If Corbyn "is seeking an end to military conflict wherever it is", yet is also "supporting our military personnel .. etc", then either he is confused or your own argument is contradictory!
There will unfortunately never be a complete end to conflict. Not unless you change human nature. If Corbyn thinks there will be, in that respect he is naive and a fool - look at the appeasement /pacifist movement of the 1930's and how that disappeared in a puff of blitzkrieg.
We just have to do the best we can, strive for peace and harmony of course but maintain some military strength in order to protect ourselves (or other vulnerable states) if the need arises. I warm to political leaders who are not dreamers or idealists but are realists about how dangerous the world has become in recent years. Mr Corbyn is not one of 'em.
Hastings Forum
Corbyn will never be Prime Minister
Re: Corbyn will never be Prime Minister
1. Under a Labour Government the country will run out of money (other people's money).
Labour loves to spend our money but can't easily create it themselves, they fight the industry bosses using trade unions, example 'Unite' in order to champion the public sector and gain their votes accordingly.
2. Strong public services depend upon a robust economy, Labour would be damaging to the economy, in turn damaging public services and damaging our country’s security, the message is clear: Labour would damage Britain.
3. A damaged economy means no money for proper funding of our armed forces, nor to protect our families against the evils of ISIS, Putin, Iran et al.
4. The anti-semitism crisis that has infected the Labour body politic does hit home, and undermines Labour’s aim to be a values-based party.
I am uncertain about the philosophical roots of Corbyn’s socialism but perhaps we could build a Museum of Communism as a way of remembrance of all the horrors and many millions of deaths that the ideology has caused. This would be a good way of educating voters of the horrors that communism led to.
Plus of course communism is never adopted by a democracy so it has to be dressed up as something more appealing.
Labour loves to spend our money but can't easily create it themselves, they fight the industry bosses using trade unions, example 'Unite' in order to champion the public sector and gain their votes accordingly.
2. Strong public services depend upon a robust economy, Labour would be damaging to the economy, in turn damaging public services and damaging our country’s security, the message is clear: Labour would damage Britain.
3. A damaged economy means no money for proper funding of our armed forces, nor to protect our families against the evils of ISIS, Putin, Iran et al.
4. The anti-semitism crisis that has infected the Labour body politic does hit home, and undermines Labour’s aim to be a values-based party.
I am uncertain about the philosophical roots of Corbyn’s socialism but perhaps we could build a Museum of Communism as a way of remembrance of all the horrors and many millions of deaths that the ideology has caused. This would be a good way of educating voters of the horrors that communism led to.
Plus of course communism is never adopted by a democracy so it has to be dressed up as something more appealing.
Re: Corbyn will never be Prime Minister
To put things into some kind of balance, it of course has to be said that socialism in the early twentieth century brought about enormous changes of attitude in the workplace and produced a raft of laws improving the conditions of employees, as well as the quality of their lives and their pensions after retiring. We think that that the practices of Sports Direct which have emerged are pretty repressive - Costa is now also under fire for illegal penalty-fines, withholding of holiday and sick pay etc. - but the contemptuous way in which factory owners once treated their employees was ten times worse.
Also, although the Tories like to brand the Labour party as the party of excessive state control and irresponsible spending sprees, it is very variable depending who is in charge. One of the reasons that Tony Blair's administration managed to stay in power for so long was because George Brown was an excellent chancellor who understood the economy and the business community very well and had good relations with the latter - as a result there was considerable economic improvement during those early years. One could argue that all this made the Blair administration look more a Tory one than a traditional socialist government - hard to argue with!
However, power politics has often spoiled the picture - during the 1970's and early 80's, the unions became militant and powerful, instigated a swathe of strikes across the country (remember the Winter of Discontent?) and saw their role as waging an ideological class-war against the wicked capitalist bosses - far from a simple desire to improve workers' lives and protect their hard-fought-for rights and freedoms. The Militant Tendency was a continuation of that combative and confrontational stance (and ensured that Labour under Neil Kinnock's leadership did not manage to get into power) and many see the same things starting to happen under the Momentum banner.
