Today the Labour has agreed to pay "substantial" damages to seven former employees who sued the party in the anti-Semitism row that blighted the last leadership. Is Labour now beginning to accept how wrong they were and cleaning up their act?
Today the Labour has agreed to pay "substantial" damages to seven former employees who sued the party in the anti-Semitism row that blighted the last leadership. Is Labour now beginning to accept how wrong they were and cleaning up their act?
No, they're buying off the bullies. There was a pretty good chance they would have won the case. Starmer has decided there is political capital to be made by being seen to give Corbyn a good kicking, and he's probably not wrong in that. It's political theatre.
Today the Labour has agreed to pay "substantial" damages to seven former employees who sued the party in the anti-Semitism row that blighted the last leadership. Is Labour now beginning to accept how wrong they were and cleaning up their act?
No, they're buying off the bullies. There was a pretty good chance they would have won the case. Starmer has decided there is political capital to be made by being seen to give Corbyn a good kicking, and he's probably not wrong in that. It's political theatre.
So the 7 former employees who had criticised the Labour Parties handling of anti-semitism were not whistleblowers but bullies, despite none of them holding positions of power?
There is a context here, where the party's own investigation showed that were there were accusations of anti-Semitism, they were treated no differently to other complaints, that a tiny, almost miniscule number of party members had those complaints upheld against them and were subsequently removed, and the well-founded plot within the centre and right of the party to destablise the leadership and lose the 2019 election.
@Arethosemyfeet is correct in saying that legal opinion was such that the court action was not just defensible, but winnable. Over all Labour party members are less likely than the general population to hold anti-Semitic views.
Starmer (obviously) doesn't want to spend the next six months or however long, fighting a court case he doesn't believe will help Labour, now he's in charge, so while @Arethosemyfeet is also correct in calling it political theatre, it's probably better for Labour-under-Starmer to draw the curtain down before we get into Act 2.
There is a context here, where the party's own investigation showed that were there were accusations of anti-Semitism, they were treated no differently to other complaints, that a tiny, almost miniscule number of party members had those complaints upheld against them and were subsequently removed, and the well-founded plot within the centre and right of the party to destablise the leadership and lose the 2019 election.
@Arethosemyfeet is correct in saying that legal opinion was such that the court action was not just defensible, but winnable. Over all Labour party members are less likely than the general population to hold anti-Semitic views.
Starmer (obviously) doesn't want to spend the next six months or however long, fighting a court case he doesn't believe will help Labour, now he's in charge, so while @Arethosemyfeet is also correct in calling it political theatre, it's probably better for Labour-under-Starmer to draw the curtain down before we get into Act 2.
So for you, is it about in-fighting in the Labour Party? If so, then with such going on is it possible that the electorate as a whole don't want to be governed by such a party until they sort out their squabbles?
There is a context here, where the party's own investigation showed that were there were accusations of anti-Semitism, they were treated no differently to other complaints, that a tiny, almost miniscule number of party members had those complaints upheld against them and were subsequently removed, and the well-founded plot within the centre and right of the party to destablise the leadership and lose the 2019 election.
@Arethosemyfeet is correct in saying that legal opinion was such that the court action was not just defensible, but winnable. Over all Labour party members are less likely than the general population to hold anti-Semitic views.
Starmer (obviously) doesn't want to spend the next six months or however long, fighting a court case he doesn't believe will help Labour, now he's in charge, so while @Arethosemyfeet is also correct in calling it political theatre, it's probably better for Labour-under-Starmer to draw the curtain down before we get into Act 2.
So for you, is it about in-fighting in the Labour Party? If so, then with such going on is it possible that the electorate as a whole don't want to be governed by such a party until they sort out their squabbles?
I don't think the electorate can be said to want anything "as a whole".
So for you, is it about in-fighting in the Labour Party? If so, then with such going on is it possible that the electorate as a whole don't want to be governed by such a party until they sort out their squabbles?
Short answer: yes.
Slightly longer answer: with the majority of the news and print media in the UK happier to hold the Opposition to account than the actual government, Labour have to be utterly squeaky clean on this. It literally doesn't matter whether the Tories are full to the gunwhales with racists, islamophobes and misogynists, what matters is that Labour don't give anyone even the sight of a stick with which to beat them.
(eta)
The criticism of Labour over this has been relentless. And months of negative headlines, every interview turning to it at some point. The charge, no matter how slight, was terrible for Labour. The Tories elected a leader who called women in hijabs 'letterboxes' and talked about black Africans' 'watermelon smiles'. You can make your own conclusions as to what the electorate as a whole want.
So for you, is it about in-fighting in the Labour Party? If so, then with such going on is it possible that the electorate as a whole don't want to be governed by such a party until they sort out their squabbles?
It is completely clear that Starmer is trying to put the issue to bed, precisely so "Labour antisemitism" doesn't keep claiming headlines. It's the same reason that companies often buy off people who probably wouldn't win an unfair dismissal suit - it's cheaper, and better PR, for the issue just to go away.
You can also compare Starmer's action in firing Rebecca Long-Bailey for retweeting a Maxine Peake interview that contained a gratuitous anti-Israeli statement.
We could argue about how much of this was Starmer trying to purge the left vs how much was him visibly and firmly stomping on antisemitism, but it's completely obviously a political choice - on this, I agree with @Arethosemyfeet and @Doc Tor .
