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

[bickster]

In other news Margaret Ferrier (Ex-SNP) has been suspended from the commons for 30 days for her breach of Covid Lockdown rules

It's in this topic because her majority in Rutherglen and Hamilton West is only 5k above Labour.

IF (and it is still if) a recall petition is enacted and it reaches the threshold then a by-election will be called and a change for Starmer to test his popularity in Scotland.

[desensitized43]

4 hours ago, blandy said:

It isn’t. Yes, I agree with you that some Israeli politicians try and conflate criticism with antisemitism, but within Labour it’s absolutely not a “political problem” to criticise the actions of Israel or its government. Nor is it a political problem generally (outside labour).

Personally the whole thing just annoys me. When we've got so many other things wrong with the country and the priority surely being to evict the Tories while they continue to make the situation worse and mire themselves with scandal after scandal, why do certain Labour members choose to attach a government a couple of thousand miles away? Is what Israel doing relevant to anything that normal people care about day to day? Is it going to win an election? What exactly are they trying to accomplish?

I'd like to think that it's come from a place of wanting to fight an injustice rather than it just being cold-hard antisemitism. I'd certainly agree it's possible to critise the Israeli government without it spilling over into something sinister, but when there are so many other things going on much close to home and with the media narrative around Labour being what it is, why are they still choosing to come out with this and giving others the ammunition to make the anti-semitism accusation?

[Jareth]

37 minutes ago, desensitized43 said:

Personally the whole thing just annoys me. When we've got so many other things wrong with the country and the priority surely being to evict the Tories while they continue to make the situation worse and mire themselves with scandal after scandal, why do certain Labour members choose to attach a government a couple of thousand miles away? Is what Israel doing relevant to anything that normal people care about day to day? Is it going to win an election? What exactly are they trying to accomplish?

I'd like to think that it's come from a place of wanting to fight an injustice rather than it just being cold-hard antisemitism. I'd certainly agree it's possible to critise the Israeli government without it spilling over into something sinister, but when there are so many other things going on much close to home and with the media narrative around Labour being what it is, why are they still choosing to come out with this and giving others the ammunition to make the anti-semitism accusation?

Ahem - Jamie Driscoll went on stage with Ken Loach to talk about a film about the north east, where he is the mayor. He's been blocked from standing again. Ain't nobody been antisemiting or even mentioned Israel. 

[bickster]

Just now, Jareth said:

Ain't nobody been antisemiting or even mentioned Israel.

Apart from Ken Loach

[Jareth]

3 minutes ago, bickster said:

Apart from Ken Loach

Yeah I was responding to a complaint about Labour members being all antisemity. 

[bickster]

Just now, Jareth said:

Yeah I was responding to a complaint about Labour members being all antisemity. 

Yeah and I was responding to the falsehood in that reply

[Jareth]

1 minute ago, bickster said:

Yeah and I was responding to the falsehood in that reply

You're playng 4-D antisemite chess here mate, I concede!

[bickster]

1 hour ago, Jareth said:

You're playng 4-D antisemite chess here mate, I concede!

I'm really not... it really was Ken Loach that talked about antisemitism being the issue

Quote

Ken Loach claims antisemitism is being used to oust Labour left politicians
The director blamed Sir Keir Starmer for the ‘dishonest’ move to block mayor Jamie Driscoll from running in the North East.

[...]Mr Loach added: “The whole antisemitism issue has been substantially revealed as a campaign that is not based on fact.

“It’s based on political determination to do a number of things, to remove people from the left, to protect the state of Israel, which many people, many Jewish people in the Labour Party, oppose, oppose this campaign.”[...]

The Indie

So saying nobody mentioned Israel or Antisemitism was a falsehood because Ken Loach did

 

[Jareth]

1 minute ago, bickster said:

I'm really not... it really was Ken Loach that talked about antisemitism being the issue

So saying nobody mentioned Israel or Antisemitism was a falsehood because Ken Loach did

 

Yes - after the event for which Driscoll has been blackballed - in response to the absurd position Labour have taken about Loach and Driscoll talking about the North East. Neither is Loach a member of Labour. So who's provoking debate about AS and Israel? A factional group at the Labour party who use AS as a political football, under Starmer.  Why oh why does this not irk the Jewish community? 

