The Labour Party

[Prestwich_Blue]

It amazes me how the £3 supporters and momentum controlling the party narrative has stuck so solidly over the last few years despite it being utter nonsense.


The thing is and its not something i get involved with there is a part of the left who are supporters of Palestine and they do see Israel as an apartheid state. Its a throwback to when the Labour party and Corbyn amongst others fought apartheid in South Africa. Apartheid surely everyone agrees is abhorrent, it is discrimination and segregation based on racial/ethnic/religious grounds and should have no place in the modern world and anybody who does support it are the real racists. Now I simply do not know enough about the issue to have formed an opinion i can support with facts and evidence so I leave the Palestine issue alone but there are a number who do and they are vociferous in their support of Palestine. This is where I need to definitely educate myself because for the life of me I can not see why supporting Palestine makes you automatically antisemitic especially when a good number of Jewish people also support a free Palestine state.

Maybe PB could educate us here, because i do not believe i am or have ever been racist or antisemitic.

Is criticism of the Israeli state antisemitic?
Is criticism of Netanyhu antisemitic?
Is supporting a Palestinian state antisemitic?

Now i have wrote this long post and will I be considered antisemitic for writing it?
Is it possible to be unconsciously antisemitic because you have not got a full grasp of the issues at hand?
Is it possible i am just a racist twat who should be banned from the forum for being a racist?

I'm not the world authority on antisemitism but I'll give my view.

Criticising actions of the Israeli government (although that's not what you actually wrote, which I'll deal with later) is not antisemitic per se. I've done it & the IHRA definition allows it.
Criticism of Netanyahu isn't antisemitic per se. I've certainly done it & the IHRA definition allows it.
Support of a Palestinian state isn't antisemitic per se. I'd be quite happy to see one & the IHRA definition allows it.

But it's never black and white. I don't have a problem with anyone criticising Israel if that criticism is reasonable and rational, plus consistent with other beliefs of that individual. So if you criticise Israel but not, say, China, Burma, India, Russia, Pakistan, India, many Arab or African nations or even Hamas for its many human rights abuses, then what's your motivation? Even EU members like Hungary & Poland are exhibiting a increasingly illiberal, racist and nationalist agenda. Yet so many on the left obsess about Palestine above everything else going on outside our shores. Why is that?

The problem is that coming out openly and spewing out-and-out Jew-hate is these days confined to the margins of politics or done in private. A number of surveys have shown that a significant minority even here in the UK harbour some attitudes described as antisemitic. So pure antisemitism is now coded, using the word 'Zionist' or in unwarranted criticism of Israel. Corbyn himself openly crossed the line with his "British Zionists had no sense of English irony" comment. That was plainly antisemitic, with "Zionist" used as code for "Jews" and no amount of him saying "What I really meant was..." could mask that.

Let's put it another way. If a footballer does something wrong and happens to be black, am I racist for criticising him? I don't think so. But if I apply a different standard to that footballer than I would apply to a white one in similar circumstances, then I could very well be seen as racist.

Now you said "Israeli state" rather than "Israeli government". The state is a collection of people from the left of politics to the extreme right, from the secular to the extremely religious, from Muslim Arabs, Arab Jews, African Jews, European Jews and others from the diaspora, many of who are descended from Holocasut survivors. There's a whole host of other religions and races in there. So to criticise the "Israeli state", as racist or an apartheid state for instance, is regarded as antisemitic.

So it's partly about what you say, it's partly about how you say it but it's largely about your intent, which is why there isn't a "Yes or No" answer.

 

[meltonblue]

I’ve never been a Corbyn supporter but the argument of not voting for him for perceived “purposeful racism” and instead voting for a conservative government with Johnson at the helm is so clearly a disingenuous one.

 

[Mr Kobayashi]

I voted Lib Dem in 05 and 10 as I liked their policies, and it became clear that the debt being built up by Brown, relative to other countries, was setting us up for a fall that duely arrived
I voted Tory with a heavy heart in 15, 17 and 19 as Labour had set off to the political wilderness to become unelectable and the Lib Dems decided they really were fruit loops.

This policy to reverse the public debt growth actually weakened the economy.
Notice the date of the video. This wasn't the benefit of hindsight.