There is a context here, where the party's own investigation showed that were there were accusations of anti-Semitism, they were treated no differently to other complaints, that a tiny, almost miniscule number of party members had those complaints upheld against them and were subsequently removed, and the well-founded plot within the centre and right of the party to destablise the leadership and lose the 2019 election.
@Arethosemyfeet is correct in saying that legal opinion was such that the court action was not just defensible, but winnable. Over all Labour party members are less likely than the general population to hold anti-Semitic views.
Starmer (obviously) doesn't want to spend the next six months or however long, fighting a court case he doesn't believe will help Labour, now he's in charge, so while @Arethosemyfeet is also correct in calling it political theatre, it's probably better for Labour-under-Starmer to draw the curtain down before we get into Act 2.
So for you, is it about in-fighting in the Labour Party? If so, then with such going on is it possible that the electorate as a whole don't want to be governed by such a party until they sort out their squabbles?
I don't think the electorate can be said to want anything "as a whole".
Ahhhh.... so you are coming round to my way of thinking. The electorate judge many different matters and then make decisions, not always based on partisan approaches. They weigh up a variety of factors and then vote. I'm glad we are agreed on this.
There is a context here, where the party's own investigation showed that were there were accusations of anti-Semitism, they were treated no differently to other complaints, that a tiny, almost miniscule number of party members had those complaints upheld against them and were subsequently removed, and the well-founded plot within the centre and right of the party to destablise the leadership and lose the 2019 election.
@Arethosemyfeet is correct in saying that legal opinion was such that the court action was not just defensible, but winnable. Over all Labour party members are less likely than the general population to hold anti-Semitic views.
Starmer (obviously) doesn't want to spend the next six months or however long, fighting a court case he doesn't believe will help Labour, now he's in charge, so while @Arethosemyfeet is also correct in calling it political theatre, it's probably better for Labour-under-Starmer to draw the curtain down before we get into Act 2.
So for you, is it about in-fighting in the Labour Party? If so, then with such going on is it possible that the electorate as a whole don't want to be governed by such a party until they sort out their squabbles?
I don't think the electorate can be said to want anything "as a whole".
Ahhhh.... so you are coming round to my way of thinking. The electorate judge many different matters and then make decisions, not always based on partisan approaches. They weigh up a variety of factors and then vote. I'm glad we are agreed on this.
I don't believe I said that at all. Much of the electorate vote on gut instinct, which on closer examination is a mixture of habit, personal preference, herd behaviour, and subconscious absorption of snippets of news and Facebook comments. Even those of us who try to be rational about how we vote are prone to post-hoc rationalisation. I'm very suspicious of questions in polling like "is x honest" (or "is x in touch with ordinary people"), because once we've decided to support someone we're very unlikely to admit they're dishonest or out of touch. At best such questions track (say) how honest a leader is considered by their supporters compared with previous leaders from the same party.
There is a context here, where the party's own investigation showed that were there were accusations of anti-Semitism, they were treated no differently to other complaints, that a tiny, almost miniscule number of party members had those complaints upheld against them and were subsequently removed, and the well-founded plot within the centre and right of the party to destablise the leadership and lose the 2019 election.
@Arethosemyfeet is correct in saying that legal opinion was such that the court action was not just defensible, but winnable. Over all Labour party members are less likely than the general population to hold anti-Semitic views.
Starmer (obviously) doesn't want to spend the next six months or however long, fighting a court case he doesn't believe will help Labour, now he's in charge, so while @Arethosemyfeet is also correct in calling it political theatre, it's probably better for Labour-under-Starmer to draw the curtain down before we get into Act 2.
So for you, is it about in-fighting in the Labour Party? If so, then with such going on is it possible that the electorate as a whole don't want to be governed by such a party until they sort out their squabbles?
I don't think the electorate can be said to want anything "as a whole".
Ahhhh.... so you are coming round to my way of thinking. The electorate judge many different matters and then make decisions, not always based on partisan approaches. They weigh up a variety of factors and then vote. I'm glad we are agreed on this.
I don't believe I said that at all. Much of the electorate vote on gut instinct, which on closer examination is a mixture of habit, personal preference, herd behaviour, and subconscious absorption of snippets of news and Facebook comments. Even those of us who try to be rational about how we vote are prone to post-hoc rationalisation. I'm very suspicious of questions in polling like "is x honest" (or "is x in touch with ordinary people"), because once we've decided to support someone we're very unlikely to admit they're dishonest or out of touch. At best such questions track (say) how honest a leader is considered by their supporters compared with previous leaders from the same party.
What makes you think that your approach to elections, voting etc is better than others?
Does anyone here remember the fuss over Ed Miliband eating a bacon sandwich? Or over Ed Miliband's father being unpatriotic? Those were pretty much the same people as have been complaining about the slightest hint of anti-semitism from the Labour Party.
So for you, is it about in-fighting in the Labour Party? If so, then with such going on is it possible that the electorate as a whole don't want to be governed by such a party until they sort out their squabbles?
Short answer: yes.
Slightly longer answer: with the majority of the news and print media in the UK happier to hold the Opposition to account than the actual government, Labour have to be utterly squeaky clean on this. It literally doesn't matter whether the Tories are full to the gunwhales with racists, islamophobes and misogynists, what matters is that Labour don't give anyone even the sight of a stick with which to beat them.
(eta)
The criticism of Labour over this has been relentless. And months of negative headlines, every interview turning to it at some point. The charge, no matter how slight, was terrible for Labour. The Tories elected a leader who called women in hijabs 'letterboxes' and talked about black Africans' 'watermelon smiles'. You can make your own conclusions as to what the electorate as a whole want.
