The Chairman Mao resembling, Monarchy hating, threat to Britain, Labour Party thread

[bickster]

1 hour ago, magnkarl said:

Here's a good example of what Labour's problem is. As long as this idiot is part of Labour he's making it okay for fringe groups to behave like they do over and over. Ken starts by claiming that only half a percent of Jews in the UK are Jewish. Maybe he should start his own party, keep the socialist and add in the nationalist.

To Ken all Jewish people are Israeli and hence have blame for what Israel's elected government does. I'm sure he has #ForTheManyNotTheJew tattooed on his back.

I hate crap like this.

1) Ken Livingstone isn’t in the Labour Party. They suspended him...remember. So what else can they do to disassociate themselves from him... take out a hit on him?

2) If you can’t work out what he meant, let me explain it to you. To be in a religion is a choice, if you choose that religion you must surely practice it. If you don’t practice it you can't be part of it. So when Red Ken is saying is that only 0.5% of people who identify as being Jewish are actually praticing Jews. This isn’t anti Semitic or racist or anti anything , I would imagine the figures are actually much lower for say people who identify as CofE for example. It’s an atheist criticising the religious but that’s all it is. I’ll hold my hand up, I do it on a daily basis too.

Your knee jerk reaction is completely wrong

[PompeyVillan]

20 minutes ago, blandy said:

It's so easy, perhaps for opponents of Israel's policies to slip into anti-semetism, or for opponents of the U.S. policy to slip into being abusive of all Americans...etc.. It sometimes doesn't happen conciously, perhaps but  before long previously reasonable, thinking, fair minded people are spouting drivel and abuse about  Jews / Americans / Muslims / Bankers / Socialists / Tories....whoever. - it's like the worst parts of the internet culture but in real life as well.

I think also it's important to note that being anti Israel (or at least their policy towards Israel) doesn't equate to anti semitism. 

I think Labour outlining new steps to combat anti semitism in the party is an admission that there is an issue to be dealt with. 

2 minutes ago, magnkarl said:

It's a roughly 100,000 vote problem if Labour wants to put it into numbers. Most of those votes in seats that are closely contested in London.

How do you convince those people that Labour are not anti semitic? 

Me? I'd ban the next idiots that want to discuss Holocaust denial, including big hitters. It's not up for debate, it happened. I hope this is what happens. No retrospective action though, that won't help. 

I think Blandly is right, there needs also to be an acceptance that there is a problem, with a minority of people. Then deal with it and move one. 'Cus to me racism in any form has no place in any political party. 

Indeed I think Labours new rules also cover Islamophobia, sexism etc too. 

I think in this instance actions will speak much more loudly than words. Grandiose statements won't help. We've had internal reviews and the like and noone was much convinced by them. 

.

[veloman]

Whilst not being as knowledgeable as most posters on this subject, I will just throw a suggestion into the mix. I cannot believe that Labour are actively anti Semitic but a good friend (Villa season ticket holder for 50 + years) was a full time Union Official for , first NALGO, then Unison and a member of the Labour Party and, as such , went to many party conferences. He always states that, particularly in London, there was a very strong and vociferous Pro Palestinian lobby. I believe it is fair to suggest that those two parties "don't get on" (Israel  and Palestine) so on the premise that 'if you 'aint for us your against' could that be what has lead to such accusations?

[blandy]

1 minute ago, bickster said:

1) Ken Livingstone isn’t in the Labour Party. They suspended him...remember. So what else can they do to disassociate themselves from him... take out a hit on him?

Cancel his membership  - kick him out.

"suspend" is weaselling.

7 minutes ago, bickster said:

I hate crap like this.

1) Ken Livingstone isn’t in the Labour Party. They suspended him...remember. So what else can they do to disassociate themselves from him... take out a hit on him?

2) If you can’t work out what he meant, let me explain it to you. To be in a religion is a choice, if you choose that religion you must surely practice it. If you don’t practice it you can't be part of it. So when Red Ken is saying is that only 0.5% of people who identify as being Jewish are actually praticing Jews. This isn’t anti Semitic or racist or anti anything , I would imagine the figures are actually much lower for say people who identify as CofE for example. It’s an atheist criticising the religious but that’s all it is. I’ll hold my hand up, I do it on a daily basis too.

