General Election December, 2019 (U.K.)

liamtech

Deleted User wrote: »

Corbyn is not anti-Semitic for a mispronunciation, that would be absurd.

But throughout his career, Corbyn has surrounded himself with devoutly anti-Semitic people and has, since taking over the Labour Party, invited those with anti-Semitic tendencies to thrive against the backdrop of that history.

He is a total and utter disgrace.

Please Elaborate Eskimohunt -

How is Jeremy Corbyn Antisemitic - and in your explanation please distinguish between

• Antisemitic - hostile and prejudiced against Jewish people
• Critical of Israel - criticizing a sovereign country for its Foreign Policy

Also RE our conversation earlier - i have included several sources on the Leave Campaign about NOT leaving the single market - once you confirm that you have read them il see about getting a hat couriered to you, in order that you may eat it - that was your dare?

But perhaps discuss this Corbyn/Antisemitism issue first -

liamtech

liamtech wrote: »

Please Elaborate Eskimohunt -

How is Jeremy Corbyn Antisemitic - and in your explanation please distinguish between

• Antisemitic - hostile and prejudiced against Jewish people
• Critical of Israel - criticizing a sovereign country for its Foreign Policy

But perhaps discuss this Corbyn/Antisemitism issue first -

I didn't say Corbyn was anti-Semitic, just that he has surrounded himself - throughout his career - with people who are.

As for the critical of Israel point, I get it; we are all critical of governments. However, Israel is an exceptional case because it attracts more heat than any other political debate. The idea of the "Jew" and the "Jewish State" get, for many people, blended together and, with the heat that the argument generates, it creates an unhealthy association and leads many people toward anti-Semitism and its associated conspiracy theories.

Given that the Left is also concerned with the dispersal of wealth, and given how one of the stereotypes of Jewish people is the wealthy banker or other, it should come as no surprise why the Left ends up having a problem with a) a Jewish State and b) Jews generally. That's why the Left will almost never shake off anti-Semitism, no matter how mildly it's associated with "genuine criticism of the state of Israel".

Corbyn hasn't, in my view, done enough to strain the party of its extremist, anti-Semitic wing.

liamtech

Deleted User wrote: »

I didn't say Corbyn was anti-Semitic, just that he has surrounded himself - throughout his career - with people who are.

As for the critical of Israel point, I get it; we are all critical of governments. However, Israel is an exceptional case because it attracts more heat than any other political debate. The idea of the "Jew" and the "Jewish State" get, for many people, blended together and, with the heat that the argument generates, it creates an unhealthy association and leads many people toward anti-Semitism and its associated conspiracy theories.

Given that the Left is also concerned with the dispersal of wealth, and given how one of the stereotypes of Jewish people is the wealthy banker or other, it should come as no surprise why the Left ends up having a problem with a) a Jewish State and b) Jews generally. That's why the Left will almost never shake off anti-Semitism, no matter how mildly it's associated with "genuine criticism of the state of Israel".

Corbyn hasn't, in my view, done enough to strain the party of its extremist, anti-Semitic wing.

Ok well fair enough on not saying Jeremy Corbyn as being antisemitic - The problem though is that most criticism of people, in his orbit, being antisemitic, is that much relates to Israel, and not Jewish people per say -

If you have specific instances which are undeniably Antisemitic in nature i would like to see them
But criticism of Israel for me doesn't count - the fact that critics of Israel are blended in to arguments against Jewish people, i have always considered this a tactic -

two of my favorite Political scientists are John Mearsheimer, and Stephen M Walt (fantastic academics btw - Neo-realist theory) - they wrote a book which relates to this - discussed in this lecture on Youtube

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Israel_Lobby_and_U.S._Foreign_Policy

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rzXS3tmZrcU

And the blend of Anti-Israeli Foreign Policy, and antisemitism is quite apparent in the comments on the lecture - which in itself, could not be considered antisemitic in any way - and btw - some critics tried to label the authors as antisemitic

If you can highlight specific instances which are clear cut, we could discuss them - and like i said if they are antisemitic in nature, i for one will condemn them whole heartily

A Dub in Glasgo

I deliberately did not watch the debate last night as I knew it would be poor and I did not spot the blatent propaganda from the Tories about their twitter handle. In my view Twitter should have pulled the Tory account for pulling a stunt like that

https://twitter.com/FullFact/status/1197114324168384512

sid waddell

So Corbyn is now an anti-Semite for liking Dickens.

