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

[darrenm]

I'd have sacked her just for even validating the Sun as a newspaper, that horrible shitrag source of most of society's current ills

[magnkarl]

37 minutes ago, Michelsen said:

You really need to stop it with your pointlessly narrow (and wrong) definition of socialism. 

I'm a democratic socialist. I know several others. It's a thing. 

I believe in a state monopoly for education, health care, transportation and utilities. I believe in significant state regulation of financial activities and active state ownership in certain key industries. Most of all, I believe in strict social, economic and political egalitarianism. All of the above are, in my opinion, means to that end. My egalitarianism is the very core of my socialism. State monopoly is not a goal in itself, it does not define my ideology. 

I believe my egalitarian goals, my idea of a socialist ideal, can (and must) be achieved through democratic institutions and the rule of law, including fundamental individual rights such as the right to property. 

Other socialists may share my goals but disagree that they are achievable in a parliamentary democracy. Some of them again lean towards authoritarian or totalitarian ways to achieve their idea of perfect egalitarianism, while others are of a more anarchist persuation and are sceptical of any political authority other than strictly direct and local democracy. 

Socialism takes so many different shapes depending on historical, cultural and geographical context. To say that socialism equals authoritarian state monopoly on economic activity, and only that, ignores the concept's etymology, history and diversity, not to mention commonly accepted usage in your own cultural context. 

By any reasonable understanding of the word, the history of socialism in Western Europe is a wildly succesful one. Be thankful for that history and get over it. 

A perfect example of a social democratic from Scandinavia, then (judging from your nickname). I respect nothing more than that form of politics, though I do think you guys need your own term rather than taking on the term of Marx et. al. 

The Nordic Model seems a good choice. As you say it's in egalitarian mix of ideals from a whole host of political standpoints. You have very free markets, albeit strong regulation when it comes to monopoly. Social mobility is what makes Scandinavia strong. We don't have that in the UK, and neither has anyone had that in any pure socialist country. 

I agree that the history of socialism in Western Europe has led to success, but only because you guys have managed to take the good bits out of socialism and discard the bad bits. Denmark, Norway and Sweden all have right leaning governments, even Labour in Norway would be considered centre in the UK. The "janteloven" concept in Norway is a great example, you shouldn't hold yourself above anyone else in society - it's considered shameful.

You've got it going on up there - and all credit to you. 

[peterms]

15 minutes ago, tonyh29 said:

Do you have evidence of this ?  i did a quick Google and didn't see any mention of PC gone mad type stuff 

No need to google, Tony.  It's on this very page, in so many words, in the piece which Blandy quoted.

[El Zen]

8 minutes ago, magnkarl said:

A perfect example of a social democratic from Scandinavia, then (judging from your nickname). I respect nothing more than that form of politics, though I do think you guys need your own term rather than taking on the term of Marx et. al. 

The Nordic Model seems a good choice. As you say it's in egalitarian mix of ideals from a whole host of political standpoints. You have very free markets, albeit strong regulation when it comes to monopoly. Social mobility is what makes Scandinavia strong. We don't have that in the UK, and neither has anyone had that in any pure socialist country. 

I agree that the history of socialism in Western Europe has led to success, but only because you guys have managed to take the good bits out of socialism and discard the bad bits. Denmark, Norway and Sweden all have right leaning governments, even Labour in Norway would be considered centre in the UK. The "janteloven" concept in Norway is a great example, you shouldn't hold yourself above anyone else in society - it's considered shameful.

You've got it going on up there - and all credit to you. 

Wow.

First of all, I'm not a social democrat. Thank you for your lecture on Scandinavian post war political history, although I'm not quite sure why you felt I needed that. However, your categorisations of Sweden's current gov't and the Norwegian Labour Party are inaccurate and you overestimate the significance of 'janteloven'. But all of that is beside the point anyway and I never claimed that any Scandinavian country is purely socialist. On the contrary, in just a few weeks I intend to vote to make Norway more socialist than it currently is. Neo-liberalism had been far too influential for the last 30 years. 

