Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The danger for Corbyn is that his vulnerability on antisemitis

SystemSystem Posts: 6,199
edited March 26 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The danger for Corbyn is that his vulnerability on antisemitism will haunt him as long as he stays

Uptil now during Corbyn’s leadership of the Labour Party it has really been quite amazing that his less than robust views on antisemitism has never been a big problem for him.

Read the full story here


«1345

Comments

  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 28,974
    Looks around...first...
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 28,974
    Mr Corbyn said in the foreword to Labour's report: 'The Conservatives won't challenge the rigged system that has created global crisis because they are at the heart of that system.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5542965/Corbyn-says-Labour-use-foreign-aid-billions-spread-Left-wing-feminist-ideals-globe.html

    I think there was a misprint there, shouldn't The Conservatives actually read The Jews?
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 28,974
    edited March 26
    Jewish leaders not mincing words....

    Jeremy Corbyn has been accused by Jewish leaders of holding “conspiratorial views” about their community and treating them like a “hostile entity”.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/03/25/jeremy-corbyn-branded-hostile-jewish-leaders-labour-anti-semitism/
  • oxfordsimonoxfordsimon Posts: 3,640
    It seems pretty clear that last night's statement is simply not enough to damp this down.

    I don't know what he can do that he would actually be willing to do to resolve this.

    He isn't going to throw Livingstone under the bus. He isn't going to denounce his friends in Hamas and Hezbollah. He isn't going to make any personal apology where he admits personal failing. The statement talks in the abstract not the specific.

    He has allowed himself to be painted as someone who, at best, tolerates anti-Semitism because to oppose it would upset his worldview regarding the West and Islam. At worst he looks like someone who does hold anti-Semitic views but pretends otherwise for political reasons.

    McDonnell has been quiet... He must be enjoying it. And counting the days
  • swing_voterswing_voter Posts: 356
    Quite right that Corbyn is held to account over this matter, however UK politics is remarkably weak on matters of race, I recall Boris Johnson referring to Africans as flag waving piccannines and watermelon smiles.....didnt seem to so his career much harm. I wish he had been held to account the same way.

    Whether this issue will be resolved I dont know, his power base within the Party is not likely to change much, unfortunately people are very quick to criticise Israel and not consider how that relates to their own prejudices.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 8,689
    edited March 26
    Is this a vulnerability?

    The voters don't like funny foreign religions and they also don't like (((international bankers))) and other such Jewish-stereotypical things. I don't think there's been a Jewish Prime Minister in over a century (hopefully someone will correct me if I'm wrong), and the last two to run, Ed Miliband and Michael Howard, were both widely considered not quite right, for some mannerism-related reason that it was hard to put your finger on.

    Is there any actual evidence that anti-semitism is a liability as opposed to an asset? NB polling "do you dislike Jews" or something probably isn't reliable, as the voters generally understand that it's considered bad manners to be openly racist.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 29,101

    Is this a vulnerability?

    Probably not. Just like the Leave spending allegations this is very much a village concern - easily trumped with voters by wages, jobs, housing or the NHS.
  • TheJezziahTheJezziah Posts: 964

    Is this a vulnerability?

    The voters don't like funny foreign religions and they also don't like (((international bankers))) and other such Jewish-stereotypical things. I don't think there's been a Jewish Prime Minister in over a century (hopefully someone will correct me if I'm wrong), and the last two to run, Ed Miliband and Michael Howard, were both widely considered not quite right, for some mannerism-related reason that it was hard to put your finger on.

    Is there any actual evidence that anti-semitism is a liability as opposed to an asset? NB polling "do you dislike Jews" or something probably isn't reliable, as the voters generally understand that it's considered bad manners to be openly racist.

    There is this...

    https://antisemitism.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/Antisemitism-Barometer-2017.pdf

    Which might suggest we could win over some Tory voters with it.

    Although there has been a lot of effort to get the message out there so we must be reaching saturation point on that one.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 29,101

    Is this a vulnerability?

    The voters don't like funny foreign religions and they also don't like (((international bankers))) and other such Jewish-stereotypical things. I don't think there's been a Jewish Prime Minister in over a century (hopefully someone will correct me if I'm wrong), and the last two to run, Ed Miliband and Michael Howard, were both widely considered not quite right, for some mannerism-related reason that it was hard to put your finger on.

    Is there any actual evidence that anti-semitism is a liability as opposed to an asset? NB polling "do you dislike Jews" or something probably isn't reliable, as the voters generally understand that it's considered bad manners to be openly racist.

    There is this...

    https://antisemitism.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/Antisemitism-Barometer-2017.pdf

    Which might suggest we could win over some Tory voters with it.

    Although there has been a lot of effort to get the message out there so we must be reaching saturation point on that one.
    • 76% of British Jews felt that political events caused antisemitism to rise, and for two years, over 4 in 5 British Jews have suspected the Labour Party of harbouring antisemites.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 9,400
    edited March 26

    Is this a vulnerability?

    The voters don't like funny foreign religions and they also don't like (((international bankers))) and other such Jewish-stereotypical things. I don't think there's been a Jewish Prime Minister in over a century (hopefully someone will correct me if I'm wrong), and the last two to run, Ed Miliband and Michael Howard, were both widely considered not quite right, for some mannerism-related reason that it was hard to put your finger on.

    Is there any actual evidence that anti-semitism is a liability as opposed to an asset? NB polling "do you dislike Jews" or something probably isn't reliable, as the voters generally understand that it's considered bad manners to be openly racist.

    You make a very good point. Very few people see British Jews as an oppressed minority and that includes the vast majority of Jews. At the same time Israel is still seen as an international pariah and even the great British public can add up 1+1 and make 2.

    Believing the current myth that the best policy is to apologise whatever the circumstances just shows badly he is being advised. It makes him look weak feeble and unprincipled. Previously three of his strongest assets
  • TheJezziahTheJezziah Posts: 964

    Is this a vulnerability?

    The voters don't like funny foreign religions and they also don't like (((international bankers))) and other such Jewish-stereotypical things. I don't think there's been a Jewish Prime Minister in over a century (hopefully someone will correct me if I'm wrong), and the last two to run, Ed Miliband and Michael Howard, were both widely considered not quite right, for some mannerism-related reason that it was hard to put your finger on.

    Is there any actual evidence that anti-semitism is a liability as opposed to an asset? NB polling "do you dislike Jews" or something probably isn't reliable, as the voters generally understand that it's considered bad manners to be openly racist.

    There is this...

    https://antisemitism.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/Antisemitism-Barometer-2017.pdf

    Which might suggest we could win over some Tory voters with it.

    Although there has been a lot of effort to get the message out there so we must be reaching saturation point on that one.
    • 76% of British Jews felt that political events caused antisemitism to rise, and for two years, over 4 in 5 British Jews have suspected the Labour Party of harbouring antisemites.
    Sort of backs up my latter point, rightly or wrongly, the message that Labour are anti-semitic is already believed by a large number of Jewish people.

    With the large numbers in other parties agreeing to at least one anti-semitic statement, it would suggest it isn't a vote losing proposition.

    In fairness to the Conservatives though it does seem to be an age thing partially with older people being more anti-semitic than younger people.

    If young people could be convinced that Corbyn is anti-semitic it could lose him votes. Although I would say the same about misogynist considering women supported Labour in greater numbers than men. Neither claim seems likely to be widely believed among Labour voters, mainly because their rubbish, partially though because the media have been crying wolf so long about Corbyn it would be a struggle for them to get the message across if they did decide to tell the truth.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 28,974
    edited March 26
    Jewish groups attack Jeremy Corbyn over anti-Semitism

    It accuses Mr Corbyn of being unable to "seriously contemplate anti-Semitism, because he is so ideologically fixed within a far left worldview that is instinctively hostile to mainstream Jewish communities".

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-43536830
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 20,290
    FPT: some musings on GPS and Galileo:

    Firstly, jamming. I have no idea how the military jamming of GPS signals works, but it's interesting to consider. They could jut try jamming the frequencies, denying the signals to the enemy. However much better would be to spoof the signals, to make the enemy think they're somewhere they are not. The latter potentially creates much more confusion.

    Secondly, military-grade Galileo. It seems rather silly to say that the EU should not have a secret 'military' signal, as GPS, GLOSNASS and BeiDou have. The technology is there, and it seems sensible to have a system that can deny the signals to an 'enemy' whilst allowing our own people to have them. It's common sense as we don't know what the future holds.

    Thirdly, it should be remembered how much the world owes the US for GPS. It has been a transformative technology. These aren't the figures I remember, but the scale of savings is huge:

    "Use of GPS and the mapping and navigation technologies which depend on it have produced extraordinary benefits for consumers. A recent study commissioned by Google found that these technologies have reduced travel time by over 1.1 billion hours per year worldwide by getting people to their destinations more efficiently. The economic value of this time saving is $5 billion in the U.S. alone and $17 billion per year worldwide. In addition, the study estimated that more efficient travel reduced global fuel consumption by nearly 1 billion gallons, creating an additional $4.8 billion in fuel savings each year, and a corresponding reduction in carbon emissions and air pollution."

    http://www.gpsalliance.org/transportation.aspx

    Or more:

    "It has been reported by the GPS Innovation Alliance that the economic benefits of using GPS within a commercial environment are estimated to be over $67.6 billion per year in the United States. (GPS Innovation Alliance)."

    https://www.pdvwireless.com/analyzing-the-benefits-of-gps-technology-within-the-commercial-environment/
  • RogerRoger Posts: 9,400

    Is this a vulnerability?

    The voters don't like funny foreign religions and they also don't like (((international bankers))) and other such Jewish-stereotypical things. I don't think there's been a Jewish Prime Minister in over a century (hopefully someone will correct me if I'm wrong), and the last two to run, Ed Miliband and Michael Howard, were both widely considered not quite right, for some mannerism-related reason that it was hard to put your finger on.

    Is there any actual evidence that anti-semitism is a liability as opposed to an asset? NB polling "do you dislike Jews" or something probably isn't reliable, as the voters generally understand that it's considered bad manners to be openly racist.

    There is this...

    https://antisemitism.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/Antisemitism-Barometer-2017.pdf

    Which might suggest we could win over some Tory voters with it.

    Although there has been a lot of effort to get the message out there so we must be reaching saturation point on that one.
    • 76% of British Jews felt that political events caused antisemitism to rise, and for two years, over 4 in 5 British Jews have suspected the Labour Party of harbouring antisemites.
    I'm curious to know how they identify 'Jews', Is it self identification? These days it's quite a complicated question.
  • TheJezziahTheJezziah Posts: 964
    edited March 26
    As to whether Corbyn will be replaced, it seems unlikely.