 

 

[Chindie]

5 hours ago, magnkarl said:

The issue with a lot of what you're writing Chindie (and I applaud you for being factual), is that a lot of the ideas that are being bandied around by people like Livingstone and Williamson (who now hands down works for Iran and Hamas) is that they're using sources which use sources who use sources of other sources who essentially once upon a time were properly racist tropey trash. The idea that Hitler supported anything bar eradicating Jews is false, and you can read several lines on this in Mein Kampf, well before he took power. It's a trope furthered by people like Livingstone who won't even write some like you did. The people that Livingstone, Williamson and also Corbyn have used as their sources are people like Hajo Meyer who is one of the most hyperbolic people out there, and the defense is that he was "one of them so he can't be wrong!'. The same goes for Jackie Walker.

Some Africans also worked on slave-trade ships, if I were Ken Livingstone I'd write 'Africans were the ones who orchestrated their own slavery!', he's been asked to clarify many times but won't budge. One time, sure it's clumsy, several times and it's a pattern. The same pattern many of Corbyn's best mates still struggle with getting out of. The man himself worked for Press TV, the same TV channel owned by Iran who essentially has it in law that Jews need to be eradicated..

I don't think this is saying much really.

The source of a source of a source criticism... Like what? Everything is sourced from a source from a source. Give some details that tell us why there's criticism of the position.

Hitler is commonly held to have started to switch towards genocide of the Jews in the mid-30s. It's true that Mein Kampf contains stuff that can be seen as beginnings of those thoughts, but they aren't exactly outlining a plan to create a horrific state designed murder machine. It's more the ranting of an impotent actor with a hair brained grudge at that point. The Nazi regime wasn't moved to genocide until 42, and in the years beforehand stuck to treating Jewish people as scum and vermin, as we all know from so much media on the horrors prior to the outbreak of war and the early years of the war on Europe.

From what little I know of Meyer, he seems to have been criticised because he compared Israeli actions today to those of the Nazis. A lot of people, who have no feelings one way or the other about the Jewish people, would agree with him. Unfortunately there's a school of thought that it is anti-Semitic to compare Israel to Nazi Germany, and he got the label. That doesn't seem to be a slam dunk to me, that people agreed with him. A lot of people of this very website would probably agree with him - in fact I think I've seen comments along the same lines uttered here before now, and I don't think you could claim this website is a hive of anti-semitism.

Has Livingstone been asked to clarify? Has the question been put to him that he would agree not all Zionists supported Nazi endeavours? I've only ever seem him decried as an anti-Semite and had it insisted he withdraws the comment.

I'm not a huge fan of guilt by association. I think someone can get paid by an Iranian entity and not be tainted inherently. It would be up them to weigh up the morality of it, I wouldn't personally take the Iranian dollar but others may feel differently. And if one did I wouldn't assume that automatically makes them pro anti-Semitism. If Livingstone needs to pay the bills and the Western world has decided he's a Jew hating bigot, who am I to judge him getting paid by someone who will give him work. Doesn't mean he's a threat to the Jewish people. And I don't think he is. For all his issues, and I don't particularly like the man, I don't think racism of any stripe is one that can be laid at his feet.

[blandy]

17 minutes ago, Chindie said:

From what little I know of Meyer, he seems to have been criticised because he compared Israeli actions today to those of the Nazis. A lot of people, who have no feelings one way or the other about the Jewish people, would agree with him. Unfortunately there's a school of thought that it is anti-Semitic to compare Israel to Nazi Germany, and he got the label. That doesn't seem to be a slam dunk to me, that people agreed with him. A lot of people of this very website would probably agree with him - in fact I think I've seen comments along the same lines uttered here before now, and I don't think you could claim this website is a hive of anti-semitism.