There is a context here, where the party's own investigation showed that were there were accusations of anti-Semitism, they were treated no differently to other complaints, that a tiny, almost miniscule number of party members had those complaints upheld against them and were subsequently removed, and the well-founded plot within the centre and right of the party to destablise the leadership and lose the 2019 election.
@Arethosemyfeet is correct in saying that legal opinion was such that the court action was not just defensible, but winnable. Over all Labour party members are less likely than the general population to hold anti-Semitic views.
Starmer (obviously) doesn't want to spend the next six months or however long, fighting a court case he doesn't believe will help Labour, now he's in charge, so while @Arethosemyfeet is also correct in calling it political theatre, it's probably better for Labour-under-Starmer to draw the curtain down before we get into Act 2.
So for you, is it about in-fighting in the Labour Party? If so, then with such going on is it possible that the electorate as a whole don't want to be governed by such a party until they sort out their squabbles?
I don't think the electorate can be said to want anything "as a whole".
Ahhhh.... so you are coming round to my way of thinking. The electorate judge many different matters and then make decisions, not always based on partisan approaches. They weigh up a variety of factors and then vote.
Since many Jewish people inside and outside the Labour party seem to think there is a problem with anti-semitism on the left, it seems on the face of it reasonable to think that anti-semitism is not just something that conservatives do. It seems to me that those who are denying this are being wilfully blind.
There is a context here, where the party's own investigation showed that were there were accusations of anti-Semitism, they were treated no differently to other complaints, that a tiny, almost miniscule number of party members had those complaints upheld against them and were subsequently removed, and the well-founded plot within the centre and right of the party to destablise the leadership and lose the 2019 election.
@Arethosemyfeet is correct in saying that legal opinion was such that the court action was not just defensible, but winnable. Over all Labour party members are less likely than the general population to hold anti-Semitic views.
Starmer (obviously) doesn't want to spend the next six months or however long, fighting a court case he doesn't believe will help Labour, now he's in charge, so while @Arethosemyfeet is also correct in calling it political theatre, it's probably better for Labour-under-Starmer to draw the curtain down before we get into Act 2.
So for you, is it about in-fighting in the Labour Party? If so, then with such going on is it possible that the electorate as a whole don't want to be governed by such a party until they sort out their squabbles?
I don't think the electorate can be said to want anything "as a whole".
Ahhhh.... so you are coming round to my way of thinking. The electorate judge many different matters and then make decisions, not always based on partisan approaches. They weigh up a variety of factors and then vote.
I thought many times about starting a thread on this during the election as Antisemitism propagated across my timeline from people determined to clear Jeremy Corbyn and the Labour Party under him from it by putting the telescope to the blind eye and declaring to Jews that they were Tories or imagining things.
In the end I didn't because (1) I could guarantee that people who are fine with absolutely every other sort of racism and cruelty would hypocritically jump on it. (2) I saw that even normally reasonable people usually on the same side as me were so invested in Mr Corbyn's leadership they were willing to turn to 'Fox News for the left' style sources and to rubbish actual investigative journalists working to high standards. I found this chilling and worrying.
I was very glad I lived in Scotland and didn't have to face a Boris/Corbyn choice. Even agreeing on nearly every social policy doesn't make stuff like that easy to swallow.
In the end, it can be too easy when you think someone is your last best hope against something evil and destructive to overlook things you should never overlook. And there's no point me arguing the toss, if you trust the work of folk like Seamus Milne et al more than investigative work by John Ware and cling to it to demonise whistle blowers, nothing I can say will make any difference.
But I need to speak up in the hope that sometime something will cut through. It's possible to believe both that nearly all the press is out to get you and that your leadership failed you on absolutely vital matters of human rights and defence of democracy. The two are not exclusive.
Since many Jewish people inside and outside the Labour party seem to think there is a problem with anti-semitism on the left, it seems on the face of it reasonable to think that anti-semitism is not just something that conservatives do. It seems to me that those who are denying this are being wilfully blind.
On the face of it sure, but look any closer and you realise that the divide among Jews and within Labour over the allegations of anti-semitism (I think everyone accepts that some Labour members have said anti-semitic things, the dispute is how well they have been dealt with and whether some within the party tried to prevent action being taken) runs almost exactly along the dividing line between those inclined to support Israel and those who lean more towards the Palestinians, with the hardcore Likudniks being the ones calling Corbyn an "existential threat".
The nonsense of it all is that many of Corbyn's most prominent supporters are themselves Jewish (Lannsman, Schneider, Soffa) and I know the latter myself and he's not one to tolerate anti-semitism. He has, however, been the target of taunts of "self-hating Jew" from Zionist Jews for at least 15 years for his support for Palestinian rights.
Some of my/his best friends are Jewish and anyone who sees and calls out antisemitism is a Likudnik = some of my best friends are Black and anyone who calls out our party's racism is a filthy librul who hates America.
If you demonise the vast majority of a ethnic minority and listen only to the tiny minority of a minority who agree with you, that's exactly how the Tories and the rest of the right work.
It has to be possible for Israel to be held to account for its actions against its own minority population. The idea that all criticism of Israel is inherently anti-Semitic is repugnant. Unless and until this is confirmed and affirmed, I will be very suspicious of these allegations - nothing will cause me to be anything resembling a lapdog to Netanyahu, whose contempt for international law becomes clearer by the day.