This is a real account, not a parody.

And people wonder why the official media narrative is challenged.

https://twitter.com/RabbiZvi/status/1197076375389310982

PopePalpatine

I'm sure Laura K's slid into his DMs by now.

Joe_ Public

Deleted User wrote: »

I didn't say Corbyn was anti-Semitic, just that he has surrounded himself - throughout his career - with people who are.

As for the critical of Israel point, I get it; we are all critical of governments. However, Israel is an exceptional case because it attracts more heat than any other political debate. The idea of the "Jew" and the "Jewish State" get, for many people, blended together and, with the heat that the argument generates, it creates an unhealthy association and leads many people toward anti-Semitism and its associated conspiracy theories.

Given that the Left is also concerned with the dispersal of wealth, and given how one of the stereotypes of Jewish people is the wealthy banker or other, it should come as no surprise why the Left ends up having a problem with a) a Jewish State and b) Jews generally. That's why the Left will almost never shake off anti-Semitism, no matter how mildly it's associated with "genuine criticism of the state of Israel".

Corbyn hasn't, in my view, done enough to strain the party of its extremist, anti-Semitic wing.

I wont lay any claim to being an expert on the issue of antisemitism, but in my experience those who fling around words like the left and state of israel and wealthy banker stereotypes and other cliches are unlikely to be shedding any insight into it.

I would be willing to bet that for all the issues labour have had and continue to have with Antisemitism, it is no more rooted in that party than it is in the conservative party. On the day, for instance, that a conservative candidate is stood down for antisemitic remarks, the focus happens to be on Jeremy Corbyn mispronouncing a name. The whole thing just seems to be growing so absurd these days as to be becoming almost meaningless.

Also, it's interesting that you throw the wealthy banker stereotype in there, because only a few weeks back it just happened to be our old friend Jacob Rees Mogg that casually threw out an alleged antisemitic trope about George Soros in the house of commons. The interesting thing about this for me was the reaction of the Jewish Chronicle which has absolutely pounced on Corbyn and other labour politicians for far less. Only on this occasion, they were in quite a forgiving mood.

https://www.thejc.com/comment/comment/jacob-rees-mogg-george-soros-parliament-brexit-eu-antisemitic-remarks-opinion-comment-1.489706

Like i said, i'm no expert when it comes to this and accept the labour party has made grievous mistakes in relation to it, but it's very difficult not to be confused when you see it not being highlighted elsewhere. As if it only seems to be a real genuine problem when a certain section of people are found to be in transgression.

hotmail.com

Swinson has dropped her Eamon Gilmore for Taoiseach strategy.

To make matters worse, their late evening manifesto launch which was deliberately timed to maximise publicity, was completely overshadowed by the Royal news.

BonnieSituation

hotmail.com wrote: »

Swinson has dropped her Eamon Gilmore for Taoiseach strategy.

To make matters worse, their late evening manifesto launch which was deliberately timed to maximise publicity, was completely overshadowed by the Royal news.

One can't help but enjoy that a wee bit.

hometruths

Joe_ Public wrote: »

I wont lay any claim to being an expert on the issue of antisemitism, but in my experience those who fling around words like the left and state of israel and wealthy banker stereotypes and other cliches are unlikely to be shedding any insight into it.

I would be willing to bet that for all the issues labour have had and continue to have with Antisemitism, it is no more rooted in that party than it is in the conservative party. On the day, for instance, that a conservative candidate is stood down for antisemitic remarks, the focus happens to be on Jeremy Corbyn mispronouncing a name. The whole thing just seems to be growing so absurd these days as to be becoming almost meaningless.