What I did say, or tried to say, was that socialist movements and ideas have been absolutely instrumental in making Western Europe a relative success in terms of economic prosperity and equality for the masses and, no, not through a 'take the good and leave out the bad' kind of process but rather through the struggle, persistence and eventual success of the (democratic) socialist labour movement. Their ideology was always and consistently socialist and my great grandfather would be personally insulted if you told him he wasn't really a socialist because he rejected armed revolution or didn't reject the individual's right to property. 

You keep mentioning Marx, as if socialism is defined by his and Engels' ideas. It isn't and it never has been. Sure, some socialists are Marxists, but it's not like Marx invented socialism or that there werent't socialists contemporary to Marx who disagreed with him. In fact, even if I'm sure Marx was respected in socialist circles, all of the dominant socialist labour movements of Northern Europe outright rejected Marx's means entirely. The word socialism itself is also far older than Marx. 

Furthermore, many (any) Marxist would disagree that Marxism=authoritarian state monopoly on economic activity. It's perfectly possible to be a democratic Marxist, too, but it's a different kind of democracy to the one you and I believe in. 

Socialism is an incredibly wide spectrum of ideas and movements. Lenin, Castro and Tito might have been socialists, but so was f*ing Gerhardsen and Erlander. 

[blandy]

10 hours ago, peterms said:

I'd have sacked her.  On grounds of competence and undermining the efforts of people who are trying to tackle this.

To portray her as some sort of brave person who tackles the difficult issues, and is being silenced by "PC", as some seem to be doing, is delusional nonsense.  She wrote a very clumsy and massively unhelpful piece, took attention away from the real issues, and allowed people who don't give a damn about sex abuse to present themselves as defenders.  A failure of judgement on a monumental scale.

I can only say that on this my view is the exact opposite. She is one of the people tackling the problem, as evidenced by examples she provided, plus elsewhere). The piece she wrote is valid and well put (albeit phrased in tabloidese), it focuses on a real issue and it is a failure of judgement by Corbyn to get rid of her. Particularly so as he only did so, after another MP wrote a different view in another article. Corbyn is a fool.

[magnkarl]

11 hours ago, Michelsen said:

On the contrary, in just a few weeks I intend to vote to make Norway more socialist than it currently is. Neo-liberalism had been far too influential for the last 30 years. 

Thanks for your views and opinions, I just want to ask a question regarding the above. Wouldn't you say that Norway has been one of the most successful countries in the world (yeah, I know, oil) for a long time now? Why would you vote against neo-liberalism when it's served your country and the countries around you so well for the last 30 years? You are consistently touted as one of the best places to live together with your neighbour countries. Why would you want to change that?

I gather you are not voting for AP then? Do you intend to vote SV or Red?

[PompeyVillan]

Wouldn't it be prudent to before publishing a potentially contraversial print article in a prominent national shit rag, to forward a copy to one of Corbyns sides as a heads up? 

Personal I'd like to see an official Labour boycott of The Sun and the Daily Mail and proceed with caution with other establisment print media. But that's another matter. 

Edited August 19, 2017 by PompeyVillan

[blandy]

8 minutes ago, PompeyVillan said:

Wouldn't it be prudent to before publishing a potentially contraversial print article in a prominent national shit rag, to forward a copy to one of Corbyns sides as a heads up? 

Personal I'd like to see an official Labour boycott of The Sun and the Daily Mail and proceed with caution with other establisment print media. But that's another matter. 

No. That way lies central thought control. 

On the rags, possibly, but then there'd be no opportunity to connect with or persuade their readers

[tonyh29]

4 minutes ago, PompeyVillan said:

Wouldn't it be prudent to before publishing a potentially contraversial print article in a prominent national shit rag, to forward a copy to one of Corbyns sides as a heads up? 

