Anti-semitism and the Labour Party

13

Comments

  • lilbuddha wrote: »
    From this article, this J. Corbyn has a clear history of anti-Semetism. Is the article wrong ot distorted? https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-45030552
    What?! No, that is not what the article says at all. Even though I'd criticise it as being less than even coverage, it does not go that far. Not by miles.

    I thought this alone would qualify as anti-Semitic: "Mr Corbyn proposed a longer additional statement - which would have allowed criticism of the foundation of the state of Israel as a racist endeavour ".
  • All playing into Tory party hands....
  • lilbuddha wrote: »
    From this article, this J. Corbyn has a clear history of anti-Semetism. Is the article wrong ot distorted? https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-45030552
    What?! No, that is not what the article says at all. Even though I'd criticise it as being less than even coverage, it does not go that far. Not by miles.

    I thought this alone would qualify as anti-Semitic: "Mr Corbyn proposed a longer additional statement - which would have allowed criticism of the foundation of the state of Israel as a racist endeavour ".
    Because it was. The idea of sending all the Jews to a separate place was championed by racists as well as by those wanting them to have a refuge. Without racism, there would have been no need of a new country. It was also racist in that it prioritised one group over another. Jewish people, some of whose ancestors lived in this place = OK. Palestinians who currently lived in that place, not so much.
    The idea that Israel was founded without problematic issues is complete nonsense and separate from how one feels about Judaism.
    Although, I would need to see Corbyn's actual statement to judge it properly.
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    After a lifetime in the party, scandalous.

    He has had a lifetime of membership of the party, yes, but AIUI he's not been in the party all that much. I'm thinking of his voting record in the Commons. I think that this is what Barnabas 62 is getting at when he says that Corbyn has been very much an individualist.
  • Gee D wrote: »
    After a lifetime in the party, scandalous.

    He has had a lifetime of membership of the party, yes, but AIUI he's not been in the party all that much. I'm thinking of his voting record in the Commons. I think that this is what Barnabas 62 is getting at when he says that Corbyn has been very much an individualist.
    Not a suitable person for party leader and prospective PM.
  • Barnabas62Barnabas62 Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host, Epiphanies Host
    Gee D wrote: »
    After a lifetime in the party, scandalous.

    He has had a lifetime of membership of the party, yes, but AIUI he's not been in the party all that much. I'm thinking of his voting record in the Commons. I think that this is what Barnabas 62 is getting at when he says that Corbyn has been very much an individualist.

    Close! I actually like MPs who vote their conscience regardless of whipping. But I do recognise the tension between the responsibility to lead and govern, and the importance of individual conscience.

    JC has an interesting voting history as an MP. It does speak of an individual outlook. But the assessment of just how individualistic he is depends on which issues you look at. He has always had his own “red lines”.
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    But his red lines, not those of his party?
  • Meanwhile, unsurprisingly, the mail tries to have it both ways by using a "Jewish conspiracy" narratives to attack (according to BBC, without them picking up on it)
  • Gee D wrote: »
    But his red lines, not those of his party?

    Actually, more like those of the party rather than those of the government. On some of those occasions (university tuition fees) he was the one in line with the manifesto on which he'd been elected while Blair had reneged on its commitments.
  • lilbuddha wrote: »
    From this article, this J. Corbyn has a clear history of anti-Semetism. Is the article wrong ot distorted? https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-45030552
    What?! No, that is not what the article says at all. Even though I'd criticise it as being less than even coverage, it does not go that far. Not by miles.

    I thought this alone would qualify as anti-Semitic: "Mr Corbyn proposed a longer additional statement - which would have allowed criticism of the foundation of the state of Israel as a racist endeavour ".

    You don't think founding a state via ethnic cleansing might be a bit racist?
  • Barnabas62Barnabas62 Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host, Epiphanies Host
    Red lines? What I meant were issues of personal conviction on which he was not prepared to compromise. Regardless of whether they were Labour government or Labour opposition policy.
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    Barnabas62 wrote: »
    Red lines? What I meant were issues of personal conviction on which he was not prepared to compromise. Regardless of whether they were Labour government or Labour opposition policy.