You won't vote for a racist party but you voted for the one that created the hostile environment and deported British citizens to Caribbean?

 

[Rascal]

I'm not the world authority on antisemitism but I'll give my view.

Criticising actions of the Israeli government (although that's not what you actually wrote, which I'll deal with later) is not antisemitic per se. I've done it & the IHRA definition allows it.
Criticism of Netanyahu isn't antisemitic per se. I've certainly done it & the IHRA definition allows it.
Support of a Palestinian state isn't antisemitic per se. I'd be quite happy to see one & the IHRA definition allows it.

But it's never black and white. I don't have a problem with anyone criticising Israel if that criticism is reasonable and rational, plus consistent with other beliefs of that individual. So if you criticise Israel but not, say, China, Burma, India, Russia, Pakistan, India, many Arab or African nations or even Hamas for its many human rights abuses, then what's your motivation? Even EU members like Hungary & Poland are exhibiting a increasingly illiberal, racist and nationalist agenda. Yet so many on the left obsess about Palestine above everything else going on outside our shores. Why is that?

The problem is that coming out openly and spewing out-and-out Jew-hate is these days confined to the margins of politics or done in private. A number of surveys have shown that a significant minority even here in the UK harbour some attitudes described as antisemitic. So pure antisemitism is now coded, using the word 'Zionist' or in unwarranted criticism of Israel. Corbyn himself openly crossed the line with his "British Zionists had no sense of English irony" comment. That was plainly antisemitic, with "Zionist" used as code for "Jews" and no amount of him saying "What I really meant was..." could mask that.

Let's put it another way. If a footballer does something wrong and happens to be black, am I racist for criticising him? I don't think so. But if I apply a different standard to that footballer than I would apply to a white one in similar circumstances, then I could very well be seen as racist.

Now you said "Israeli state" rather than "Israeli government". The state is a collection of people from the left of politics to the extreme right, from the secular to the extremely religious, from Muslim Arabs, Arab Jews, African Jews, European Jews and others from the diaspora, many of who are descended from Holocasut survivors. There's a whole host of other religions and races in there. So to criticise the "Israeli state", as racist or an apartheid state for instance, is regarded as antisemitic.

So it's partly about what you say, it's partly about how you say it but it's largely about your intent, which is why there isn't a "Yes or No" answer.

Thanks for that mate, I did mean Government and used state, because i have no criticism of the state of Israel and it of course has a right to exist, but i do believe that no government even a left wing Labour government in the UK should ever be above criticism.

I do agree that for many on the left Palestine is a cause du jours and as i see it equality is a world wide cause not a narrow national cause. That is probably the Internationalist in me where as many on the left who should be Internationalist have got themselves down a rabbit hole and forgot what being an internationalist actually is. Personally i know that many of my criticisms are aimed at states that are right wing in nature and my criticism is politically motivated rather than racially, ethnically or religiously motivated. Even then though i accept that some states may be highly conservative in nature and that should not be for me to criticise the people who are of that nature.

 

[Fame Monster]

I’ve never been a Corbyn supporter but the argument of not voting for him for perceived “purposeful racism” and instead voting for a conservative government with Johnson at the helm is so clearly a disingenuous one.

I think there's very few voters saying this is the only reason why they won't vote for him.

I proudly didn't vote for Corbyn in the past two elections and wouldn't ever vote for him if he was leader of a political party. His record on antisemitism is on the list as a reason why but there's a multitude of other reasons too.

 

[mexico1970]

I think there's very few voting saying this is the only reason why they won't vote for him.

I proudly didn't vote for Corbyn in the past two elections and wouldn't ever vote for him if he was leader of a political party. His record on antisemitism is on the list as a reason why but there's a multitude of other reasons too.

All Labour had to do was to support the outcome of the referendum and put a leader in place who wasn't such a tool, anyone slightly left of centre would have done the job.

 

[meltonblue]

I think there's very few voters saying this is the only reason why they won't vote for him.

I proudly didn't vote for Corbyn in the past two elections and wouldn't ever vote for him if he was leader of a political party. His record on antisemitism is on the list as a reason why but there's a multitude of other reasons too.