    Ill health, death and him deciding the cause can be better served without him leading it seem the only likely scenarios for it happening. Without events shifting Labour members views quite dramatically he cannot be overthrown.

    The media whipping up a storm will shift at best a tiny percentage of members opinions. Within Labour members there is what you could call a pro Corbyn block and an anti Corbyn block, with probably a small amount more or less in the middle (the dreaded centrists ;) )

    The pro Corbyn block (defining it quite lightly not just the hardcore) outnumber the anti Corbyn block and those in the middle. To actually defeat Corbyn would require the votes of tens of thousands (at least) of those in the pro Corbyn block.

    It is an oversimplification of it, there are of course a number of groups and interests within and overlapping each group. In terms of their basic view it works to an extent though.
  • felixfelix Posts: 7,681
    There is already a tone to some of the early comments which send a chill to those of us with inherited memories or knowledge of the anti-Jewish sentiments common in the 1930's and before. The clear desire to give Corbyn the benefit of the doubt on this and so many other issues is sickening.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 9,400
    felix said:

    There is already a tone to some of the early comments which send a chill to those of us with inherited memories or knowledge of the anti-Jewish sentiments common in the 1930's and before. The clear desire to give Corbyn the benefit of the doubt on this and so many other issues is sickening.

    That's the danger when commentators with an agenda jump on a bandwagon. Guido is probably the most egregious example but he's by no means alone
  • TheJezziahTheJezziah Posts: 964
    felix said:

    There is already a tone to some of the early comments which send a chill to those of us with inherited memories or knowledge of the anti-Jewish sentiments common in the 1930's and before. The clear desire to give Corbyn the benefit of the doubt on this and so many other issues is sickening.

    If this is a reference to my comments I would clarify that I think anti-semitism is bad, no less so than racism against Black people for example. My posts above (mostly) were trying to make a dispassionate analysis of it. If you convinced Labour voters that Corbyn was anti-semitic it would make a difference, particularly among younger people, according to the report I linked earlier, anti-semitism is unacceptable, with younger people generally making up Labours voting coalition that would be a weakness, if it was believed.

    The problem isn't so much that people who vote Labour (as in the majority) think Corbyn is anti-semitic but that is okay, it is that they don't think he is.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 20,290

    As to whether Corbyn will be replaced, it seems unlikely.

    Ill health, death and him deciding the cause can be better served without him leading it seem the only likely scenarios for it happening. Without events shifting Labour members views quite dramatically he cannot be overthrown.

    The media whipping up a storm will shift at best a tiny percentage of members opinions. Within Labour members there is what you could call a pro Corbyn block and an anti Corbyn block, with probably a small amount more or less in the middle (the dreaded centrists ;) )

    The pro Corbyn block (defining it quite lightly not just the hardcore) outnumber the anti Corbyn block and those in the middle. To actually defeat Corbyn would require the votes of tens of thousands (at least) of those in the pro Corbyn block.

    It is an oversimplification of it, there are of course a number of groups and interests within and overlapping each group. In terms of their basic view it works to an extent though.

    "The media whipping up a storm will shift at best a tiny percentage of members opinions."

    (Sighs theatrically)

    The media reporting a truth that you do not like is not them 'whipping up a storm'. The blame lies not with the media, but with the Labour leadership and a small but appreciable number of members and followers who have led their great party into this problem.

    They fall into two categories:
    1) The genuine antisemites.
    2) The 'my team or none' who will excuse their 'team' anything.

    We have none of the former on here now, but several of the latter.

    Labour has a sickness at its heart. You appear to think its fit and healthy. It is not; and like many illnesses, if not cured it can spread.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 8,689
    felix said:

    There is already a tone to some of the early comments which send a chill to those of us with inherited memories or knowledge of the anti-Jewish sentiments common in the 1930's and before. The clear desire to give Corbyn the benefit of the doubt on this and so many other issues is sickening.

    Which comments?
  • logical_songlogical_song Posts: 5,984

    FPT: some musings on GPS and Galileo:

    Firstly, jamming. I have no idea how the military jamming of GPS signals works, but it's interesting to consider. They could jut try jamming the frequencies, denying the signals to the enemy. However much better would be to spoof the signals, to make the enemy think they're somewhere they are not. The latter potentially creates much more confusion.

    Secondly, military-grade Galileo. It seems rather silly to say that the EU should not have a secret 'military' signal, as GPS, GLOSNASS and BeiDou have. The technology is there, and it seems sensible to have a system that can deny the signals to an 'enemy' whilst allowing our own people to have them. It's common sense as we don't know what the future holds.

    Thirdly, it should be remembered how much the world owes the US for GPS. It has been a transformative technology. These aren't the figures I remember, but the scale of savings is huge:

    "Use of GPS and the mapping and navigation technologies which depend on it have produced extraordinary benefits for consumers. A recent study commissioned by Google found that these technologies have reduced travel time by over 1.1 billion hours per year worldwide by getting people to their destinations more efficiently. The economic value of this time saving is $5 billion in the U.S. alone and $17 billion per year worldwide. In addition, the study estimated that more efficient travel reduced global fuel consumption by nearly 1 billion gallons, creating an additional $4.8 billion in fuel savings each year, and a corresponding reduction in carbon emissions and air pollution."

    http://www.gpsalliance.org/transportation.aspx

    Or more:

    "It has been reported by the GPS Innovation Alliance that the economic benefits of using GPS within a commercial environment are estimated to be over $67.6 billion per year in the United States. (GPS Innovation Alliance)."

    https://www.pdvwireless.com/analyzing-the-benefits-of-gps-technology-within-the-commercial-environment/

    Looks like Russians developing a GPS spoofing system.
    https://www.newscientist.com/article/2143499-ships-fooled-in-gps-spoofing-attack-suggest-russian-cyberweapon/
  • RogerRoger Posts: 9,400

    As to whether Corbyn will be replaced, it seems unlikely.

    Ill health, death and him deciding the cause can be better served without him leading it seem the only likely scenarios for it happening. Without events shifting Labour members views quite dramatically he cannot be overthrown.

    The media whipping up a storm will shift at best a tiny percentage of members opinions. Within Labour members there is what you could call a pro Corbyn block and an anti Corbyn block, with probably a small amount more or less in the middle (the dreaded centrists ;) )

    The pro Corbyn block (defining it quite lightly not just the hardcore) outnumber the anti Corbyn block and those in the middle. To actually defeat Corbyn would require the votes of tens of thousands (at least) of those in the pro Corbyn block.

    It is an oversimplification of it, there are of course a number of groups and interests within and overlapping each group. In terms of their basic view it works to an extent though.

    "The media whipping up a storm will shift at best a tiny percentage of members opinions."

    (Sighs theatrically)

    The media reporting a truth that you do not like is not them 'whipping up a storm'. The blame lies not with the media, but with the Labour leadership and a small but appreciable number of members and followers who have led their great party into this problem.

    They fall into two categories:
    1) The genuine antisemites.
    2) The 'my team or none' who will excuse their 'team' anything.

    We have none of the former on here now, but several of the latter.

    Labour has a sickness at its heart. You appear to think its fit and healthy. It is not; and like many illnesses, if not cured it can spread.
    What complete bollocks!!
  • daodaodaodao Posts: 600

    Is this a vulnerability?

    The voters don't like funny foreign religions and they also don't like (((international bankers))) and other such Jewish-stereotypical things. I don't think there's been a Jewish Prime Minister in over a century (hopefully someone will correct me if I'm wrong), and the last two to run, Ed Miliband and Michael Howard, were both widely considered not quite right, for some mannerism-related reason that it was hard to put your finger on.

    Is there any actual evidence that anti-semitism is a liability as opposed to an asset? NB polling "do you dislike Jews" or something probably isn't reliable, as the voters generally understand that it's considered bad manners to be openly racist.

    Sadly, I agree, in general.

    There is some limited evidence that anti-semitism may be a liability in the tiny number of areas with a significant Jewish population, as discussed yesterday in the thread about Barnet council. However, overall, I think that you are correct, and in some areas, a hostile view of the Zionist state is likely to be popular. Labour's improved performance in GE2017 compared to GE2015 is evidence in favour of your supposition.

    Corbyn should have said nowt. Overall, he has reinvigorated Labour, but talking about this subject won't help him or his party. Individuals and organisations fare better when they focus on strengths, not weaknesses.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 32,919

    Interesting thread on Galileo:

    twitter.com/SophiaBesch/status/978017039112654848?s=20

    It'd be unthinkable for the UK to use security as a bargaining chip. Totally fine for the EU to do it though.
  • felixfelix Posts: 7,681
    edited March 26

    felix said:

    There is already a tone to some of the early comments which send a chill to those of us with inherited memories or knowledge of the anti-Jewish sentiments common in the 1930's and before. The clear desire to give Corbyn the benefit of the doubt on this and so many other issues is sickening.

    Which comments?
    In these matters we must all weigh our reactions and words carefully. Politics is about more than following the voters prejudices. There has to be a moral compass.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 20,290
    Roger said:

    As to whether Corbyn will be replaced, it seems unlikely.

    Ill health, death and him deciding the cause can be better served without him leading it seem the only likely scenarios for it happening. Without events shifting Labour members views quite dramatically he cannot be overthrown.

    The media whipping up a storm will shift at best a tiny percentage of members opinions. Within Labour members there is what you could call a pro Corbyn block and an anti Corbyn block, with probably a small amount more or less in the middle (the dreaded centrists ;) )

    The pro Corbyn block (defining it quite lightly not just the hardcore) outnumber the anti Corbyn block and those in the middle. To actually defeat Corbyn would require the votes of tens of thousands (at least) of those in the pro Corbyn block.

    It is an oversimplification of it, there are of course a number of groups and interests within and overlapping each group. In terms of their basic view it works to an extent though.

    "The media whipping up a storm will shift at best a tiny percentage of members opinions."

    (Sighs theatrically)

    The media reporting a truth that you do not like is not them 'whipping up a storm'. The blame lies not with the media, but with the Labour leadership and a small but appreciable number of members and followers who have led their great party into this problem.

    They fall into two categories:
    1) The genuine antisemites.
    2) The 'my team or none' who will excuse their 'team' anything.

    We have none of the former on here now, but several of the latter.