Since many Jewish people inside and outside the Labour party seem to think there is a problem with anti-semitism on the left, it seems on the face of it reasonable to think that anti-semitism is not just something that conservatives do. It seems to me that those who are denying this are being wilfully blind.
And this is where we have to factor in Labour's and the left's support for the Palestinian people. This is obviously and painfully sometimes used as a front for anti-Semitism, often enough that any criticism of Israeli government policy can be seen as criticism of Israel, its right to exist, Jews within Israel, and by extension, all Jews. A party that supports the rights of Palestinians in a major western democracy (hah) which has a seat on the UN Security Council could be seen as a threat to Israel's freedom of action.
It shouldn't come as a surprise that there's a plurality of Jewish political opinion across the spectrum (as there is in Israel itself), but we ended up with many left-wing Jews being labelled as the 'wrong sort of Jews' and sidelined in the whole 'is Labour anti-Semitic' debate.
If you demonise the vast majority of a ethnic minority and listen only to the tiny minority of a minority who agree with you, that's exactly how the Tories and the rest of the right work.
The 'vast majority' of Jews are not right-wing. That within Israel itself the right wing can't reliably form a majority government is the clearest sign of that.
"Around 73 per cent of Jews said the political parties’ attitudes to Israel were “very” or “quite” important in influencing how they would vote.
The polling revealed that Mr Miliband’s approach to Israel and the Middle East is seen as toxic within the Jewish community. Just 10 per cent of people said he had the best approach, compared to 65 per cent who favoured Mr Cameron’s stance. "
Demonising things which in any other state would get it described as a terrorist state? How terrible. Demonising the building of a wall designed to destroy the lives of those who live along it? Unconscionable.
Soros and Rothschild conspiracy theories and tinkering with Holocaust history have nothing to do with the Palestinians and when Palestinians are being tortured and murdered in Syria with Russian and Iranian help, the Labour Party has not been to the fore. It's possible to believe both that Netanyahu is an appalling far-right authoritarian presiding over massive human rights abuses and that the Labour Party has been crap on antisemitism.
Since many Jewish people inside and outside the Labour party seem to think there is a problem with anti-semitism on the left, it seems on the face of it reasonable to think that anti-semitism is not just something that conservatives do. It seems to me that those who are denying this are being wilfully blind.
I don't think anyone here denies that anti-Semitism exists on the left.
What is being called out, specifically by me, is the hypocrisy of conservatives in calling it out in the left.
Prejudice exists in every group, the question is how much, to what effect and how to address it.
Those are serious questions to ask and to work out and that the Conservatives are worse is not an excuse.
But those questions need to be properly addressed beyond the mere existence of a prejudice.
It has to be possible for Israel to be held to account for its actions against its own minority population. The idea that all criticism of Israel is inherently anti-Semitic is repugnant.
It is a blind to hide anti-Islam sentiments and the right's anti-Semitism.
Soros and Rothschild conspiracy theories and tinkering with Holocaust history have nothing to do with the Palestinians and when Palestinians are being tortured and murdered in Syria with Russian and Iranian help, the Labour Party has not been to the fore. It's possible to believe both that Netanyahu is an appalling far-right authoritarian presiding over massive human rights abuses and that the Labour Party has been crap on antisemitism.
Yes, it is possible to believe both those things to be true. But the Syrian war has been going on since 2011, and the Tories have been in power since 2010.
I was very glad I lived in Scotland and didn't have to face a Boris/Corbyn choice. Even agreeing on nearly every social policy doesn't make stuff like that easy to swallow.
exclusive.
The choice you had in Scotland was to vote for a party which could form a national government or a party which wanted independence.
I was very glad I lived in Scotland and didn't have to face a Boris/Corbyn choice. Even agreeing on nearly every social policy doesn't make stuff like that easy to swallow.
exclusive.
The choice you had in Scotland was to vote for a party which could form a national government or a party which wanted independence.
At the last election the choice was a hodge podge of a coalition between scottish nationalists, barmy socialists and liberal democrats or conservatives. The electorate chose, and chose wisely. No amount of arguing or blah blah can take away from this. Suck it up.
Making a personal observation isn't arguing or refusing to accept the result.
Also, the opposition won a greater percentage of the electorate's votes than the party that formed the government. So 'chose' is an interesting word here. Rather, it's what we ended up with, and that's the result that stands until the next election.
Soros and Rothschild conspiracy theories and tinkering with Holocaust history have nothing to do with the Palestinians and when Palestinians are being tortured and murdered in Syria with Russian and Iranian help, the Labour Party has not been to the fore. It's possible to believe both that Netanyahu is an appalling far-right authoritarian presiding over massive human rights abuses and that the Labour Party has been crap on antisemitism.
Israel is an ally and is a democratic state. Syria is a more complicated situation so the comparison is not perfect. Not that I am defending the lack of support for Palestinians in Syria, I am not. But they are different situations.
If there was only one Black majority rule country in the world and it had come about due to people fleeing racist atrocities and by an ugly twist of historical fate, it secured its borders by ethnically cleansing a Muslim minority and then occupied further territory, it would be right to call it out for its human rights violations. However in majority white countries with horrific histories of racist violence any human rights movement for the dispossessed would have to be rigorously careful about excluding racists. By which I mean not just the Stormfront types delighted to have a righteous excuse but also the cranks with racist theories and the unconsciously institutionally biased who would see Black people afraid they might need to flee a white majority country with a history of violent racism and frame them as thus deserving of protests and harassment by the white majority for the human rights cause of the dispossessed.