Until the Labour party manages to shake off the taint of extreme left-wing politics and returns to some extent to the genuinely socialist and more tolerant ideals of the past, it will continue to arouse wariness and hostility amongst many middle-of-the-road voters who do NOT want to live in a highly state-controlled country.
Also, although the Tories like to brand the Labour party as the party of excessive state control and irresponsible spending sprees, it is very variable depending who is in charge. One of the reasons that Tony Blair's administration managed to stay in power for so long was because George Brown was an excellent chancellor who understood the economy and the business community very well and had good relations with the latter - as a result there was considerable economic improvement during those early years. One could argue that all this made the Blair administration look more a Tory one than a traditional socialist government - hard to argue with!
However, power politics has often spoiled the picture - during the 1970's and early 80's, the unions became militant and powerful, instigated a swathe of strikes across the country (remember the Winter of Discontent?) and saw their role as waging an ideological class-war against the wicked capitalist bosses - far from a simple desire to improve workers' lives and protect their hard-fought-for rights and freedoms. The Militant Tendency was a continuation of that combative and confrontational stance (and ensured that Labour under Neil Kinnock's leadership did not manage to get into power) and many see the same things starting to happen under the Momentum banner.
Until the Labour party manages to shake off the taint of extreme left-wing politics and returns to some extent to the genuinely socialist and more tolerant ideals of the past, it will continue to arouse wariness and hostility amongst many middle-of-the-road voters who do NOT want to live in a highly state-controlled country.
Re: Corbyn will never be Prime Minister
It was the post war wish to end the austerity of the war years and a desire for change within a crumbling Empire that led Labour into power in 1945. That and the fact that Labour then looked like a Party fit to govern. I don't believe it does now.
The nationalisation of industries and the creation of the welfare state was a huge task and had some good outcomes but the impetus for the more durable reforms came from outside the party:
The 1944 Education Act, which had introduced the concept of selection at 11 and compulsory free secondary education for all, was based on the work of a Tory, Richard Austin 'Rab' Butler.
The introduction of the welfare state rested very largely on the work of two Liberal economists: John Maynard Keynes, who argued the virtues of full employment and state stimulation of the economy, and William Beveridge.
Beveridge's ideas on national insurance were first put in place before the first world war by David Lloyd George. (Liberal). 'Every British citizen would be covered, regardless of income or lack of it. Those who lacked jobs and homes would be helped. Those who were sick, would be cured.'
Not all the nationalised industries were regarded as successful at the time, with British Rail being seen as a joke almost innediately.
The rise of Union power destroyed many industries with Scargill hastening the end of Coal and we know what happened to the automobile industry with Derek Robinson 'Red Robbo'.
John Prescott crushed our merchant shipping industry.
Now all that labour seem to offer is more power to the Unions and some re-nationalisation,
no great vision and looking to take money from the country to end austerity, with no means or track record of being good for the economy.
The nationalisation of industries and the creation of the welfare state was a huge task and had some good outcomes but the impetus for the more durable reforms came from outside the party:
The 1944 Education Act, which had introduced the concept of selection at 11 and compulsory free secondary education for all, was based on the work of a Tory, Richard Austin 'Rab' Butler.
The introduction of the welfare state rested very largely on the work of two Liberal economists: John Maynard Keynes, who argued the virtues of full employment and state stimulation of the economy, and William Beveridge.
Beveridge's ideas on national insurance were first put in place before the first world war by David Lloyd George. (Liberal). 'Every British citizen would be covered, regardless of income or lack of it. Those who lacked jobs and homes would be helped. Those who were sick, would be cured.'
Not all the nationalised industries were regarded as successful at the time, with British Rail being seen as a joke almost innediately.
The rise of Union power destroyed many industries with Scargill hastening the end of Coal and we know what happened to the automobile industry with Derek Robinson 'Red Robbo'.
John Prescott crushed our merchant shipping industry.
Now all that labour seem to offer is more power to the Unions and some re-nationalisation,
no great vision and looking to take money from the country to end austerity, with no means or track record of being good for the economy.