    That in essence is how I'd understood you in my rhetorical question.
  • Nice. Fair. Doesn't get you far in politics. Starmer will go far.
  • lilbuddha wrote: »
    From this article, this J. Corbyn has a clear history of anti-Semetism. Is the article wrong ot distorted? https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-45030552
    What?! No, that is not what the article says at all. Even though I'd criticise it as being less than even coverage, it does not go that far. Not by miles.

    I thought this alone would qualify as anti-Semitic: "Mr Corbyn proposed a longer additional statement - which would have allowed criticism of the foundation of the state of Israel as a racist endeavour ".

    I think whether or not it's anti-Semitic depends on your view of nation-states generally, and on what you intend to do with your conclusion (i.e., what action you intend to take once you have decided that the foundation of the state of Israel was a racist endeavour). In principle, I think Mr Corbyn could be defended on that issue. In practice, I don't think it was a hill worth dying on.
  • It was Corbyn who rekindled my interest in politics, after decades of being moribund. He had something interesting to say, and seemed personable. Alas, now we are back to apparatchiks.
  • Corbyn re kindled lots of younger people’s interest in politics.

    They seem not so thrilled by K Starmer........
  • The founding of the state of Israel was by UN resolution. Ethnic cleansing also included Jews removed from Baghdad for example, which was among the largest Jewish communities. Part of the definition of anti-Semitism includes holding Israel and Jewish people to different standards than other countries.
  • DoublethinkDoublethink Shipmate
    edited October 2020
    I am not a supporter of ethnic cleansing by any country. Nor, in theory, is the UN - as the complete catasrophucks of Syria and the former Yugoslavia would seem to attest. The ethnic cleansing of the Kurds was also one of the frequently cited objections to Saddam Husseins' regime. Also famously not supported in Rwanda.

    And of course there are those in the Israeli government who appear to believe that fairly large chunks of territory the UN resolution doesn't include, form part of the state of Israel.
  • The founding of the state of Israel was by UN resolution. Ethnic cleansing also included Jews removed from Baghdad for example, which was among the largest Jewish communities. Part of the definition of anti-Semitism includes holding Israel and Jewish people to different standards than other countries.

    Criticising ethnic cleansing as racist sounds like holding Israel to the same standard as other countries. Jeremy Corbyn's history shows him very much as an equal-opportunity anti-racist.
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    The founding of the state of Israel was by UN resolution. Ethnic cleansing also included Jews removed from Baghdad for example, which was among the largest Jewish communities. Part of the definition of anti-Semitism includes holding Israel and Jewish people to different standards than other countries.

    Your application of the principle there seems to effectively shut down any calling out for whataboutary as inherently anti-Semitic.
  • Ethne Alba wrote: »
    Corbyn re kindled lots of younger people’s interest in politics.

    They seem not so thrilled by K Starmer........
    The UK gets Starmer, the US gets Biden.* Both old-school politicians who do not represent the change the youth want. The obvious conclusion is that the older generation have thrown out the sea anchors to impede progress.


    *Perhaps
  • The founding of the state of Israel was by UN resolution.
    So what?
    Ethnic cleansing also included Jews removed from Baghdad for example, which was among the largest Jewish communities. Part of the definition of anti-Semitism includes holding Israel and Jewish people to different standards than other countries.
    This is the blanket, bullshit argument drawn out whenever any criticism of Israel is made.
    First, a criticism is valid regardless of whether it is evenly applied. Second, Israel is, and continues to be, the beneficiary of massive support. And yet this whinge is brought out every time anyone suggests Israel is not perfect.
    Third Bring our your evidence that Corbyn has criticised Israel and only Israel.