    Labour has a sickness at its heart. You appear to think its fit and healthy. It is not; and like many illnesses, if not cured it can spread.
    What complete bollocks!!
    Why?
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 20,290
    Twitter really is a [email protected] way of communicating anything more than soundbite issues.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 9,400

    Roger said:

    As to whether Corbyn will be replaced, it seems unlikely.

    Ill health, death and him deciding the cause can be better served without him leading it seem the only likely scenarios for it happening. Without events shifting Labour members views quite dramatically he cannot be overthrown.

    The media whipping up a storm will shift at best a tiny percentage of members opinions. Within Labour members there is what you could call a pro Corbyn block and an anti Corbyn block, with probably a small amount more or less in the middle (the dreaded centrists ;) )

    The pro Corbyn block (defining it quite lightly not just the hardcore) outnumber the anti Corbyn block and those in the middle. To actually defeat Corbyn would require the votes of tens of thousands (at least) of those in the pro Corbyn block.

    It is an oversimplification of it, there are of course a number of groups and interests within and overlapping each group. In terms of their basic view it works to an extent though.

    "The media whipping up a storm will shift at best a tiny percentage of members opinions."

    (Sighs theatrically)

    The media reporting a truth that you do not like is not them 'whipping up a storm'. The blame lies not with the media, but with the Labour leadership and a small but appreciable number of members and followers who have led their great party into this problem.

    They fall into two categories:
    1) The genuine antisemites.
    2) The 'my team or none' who will excuse their 'team' anything.

    We have none of the former on here now, but several of the latter.

    Labour has a sickness at its heart. You appear to think its fit and healthy. It is not; and like many illnesses, if not cured it can spread.
    What complete bollocks!!
    Why?
    Pompous nonsense presumably to practice your writing skills.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 20,290
    Roger said:

    Roger said:

    As to whether Corbyn will be replaced, it seems unlikely.

    Ill health, death and him deciding the cause can be better served without him leading it seem the only likely scenarios for it happening. Without events shifting Labour members views quite dramatically he cannot be overthrown.

    The media whipping up a storm will shift at best a tiny percentage of members opinions. Within Labour members there is what you could call a pro Corbyn block and an anti Corbyn block, with probably a small amount more or less in the middle (the dreaded centrists ;) )

    The pro Corbyn block (defining it quite lightly not just the hardcore) outnumber the anti Corbyn block and those in the middle. To actually defeat Corbyn would require the votes of tens of thousands (at least) of those in the pro Corbyn block.

    It is an oversimplification of it, there are of course a number of groups and interests within and overlapping each group. In terms of their basic view it works to an extent though.

    "The media whipping up a storm will shift at best a tiny percentage of members opinions."

    (Sighs theatrically)

    The media reporting a truth that you do not like is not them 'whipping up a storm'. The blame lies not with the media, but with the Labour leadership and a small but appreciable number of members and followers who have led their great party into this problem.

    They fall into two categories:
    1) The genuine antisemites.
    2) The 'my team or none' who will excuse their 'team' anything.

    We have none of the former on here now, but several of the latter.

    Labour has a sickness at its heart. You appear to think its fit and healthy. It is not; and like many illnesses, if not cured it can spread.
    What complete bollocks!!
    Why?
    Pompous nonsense presumably to practice your writing skills.
    That is just attacking me and not addressing the points I am making. Am I to take it that you do not actually have any arguments *against* what I've written?
  • felixfelix Posts: 7,681
    Roger said:

    Roger said:

    As to whether Corbyn will be replaced, it seems unlikely.

    Ill health, death and him deciding the cause can be better served without him leading it seem the only likely scenarios for it happening. Without events shifting Labour members views quite dramatically he cannot be overthrown.

    The media whipping up a storm will shift at best a tiny percentage of members opinions. Within Labour members there is what you could call a pro Corbyn block and an anti Corbyn block, with probably a small amount more or less in the middle (the dreaded centrists ;) )

    The pro Corbyn block (defining it quite lightly not just the hardcore) outnumber the anti Corbyn block and those in the middle. To actually defeat Corbyn would require the votes of tens of thousands (at least) of those in the pro Corbyn block.

    It is an oversimplification of it, there are of course a number of groups and interests within and overlapping each group. In terms of their basic view it works to an extent though.

    "The media whipping up a storm will shift at best a tiny percentage of members opinions."

    (Sighs theatrically)

    The media reporting a truth that you do not like is not them 'whipping up a storm'. The blame lies not with the media, but with the Labour leadership and a small but appreciable number of members and followers who have led their great party into this problem.

    They fall into two categories:
    1) The genuine antisemites.
    2) The 'my team or none' who will excuse their 'team' anything.

    We have none of the former on here now, but several of the latter.

    Labour has a sickness at its heart. You appear to think its fit and healthy. It is not; and like many illnesses, if not cured it can spread.
    What complete bollocks!!
    Why?
    Pompous nonsense presumably to practice your writing skills.
    It truly contains some brass neck for you to accuse others of pomposity.
  • TheJezziahTheJezziah Posts: 964
    edited March 26

    As to whether Corbyn will be replaced, it seems unlikely.

    Ill health, death and him deciding the cause can be better served without him leading it seem the only likely scenarios for it happening. Without events shifting Labour members views quite dramatically he cannot be overthrown.

    The media whipping up a storm will shift at best a tiny percentage of members opinions. Within Labour members there is what you could call a pro Corbyn block and an anti Corbyn block, with probably a small amount more or less in the middle (the dreaded centrists ;) )

    The pro Corbyn block (defining it quite lightly not just the hardcore) outnumber the anti Corbyn block and those in the middle. To actually defeat Corbyn would require the votes of tens of thousands (at least) of those in the pro Corbyn block.

    It is an oversimplification of it, there are of course a number of groups and interests within and overlapping each group. In terms of their basic view it works to an extent though.

    "The media whipping up a storm will shift at best a tiny percentage of members opinions."

    (Sighs theatrically)

    The media reporting a truth that you do not like is not them 'whipping up a storm'. The blame lies not with the media, but with the Labour leadership and a small but appreciable number of members and followers who have led their great party into this problem.

    They fall into two categories:
    1) The genuine antisemites.
    2) The 'my team or none' who will excuse their 'team' anything.

    We have none of the former on here now, but several of the latter.

    Labour has a sickness at its heart. You appear to think its fit and healthy. It is not; and like many illnesses, if not cured it can spread.
    I can show you studies proving the media bias against Corbyn if you would like?

    The idea that the media can't create a narrative using the 'truth' (which means their take on it) seems a bit naive (although I don't think you as a person are)

    Also to clarify I didn't actually refer to the storm being a lie, although I guess the phrase may indicate that. The reason the media being filled with negative headlines about Corbyn (which might be another way of saying media whipping up a storm) will not really have much of an impact is because they have been mostly filled with negative headlines since he became Labour leader if not just before that.

  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 20,827
    This story has, so far, done nothing more than give those who don't like Corbyn another reason to dislike him. Until that changes he remains safe. To date I don't see any evidence that any of his support base, which has been determined more than once to be the majority of Labour's current membership, are having reservations about him.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 43,759
    edited March 26
    Good morning, everyone.

    Have to say I was astonished that this was the top story. But good that it is.

    Edited extra bit: forgot to mention, my post-race analysis of Australia is up here: http://enormo-haddock.blogspot.co.uk/2018/03/australia-post-race-analysis-2018.html
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 20,827
    And England are, just, still batting when I got up. Only because the clocks went forward though, the end is nigh.

    This has been an ok batting performance although it is disappointing that so many got 50s and not one managed to go on and produce an innings that the others could bat around. The test was lost on the first morning which is as it should be. No one should get away with a performance like that in test cricket.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 9,400

    Roger said:

    Roger said:

    As to whether Corbyn will be replaced, it seems unlikely.

    Ill health, death and him deciding the cause can be better served without him leading it seem the only likely scenarios for it happening. Without events shifting Labour members views quite dramatically he cannot be overthrown.

    The media whipping up a storm will shift at best a tiny percentage of members opinions. Within Labour members there is what you could call a pro Corbyn block and an anti Corbyn block, with probably a small amount more or less in the middle (the dreaded centrists ;) )

    The pro Corbyn block (defining it quite lightly not just the hardcore) outnumber the anti Corbyn block and those in the middle. To actually defeat Corbyn would require the votes of tens of thousands (at least) of those in the pro Corbyn block.

    It is an oversimplification of it, there are of course a number of groups and interests within and overlapping each group. In terms of their basic view it works to an extent though.

    "The media whipping up a storm will shift at best a tiny percentage of members opinions."

    (Sighs theatrically)

    The media reporting a truth that you do not like is not them 'whipping up a storm'. The blame lies not with the media, but with the Labour leadership and a small but appreciable number of members and followers who have led their great party into this problem.

    They fall into two categories:
    1) The genuine antisemites.
    2) The 'my team or none' who will excuse their 'team' anything.

    We have none of the former on here now, but several of the latter.

    Labour has a sickness at its heart. You appear to think its fit and healthy. It is not; and like many illnesses, if not cured it can spread.
    What complete bollocks!!
    Why?
    Pompous nonsense presumably to practice your writing skills.
    That is just attacking me and not addressing the points I am making. Am I to take it that you do not actually have any arguments *against* what I've written?
    "Labour has a sickness at its heart. You appear to think its fit and healthy. It is not; and like many illnesses, if not cured it can spread"

    I repeat. Pompous bollocks!

  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 20,290
    edited March 26

    As to whether Corbyn will be replaced, it seems unlikely.

    Ill health, death and him deciding the cause can be better served without him leading it seem the only likely scenarios for it happening. Without events shifting Labour members views quite dramatically he cannot be overthrown.

    The media whipping up a storm will shift at best a tiny percentage of members opinions. Within Labour members there is what you could call a pro Corbyn block and an anti Corbyn block, with probably a small amount more or less in the middle (the dreaded centrists ;) )

    The pro Corbyn block (defining it quite lightly not just the hardcore) outnumber the anti Corbyn block and those in the middle. To actually defeat Corbyn would require the votes of tens of thousands (at least) of those in the pro Corbyn block.

    It is an oversimplification of it, there are of course a number of groups and interests within and overlapping each group. In terms of their basic view it works to an extent though.

    "The media whipping up a storm will shift at best a tiny percentage of members opinions."

    (Sighs theatrically)

    The media reporting a truth that you do not like is not them 'whipping up a storm'. The blame lies not with the media, but with the Labour leadership and a small but appreciable number of members and followers who have led their great party into this problem.