Re: Corbyn will never be Prime Minister
Richard
It seems that you have ignored my various comments and clarifications on ‘antisemitism’ and reverted to the ‘crisis’ in Labour as if it were a given fact. An allegation of something is not, as I mentioned, evidence of it. It is not legitimate for a person to suggest that antisemitism is something that makes him feel uncomfortable as did one the members of the Jewish Labour Movement. You have ignored Mrs Hodge’s false and inflated dossier and example of Joan Ryan reporting a party member basically because she challenged her view on the viability of a two state solution.
Most of your other points are pure opinion not backed by any evidence. You state you are not sure of the roots of Corbyn’s socialism and then make a leap to talk of Museum of Communism as if that were logical. Corbyn’s theory base comes from the foundation of Labour, of Keir Hardie, Clem Attlee, Nye Bevan, and before that the Levellers and Chartists, and Hastings based author Robert Tressell — pure basic democracy, not Pol Pot, Stalin or similar.
Whilst the postwar reforms were the product of Liberal, Keynes and Beveridge ideas, they were implemented by a Labour govt and strongly resisted by the Tories. I have recently read of a quote by Churchill that if Labour was elected with an NHS there would be SS type troops in our streets. (I don’t have the reference for it but from other things I have read of him it was he who wanted to turn guns on the strikers in 1926) RAB is the type of Tory who would be seen as a raving Marxist by the current Tory party. Gone are the days of One Nation.
It seems that you have ignored my various comments and clarifications on ‘antisemitism’ and reverted to the ‘crisis’ in Labour as if it were a given fact. An allegation of something is not, as I mentioned, evidence of it. It is not legitimate for a person to suggest that antisemitism is something that makes him feel uncomfortable as did one the members of the Jewish Labour Movement. You have ignored Mrs Hodge’s false and inflated dossier and example of Joan Ryan reporting a party member basically because she challenged her view on the viability of a two state solution.
Most of your other points are pure opinion not backed by any evidence. You state you are not sure of the roots of Corbyn’s socialism and then make a leap to talk of Museum of Communism as if that were logical. Corbyn’s theory base comes from the foundation of Labour, of Keir Hardie, Clem Attlee, Nye Bevan, and before that the Levellers and Chartists, and Hastings based author Robert Tressell — pure basic democracy, not Pol Pot, Stalin or similar.
Whilst the postwar reforms were the product of Liberal, Keynes and Beveridge ideas, they were implemented by a Labour govt and strongly resisted by the Tories. I have recently read of a quote by Churchill that if Labour was elected with an NHS there would be SS type troops in our streets. (I don’t have the reference for it but from other things I have read of him it was he who wanted to turn guns on the strikers in 1926) RAB is the type of Tory who would be seen as a raving Marxist by the current Tory party. Gone are the days of One Nation.
Re: Corbyn will never be Prime Minister
Seahermit
Your understanding of left and right seems skewed and your adoption of the slogan of ‘extreme left wing politics’ is evidence of it. Corbyn was not in Militant or any of the other fringe groups in the 1970s and is not so now. Militant and Momentum are not at all the same type organisation; you make a claim “the same things starting to happen under Momentum” but fail to suggest what that is supposed to be. Labour today would not be much different from many current EU social democratic states (Some EU countries own our infrastructure of gas, electric and transport –“extreme far left policies?). It would be the similar to Labour of 1945 and 1964. What has changed is the anti-Labour rhetoric that labels anything other than post 1979 government as being Marxist, extremist, far left etc.
Your understanding of left and right seems skewed and your adoption of the slogan of ‘extreme left wing politics’ is evidence of it. Corbyn was not in Militant or any of the other fringe groups in the 1970s and is not so now. Militant and Momentum are not at all the same type organisation; you make a claim “the same things starting to happen under Momentum” but fail to suggest what that is supposed to be. Labour today would not be much different from many current EU social democratic states (Some EU countries own our infrastructure of gas, electric and transport –“extreme far left policies?). It would be the similar to Labour of 1945 and 1964. What has changed is the anti-Labour rhetoric that labels anything other than post 1979 government as being Marxist, extremist, far left etc.
Re: Corbyn will never be Prime Minister
Your long defence of Corbyn is looking suspiciously like a rant, I am afraid. How can someone's understanding of something be "skewed"? What on earth do you mean by that? Do you mean inaccurate? I have never suggested that Corbyn was actually in Militant Tendency, nor that Militant and Momentum are the same organisation, so I don't know what precisely you are trying to say.