Your knee jerk reaction is completely wrong

Couldn't disagree more Bicks.

a) Ken Livingstone hasn't been kicked out of Labour, which he should have been. His membership could have been cancelled, but wasn't.

b, )Ken said only 0.5% of the UK population was Jewish, compared to 10% of Labour members being jews. As was pointed out to him that's dropped from 17% He also said a whole tom, of stuff in that interview that was complete bollex and exactly the sort of exaggeration and untrue wild claims thing that they can't get their heads round is such a problem..

[darrenm]

1 hour ago, blandy said:

Here's 4 things that are all the case, all at the same time.

1. Criticising the Israeli Gov't and it's actions isn't ant-semitism.

2. Pro_israeli gov't  individuals, lobbyists, websites etc. sometimes (frequently) call criticism of the Israel Gov't "anti-semtic" when it is no such thing.

3. There are too many people who exhibit genuine anti-semitic behaviour and do anti-semetic abuse etc. in the Labour party. 

4. There are too many leading people in Labour who give the strong impression of  denying or diverting from point 3 by claiming the victims and observers of the bad behaviour are "out to get Jezza" or are making it up or similar.

Absolutely agree with 1 and 2. With 3, it's the question that I'm really trying to get an answer from you on - yes there's too much genuine antisemitic behaviour in Labour and I'm trying to get you to say if you believe if it's more than any other organisation would encounter. I'll try to expand below. On 4, yes probably, but this whole Labour antisemitism row is a load of bullshit which is where I'll go back to 3 about in a minute

39 minutes ago, blandy said:

It seems like whataboutism to me.

There isn't a huge problem, but there is a persistent problem that is not insignificant.

Your contextualising it is fine and reasonable. Would that prominent Corbyn followers only do the same, instead of denying it exists, calling it mood music, or attempts to get at Corbyn, or even Jezza's own response at times.

It's not as bad, as UKIP with racism and islamophobia, say but it's there. And it kind of matters not only because the people who are subjected to it shouldn't be, but also because it's a persistent achilles heel and blind spot for the man who might be the next PM and for his followers.

It's so easy, perhaps for opponents of Israel's policies to slip into anti-semetism, or for opponents of the U.S. policy to slip into being abusive of all Americans...etc.. It sometimes doesn't happen conciously, perhaps but  before long previously reasonable, thinking, fair minded people are spouting drivel and abuse about  Jews / Americans / Muslims / Bankers / Socialists / Tories....whoever. - it's like the worst parts of the internet culture but in real life as well.

It's absolutely not whataboutism. It's trying to get a *healthy* discussion so we can finally get rid of pointless rhetoric. You haven't answered me so I'm going to have to guess your thoughts.

Right, the summation I alluded to above.

I don't know a lot about antisemitism. Until recently I didn't really know of it as a concept. I know there are Jewish people but isn't everyone cross-bred in some way these days? But apparently there are some people who are racist towards Jews. I understand that much. So it's racism to all intents and purposes?

So if we've established that, we know it's bad. Of course it is. So then if we're criticising Labour for it we're saying it must be more of a problem inside Labour than anywhere else? That isn't whataboutery, it's trying to understand the actual issue to take practical steps to address it.

But if it's no more prevalent in Labour than any other group, party or institution, why are we discussing it as a problem unique to Labour? And if we aren't, why is it in the Labour thread and not in its own thread?

To clarify - any racism including antisemitism is bad including within the Labour party. If it has a greater concentration inside the Labour party then they must take steps to deal with it. If it's just representative of a cross section of society then they will probably have all kinds of weirdos in there too e.g. closet pedos, so why aren't we all banging on about Labour's pedo problem?

So, help me understand - @blandy do you think it's a greater problem in the Labour party than other groups, and if so, what evidence is there for this?

[blandy]

31 minutes ago, darrenm said:

 yes there's too much genuine antisemitic behaviour in Labour .... but this whole Labour antisemitism row is a load of bullshit Do you see the contradiction there?