    They fall into two categories:
    1) The genuine antisemites.
    2) The 'my team or none' who will excuse their 'team' anything.

    We have none of the former on here now, but several of the latter.

    Labour has a sickness at its heart. You appear to think its fit and healthy. It is not; and like many illnesses, if not cured it can spread.
    I can show you studies proving the media bias against Corbyn if you would like?

    The idea that the media can't create a narrative using the 'truth' (which means their take on it) seems a bit naive (although I don't think you as a person are)

    Also to clarify I didn't actually refer to the storm being a lie, although I guess the phrase may indicate that. The reason the media being filled with negative headlines about Corbyn (which might be another way of saying media whipping up a storm) will not really have much of an impact is because they have been mostly filled with negative headlines since he became Labour leader if not just before that.
    I'd be interested in seeing such studies, preferably unbiased and scientific ones. They might even make a good subject for a threader for OGH or a.n.other.

    I agree that the impact might be slight. However reasonable Labour members need to ask themselves what sort of party they want to be part of, ad what behaviour they are willing to defend.

    Edit: in fact, that goes for members of any party.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 20,290
    Roger said:

    Roger said:

    Roger said:

    As to whether Corbyn will be replaced, it seems unlikely.

    Ill health, death and him deciding the cause can be better served without him leading it seem the only likely scenarios for it happening. Without events shifting Labour members views quite dramatically he cannot be overthrown.

    The media whipping up a storm will shift at best a tiny percentage of members opinions. Within Labour members there is what you could call a pro Corbyn block and an anti Corbyn block, with probably a small amount more or less in the middle (the dreaded centrists ;) )

    The pro Corbyn block (defining it quite lightly not just the hardcore) outnumber the anti Corbyn block and those in the middle. To actually defeat Corbyn would require the votes of tens of thousands (at least) of those in the pro Corbyn block.

    It is an oversimplification of it, there are of course a number of groups and interests within and overlapping each group. In terms of their basic view it works to an extent though.

    "The media whipping up a storm will shift at best a tiny percentage of members opinions."

    (Sighs theatrically)

    The media reporting a truth that you do not like is not them 'whipping up a storm'. The blame lies not with the media, but with the Labour leadership and a small but appreciable number of members and followers who have led their great party into this problem.

    They fall into two categories:
    1) The genuine antisemites.
    2) The 'my team or none' who will excuse their 'team' anything.

    We have none of the former on here now, but several of the latter.

    Labour has a sickness at its heart. You appear to think its fit and healthy. It is not; and like many illnesses, if not cured it can spread.
    What complete bollocks!!
    Why?
    Pompous nonsense presumably to practice your writing skills.
    That is just attacking me and not addressing the points I am making. Am I to take it that you do not actually have any arguments *against* what I've written?
    "Labour has a sickness at its heart. You appear to think its fit and healthy. It is not; and like many illnesses, if not cured it can spread"

    I repeat. Pompous bollocks!
    Why? It's an analogy. And again, you seem unwilling or unable to address the points, and just attack me. I guess that's because you don't actually have a sensible response?
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 10,019

    FPT: some musings on GPS and Galileo:

    Firstly, jamming. I have no idea how the military jamming of GPS signals works, but it's interesting to consider. They could jut try jamming the frequencies, denying the signals to the enemy. However much better would be to spoof the signals, to make the enemy think they're somewhere they are not. The latter potentially creates much more confusion.

    Secondly, military-grade Galileo. It seems rather silly to say that the EU should not have a secret 'military' signal, as GPS, GLOSNASS and BeiDou have. The technology is there, and it seems sensible to have a system that can deny the signals to an 'enemy' whilst allowing our own people to have them. It's common sense as we don't know what the future holds.

    Thirdly, it should be remembered how much the world owes the US for GPS. It has been a transformative technology. These aren't the figures I remember, but the scale of savings is huge:

    "Use of GPS and the mapping and navigation technologies which depend on it have produced extraordinary benefits for consumers. A recent study commissioned by Google found that these technologies have reduced travel time by over 1.1 billion hours per year worldwide by getting people to their destinations more efficiently. The economic value of this time saving is $5 billion in the U.S. alone and $17 billion per year worldwide. In addition, the study estimated that more efficient travel reduced global fuel consumption by nearly 1 billion gallons, creating an additional $4.8 billion in fuel savings each year, and a corresponding reduction in carbon emissions and air pollution."

    http://www.gpsalliance.org/transportation.aspx

    Or more:

    "It has been reported by the GPS Innovation Alliance that the economic benefits of using GPS within a commercial environment are estimated to be over $67.6 billion per year in the United States. (GPS Innovation Alliance)."

    https://www.pdvwireless.com/analyzing-the-benefits-of-gps-technology-within-the-commercial-environment/

    Sounds rather more complicated than the traditional method of turning the signposts around?
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 8,689
    felix said:

    felix said:

    There is already a tone to some of the early comments which send a chill to those of us with inherited memories or knowledge of the anti-Jewish sentiments common in the 1930's and before. The clear desire to give Corbyn the benefit of the doubt on this and so many other issues is sickening.

    Which comments?
    In these matters we must all weigh our reactions and words carefully. Politics is about more than following the voters prejudices. There has to be a moral compass.
    Which comments?
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 6,244
    edited March 26
    daodao said:

    Is this a vulnerability?

    The voters don't like funny foreign religions and they also don't like (((international bankers))) and other such Jewish-stereotypical things. I don't think there's been a Jewish Prime Minister in over a century (hopefully someone will correct me if I'm wrong), and the last two to run, Ed Miliband and Michael Howard, were both widely considered not quite right, for some mannerism-related reason that it was hard to put your finger on.

    Is there any actual evidence that anti-semitism is a liability as opposed to an asset? NB polling "do you dislike Jews" or something probably isn't reliable, as the voters generally understand that it's considered bad manners to be openly racist.

    Sadly, I agree, in general.

    There is some limited evidence that anti-semitism may be a liability in the tiny number of areas with a significant Jewish population, as discussed yesterday in the thread about Barnet council. However, overall, I think that you are correct, and in some areas, a hostile view of the Zionist state is likely to be popular. Labour's improved performance in GE2017 compared to GE2015 is evidence in favour of your supposition.

    Corbyn should have said nowt. Overall, he has reinvigorated Labour, but talking about this subject won't help him or his party. Individuals and organisations fare better when they focus on strengths, not weaknesses.
    That is an extraordinarily cynical view.
    You seem to be saying that anti-semitism can, indeed ought to be ignored, if so doing is of political advantage ?
  • felixfelix Posts: 7,681

    felix said:

    felix said:

    There is already a tone to some of the early comments which send a chill to those of us with inherited memories or knowledge of the anti-Jewish sentiments common in the 1930's and before. The clear desire to give Corbyn the benefit of the doubt on this and so many other issues is sickening.

    Which comments?
    In these matters we must all weigh our reactions and words carefully. Politics is about more than following the voters prejudices. There has to be a moral compass.
    Which comments?
    Lol - re-read the thread and work it out for yourself. If you don't understand my point I really can't assist you further.
  • MJWMJW Posts: 350
    daodao said:

    Is this a vulnerability?

    The voters don't like funny foreign religions and they also don't like (((international bankers))) and other such Jewish-stereotypical things. I don't think there's been a Jewish Prime Minister in over a century (hopefully someone will correct me if I'm wrong), and the last two to run, Ed Miliband and Michael Howard, were both widely considered not quite right, for some mannerism-related reason that it was hard to put your finger on.

    Is there any actual evidence that anti-semitism is a liability as opposed to an asset? NB polling "do you dislike Jews" or something probably isn't reliable, as the voters generally understand that it's considered bad manners to be openly racist.

    Sadly, I agree, in general.

    There is some limited evidence that anti-semitism may be a liability in the tiny number of areas with a significant Jewish population, as discussed yesterday in the thread about Barnet council. However, overall, I think that you are correct, and in some areas, a hostile view of the Zionist state is likely to be popular. Labour's improved performance in GE2017 compared to GE2015 is evidence in favour of your supposition.

    Corbyn should have said nowt. Overall, he has reinvigorated Labour, but talking about this subject won't help him or his party. Individuals and organisations fare better when they focus on strengths, not weaknesses.
    Never read your Niemoller then? Seriously, what an appalling attitude. Anyway, If he'd have said nothing his MPs would've gone into open revolt, and a much larger section of the membership than usual too. His apology has probably been successful in averting that - but doesn't really address his own personal culpability in giving anti-Semites a pass for years, and thus helping gore the problem.

    As to why It's a problem - perhaps the public don't care about anti-Semitism, but it does really hit his benevolent old social justice campaigner image. His apology will probably avert the worst of the damage, but still, smart interviewers should ask why he hasn't apologised personally for his actions.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 6,244
    Roger said:

    Roger said:

    Roger said:

    As to whether Corbyn will be replaced, it seems unlikely.

    Ill health, death and him deciding the cause can be better served without him leading it seem the only likely scenarios for it happening. Without events shifting Labour members views quite dramatically he cannot be overthrown.

    The media whipping up a storm will shift at best a tiny percentage of members opinions. Within Labour members there is what you could call a pro Corbyn block and an anti Corbyn block, with probably a small amount more or less in the middle (the dreaded centrists ;) )

    The pro Corbyn block (defining it quite lightly not just the hardcore) outnumber the anti Corbyn block and those in the middle. To actually defeat Corbyn would require the votes of tens of thousands (at least) of those in the pro Corbyn block.

    It is an oversimplification of it, there are of course a number of groups and interests within and overlapping each group. In terms of their basic view it works to an extent though.

    "The media whipping up a storm will shift at best a tiny percentage of members opinions."

    (Sighs theatrically)

    The media reporting a truth that you do not like is not them 'whipping up a storm'. The blame lies not with the media, but with the Labour leadership and a small but appreciable number of members and followers who have led their great party into this problem.

    They fall into two categories:
    1) The genuine antisemites.
    2) The 'my team or none' who will excuse their 'team' anything.

    We have none of the former on here now, but several of the latter.

    Labour has a sickness at its heart. You appear to think its fit and healthy. It is not; and like many illnesses, if not cured it can spread.
    What complete bollocks!!
    Why?
    Pompous nonsense presumably to practice your writing skills.
    That is just attacking me and not addressing the points I am making. Am I to take it that you do not actually have any arguments *against* what I've written?
    "Labour has a sickness at its heart. You appear to think its fit and healthy. It is not; and like many illnesses, if not cured it can spread"

    I repeat. Pompous bollocks!

