Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => Politics & Current Affairs => Topic started by: Roses on November 18, 2020, 12:21:40 PM
-
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-54986916
I think that is a sensible decision.
-
What are your reasons for thinking this is a sensible decision?
-
What are your reasons for thinking this is a sensible decision?
Who do you want to retain? A relatively large number of voters or one M P?
-
Who do you want to retain? A relatively large number of voters or one M P?
I wasn't asking about retaining anything, I just don't like statements without reasons, sometimes called assertions.
Plus I'm not clear that under the Labour Party rules that Starmer is actually able to do this.
So I ask again what are the reasons for thinking this is a sensible decision?
-
I wasn't asking about retaining anything, I just don't like statements without reasons, sometimes called assertions.
Plus I'm not clear that under the Labour Party rules that Starmer is actually able to do this.
So I ask again what are the reasons for thinking this is a sensible decision?
Starmer can't stop him being accepted as a member of the Labour Party, but what he can do - and has done - is not return the whip to him to allow him to sit as a member of the Parliamentary Party, so he represents his constituency in parliament but not Labour.
As to whether it's retaining one MP or many voters, it's just one example of the broad fracture in the middle of the Labour party that promises to break it into a centre-left element and a union-affiliated moderate- to far-left element. Keeping Corbyn out invites sympathisers to take sides, but on the other hand letting him back in invites criticism from political opponents.
O.
-
What are your reasons for thinking this is a sensible decision?
Apart from having been a useless leader of the party, his stance over antisemitism didn't do him any favours whatsoever.
-
Apart from having been a useless leader of the party, his stance over antisemitism didn't do him any favours whatsoever.
During your absence I posted a link to everything Corbyn has done for the Jewish community. I'll try and find it when I have time. I think you would be surprised. Keeping taking the tabloids.
-
During your absence I posted a link to everything Corbyn has done for the Jewish community. I'll try and find it when I have time. I think you would be surprised. Keeping taking the tabloids.
I would never read tabloid trash. >:( My views on Corbyn, whom I think is one worst Labour leaders since Wilson, is based on his performance!
-
The decision seems to please no one.
-
I confess to being shocked that this or any other issue is supposedly militating against a Labour Party wanting to REACH the position of being a credible opposition. Of course it’s still England where such nonsense is even a thing.
Why doesn’t England admit that it’s in love the Tories, It loves their smell, their musk.
-
I confess to being shocked that this or any other issue is supposedly militating against a Labour Party wanting to REACH the position of being a credible opposition. Of course it’s still England where such nonsense is even a thing.
Why doesn’t England admit that it’s in love the Tories, It loves their smell, their musk.
But Vlad, its association with a middle-aged polytechnic Trokskyite has already been "militating against a Labour Party wanting to REACH the position of being a credible opposition" and it has militated against Labour being able to win an election. In our two-party first-past-the-post "democracy" elections are won in the middle ground. Blair (love him or loath him) understood this, I suspect that Starmer does, too. I doubt keeping Corbyn at arm's length will do Starmerany harm at all.
-
I would never read tabloid trash. >:( My views on Corbyn, whom I think is one worst Labour leaders since Wilson, is based on his performance!
Except you specifically criticised "his stance over antisemitism".
No arguments from me on his leadership performance, but he simply is not anti-semitic. Against Israel undoubtedly, but that is not the same thing. You can be appalled by the state of Iran and still respect Islam.
-
But Vlad, its association with a middle-aged polytechnic Trokskyite has already been "militating against a Labour Party wanting to REACH the position of being a credible opposition" and it has militated against Labour being able to win an election. In our two-party first-past-the-post "democracy" elections are won in the middle ground. Blair (love him or loath him) understood this, I suspect that Starmer does, too. I doubt keeping Corbyn at arm's length will do Starmerany harm at all.
With all due respect there is something wrong with a country where the ruling party have demonstrated utter and fatal incompetence and showed little acumen prior to it's most recent
Failure and little in it's current membership of any future acumen.The existence of the conservative party beyond 2024 Should be unthinkable.