Personal I'd like to see an official Labour boycott of The Sun and the Daily Mail and proceed with caution with other establisment print media. But that's another matter. 

id have thought Murdoch and Corbyn were perfect bedfellows , they'll both say and do anything  if they think it will be popular 

 

 

 

[magnkarl]

16 minutes ago, PompeyVillan said:

Wouldn't it be prudent to before publishing a potentially contraversial print article in a prominent national shit rag, to forward a copy to one of Corbyns sides as a heads up? 

Personal I'd like to see an official Labour boycott of The Sun and the Daily Mail and proceed with caution with other establisment print media. But that's another matter. 

Wouldn't that surmount to gagging your own party? I thought he was all for freedom and people being equal.

On the boycott I sort of think that most parties should stay away from the sun and daily mail. These two publications would have the Kardashians in our parliament were it up to them.

[PompeyVillan]

17 minutes ago, blandy said:

No. That way lies central thought control. 

On the rags, possibly, but then there'd be no opportunity to connect with or persuade their readers

I'm not suggesting Corbyn shackle his MPs but clearly Champion knew she was taking a controversial stance. Which in itself is fine, but publishing that stance in a national tabloid in the rather blunt manner she did gives the impression that it is a stance supported by the party and the party leader.

It was ill advised and I would suggest that if she could reverse the situation she would, because I doubt it's a stance she would have felt worthy of losing her shadow cabinet role for. 

A quick referal to someone in Corbyns team would have told her to take a different tack. Clearly, there are Muslim men that target white girls, but her message lacked subtlety and given that it was published in The Sun (who reject nuance in favour of sensationalism) it came across badly. 

There is clearly a lack of unity in Labour, and these sorts of incident show that. Labour have been hammered in the past for not being a strong opposition, at the moment public opinion is better than its been for a while for Labour. 

So yes, I do think Labour MPs have a responsibility to toe the party line. What's galling is that a weak Conservative government are pretty good at it, or at least avoiding the scandal when Conservative MPs frequently say stupid things.

[Dr_Pangloss]

4 hours ago, blandy said:

I can only say that on this my view is the exact opposite. She is one of the people tackling the problem, as evidenced by examples she provided, plus elsewhere). The piece she wrote is valid and well put (albeit phrased in tabloidese), it focuses on a real issue and it is a failure of judgement by Corbyn to get rid of her. Particularly so as he only did so, after another MP wrote a different view in another article. Corbyn is a fool.

I tend to agree. Whilst I have issues with anyone writing for the sun, I do not think she's a racist, she isn't propagating racial stereotypes, rather she's pointing to a very real problem that is supported at least in part by the data.

When Maajid Nawaz makes the same arguments it's not racist. It seems to be the case that a white person cannot comment on race related issues without inducing scorn and accusations of racism. 

Edited August 19, 2017 by Dr_Pangloss

[blandy]

17 minutes ago, PompeyVillan said:

It was ill advised and I would suggest that if she could reverse the situation she would, because I doubt it's a stance she would have felt worthy of losing her shadow cabinet role for.

I don't think she would. She's been tweeting articles supportive of her, from muslims etc.

it shouldn't be controversial to address an issue of any part of society having an issue with crime or behaviour or attitude. That it is, is a flaw and partly so because of people who are frightened to cause offence and people who are quick to look for something to be offended by, even from the clearly well meaning

[blandy]

25 minutes ago, PompeyVillan said:

 

58 minutes ago, blandy said:

No. That way lies central thought control. 

On the rags, possibly, but then there'd be no opportunity to connect with or persuade their readers

I'm not suggesting Corbyn shackle his MPs but clearly Champion knew she was taking a controversial stance. Which in itself is fine, but publishing that stance in a national tabloid in the rather blunt manner she did gives the impression that it is a stance supported by the party and the party leader.

It was ill advised and I would suggest that if she could reverse the situation she would, because I doubt it's a stance she would have felt worthy of losing her shadow cabinet role for. 

A quick referal to someone in Corbyns team would have told her to take a different tack. Clearly, there are Muslim men that target white girls, but her message lacked subtlety and given that it was published in The Sun (who reject nuance in favour of sensationalism) it came across badly. 

There is clearly a lack of unity in Labour, andSo yes, I do think Labour MPs have a responsibility to toe the party line. What's galling is that a weak Conservative government are pretty good at it, or at least avoiding the scandal when Conservative MPs frequently say stupid things.

If labours party line is to ignore grooming of kids in Rotherham and Newcastle by gangs of Pakistani and Asian men, then she's right to go against it. But I don't think it is and I don't think she's gone against labour policy. It's just typical Corbyn weakness and poor judgement. She should not have to 'tack' on child abuse to suit anyone.

[andym]

The article was focussed on abuse committed by gangs, i'm guessing in response to the conviction of a gang in Newcastle which was reported two days before. Abuse by gangs seems to be disproportionately committed by men of a certain culture (as was the case in Newcastle) so its no the surprise the article focussed on this. 

She clearly wasn't was saying or implying child abuse is committed solely or predominantly by asian men, in the same way past articles with headlines about child abuse at the BBC or in the Catholic Church don't mean everyone at the BBC or in the church are abusers.

Infact, the article specifically states most convictions for abuse are of white men acting alone. 

I would suggest that anyone claiming to have read that article and then come to the conclusion that child abuse is just committed by members of a certain race or culture 1) haven't actually read it, and 2) will already have massive prejudices so the content of the article is completely irrelevant for them anyway.

 

 

[HanoiVillan]

The truth is, most people barely read past the headline and the headline and the opening couple of sentences were awful. Normally I'd blame this on the sub-editors but the Sun have stated that she signed off on a final version of the article and only complained that her picture wasn't flattering. 

I get that the rest of her article was better, but the damage was done in that opening paragraph for me. Should she have lost her job? A difficult one for me, and I think both @blandy and @peterms have made good arguments. I probably agree with Peter more though. 

[peterms]

1 hour ago, blandy said:

On the rags, possibly, but then there'd be no opportunity to connect with or persuade their readers

The article doesn't come across to me as seeking to persuade readers of anything, but instead to reinforce and confirm existing views.  In particular, starting off with

Quote

BRITAIN has a problem with British Pakistani men raping and exploiting white girls. There. I said it. Does that make me a racist? Or am I just prepared to call out this horrifying problem for what it is?

in a newspaper whose readership contains a lot of right-wing and racist people is really not an attempt to discuss a serious issue in a nuanced way.  There's a good piece here by Shaista Aziz pointing out among other things that

Quote

A follow-up piece in the same newspaper by Trevor Kavanagh praised Champion and asked what the UK should do about “the Muslim problem”.

Which is of course the Sun's agenda, and Champion's crude and unhelpful piece serves that agenda.  How she doesn't see that, I have no idea.

Perhaps if she'd written the piece differently, for example starting off with the context about child sex abuse and then discussing this one specific manifestation of it as something that requires dealing with differently than for example abuse by teachers, then she might have been able to claim that it was meant as a serious contribution to a serious debate.  But of course she wouldn't have done that in the Sun, which is not at all interested in nuance or serious points, just fuelling prejudice and stirring hatred.

[darrenm]

4 hours ago, tonyh29 said:

id have thought Murdoch and Corbyn were perfect bedfellows , they'll both say and do anything  if they think it will be popular 

 

 

 

Corbyn is probably about as far removed from populist as a politician is going to get. Populist would be to say he'd press the nuke button, voting for Syrian air strikes, voting for the Iraq war, condemning foreign governments without balance. He's too honest to a fault.

[tonyh29]

1 hour ago, darrenm said:

Corbyn is probably about as far removed from populist as a politician is going to get. Populist would be to say he'd press the nuke button, voting for Syrian air strikes, voting for the Iraq war, condemning foreign governments without balance. He's too honest to a fault.

Dunno why but your answer made me think of rhis

 

Edited August 19, 2017 by tonyh29

[darrenm]

43 minutes ago, tonyh29 said:

Dunno why but your answer made me think of rhis

 

I'll be honest, every time you post anything I think of this.