It's absolutely not whataboutism. ....we know it's [anti-semetism] bad. Of course it is. So then if we're criticising Labour for it we're saying it must be more of a problem inside Labour than anywhere else? That isn't whataboutery, That's exactly or close to "whataboutism" in my view 

But if it's no more prevalent in Labour than any other group, party or institution, why are we discussing it as a problem unique to Labour? And if we aren't, why is it in the Labour thread and not in its own thread? We're talking about anti-semetism in the Labour party. which as you have said " there's too much genuine antisemitic behaviour in Labour" - it seems like this thread is the best place for it, particularly since labour MPs have agreed with you, as have Labour delegates and then others have publicly argued it's not a problem, or it's a plot ot get Jezza.

To clarify - any racism including antisemitism is bad including within the Labour party.Yes. If it has a greater concentration inside the Labour party then they must take steps to deal with it. No, they must deal with it regardless of whether it's better or worse elsewhere. As magmkarl pointed out, no one would say "Yes racism is bad, including within UKIP and if it has a greater concentration within UKIP then they must take steps to deal with it. No. It's wrong full stop. It doesn't matter if the BNP are more racist than UKIP. UKIP nor anyone else should be racist/anti-semetic etc...

If it's just representative of a cross section of society then they will probably have all kinds of weirdos in there too e.g. closet pedos, so why aren't we all banging on about Labour's pedo problem? Feel free  .. I've seen no evidence of such a thing, whereas with anti-semetism...

So, help me understand - @blandy do you think it's a greater problem in the Labour party than other groups, and if so, what evidence is there for this? I have no evidence on whether the tories (or whoever) are "better" or worse and don't see the relevance of that question at all to Labour rooting out anti-semetism within the Labour party. It's not a partisan issue, it's a "this is wrong, stop it" issue.

 

[darrenm]

6 minutes ago, blandy said:

stuff

So, essentially, you don't know?

BTW, it's anti-semitism. I also had to check due to not knowing a lot about the issue and not just jumping on a bandwagon.

[blandy]

28 minutes ago, darrenm said:

So, essentially, you don't know?

BTW, it's anti-semitism. I also had to check due to not knowing a lot about the issue and not just jumping on a bandwagon.

Not only don't I know, I don't care whether the tories or Liberals or BBC or Boots the Chemist are worse or better,. It's irrelevant

Excuse my spelling. Oh and "jumping on a bandwagon" is a cheap shot. way of saying "holding a different point of view", so,well done.

[darrenm]

33 minutes ago, blandy said:

Not only don't I know, I don't care whether the tories or Liberals or BBC or Boots the Chemist are worse or better,. It's irrelevant

Excuse my spelling. Oh and "jumping on a bandwagon" is a cheap shot. way of saying "holding a different point of view", so,well done.

Sorry for the poor choice of words there. I honestly wasn't meaning you. Just that I'm not, as I see it, jumping on a bandwagon.

[bickster]

1 hour ago, blandy said:

Cancel his membership  - kick him out.

"suspend" is weaselling.

Couldn't disagree more Bicks.

a) Ken Livingstone hasn't been kicked out of Labour, which he should have been. His membership could have been cancelled, but wasn't.

b, )Ken said only 0.5% of the UK population was Jewish, compared to 10% of Labour members being jews. As was pointed out to him that's dropped from 17% He also said a whole tom, of stuff in that interview that was complete bollex and exactly the sort of exaggeration and untrue wild claims thing that they can't get their heads round is such a problem..

A) it’s semantics, right now Red Ken is no more a member of Labour than you or I. But I guess in a tolerant democratic society you have to dangle a carrot and allow that person the chance to reform and prove they’ve changed (he won't). Permanently banning someone straight away because of who they are, not what the rules of the organisation are seems a little Stalinesque.

B,) Don’t care what Red Ken said, I was reacting to what MagnaKarl said that he said. And as it was completely different to reality kinda just proves my point about spouting bollocks. In fact he called Red Ken a Nazi for saying something that wasn’t offensive and from you’ve just said isn’t even close to what he said

[blandy]

9 minutes ago, darrenm said:

Sorry for the poor choice of words there. I honestly wasn't meaning you. Just that I'm not, as I see it, jumping on a bandwagon.