  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    There is also the point that this is about the foundation of the state. The ethnic cleansing of Jews from Baghdad is associated with the foundation of the State of Iraq. The Nakba was directly associated with the foundation of Israel.

    The comparison in the context of the question concerning Israel's foundation is a false equivalence.
  • lilbuddha wrote: »
    The UK gets Starmer, the US gets Biden.* Both old-school politicians who do not represent the change the youth want. The obvious conclusion is that the older generation have thrown out the sea anchors to impede progress.

    Older people are people too. If "the youth" wants change, they need to outvote the sea anchors, or persuade more of the older people that the kind of change that they want is desirable.

    A thing is not necessarily good just because younger people like it.

    Personally, I'm a Starmer fan, because he's competent. Biden was fairly low down my list of candidates, but I take comfort in the fact that he's chosen my top pick as VP.
  • lilbuddha wrote: »
    Ethne Alba wrote: »
    Corbyn re kindled lots of younger people’s interest in politics.

    They seem not so thrilled by K Starmer........
    The UK gets Starmer, the US gets Biden.* Both old-school politicians who do not represent the change the youth want. The obvious conclusion is that the older generation have thrown out the sea anchors to impede progress.


    *Perhaps

    Yes, there's an old argument on the left that Labour generally act as a brake, or a siphon. I think its very old, in the Russian revolution, this accusation was levelled at various parties, e.g., Kerensky, and there is the old chestnut that Wesley stopped revolution.
  • lilbuddha wrote: »
    The UK gets Starmer, the US gets Biden.* Both old-school politicians who do not represent the change the youth want. The obvious conclusion is that the older generation have thrown out the sea anchors to impede progress.

    Older people are people too.
    Damn, really?
    If "the youth" wants change, they need to outvote the sea anchors, or persuade more of the older people that the kind of change that they want is desirable.
    Completely agree, in fact it has been my constant refrain for quite awhile now.
    A thing is not necessarily good just because younger people like it.
    True. But the retraction back to the right is not drawn by a consideration of policy, but a reactionary fear of change. Humans in general are cautious of change, it gets worse as people age.
    Personally, I'm a Starmer fan, because he's competent.
    Corbyn isn't incompetent, he just was not slick enough. And Thatcher was competent.
    Biden was fairly low down my list of candidates, but I take comfort in the fact that he's chosen my top pick as VP.
    I like Harris. But it remains to be seen if choosing her was to draw support or a recognition of the need for change.

    Right now, I take no comfort in what might be, only what is accomplished.
  • lilbuddha wrote: »
    The founding of the state of Israel was by UN resolution.
    So what?
    Ethnic cleansing also included Jews removed from Baghdad for example, which was among the largest Jewish communities. Part of the definition of anti-Semitism includes holding Israel and Jewish people to different standards than other countries.
    This is the blanket, bullshit argument drawn out whenever any criticism of Israel is made.
    First, a criticism is valid regardless of whether it is evenly applied. Second, Israel is, and continues to be, the beneficiary of massive support. And yet this whinge is brought out every time anyone suggests Israel is not perfect.
    Third Bring our your evidence that Corbyn has criticised Israel and only Israel.

    The point actually being: hold Israel only to the standards of other countries, particularly those in the region. And consider the uti possedetis i.e., acceptance of borders as they stand has not occurred.

    Is the criticism of this Corbyn fellow justified in any way?
  • lilbuddha wrote: »
    The founding of the state of Israel was by UN resolution.
    So what?
    Ethnic cleansing also included Jews removed from Baghdad for example, which was among the largest Jewish communities. Part of the definition of anti-Semitism includes holding Israel and Jewish people to different standards than other countries.
    This is the blanket, bullshit argument drawn out whenever any criticism of Israel is made.
    First, a criticism is valid regardless of whether it is evenly applied. Second, Israel is, and continues to be, the beneficiary of massive support. And yet this whinge is brought out every time anyone suggests Israel is not perfect.
    Third Bring our your evidence that Corbyn has criticised Israel and only Israel.