Also, it's interesting that you throw the wealthy banker stereotype in there, because only a few weeks back it just happened to be our old friend Jacob Rees Mogg that casually threw out an alleged antisemitic trope about George Soros in the house of commons. The interesting thing about this for me was the reaction of the Jewish Chronicle which has absolutely pounced on Corbyn and other labour politicians for far less. Only on this occasion, they were in quite a forgiving mood.

https://www.thejc.com/comment/comment/jacob-rees-mogg-george-soros-parliament-brexit-eu-antisemitic-remarks-opinion-comment-1.489706

Like i said, i'm no expert when it comes to this and accept the labour party has made grievous mistakes in relation to it, but it's very difficult not to be confused when you see it not being highlighted elsewhere. As if it only seems to be a real genuine problem when a certain section of people are found to be in transgression.

Here is the comment:

https://twitter.com/josephwillits/status/1179727540312776705

I'm in agreement with you that the Tory party appears likely to be full of rampant racists but Rees-Mogg's comments cannot really considered anti semitic! I really don't see how he was inferring anything about Soros being a Jew. It was just a bit of whataboutery saying that Remainers have wealthy backers too who make money out of betting against sterling.

The JC's point is - "Sometimes, we in the Jewish community have the tendency to see antisemitism where it does not exist – or at least where it does not probably exist." - which would seem to be a fair one.

I get that the thrust of your point is not Rees Mogg's supposed anti-semitism, but rather the JCs reaction to it, given they attack Corbyn and Labour for far less - I had a quick browse of their site and don't really see that. Are you thinking of something specific?

sid waddell

Joe_ Public wrote: »

Also, it's interesting that you throw the wealthy banker stereotype in there, because only a few weeks back it just happened to be our old friend Jacob Rees Mogg that casually threw out an alleged antisemitic trope about George Soros in the house of commons. The interesting thing about this for me was the reaction of the Jewish Chronicle which has absolutely pounced on Corbyn and other labour politicians for far less. Only on this occasion, they were in quite a forgiving mood.

https://www.thejc.com/comment/comment/jacob-rees-mogg-george-soros-parliament-brexit-eu-antisemitic-remarks-opinion-comment-1.489706

Like i said, i'm no expert when it comes to this and accept the labour party has made grievous mistakes in relation to it, but it's very difficult not to be confused when you see it not being highlighted elsewhere. As if it only seems to be a real genuine problem when a certain section of people are found to be in transgression.

The ignorance as to what is anti-Semitism and what isn't is astounding, and it often comes from those who claim to be fighting it.

Here's conservative journalist Toby Young engaging in some classic anti-Semitism while biigusly accusing Philip Hammond of same. In Young's case I'd put it down to utter ignorance.





An actual example of prima facie anti-Semitism from within the Labour party, but like Young likely again borne out of ignorance, was by Siobhan MacDonagh, MP for Mitcham and Morden.

Last February, as she attempted to tar the Labour left as anti-Semitic, she told BBC Radio 4 that "to be anti-capitalist you have to be anti-Semitic".

Now, one of the classic anti-Semitic tropes was that Jews were communists, yet here we have an anti-Corbyn, Blairite Labour party MP telling us that all Jews are capitalists.

Pure ignorance is the only excuse for that sort of anti-Semitic trope.

But because McDonagh was rabidly anti-Corbyn, the comment completely escaped censure in the media, and was not brought up by members of other parties. The narrative was that McDonagh was "fighting anti-Semitism", even while displaying spectacular ignorance at best, and virulent anti-Semitism at worst.

That was "the good kind of anti-Semitism", at least as far as those for whom the official "Corbyn is evil" narrative were concerned.

My feeling from Twitter and elsewhere online and in the traditional media is that Jewish Corbyn supporters are taking more anti-Semitic abuse than anybody in British politics at the moment.

They're "the wrong kind of Jews", you see.

sid waddell

schmittel wrote: »

Here is the comment:

https://twitter.com/josephwillits/status/1179727540312776705

I'm in agreement with you that the Tory party appears likely to be full of rampant racists but Rees-Mogg's comments cannot really considered anti semitic! I really don't see how he was inferring anything about Soros being a Jew. It was just a bit of whataboutery saying that Remainers have wealthy backers too who make money out of betting against sterling.