However, there has been in the Labour movement recently plenty of evidence of militant politics (small "m"), intolerance, anti-semitic behaviour, suppression of critics and attempts at de-selection of moderate MPs, why would a number of excellent MPs leave the Shadow Cabinet or even leave the party? If you should choose to ignore or deny that, that is your choice but it does not mean that your representation of Labour as just another "social democratic" movement is close to the reality.
If several senior Labour figures and also ex-cabinet members are publicly stating their concerns about the issues listed above and the direction of the party, I think it is safe to say that there is a degree of "crisis" within the Labour party at present. If you choose to downplay that and present Corbyn as quite a nice guy, "heir" to the original founders of Labour's social conscience such as Keir Hardie etc., you may be deluding yourself but you are not likely to delude many members of the electorate.
However, there has been in the Labour movement recently plenty of evidence of militant politics (small "m"), intolerance, anti-semitic behaviour, suppression of critics and attempts at de-selection of moderate MPs, why would a number of excellent MPs leave the Shadow Cabinet or even leave the party? If you should choose to ignore or deny that, that is your choice but it does not mean that your representation of Labour as just another "social democratic" movement is close to the reality.
If several senior Labour figures and also ex-cabinet members are publicly stating their concerns about the issues listed above and the direction of the party, I think it is safe to say that there is a degree of "crisis" within the Labour party at present. If you choose to downplay that and present Corbyn as quite a nice guy, "heir" to the original founders of Labour's social conscience such as Keir Hardie etc., you may be deluding yourself but you are not likely to delude many members of the electorate.
Re: Corbyn will never be Prime Minister
Jewish immigrants to this country have been very closely involved with Labour for over a hundred years, they have formed their own unions and understood Marxist and Bolshevik ideologies well.
There are no accurate statistics as to the number of Jews in the various Jewish and general unions in England; and the following is merely a list of the number of organizations existing in London between 1882 and 1902: tailors, 31 unions; butchers, 1; bakers, 1; cigar-makers, 1; iron and tin-plate workers, 1; compositors, 1; brush-makers, 1; house-painters, 1; card - box makers, 1. Of these 39 unions, 6 were dissolved and 3 were merged in other organizations. A furriers' and a costermongers' union have been founded since 1902, bringing the present total up to 32. There are, in addition, Jewish tailors' unions in Birmingham (1), Leeds (2, with 1,300 members), Manchester (3), and Sheffield (1).
"The Jew's conception of a labor organization is that of a tradesman rather than that of a workman. In the clothing manufacture, whenever any real abuse arises among the Jewish workmen, they all come together and form a giant union and at once engage in a strike. They bring in 95 per cent of the trade. They are energetic and determined. They demand the entire and complete elimination of the abuse. The demand is almost always unanimous, and is made with enthusiasm and bitterness. They stay out a long time, even under the greatest of suffering. During a strike large numbers of them are to be found with almost nothing to live upon and their families suffering, still insisting, on the streets and in their halls, that their great cause must be won. But when once the strike is settled, either in favor of or against the cause, they are contented, and that usually ends the union, since they do not see any practical use for a union when there is no cause to fight for.
Marxist Jewish workers, emerged in the UK from the Jewish trade unions, formed by tailors and cabinet makers in Leeds and Manchester after they were excluded from organising within the general trades unions of their day. The movement was critical for securing a commitment to secure a Jewish national home as part of the Labour Party’s war aims memorandum of 1917, three months before the Balfour Declaration.
For Jewish M.P.'s to have complained about bullying and threats from within Corbyn's Party, unlike any previous leaders, does raise a question or two about why and what is going on here.
There has been an influx of new members, many of whom are vocal critics of Israel and who believe the UK, along with the US, should be tougher towards Israel, especially regarding its policies towards the Palestinians and its building of settlements in the occupied territories.
The strength of the left's support for Palestinian statehood, which Jeremy Corbyn has championed for decades, contrasts with the more nuanced position taken by many of his predecessors.
In a politically damaging move, the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) announced it would be conducting its own wide-ranging investigation into whether Labour "unlawfully discriminated against, harassed or victimised people because they are Jewish".