What's heroic in Israel - protesting the occupation against state power - becomes a very different beast when you're over here and have a pack of privileged white majority folk harassing tiny diaspora communities against whom the majority community has a long and woeful history of racism. You then have to conduct your human rights work the same way porcupines mate - very very carefully. When people endorse crude anti-imperialism theory (which isn't really pro-Palestinian - because Palestinians tortured murdered and bombed by pukka 'anti-imperialism' powers like Assad's Syria, Iran or Russia get mostly ignored) 'very carefully' goes out the window.
Mr Corbyn's old style anti-imperialism was the main source of the problem. If there had been numbers of anti- Assad Syrians in the Labour party prior to Mr Corbyn being elected there would be a Syrian problem too. This kind of binary anti-imperialist thinking isn't of itself antisemitism but it's unhappily a good petri dish for it to grow.
People who see Israel as an ally don't call it out, people who see Russia and Iran as allies don't call them out. In either case the person getting bombed by an 'ally' gets erased.
If there was only one Black majority rule country in the world and it had come about due to people fleeing racist atrocities and by an ugly twist of historical fate, it secured its borders by ethnically cleansing a Muslim minority and then occupied further territory, it would be right to call it out for its human rights violations. However in majority white countries with horrific histories of racist violence any human rights movement for the dispossessed would have to be rigorously careful about excluding racists.
By which I mean not just the Stormfront types delighted to have a righteous excuse but also the cranks with racist theories and the unconsciously institutionally biased who would see Black people afraid they might need to flee a white majority country with a history of violent racism and frame them as thus deserving of protests and harassment by the white majority for the human rights cause of the dispossessed.
I understand the variations in racism and that those apply to anti-Semitism. And I am aware that they exist in the Left as well as the right.
What's heroic in Israel - protesting the occupation against state power - becomes a very different beast when you're over here and have a pack of privileged white majority folk harassing tiny diaspora communities against whom the majority community has a long and woeful history of racism. You then have to conduct your human rights work the same way porcupines mate - very very carefully. When people endorse crude anti-imperialism theory (which isn't really pro-Palestinian - because Palestinians tortured murdered and bombed by pukka 'anti-imperialism' powers like Assad's Syria, Iran or Russia get mostly ignored) 'very carefully' goes out the window.
My position here is less that Labour has handled these matters well, but that the Conservatives are worse and that the OP appears a tad hypocritical in this.
TBF, the label on the tin means Labour should be better than it is and that the Tories are worse is not an excuse. Holding Labour to account is a good thing, that the Tories are getting an undeserved free ride out of this is not.
I'm reminded of a story about LBJ, who had been told that a particular Republican politician had been enjoying sexual relations with a pig, and thought it should be publicised. "But you can't possibly believe it's true," said a staffer". "Of course it's not true," replied LBJ, "I just want to see the bugger deny it."
When people endorse crude anti-imperialism theory (which isn't really pro-Palestinian - because Palestinians tortured murdered and bombed by pukka 'anti-imperialism' powers like Assad's Syria, Iran or Russia get mostly ignored) 'very carefully' goes out the window.
Mr Corbyn's old style anti-imperialism was the main source of the problem. If there had been numbers of anti- Assad Syrians in the Labour party prior to Mr Corbyn being elected there would be a Syrian problem too. This kind of binary anti-imperialist thinking isn't of itself antisemitism but it's unhappily a good petri dish for it to grow.
It doesn't help that both the left and the right have a tendency to latch onto specific abuses overseas and make lobbying on those abuses into an essential part of their mission, while other overseas abuses become, for want of a better word, optional extras. And there isn't necessarily much logic to what abuses get selected.
So when you enter progressive circles, 'Free Palestine' becomes part of the package, in a way that (say) 'End discrimination against Roma in Central and Eastern Europe' isn't. When I was at university 'Free Tibet' was a big thing. Tibet isn't now any freer, but it seems to have dropped off the radar. And then on the right, it's very important to say that Maduro is wicked and evil; it's less important to call out any other abuser of democracy, even if they are abusing it from the left.
I'm a bit torn on this. On the one hand, I don't like whatabouttery - if East Ricardinia is committing abuses, then those abuses don't magically become less abusive just because the Ricardusland Republic is also committing abuses and I'm saying nothing. On the other hand, if I am trying to change hearts and minds in East Ricardinia, then the fact that East Ricardinia appears to have been specially singled out is likely to damage my credibility among the East Ricardinians.
When people endorse crude anti-imperialism theory (which isn't really pro-Palestinian - because Palestinians tortured murdered and bombed by pukka 'anti-imperialism' powers like Assad's Syria, Iran or Russia get mostly ignored) 'very carefully' goes out the window.
Mr Corbyn's old style anti-imperialism was the main source of the problem. If there had been numbers of anti- Assad Syrians in the Labour party prior to Mr Corbyn being elected there would be a Syrian problem too. This kind of binary anti-imperialist thinking isn't of itself antisemitism but it's unhappily a good petri dish for it to grow.
It doesn't help that both the left and the right have a tendency to latch onto specific abuses overseas and make lobbying on those abuses into an essential part of their mission, while other overseas abuses become, for want of a better word, optional extras. And there isn't necessarily much logic to what abuses get selected.
So when you enter progressive circles, 'Free Palestine' becomes part of the package, in a way that (say) 'End discrimination against Roma in Central and Eastern Europe' isn't. When I was at university 'Free Tibet' was a big thing. Tibet isn't now any freer, but it seems to have dropped off the radar. And then on the right, it's very important to say that Maduro is wicked and evil; it's less important to call out any other abuser of democracy, even if they are abusing it from the left.
