Labour split

[BillyStubbsTears]

BRR

I've no idea if Corbyn holds anti-Semitic views, although his support for that disgustingly anti-Semitic mural a few years back does make you wonder.

However, one thing I can say. Before he became leader, Labour didn't have a problem with members hurling anti-Semitic abuse at MPs.

That is something that has happened on his watch and he did virtually nothing to rein it in until it exploded in the press last summer. Prior to that, he made a string of comments which, wittingly or u wittingly set a culture and an atmosphere whereby prominent Jewish people were seen by many in the party as fair game.

[Bristol Red Rover]

Sproty - oh, dear.

BST - as far as I'm aware. JC supported the artist who did that mural, until he saw that mural.

Labour has always had people who hated the who Israel thing. And it always will. It also has less racism by far than the Tories.

The conspiracy Jew side of things, tends to be more of a right wing thing, though some people have said things that can be seen as racist.  This hasn't changed, and in fact has probably reduced massively even before the Tories and Israel decided to make this an issue. There's more record of what people say these days, that's why it's increased.

And let's be clear, most of what is cited as anti=semetic is simply anti-zionist. People who are pro zionist are and should be fair game.

[BillyStubbsTears]

BRR

Nope. I know a couple of Momentum members who have claimed that, but it's not true.

See the screenshot of Corbyn's original Facebook post straight under an image of the mural here.
https://wsbuzz.com/world-news/fury-revealed-jeremy-corbyn-defended-anti-semitic-public-art-showing-men-playing-monopoly/

He wrote a FB response to an OP that featured a picture of the mural.


Corbyn himself has said that he didn't look closely ENOUGH at the mural. Which is very odd as with the merest glance it's obvious that the central theme is age old anti-Semitic imagery.

Bizarre how Corbyn supporters don't see what a car crash he looks like to the rest of the world. As someone put it today, he's not actually very intelligent (he wrote a piece on NATO which would fail GSCE History) and he's wedded to rigid ideological stances. A really, really bad combination for a politician.


Me, I don't think he's anti-Semitic. I just think he's not very smart. Thoroughly immature and one dimensional  in the foreign policy stances he's held all his life and now a bit bewildered that those things come back and smack him in the face.

[Bristol Red Rover]

You're agreeing with me in that first part. He was in general agreement with the artist and the issue of art being removed as an issue of being anto free speech. Corbyn quite likely didn't really look at it - believe it or nbot he's a busy dude. Either way, it absolutely doesn't fit with anything about the man bar the right wing establishment tripe which is what most people (Sproty to the extrenme) regurgitate. I'm v surprised to see you going along with this same narative.

So, car crash to those who swallow all that bullshit. His views aren't that radical at all, only when you compare them to the likes of Cameron, May, Blair, Johnson and JRM.

Foreign policy stance - anti apartheid. Was that so bad? Which one's do you currently have issue with?

[albie]

Well I guess not having an ethical foreign policy must mean we support having an unethical foreign policy!

I wonder what that looks like....

selling arms to rogue states,
using aid as a political weapon,
support for military dictatorships,
using trade deals to asset strip resources from poor countries,
taking part in proxy wars and destabilising democracy

and all the rest of it!

Thinking on....we might be a dab hand at some of that.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Corbyn's foreign policy is based on the most simplistic of analyses.

He works on the philosophy that the world sub-divides into Oppressors and Victims. It is that one-dimensional.

In any situation, that means that he automatically sides with one side. And then you will look for a long, long time for ANY direct criticism from him of that side.

The big one is Russia/The West.

Go and make a list of all the times Corbyn has directly and passionately condemned Russia and Putin. Whether over Grozny, Crimea, Aleppo or Salisbury. Or over the trail of carnage among Putin's domestic opponents who have been jailed or murdered.

You can do the same exercise over Israel/Hamas, over USA/Venezuela, over Britain/IRA.

It is puerile politics. Simplistic. Unintelligent. Prepared to overlook bestial crimes so long as they are committed by your enemy's enemy, because they serve the greater good.