Jeremy Corbyn has insisted time and time again there is no place for anti-Semitism in Labour.
Some of his supporters say the problem has been exaggerated and is being used as a stick to beat the Labour leader by people who don't like him or his views on the Middle East.
He comes from a different political tradition than virtually every other post-war Labour leader, having campaigned for 40 years against Western imperialism and aggression.
Mr Corbyn's opponents accuse him of being too close to Hamas, a militant Islamist group, and Hezbollah, a Lebanese paramilitary group. Both groups are widely viewed in the West as terrorist organisations.
He described representatives of Hamas as his "friends" after inviting them to a controversial meeting in Parliament in 2009.
He later said he regretted his use of language, but insisted his motivation in talking to enemies of Israel was the promotion of peace in the Middle East.
But his critics argue his views have created the space for anti-Semitism to flourish in the party and he has condoned anti-Jewish prejudice through several of his own actions.
Mr Corbyn faced criticism in August 2018 after a video emerged on the Daily Mail website of a 2013 clip in which he said a group of British Zionists had "no sense of English irony".
Former chief rabbi Lord Sacks branded the comments "the most offensive statement" by a politician since Enoch Powell's "Rivers of Blood" speech and accused the Labour leader of being an anti-Semite.
In August 2018, the Labour leader also came under fire over his presence at a ceremony in Tunisia in 2014 which is said to have honoured the perpetrators of the 1972 Munich massacre, during which 11 members of the Israeli Olympic team were taken hostage by Palestinian militants and killed.
The Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Mr Corbyn deserved "unequivocal condemnation" for laying a wreath on the grave of one of those behind the atrocity.
In March 2018, Mr Corbyn was criticised for sending an apparently supportive message to the creator of an allegedly anti-Semitic mural in 2012.
In a message sent via Facebook, he had appeared to question a decision to remove the artist's controversial work from a wall in east London.
He later said he had not looked at it properly, calling it "deeply disturbing and anti-Semitic".
The artist, called Mear One, denied this, saying the mural was about "class and privilege".
Following the row, Mr Corbyn said he was "sincerely sorry for the pain" caused and conceded there were "pockets" of anti-Semitism within the party.
Unease within Labour ranks in Parliament intensified in 2017 and 2018 amid concerns the leadership was not doing enough to defend Jewish MPs, such as Luciana Berger, who were themselves the targets of anti-Semitic abuse and death threats.
In March 2018, scores of Labour MPs joined Jewish groups, including the Jewish Leadership Council and the Board of Deputies of British Jews, and other anti-racism campaigners to demand action in an unprecedented "Enough is Enough" rally outside Parliament.
In a further sign of the breakdown in trust between Labour and the Jewish community, the Jewish Labour Movement considered severing its century-old affiliation to the party.
While deciding to retain its ties, the organisation of 2,000 members did pass a motion of no confidence in Mr Corbyn and voted to describe the party as "institutionally anti-Semitic".
In February 2019, nine MPs quit Labour, many of them citing the leadership's handling of anti-Semitism as their reason for leaving.
Ms Berger, who had a police escort at the 2018 Labour Party conference, said she had come to the "sickening conclusion" that the party had become institutionally anti-Semitic and that she was "embarrassed and ashamed" to stay.
Ms Berger's supporters, including deputy leader Tom Watson, claimed she has been "bullied out of her own party by racist thugs".
Among the other defectors, Joan Ryan claimed the party had "become infected with the scourge of anti-Jewish racism" while Ian Austin blamed Mr Corbyn for "creating a culture of extremism and intolerance".
There are no accurate statistics as to the number of Jews in the various Jewish and general unions in England; and the following is merely a list of the number of organizations existing in London between 1882 and 1902: tailors, 31 unions; butchers, 1; bakers, 1; cigar-makers, 1; iron and tin-plate workers, 1; compositors, 1; brush-makers, 1; house-painters, 1; card - box makers, 1. Of these 39 unions, 6 were dissolved and 3 were merged in other organizations. A furriers' and a costermongers' union have been founded since 1902, bringing the present total up to 32. There are, in addition, Jewish tailors' unions in Birmingham (1), Leeds (2, with 1,300 members), Manchester (3), and Sheffield (1).