I'm a bit torn on this. On the one hand, I don't like whatabouttery - if East Ricardinia is committing abuses, then those abuses don't magically become less abusive just because the Ricardusland Republic is also committing abuses and I'm saying nothing. On the other hand, if I am trying to change hearts and minds in East Ricardinia, then the fact that East Ricardinia appears to have been specially singled out is likely to damage my credibility among the East Ricardinians.
This is particularly insightful.
I wrote this two years ago. Sorry it's so long but I don't think it could be much shorter:
Off to read AFZ's blog, but a couple of observations about whataboutary... firstly, to make an accusation of hypocrisy or partisanship stick, you need to demonstrate that the other party knows about this other issue but chooses to ignore it. And secondly, don't Christians believe that God might inspire a person to have a particular concern about a particular injustice?
When people endorse crude anti-imperialism theory (which isn't really pro-Palestinian - because Palestinians tortured murdered and bombed by pukka 'anti-imperialism' powers like Assad's Syria, Iran or Russia get mostly ignored) 'very carefully' goes out the window.
Mr Corbyn's old style anti-imperialism was the main source of the problem. If there had been numbers of anti- Assad Syrians in the Labour party prior to Mr Corbyn being elected there would be a Syrian problem too. This kind of binary anti-imperialist thinking isn't of itself antisemitism but it's unhappily a good petri dish for it to grow.
It doesn't help that both the left and the right have a tendency to latch onto specific abuses overseas and make lobbying on those abuses into an essential part of their mission, while other overseas abuses become, for want of a better word, optional extras. And there isn't necessarily much logic to what abuses get selected.
So when you enter progressive circles, 'Free Palestine' becomes part of the package, in a way that (say) 'End discrimination against Roma in Central and Eastern Europe' isn't. When I was at university 'Free Tibet' was a big thing. Tibet isn't now any freer, but it seems to have dropped off the radar. And then on the right, it's very important to say that Maduro is wicked and evil; it's less important to call out any other abuser of democracy, even if they are abusing it from the left.
I'm a bit torn on this. On the one hand, I don't like whatabouttery - if East Ricardinia is committing abuses, then those abuses don't magically become less abusive just because the Ricardusland Republic is also committing abuses and I'm saying nothing. On the other hand, if I am trying to change hearts and minds in East Ricardinia, then the fact that East Ricardinia appears to have been specially singled out is likely to damage my credibility among the East Ricardinians.
I don't see anyone who claims to be on the left defending persecution of Roma or Tibetans, and they'd get pretty short shrift from me if they did.
When people endorse crude anti-imperialism theory (which isn't really pro-Palestinian - because Palestinians tortured murdered and bombed by pukka 'anti-imperialism' powers like Assad's Syria, Iran or Russia get mostly ignored) 'very carefully' goes out the window.
Mr Corbyn's old style anti-imperialism was the main source of the problem. If there had been numbers of anti- Assad Syrians in the Labour party prior to Mr Corbyn being elected there would be a Syrian problem too. This kind of binary anti-imperialist thinking isn't of itself antisemitism but it's unhappily a good petri dish for it to grow.
It doesn't help that both the left and the right have a tendency to latch onto specific abuses overseas and make lobbying on those abuses into an essential part of their mission, while other overseas abuses become, for want of a better word, optional extras. And there isn't necessarily much logic to what abuses get selected.
So when you enter progressive circles, 'Free Palestine' becomes part of the package, in a way that (say) 'End discrimination against Roma in Central and Eastern Europe' isn't. When I was at university 'Free Tibet' was a big thing. Tibet isn't now any freer, but it seems to have dropped off the radar. And then on the right, it's very important to say that Maduro is wicked and evil; it's less important to call out any other abuser of democracy, even if they are abusing it from the left.
I'm a bit torn on this. On the one hand, I don't like whatabouttery - if East Ricardinia is committing abuses, then those abuses don't magically become less abusive just because the Ricardusland Republic is also committing abuses and I'm saying nothing. On the other hand, if I am trying to change hearts and minds in East Ricardinia, then the fact that East Ricardinia appears to have been specially singled out is likely to damage my credibility among the East Ricardinians.
I don't see anyone who claims to be on the left defending persecution of Roma or Tibetans, and they'd get pretty short shrift from me if they did.
I never said anyone on the left defends the persecution of Roma or Tibetans. I said they don't talk about it as much.
And to be clear: I don't think this is a moral failing on anyone's part. I just think that the more Israel appears to be 'singled out' (deliberate scare quotes) for lobbying, the less successful such lobbying is likely to be.
I never said anyone on the left defends the persecution of Roma or Tibetans. I said they don't talk about it as much.
And to be clear: I don't think this is a moral failing on anyone's part. I just think that the more Israel appears to be 'singled out' (deliberate scare quotes) for lobbying, the less successful such lobbying is likely to be.
I think it can sometimes come down to partisan focus (as you mention above) and very occasionally to less savoury reasons.
A large part of it comes down to the comparison with western democracies (and for some on the left - especially abroad - a historical link between the plight of the Palestinians and anti-colonial movements).
One does just occasionally still get people who think the Chinese government can either do no wrong or at least very much less wrong than is reported in the mainstream press.
I was very much reminded of this yesterday, when the US government spokesman castigated the Chinese government for imprisoning tens of thousands of Uighurs in labour camps while failing to mention *checks notes* his own government imprisoning tens of thousands of black men in labour camps.