    Take away the full stop after 'repeat', and you'd be about right.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 20,290
    IanB2 said:


    Sounds rather more complicated than the traditional method of turning the signposts around?

    Oh, it is. But it could be even better than that: for instance, if aerial attacks are being made, spoof high-level signals to be at the enemy's location, not your own, so they attack themselves.

    There will be wizards in every major country trying to work out how to take best advantage of their potential 'enemies' reliance of satellite navigation if there was to be a war.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 26,623
    ‪Many political opponents of Jeremy Corbyn on the left are political opponents precisely because he has spent decades sharing platforms with anti-Semites withoutout ever challenging them or calling them out. ‬
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 10,019

    As to whether Corbyn will be replaced, it seems unlikely.

    Ill health, death and him deciding the cause can be better served without him leading it seem the only likely scenarios for it happening. Without events shifting Labour members views quite dramatically he cannot be overthrown.

    The media whipping up a storm will shift at best a tiny percentage of members opinions. Within Labour members there is what you could call a pro Corbyn block and an anti Corbyn block, with probably a small amount more or less in the middle (the dreaded centrists ;) )

    The pro Corbyn block (defining it quite lightly not just the hardcore) outnumber the anti Corbyn block and those in the middle. To actually defeat Corbyn would require the votes of tens of thousands (at least) of those in the pro Corbyn block.

    It is an oversimplification of it, there are of course a number of groups and interests within and overlapping each group. In terms of their basic view it works to an extent though.

    "The media whipping up a storm will shift at best a tiny percentage of members opinions."

    (Sighs theatrically)

    The media reporting a truth that you do not like is not them 'whipping up a storm'. The blame lies not with the media, but with the Labour leadership and a small but appreciable number of members and followers who have led their great party into this problem.

    They fall into two categories:
    1) The genuine antisemites.
    2) The 'my team or none' who will excuse their 'team' anything.

    We have none of the former on here now, but several of the latter.

    Labour has a sickness at its heart. You appear to think its fit and healthy. It is not; and like many illnesses, if not cured it can spread.
    If the Tories want to make something of this, they need to take care not to overplay their hand. Too many seem to think that personal attacks on Corbyn are a substitute for grown up politics.
  • daodaodaodao Posts: 600
    MJW said:

    daodao said:

    Is this a vulnerability?

    The voters don't like funny foreign religions and they also don't like (((international bankers))) and other such Jewish-stereotypical things. I don't think there's been a Jewish Prime Minister in over a century (hopefully someone will correct me if I'm wrong), and the last two to run, Ed Miliband and Michael Howard, were both widely considered not quite right, for some mannerism-related reason that it was hard to put your finger on.

    Is there any actual evidence that anti-semitism is a liability as opposed to an asset? NB polling "do you dislike Jews" or something probably isn't reliable, as the voters generally understand that it's considered bad manners to be openly racist.

    Sadly, I agree, in general.

    There is some limited evidence that anti-semitism may be a liability in the tiny number of areas with a significant Jewish population, as discussed yesterday in the thread about Barnet council. However, overall, I think that you are correct, and in some areas, a hostile view of the Zionist state is likely to be popular. Labour's improved performance in GE2017 compared to GE2015 is evidence in favour of your supposition.

    Corbyn should have said nowt. Overall, he has reinvigorated Labour, but talking about this subject won't help him or his party. Individuals and organisations fare better when they focus on strengths, not weaknesses.
    Never read your Niemoller then? Seriously, what an appalling attitude. Anyway, If he'd have said nothing his MPs would've gone into open revolt, and a much larger section of the membership than usual too. His apology has probably been successful in averting that - but doesn't really address his own personal culpability in giving anti-Semites a pass for years, and thus helping gore the problem.

    As to why It's a problem - perhaps the public don't care about anti-Semitism, but it does really hit his benevolent old social justice campaigner image. His apology will probably avert the worst of the damage, but still, smart interviewers should ask why he hasn't apologised personally for his actions.
    Why are you referring to Niemoller, who expressed antisemitic views on many occasions during the Nazi era and before?
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 20,290
    IanB2 said:

    As to whether Corbyn will be replaced, it seems unlikely.

    Ill health, death and him deciding the cause can be better served without him leading it seem the only likely scenarios for it happening. Without events shifting Labour members views quite dramatically he cannot be overthrown.

    The media whipping up a storm will shift at best a tiny percentage of members opinions. Within Labour members there is what you could call a pro Corbyn block and an anti Corbyn block, with probably a small amount more or less in the middle (the dreaded centrists ;) )

    The pro Corbyn block (defining it quite lightly not just the hardcore) outnumber the anti Corbyn block and those in the middle. To actually defeat Corbyn would require the votes of tens of thousands (at least) of those in the pro Corbyn block.

    It is an oversimplification of it, there are of course a number of groups and interests within and overlapping each group. In terms of their basic view it works to an extent though.

    "The media whipping up a storm will shift at best a tiny percentage of members opinions."

    (Sighs theatrically)

    The media reporting a truth that you do not like is not them 'whipping up a storm'. The blame lies not with the media, but with the Labour leadership and a small but appreciable number of members and followers who have led their great party into this problem.

    They fall into two categories:
    1) The genuine antisemites.
    2) The 'my team or none' who will excuse their 'team' anything.

    We have none of the former on here now, but several of the latter.

    Labour has a sickness at its heart. You appear to think its fit and healthy. It is not; and like many illnesses, if not cured it can spread.
    If the Tories want to make something of this, they need to take care not to overplay their hand. Too many seem to think that personal attacks on Corbyn are a substitute for grown up politics.
    Do you think that pandering to antisemites is 'grown up politics' ?
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 26,623
    DavidL said:

    This story has, so far, done nothing more than give those who don't like Corbyn another reason to dislike him. Until that changes he remains safe. To date I don't see any evidence that any of his support base, which has been determined more than once to be the majority of Labour's current membership, are having reservations about him.

    Labour members will forgive Corbyn anything. There is literally nothing he could say or do that would shake their faith. However, to win the next general election Labour needs to win over a lot more voters than it did in June 2017, while keeping all those it got. That’s where things get trickier. The really interesting thing is that smart, non-cultists on the left will know this. John McDonnell has already broken with the leader in his response to the Russian attacks. It will be fascinating to see how he plays this one. It’s clear that someone has been talking to Corbyn about this - hence the various statements over the last 48 hours.

  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 6,244
    daodao said:

    MJW said:

    daodao said:

    Is this a vulnerability?

    The voters don't like funny foreign religions and they also don't like (((international bankers))) and other such Jewish-stereotypical things. I don't think there's been a Jewish Prime Minister in over a century (hopefully someone will correct me if I'm wrong), and the last two to run, Ed Miliband and Michael Howard, were both widely considered not quite right, for some mannerism-related reason that it was hard to put your finger on.

    Is there any actual evidence that anti-semitism is a liability as opposed to an asset? NB polling "do you dislike Jews" or something probably isn't reliable, as the voters generally understand that it's considered bad manners to be openly racist.

    Sadly, I agree, in general.

    There is some limited evidence that anti-semitism may be a liability in the tiny number of areas with a significant Jewish population, as discussed yesterday in the thread about Barnet council. However, overall, I think that you are correct, and in some areas, a hostile view of the Zionist state is likely to be popular. Labour's improved performance in GE2017 compared to GE2015 is evidence in favour of your supposition.

    Corbyn should have said nowt. Overall, he has reinvigorated Labour, but talking about this subject won't help him or his party. Individuals and organisations fare better when they focus on strengths, not weaknesses.
    Never read your Niemoller then? Seriously, what an appalling attitude. Anyway, If he'd have said nothing his MPs would've gone into open revolt, and a much larger section of the membership than usual too. His apology has probably been successful in averting that - but doesn't really address his own personal culpability in giving anti-Semites a pass for years, and thus helping gore the problem.

    As to why It's a problem - perhaps the public don't care about anti-Semitism, but it does really hit his benevolent old social justice campaigner image. His apology will probably avert the worst of the damage, but still, smart interviewers should ask why he hasn't apologised personally for his actions.
    Why are you referring to Niemoller, who expressed antisemitic views on many occasions during the Nazi era and before?
    Sophîstry and whataboutery in one sentence. Well done.
  • felixfelix Posts: 7,681
    IanB2 said:

    As to whether Corbyn will be replaced, it seems unlikely.

    Ill health, death and him deciding the cause can be better served without him leading it seem the only likely scenarios for it happening. Without events shifting Labour members views quite dramatically he cannot be overthrown.

    The media whipping up a storm will shift at best a tiny percentage of members opinions. Within Labour members there is what you could call a pro Corbyn block and an anti Corbyn block, with probably a small amount more or less in the middle (the dreaded centrists ;) )

    The pro Corbyn block (defining it quite lightly not just the hardcore) outnumber the anti Corbyn block and those in the middle. To actually defeat Corbyn would require the votes of tens of thousands (at least) of those in the pro Corbyn block.

    It is an oversimplification of it, there are of course a number of groups and interests within and overlapping each group. In terms of their basic view it works to an extent though.

    "The media whipping up a storm will shift at best a tiny percentage of members opinions."

    (Sighs theatrically)

    The media reporting a truth that you do not like is not them 'whipping up a storm'. The blame lies not with the media, but with the Labour leadership and a small but appreciable number of members and followers who have led their great party into this problem.

    They fall into two categories:
    1) The genuine antisemites.
    2) The 'my team or none' who will excuse their 'team' anything.

    We have none of the former on here now, but several of the latter.

    Labour has a sickness at its heart. You appear to think its fit and healthy. It is not; and like many illnesses, if not cured it can spread.
    If the Tories want to make something of this, they need to take care not to overplay their hand. Too many seem to think that personal attacks on Corbyn are a substitute for grown up politics.
    Most of his outspoken critics on this matter are not Tory politicians - they are his won. Others like yourself apparently, seem to see the issue as one about protecting the party at all costs - rather like Starmer on Brexit. Lab our's 'moral compass' has clearly lost its way.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 20,827

    DavidL said:

    This story has, so far, done nothing more than give those who don't like Corbyn another reason to dislike him. Until that changes he remains safe. To date I don't see any evidence that any of his support base, which has been determined more than once to be the majority of Labour's current membership, are having reservations about him.