I agree it would be very few, I was only saying that in response to the post that was.

 

[BlueAnorak]

Starmer doing the best he can by denying Corbyn the Labour whip in Parliament.
At least he knows he has to deal with the poison for Labour to stand a chance of being elected.

 

[Vic]

All Labour had to do was to support the outcome of the referendum and put a leader in place who wasn't such a tool, anyone slightly left of centre would have done the job.

All Labour had to do was have a leader less ambivalent about the EU and Remain would have won and we wouldn't be facing such shite now.

 

[Rascal]

All Labour had to do was to support the outcome of the referendum and put a leader in place who wasn't such a tool, anyone slightly left of centre would have done the job.

By slightly left of centre you mean what exactly?

What would a slightly left of centre Labour party look like, what policies would it have?

Do you realise that the left of the party is probably more anti EU and supported brexit.

 

[Rascal]

All Labour had to do was have a leader less ambivalent about the EU and Remain would have won and we wouldn't be facing such shite now.

And there in a nutshell is the problem and possibly always has been.

The right of the Labour party are mostly Pro-EU, the MPs on the right were mostly Pro EU, Starmer pushed a Pro-EU stance on the party backed by the FBFE fruitloops.

I have said countless times on here now, you cannot be a Socialist and support the EU as it currently exists as it is a capitalist club designed around the free market. The Blairite liberal left are comfortable with that but the Socialist left are not comfortable with it at all as the chance of a Socialist state is unachievable whilst being a member of the EU.

Therefore the real winners out of all this mess are as per normal, the capitalist class. The capitalist class however are split between the extreme libertarians who want a capitalist free for all and a UK version of Singapore and the Social Democratic capitalists who see capitalism as a way of achieving equality. They are strange bedfellows in the same way that the anti EU left and the anti immigration right are strange bedfellows.

The Brexit issue which was supposedly an issue that split the Tories had always split the Labour party just as much because the fragile coalitions in both parties held opposite views for differing reasons.

I dont believe Labour becoming the party of remain would have won an election, if it had it would have been a pyrrhic victory as it would have excluded the left from the victory and the goal of Socialism would not have bee achieved and i couldnt have voted for a Labour party that held those views.

 

[Fame Monster]

By slightly left of centre you mean what exactly?

What would a slightly left of centre Labour party look like, what policies would it have?

Do you realise that the left of the party is probably more anti EU and supported brexit.

Probably someone with a shred of fiscal responsibility who wouldn't have already spent the furlough money on WASPI women for example. Even still, he was too closely attached to the Momentum types who were more bothered about launching a war on culture, history, and speech than improving the lot of working class voters.

The most telling fact about Corbyn is that he inherited a 15 point lead over the Tories among working class voters and lost all of it to an old Etonian who could recite the Illiad in Greek.

 

[mexico1970]

By slightly left of centre you mean what exactly?

What would a slightly left of centre Labour party look like, what policies would it have?

Do you realise that the left of the party is probably more anti EU and supported brexit.

The Labour party kept going on about a 2nd referendum and in the end actually backed it, Corbyn wasn't just a little bit left he was a lot left. This isn't my perception it's what they sold as an election pledge.

I'll go further than that and say that the reason why the Tories got in is because they finally backed Brexit and ensured a big majority because of it. My recollection of the events leading up to the last GE is that Labour and anyone on the left were calling for a 2nd referendum and the Tories went balls deep in accepting it.

People voted with the choices they had on the table, and there were two deciding factors, Brexit and the popularity of Corbyns politics and his cabinet.

Labour is finally backing a second referendum. Is it too little, too late? | Gaby Hinsliff

The unions have cornered Jeremy Corbyn into agreeing to a second Brexit vote. But, as ever, it’s not that simple, says Guardian columnist Gaby Hinsliff

www.theguardian.com

 

[Rascal]

Even still, he was too closely attached to the Momentum types who were more bothered about launching a war on culture, history, and speech than improving the lot of working class voters.

Where do you get this momentum nonsense from?

 

[Rascal]

The Labour party kept going on about a 2nd referendum and in the end actually backed it, Corbyn wasn't just a little bit left he was a lot left. This isn't my perception it's what they sold as an election pledge.