    The point actually being: hold Israel only to the standards of other countries, particularly those in the region. And consider the uti possedetis i.e., acceptance of borders as they stand has not occurred.
    Borders are they stand meaning areas the Israelis have already taken over?
    Is the criticism of this Corbyn fellow justified in any way?
    There are valid criticisms of Corbyn, I just don't see any real evidence of anti-Semitism.
  • lilbuddha wrote: »
    True. But the retraction back to the right is not drawn by a consideration of policy, but a reactionary fear of change. Humans in general are cautious of change, it gets worse as people age.

    And that is completely rational. Young people can tolerate more risk - their bodies are more robust and resilient, and if they make a bad choice, they've got time to pivot and recover from it. Plus younger people are in general more mentally flexible and have fewer deeply-ingrained habits.


  • lilbuddha wrote: »
    The founding of the state of Israel was by UN resolution.
    So what?
    Ethnic cleansing also included Jews removed from Baghdad for example, which was among the largest Jewish communities. Part of the definition of anti-Semitism includes holding Israel and Jewish people to different standards than other countries.
    This is the blanket, bullshit argument drawn out whenever any criticism of Israel is made.
    First, a criticism is valid regardless of whether it is evenly applied. Second, Israel is, and continues to be, the beneficiary of massive support. And yet this whinge is brought out every time anyone suggests Israel is not perfect.
    Third Bring our your evidence that Corbyn has criticised Israel and only Israel.

    The point actually being: hold Israel only to the standards of other countries, particularly those in the region. And consider the uti possedetis i.e., acceptance of borders as they stand has not occurred.

    Is the criticism of this Corbyn fellow justified in any way?

    I think if it isn't justified, then it's a sign that he was incompetent, in the sense of 'unequal to the task in hand'. He allowed himself to be outmanoeuvred by a bunch of people who aren't exactly political heavyweights and committed a bunch of unforced errors on the way.

    Pragmatically, there was no good reason for him to pick a fight over whether or not the foundation of Israel was a racist endeavour, because if he became PM then there is no situation where it would be relevant. The relevant question would be whether Israel is currently engaging in racist practices.
  • Barnabas62 wrote: »
    Red lines? What I meant were issues of personal conviction on which he was not prepared to compromise. Regardless of whether they were Labour government or Labour opposition policy.

    Or whether or not it was a policy the people might actually want. It was all about him.
  • Ricardus wrote: »
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    The founding of the state of Israel was by UN resolution.
    So what?
    Ethnic cleansing also included Jews removed from Baghdad for example, which was among the largest Jewish communities. Part of the definition of anti-Semitism includes holding Israel and Jewish people to different standards than other countries.
    This is the blanket, bullshit argument drawn out whenever any criticism of Israel is made.
    First, a criticism is valid regardless of whether it is evenly applied. Second, Israel is, and continues to be, the beneficiary of massive support. And yet this whinge is brought out every time anyone suggests Israel is not perfect.
    Third Bring our your evidence that Corbyn has criticised Israel and only Israel.

    The point actually being: hold Israel only to the standards of other countries, particularly those in the region. And consider the uti possedetis i.e., acceptance of borders as they stand has not occurred.

    Is the criticism of this Corbyn fellow justified in any way?

    I think if it isn't justified, then it's a sign that he was incompetent, in the sense of 'unequal to the task in hand'. He allowed himself to be outmanoeuvred by a bunch of people who aren't exactly political heavyweights and committed a bunch of unforced errors on the way.

    Pragmatically, there was no good reason for him to pick a fight over whether or not the foundation of Israel was a racist endeavour, because if he became PM then there is no situation where it would be relevant. The relevant question would be whether Israel is currently engaging in racist practices.

    He didn't pick a fight. Things would probably been better if he had, because ignoring it certainly didn't work.
  • lilbuddha wrote: »
    True. But the retraction back to the right is not drawn by a consideration of policy, but a reactionary fear of change. Humans in general are cautious of change, it gets worse as people age.