As chaos promised from Miliband turned out to be preferable to Cameron. A far less damaging Brexit could have been expected
From Corbyn as could s better response to COVID.
-
With all due respect there is something wrong with a country where the ruling party have demonstrated utter and fatal incompetence and showed little acumen prior to it's most recent
Failure and little in it's current membership of any future acumen.The existence of the conservative party beyond 2024 Should be unthinkable.
As chaos promised from Miliband turned out to be preferable to Cameron. A far less damaging Brexit could have been expected
From Corbyn as could s better response to COVID.
Vlad
I'm sure you have a valid point that you are trying to make - but could you do so in clear and simple English, please?
-
With all due respect there is something wrong with a country where the ruling party have demonstrated utter and fatal incompetence and showed little acumen prior to it's most recent Failure and little in it's current membership of any future acumen.The existence of the conservative party beyond 2024 Should be unthinkable.
As chaos promised from Miliband turned out to be preferable to Cameron. A far less damaging Brexit could have been expected From Corbyn as could s better response to COVID.
Vlad, you and I both have to accept that, at the current time, the significant majority of the country are significantly towards the authoritarian and centrist end of the spectrum, regardless of where they stand economically. Those of us with a more egalitarian take on how business should be run are in the minority, and have been for a while in the UK. If people thought like us then the continuation of the Tory party would be unthinkable, but the reality is that they don't: Britons in large numbers want central authority, a sense that Britain (in particular England, and even more in particular the home counties) should be the lodestone for all the world's activities and that the days can't come soon enough when Johnny Foreigner (whether it's over Hadrian's Wall or across Britain's seas) learns to do as he's told again, and the comforting stability of tea, royalty and people in suits giving the impression that there are simple answers to complex problems.
O.
-
I would never read tabloid trash. >:( My views on Corbyn, whom I think is one worst Labour leaders since Wilson, is based on his performance!
Wilson was far better than Corbyn.
-
Wilson was far better than Corbyn.
Yes I didn't understand that remark. He was, at the very least, competent.
-
Apart from having been a useless leader of the party, his stance over antisemitism didn't do him any favours whatsoever.
There are many examples showing he was not antisemitic, this is just one:-
https://www.jewishvoiceforlabour.org.uk/article/fifty-times-jeremy-corbyn-stood-with-jewish-people/
Trentvoyager today -
Quote from: jeremyp on Today at 11:03:03 AM
Wilson was far better than Corbyn.
Yes I didn't understand that remark. He was, at the very least, competent.
_______
They aren't in competition anyway and Corbyn was never PM.
I think Corbyn has been shabbily treated.
-
They aren't in competition anyway and Corbyn was never PM.
I think Corbyn has been shabbily treated.
I agree I think he has been treated less than fairly.
My point about competence stands though, had he been competent enough he may well have got a lot closer to, or even achieved being PM.
-
Except you specifically criticised "his stance over antisemitism".
No arguments from me on his leadership performance, but he simply is not anti-semitic. Against Israel undoubtedly, but that is not the same thing. You can be appalled by the state of Iran and still respect Islam.
I don't suppose for one moment that Corbyn has ever been anti-semitic. However, all this furore started when he stated that "claims of anti-semitism in the Labour party have been exaggerated". He has never withdrawn this statement, despite his recent lame attempt to mitigate the impact of his words. This could indeed be called his "stance on anti-semitism" - not that he himself is an anti-semite, but that he blithely refuses to acknowledge the extent of the evils which have been flourishing around him.
-
I would never read tabloid trash. >:( My views on Corbyn, whom I think is one worst Labour leaders since Wilson, is based on his performance!
What you have said, Littleroses, smacks of tabloid headlines.
What exactly has Jeremy Corbyn done or said or, more likely, what reports have you read about he has said or done, to convince you he is one of the worst Labour leaders since Wilson? I was always led to believe Wilson was a good leader, however my question is about Corbyn.