Corbyn's ideological guardian, Seamus Milne said over the carpet bombing of Aleppo, that we shouldn't criticise it publicly because it "diverts attention from Western atrocities." Read that, then go back and look at Corbyn's mumbled dissembling over gas attacks in Syria or over Salisbury or over ANY scenario where he's been asked to criticise Russia or Syria or Maduro or Hamas or the IRA. He has a stock line about condemning all violence. But he will never, EVER publicly point the finger at one of those for their actions. Whereas he's had a career of passionately shouting to crowds about the crimes of NATO, the USA, Israel and the British.

Read his, frankly, disgusting ramblings about Bosnia, where he sides with conspiracy theorists who claim that the massacre at Srebrenica, the single foulest act in Europe since the War, was over-exaggerated and used as an "excuse" (his words) for NATO to attack Serbia.

 It'd be wise not to lecture folk on Corbyn's foreign policy without first understanding it. It's not ethical foreign policy. It is student common room rigid ideological purity gone mad. I know exactly where it comes from because I was a part of that scene 30 years ago. We'd discuss (actually, be berates by one or two ideologues) how you focus on the actions of the West, of Israel, of the British Army in NI, and never, ever criticise the Soviet Union, or the Palestinians or the IRA.


 I know the tactic, and when I came to my senses, it disgusted me. Because the world is complex, and you don't make the world a better place by turning a blind eye to atrocities committed by autocrats because you think the other side is worse. Corbyn and his inner circle never left that position.

If you're a Corbynista and you've got this far into this post, you'll be thinking I'm away with the fairies. Going OTT. If so, do what I've done over the past few years. Go back through the record of Corbyn's public pronouncements on foreign issues before he became leader. See who he NEVER criticised. And who he passionately berated at every opportunity.

[wilts rover]

You could start with Corbyn calling for a Magnitsky Act to sieze laundered Russian money in the UK if you wished.

You could also mention that the mural was publicised as anti-capitalist imagery and its removal as an attack on free speech - it was only when you looked closely at could you see what it actually was.

You could also mention that he was one of the few MP's to sign the motion against the anti Jewish march in North London in 2015 (for which the organiser was jailed) along with supporting numerous other anti-semitic motions.
https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/jeremy-corbyn-is-an-anti-racist-not-an-antisemite/

But you wont. Because this doesn't suit your narrative. Get Corbyn out. He is a threat to society.

Yes he is. To the self-serving elites who control the wealth and the information narrative - and who want to continue the neo-liberal policies of privatisation, austerity and pointless foreign wars.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Wilts.

More Whataboutery. None of what you wrote addresses anything I raised.


Still. I suppose it's a step up from last year, when you were posting stuff from craigmurray.org to help clarify the Salisbury issue.

And then you go off on one about my "agenda". My agenda is to get a Labour Govt elected. And as I've said since the day he took over, I agree 100% with his economic and home policies. But he will NEVER become PM of the UK with the foreign policies he has.

[Ldr]

BST don’t expect anything but deflection from a Corbyn supporter

[The Red Baron]

Wilts.
In 2010, Corbyn stood and was elected on the agreed Labour manifesto. But there he was. In his own, rather excruciating wrds saying that people were voting for him. Personally. Not necessarily for the party.

Now, much as Momentum want to paint this as a "You're either in the Church of the Blessed St Jeremy the Infallible or your a Tory like Umunna", I have no axe to grind for a bunch of people well to the right of me who have left Labour.

My point is that Corbyn doesn't have the moral high ground here. Because he has spent his lifetime being the rebel, putting HIS principles above all, he now cannot call for other people to put THEIR principles to one side.

Because, strange though it might sound to committed far leftists (and I've been there) outside that room full of people who agree with your ideological position where you polish up YOUR principles, there are people equally believing in THEIR principles which are different.

Sorry no. Where are the principles here? Corbyn put his principles out to the electorate before the election and said vote for me or not. These MP's stood on a Labour manifesto - got elected on that - now they don't like it and want to stand for something else!!!

And it comes out today that they are willing to vote with the Tories to keep May in power!!!

There's something going on here and it's certainly not principle. If they were principled they would stand for re-election on what they believe now.

What did I say yesterday? No meaningful vote this week, meaningful vote to be held on 12th March. Time to lump on a No-Deal Brexit methinks.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Not a chance of No Deal TRB. Not after that extraordinary intervention by the three Cabinet ministers yesterday.

May's approach is now a busted flush. She's parroting the line that it's her deal or No Deal, but in the real world, outside her bunker, everyone knows the choose is her deal or an extension of A50.