    And that is completely rational. Young people can tolerate more risk - their bodies are more robust and resilient, and if they make a bad choice, they've got time to pivot and recover from it. Plus younger people are in general more mentally flexible and have fewer deeply-ingrained habits.

    It is not completely rational. At most it is completely understandable. If rationality were involved, we would not have either Brexit or Trump.
    Choosing not to fight a sabertooth or explore the unknown valley on the other side of the mountain is not the same thing as rejecting political change, especially not when the evidence that the change will benefit the rejecter is pretty clear.
  • Telford wrote: »
    Barnabas62 wrote: »
    Red lines? What I meant were issues of personal conviction on which he was not prepared to compromise. Regardless of whether they were Labour government or Labour opposition policy.

    Or whether or not it was a policy the people might actually want. It was all about him.
    Rubbish. That is the Tory narrative, but it is not reality.
  • Dave WDave W Shipmate
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    But the retraction back to the right is not drawn by a consideration of policy, but a reactionary fear of change. Humans in general are cautious of change, it gets worse as people age.
    "Retraction back to the right"? That may be true of Labour, but it isn't true of the Democrats; their 2020 platform is distinctly to the left of the one in 2016 (as noted in this Vox article.) And it's lazy to condemn all opposition to your preferred policies as simply reactionary.
  • TelfordTelford Shipmate
    edited October 2020
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Barnabas62 wrote: »
    Red lines? What I meant were issues of personal conviction on which he was not prepared to compromise. Regardless of whether they were Labour government or Labour opposition policy.

    Or whether or not it was a policy the people might actually want. It was all about him.
    Rubbish. That is the Tory narrative, but it is not reality.
    I accept that it's not something that a Corbyn fan wants to read. When you vote on personal convictions, it doesn't matter what anyone else might think or want.
  • Barnabas62Barnabas62 Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host, Epiphanies Host
    Dave W wrote: »
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    But the retraction back to the right is not drawn by a consideration of policy, but a reactionary fear of change. Humans in general are cautious of change, it gets worse as people age.
    "Retraction back to the right"? That may be true of Labour, but it isn't true of the Democrats; their 2020 platform is distinctly to the left of the one in 2016 (as noted in this Vox article.) And it's lazy to condemn all opposition to your preferred policies as simply reactionary.
    It can get a bit like "four legs good, two legs bad". The quality of policies is always a mixture of how principled they are and how effectively they can be implemented. And to get to the first base of implementation you have to win.

    I've got my fingers crossed for Joe Biden. And if he is helped to win by some people seeing him as less progressive than some would hope, that's fine by me.

    I think the reactionary fear of change can also be found on the left. The change which is feared is a compromise with purist progressive policies for the sake of getting elected. We've had right wing government for a decade and for me that has been too long already. It is still an uphill battle for the Labour Party to conjure up a majority next time. I want an electable Labour Party with electable policies. And if that involves some compromises with the purist best, I'm not that bothered. A move in a better direction would be very welcome. If purism leads to the continuation of right wing governments, what good it is?
  • lilbuddha wrote: »
    It is not completely rational. At most it is completely understandable.

    No - older people being more risk averse than younger people is indeed rational.

    Deciding that Brexit is the risk-averse choice is irrational.
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    Choosing not to fight a sabertooth or explore the unknown valley on the other side of the mountain is not the same thing as rejecting political change, especially not when the evidence that the change will benefit the rejecter is pretty clear.

    Of course it's the same thing. Apart from anything else, the evidence is never as clear as all that, but even in the face of a reasonable-sounding argument that a particular change would be good, it still requires a certain leap of faith, whereas the status quo seems known.

    One of the most successful features of the Brexit campaign was the way that the Brexiteers managed to portray Brexit as a return to good old traditional Britain, and a rejection of uncertainty, European invasions, and change, whereas a dispassionate rational analysis would have pointed to Remain being the conservative, risk-averse choice.
  • edited October 2020
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    Borders are they stand meaning areas the Israelis have already taken over?