-
This isn't looking good
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/jeremy-corbyn-row-deepens-allies-23037421.amp?__twitter_impression=true
-
I don't suppose for one moment that Corbyn has ever been anti-semitic. However, all this furore started when he stated that "claims of anti-semitism in the Labour party have been exaggerated". He has never withdrawn this statement, despite his recent lame attempt to mitigate the impact of his words. This could indeed be called his "stance on anti-semitism" - not that he himself is an anti-semite, but that he blithely refuses to acknowledge the extent of the evils which have been flourishing around him.
I believe you are right Dicky though 'blithely' indicates a carefree attitude; I would say Jeremy Corbyn glossed over the antisemitism issue rather too much, or put it on the 'back burner'. That is unsatisfactory, however something that he can address and put right, maybe more effectively as as 'ordinary' MP than as party leader.
NS thanks for the Mirror article. I read the following Guardian article earlier which states what I didn't know (or had 'glossed over' :) ), that his ban as MP will be reviewed in three months. That is heartening.
I'm also heartened by the amount of support he is getting.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/nov/19/politicised-labour-process-let-corbyn-back-in-says-anneliese-dodds
-
Vlad, you and I both have to accept that, at the current time, the significant majority of the country are significantly towards the authoritarian and centrist end of the spectrum, regardless of where they stand economically. Those of us with a more egalitarian take on how business should be run are in the minority, and have been for a while in the UK. If people thought like us then the continuation of the Tory party would be unthinkable, but the reality is that they don't: Britons in large numbers want central authority, a sense that Britain (in particular England, and even more in particular the home counties) should be the lodestone for all the world's activities and that the days can't come soon enough when Johnny Foreigner (whether it's over Hadrian's Wall or across Britain's seas) learns to do as he's told again, and the comforting stability of tea, royalty and people in suits giving the impression that there are simple answers to complex problems.
O.
Not sure the evidence about a fair few BAME (especially Asians voting for Brexit) supports your last assertion. I think the reasons for voting Tory are more complex than that. I think many of those who are doing relatively well in life are inclined to believe it is due to their personal qualities rather than arbitrary good fortune and possibly identify with the Tories as being a party of success. Plus the Tories have had 2 female leaders and in the 2019 election it ran 76 BAME candidates. For example Kemi Badenoch (from Nigeria) was re-elected in 2019 as the MP for the Saffron Walden constituency, which is a Tory safe seat in Essex that does not have a large BAME population. Sajid Javed ran for PM, Rishi Sunak is Chancellor, Priti Patel is Home Secretary.
I know some Asian people voted Brexit because they thought it meant EU immigrants would not have an advantage in getting a job in the UK compared to immigrants from Commonwealth countries.
On the other hand, articles like this show the Tories are willing to support foreign right-wing nationalists to gain political support.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-theresa-may-hungary-sanctions-eu-alliance-populism-right-wing-a8417846.html
Not to mention how Blair's Labour and the Tories have bribed and fawned all over Saudi Arabia in the interests of selling them British arms.
https://www.politicshome.com/news/article/campaigners-condem-liz-truss-over-500-new-saudi-arms-deals
https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/opendemocracyuk/what-we-ve-learned-from-fifty-years-of-saudi-arms-deals/
-
Not sure the evidence about a fair few BAME (especially Asians voting for Brexit) supports your last assertion. I think the reasons for voting Tory are more complex than that.
I don't pretend that it's the only reason anyone votes Tory, but it seems to me that it's a significant portion of their core support.
I think many of those who are doing relatively well in life are inclined to believe it is due to their personal qualities rather than arbitrary good fortune and possibly identify with the Tories as being a party of success.
I'm one of them, but it's within a context. I appreciate that there's been elements of luck and good fortune in there, and so I equally appreciate that any number of people either haven't had the opportunity to deploy their talents, or haven't had the opportunity to develop them in the first place - and that's why I can't support a party that wants to strip away every possible state-sponsored support that might balance the field for people.