Cripes! Comparing the actions of Israel to the Nazis is one of the defined examples/characteristics of antisemitism described by the IHRA. Now for posters on here, or people generally to feel that is "too much of a stretch" or whatever they might say is one thing. If a Labour member, MP, or Councillor or whatever did it, then it's beyond stupid. It is a slam dunk in such an instance, given Labour has adopted that IHRA definition following the outbreaks of AS within Labour and all the trouble that led to (putting it mildly). And given the kerfuffle, Labour folk really should engage their brains before uttering stuff about Israel being like the Nazis. It isn't. Folk who can't accept that should be nowhere near Labour, whatever their other beliefs. Livingstone, Williamson, Loach and their ilk are bell ends in that regard.

As I posted earlier (and no doubt many times previously) it's quite possible to criticise Israel, or it's actions as a nation, without being antisemitic, just don't use language which is hyperbolic and straight out of the internationally accepted definition of antisemitism and expect not to be called out for it. Too many numpties are incapable of that and too many of them are, or were, part of Labour. Some of them may be kind of benignly ignorant, but if they're that unaware of the context, then perhaps they are not best qualified to be espousing their views on what is a complex and complicated situation around Palestine and Israel in particular.

[Chindie]

Yes, Blandy, the IHRA definition is not good and it was a catastrophic misstep by Labour to kowtow to it.

[chrisp65]

So, are we saying Ken Loach films need to be banned, or his name cut from the credits, or just that people that discuss his films have ruled themselves out of any role in Labour politics? Will this stained by association with Ken Loach be absolute and universal, or will it only be applied case by case depending on whether you are perceived as centrist or socialist? Who will decide these calls?

Could an actor take a role in the next Ken Loach film, and still hope to one day run as a Labour councillor?

Where’s the line? I thought it was the hard left trying to impose cancel culture, turns out its the administrative wing of centrism.

 

 

 

 

 

[bickster]

1 hour ago, Jareth said:

Yes - after the event for which Driscoll has been blackballed - in response to the absurd position Labour have taken about Loach and Driscoll talking about the North East. Neither is Loach a member of Labour. So who's provoking debate about AS and Israel? A factional group at the Labour party who use AS as a political football, under Starmer.  Why oh why does this not irk the Jewish community? 

Why is an absurd position? He's an expelled member of the party, he belongs to one or more proscribed organisations. That’s the whole point of him being expelled. That the left complain about being pulled up for sharing a platform with an expelled member of the Party when the whole no platforming thing is entirely a mechanism of the left is somewhat rich.

No one mentioned AS in this until Loach did, so in answer to your question, Loach did. 
It doesn’t irk the Jewish community because they don’t consider the issue to be a made up political football, they perceive it to be real. Imagine you telling a black man that he shouldn't use peoples racism against him as a political football - you effectively just said that.

 

[blandy]

13 minutes ago, Chindie said:

Yes, Blandy, the IHRA definition is not good and it was a catastrophic misstep by Labour to kowtow to it.

It was adopted by Labour in 2016 - not sure whether by Milliband or Corbyn,  but the "illustrative examples" or whatever they are called were not adopted at the time. A year or so later, they were asked why they hadn't and they decided they would (after much hand wringing). But they didn't actually do it, they just said they had. Then they adopted 7 of them, but left 4 out, then there was more hand wringing and bickering. And eventually they adopted the full thing. The tories similarly said they had adopted the IHRA definition, but hadn't.

I remember we all talked about it all on here, back then. I think they were right to adopt the full definition, politically, but understand why you, who thinks the whole AS thing was made up and non-existent, essentially (hopefully I'm not doing you a disservice), might have a different view to me. AS was far too prominent for Labour not to act as they eventually got round to doing. The vacillating really just made things look worse and compounded the situation IMO.