    This is a good question. I've recently read about it. Churchill in 1920 as colonial minister decided for a Jewish state in Palestine not of Palestine, and "he decided that Zionism was to be tried first only in the quarter of Palestine that lay west of the Jordan River, and that nothing was to be decided for the moment about extending it later into the other three-quarters of the country - Transjordan". (A Peace to End All Peace, Martin Gilbert, 1989, updated 2009, p 519).

    Then we have the pre-1967 borders where Jordan had annexed the West Bank in 1948 and Egypt had Gaza (did not formally annex it). The borders of Israel would have to be agreed upon. They aren't, so they don't have a basis, even though close a few times. In my lifetime, plans for almost all of the West Bank (somewhere up to 95%) have been almost agreed. It took Europe 1500 years to sort out borders post-Roman Empire collapse (and it's not completely done). Sure hope it doesn't take that long.
  • Dave W wrote: »
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    But the retraction back to the right is not drawn by a consideration of policy, but a reactionary fear of change. Humans in general are cautious of change, it gets worse as people age.
    "Retraction back to the right"? That may be true of Labour, but it isn't true of the Democrats; their 2020 platform is distinctly to the left of the one in 2016 (as noted in this Vox article.) And it's lazy to condemn all opposition to your preferred policies as simply reactionary.
    Biden's platform is progressive. BIden's history isn't. And it remains to be seen if Biden keeps, or tries to keep, the platform intact beyond the election.

  • lilbuddha wrote: »
    It is not completely rational. At most it is completely understandable.

    No - older people being more risk averse than younger people is indeed rational.
    Again no. It might be a good thing sometimes and it has, in the past, been advantageous. But it is not rational. Rational means based on reason. Humans are not rational creatures. We have the capablility to reason, but far fewer of our decisions are based on reason than we like to imagine.

    Deciding that Brexit is the risk-averse choice is irrational.
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    Choosing not to fight a sabertooth or explore the unknown valley on the other side of the mountain is not the same thing as rejecting political change, especially not when the evidence that the change will benefit the rejecter is pretty clear.

    Of course it's the same thing. Apart from anything else, the evidence is never as clear as all that, but even in the face of a reasonable-sounding argument that a particular change would be good, it still requires a certain leap of faith, whereas the status quo seems known.
    The leap is over a much smaller canyon when you have the evidence to examine it. WHich people did not do with either Trump of Brexit.
    One of the most successful features of the Brexit campaign was the way that the Brexiteers managed to portray Brexit as a return to good old traditional Britain, and a rejection of uncertainty, European invasions, and change, whereas a dispassionate rational analysis would have pointed to Remain being the conservative, risk-averse choice.
    Which underlines my point.

  • @Dave W
    One more thing on that. Go to the people yuou know who voted for Biden and ask them to outline Biden's platform. Odds are most will have little clue.
  • lilbuddha wrote: »
    @Dave W
    One more thing on that. Go to the people yuou know who voted for Biden and ask them to outline Biden's platform. Odds are most will have little clue.