The JC's point is - "Sometimes, we in the Jewish community have the tendency to see antisemitism where it does not exist – or at least where it does not probably exist." - which would seem to be a fair one.

I get that the thrust of your point is not Rees Mogg's supposed anti-semitism, but rather the JCs reaction to it, given they attack Corbyn and Labour for far less - I had a quick browse of their site and don't really see that. Are you thinking of something specific?

Because the cry of "Soros" has become so associated with really virulent anti-Semitism - it's a favourite dog whistle of the extreme right - and I mean actual Nazis here - it really is a terrible idea for anybody to do what Rees-Mogg did there.

He can claim plausible deniability, which is a favourite tactic of racist dog whistlers (see Lee Atwater), but the Soros dog whistle is so widely known, and the usual implications of using it so widely known, that it's an absolutely dreadful idea, and really does leave you wide open as to your real motivations for using it.

I guess it's possible to use Soros's name in debate in a negative sense without leaving yourself open to charges of anti-Semitic dog whistling, but you would have to make absolutely clear that you understand that it is widely used as an anti-Semitic dog whistle and make crystal clear that you are not doing so in such a manner.

I find it hard enough to think of such situations where it could be appropriate.

Personally I think Rees-Mogg is clued in enough to know the implications of what he said there and who it was appealing to. He was cute enough to know he could always hide behind plausible deniability and would be protected.

hometruths

sid waddell wrote: »

Because the cry of "Soros" has become so associated with really virulent anti-Semitism - it's a favourite dog whistle of the extreme right - and I mean actual Nazis here - it really is a terrible idea for anybody to do what Rees-Mogg did there.

He can claim plausible deniability, which is a favourite tactic of racist dog whistlers (see Lee Atwater), but the Soros dog whistle is so widely known, and the usual implications of using it so widely known, that it's an absolutely dreadful idea, and really does leave you wide open as to your real motivations for using it.

I guess it's possible to use Soros's name in debate in a negative sense without leaving yourself open to charges of anti-Semitic dog whistling, but you would have to make absolutely clear that you understand that it is widely used as an anti-Semitic dog whistle and make crystal clear that you are not doing so in such a manner.

I find it hard enough to think of such situations where it could be appropriate.

Personally I think Rees-Mogg is clued in enough to know the implications of what he said there and who it was appealing to. He was cute enough to know he could always hide behind plausible deniability and would be protected.

Fair enough. I guess I'm not as well informed as to the nuances of racist dog whistling as I could be (which is a good thing!)

To me when I hear the name George Soros, I instantly think of the guy who made £1 billion shorting the pound, and it was in that context I interpreted the Rees Mogg remarks.

sid waddell

schmittel wrote: »

Fair enough. I guess I'm not as well informed as to the nuances of racist dog whistling as I could be (which is a good thing!)

To me when I hear the name George Soros, I instantly think of the guy who made £1 billion shorting the pound, and it was in that context I interpreted the Rees Mogg remarks.

Yes and that did happen. I don't admire currency speculation as a way of getting rich and I don't admire him for that, legal as it was (I do rather admire the way he has spent his wealth however).

More latterly though I think of the blatantly anti-Semitic vilification campaign against him by the likes of Hungary's Viktor Orban and the insane catcalls of a certain far right Irish Twitter personality whose name I'd rather not mention. "Soros" has become a catch all term for a corrupt "globalist" Jewish conspiracy, which obviously carries serious echoes of the rhetoric of the 1930s.

Joe_ Public

schmittel wrote: »

Here is the comment:

https://twitter.com/josephwillits/status/1179727540312776705

I'm in agreement with you that the Tory party appears likely to be full of rampant racists but Rees-Mogg's comments cannot really considered anti semitic! I really don't see how he was inferring anything about Soros being a Jew. It was just a bit of whataboutery saying that Remainers have wealthy backers too who make money out of betting against sterling.

The JC's point is - "Sometimes, we in the Jewish community have the tendency to see antisemitism where it does not exist – or at least where it does not probably exist." - which would seem to be a fair one.

