And very successful they have been too. In the 1980s many right-wingers in the Labour Party buggered off to form their own party which very effectively kept Thatcher in power.
More recently some leading right-wingers in the Labour Party with huge media coverage buggered off to form their own party, whilst others remained inside the party to inflict maximum damage. The result was the same – a Tory government.
The fact these parties despite massive publicity and the full support of the Tory press no longer exist is a testimony of how little electoral support they enjoyed.
The SDP merged with the liberals, a legacy SDP still stands for election. Their fortunes reflective of the reality of our FPTP system.
Not that the left and right of the party have the same commitment to party unity, which is clearly not the case.
As I understand it, the left voted with their feet during Kinnocks era and sat in the sidelines during Blair/Brown, flooding back into labour when JC held the reins. This caused a number of the PLP to leave and try and setup a new party, for some due to horrendous abuse from party members new or emboldened by the new direction.
The left never want a Tory government. The right ideally prefer to form their own Tory government but are perfectly happy to leave it to the official Tory Party, if the alternative is some sort of vaguely left-wing social democratic government.
So the left abandon labour when it shifts to the right of their policies/ principles, the right leave the party when it swings left. Labour's problem is that it cannot hold together a broad coalition to mount a serious challenge. The left's need to label everyone to the right of them "Tories" and that Tories are racist, selfish, etc etc just alienates the people who they need to vote for them
I think Starmer’s lack of passion in attacking the Tories sums it up. Of course he wants to be able to say that 10 Downing Street is his home address, but he simply doesn’t hate the Tories and what they are doing enough to provide effective leadership.
Leadership built on hate is exactly what we don't need, it's leadership built on hope that will turn things around.
Corbyn was a virtue signaller who made exactly zero difference as a legislator in parliament.
Meanwhile in other news...
Remind me? When was Johnson editor?
or that when he described Hobson’s work as “brilliant” he didn’t realise that this included the bits where Hobson said Jews control global finance, politics and the media.
His work is highly influential. I don't recall where Corbyn said he endorses every aspect of it.
And apparently it's fine for Johnson to continuously lionise Churchill, a racist advocate of chemical weapons seen as a vicious colonial mass-murderer by many in India and elsewhere. Does that mean we can say Johnson is in favour of gassing the Kurds?
And yeah if you cherry pick a lifetime of campaigning you can find some examples of vaguely problematic stuff. Well done.
Remind me? When was Johnson editor?
That's the ok kind of racism though, were you forgetting?
Hard to tell what your point is: Are you suggesting anti-Semitic Labour leader would be a good counterweight to an anti-Muslim Prime Minister? Or that they cancel each other out?
I don’t recall where Corbyn said he endorses every aspect of it.
"In a new edition of the text, published while Mr Corbyn was a backbencher in 2011, the MP described the work as "brilliant, and very controversial at the time" and "a great tome"...Hobson's railing against the commercial interests that fuel the role of the popular press with tales of imperial might, that then lead on to racist caricatures of African and Asian peoples, was both correct and prescient."
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/jeremy-corbyn-responds-to-antisemitism-row-over-book-foreword-language-absolutely-deplorable-a4132046.html
Ooh Betty I done a woopsie! I accidentally endorsed Hobson's antisemitic conspiracy theory about Jews controlling the banks and banks controlling the press!
I’m still trying to make fetch happen so why not Corbyn too?
To be fair - Mean Girls is getting a reboot. Corbyn won't though.
https://screenrant.com/mean-girls-musical-movie-remake-development/
So the left abandon labour when it shifts to the right of their policies/ principles, the right leave the party when it swings left. Labour’s problem is that it cannot hold together a broad coalition to mount a serious challenge. The left’s need to label everyone to the right of them “Tories” and that Tories are racist, selfish, etc etc just alienates the people who they need to vote for them
The Labour members/supporters are just as bad. Many examples of people on this very forum wanting a perfect Labour party that 100% matches what they want and won't vote for them until it does and labelling anyone along the lines of Blair a tory.