Plus the Tories have had 2 female leaders and in the 2019 election it ran 76 BAME candidates. For example Kemi Badenoch (from Nigeria) was re-elected in 2019 as the MP for the Saffron Walden constituency, which is a Tory safe seat in Essex that does not have a large BAME population. Sajid Javed ran for PM, Rishi Sunak is Chancellor, Priti Patel is Home Secretary.
Which doesn't in any way detract from the fact that their policies disproportionately have negative impacts on women, the disabled and ethnic minorities. Of course they're going to trumpet the people who've achieved from those backgrounds despite their best efforts, it feeds into their narrative.
I know some Asian people voted Brexit because they thought it meant EU immigrants would not have an advantage in getting a job in the UK compared to immigrants from Commonwealth countries.
A slightly different take on 'us vs them', but a variation on the common theme.
Not to mention how Blair's Labour and the Tories have bribed and fawned all over Saudi Arabia in the interests of selling them British arms.
Whilst there are those who might suggest that Blair's Labour was just Tory in red, I fear that sort of activity is just seen as political expediency by Westminster denizens of any stripe - the soft power that the UK arms manufacturers seem to have confounds me.
O.
-
How can you now possibly associate Conservatives with success. They have trashed everything.
-
Except you specifically criticised "his stance over antisemitism".
No arguments from me on his leadership performance, but he simply is not anti-semitic. Against Israel undoubtedly, but that is not the same thing. You can be appalled by the state of Iran and still respect Islam.
His "stance over antisemitism" is his stance with respect to rooting it out of his party which has been painted as not good enough.
I think your second sentence is apposite. Too many people conflate being opposed to what Israel does with being antisemitic.
-
"Antisemitic" is really not a good word to use when considering attitudes towards people of Jewish origin.
"Semitic" is an adjective which describes a group of languages of which the most widely spoken is Arabic.
-
"Antisemitic" is really not a good word to use when considering attitudes towards people of Jewish origin.
"Semitic" is an adjective which describes a group of languages of which the most widely spoken is Arabic.
And yet we all know that the word "antisemitic" is about hatred of Jews.
-
"Antisemitic" is really not a good word to use when considering attitudes towards people of Jewish origin.
"Semitic" is an adjective which describes a group of languages of which the most widely spoken is Arabic.
Jeremy is right. You are guilty of the etymological fallacy. The word was poorly chosen. but we all know what it means.
-
Which doesn't in any way detract from the fact that their policies disproportionately have negative impacts on women, the disabled and ethnic minorities. Of course they're going to trumpet the people who've achieved from those backgrounds despite their best efforts, it feeds into their narrative.
Yes I can understand that self-interest would lead to disadvantaged people voting for a party that prioritises addressing their issues, which explains a lot of the Labour BAME votes. However, I'm not sure that Priti Patel, Sajed Javid, Rishi Sunak etc or even Thatcher thought that they achieved their success despite Tories policies. I think their perception is that Tory policies helped them succeed and that Labour policies would have hindered success for them and others like them.
So self-interest could also lead to a significant BAME Tory vote, as many ethnic minority groups seem to be academically and economically out-performing Caucasians and those people are more likely to support Tory policies such as a mandatory requirement for immigrants to learn English or a perceived support for hard-working entrepreneurs and small businesses through their wage and lower tax rate policies, though given the Tory position on IR35 this isn't really true for contractors. It may be as you say because Tory policies are more authoritarian with an emphasis on discipline, which may appeal to a significant number of ethnic minority voters who want a tougher approach to crime, or it may be that the Tory policies are perceived by hard-working, well-integrated immigrants as serving their families better than Labour policies.
Apparently without female voters the Tory party would not have a majority. Again self-interest seems to be the key to winning female votes by addressing issues that primarily affect women.
https://inews.co.uk/opinion/behind-the-scenes-the-tories-are-desperately-trying-to-win-back-female-voters-254703
A slightly different take on 'us vs them', but a variation on the common theme.
It's a fair point though that it's fairly arbitrary that Europeans get an immigration advantage denied to Commonwealth citizens. Therefore it's not surprising that a number of immigrants from Commonwealth countries were incentivised to vote against continuing such a policy by voting Tory and Leave.