I get that the thrust of your point is not Rees Mogg's supposed anti-semitism, but rather the JCs reaction to it, given they attack Corbyn and Labour for far less - I had a quick browse of their site and don't really see that. Are you thinking of something specific?

I wasnt thinking of anything specific. But the chronicle has been relentlessly campaigning against corbyn for years now, they attack him relentlessly for everything that can be even vaguely linked to antisemitism. They despise him and will do whatever they can to prevent him winning the election. They accuse him of being a racist and antisemite, and thats fine, only i dont often see their attacks on corbyn laced with the analysis and rigour that was brought to bear on that mogg piece, whether he was guilty of antisemitism or not.

I notice too that when a group of celebrities write a letter to the guardian asking people not to vote for corbyn the JC is predictably all over it. But when another group writes a letter in support of corbyn, it gets no traction whatsoever. But thats not really at all surprising, is it?

hometruths

Joe_ Public wrote: »

I wasnt thinking of anything specific. But the chronicle has been relentlessly campaigning against corbyn for years now, they attack him relentlessly for everything that can be even vaguely linked to antisemitism. They despise him and will do whatever they can to prevent him winning the election. They accuse him of being a racist and antisemite, and thats fine, only i dont often see their attacks on corbyn laced with the analysis and rigour that was brought to bear on that mogg piece, whether he was guilty of antisemitism or not.

I notice too that when a group of celebrities write a letter to the guardian asking people not to vote for corbyn the JC is predictably all over it. But when another group writes a letter in support of corbyn, it gets no traction whatsoever. But thats not really at all surprising, is it?

I have some sympathy that argument.

I get why the Telegraph/Mail/Express hate Corbyn but what do the the rest of his detractors hate so much about him?

Genuinely fascinated by Corbyn from both sides.

Those who like him seem to go the extra mile for him, and he enjoys unquestioning support, often beyond the logical.

And the same is true for those who don't like him. Irrational opposition to everything he says, with utter contempt.

I really don't see anything about him to inspire such extremes one way or the other.

Can anyone enlighten me?!

Joe_ Public

schmittel wrote: »

I have some sympathy that argument.

I get why the Telegraph/Mail/Express hate Corbyn but what do the the rest of his detractors hate so much about him?

Genuinely fascinated by Corbyn from both sides.

Those who like him seem to go the extra mile for him, and he enjoys unquestioning support, often beyond the logical.

And the same is true for those who don't like him. Irrational opposition to everything he says, with utter contempt.

I really don't see anything about him to inspire such extremes one way or the other.

Can anyone enlighten me?!

A fascinating subject, i agree. Why people hate him is easy enough i think - combination of left leaning, eurosceptism, apparent radicalism, dull appearance etc. Doesnt really radiate charisma and relentless msm attacks build up a profile of someone people feel they shouldnt just disagree with, but actively despise. The same thing happened to a lesser extent with "red" ed Miliband so its not all that surprising.

As for his appeal, i dont personally subscribe to all that cult of corbyn stuff. I think it's more basic than that. One comment i heard after last night's debate was that corbyn came across more "human" and i think thats it. He's a fairly simple person who can actually connect with people on a micro level, why he's a good campaigner. Lots of people in britain, especially young people, want a more radical left wing vision and he provides it for them. I dont know if he is electable, but he does inspire that base. Not saying he doesn't have his serious flaws, mind. But i do believe the msm bias against him is shocking which is where my sympathy chiefly lies. Its not the right wing press, you expect that. But I'm a long standing guardian/observer reader and i feel the bias against corbyn in that publication has been sustained and damaging for him.

A Dub in Glasgo

Swinson looking for the sympathy vote about commuting to Westminster but does not mention that although she represents a seat in Scotland, she lives in Bath!

https://twitter.com/Channel4News/status/1197235728750710791

quokula

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

Swinson looking for the sympathy vote about commuting to Westminster but does not mention that although she represents a seat in Scotland, she lives in Bath!

https://twitter.com/Channel4News/status/1197235728750710791

Don’t think she’s looking for sympathy, just making up excuses for how utterly two faced she is on environmental policy, just like her record on everything else.