Off to read AFZ's blog, but a couple of observations about whataboutary... firstly, to make an accusation of hypocrisy or partisanship stick, you need to demonstrate that the other party knows about this other issue but chooses to ignore it. And secondly, don't Christians believe that God might inspire a person to have a particular concern about a particular injustice?
It is not just being aware of, it is ridiculous to expect someone to put the same effort into every single cause, because there are a fuck-ton of them.
Cause-du jourism is an issue, though.
I wil note also that if someone does appear to care about a lot of different issues, they will get shit for that as well.
Comments
No, they're buying off the bullies. There was a pretty good chance they would have won the case. Starmer has decided there is political capital to be made by being seen to give Corbyn a good kicking, and he's probably not wrong in that. It's political theatre.
So the 7 former employees who had criticised the Labour Parties handling of anti-semitism were not whistleblowers but bullies, despite none of them holding positions of power?
@Arethosemyfeet is correct in saying that legal opinion was such that the court action was not just defensible, but winnable. Over all Labour party members are less likely than the general population to hold anti-Semitic views.
Starmer (obviously) doesn't want to spend the next six months or however long, fighting a court case he doesn't believe will help Labour, now he's in charge, so while @Arethosemyfeet is also correct in calling it political theatre, it's probably better for Labour-under-Starmer to draw the curtain down before we get into Act 2.
Has he ever been?
So for you, is it about in-fighting in the Labour Party? If so, then with such going on is it possible that the electorate as a whole don't want to be governed by such a party until they sort out their squabbles?
I don't think the electorate can be said to want anything "as a whole".
Short answer: yes.
Slightly longer answer: with the majority of the news and print media in the UK happier to hold the Opposition to account than the actual government, Labour have to be utterly squeaky clean on this. It literally doesn't matter whether the Tories are full to the gunwhales with racists, islamophobes and misogynists, what matters is that Labour don't give anyone even the sight of a stick with which to beat them.
(eta)
The criticism of Labour over this has been relentless. And months of negative headlines, every interview turning to it at some point. The charge, no matter how slight, was terrible for Labour. The Tories elected a leader who called women in hijabs 'letterboxes' and talked about black Africans' 'watermelon smiles'. You can make your own conclusions as to what the electorate as a whole want.
It is completely clear that Starmer is trying to put the issue to bed, precisely so "Labour antisemitism" doesn't keep claiming headlines. It's the same reason that companies often buy off people who probably wouldn't win an unfair dismissal suit - it's cheaper, and better PR, for the issue just to go away.
You can also compare Starmer's action in firing Rebecca Long-Bailey for retweeting a Maxine Peake interview that contained a gratuitous anti-Israeli statement.
We could argue about how much of this was Starmer trying to purge the left vs how much was him visibly and firmly stomping on antisemitism, but it's completely obviously a political choice - on this, I agree with @Arethosemyfeet and @Doc Tor .
Ahhhh.... so you are coming round to my way of thinking. The electorate judge many different matters and then make decisions, not always based on partisan approaches. They weigh up a variety of factors and then vote. I'm glad we are agreed on this.
Haha. I doubt that.
I don't believe I said that at all. Much of the electorate vote on gut instinct, which on closer examination is a mixture of habit, personal preference, herd behaviour, and subconscious absorption of snippets of news and Facebook comments. Even those of us who try to be rational about how we vote are prone to post-hoc rationalisation. I'm very suspicious of questions in polling like "is x honest" (or "is x in touch with ordinary people"), because once we've decided to support someone we're very unlikely to admit they're dishonest or out of touch. At best such questions track (say) how honest a leader is considered by their supporters compared with previous leaders from the same party.
What makes you think that your approach to elections, voting etc is better than others?
Generally listening to them.
@lilbuddha, thank you for a new word.
In the end I didn't because (1) I could guarantee that people who are fine with absolutely every other sort of racism and cruelty would hypocritically jump on it. (2) I saw that even normally reasonable people usually on the same side as me were so invested in Mr Corbyn's leadership they were willing to turn to 'Fox News for the left' style sources and to rubbish actual investigative journalists working to high standards. I found this chilling and worrying.
I was very glad I lived in Scotland and didn't have to face a Boris/Corbyn choice. Even agreeing on nearly every social policy doesn't make stuff like that easy to swallow.
In the end, it can be too easy when you think someone is your last best hope against something evil and destructive to overlook things you should never overlook. And there's no point me arguing the toss, if you trust the work of folk like Seamus Milne et al more than investigative work by John Ware and cling to it to demonise whistle blowers, nothing I can say will make any difference.
But I need to speak up in the hope that sometime something will cut through. It's possible to believe both that nearly all the press is out to get you and that your leadership failed you on absolutely vital matters of human rights and defence of democracy. The two are not exclusive.
On the face of it sure, but look any closer and you realise that the divide among Jews and within Labour over the allegations of anti-semitism (I think everyone accepts that some Labour members have said anti-semitic things, the dispute is how well they have been dealt with and whether some within the party tried to prevent action being taken) runs almost exactly along the dividing line between those inclined to support Israel and those who lean more towards the Palestinians, with the hardcore Likudniks being the ones calling Corbyn an "existential threat".
The nonsense of it all is that many of Corbyn's most prominent supporters are themselves Jewish (Lannsman, Schneider, Soffa) and I know the latter myself and he's not one to tolerate anti-semitism. He has, however, been the target of taunts of "self-hating Jew" from Zionist Jews for at least 15 years for his support for Palestinian rights.