Cool, Darren, and thanks. I did wonder! I understand now. No worries, have a good evening.

[blandy]

9 minutes ago, bickster said:

A) it’s semantics, right now Red Ken is no more a member of Labour than you or I. But I guess in a tolerant democratic society you have to dangle a carrot and allow that person the chance to reform and prove they’ve changed (he won't). Permanently banning someone straight away because of who they are, not what the rules of the organisation are seems a little Stalinesque....

I suppose it semantics. Maybe I'd just like to have seen him booted out for it. Accept the point on allowing a leopard to change its spots /chance to reform. That's fair comment. Equally he's long ago lost any plot on his dealings with and reference to jewish people - he's got a record of repeatedly awful behaviour there.

Changing the subject a bit, cycling home just now I was wondering something, or contemplating about Labour.

I've voted for them in the past, but they've lost me completely since Corbyn took over. I was trying to work out why. I think it's this. They used to (IMO) represent the best hope for people like me - they were supportive of manufacturing, of industry including defence and aerospace, their MPs kind of understood that the world isn't perfect, but if we want to protect the country, we need to support the RAF with aircraft and equipment. We need to co-operate across Yurp with Germany, France etc. Yes, absolutely don't sell weapons to monsters, but don't hamper our own capabilities. That the EU protects workers rights, the environment, allows people to work and travel over the continent with little in the way of hurdles. To be open, friendly & non-discriminatory. Not to support terrorist organisations, to be open to the US and so on.

I don't think much of that is really the case any more, with them. Obviously on the EU they're for leaving, but as muddled as the tories. There's an anti US, anti Israel, aspect. There's less of a sense they support the UK's manufacturing and defence capability and a strong sense they'd weaken it. The Unite Union leader spends loads of our money propping up Corbyn, despite his opposition to defence spending and the members who work in the UK defence industry.

There's also a kind of black v White extremism of views all round at the moment. Young v Old. "Pricks in suits", "Bankers", abuse everywhere. There's a refusal to co-operate with other parties even if it would be of benefit. It's way too tribal. There's the victimisation of Labour MPs who don't sit in the same exact place on the spectrum as Corbyn. There's different treatment for "rebels" dependent on if they're Corbyn's friends or not, and no awareness of his own record of rebellion.

There's all the stuff about nationalising loads of stuff, despite the clear disadvantages of doing so. There's non-credible spending plans.

Most of all, I want the tories out, but the chances of any mess getting sorted seem fewer every day. I'm basically just really disappointed that Labour is acting like it won the last election and seems to be in this false sense of almost entitlement or inevitability that they'll get in next. They need to be more credible, more pragmatic, more realistic and recognise that Corbyn, for all his recent appeal to the young needs a team of MPs that are capable, not just like minded. They won't get in, however shockingly bad the tories are, if they don't sort it out. But even if I'm wrong about that, then getting in solely because the tories are so diabolical (and they are) is not much of a recommendation. They've gone too tribal, too "shiny eyed adherent" for me, buy a long way. I want pragmatic steps and plans to make life better, I want more than Islington idealism and Venezuelan solidarity rallies and such like. 

 

[darrenm]

5 minutes ago, blandy said:

cycling home just now

Explains everything. Bloody cyclists.

[blandy]

Just now, darrenm said:

Explains everything. Bloody cyclists.

I got a lift home the other day. a lad on a bike went past, in the bike lane and the driver started going off on a "bloody cyclists" rant. "Knock it off" I said.

Now the police want to interview me about an incident in which said driver hit said cyclist. "Inciting violence, apparently"

 

 

*not really

[darrenm]

2 minutes ago, blandy said:

I got a lift home the other day. a lad on a bike went past, in the bike lane and the driver started going off on a "bloody cyclists" rant. "Knock it off" I said.