    Labour members will forgive Corbyn anything. There is literally nothing he could say or do that would shake their faith. However, to win the next general election Labour needs to win over a lot more voters than it did in June 2017, while keeping all those it got. That’s where things get trickier. The really interesting thing is that smart, non-cultists on the left will know this. John McDonnell has already broken with the leader in his response to the Russian attacks. It will be fascinating to see how he plays this one. It’s clear that someone has been talking to Corbyn about this - hence the various statements over the last 48 hours.

    So far, Corbyn's abysmal positioning and instincts on both Russia and anti-Semitism are not showing in the polls with Labour still just under 40%. It appears it is not just Labour members who are willing to overlook glaring faults in their hatred for the other side.
  • felixfelix Posts: 7,681
    edited March 26
    Nigelb said:

    daodao said:

    Is this a vulnerability?

    The voters don't like funny foreign religions and they also don't like (((international bankers))) and other such Jewish-stereotypical things. I don't think there's been a Jewish Prime Minister in over a century (hopefully someone will correct me if I'm wrong), and the last two to run, Ed Miliband and Michael Howard, were both widely considered not quite right, for some mannerism-related reason that it was hard to put your finger on.

    Is there any actual evidence that anti-semitism is a liability as opposed to an asset? NB polling "do you dislike Jews" or something probably isn't reliable, as the voters generally understand that it's considered bad manners to be openly racist.

    Sadly, I agree, in general.

    There is some limited evidence that anti-semitism may be a liability in the tiny number of areas with a significant Jewish population, as discussed yesterday in the thread about Barnet council. However, overall, I think that you are correct, and in some areas, a hostile view of the Zionist state is likely to be popular. Labour's improved performance in GE2017 compared to GE2015 is evidence in favour of your supposition.

    Corbyn should have said nowt. Overall, he has reinvigorated Labour, but talking about this subject won't help him or his party. Individuals and organisations fare better when they focus on strengths, not weaknesses.
    That is an extraordinarily cynical view.
    You seem to be saying that anti-semitism can, indeed ought to be ignored, if so doing is of political advantage ?
    This echoes my concern about the tone of some of this morning's comments - the anti-semitism is a side issue and as long as voters still vote Labour all is well. Very dangerous.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 26,623
    IanB2 said:

    As to whether Corbyn will be replaced, it seems unlikely.

    Ill health, death and him deciding the cause can be better served without him leading it seem the only likely scenarios for it happening. Without events shifting Labour members views quite dramatically he cannot be overthrown.

    The media whipping up a storm will shift at best a tiny percentage of members opinions. Within Labour members there is what you could call a pro Corbyn block and an anti Corbyn block, with probably a small amount more or less in the middle (the dreaded centrists ;) )

    The pro Corbyn block (defining it quite lightly not just the hardcore) outnumber the anti Corbyn block and those in the middle. To actually defeat Corbyn would require the votes of tens of thousands (at least) of those in the pro Corbyn block.

    It is an oversimplification of it, there are of course a number of groups and interests within and overlapping each group. In terms of their basic view it works to an extent though.

    "The media whipping up a storm will shift at best a tiny percentage of members opinions."

    (Sighs theatrically)

    The media reporting a truth that you do not like is not them 'whipping up a storm'. The blame lies not with the media, but with the Labour leadership and a small but appreciable number of members and followers who have led their great party into this problem.

    They fall into two categories:
    1) The genuine antisemites.
    2) The 'my team or none' who will excuse their 'team' anything.

    We have none of the former on here now, but several of the latter.

    Labour has a sickness at its heart. You appear to think its fit and healthy. It is not; and like many illnesses, if not cured it can spread.
    If the Tories want to make something of this, they need to take care not to overplay their hand. Too many seem to think that personal attacks on Corbyn are a substitute for grown up politics.

    The Tories dogwhistled their way through the 2016 London mayoral election, while the Tory Brexiteers did the same during the referendum campaign. But Corbyn’s failure to tackle anti-Semitism inside Labour and his decades-long willingness to share platforms with anti-Semites without ever challenging them - indeed calling some of them his friends - means that Labour has no moral authority to point this out. As ever, Corbyn is the Tory get out of jail free card.

  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 8,689
    felix said:

    felix said:

    felix said:

    There is already a tone to some of the early comments which send a chill to those of us with inherited memories or knowledge of the anti-Jewish sentiments common in the 1930's and before. The clear desire to give Corbyn the benefit of the doubt on this and so many other issues is sickening.

    Which comments?
    In these matters we must all weigh our reactions and words carefully. Politics is about more than following the voters prejudices. There has to be a moral compass.
    Which comments?
    Lol - re-read the thread and work it out for yourself. If you don't understand my point I really can't assist you further.
    Just tell us which comments you're talking about, it's not complicated.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 43,759
    Mr. L, was there not a small move from red to blue over the Russia business?
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 20,827
    And it is all over down under. Yet another very poor performance away from home by England. An innings and 49 runs. An absolute hammering.
  • Scrapheap_as_wasScrapheap_as_was Posts: 8,422
    DavidL said:

    And it is all over down under. Yet another very poor performance away from home by England. An innings and 49 runs. An absolute hammering.

    We have a habit over the years of starting series badly and dropping the first test before getting in touch .. problem with a 2 test series is that won't work!
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 20,827

    Mr. L, was there not a small move from red to blue over the Russia business?

    Possibly, but I think that was more to do with May looking Prime Ministerial for once. The Tory vote going up rather than Labour going down.
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 10,014
    Following the golden rule of Brexit, this Labour amendment would just ensure that any Brexit deal passes.

    I wonder when some MPs will accept that the control is with the crown in parliament.
  • MetatronMetatron Posts: 124
    When is the MSM (or this website) going to cotton on to the fact envy is endemic in both anti-Semitism and socialism.Thats why so many socialists parties were anti-semitic before the Holocaust.Since 1948 they have hid their anti-Semitism behind being fanatical Anti- Israelis.
    In the past the anti-Semitism on the left was covered up by the fact all the Labour leaders were Pro- Israel.
    Corbyn is the first Labour Leader whose CV is based on being anti-Israel and the amount of anti-Semitism on the left is now getting exposed.What is worrying is that hundreds of thousands of people since Corbyn`s election have joined the labour party
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 20,827

    DavidL said:

    And it is all over down under. Yet another very poor performance away from home by England. An innings and 49 runs. An absolute hammering.

    We have a habit over the years of starting series badly and dropping the first test before getting in touch .. problem with a 2 test series is that won't work!
    It's been a very, very long winter for those like Root, Woakes and Bairstow playing in all the formats. They look weary and mentally shot.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 26,623
    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    This story has, so far, done nothing more than give those who don't like Corbyn another reason to dislike him. Until that changes he remains safe. To date I don't see any evidence that any of his support base, which has been determined more than once to be the majority of Labour's current membership, are having reservations about him.

    Labour members will forgive Corbyn anything. There is literally nothing he could say or do that would shake their faith. However, to win the next general election Labour needs to win over a lot more voters than it did in June 2017, while keeping all those it got. That’s where things get trickier. The really interesting thing is that smart, non-cultists on the left will know this. John McDonnell has already broken with the leader in his response to the Russian attacks. It will be fascinating to see how he plays this one. It’s clear that someone has been talking to Corbyn about this - hence the various statements over the last 48 hours.

    So far, Corbyn's abysmal positioning and instincts on both Russia and anti-Semitism are not showing in the polls with Labour still just under 40%. It appears it is not just Labour members who are willing to overlook glaring faults in their hatred for the other side.

    Yep - around 40% of people dislike the Tories enough to back a Labour party led by Jeremy Corbyn. That is certainly worth reflecting on. When it comes to dogwhistles and giving succour to racists and xenophobes, it’s not a one way street.

  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 6,244
    DavidL said:

    And it is all over down under. Yet another very poor performance away from home by England. An innings and 49 runs. An absolute hammering.

    After the first innings disaster, it actually wasn't a terrible effort at saving the match.

    A more savvy reaction by Root to his injury would have seen him batting today, which might well have seen out the draw. The wickets of Bairstow and Stokes showed clearly that they haven't shaken off the one day instincts - pretty well inevitable given the lack of preparation for this short series.
  • TheJezziahTheJezziah Posts: 964


    "The media whipping up a storm will shift at best a tiny percentage of members opinions."

    (Sighs theatrically)

    The media reporting a truth that you do not like is not them 'whipping up a storm'. The blame lies not with the media, but with the Labour leadership and a small but appreciable number of members and followers who have led their great party into this problem.

    They fall into two categories:
    1) The genuine antisemites.
    2) The 'my team or none' who will excuse their 'team' anything.

    We have none of the former on here now, but several of the latter.

    Labour has a sickness at its heart. You appear to think its fit and healthy. It is not; and like many illnesses, if not cured it can spread.
    I can show you studies proving the media bias against Corbyn if you would like?

    The idea that the media can't create a narrative using the 'truth' (which means their take on it) seems a bit naive (although I don't think you as a person are)

    Also to clarify I didn't actually refer to the storm being a lie, although I guess the phrase may indicate that. The reason the media being filled with negative headlines about Corbyn (which might be another way of saying media whipping up a storm) will not really have much of an impact is because they have been mostly filled with negative headlines since he became Labour leader if not just before that.
    I'd be interested in seeing such studies, preferably unbiased and scientific ones. They might even make a good subject for a threader for OGH or a.n.other.

    I agree that the impact might be slight. However reasonable Labour members need to ask themselves what sort of party they want to be part of, ad what behaviour they are willing to defend.

    Edit: in fact, that goes for members of any party.
    I'll let you judge the validity of it for yourself.

    http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/67211/1/CAmmaerts_Journalistic representations of Jeremy Corbyn_Author_2016.pdf

    Preferably I want a party that ignores the media, have done since well before Corbyn become leader of the Labour party. I used to say to people years ago that criticised politicians that it wasn't all their fault the media is to blame as well. Which isn't to say the media is all evil either.

    Could be something of a cross over, as a Manchester United fan I used to like the Fergie approach to the media, they have their uses but never bow or cower to them. Make sure they know who is in charge.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 11,364
    Nigelb said:

    DavidL said:

    And it is all over down under. Yet another very poor performance away from home by England. An innings and 49 runs. An absolute hammering.

    After the first innings disaster, it actually wasn't a terrible effort at saving the match.