"The Jew's conception of a labor organization is that of a tradesman rather than that of a workman. In the clothing manufacture, whenever any real abuse arises among the Jewish workmen, they all come together and form a giant union and at once engage in a strike. They bring in 95 per cent of the trade. They are energetic and determined. They demand the entire and complete elimination of the abuse. The demand is almost always unanimous, and is made with enthusiasm and bitterness. They stay out a long time, even under the greatest of suffering. During a strike large numbers of them are to be found with almost nothing to live upon and their families suffering, still insisting, on the streets and in their halls, that their great cause must be won. But when once the strike is settled, either in favor of or against the cause, they are contented, and that usually ends the union, since they do not see any practical use for a union when there is no cause to fight for.
Marxist Jewish workers, emerged in the UK from the Jewish trade unions, formed by tailors and cabinet makers in Leeds and Manchester after they were excluded from organising within the general trades unions of their day. The movement was critical for securing a commitment to secure a Jewish national home as part of the Labour Party’s war aims memorandum of 1917, three months before the Balfour Declaration.
For Jewish M.P.'s to have complained about bullying and threats from within Corbyn's Party, unlike any previous leaders, does raise a question or two about why and what is going on here.
There has been an influx of new members, many of whom are vocal critics of Israel and who believe the UK, along with the US, should be tougher towards Israel, especially regarding its policies towards the Palestinians and its building of settlements in the occupied territories.
The strength of the left's support for Palestinian statehood, which Jeremy Corbyn has championed for decades, contrasts with the more nuanced position taken by many of his predecessors.
In a politically damaging move, the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) announced it would be conducting its own wide-ranging investigation into whether Labour "unlawfully discriminated against, harassed or victimised people because they are Jewish".
Jeremy Corbyn has insisted time and time again there is no place for anti-Semitism in Labour.
Some of his supporters say the problem has been exaggerated and is being used as a stick to beat the Labour leader by people who don't like him or his views on the Middle East.
He comes from a different political tradition than virtually every other post-war Labour leader, having campaigned for 40 years against Western imperialism and aggression.
Mr Corbyn's opponents accuse him of being too close to Hamas, a militant Islamist group, and Hezbollah, a Lebanese paramilitary group. Both groups are widely viewed in the West as terrorist organisations.
He described representatives of Hamas as his "friends" after inviting them to a controversial meeting in Parliament in 2009.
He later said he regretted his use of language, but insisted his motivation in talking to enemies of Israel was the promotion of peace in the Middle East.
But his critics argue his views have created the space for anti-Semitism to flourish in the party and he has condoned anti-Jewish prejudice through several of his own actions.
Mr Corbyn faced criticism in August 2018 after a video emerged on the Daily Mail website of a 2013 clip in which he said a group of British Zionists had "no sense of English irony".
Former chief rabbi Lord Sacks branded the comments "the most offensive statement" by a politician since Enoch Powell's "Rivers of Blood" speech and accused the Labour leader of being an anti-Semite.
In August 2018, the Labour leader also came under fire over his presence at a ceremony in Tunisia in 2014 which is said to have honoured the perpetrators of the 1972 Munich massacre, during which 11 members of the Israeli Olympic team were taken hostage by Palestinian militants and killed.
The Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Mr Corbyn deserved "unequivocal condemnation" for laying a wreath on the grave of one of those behind the atrocity.
In March 2018, Mr Corbyn was criticised for sending an apparently supportive message to the creator of an allegedly anti-Semitic mural in 2012.
In a message sent via Facebook, he had appeared to question a decision to remove the artist's controversial work from a wall in east London.
He later said he had not looked at it properly, calling it "deeply disturbing and anti-Semitic".
The artist, called Mear One, denied this, saying the mural was about "class and privilege".
Following the row, Mr Corbyn said he was "sincerely sorry for the pain" caused and conceded there were "pockets" of anti-Semitism within the party.
Unease within Labour ranks in Parliament intensified in 2017 and 2018 amid concerns the leadership was not doing enough to defend Jewish MPs, such as Luciana Berger, who were themselves the targets of anti-Semitic abuse and death threats.