    His platform is that he's not Trump.
  • Dave WDave W Shipmate
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    Dave W wrote: »
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    But the retraction back to the right is not drawn by a consideration of policy, but a reactionary fear of change. Humans in general are cautious of change, it gets worse as people age.
    "Retraction back to the right"? That may be true of Labour, but it isn't true of the Democrats; their 2020 platform is distinctly to the left of the one in 2016 (as noted in this Vox article.) And it's lazy to condemn all opposition to your preferred policies as simply reactionary.
    Biden's platform is progressive. BIden's history isn't. And it remains to be seen if Biden keeps, or tries to keep, the platform intact beyond the election.
    So your fear is that he might do what - cast the US all the way back into the Dark Ages of the Obama administration? Would that be your “retraction back to the right”?
  • Dave W wrote: »
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    Dave W wrote: »
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    But the retraction back to the right is not drawn by a consideration of policy, but a reactionary fear of change. Humans in general are cautious of change, it gets worse as people age.
    "Retraction back to the right"? That may be true of Labour, but it isn't true of the Democrats; their 2020 platform is distinctly to the left of the one in 2016 (as noted in this Vox article.) And it's lazy to condemn all opposition to your preferred policies as simply reactionary.
    Biden's platform is progressive. BIden's history isn't. And it remains to be seen if Biden keeps, or tries to keep, the platform intact beyond the election.
    So your fear is that he might do what - cast the US all the way back into the Dark Ages of the Obama administration? Would that be your “retraction back to the right”?
    The fear is that less will happen to combat climate change and we really do not have time to wait. My fear is that true social change will not progress like it should. That a true universal health care won't progress. etc.

  • Ricardus wrote: »
    Pragmatically, there was no good reason for him to pick a fight over whether or not the foundation of Israel was a racist endeavour, because if he became PM then there is no situation where it would be relevant. The relevant question would be whether Israel is currently engaging in racist practices.

    My assumption is the context was the debate over the IHRA and the debate over what kinds of behaviour it should/would rule out, rather than necessarily something he was going to espouse himself.

    I think events since then have shown that definitions may need to be considered a little more carefully than they were.
  • Barnabas62Barnabas62 Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host, Epiphanies Host
    There is such a thing as realpolitik. There is a much better chance of international progress over climate change with Biden in the White House than with a re-elected Trump. The world definitely can’t afford four more years of Trump.

    And I don’t think we can afford to see yet another right wing government in the UK after the next general election. So what on earth is wrong with the argument that says get behind Starmer? That’s a simplicity I thought JC could have and should have seen.

    In my lifetime I have seen the Labour Party weakened too many times by internal bickering. Please not again.
  • DafydDafyd Shipmate
    As Owen Smith has observed if Corbyn did everything right and he lost then there is no hope the Left can do better. If you don't buy the argument that the claim that his policies were wrong (I don't) then you're either claiming that the right are too strong to be beaten ever, or you've got to allow that Corbyn et al were not as strategically competent as they needed to be.
  • lilbuddha wrote: »
    Again no. It might be a good thing sometimes and it has, in the past, been advantageous. But it is not rational.

    Again yes. I know what rational means, and I gave you reasons why it is rational for older people to be more risk-averse.

    I have not made a claim about how people actually reason - merely that for older people to be more risk-averse is rational.
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    Which underlines my point.

    As best I can tell, your point is that people don't act rationally, which I'd agree with. People act for a whole hodgepodge of complicated reasons. Rational thinking is in there, but I'd agree that it often doesn't dominate.

    But I don't understand why you think you're arguing with my claim that it's rational for older people to be more risk-averse, by bringing up a bag of assertions about how people actually think that doesn't actually address the point at all.



  • Dave WDave W Shipmate
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    Dave W wrote: »
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    Dave W wrote: »
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    But the retraction back to the right is not drawn by a consideration of policy, but a reactionary fear of change. Humans in general are cautious of change, it gets worse as people age.
    "Retraction back to the right"? That may be true of Labour, but it isn't true of the Democrats; their 2020 platform is distinctly to the left of the one in 2016 (as noted in this Vox article.) And it's lazy to condemn all opposition to your preferred policies as simply reactionary.
    Biden's platform is progressive. BIden's history isn't. And it remains to be seen if Biden keeps, or tries to keep, the platform intact beyond the election.
    So your fear is that he might do what - cast the US all the way back into the Dark Ages of the Obama administration? Would that be your “retraction back to the right”?
    The fear is that less will happen to combat climate change and we really do not have time to wait. My fear is that true social change will not progress like it should. That a true universal health care won't progress. etc.
    I understand your fear, but Biden not being as progressive as you'd like isn't the same thing as a "retraction back to the right."
Sign In or Register to comment.