-
How can you now possibly associate Conservatives with success. They have trashed everything.
Success is relative - and presumably the people who voted Tory don't share your sweeping generalisation. Also I doubt people vote for a party without seriously disagreeing with or being critical of some/many of its policies but there may be a handful of issues they feel so strongly about that they will vote for the party that champions those particular issue eg. Brexit or low taxes or they might vote for a party that is not perceived to have as big a problem with antisemitism in its ranks, despite that party's other failures / corruption / incompetence.
-
Yes I can understand that self-interest would lead to disadvantaged people voting for a party that prioritises addressing their issues, which explains a lot of the Labour BAME votes. However, I'm not sure that Priti Patel, Sajed Javid, Rishi Sunak etc or even Thatcher thought that they achieved their success despite Tories policies. I think their perception is that Tory policies helped them succeed and that Labour policies would have hindered success for them and others like them.
They probably do, they may even be correct that those policies did help them - on balance, though, they have a more profound negative effect on people from those backgrounds.
So self-interest could also lead to a significant BAME Tory vote, as many ethnic minority groups seem to be academically and economically out-performing Caucasians and those people are more likely to support Tory policies such as a mandatory requirement for immigrants to learn English or a perceived support for hard-working entrepreneurs and small businesses through their wage and lower tax rate policies, though given the Tory position on IR35 this isn't really true for contractors.
Except that education, as with so many other things, is the minimum requirement for moving upwards, but it's not enough in and of itself. You still need the good fortune and the opportunities that are regularly denied women, the disabled and people of colour.
It may be as you say because Tory policies are more authoritarian with an emphasis on discipline, which may appeal to a significant number of ethnic minority voters who want a tougher approach to crime, or it may be that the Tory policies are perceived by hard-working, well-integrated immigrants as serving their families better than Labour policies.
By those who support them they are - the idea that everyone is on the same playing field and has the same opportunities is something that Tory members and supporters espouse as inherently fair, and I don't disagree with them that it should be the aspiration. I find, generally, that they either don't appreciate (or don't want to acknowledge, in some instances) the nuances that mean differentiate between equality and equity.
Apparently without female voters the Tory party would not have a majority. Again self-interest seems to be the key to winning female votes by addressing issues that primarily affect women.
In this day and age I don't think anyone could achieve a majority in the UK without at least a significant plurality of the female vote; I don't want to give the impression that I think the modern Tory party are trying to take us back to the 1800s, I just feel that they think the work is broadly finished on bringing about equal opportunities.
It's a fair point though that it's fairly arbitrary that Europeans get an immigration advantage denied to Commonwealth citizens.
It's not arbitrary, it's a result of the way the political realities developed - the Commonwealth countries, on aggregate, moved away from the UK, and the UK moved towards Europe. Now we're moving away from Europe (and it's questionable whether the Commonwealth generally have a strong urge to move back towards us as much as some of the soundbites in the UK suggest a 'we're getting the old band back together' sort of mentality). Economically, politically and geographically it made more sense - to many of us it still does, regardless of whether we're going to leave the EU politically or not.
Therefore it's not surprising that a number of immigrants from Commonwealth countries were incentivised to vote against continuing such a policy by voting Tory and Leave.
There's a great deal of crossover between Tory and Leave voters, but the Leave vote managed to appeal to a large number of Labour voters as well, it's an issue the cut across a huge number of demographics. One of the reasons that Cambridge Analytica's involvement was so important was because of their ability to quantify the many, many different influences on people and balance them against each other to try and make the small marginal gains that all added up - by focussing on one or two specific messages out of many influences people were convinced in some instances to vote against their own best interests because their perception of the issue wasn't the same as the reality.
That undoubtedly happened both ways, and it undoubtedly happens in other political arenas than just the Brexit referendum, in that instance the Leave campaign appear to have made a significant improvement in how effective they were with it.
The days are long gone, I think, when people's affiliation can easily be summed up in simple 'Tory/Labour', 'right/left' oversimplifications - intersectionality is the new reality, as much as some of the people making the best use of it might publicly decry it as part of the new 'woke' culture.