Letwin_Larry

i said it before if there's 1 thing that defines Boris, then it's LUCK.
in a week when the opposition parties should be focusing on Tory economic/social policies, what has everybody been concentrating on & distracted by?
Prince Andrew and his car crash interview.

Leroy42

quokula wrote: »

Don’t think she’s looking for sympathy, just making up excuses for how utterly two faced she is on environmental policy, just like her record on everything else.

How is it two faced? I haven't seen that they have said that people shouldn't travel.

Sam Russell

Leroy42 wrote: »

How is it two faced? I haven't seen that they have said that people shouldn't travel.

Living in Bath is hardly appropriate for a Scottish MP.

Bannasidhe

Leroy42 wrote: »

How is it two faced? I haven't seen that they have said that people shouldn't travel.

1. Swinson states the Lib-Dems are going to make the environment a key part of their strategy, only slightly second to Brexit.
2. Swinson flies rather than take the more environmentally responsible train because 'reasons'.


https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/oct/23/liberal-democrats-jo-swinson-plans-for-environmental-duty-of-care-for-uk-firms

Letwin_Larry

both opposition parties have sensible policies that i believe many centrist voters would support, myself included.
the problem is both have leaders who are deeply unpopular.
again Boris must be counting his blessings, that there is not an opposition leader of any weight and/or style that could seriously challenge him.

https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2019/11/20/has-familiarity-jo-swinson-bred-contempt

https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2019/11/12/labour-economic-policies-are-popular-so-why-arent-

sid waddell

Why did BBC News take down their tweet containing the video featured here?

Was it gaining too much traction?

Was her saying that the Tories had nothing to do with poverty too obvious a two fingers to the poor and working class?


https://twitter.com/ToryFibs/status/1197452853784252416

Patel's pure callousness is once again demonstrated here, as she blocks the return of British orphans and unaccompanied minors from Syria?

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/nov/16/priti-patel-block-rescue-british-isis-children

BonnieSituation

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

Swinson looking for the sympathy vote about commuting to Westminster but does not mention that although she represents a seat in Scotland, she lives in Bath!

https://twitter.com/Channel4News/status/1197235728750710791

She wouldn't have that problem in an independent Scotland.

sid waddell

Letwin_Larry wrote: »

i said it before if there's 1 thing that defines Boris, then it's LUCK.
in a week when the opposition parties should be focusing on Tory economic/social policies, what has everybody been concentrating on & distracted by?
Prince Andrew and his car crash interview.

Being born with a silver spoon in your mouth, having no special ability except an ability to lie and spoof and bluff your way through life - if anybody destroys the right-wing claim of Britain being a meritocracy and the people at the top getting where they are through hard work, it's the Tories themselves and particularly Johnson.


I wonder does he teach his kids that it's a bad thing to lie?

Joe_ Public

Find it utterly hilarious that the tories are suggesting a cross party agreement on social care. Its so serious they say that it shouldnt be politicised and everybody should come together and sort it.

What they really mean, of course, is that they've had 9 years to tackle it, completely failed and lost their majority in 2017 because of it so our policy this time is we'll completely dodge it and invite the opposition in to share the blame.

You have to hand it to them. They're good for a few laughs if nothing else.

sid waddell

In 2014 the Tories said they'd build 200,000 starter homes.

They've built 0.

Maybe they'll promise 200,000 starter cardboard boxes this time?

Delivering for the working class, yeah...


https://twitter.com/DawnHFoster/status/1197499505970679815

Professor Moriarty

sid waddell wrote: »

Being born with a silver spoon in your mouth, having no special ability except an ability to lie and spoof and bluff your way through life - if anybody destroys the right-wing claim of Britain being a meritocracy and the people at the top getting where they are through hard work, it's the Tories themselves and particularly Johnson.


I wonder does he teach his kids that it's a bad thing to lie?

When you look up Johnson's Wiki page under 'Children' - it says '5 or 6'. That tells you all you need to know about his parenting skills.