[Jareth]

3 minutes ago, bickster said:

Why is an absurd position? He's an expelled member of the party, he belongs to one or more proscribed organisations. That’s the whole point of him being expelled. That the left complain about being pulled up for sharing a platform with an expelled member of the Party when the whole no platforming thing is entirely a mechanism of the left is somewhat rich.

No one mentioned AS in this until Loach did, so in answer to your question, Loach did. 
It doesn’t irk the Jewish community because they don’t consider the issue to be a made up political football, they perceive it to be real. Imagine you telling a black man that he shouldn't use peoples racism against him as a political football - you effectively just said that.

 

It's absurd. Are Labour going to boycott the BBC?

Labour HQ invoked AS first by blocking their elected mayor - he did nothing wrong, it's absurd to think otherwise.

So the Jewish community don't see the use of AS as a factional weapon in Labour? Depends if you're left or right wing doesn't it. 

[Chindie]

15 minutes ago, blandy said:

It was adopted by Labour in 2016 - not sure whether by Milliband or Corbyn,  but the "illustrative examples" or whatever they are called were not adopted at the time. A year or so later, they were asked why they hadn't and they decided they would (after much hand wringing). But they didn't actually do it, they just said they had. Then they adopted 7 of them, but left 4 out, then there was more hand wringing and bickering. And eventually they adopted the full thing. The tories similarly said they had adopted the IHRA definition, but hadn't.

I remember we all talked about it all on here, back then. I think they were right to adopt the full definition, politically, but understand why you, who thinks the whole AS thing was made up and non-existent, essentially (hopefully I'm not doing you a disservice), might have a different view to me. AS was far too prominent for Labour not to act as they eventually got round to doing. The vacillating really just made things look worse and compounded the situation IMO.

You are doing me a disservice.

[bickster]

34 minutes ago, Jareth said:

It's absurd. Are Labour going to boycott the BBC?

Why would they?  That is absurd analogy, appearing on for example, Question Time, is not sharing a platform

36 minutes ago, Jareth said:

Labour HQ invoked AS first by blocking their elected mayor

No, they didn't, you've made this bit up in your head. He's also not the elected Mayor of the position he's been blocked from. If this were Liverpool, it would be like saying the Mayor of the Wrral has been blocked from standing for the position of Mayor of the Merseyside Region (the are 6 mayors in the Merseyside Region plus the elected Regional Mayor) The argument put forward by Burham and Rotherham yesterday isn't valid otherwise Burnham might have 10 competitors next time the post is up for election. Rotherham might remeber from his initial selection that Barrie  Grunewald, then Mayor of St Helens didn't make the Longlist for his candidacy election

38 minutes ago, Jareth said:

So the Jewish community don't see the use of AS as a factional weapon in Labour? Depends if you're left or right wing doesn't it. 

Here you are falling into the trap of equating small minority groupings of people who identify as Jewish as being representative of the whole Jewish Community. It's pretty much the same as blaming the actions of the Israeli State on Jews, except in reverse. The wider Jewish Community both inside and outside the Labour Party see AS in the Labour Party as a problem as did the EHRC, they don't see tackling the problem as a factional tool, they see it as an absolute priority

[blandy]

45 minutes ago, Chindie said:

You are doing me a disservice.

In that case, I apologise. I had it in mind that you had thought that the extent of AS was tiny and just being massively exaggerated for partisan reasons to “get”Corbyn and there was no kind of actual real AS crisis.

[Jareth]

4 minutes ago, bickster said:

Here you are falling into the trap of equating small minority groupings of people who identify as Jewish as being representative of the whole Jewish Community. It's pretty much the same as blaming the actions of the Israeli State on Jews, except in reverse. The wider Jewish Community both inside and outside the Labour Party see AS in the Labour Party as a problem as did the EHRC, they don't see tackling the problem as a factional tool, they see it as an absolute priority

And here you are stating that the wider Jewish community inside and outside the Labour party are in agreement that a north east Mayor should not get chance to stand again, because he talked to Ken Loach. Absurd.