O.
-
"Antisemitic" is really not a good word to use when considering attitudes towards people of Jewish origin.
"Semitic" is an adjective which describes a group of languages of which the most widely spoken is Arabic.
I agree, glad you said that.
-
I agree, glad you said that.
But it's irrelevant. Everybody knows what "antisemitic" means. It's origin is irrelevant to the current discussion.
-
Success is relative - and presumably the people who voted Tory don't share your sweeping generalisation. Also I doubt people vote for a party without seriously disagreeing with or being critical of some/many of its policies but there may be a handful of issues they feel so strongly about that they will vote for the party that champions those particular issue eg. Brexit or low taxes or they might vote for a party that is not perceived to have as big a problem with antisemitism in its ranks, despite that party's other failures / corruption / incompetence.
Yes we know all this, but what you are saying is that all that trumps any point I am making. Those who envisage that after the last person is immunised, that the status quo of uninformed, habitual and generational subservience to the worse government in history need to check their mental and/or moral health. National lunacy is not an uncommon phenomenon.
-
Yes we know all this, but what you are saying is that all that trumps any point I am making. Those who envisage that after the last person is immunised, that the status quo of uninformed, habitual and generational subservience to the worse government in history need to check their mental and/or moral health. National lunacy is not an uncommon phenomenon.
I don't think it's subservience exactly - it's probably more a mix of self-interest, indifference, not preferring the alternative, plus people wanting to believe in promises of a pot of gold for them at the end of the rainbow. Right now the pot of gold seems to be ending the free movement of people and getting out of the corrupt bureaucracy of the EU.
-
But it's irrelevant. Everybody knows what "antisemitic" means. It's origin is irrelevant to the current discussion.
I wouldn't say it's irrelevant, it is important to know what words mean precisely.
-
I don't think it's subservience exactly - it's probably more a mix of self-interest, indifference, not preferring the alternative, plus people wanting to believe in promises of a pot of gold for them at the end of the rainbow. Right now the pot of gold seems to be ending the free movement of people and getting out of the corrupt bureaucracy of the EU.
In my own, admittedly limited, experience of listening to people who did vote "Out", this is/was one of their prime reasons for wanting 'Out", quoting the number of incidents of embezzlement of expenses etc that were carefully shuffled under various carpets with no apparent indictments/punishments.
-
In my own, admittedly limited, experience of listening to people who did vote "Out", this is/was one of their prime reasons for wanting 'Out", quoting the number of incidents of embezzlement of expenses etc that were carefully shuffled under various carpets with no apparent indictments/punishments.
And yet we have a Brexit government quite happy to ignore tax avoidance and evasion in this country and spend more on catching "benefit scroungers" than on tax avoiders. And just guess where they might claw most of the money back.
(Clue it's not from benefit cheats)
It's almost as if they are saying "we don't like corruption, unless it's our own corruption, in which case chums go ahead fill your boots"
-
I wouldn't say it's irrelevant, it is important to know what words mean precisely.
It means precisely "hatred against Jews". Everybody knows that. End of.
-
I wouldn't say it's irrelevant, it is important to know what words mean precisely.
You too are guilty of the etymological fallacy. The etymology of the word, or any word, is not necessarily what it means, and is not its "true" meaning. In fact, "antisemitic" has never meant "prejudice against semitic people"; it has always meant, more specifically, "prejudice against Jews".
-
Thank you for that Beyonce, I will store the information away for future reference.
-
I wouldn't say it's irrelevant, it is important to know what words mean precisely.
I think it's probably more important to realise that, in most situations, words don't necessarily have a 'precise' meaning, they have a general meaning that people overlay with their own interpretation and over time that can lead to shifts. Science, philosophy, law, mathematics, music - these are fields where deliberate and necessary efforts are made to codify precise meanings because it's important, but in everyday life we come to a collective agreement about what words mean.
Hence we have antisemitism drifting away from its historic roots, we have Islamophobia as an example of racism although Islam is not a race, so many others.
O.