In March 2018, scores of Labour MPs joined Jewish groups, including the Jewish Leadership Council and the Board of Deputies of British Jews, and other anti-racism campaigners to demand action in an unprecedented "Enough is Enough" rally outside Parliament.
In a further sign of the breakdown in trust between Labour and the Jewish community, the Jewish Labour Movement considered severing its century-old affiliation to the party.
While deciding to retain its ties, the organisation of 2,000 members did pass a motion of no confidence in Mr Corbyn and voted to describe the party as "institutionally anti-Semitic".
In February 2019, nine MPs quit Labour, many of them citing the leadership's handling of anti-Semitism as their reason for leaving.
Ms Berger, who had a police escort at the 2018 Labour Party conference, said she had come to the "sickening conclusion" that the party had become institutionally anti-Semitic and that she was "embarrassed and ashamed" to stay.
Ms Berger's supporters, including deputy leader Tom Watson, claimed she has been "bullied out of her own party by racist thugs".
Among the other defectors, Joan Ryan claimed the party had "become infected with the scourge of anti-Jewish racism" while Ian Austin blamed Mr Corbyn for "creating a culture of extremism and intolerance".
Re: Corbyn will never be Prime Minister
That is quite a nicely informed summary of the disturbing course of events over the last few years and it is hard to argue with - much of what you say has been well-documented and reported. The only real questions remaining are how seriously should one view things and how far does Labour's more aggressive and intolerant stance really influence the general political debate.
I think it matters very much. Although there has been a general trend in the UK for politics to become more aggressive, polarised and prejudiced (amongst other factors, the Wild West of social media has not helped to encourage people's courtesy and respect towards others in society), the Labour party is currently being seen as embracing intolerance and abandoning compromise or moderation. Jeremy Corbyn reacts and vociferously denies - when accusations are levelled against him. But he does nothing effective to change things and his own actions time and time again have exhibited gross errors of judgement or naivety .. or stupidity, whichever way you want to see it.
I think it matters very much. Although there has been a general trend in the UK for politics to become more aggressive, polarised and prejudiced (amongst other factors, the Wild West of social media has not helped to encourage people's courtesy and respect towards others in society), the Labour party is currently being seen as embracing intolerance and abandoning compromise or moderation. Jeremy Corbyn reacts and vociferously denies - when accusations are levelled against him. But he does nothing effective to change things and his own actions time and time again have exhibited gross errors of judgement or naivety .. or stupidity, whichever way you want to see it.
Re: Corbyn will never be Prime Minister
Richard's summary is that largely, in the present day, of 'opinion' not evidence.
The fact of complaints by Luciana Berger, Louise Ellman and Joan Ryan is not evidence of a serious problem. It is only evidence that some people such as they, are angry about an issue and it is not necessarily about antisemitism. The more that unsubstantiated allegations are repeated it begins to be accepted as fact. Statistics are that 0.06% of members have been found in breach of party rules.
Let us look back at facts. In 2014 (before Corbyn was elected) Ed Miliband Labour's first Jewish leader was booed by Jewish people at the politically right wing Community Security Trust. The booing was lauded by the now Editor of the Jewish Chronicle Stephen Pollard. The headline in the Chronicle was 'the Crisis of antisemitism in the Labour Party'. Jewish people were quite happy to boo other Jewish people.
https://www.spectator.co.uk/2015/04/how ... wish-vote/
What had happened beforehand? Miliband had come out in favour of an independent Jewish state. The BoD and others encouraged Ed to visit Israel and then he came out as a friend of Israel and surprise surprise the Chronicle did not raise any more articles about the 'crisis' in the Labour Party. The 'antisemitism' appeared to have vanished. It is this disingenuous propaganda that is hurting our community.
Berger was subjected to antisemitic abuse. Where did it come from? The Labour Party. No, it came from a right wing John Nimmo from South Tyneside with previous convictions for similar offences several years.The mass of hate messages she received were from Christian groups in America. As far as I am aware no members of her CLP have been disciplined for antisemitism or bullying. Watson in a statement said that "a virulent form of identity politics that has seized the Labour Party”, but failed to provide a single instance to support his opinion. Again, merely alleging something is not evidence of it.