    A more savvy reaction by Root to his injury would have seen him batting today, which might well have seen out the draw. The wickets of Bairstow and Stokes showed clearly that they haven't shaken off the one day instincts - pretty well inevitable given the lack of preparation for this short series.
    I don't think, IIRC, that Kiwi players play as much one day and t20 as Brit layers do? Although I've seen Southee and Wagner bowling for Essex; the latter very successfully.
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 8,584
    IanB2 said:

    As to whether Corbyn will be replaced, it seems unlikely.

    Ill health, death and him deciding the cause can be better served without him leading it seem the only likely scenarios for it happening. Without events shifting Labour members views quite dramatically he cannot be overthrown.

    The media whipping up a storm will shift at best a tiny percentage of members opinions. Within Labour members there is what you could call a pro Corbyn block and an anti Corbyn block, with probably a small amount more or less in the middle (the dreaded centrists ;) )

    The pro Corbyn block (defining it quite lightly not just the hardcore) outnumber the anti Corbyn block and those in the middle. To actually defeat Corbyn would require the votes of tens of thousands (at least) of those in the pro Corbyn block.

    It is an oversimplification of it, there are of course a number of groups and interests within and overlapping each group. In terms of their basic view it works to an extent though.

    "The media whipping up a storm will shift at best a tiny percentage of members opinions."

    (Sighs theatrically)

    The media reporting a truth that you do not like is not them 'whipping up a storm'. The blame lies not with the media, but with the Labour leadership and a small but appreciable number of members and followers who have led their great party into this problem.

    They fall into two categories:
    1) The genuine antisemites.
    2) The 'my team or none' who will excuse their 'team' anything.

    We have none of the former on here now, but several of the latter.

    Labour has a sickness at its heart. You appear to think its fit and healthy. It is not; and like many illnesses, if not cured it can spread.
    If the Tories want to make something of this, they need to take care not to overplay their hand. Too many seem to think that personal attacks on Corbyn are a substitute for grown up politics.
    That is the odd thing: the Conservative Party is keeping shtum. All the running has been made by Labour backbenchers, the Jewish (community's) newspapers and latterly outsourced to Guido. Whether that is significant, I don't know.
  • felixfelix Posts: 7,681

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    This story has, so far, done nothing more than give those who don't like Corbyn another reason to dislike him. Until that changes he remains safe. To date I don't see any evidence that any of his support base, which has been determined more than once to be the majority of Labour's current membership, are having reservations about him.

    Labour members will forgive Corbyn anything. There is literally nothing he could say or do that would shake their faith. However, to win the next general election Labour needs to win over a lot more voters than it did in June 2017, while keeping all those it got. That’s where things get trickier. The really interesting thing is that smart, non-cultists on the left will know this. John McDonnell has already broken with the leader in his response to the Russian attacks. It will be fascinating to see how he plays this one. It’s clear that someone has been talking to Corbyn about this - hence the various statements over the last 48 hours.

    So far, Corbyn's abysmal positioning and instincts on both Russia and anti-Semitism are not showing in the polls with Labour still just under 40%. It appears it is not just Labour members who are willing to overlook glaring faults in their hatred for the other side.

    Yep - around 40% of people dislike the Tories enough to back a Labour party led by Jeremy Corbyn. That is certainly worth reflecting on. When it comes to dogwhistles and giving succour to racists and xenophobes, it’s not a one way street.

    Party before country was made pretty explicit yesterday by Keith Starmer on Brexit - and i imagine he takes the same view on anti-semitism unless he has said otherwise.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 43,759
    Mr. Metatron, there is something in that. Jewish bankers and their financial capabilities (including charging interest) meant they were not only few in number relative to Christians in medieval/Renaissance Europe but made a lot of money in a way forbidden to Christians. Being a small minority, and separate religiously, and wealthy through non-Christian means (even if it was really helpful to the economy) placed them in a vulnerable position.
  • felixfelix Posts: 7,681


    "The media whipping up a storm will shift at best a tiny percentage of members opinions."

    (Sighs theatrically)

    The media reporting a truth that you do not like is not them 'whipping up a storm'. The blame lies not with the media, but with the Labour leadership and a small but appreciable number of members and followers who have led their great party into this problem.

    They fall into two categories:
    1) The genuine antisemites.
    2) The 'my team or none' who will excuse their 'team' anything.

    We have none of the former on here now, but several of the latter.

    Labour has a sickness at its heart. You appear to think its fit and healthy. It is not; and like many illnesses, if not cured it can spread.
    I can show you studies proving the media bias against Corbyn if you would like?

    The idea that the media can't create a narrative using the 'truth' (which means their take on it) seems a bit naive (although I don't think you as a person are)

    Also to clarify I didn't actually refer to the storm being a lie, although I guess the phrase may indicate that. The reason the media being filled with negative headlines about Corbyn (which might be another way of saying media whipping up a storm) will not really have much of an impact is because they have been mostly filled with negative headlines since he became Labour leader if not just before that.
    I'd be interested in seeing such studies, preferably unbiased and scientific ones. They might even make a good subject for a threader for OGH or a.n.other.

    I agree that the impact might be slight. However reasonable Labour members need to ask themselves what sort of party they want to be part of, ad what behaviour they are willing to defend.

    Edit: in fact, that goes for members of any party.
    I'll let you judge the validity of it for yourself.

    http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/67211/1/CAmmaerts_Journalistic representations of Jeremy Corbyn_Author_2016.pdf

    Preferably I want a party that ignores the media, have done since well before Corbyn become leader of the Labour party. I used to say to people years ago that criticised politicians that it wasn't all their fault the media is to blame as well. Which isn't to say the media is all evil either.

    Could be something of a cross over, as a Manchester United fan I used to like the Fergie approach to the media, they have their uses but never bow or cower to them. Make sure they know who is in charge.
    The media can be irritating, frustrating, unpleasant and much more but your philosophy is a million times worse.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 42,824
    Corbyn may think he is not technically anti Jewish but he is largely anti Israel, just as he is anti American and his support for the Palestinians and the Russians is clearly as a counterweight to them
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 42,824
    edited March 26
    It is not an either/or choice, especially while the DUP remains the largest party in NI
  • TheJezziahTheJezziah Posts: 964
    felix said:


    I can show you studies proving the media bias against Corbyn if you would like?

    The idea that the media can't create a narrative using the 'truth' (which means their take on it) seems a bit naive (although I don't think you as a person are)

    Also to clarify I didn't actually refer to the storm being a lie, although I guess the phrase may indicate that. The reason the media being filled with negative headlines about Corbyn (which might be another way of saying media whipping up a storm) will not really have much of an impact is because they have been mostly filled with negative headlines since he became Labour leader if not just before that.
    I'd be interested in seeing such studies, preferably unbiased and scientific ones. They might even make a good subject for a threader for OGH or a.n.other.

    I agree that the impact might be slight. However reasonable Labour members need to ask themselves what sort of party they want to be part of, ad what behaviour they are willing to defend.

    Edit: in fact, that goes for members of any party.
    I'll let you judge the validity of it for yourself.

    http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/67211/1/CAmmaerts_Journalistic representations of Jeremy Corbyn_Author_2016.pdf

    Preferably I want a party that ignores the media, have done since well before Corbyn become leader of the Labour party. I used to say to people years ago that criticised politicians that it wasn't all their fault the media is to blame as well. Which isn't to say the media is all evil either.

    Could be something of a cross over, as a Manchester United fan I used to like the Fergie approach to the media, they have their uses but never bow or cower to them. Make sure they know who is in charge.
    The media can be irritating, frustrating, unpleasant and much more but your philosophy is a million times worse.
    The media is an incredibly broad brush stroke there, used by me and quoted back by you accurately, to be precise I am referring to the papers more than anything else.
  • Blue_rogBlue_rog Posts: 1,945
    I have had many discussions over the years about antisemitism both with my wife (a socialist) and Jewish colleagues. It is easy to conflate antisemitism with legitimate criticism of the Israeli government and policies. The majority of my Jewish colleagues had problems with Israeli government policies and could understand why there were a lot of negative press. This is different from antisemitism.

    One of the more extended discussion I had was in a restaurant in Antwerp where I tried to understand the complex beliefs around dietary permissions. I still find that difficult to understand.

    I can accept these religious beliefs however. This doesn't stop me disliking the practice of unstunned killing of animals. This is not antisemitism. I also feel anger that unstunned meat can enter the wider UK food chain unlabelled. This is also not antisemitism.

    Although my wife and I disagree about the majority of political topics, we can both agree that the current position of the Israeli government on the situation in the Middle East is wrong and that there has been successful lobbying of the US political agenda towards Israel over the years.

    I think a clearer understanding of the differences between antisemitism and criticism of Israeli policies is needed for the wider population before it is possible to easily call out true antisemitism.

    This is NOT a defence of Corbyn.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 31,765

    Is this a vulnerability?

    The voters don't like funny foreign religions and they also don't like (((international bankers))) and other such Jewish-stereotypical things. I don't think there's been a Jewish Prime Minister in over a century (hopefully someone will correct me if I'm wrong), and the last two to run, Ed Miliband and Michael Howard, were both widely considered not quite right, for some mannerism-related reason that it was hard to put your finger on.

    Is there any actual evidence that anti-semitism is a liability as opposed to an asset? NB polling "do you dislike Jews" or something probably isn't reliable, as the voters generally understand that it's considered bad manners to be openly racist.

    There is this...

    https://antisemitism.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/Antisemitism-Barometer-2017.pdf

    Which might suggest we could win over some Tory voters with it.

    Although there has been a lot of effort to get the message out there so we must be reaching saturation point on that one.
    • 76% of British Jews felt that political events caused antisemitism to rise, and for two years, over 4 in 5 British Jews have suspected the Labour Party of harbouring antisemites.
    Sort of backs up my latter point, rightly or wrongly, the message that Labour are anti-semitic is already believed by a large number of Jewish people.

    With the large numbers in other parties agreeing to at least one anti-semitic statement, it would suggest it isn't a vote losing proposition.

    In fairness to the Conservatives though it does seem to be an age thing partially with older people being more anti-semitic than younger people.

    If young people could be convinced that Corbyn is anti-semitic it could lose him votes. Although I would say the same about misogynist considering women supported Labour in greater numbers than men. Neither claim seems likely to be widely believed among Labour voters, mainly because their rubbish, partially though because the media have been crying wolf so long about Corbyn it would be a struggle for them to get the message across if they did decide to tell the truth.
    Corbyn has admitted labour, though not him, has a problem to tackle at the least that should prevent this of his supporters from saying it is all made up.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 20,290

    I'll let you judge the validity of it for yourself.

    http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/67211/1/CAmmaerts_Journalistic representations of Jeremy Corbyn_Author_2016.pdf

    Preferably I want a party that ignores the media, have done since well before Corbyn become leader of the Labour party. I used to say to people years ago that criticised politicians that it wasn't all their fault the media is to blame as well. Which isn't to say the media is all evil either.