And everyone knows she won't get the votes in Parliament for her deal.

So, the question is, what will the EU want in return for allowing us an extension to get our shit together?

Because one thing they have been consistent on is saying that they will not allow an extension without some idea of what the extension is for.

As I keep saying, there's only one endgame that this is heading towards: Ref2.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Got to say though, the fact that she's running the clock down so far is beyond disgraceful. It is the most reckless and dangerous policy and British PM has chosen since Suez. If there IS, some cock up that results in the catastrophe of a No Deal, she'd better have lots of bottled water and cans of bean in No10, because there'll be millions on the streets baying for her blood and she'll not be able to get out.

[albie]

BST,

I understand that you disagree with Corbyn on foreign policy.

You have outlined your view time and again on this, as though repetition adds weight.

What is not clear is what foreign policy position you think Labour should take?
Presumably as a Labour supporter you think an ethical policy position is essential.....so define what it means for you!

Take as an example Israel/Palestine.
What changes should be made to make an ethical stance?

Are you suggesting that the foreign policy stance taken in the Blair/Brown era, or that followed by the coalition/Cameron/May,  is suitable for the world as it stands today.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Classic approach Albie. If you're not a Corbynista, you're a Blairite.

If only the world were that one-dimensional, eh? Then it's be easy. As it is, as someone who was vehemently against  the NeoCon approach, I'm going to treat your final paragraph with the disdain it deserves. See, you can criticise Corbyn without getting into bed with Rumsfeld.

My point, consistently has been that Corbyn's insistence on stupid and rigidly ideological stances on foreign policy issues does great damage to the party.

This time last year, Labour were doing reasonably well in the polls. Polling 42-44%. Now they are down to the mid to low 30s.

Go and look at when the dips have occurred.

March, July/Aug and Jan/Feb.

Don't take my word. Have a look for yourself.

Then have a think what the key issues were are those times.

Salisbury
Anti-Semitism
Brexiters

Every single time an issue has emerged where Corbyn's stance on foreign policy has come under scrutiny, Labour takes a hit.

It's not just me pointing this out. McDonnell was comnenting in a recent interview about how Labour has to learn to put these issues to bed quickly if they are going to have a chance at the polls.

Corbyn could have shut down everyone of those.

Firmly pointed the finger at Russia last March and say that he, as PM would not countenance such actions in our soil.

Immediately accepted the IHRA definition on anti-Semitism and loudly and passionately tell the world that he will root out anti-Semites from the party, instead of letting the issue drag on throughout the summer.
Commit Labour to the Ref2 that his members and most of his voters want.

McDonnell has been trying to push those lines because he knows that they are the way to limit damage to Labour. Corbyn has refused to do because he couldn't look McCluskey, Milne and the other ideological purists in the eye if he did.

[Bristol Red Rover]

To be fair Albie, I did ask BST about what issues he had with Corbyn's policies.

I see you mention Israel/Hammas - that's scewing things. Hammas may be the main representitives of the Palestinians, but they are not the only ones. JC undoubtedly supports Palestinians in the numan rights abuses in Israel, he is not supporting Hammas.

Venezuela/USA - really? There's two sides to this?

Britain/IRA? Hmmmm.... Surely you mean Britain and Ireland?

The Salisbury thing seems very iffy. I don't think you can cite it as evidence of anything. The gassing incidences in Syria are very questionable - the more recent one especially. Crimea, yep, not right but then part of a whole East v West action stirred up by the yanks and EU lap dogs.

Having said that, I do get your point, it is a perspective, but Corbyn's policies appear more morally correct than others. I'm not sure it's a string reason to criticise him.

Good to hear you don't see him as anti-semetic. He should have and should be dealing with all this bullshit a lot firmer, but when you have the media and Israel on your back in this way, it's not easy. The IHRA definition is dubious, it isn't the best, and IMO should never be agreed to. Namely anti Israel is NOT anti semetic. Corbyn's mistake here is not acting quick enough.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Scary numbers for Labour in these poll results.

https://medium.com/@theobertram/the-week-that-labour-lost-3307ecd58ce5

We've finally got to the inevitable outcome of Corbynism. The apparent polling support Labour had was always piss and wind. It's rapidly evaporating.