I'll go further than that and say that the reason why the Tories got in is because they finally backed Brexit and ensured a big majority because of it. My recollection of the events leading up to the last GE is that Labour and anyone on the left were calling for a 2nd referendum and the Tories went balls deep in accepting it.

People voted with the choices they had on the table, and there were two deciding factors, Brexit and the popularity of Corbyns politics and his cabinet.

Labour is finally backing a second referendum. Is it too little, too late? | Gaby Hinsliff

The unions have cornered Jeremy Corbyn into agreeing to a second Brexit vote. But, as ever, it’s not that simple, says Guardian columnist Gaby Hinsliff

www.theguardian.com

That is not true though, and the Guardian is a pro EU liberal newspaper. It is not a supporter of Socialism.

Only the soft left, AKA Starmer and the Blairites plus the FBFE fruitloops called for a 2nd ref. I am off the left and i am pro leave because i am a Socialist.

What do you mean by a lot left? I thought Corbyn was too right wing at times and he softened his approach to appeal to the centre. Which policies were far left in your opinion?

 

[Fame Monster]

Where do you get this momentum nonsense from?

Possibly the fact that their whole reason for being was to support Corbyn and he repaid the favour by parachuting some of their members into senior positions within the party, along with sympathising with and introducing many Momentum-supported policies.

 

[Rascal]

Possibly the fact that their whole reason for being was to support Corbyn and he repaid the favour by parachuting some of their members into senior positions within the party, along with sympathising with and introducing many Momentum-supported policies.

The nonsense about culture wars and stuff i meant. If momentum as you believe are of the hard left, then you are being contradictory. The hard left has no interest in culture wars, you are confusing the hard left with the liberal left. The liberal left is full of culture warriors. The far left is all about the working class over the capitalist, it is patriotic and it is proud of the UKs history. After all its the working class who have done the dying to create that history. You are confusing the metro liberal left with the Socialist left. Starmer is of the metro liberal left, Blair was. Momentum was a grass roots agency set up to campaign on behalf of socialist policies and to support Corbyn and Socialism. Socialism is not compatible with this cultural war stuff, because it is not about class.

 

[Gareth Barry Conlon]

Probably someone with a shred of fiscal responsibility who wouldn't have already spent the furlough money on WASPI women for example. Even still, he was too closely attached to the Momentum types who were more bothered about launching a war on culture, history, and speech than improving the lot of working class voters.

The most telling fact about Corbyn is that he inherited a 15 point lead over the Tories among working class voters and lost all of it to an old Etonian who could recite the Illiad in Greek.

Yep - and a voter base that was a coalition of working class life long labour supporters and the progressive thinking middle classes. He alienated both groups.

And still his legacy of stinking up the party persists.

Hes like a turd you cant flush.

 

[mexico1970]

That is not true though, and the Guardian is a pro EU liberal newspaper. It is not a supporter of Socialism.

Only the soft left, AKA Starmer and the Blairites plus the FBFE fruitloops called for a 2nd ref. I am off the left and i am pro leave because i am a Socialist.

What do you mean by a lot left? I thought Corbyn was too right wing at times and he softened his approach to appeal to the centre. Which policies were far left in your opinion?

You think Corbyn was too right wing? That's your view I suppose and I respect your right to that view, you have to agree that's not the definition most people use?

Every political party except the Tories wanted another referendum, and the Tories won the election by a landslide, take from that what you will.

 

[mexico1970]

The nonsense about culture wars and stuff i meant. If momentum as you believe are of the hard left, then you are being contradictory. The hard left has no interest in culture wars, you are confusing the hard left with the liberal left. The liberal left is full of culture warriors. The far left is all about the working class over the capitalist, it is patriotic and it is proud of the UKs history. After all its the working class who have done the dying to create that history. You are confusing the metro liberal left with the Socialist left. Starmer is of the metro liberal left, Blair was. Momentum was a grass roots agency set up to campaign on behalf of socialist policies and to support Corbyn and Socialism. Socialism is not compatible with this cultural war stuff, because it is not about class.

Honest question bud. Which politician today would you like to see head the Labour party who will deliver policies which suit your specific political viewpoint?