Havockk wrote: » It's bizarre that none of these 7 who are so concerned about AS criticised teh defilement of Marx's grave, which has now been desecrated twice in as many weeks. Was he not Jewish?
Hurrache wrote: » You're really determined to insist it's all fake aren't you? I'm not at your beck and call, if I come across them when I'm doing something else I'll post it. I've better things to be doing than chasing stuff down to proof someone on the internet wrong.
prawnsambo wrote: » I'm not sure how such a survey is going to produce valid results. Does it not require people to openly admit to anti-semitism? The qeustion asked of Jewish people is far more relevant and accurate I would suspect. As others have observed, people who are the brunt of any kind of othering are far more aware of it than those who either do it casually or in ignorance.
prawnsambo wrote: » It's not the Peter Willsman comments at a NEC meeting is it? That was about six months ago.
Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: » The U.K. government is supported by the DUP. Voters for the DUP march every year burning the flag of this country and many others. They also demand that all taigs be killed. This gets very little coverage or concern.
Hurrache wrote: » Not sure, I only saw it last week but I don't think it was at the NEC, but not 100%.
listermint wrote: » Corbyn and his merry band of ultra left have been the single worst opposition party in british living history. 2+ years of Tories making mistake after mistake, month on month, week on week and sometimes the same day. And corbyn and his group were utterly useless.
And yet, the Tories continue to poll ahead of Labour. It’s always encouraging to hear Corbyn boosters honk about how much they’d expect him to put on in a campaign situation. The slightly incredulous response has to be: um, yes?! I should hope so?! I mean, you would hope that anyone might improve on losing to a party that is essentially a gif of someone lighting their own fart and then being consumed by the fireball. Against that sort of competition, you would expect to be able to run one of the more divisive Sesame Street Muppets – ie Elmo – and put on a few points. It’s hardly a kitemark.
Enzokk wrote: » I know you are referencing a response on Twitter, but what votes is so offensive of hers in the HoC? It would be great if there is a list of them to see if she is actively pursuing a policy that is not shared by the Labour party and her votes are reflecting this. If not, well then all you are left with is that she is liked by Blair and she is Jewish and neither of those are reasons for the abuse she has suffered.
oscarBravo wrote: » This. I thought Marina Hyde summed it up quite pithily last week: It's not at all surprising that seven Labour MPs have decided to jump ship - what's surprising that more haven't, and sooner (even allowing for the electoral travesty that is FPTP).
prawnsambo wrote: » I'm not sure how such a survey is going to produce valid results. Does it not require people to openly admit to anti-semitism?
The qeustion asked of Jewish people is far more relevant and accurate I would suspect. As others have observed, people who are the brunt of any kind of othering are far more aware of it than those who either do it casually or in ignorance.
prawnsambo wrote: » Well here's the link to it in The Guardian.
Havockk wrote: » Ah no, splitting the opposition during a constitutional crisis? Sorry but thats a mad old move to be fair. If the tories don't splinter now what do you think is going to happen?
oscarBravo wrote: » That's the problem with catastrophically poor leadership: there are no good options. These seven - and the rest of their colleagues - were faced with a decision: either keep supporting probably the worst leadership in the history of the party for the sake of trying to avoid fragmentation, or continue to lend tacit support to a combination of what they perceived to be systemic anti-semitism and a ball-achingly incompetent approach to Brexit. You can criticise the choice they made, but the alternative isn't exactly a no-brainer.
Havockk wrote: » The alternative of potentially decade long Tory dominance? I'll have to disagree with you on that point OB.
prawnsambo wrote: » I'm struggling to find the relevance here.
Leroy42 wrote: » I do find it strange that so many are critical of those leaving. This is what politics should be about. If the party you are with no longer represent your views (whether that is because you or they have changed) should result in people moving. Why would people continue to support a Labour party that is so different from the one under Blair for example. They are very different parties at this stage. People constantly complain that politicians are more interested in their career and themselves then the voters, but when politicians actually do make a stand they are criticised for it. I don't have to agree with their positions to see that split are actually a good thing in politics.
quokula wrote: » Why did they campaign and get themselves elected on a Manifesto 2 years ago that is still entirely consistent with Labour's position now, if they disagree with it so much?
Leroy42 wrote: » Multitude of reasons. They didn't fully understand the manifesto. They didn't have the courage at the time. They believed that JC and the leadership would evolve when presented with the facts and the feelings of the membership. But why even ask. Maybe they simply no longer agree with it. Have you never changed your position on anything? Are people not allowed to evolve their thinking? Why did Man Utd recently get rid of Jose when only a few months before he got a new contract? Under your reasoning once a act happens that it is for ever.
Bambi wrote: » There are players on both sides of the Labour party split who will pay the price of a Tory government rather than lose control of the party.
Berserker wrote: » There is and was substance behind the claims of anti-Semitism and the failure of the party and it's supporters to address these issues, coupled with Corbyn's appalling leadership has resulted in the breakup of the party.
Bambi wrote: » I determined to see some evidence of institutional antisemitism in the British Labour Party rather than just take the words of MPs who have every reason to sling mud. If it's institutional then there should be an avalanche of evidence.
quokula wrote: » But the time to do it is at an election. Not to suddenly turn your back on the ticket you were voted in on.
Bambi wrote: » The problem is that if they claim that they changed their minds (despite being four square against it before the election) then the obvious question is why are they still sitting in the house with a mandate they now reject? They could have made their departure about Corbyns inability to uphold Labours Brexit policy. The question you should ask is, why didn't they?
Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: » Anti Catholicism is deeply rooted in the UK and in a second partner of government (well a supply and confidence agreemeng) and nobody really cares.
Aegir wrote: » I would guess a lot of this comes from Jewish people no longer being the cause celebre of the champagne socialists. Zionism was a fundamental part of the labour party in its early days, with very close relationships to Poale Zion, but that's not cool anymore, everyone is now worried about the Palestinians and the Muslim votes.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w2.vanillicon.com/v2/284f2526e18ff7e4c08066f9ed850ed0.svg)