What a mess.

[Glyn_Wigley]

Scary numbers for Labour in these poll results.

https://medium.com/@theobertram/the-week-that-labour-lost-3307ecd58ce5

We've finally got to the inevitable outcome of Corbynism. The apparent polling support Labour had was always piss and wind. It's rapidly evaporating.

What a mess.

"3. When asked who best represents Britain, more voters prefer the MPs who resigned to Corbyn.

40% say those who resigned represent Britain better than Corbyn (Source: Survation, Feb 18)"

Does not compute.

[idler]

It depends how many don't knows and that said no difference Glyn.
It might make it clearer if they gave percentages for all options.

[big fat yorkshire pudding]

Scary numbers for Labour in these poll results.

https://medium.com/@theobertram/the-week-that-labour-lost-3307ecd58ce5

We've finally got to the inevitable outcome of Corbynism. The apparent polling support Labour had was always piss and wind. It's rapidly evaporating.

What a mess.

Hence the agreement on pushing for the referendum, it's something they know will probably poll well in some areas.

[BillyStubbsTears]

It's not so much about it polling well for Labour (although it IS the least damaging alternative for them).

It's the only rational way forward.

There is no majority in Parliament for any of the following:

May's deal
Corbyn's deal
No deal.

The only possible deal that could get a majority is May's deal without the backstop. But the EU, quite rightly, will not offer that.

So, with Parliament gridlocked, there is no possible way forward but putting it to a Ref2 with a SPECIFIC leave option or options (unlike the totally undefined Leave of 2016) and a firm commitment from all parties that they will implement whatever the outcome is.

I cannot see how anyone could possibly feel that was a betrayal.

But you'll hear that word from the Brexiters. A lot.

[Glyn_Wigley]

It depends how many don't knows and that said no difference Glyn.
It might make it clearer if they gave percentages for all options.

Only 40% said they prefer the MPs who resigned.

No matter what the other 60% said, they didn't prefer the MPs who resigned, so that is the majority group and you cannot state 'more voters prefer the MPs who resigned to Corbyn' when it's just not true.

[idler]

A moot point but unless more than 40% openly state that they would prefer Corbyn then his supporters aren't in the majority either.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Thing is, the TIG MPs aren't a particularly attractive bunch. But they still pull a lot of flaky support from Labour.

Emphasises what I've been saying for 3 years. Corbyn has very weak support amongst Lab supporters. Many have been sticking with Lab DESPITE him, not BECAUSE OF him.

[Glyn_Wigley]

A moot point but unless more than 40% openly state that they would prefer Corbyn then his supporters aren't in the majority either.

But that isn't the assertion being made on the back of it, is it?

[Axholme Lion]

The vermin in parliament who are trying every trick in the book to block Brexit are traitors and should all be executed for treason.

[ravenrover]

Didn't Corbyn try to organise a fan boycott at Arsenal due to some sposorship or advertising of holidays in Israel?

[Glyn_Wigley]

The vermin in parliament who are trying every trick in the book to block Brexit are traitors and should all be executed for treason.

Presumably if we have another referendum and remain won, you'd want everybody who voted remain to be executed for treason too.

[Donnywolf]

  .... and I return not for the first time to 1976 and a Referendum that produced this Result

Remain 66 per cent
Leave 33 per cent

And again I ask who were the traitors then ? Answer Tories (in the main) who never resected a majority EIGHT to TEN TIMES bigger than this last time

Didnt see any hangings then and in the period up to them FINALLY getting their own way with a second Referendum. So for me best of three will do nicely

[BillyStubbsTears]

The vermin in parliament who are trying every trick in the book to block Brexit are traitors and should all be executed for treason.

Toddle of to Iran or  Saudi Arabia. That's what they'd do there.

One thing that Brexit has done. It'd smoked out loads of people who claim to be in favour of democracy, but haven't actually got a f**king clue what it means.

[Axholme Lion]

The vermin in parliament who are trying every trick in the book to block Brexit are traitors and should all be executed for treason.

Toddle of to Iran or  Saudi Arabia. That's what they'd do there.

One thing that Brexit has done. It'd smoked out loads of people who claim to be in favour of democracy, but haven't actually got a f**king clue what it means.

Like keep voting until we get the 'right' answer.