If you demonise the vast majority of a ethnic minority and listen only to the tiny minority of a minority who agree with you, that's exactly how the Tories and the rest of the right work.
And this is where we have to factor in Labour's and the left's support for the Palestinian people. This is obviously and painfully sometimes used as a front for anti-Semitism, often enough that any criticism of Israeli government policy can be seen as criticism of Israel, its right to exist, Jews within Israel, and by extension, all Jews. A party that supports the rights of Palestinians in a major western democracy (hah) which has a seat on the UN Security Council could be seen as a threat to Israel's freedom of action.
It shouldn't come as a surprise that there's a plurality of Jewish political opinion across the spectrum (as there is in Israel itself), but we ended up with many left-wing Jews being labelled as the 'wrong sort of Jews' and sidelined in the whole 'is Labour anti-Semitic' debate.
The 'vast majority' of Jews are not right-wing. That within Israel itself the right wing can't reliably form a majority government is the clearest sign of that.
"Around 73 per cent of Jews said the political parties’ attitudes to Israel were “very” or “quite” important in influencing how they would vote.
The polling revealed that Mr Miliband’s approach to Israel and the Middle East is seen as toxic within the Jewish community. Just 10 per cent of people said he had the best approach, compared to 65 per cent who favoured Mr Cameron’s stance. "
What is being called out, specifically by me, is the hypocrisy of conservatives in calling it out in the left.
Prejudice exists in every group, the question is how much, to what effect and how to address it.
Those are serious questions to ask and to work out and that the Conservatives are worse is not an excuse.
But those questions need to be properly addressed beyond the mere existence of a prejudice.
Yes, it is possible to believe both those things to be true. But the Syrian war has been going on since 2011, and the Tories have been in power since 2010.
The choice you had in Scotland was to vote for a party which could form a national government or a party which wanted independence.
At the last election the choice was a hodge podge of a coalition between scottish nationalists, barmy socialists and liberal democrats or conservatives. The electorate chose, and chose wisely. No amount of arguing or blah blah can take away from this. Suck it up.
Also, the opposition won a greater percentage of the electorate's votes than the party that formed the government. So 'chose' is an interesting word here. Rather, it's what we ended up with, and that's the result that stands until the next election.
What's heroic in Israel - protesting the occupation against state power - becomes a very different beast when you're over here and have a pack of privileged white majority folk harassing tiny diaspora communities against whom the majority community has a long and woeful history of racism. You then have to conduct your human rights work the same way porcupines mate - very very carefully. When people endorse crude anti-imperialism theory (which isn't really pro-Palestinian - because Palestinians tortured murdered and bombed by pukka 'anti-imperialism' powers like Assad's Syria, Iran or Russia get mostly ignored) 'very carefully' goes out the window.
Mr Corbyn's old style anti-imperialism was the main source of the problem. If there had been numbers of anti- Assad Syrians in the Labour party prior to Mr Corbyn being elected there would be a Syrian problem too. This kind of binary anti-imperialist thinking isn't of itself antisemitism but it's unhappily a good petri dish for it to grow.
My position here is less that Labour has handled these matters well, but that the Conservatives are worse and that the OP appears a tad hypocritical in this.
TBF, the label on the tin means Labour should be better than it is and that the Tories are worse is not an excuse. Holding Labour to account is a good thing, that the Tories are getting an undeserved free ride out of this is not.
It doesn't help that both the left and the right have a tendency to latch onto specific abuses overseas and make lobbying on those abuses into an essential part of their mission, while other overseas abuses become, for want of a better word, optional extras. And there isn't necessarily much logic to what abuses get selected.
So when you enter progressive circles, 'Free Palestine' becomes part of the package, in a way that (say) 'End discrimination against Roma in Central and Eastern Europe' isn't. When I was at university 'Free Tibet' was a big thing. Tibet isn't now any freer, but it seems to have dropped off the radar. And then on the right, it's very important to say that Maduro is wicked and evil; it's less important to call out any other abuser of democracy, even if they are abusing it from the left.
I'm a bit torn on this. On the one hand, I don't like whatabouttery - if East Ricardinia is committing abuses, then those abuses don't magically become less abusive just because the Ricardusland Republic is also committing abuses and I'm saying nothing. On the other hand, if I am trying to change hearts and minds in East Ricardinia, then the fact that East Ricardinia appears to have been specially singled out is likely to damage my credibility among the East Ricardinians.
This is particularly insightful.
I wrote this two years ago. Sorry it's so long but I don't think it could be much shorter:
http://alienfromzog.blogspot.com/2018/07/anti-semitism-and-labour-party-some.html
AFZ
I don't see anyone who claims to be on the left defending persecution of Roma or Tibetans, and they'd get pretty short shrift from me if they did.
I never said anyone on the left defends the persecution of Roma or Tibetans. I said they don't talk about it as much.
And to be clear: I don't think this is a moral failing on anyone's part. I just think that the more Israel appears to be 'singled out' (deliberate scare quotes) for lobbying, the less successful such lobbying is likely to be.
I think it can sometimes come down to partisan focus (as you mention above) and very occasionally to less savoury reasons.
A large part of it comes down to the comparison with western democracies (and for some on the left - especially abroad - a historical link between the plight of the Palestinians and anti-colonial movements).
Cause-du jourism is an issue, though.
I wil note also that if someone does appear to care about a lot of different issues, they will get shit for that as well.