acts are antisemitic when the targets of attacks, whether they are people or property – such as buildings, schools, places of worship and cemeteries – are selected because they are, or are perceived to be, Jewish or linked to Jews.
 
Antisemitic discrimination is the denial to Jews of opportunities or services available to others and is illegal in many countries.
 
 

[Alf Bentley]

13 minutes ago, MattP said:

Anyone think Tom Watson can survive?

 

At first, I thought you meant physically, not politically. 

He's lost a lot of weight*, have you noticed? He looks better for it, but I wondered if you'd heard he was seriously ill! 

 

Yes, I think he can survive politically. His strong statements about the anti-semitism issue suggest to me that he knows a lot of other people in the party are unhappy about the row not being dealt with and that he's safe putting his head above the parapet - I don't reckon he's stupid enough to do that if he thought he'd be immediately vulnerable. It might speak more to Corbyn becoming a bit more vulnerable - did you see that even McDonnell and others on the Left made some moderate criticism of the failure to bring the furore to an end? Some grassroots youth might build a personality cult around Jezza, but those serious about politics - MPs or even Momentum activitists - will be more interested in achieving power and implementing policy. If JC becomes an obstacle to that, he might come under pressure to go at some point. He's looking older and more stressed recently, too.

 

* Six stone in a year, if you can trust the Express

[Strokes]

5 minutes ago, MattP said:

Anyone think Tom Watson can survive?

Sorry mate I’m not upto date with current affairs, what’s he done now?

[Buce]

5 minutes ago, Strokes said:

Sorry mate I’m not upto date with current affairs, what’s he done now?

 

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/aug/04/tom-watson-labour-antisemitism-eternal-shame

[DJ Barry Hammond]

21 minutes ago, MattP said:

Anyone think Tom Watson can survive?

 

Can’t imagine he’d resign - any other means of removing him would massively back fire for ‘The Labour Party’.

 

It is quite remarkable how unrecognisable the party seems to be from its more recent history. It really has been hijacked and taken into the direction of the margins.  

[Steven]

19 minutes ago, Buce said:

 

I thought it might be useful to post this:

 

Working Definition of Antisemitism

 

In the spirit of the Stockholm Declaration that states: “With humanity still scarred by …antisemitism and xenophobia the international community shares a solemn responsibility to fight those evils” the committee on Antisemitism and Holocaust Denial called the IHRA Plenary in Budapest 2015 to adopt the following working definition of antisemitism. 
 
On 26 May 2016, the Plenary in Bucharest decided to:
 

Adopt the following non-legally binding working definition of antisemitism:

“Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.”

 
To guide IHRA in its work, the following examples may serve as illustrations:
 
Manifestations might include the targeting of the state of Israel, conceived as a Jewish collectivity. However, criticism of Israel similar to that levelled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic. Antisemitism frequently charges Jews with conspiring to harm humanity, and it is often used to blame Jews for “why things go wrong.” It is expressed in speech, writing, visual forms and action, and employs sinister stereotypes and negative character traits.
 
Contemporary examples of antisemitism in public life, the media, schools, the workplace, and in the religious sphere could, taking into account the overall context, include, but are not limited to:

• Calling for, aiding, or justifying the killing or harming of Jews in the name of a radical ideology or an extremist view of religion.
   
• Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as collective — such as, especially but not exclusively, the myth about a world Jewish conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal institutions.
   
• Accusing Jews as a people of being responsible for real or imagined wrongdoing committed by a single Jewish person or group, or even for acts committed by non-Jews.
   
• Denying the fact, scope, mechanisms (e.g. gas chambers) or intentionality of the genocide of the Jewish people at the hands of National Socialist Germany and its supporters and accomplices during World War II (the Holocaust).
   
• Accusing the Jews as a people, or Israel as a state, of inventing or exaggerating the Holocaust.
   
• Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations.
   
• Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.
   
• Applying double standards by requiring of it a behaviour not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.
   
• Using the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism (e.g., claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel or Israelis.
   
• Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.
   
• Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel.
   

Antisemitic acts are criminal when they are so defined by law (for example, denial of the Holocaust or distribution of antisemitic materials in some countries).
 
Criminal acts are antisemitic when the targets of attacks, whether they are people or property – such as buildings, schools, places of worship and cemeteries – are selected because they are, or are perceived to be, Jewish or linked to Jews.
 
Antisemitic discrimination is the denial to Jews of opportunities or services available to others and is illegal in many countries.
 
 

"Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis."

 

I can live with this as Israel is becoming more like apartheid South Africa than other state. However hypothetically suppose Palestinians were shipped off to gas ovens would it still be antisemitic?

[Buce]

Just now, Steven said:

"Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis."

 

I can live with this as Israel is becoming more like apartheid South Africa than other state. However hypothetically suppose Palestinians were shipped off to gas ovens would it still be antisemitic?

 

That's pointlessly hypothetical.

 

What I think is pertinent is that the right to criticise Israel still exists: "criticism of Israel similar to that levelled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic.", so I don't see why Labour should have an issue with adopting it.

[Alf Bentley]

2 minutes ago, Foxin_mad said:

it seems to me under his leadership the party is being dragged more to the left, I suspect over time there will be pressure from the hard left extremist grassroots to purge the moderates.

 

At present the moderates maybe able to stop his nonsense but in the future not so sure. Example above you have Corbyn going off down a blind path, everyone knows he is wrong, yet he carries on regardless. Watson comes out with some reasoned comments and will probably be destroyed by the far left hate mob for being one of the neo liberal elite or some other nonsense.

 

I'm not fully sure how anti global capitalism goes hand and hand with remain in the EU. 

 

I am also not sure how upsetting our biggest single nation trading partner, and a huge investor in UK economy and jobs would be a good thing for the majority.

 

I suppose if you are willing to give up wealth and jobs in the drive for being an ethical country then fair enough, but a fully ethical country like it or not is unlikely to be able to provide services for its citizens. 

 

On anti-global capitalism and Brexit, that's the logic by which Corbyn and many on the Hard Left became Eurosceptics - that the only way to defend yourself against global capitalism was to leave the EU. Though I think it's more nuanced than that in most cases, probably including Corbyn. I imagine he'd quite welcome a Soft Brexit - combining a bit more leeway to introduce "socialist policies" on a national level with keeping much of the regulatory protection and internationalism that comes with EU membership.

 

I disagree with Hard Left people about that. I don't think you can defend yourself against the excesses of global capitalism through "socialism in one country". Global capitalism is simply too powerful. That's why I see staying in the EU and working to reform its more neo-liberal aspects as a much better hope.

 

I think that I answered your US point in my previous post. All the rest re. Corbyn's power in the party and the consequences of a Corbyn govt are a matter of opinion. As I've said, I don't see Corbyn being anything like as powerful in the party as you believe, particularly if he does stuff that the wider party or the wider public don't like (I'd expect him to have to moderate his Euroscepticism, never mind Venezuela-style policies). Likewise, I can see a Corbyn Govt having some negative consequences - but also some very positive consequences in terms of investment, living standards, public services, reduction of inequality.....all opinion and speculation, at the end of the day.

[breadandcheese]

3 hours ago, Steven said:

"Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis."

 

I can live with this as Israel is becoming more like apartheid South Africa than other state. However hypothetically suppose Palestinians were shipped off to gas ovens would it still be antisemitic?

If Israel was not giving you a new analogy re: South Africa, why would you struggle to live with that definition re: the nazis?  

Edited 6 August 2018 by breadandcheese

[Steven]

32 minutes ago, Buce said:

 

That's pointlessly hypothetical.

 

What I think is pertinent is that the right to criticise Israel still exists: "criticism of Israel similar to that levelled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic.", so I don't see why Labour should have an issue with adopting it.

I like to push an argument to its limit to see if it is valid.

 

Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.

 

The right to self determination yes but the second part is not a valid example. The endeavor (sic) and the reality don't always match, deliberately.

 

[leicsmac]

Something a little different, got posted a little earlier but seemingly got nuked as it was part of a response, hopefully the repost will be ok:

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-australia-45079617

 

IMO Sky News Australia actually did the right thing giving this guy a platform: like Nick Griffin on Question Time, allowing folks like this to stand on a platform where they can be seen by lots of folks and can't spin things (rather than through YouTube videos/Breitbart etc) is the best way for as many people as possible to see them for what they really are.

[Izzy]

1 hour ago, MattP said:

Anyone think Tom Watson can survive?