Now the police want to interview me about an incident in which said driver hit said cyclist. "Inciting violence, apparently"

 

 

*not really

I think I've found the footage

 

[chrisp65]

2 hours ago, veloman said:

Whilst not being as knowledgeable as most posters on this subject, I will just throw a suggestion into the mix. I cannot believe that Labour are actively anti Semitic but a good friend (Villa season ticket holder for 50 + years) was a full time Union Official for , first NALGO, then Unison and a member of the Labour Party and, as such , went to many party conferences. He always states that, particularly in London, there was a very strong and vociferous Pro Palestinian lobby. I believe it is fair to suggest that those two parties "don't get on" (Israel  and Palestine) so on the premise that 'if you 'aint for us your against' could that be what has lead to such accusations?

I think it must do at least in part.

I was a union equal ops rep for 5 years and did my fair share of away days and political meetings and networking and all that. Also NALGO and Unison as it happens.

Hand on heart I don't recall anyone ever being anti semitic or anti jewish or anti any entire people or race. I do remember the majority being pro Palestinian, running boycotts of Israeli goods. The distinction was clear to me. I can't say it was like that for everyone everywhere always. But 5 years, no issues to report.

Homophobic labour and union people? There were plenty of them. Sexist labour and union people? There were plenty of them. But that was back in the day, they did things different there...

[veloman]

That's an amazing coincidence chrisp65. There is a chance that you know this mate (particularly if you are Midlands based) but I won't name him on here. I would describe his politics as just slightly to the left of Lenin !

 

[magnkarl]

On 9/28/2017 at 18:19, bickster said:

A) it’s semantics, right now Red Ken is no more a member of Labour than you or I. But I guess in a tolerant democratic society you have to dangle a carrot and allow that person the chance to reform and prove they’ve changed (he won't). Permanently banning someone straight away because of who they are, not what the rules of the organisation are seems a little Stalinesque.

B,) Don’t care what Red Ken said, I was reacting to what MagnaKarl said that he said. And as it was completely different to reality kinda just proves my point about spouting bollocks. In fact he called Red Ken a Nazi for saying something that wasn’t offensive and from you’ve just said isn’t even close to what he said

The fact is Red Ken has been allowed two chances of redemption and he's still only "suspended". As Blandy and many posters on here has said 100's of times before Corbyn boots out anyone who is against him, but if you're his friend he lets you off with a "suspension" for saying some pretty bigoted things. He's a full fledged Labour member, he's just not allowed to be in an official position or attend conferences. For someone who is affected by his continued racist conspiracy theories that is a lot to swallow. Can you not understand that side of the argument? Do you think Labour went from 80% share of the Jewish vote to 10% due to nothing? Or maybe it's because Jews are "wealthier" as Ken has also said several times? The guy is an old bigot, and he should have been removed long ago.

Isn't "Hitler worked with the Jews" offensive? Jews as a people is not the same as an Israeli - I think a lot of people in Labour and this country have a problem distinguishing the two. Again, had a nazi group held a panel talk attached to the tory conference, would you not be upset? 

The problem here isn't that there's racists in Labour(I know there's racists everywhere - though that isn't okay either), it's how they're continually dealing with it. It's how they're losing Jewish votes, it's why barely anyone from the community votes for Labour anymore. If Darren went canvasing in Golders Green for Labour he'd hear these views on every single doorstep of a Jewish family. These feelings aren't random and should be taken seriously. The question is would Corbyn ban Livingstone if he said something about another ethnicity considering his views on the Palestine conflict? I think he's conflicted himself, and a lot of this is down to the way that a lot of current Labour politicians are vehemently for Palestine. This seeps into their moral judgement on what is okay to say.

It feels a bit like Corbyn has had the same effect on the nastier groupings of the left in this country that Trump has had on the right in the US. People who would have been chased out of the conference in the 60's-70's are holding actual talks attached to the Labour conference due to Corbyn's inactivity in dealing with them much in the same way that Trump has emboldened some nasty right groups in the US.

Edited September 30, 2017 by magnkarl

[snowychap]

21 minutes ago, magnkarl said:

had a nazi group held a panel talk attached to the tory conference, would you not be upset

There was a nazi group that held a meeting attached to the Labour conference?

Edited September 28, 2017 by snowychap

[tonyh29]

39 minutes ago, snowychap said:

There was a nazi group that held a meeting attached to the Labour conference?

Momentum ?