    Could be something of a cross over, as a Manchester United fan I used to like the Fergie approach to the media, they have their uses but never bow or cower to them. Make sure they know who is in charge.

    That paper's interesting thanks, and IMV worthy of a threader. I've just had a quick skim, but will say that it's heavily dependent on perspective: is a particular article antagonistic or realistic? I don't know anything about the CA methodology to remark on validity.

    In addition, it would be good to see a similar study, performed in a similar manner, against (say) Ed Miliband in 2014, Cameron in 2014, and May in late 2017. This may tell us if such a factor is unique against Labour.

    There's also the question of whether the media were correct to be antagonistic towards Corbyn. Certainly, there is good reason to be, as recent events have shown.

    Perhaps the 'biased' media are actually representing Corbyn as he actually is?
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 37,275
    kle4 said:

    Corbyn has admitted labour, though not him, has a problem to tackle at the least that should prevent this of his supporters from saying it is all made up.

  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 43,759
    Mr. Rog, interesting post.

    On food: in the past, there were a great many restrictions imposed by the church (there were fewer days you could eat meat than you were banned from doing so). It led to things like puffins and beavers being classed as fish so they could be eaten almost all year round.

    One group of monks, forget which, had a rule that meat couldn't be eaten in the rectory. Being dodgy, they then invented a second dining room called the misericord, in which meat could be eaten (though only half of them were allowed in there).
  • See I’m not in a minority, time to shaft the DUP and Norn Iron. Cheerio Norn Iron, you’re getting reunited with the 26 counties.

    LBC can reveal that more Brits would prioritise leaving the European Union than maintaining the United Kingdom in its current form.

    Our poll with YouGov shows that 36% of people think leaving the EU is more of a priority than keeping Northern Ireland in the United Kingdom (29%).

    And 71% of people that chose the EU over Northern Ireland voted Brexit.


    http://www.lbc.co.uk/hot-topics/eu-referendum/brits-would-rather-leave-eu-than-keep-n-ireland/
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 31,765
    edited March 26
    DavidL said:

    This story has, so far, done nothing more than give those who don't like Corbyn another reason to dislike him. Until that changes he remains safe. To date I don't see any evidence that any of his support base, which has been determined more than once to be the majority of Labour's current membership, are having reservations about him.

    That is true, but that support base at least cannot now say the problems on this in the party are made up without contradicting Corbyn himself. Any peddling of the 'it's made up by the media and Corbyn opponents' would be to attack Corbyn's position. This applies to non Corbyn fans who say he should have stayed quiet - he says there is a genuine problem, how could he be quiet knowing there is a problem?

    Sure the media and opponents have seized on it, but they didn't start the fire they are just warming their hands by it.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 43,759
    F1: apparently Sainz's water pump problem meant he essentially drove much of the race whilst being waterboarded. Given that, very impressive to retain 10th and hold off Perez.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 31,765

    IanB2 said:

    As to whether Corbyn will be replaced, it seems unlikely.

    Ill health, death and him deciding the cause can be better served without him leading it seem the only likely scenarios for it happening. Without events shifting Labour members views quite dramatically he cannot be overthrown.

    The media whipping up a storm will shift at best a tiny percentage of members opinions. Within Labour members there is what you could call a pro Corbyn block and an anti Corbyn block, with probably a small amount more or less in the middle (the dreaded centrists ;) )

    The pro Corbyn block (defining it quite lightly not just the hardcore) outnumber the anti Corbyn block and those in the middle. To actually defeat Corbyn would require the votes of tens of thousands (at least) of those in the pro Corbyn block.

    It is an oversimplification of it, there are of course a number of groups and interests within and overlapping each group. In terms of their basic view it works to an extent though.

    "The media whipping up a storm will shift at best a tiny percentage of members opinions."

    (Sighs theatrically)

    The media reporting a truth that you do not like is not them 'whipping up a storm'. The blame lies not with the media, but with the Labour leadership and a small but appreciable number of members and followers who have led their great party into this problem.

    They fall into two categories:
    1) The genuine antisemites.
    2) The 'my team or none' who will excuse their 'team' anything.

    We have none of the former on here now, but several of the latter.

    Labour has a sickness at its heart. You appear to think its fit and healthy. It is not; and like many illnesses, if not cured it can spread.
    If the Tories want to make something of this, they need to take care not to overplay their hand. Too many seem to think that personal attacks on Corbyn are a substitute for grown up politics.
    That is the odd thing: the Conservative Party is keeping shtum. All the running has been made by Labour backbenchers, the Jewish (community's) newspapers and latterly outsourced to Guido. Whether that is significant, I don't know.
    They've commented on twutter and the like, are thy quiet? Or is it less newsworthy?
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 20,290
    Mr Dancer,

    You might like the following Unreal Engine 4 demo:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=770&v=Vh9msqaoJZw
  • alex.alex. Posts: 2,846
    The thing about the “criticism of Israel not anti-semitism” thing though is that it often seems to deliberately pick out Israel for special criticism and extra scrutiny where others are ignored. And often with a lack of appreciation of the historical context for why Israel adopts the policy stances it does, and why they often do so in defiance of International opinion. And too often when criticism surfaces it tends towards the line that they are “evil” rather than misguided. And furthermore the fact that they are a democracy makes it easy for critics to associate their policies with the Israeli people, which creates the context for boycotts of Israeli goods, art etc, where other countries in the Middle East (don’t make the people suffer for the sins of their leaders) are largely exempted.
  • TheJezziahTheJezziah Posts: 964
    edited March 26
    kle4 said:

    If young people could be convinced that Corbyn is anti-semitic it could lose him votes. Although I would say the same about misogynist considering women supported Labour in greater numbers than men. Neither claim seems likely to be widely believed among Labour voters, mainly because their rubbish, partially though because the media have been crying wolf so long about Corbyn it would be a struggle for them to get the message across if they did decide to tell the truth.
    Corbyn has admitted labour, though not him, has a problem to tackle at the least that should prevent this of his supporters from saying it is all made up.
    Anyone saying there are absolutely no anti-semites in the Labour party, and saying it at any point in history probably, is quite frankly a bit stupid, this goes back to before Corbyn ever become leader.

    It doesn't even really matter if you have a particularly opposite belief as a party to the prejudice as I heard in the last couple of years (can't find a link) of a Councillor getting kicked out of Labour for making homophobic comments and from what I remember it wasn't simply saying something insulting about LGBT people but actually her beliefs about them. I don't think Corbyn himself and I doubt anyone with any sense claimed there was never any anti-semitism within Labour.

    The problem with the statement there is a problem within Labour with anti-semitism, and this is from a conversation I had a year or so back before the general election, is surely one anti-semite within Labour is a problem? In which case Labour has and will have a problem for a very long time regardless of anyone's actions and so has every other party (of a decent size)

    You can then argue about a major problem or not, but I can't actually see any advantage of arguing with people about the definition of major problem when people are talking about racism. If you want to simplify the argument right down any racism is a major problem, but then saying a party has a major problem with racism indicates something more.

    The argument, I imagine for anyone with any common sense is the level of it within Labour and then how much the media might be increasing the appearance of the issue for political advantage.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 10,606
    HYUFD said:

    Corbyn may think he is not technically anti Jewish but he is largely anti Israel, just as he is anti American and his support for the Palestinians and the Russians is clearly as a counterweight to them

    Tha's pretty fair. I agree he's largely against the policies of both the United States and Israel (he's nothing against individuals who happen to come from there), on which I think he's largely right, and that's over the years led him to give airtime to people who on closer inspection are best kept far away. It didn't really matter much when he was a backbencher and would talk to anyone but it needs attention as a leader. But specifically on Israel, it's not only possible but easy to consistently oppose their policies over most of the last 20 years without being anti-semitic. Labour Friends of Israel, on which I was a national executive member (possibly the only non-Jewish member, who cares), has exactly that position.

    It is just as wrong to assume that if one's Jewish (or even merely not anti-semitic) one "must" like Israel and its policies, as the reverse, to think that if one's sympathetic to the horrible situation of many Palestinians one should start worrying about Jewish conspiracies. Both some passionate Zionists and some passionate pro-Palestinians fall into the trap of conflating the two.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 43,759
    Mr. Jessop, that's damned impressive.

    Although, when the new consoles come out I'm going to have to wait. Disregarding poverty (#worldssmallestviolin), I have a bad habit of buying one 6-12 months before a slimmer, better model comes out, *and* last time the dickish manufacturers decided to try and pretend consoles are like phones and released a SwankyEdition. I don't want to be lumbered with the PeasantEdition of a console because the manufacturers are oafs (assuming I get the PS5 or whatever it is).
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 31,765
    Corbyn has said there is a problem. Good. Regardless of any party impacts on either side, the important thing is to see how he thinks that problem can be fixed. Not for his base to cry about being attacked over what the leader has just admitted, that doesn't help him solve the problem.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 31,765
    Scott_P said:

    kle4 said:

    Corbyn has admitted labour, though not him, has a problem to tackle at the least that should prevent this of his supporters from saying it is all made up.

    They cannot do so even half credibly.
  • RhubarbRhubarb Posts: 350

    See I’m not in a minority, time to shaft the DUP and Norn Iron. Cheerio Norn Iron, you’re getting reunited with the 26 counties.

    LBC can reveal that more Brits would prioritise leaving the European Union than maintaining the United Kingdom in its current form.

    Our poll with YouGov shows that 36% of people think leaving the EU is more of a priority than keeping Northern Ireland in the United Kingdom (29%).

    And 71% of people that chose the EU over Northern Ireland voted Brexit.


    http://www.lbc.co.uk/hot-topics/eu-referendum/brits-would-rather-leave-eu-than-keep-n-ireland/

    Do you know if there's any pre-2016 polling on English attitudes to the Union with NI? Particularly ones that breakdown support to those who have an English rather than British identity? I'm interested to try and find out if this is a side effect of Brexit or if Brexit and apathy to the NI union come from the same place.

    (I tried googling but all the 'union'-related polling appears to be EU-ish).
This discussion has been closed.