I have also previously posted about a case of alleged "institutional antisemitism" in a Trade Union, the allegation being supoported by Berger, Ryan, JLM etc. Case number 2203290/2011. The Employment judge dismissed every single allegation, stating that at para 178 "We greatly regret that the case was ever brought. At heart, it represents an impermissible attempt to achieve a political end by litigious means. It would be very unfortunate if an exercise of this sort were ever repeated".
It seems that the same people are using the same arguments for the same aims.
Para 163 " The fact that some Jewish members resigned from the union is part of the narrative in this case but it cannot amount to harassment of the Claimant by the Respondents. ". This is comparable to the claim that Berger and others were bullied out of the party. In the absence of evidence that is a subjective opinion.
These legal findings are based upon evidence, that many people are unwilling to discuss, but just retreat into the same evidence free opinion. The dossier sent to the Met of 45 cases of 'antisemitism' have shown that just three have indicators of wrong doing. Hardly a crisis despite the claims.
Again no one has made any comment or response to the number false allegations by Hodge. Surely you have some opinion? Or to the vague definition by the member of JLM that antisemitism is something that makes him feel uncomfortable. Or to the party member reported by Ryan for antisemitism who had had the temerity to challenge her view on a resolution the problem in the ME. No one seems to want to debate facts.
The fact of complaints by Luciana Berger, Louise Ellman and Joan Ryan is not evidence of a serious problem. It is only evidence that some people such as they, are angry about an issue and it is not necessarily about antisemitism. The more that unsubstantiated allegations are repeated it begins to be accepted as fact. Statistics are that 0.06% of members have been found in breach of party rules.
Let us look back at facts. In 2014 (before Corbyn was elected) Ed Miliband Labour's first Jewish leader was booed by Jewish people at the politically right wing Community Security Trust. The booing was lauded by the now Editor of the Jewish Chronicle Stephen Pollard. The headline in the Chronicle was 'the Crisis of antisemitism in the Labour Party'. Jewish people were quite happy to boo other Jewish people.
https://www.spectator.co.uk/2015/04/how ... wish-vote/
What had happened beforehand? Miliband had come out in favour of an independent Jewish state. The BoD and others encouraged Ed to visit Israel and then he came out as a friend of Israel and surprise surprise the Chronicle did not raise any more articles about the 'crisis' in the Labour Party. The 'antisemitism' appeared to have vanished. It is this disingenuous propaganda that is hurting our community.
Berger was subjected to antisemitic abuse. Where did it come from? The Labour Party. No, it came from a right wing John Nimmo from South Tyneside with previous convictions for similar offences several years.The mass of hate messages she received were from Christian groups in America. As far as I am aware no members of her CLP have been disciplined for antisemitism or bullying. Watson in a statement said that "a virulent form of identity politics that has seized the Labour Party”, but failed to provide a single instance to support his opinion. Again, merely alleging something is not evidence of it.
I have also previously posted about a case of alleged "institutional antisemitism" in a Trade Union, the allegation being supoported by Berger, Ryan, JLM etc. Case number 2203290/2011. The Employment judge dismissed every single allegation, stating that at para 178 "We greatly regret that the case was ever brought. At heart, it represents an impermissible attempt to achieve a political end by litigious means. It would be very unfortunate if an exercise of this sort were ever repeated".
It seems that the same people are using the same arguments for the same aims.
Para 163 " The fact that some Jewish members resigned from the union is part of the narrative in this case but it cannot amount to harassment of the Claimant by the Respondents. ". This is comparable to the claim that Berger and others were bullied out of the party. In the absence of evidence that is a subjective opinion.
These legal findings are based upon evidence, that many people are unwilling to discuss, but just retreat into the same evidence free opinion. The dossier sent to the Met of 45 cases of 'antisemitism' have shown that just three have indicators of wrong doing. Hardly a crisis despite the claims.
Again no one has made any comment or response to the number false allegations by Hodge. Surely you have some opinion? Or to the vague definition by the member of JLM that antisemitism is something that makes him feel uncomfortable. Or to the party member reported by Ryan for antisemitism who had had the temerity to challenge her view on a resolution the problem in the ME. No one seems to want to debate facts.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests