The Split from Labour.

13

Comments

  • Hugal wrote: »
    The definition of Socialism seem to be up for grabs here. A lot of what JC suggests is classic Socialism. What the split is objecting to is not Socialism. They say they are objecting to a lack of discipline over Antisemitism and not agreeing with them over Brexit and making his stance the party stance.
    The latter is a matter of policy the former needs to be sorted quickly.

    I will wait to see what Chuka Umunna's view of socialism is.
  • mr cheesy wrote: »
    Why don't you educate yourself? Pick a European country and read up on the socialist parties - most have more than one.

    Why don't you educate yourself and create list of parties with 'socialist' 'democrat' or 'christian' in their title who were anything but?

    Or is asking other people to find evidence for your poorly sourced arguments only fair when you do it?
  • mr cheesymr cheesy Shipmate
    edited February 2019
    mr cheesy wrote: »
    Why don't you educate yourself? Pick a European country and read up on the socialist parties - most have more than one.

    Why don't you educate yourself and create list of parties with 'socialist' 'democrat' or 'christian' in their title who were anything but?

    Or is asking other people to find evidence for your poorly sourced arguments only fair when you do it?

    Sorry chum, that most EU countries have multiple socialist parties is not an argument. It's a fact.
  • What bemuses me most is the people who state without any evidence that a Corbyn-led government is clearly the worst thing ever.

    This is entirely theoretical. Whilst the practical reality is that our current government is terrible and failing in so many ways.*

    I just don't understand that reasoning at all.

    Corbyn was not my choice of Labour leader but there's nothing in the platform (apart from current Brexit policy) that I disagree with.

    AFZ

    I can only think that you've not been paying attention.

    To the things your own MPs say about Corbyn.
  • mr cheesy wrote: »
    What bemuses me most is the people who state without any evidence that a Corbyn-led government is clearly the worst thing ever.

    This is entirely theoretical. Whilst the practical reality is that our current government is terrible and failing in so many ways.*

    I just don't understand that reasoning at all.

    Corbyn was not my choice of Labour leader but there's nothing in the platform (apart from current Brexit policy) that I disagree with.

    AFZ

    I can only think that you've not been paying attention.

    To the things your own MPs say about Corbyn.

    Or maybe I disregard assertion without evidence.

    *I appreciate that I haven't provided evidence for the failings of our current government in this post. I would argue that I have done so in so many other situations and am happy to do so again.

    AFZ
  • mr cheesy wrote: »
    What bemuses me most is the people who state without any evidence that a Corbyn-led government is clearly the worst thing ever.

    This is entirely theoretical. Whilst the practical reality is that our current government is terrible and failing in so many ways.*

    I just don't understand that reasoning at all.

    Corbyn was not my choice of Labour leader but there's nothing in the platform (apart from current Brexit policy) that I disagree with.

    AFZ

    I can only think that you've not been paying attention.

    To the things your own MPs say about Corbyn.

    Or maybe I disregard assertion without evidence.

    *I appreciate that I haven't provided evidence for the failings of our current government in this post. I would argue that I have done so in so many other situations and am happy to do so again.

    AFZ

    Really. So the leadership votes mean nothing.

    You literally don't understand because you don't want to understand.
  • This is like Church of England evangelicals persuading a large number of Pentecostals to join - by loosening rules and changing norms and making promises - deciding to remove the whole idea of a bishopry, then standing at the sidelines in fake shock when the liberals and Anglo-catholics leave saying it isn't their church any more.
  • mr cheesy wrote: »
    This is like Church of England evangelicals persuading a large number of Pentecostals to join - by loosening rules and changing norms and making promises - deciding to remove the whole idea of a bishopry, then standing at the sidelines in fake shock when the liberals and Anglo-catholics leave saying it isn't their church any more.

    That's a better description of what happened in 1994 than what happened in 2015.
  • HugalHugal Shipmate
    edited February 2019
    mr cheesy wrote: »
    This is like Church of England evangelicals persuading a large number of Pentecostals to join - by loosening rules and changing norms and making promises - deciding to remove the whole idea of a bishopry, then standing at the sidelines in fake shock when the liberals and Anglo-catholics leave saying it isn't their church any more.

    Again unfounded. There are lots of Anglican Churches Evangelicals like mine, who work across denomiational differences. There are some traditionalionalists like those near me used to, who flatly refuse to work with anyone other than other traditionalists and critise any other type continually. Fortunately this has changed in my area to a degree.
  • mr cheesy wrote: »
    mr cheesy wrote: »
    What bemuses me most is the people who state without any evidence that a Corbyn-led government is clearly the worst thing ever.

    This is entirely theoretical. Whilst the practical reality is that our current government is terrible and failing in so many ways.*

    I just don't understand that reasoning at all.

    Corbyn was not my choice of Labour leader but there's nothing in the platform (apart from current Brexit policy) that I disagree with.

    AFZ

    I can only think that you've not been paying attention.

    To the things your own MPs say about Corbyn.

    Or maybe I disregard assertion without evidence.

    *I appreciate that I haven't provided evidence for the failings of our current government in this post. I would argue that I have done so in so many other situations and am happy to do so again.

    AFZ

    Really. So the leadership votes mean nothing.

    You literally don't understand because you don't want to understand.

    Or to put it another way. You just want to assert this without evidence.

    What logical basis is there to assume (with absolute certainty) that a Corbyn-government would be worse than this demonstrably awful government?

    That's a big claim.

  • mr cheesy wrote: »
    mr cheesy wrote: »
    What bemuses me most is the people who state without any evidence that a Corbyn-led government is clearly the worst thing ever.

    This is entirely theoretical. Whilst the practical reality is that our current government is terrible and failing in so many ways.*

    I just don't understand that reasoning at all.

    Corbyn was not my choice of Labour leader but there's nothing in the platform (apart from current Brexit policy) that I disagree with.

    AFZ

    I can only think that you've not been paying attention.

    To the things your own MPs say about Corbyn.

    Or maybe I disregard assertion without evidence.

    *I appreciate that I haven't provided evidence for the failings of our current government in this post. I would argue that I have done so in so many other situations and am happy to do so again.

    AFZ

    Really. So the leadership votes mean nothing.

    You literally don't understand because you don't want to understand.

    Or to put it another way. You just want to assert this without evidence.

    What logical basis is there to assume (with absolute certainty) that a Corbyn-government would be worse than this demonstrably awful government?

    That's a big claim.

    (my italics). Maybe not a logical basis, but repeated assertions by the red top press have a greater effect, because they are exactly what people want to hear: there's nothing like confirmation bias.
  • mr cheesymr cheesy Shipmate
    edited February 2019
    Hugal wrote: »
    mr cheesy wrote: »
    This is like Church of England evangelicals persuading a large number of Pentecostals to join - by loosening rules and changing norms and making promises - deciding to remove the whole idea of a bishopry, then standing at the sidelines in fake shock when the liberals and Anglo-catholics leave saying it isn't their church any more.

    Again unfounded. There are lots of Anglican Churches Evangelicals like mine, who work across denomiational differences. There are some traditionalionalists like those near me used to, who flatly refuse to work with anyone other than other traditionalists and critise any other type continually. Fortunately this has changed in my area to a degree.

    FFS. I'm not arguing that the CofE evangelicals are doing this.

    Do you actually understand when someone says something is like some other scenario.

    Hint: it doesn't mean that the latter scenario is actually happening.
  • mr cheesy wrote: »
    mr cheesy wrote: »
    What bemuses me most is the people who state without any evidence that a Corbyn-led government is clearly the worst thing ever.

    This is entirely theoretical. Whilst the practical reality is that our current government is terrible and failing in so many ways.*

    I just don't understand that reasoning at all.

    Corbyn was not my choice of Labour leader but there's nothing in the platform (apart from current Brexit policy) that I disagree with.

    AFZ

    I can only think that you've not been paying attention.

    To the things your own MPs say about Corbyn.

    Or maybe I disregard assertion without evidence.

    *I appreciate that I haven't provided evidence for the failings of our current government in this post. I would argue that I have done so in so many other situations and am happy to do so again.

    AFZ

    Really. So the leadership votes mean nothing.

    You literally don't understand because you don't want to understand.

    Or to put it another way. You just want to assert this without evidence.

    What logical basis is there to assume (with absolute certainty) that a Corbyn-government would be worse than this demonstrably awful government?

    That's a big claim.

    Listen to your own fucking MPs and what they say about Corbyn. I'm not actually saying anything about him.

    I'm not a Labour party member, never even voted for them.
  • HugalHugal Shipmate
    Mr Cheesey remember it is easy to misunderstand a written answer. That combined with your hostility to CAP being Evangelical led me to believe you are not keen on us Evangelicals. Please be clearer
    Thanks
  • HugalHugal Shipmate
    There are plenty of Labour MPs who are happy with JC. Who should we listen to, those for him or against him?
  • la vie en rougela vie en rouge Circus Host, 8th Day Host
    Neither. Putting party politics first is what got us into this mess (on both sides of the floor, and a plague on both their houses). I harbour an idle day-dream that someone would care about the national interest first of all. Naïve, I know…
  • I saw my (Tory) MP setting off today, as I suppose, for Westminster.

    She looked preoccupied, not to say worried.

    I wonder if she'll be in the next batch of splitters?

    (Or maybe she had an appointment at the dentist......)
  • Maybe she was secretly grinning, as polls look good for them.
  • mr cheesy wrote: »
    mr cheesy wrote: »
    mr cheesy wrote: »
    What bemuses me most is the people who state without any evidence that a Corbyn-led government is clearly the worst thing ever.

    This is entirely theoretical. Whilst the practical reality is that our current government is terrible and failing in so many ways.*

    I just don't understand that reasoning at all.

    Corbyn was not my choice of Labour leader but there's nothing in the platform (apart from current Brexit policy) that I disagree with.

    AFZ

    I can only think that you've not been paying attention.

    To the things your own MPs say about Corbyn.

    Or maybe I disregard assertion without evidence.

    *I appreciate that I haven't provided evidence for the failings of our current government in this post. I would argue that I have done so in so many other situations and am happy to do so again.

    AFZ

    Really. So the leadership votes mean nothing.

    You literally don't understand because you don't want to understand.

    Or to put it another way. You just want to assert this without evidence.

    What logical basis is there to assume (with absolute certainty) that a Corbyn-government would be worse than this demonstrably awful government?

    That's a big claim.

    Listen to your own fucking MPs and what they say about Corbyn. I'm not actually saying anything about him.

    I'm not a Labour party member, never even voted for them.

    Riiiight.

    Let's just take this step by step.

    I expressed my bemusement that people (including on this thread) assert with confidence that JC would be so much worse than the current shambles of a government. You didn't have to respond to that statement but you did by asserting that the assertions of a group MPs are a compelling argument that JC is the worst thing ever (or whatever phrase you want to use....

    And you can't see a problem with that?

    Note here, I am not saying that I think JC is a GREAT LEADER or will be the BEST PRIME MINISTER EVER. I am simply stating that the He would be the worst PM ever trope is one I keep hearing with nothing to back it up...

    AFZ
  • mr cheesy wrote: »
    mr cheesy wrote: »
    mr cheesy wrote: »
    What bemuses me most is the people who state without any evidence that a Corbyn-led government is clearly the worst thing ever.

    This is entirely theoretical. Whilst the practical reality is that our current government is terrible and failing in so many ways.*

    I just don't understand that reasoning at all.

    Corbyn was not my choice of Labour leader but there's nothing in the platform (apart from current Brexit policy) that I disagree with.

    AFZ

    I can only think that you've not been paying attention.

    To the things your own MPs say about Corbyn.

    Or maybe I disregard assertion without evidence.

    *I appreciate that I haven't provided evidence for the failings of our current government in this post. I would argue that I have done so in so many other situations and am happy to do so again.

    AFZ

    Really. So the leadership votes mean nothing.

    You literally don't understand because you don't want to understand.

    Or to put it another way. You just want to assert this without evidence.

    What logical basis is there to assume (with absolute certainty) that a Corbyn-government would be worse than this demonstrably awful government?

    That's a big claim.

    Listen to your own fucking MPs and what they say about Corbyn. I'm not actually saying anything about him.

    I'm not a Labour party member, never even voted for them.

    Riiiight.

    Let's just take this step by step.

    I expressed my bemusement that people (including on this thread) assert with confidence that JC would be so much worse than the current shambles of a government. You didn't have to respond to that statement but you did by asserting that the assertions of a group MPs are a compelling argument that JC is the worst thing ever (or whatever phrase you want to use....

    And you can't see a problem with that?

    Note here, I am not saying that I think JC is a GREAT LEADER or will be the BEST PRIME MINISTER EVER. I am simply stating that the He would be the worst PM ever trope is one I keep hearing with nothing to back it up...

    AFZ

    If you can't see that Westminster is sovereign and that the views of Labour MPs with regard to their leader - over and above the popular vote within the party - matters, then I can't help you.

    Frankly I don't really give a shit. Fight a GE and lose again if you must.
  • HugalHugal Shipmate
    But you say listen to MPs which ones? Those who split or those who like JC. It is impossible to say for sure he would be a bad PM. Some like him some do not.
  • Hugal wrote: »
    But you say listen to MPs which ones? Those who split or those who like JC. It is impossible to say for sure he would be a bad PM. Some like him some do not.

    Well try first listening to the debate on antisemitism in the HoC right now. Labour MPs are lining up to criticise Corbyn.
  • mr cheesy wrote: »
    mr cheesy wrote: »
    mr cheesy wrote: »
    mr cheesy wrote: »
    What bemuses me most is the people who state without any evidence that a Corbyn-led government is clearly the worst thing ever.

    This is entirely theoretical. Whilst the practical reality is that our current government is terrible and failing in so many ways.*

    I just don't understand that reasoning at all.

    Corbyn was not my choice of Labour leader but there's nothing in the platform (apart from current Brexit policy) that I disagree with.

    AFZ

    I can only think that you've not been paying attention.

    To the things your own MPs say about Corbyn.

    Or maybe I disregard assertion without evidence.

    *I appreciate that I haven't provided evidence for the failings of our current government in this post. I would argue that I have done so in so many other situations and am happy to do so again.

    AFZ

    Really. So the leadership votes mean nothing.

    You literally don't understand because you don't want to understand.

    Or to put it another way. You just want to assert this without evidence.

    What logical basis is there to assume (with absolute certainty) that a Corbyn-government would be worse than this demonstrably awful government?

    That's a big claim.

    Listen to your own fucking MPs and what they say about Corbyn. I'm not actually saying anything about him.

    I'm not a Labour party member, never even voted for them.

    Riiiight.

    Let's just take this step by step.

    I expressed my bemusement that people (including on this thread) assert with confidence that JC would be so much worse than the current shambles of a government. You didn't have to respond to that statement but you did by asserting that the assertions of a group MPs are a compelling argument that JC is the worst thing ever (or whatever phrase you want to use....

    And you can't see a problem with that?

    Note here, I am not saying that I think JC is a GREAT LEADER or will be the BEST PRIME MINISTER EVER. I am simply stating that the He would be the worst PM ever trope is one I keep hearing with nothing to back it up...

    AFZ

    If you can't see that Westminster is sovereign and that the views of Labour MPs with regard to their leader - over and above the popular vote within the party - matters, then I can't help you.

    Frankly I don't really give a shit. Fight a GE and lose again if you must.

    Once more with the logic fails.

    Also, I have not at any point in this debate argued for Corbyn.

    If you don't really care why do you keep commenting? You clearly don't rate Corbyn. Fine. Moreover you then argue that Corbyn will lose the next GE. You may well be right but losing a GE is in no way the same thing as being a bad Prime Minister and a great danger to the country.

    You got an actual argument (even though you don't care)? Or should I just take your word for it?

    AFZ
  • mr cheesy wrote: »
    mr cheesy wrote: »
    mr cheesy wrote: »
    mr cheesy wrote: »
    What bemuses me most is the people who state without any evidence that a Corbyn-led government is clearly the worst thing ever.

    This is entirely theoretical. Whilst the practical reality is that our current government is terrible and failing in so many ways.*

    I just don't understand that reasoning at all.

    Corbyn was not my choice of Labour leader but there's nothing in the platform (apart from current Brexit policy) that I disagree with.

    AFZ

    I can only think that you've not been paying attention.

    To the things your own MPs say about Corbyn.

    Or maybe I disregard assertion without evidence.

    *I appreciate that I haven't provided evidence for the failings of our current government in this post. I would argue that I have done so in so many other situations and am happy to do so again.

    AFZ

    Really. So the leadership votes mean nothing.

    You literally don't understand because you don't want to understand.

    Or to put it another way. You just want to assert this without evidence.

    What logical basis is there to assume (with absolute certainty) that a Corbyn-government would be worse than this demonstrably awful government?

    That's a big claim.

    Listen to your own fucking MPs and what they say about Corbyn. I'm not actually saying anything about him.

    I'm not a Labour party member, never even voted for them.

    Riiiight.

    Let's just take this step by step.

    I expressed my bemusement that people (including on this thread) assert with confidence that JC would be so much worse than the current shambles of a government. You didn't have to respond to that statement but you did by asserting that the assertions of a group MPs are a compelling argument that JC is the worst thing ever (or whatever phrase you want to use....

    And you can't see a problem with that?

    Note here, I am not saying that I think JC is a GREAT LEADER or will be the BEST PRIME MINISTER EVER. I am simply stating that the He would be the worst PM ever trope is one I keep hearing with nothing to back it up...

    AFZ

    If you can't see that Westminster is sovereign and that the views of Labour MPs with regard to their leader - over and above the popular vote within the party - matters, then I can't help you.

    Frankly I don't really give a shit. Fight a GE and lose again if you must.

    Once more with the logic fails.

    Also, I have not at any point in this debate argued for Corbyn.

    If you don't really care why do you keep commenting? You clearly don't rate Corbyn. Fine. Moreover you then argue that Corbyn will lose the next GE. You may well be right but losing a GE is in no way the same thing as being a bad Prime Minister and a great danger to the country.

    You got an actual argument (even though you don't care)? Or should I just take your word for it?

    AFZ

    Many Labour MPs think Corbyn is terrible on anti-Semitism.

    You can deny it. You can keep asking for evidence, when it is clearly expressed in the HoC.

    Plenty of Labour MPs have complained about Corbyn in the strongest terms, particularly during two leadership contests.

    You can deny that. You can keep demanding to see numbers, named MPs, quotes. You can keep denying that this is a reality. You can keep saying you don't understand.

    Or you can actually listen to your own party and what MPs say about their own leader.

    But I guess you won't. Because you'd rather continue feeling the victim. You'd rather believe that Corbyn's vision is the only acceptable version of British socialism in 2019. You'd rather blame everyone else. You'd rather believe that yours is the Real version of Labour.

    Well done.
  • What bemuses me most is the people who state without any evidence that a Corbyn-led government is clearly the worst thing ever.

    This is entirely theoretical. Whilst the practical reality is that our current government is terrible and failing in so many ways.

    I just don't understand that reasoning at all.

    A lot of people in this country are prepared to accept a government that fails lots of people, as long as it does well for them.

    I recall a Daily Mash headline after the 2010 election that was something along the lines of "Brits decide they'd rather have a few more quid in their pockets than services for the poor". Satire perhaps, but like all good satire there's more than a hint of truth to it...
  • mr cheesy wrote: »
    mr cheesy wrote: »
    mr cheesy wrote: »
    mr cheesy wrote: »
    mr cheesy wrote: »
    What bemuses me most is the people who state without any evidence that a Corbyn-led government is clearly the worst thing ever.

    This is entirely theoretical. Whilst the practical reality is that our current government is terrible and failing in so many ways.*

    I just don't understand that reasoning at all.

    Corbyn was not my choice of Labour leader but there's nothing in the platform (apart from current Brexit policy) that I disagree with.

    AFZ

    I can only think that you've not been paying attention.

    To the things your own MPs say about Corbyn.

    Or maybe I disregard assertion without evidence.

    *I appreciate that I haven't provided evidence for the failings of our current government in this post. I would argue that I have done so in so many other situations and am happy to do so again.

    AFZ

    Really. So the leadership votes mean nothing.

    You literally don't understand because you don't want to understand.

    Or to put it another way. You just want to assert this without evidence.

    What logical basis is there to assume (with absolute certainty) that a Corbyn-government would be worse than this demonstrably awful government?

    That's a big claim.

    Listen to your own fucking MPs and what they say about Corbyn. I'm not actually saying anything about him.

    I'm not a Labour party member, never even voted for them.

    Riiiight.

    Let's just take this step by step.

    I expressed my bemusement that people (including on this thread) assert with confidence that JC would be so much worse than the current shambles of a government. You didn't have to respond to that statement but you did by asserting that the assertions of a group MPs are a compelling argument that JC is the worst thing ever (or whatever phrase you want to use....

    And you can't see a problem with that?

    Note here, I am not saying that I think JC is a GREAT LEADER or will be the BEST PRIME MINISTER EVER. I am simply stating that the He would be the worst PM ever trope is one I keep hearing with nothing to back it up...

    AFZ

    If you can't see that Westminster is sovereign and that the views of Labour MPs with regard to their leader - over and above the popular vote within the party - matters, then I can't help you.

    Frankly I don't really give a shit. Fight a GE and lose again if you must.

    Once more with the logic fails.

    Also, I have not at any point in this debate argued for Corbyn.

    If you don't really care why do you keep commenting? You clearly don't rate Corbyn. Fine. Moreover you then argue that Corbyn will lose the next GE. You may well be right but losing a GE is in no way the same thing as being a bad Prime Minister and a great danger to the country.

    You got an actual argument (even though you don't care)? Or should I just take your word for it?

    AFZ

    Many Labour MPs think Corbyn is terrible on anti-Semitism.

    You can deny it. You can keep asking for evidence, when it is clearly expressed in the HoC.

    Plenty of Labour MPs have complained about Corbyn in the strongest terms, particularly during two leadership contests.

    You can deny that. You can keep demanding to see numbers, named MPs, quotes. You can keep denying that this is a reality. You can keep saying you don't understand.

    Or you can actually listen to your own party and what MPs say about their own leader.

    But I guess you won't. Because you'd rather continue feeling the victim. You'd rather believe that Corbyn's vision is the only acceptable version of British socialism in 2019. You'd rather blame everyone else. You'd rather believe that yours is the Real version of Labour.

    Well done.

    Wow. You have no idea what I think or believe. None.

    Hey ho.

    AFZ
  • Speaking as a Labour Party member, who is not a member of momentum, and who has Jewish heritage (my father’s family fled the pogroms in Russia at the turn of the 20th century) - massive anti-semetism is not my experience of the party. I was a member before and after Corbyn, I have been a member most of my adult life. I voted for Tony Blair’s leadership back in the day (to my regret), I voted for Corbyn this time round.

    I think there is some, not more than in the general population, but I also feel it is being weaponised for political ends. It think the rapid expansion of the party has caused mechanisms that worked for smaller numbers to creak. I think politics in general is still trying to understand twitter and trolling. Not everyone who says they are a labour supporter when they post, is.

    I think politics has got more abusive as the country has been massively divided, people’s lives have got harder, and the internet has removed the filter between what angry people think and publish to the world.

    I don’t think dumping responsibility for all of this on Corbyn is fair or reasonable. Not is it the case that these problems are unique to Labour. The asymmetry in coverage feeds the perception that the allegations have been used for political ends - which complicates tackling them effectively.
  • Again, listen to the debate this afternoon in the HoC. Many Labour MPs - including apparently the frontbench - recognise that there is a significant problem. Some apparently believe that Jews will actually leave the country on mass were Corbyn ever to become PM.

    I consider myself a pro-Palestinian. I've worked and visited Palestine a few times. I've been on marches - including on one occasion with Jeremy Corbyn who I met.

    I don't believe he is anti-Semitic in the sense that some use the term. I don't believe he actually treats Jews badly or with contempt - everything I've heard about him suggests he is softly spoken and fairly gentle IRL.

    But he is soft on actually doing much about the issue inside Labour. He makes poor decisions, refuses to accept how his words look, refuses to accept that sometimes what he says gives succour to anti-Semites.

    It's as simple as that. I can visit and support Palestinians without feeling like I need to go to a Hamas funeral. Without feeling that I need to use words that appear to support anti Jewish conspiracy theories. Without needing to link Jews to Zionists and Zionists to unthinking supporters of Israel.

    He may not have intended anything by any of those things. But he could have been a whole lot more careful. In not being careful, he's a liability - both to Labour and the Palestinian cause.
  • Careful @mr cheesy that's dangerously close to an actual argument.

    Now, I am not yet ready to accept your conclusions, but for our purposes here, let's accept that you are totally and completely right. Let's look at the premise: Because of his response to antisemitism within the Labour party and because of his record of how he has supported the Palestinian cause, Jeremy Corbyn is a liability as Labour leader.

    That does not translate to A Corbyn-led government would be significantly worse than the May-led one which is demonstrably failing. In fact, that's a huge leap.

    If we want to examine the way that a party deals with racist issues within their own ranks then we have to look at the Conservatives and Islamophobia.

    Note here, I AM NOT SAYING that It's ok for the Labour Party to be antisemitic as the Conservative party is Islamophobic - such an argument would be as ridiculous as it is offensive.

    However, the assertion is that a Corbyn-led government would be significantly worse than the May-led one and hence the comparison between the parties is valid. That is not to say that Labour shouldn't get its house in order. Not for a tiny fraction of a second.

    The Tory party has a BIG problem with Islamophobia. Not only is their lots of evidence for this, in the most recent London Mayor campaign, they ran a leadership-sanctioned racist campaign against Sadiq Khan.

    I am both incensed and depressed by the vitriol of some on the left. I despair at antisemitism but it is not as simple as the problems in Labour party show that a putative Labour government would be the worse thing ever because such problems are prevalent across the political spectrum. That simply doesn't follow.

    AFZ

  • mr cheesy wrote: »
    So that would be the current labour manifesto then

    Or maybe it is that one could conceivably be a socialist without supporting Corbyn. That there could be more than one way to be a socialist in British politics.

    Like in almost every other European country.

    For example? Let's hear about these left wing politicians on the continent ... I'm fascinated.
    mr cheesy wrote: »
    mr cheesy wrote: »
    So that would be the current labour manifesto then

    Or maybe it is that one could conceivably be a socialist without supporting Corbyn. That there could be more than one way to be a socialist in British politics.

    Like in almost every other European country.

    For example? Let's hear about these left wing politicians on the continent ... I'm fascinated.

    Why don't you educate yourself? Pick a European country and read up on the socialist parties - most have more than one.

    How hard can that be?

    Why should I find evidence to support your assertions?
  • mr cheesymr cheesy Shipmate
    edited February 2019
    mr cheesy wrote: »
    So that would be the current labour manifesto then

    Or maybe it is that one could conceivably be a socialist without supporting Corbyn. That there could be more than one way to be a socialist in British politics.

    Like in almost every other European country.

    For example? Let's hear about these left wing politicians on the continent ... I'm fascinated.
    mr cheesy wrote: »
    mr cheesy wrote: »
    So that would be the current labour manifesto then

    Or maybe it is that one could conceivably be a socialist without supporting Corbyn. That there could be more than one way to be a socialist in British politics.

    Like in almost every other European country.

    For example? Let's hear about these left wing politicians on the continent ... I'm fascinated.

    Why don't you educate yourself? Pick a European country and read up on the socialist parties - most have more than one.

    How hard can that be?

    Why should I find evidence to support your assertions?

    It's not a discussion point. It's a fact.

    I'm not wasting my time educating you on a point that you can easily prove to yourself.
  • mr cheesy wrote: »
    So that would be the current labour manifesto then

    Or maybe it is that one could conceivably be a socialist without supporting Corbyn. That there could be more than one way to be a socialist in British politics.

    Like in almost every other European country.

    Exactly.

    Name six.
  • mr cheesy wrote: »
    So that would be the current labour manifesto then

    Or maybe it is that one could conceivably be a socialist without supporting Corbyn. That there could be more than one way to be a socialist in British politics.

    Like in almost every other European country.

    Exactly.

    Name six.

    The Netherlands has four socialist parties, France has at least three.

    What do you think you are gaining from this that you couldn't learn yourself with Wikipedia?
  • mr cheesy wrote: »
    mr cheesy wrote: »
    So that would be the current labour manifesto then

    Or maybe it is that one could conceivably be a socialist without supporting Corbyn. That there could be more than one way to be a socialist in British politics.

    Like in almost every other European country.

    Exactly.

    Name six.

    The Netherlands has four socialist parties, France has at least three.

    What do you think you are gaining from this that you couldn't learn yourself with Wikipedia?

    See, I made the assumption that you were actually talking about socialism, rather than a party that has the name "socialist" in it. If you think the "Democratic Republic of North Korea" is actually a democratic republic just because that is its official title, I have an excellent and only infrequently used bridge that you may be interested in buying.

    As you like to blather about educating oneself, I think you will find Thunderbunk's post above useful. If a party claims to be "Labour" but espouses the same tired old neoliberal thinking that led directly to the GFC (and will lead there again, as sure as night follows day), if it is concerned only with price control rather than unemployment, if it is always banging on about "creating markets" as if that is going to solve anything at all (it hasn't yet) rather than accepting its responsibility to advocate for legislative action in regard to challenges such as welfare and climate change, and if it isn't concerned with tax and economic reform to ensure that the haves don't continue to exploit the have-nots, then it is as much a genuine labour party as McDonald's is a genuine restaurant.
  • The asymmetry in coverage feeds the perception that the allegations have been used for political ends - which complicates tackling them effectively.

    I think the degree to which accusations are politically motivated is to a certain extent irrelevant - if Boris Johnson was caught with trousersful of Russian money, the Left (and a lot of his own party) would have a field day, and obviously that field day would be politically motivated, but that wouldn't make it unjustified.
  • That’s not asymmetry is it ?
  • Ricardus wrote: »
    The asymmetry in coverage feeds the perception that the allegations have been used for political ends - which complicates tackling them effectively.

    I think the degree to which accusations are politically motivated is to a certain extent irrelevant - if Boris Johnson was caught with trousersful of Russian money, the Left (and a lot of his own party) would have a field day, and obviously that field day would be politically motivated, but that wouldn't make it unjustified.

    I think that the point here is that the level of shouting about anti-semitism in the Labour party has been disproportionately large compared to its demonstrated extent, while the whispers about tory islamophobia have been disproportionately small compared with its demonstrated extent. That is because islamophobia crosses the other fault lines in the tory party so no faction (and certainly not the tory press) has any great interest in exploiting it. Conversely, accusations of anti-semitism in Labour are almost entirely directed by the right of the party against the left, and by apologists for Israel against supporters of Palestinian rights (barring the few cases of actual anti-semitism that have been uncovered, numbering a few dozen party members out of more than half a million). This is because the Israel-Palestine fault line largely follows the left-right split, both because it is a justice vs real-politik issue and because it's baked into the factions within the party from student days. I was a student when Luciana Berger was an NUS exec member, and I remember well that the political wing of the Union of Jewish Students was in tight with the National Organisation of Labour Students (dominated by the Blairite wing of the party) while Student Broad Left (drawing on the Labour and non-Labour left) was damn close with Jewish Students for Justice for Palestinians and the Federation of Student Islamic Societies. When you look at current divisions in the PLP you see the same faces on the same sides - almost all the Labour defectors have a past in NOLS/UJS, while prominent Corbyn supporters such as Cat Smith and her husband Ben Soffa came up through SBL/JSFJFP. Using allegations of anti-semitism as a political tool is one that Berger employed in those days and still employs now. Does she get anti-semitic abuse? Yep. Does some of it come from party members? Probably. Should those members be expelled? Yep. But she chooses to use it for political ends in a way that other recipients, such as Diane Abbott, do not and she is aided and abetted in that by a very right wing press, both Jewish and secular.
  • DoublethinkDoublethink Shipmate
    edited February 2019
    The asymmetry matters because you have a group of parties with significant issues in so much as they all more or less reflect the bigotry of the general population, but one of them will govern the country.

    One is being encouraged to rip itself to pieces over this, the others are not. Whilst the rest of the parties (with the possible exception of the SNP) are more institutionally racist and sexist, and the one most likely to govern has mps willing to defend concentration camps on national television and is responsible for the Windrush scandal.

    Prioritisation here appears to be duff. As a member of a minority community, supporting a party that is committed to retaining equality protection laws is more important to me than a fraction of 1 percent of the party membership coming out with racist/sexist/lgbtphobic shit. Especially when I know my other options are worse.

    In terms of real life threatening danger, it is far right terrorism on the rise - Jo Cox wasn’t killed by reds under the bed. It is fascists who have yelled abuse at me in the street since the referendum, demonstrated with islamophobic placards and chants 3 minutes from my house. In mainstream it is the political choice of austerity that has gutted public services and is ruining the lives of my disabled clients.

    This is not a reason not to tackle bigotry, it is a reason not to split the party and not act like Corbyn is somehow the spawn of Satan.

    I voted remain, but we lost, and I’ll live with a soft Brexit - because whatever the criminality of the leave campaign I don’t think our society will cope if it is unilaterally overturned by parliament. The so called people’s vote would solve nothing because the margins in either direction are too small and would be even more divisive and toxic. I think mps throwing their toys out of the prom right now, at this particular moment, weeks before the 29th of March - but somehow not having got their shit together to vote on the amendments that would have offered soft Brexit, or a people’s vote or the motion of no confidence to end this government is self indulgent in the extreme.
  • mr cheesy wrote: »
    mr cheesy wrote: »
    So that would be the current labour manifesto then

    Or maybe it is that one could conceivably be a socialist without supporting Corbyn. That there could be more than one way to be a socialist in British politics.

    Like in almost every other European country.

    Exactly.

    Name six.

    The Netherlands has four socialist parties, France has at least three.

    What do you think you are gaining from this that you couldn't learn yourself with Wikipedia?

    See, I made the assumption that you were actually talking about socialism, rather than a party that has the name "socialist" in it. If you think the "Democratic Republic of North Korea" is actually a democratic republic just because that is its official title, I have an excellent and only infrequently used bridge that you may be interested in buying.

    As you like to blather about educating oneself, I think you will find Thunderbunk's post above useful. If a party claims to be "Labour" but espouses the same tired old neoliberal thinking that led directly to the GFC (and will lead there again, as sure as night follows day), if it is concerned only with price control rather than unemployment, if it is always banging on about "creating markets" as if that is going to solve anything at all (it hasn't yet) rather than accepting its responsibility to advocate for legislative action in regard to challenges such as welfare and climate change, and if it isn't concerned with tax and economic reform to ensure that the haves don't continue to exploit the have-nots, then it is as much a genuine labour party as McDonald's is a genuine restaurant.

    Fuck off. Suddenly you are an expert on European socialism? Oh ok then. So which of the parties in the Netherlands are the One True Socialists? Which out of Labour and Sinn Féin are the "true Socialists" in the RoI? Which out of the multiple communists, workers, centre left, left centrist, socialist liberal and liberal socialist (excluding for the sake of argument the actual "Socialists") in France are the True Party?

    I mean, seriously.

  • I think mps throwing their toys out of the prom right now, at this particular moment, weeks before the 29th of March - but somehow not having got their shit together to vote on the amendments that would have offered soft Brexit, or a people’s vote or the motion of no confidence to end this government is self indulgent in the extreme.

    Or it can be seen as a last gasp effort to avoid hard-brexit when the two main parties are cooperating in doing nothing to avoid it.
  • The asymmetry matters because you have a group of parties with significant issues in so much as they all more or less reflect the bigotry of the general population, but one of them will govern the country.

    But I think the main conclusion from the asymmetry is that the media should pursue Tory Islamophobia more, not that it should pursue Labour anti-Semitism less.

    On your wider point - to an extent I agree with you, in that when I go and cast my ballot, I will only be able to choose from the options that are on the menu, and at that point all that will matter is which one is worse; but I think 'support us because we're not as bad as the other lot' isn't a good mentality to be in.
  • mr cheesymr cheesy Shipmate
    edited February 2019
    Ricardus wrote: »
    The asymmetry matters because you have a group of parties with significant issues in so much as they all more or less reflect the bigotry of the general population, but one of them will govern the country.

    But I think the main conclusion from the asymmetry is that the media should pursue Tory Islamophobia more, not that it should pursue Labour anti-Semitism less.

    On your wider point - to an extent I agree with you, in that when I go and cast my ballot, I will only be able to choose from the options that are on the menu, and at that point all that will matter is which one is worse; but I think 'support us because we're not as bad as the other lot' isn't a good mentality to be in.

    Exactly. Rather than staying and pointing out how the other side is equally disgusting, one could always follow one's concience out of the party.

    But wait, that would be a betrayal.
  • HugalHugal Shipmate
    edited February 2019
    So to extend my OP 3 Conservative MPs have split. Not as much damage as Labour but bad enough at the moment.
    I agree with a commentator on the BBC this morning. Yes we pick a person not a party but the choice has changed. A by-election would be best.
  • mr cheesymr cheesy Shipmate
    edited February 2019
    Hugal wrote: »
    So to extend my OP 3 Conservative MPs have split. Not as much damage as Labour but bad enough at the moment.
    I agree with a commentator on the BBC this morning. Yes we pick a person not a party but the choice has changed. A by-election would be best.

    That's right - because the overwhelming precedent (4 by-elections from 69 party defections by MPs since 1945) is overwhelming.
  • la vie en rougela vie en rouge Circus Host, 8th Day Host
    I am one of those people who wanted to like Jeremy Corbyn – not a Labour member, but a Guardian-reading natural lefty. But I can’t help but think of him as a dismal failure.

    We have the most incompetent government in living memory, and if there was an election tomorrow, they would probably still get the highest number of seats in the chamber. This makes me uncertain that the opposition is any more competent. Opposing this government ought to be like shooting fish in a barrel and I want to know why the current Labour front bench isn’t making a considerably better job of it. Probably because Comrade Corbyrn doesn’t like Europe very much himself, I suppose, but I don’t see him putting the national interest first.

    ISTM that part of Corbyn’s problem is this: he enjoys being a contrarian and an outsider. He doesn’t give an expletive if people don’t like him or go along with him. The trouble is that he fails to understand the importance of consensus-building in politics.
  • I'm not sure that opposing this government is easy, since it is likely that some people see the Tories as the Brexit party, and vote accordingly. Of course, Labour could take an anti-Brexit stance, but the fear is that that stance would lose them votes. I agree that this has led to a kind of deliberate ambiguity, or you could call it confusion.

    Also, no-one knows the effects of the splits, I would expect them to siphon off some votes from Labour, possibly they are finished for a decade, of course, everything is fluid, but the Tories are good at surviving.
  • chrisstileschrisstiles Shipmate
    edited February 2019
    We have the most incompetent government in living memory, and if there was an election tomorrow, they would probably still get the highest number of seats in the chamber.

    I think the reality is that the Tories have become the party of Brexit, which is why their vote share is fairly steady at 40%, and also why claims that Labour would be '20% ahead with X' are probably overblown.
  • I'm not sure that opposing this government is easy, since it is likely that some people see the Tories as the Brexit party, and vote accordingly.

    This for me is the key question.

    I don't want to give Corbyn a free pass but the idea that opposing this government at this point in time is easy is one that seems to has passed into accepted wisdom without any consideration.

    Firstly both of the two biggest parties have a core vote that will essentially vote for them regardless - the classic would vote for a pig in the right colour rosette voter. It's difficult to know how big these groups are but the nadir of polling numbers gives a first approximation. My first estimation is that these numbers would be about 25% for the Conservatives and 20% for Labour.

    The Tories are currently polling around 40% - so if the 25% figure is correct, only 15% is up for grabs - this suggests that the maximum figure that Labour could ever achieve would be around 55% (which interestingly is roughly the number that the SDP/Liberals/Labour got to in 1983/87 when Thatcher won her landslides).

    So the question is probably one of is a Labour 50 / Conservatives 30 type position achievable?

    If you look at the issues that concern people (as always) we are a divided nation. There are plenty of people who still think that austerity is a good idea. They're wrong but one does not normally win votes in the short term by telling people that they are wrong. There is still a large section of the population who are in favour of Brexit. Even if you take the best poll from a People's Vote perspective, there is still 40% of the population in favour of Brexit - many of these people don't trust Labour on Brexit.

    Corbyn is trapped politically between Leavers who trust the Tories more and Remainers who desperately want him to oppose Brexit in all forms. That's politically very difficult, quite aside from the question of what is the right thing to do.

    I do think that a sane government should be working as hard as possible to avoid Brexit - to find a way out of this mess but the fact of the referendum remains. Most people who voted Leave are not interested in how illegal the referendum was or that they were deeply misled (because they don't accept the premise). Thus the 'if Corbyn just came out strongly opposing Brexit, all would be well' argument is deeply flawed both politically but also how you deal with the fact of the referendum result morally is not straight-forward.

    In terms of the other really obvious failings of this government on the economy, the NHS, education, policing, welfare... Corbyn has taken a very strong stance opposing all of these. But that doesn't cut through at the moment.

    An interesting piece of evidence is how the rules about equal coverage affected the last election campaign. Corbyn and Labour's rating soared in the short weeks of the election campaign when the public were more exposed to Corbyn. Of course, it may be that May's totally inept campaign was a more important factor.

    I don't think any of my meandering above reaches any firm conclusions. I am not (deliberately) pushing an argument here. I don't know. However, the notion that opposing this shambles of a government is the easiest thing ever needs to be properly examined rather than just accepted.

    AFZ
  • The other piece of accepted wisdom is that if X were Labour leader, they would have a 10 point lead. But what would the policy on Brexit be? The same problems arise. Also somebody more right wing might pull in more votes, and repel others.
  • AFZ has most of the voting pattern right but we have to note that:
    - Tory voters are more loyal. Labour and (especially) LibDem voters are fickle
    - Tory voters turn out despite the weather (partly because they are more likely to have cars to get to the polling station).
    - The Tory party can identify populist causes and turns out "knocking copy" far more easily. In short it has fewer principles. The last Labour leader who could go toe-to-toe with the Tories on this kind of thing was Harold Wilson.
This discussion has been closed.