Hard to tell what your point is: Are you suggesting anti-Semitic Labour leader would be a good counterweight to an anti-Muslim Prime Minister? Or that they cancel each other out?
That their shouldn't be a hierarchy of racism depending on who is being targeted. That standards regarding racism should be applied vaguely consistently. Thought that was fairly obvious tbh.
Hobson’s railing against the commercial interests that fuel the role of the popular press with tales of imperial might
Is that the best you've got? I mean, what with him bring such a massive anti-Semite and everything, you'd think you'd have some clearer examples wouldn't you.
I'll remember next time someone says Tintin is brilliant that they are actually endorsing colonialism/racism.
Leadership built on hate is exactly what we don’t need, it’s leadership built on hope that will turn things around.
You need to understand the subtle difference between hating a Tory government and what it does and hating people.
Although my apologies if I didn't make that absolutely 100 percent clear, I guess I was lazy and assumed my point was clear and wouldn't be misinterpreted.
A bit like criticising Israel, you have to constantly look over your shoulder to check that there isn't someone waiting and ready to misinterpret your criticism and accuse of being motivated by hatred.
The level of hypocrisy over this issue is frankly quite staggering. For years, decades in fact, the Daily Mail has vilified and ridiculed those who have fought and campaigned against racism.
Accusing people people on the left of the Labour Party of being the 'Looney Left' and their struggle against racism of 'political correctness gone mad'.
Now these same people, along with the right-wing of the Labour Party, have suddenly become the new champions of the struggle against racism.
And very successful they have become too. Not in fighting racism of course, but in demonising the left.
Consequently a thread which should be discussing Keir Starmer and his role as Labour leader is diverted to discussing rehashed nonsense about whether a man who has spent a lifetime fighting racism and for peace is a "terrorist's friend".
Meanwhile Tony Blair who ordered the bombing of hundreds of thousands of foreign people, many of them Semites, in far distant lands, is offered as an example of a great Labour leader.
Not a new strategy mind, it's a strategy previously used in the United States when far right politicians there repeatedly accused Barack Obama of being "chummy with terrorists".
I mean, what with him bring such a massive anti-Semite and everything, you’d think you’d have some clearer examples wouldn’t you.
I mean, what with him being such a massive anti-racist and everything, you'd think when writing a foreword to a book that contains anti-Semitic conspiracy theory Corbyn'd say "I'm not so keen on the Jew-baiting stuff in the book, tbh, but despite that there's some good ideas in here".
What's striking here is the reality distortion field that surrounds Corbynites. Corbyn literally - voluntarily, in his own time and in print, where he could choose his words - praised an anti-Semite's anti-Semitic book, and yet this doesn't strike them as even an error of judgment.
I’ll remember next time someone says Tintin is brilliant that they are actually endorsing colonialism/racism.
Well, yeah - anyone today writing in an academic or formal context about Tintin (or Asterix) who called the works "brilliant" and "great" without even mentioning in passing the fairly awful racial stereotypes in the books would rightly be regarded with some suspicion.
That their shouldn’t be a hierarchy of racism depending on who is being targeted.
The "hierarchy" isn't because of who is targeted, but based on who is being "clumsy"... Johnson can throw around racist comments, and support racist writers, and get away with it. No, that's not fair, or consistent, or the way it should be. But Labour leaders have to be better than Conservative leaders, they are held to a far high standard. Not fair, but something anyone taking on the role, or hoping to, needs to consider, all the time.
Have you read the book politecameraaction?
corbyn is no antisemite - stop believing the daily wail!
The book is antisemitic... but then it's also over a hundred years old. Easy to argue that Corbyn should have been able to praise the work when he wrote the forward without having to make it clear that in a modern context it contains troubling antisemitism that was more typical of its time, and that he should haven't had to make it clear that his praise didn't extend to supporting those views in any form. But a wiser man would have done exactly those things. Corbyn had a blind spot to antisemitism over the years. Or at least was not active enough in condemning it when appropriate. I still don't think he is an antisemite though.
The level of hypocrisy over this issue is frankly quite staggering. For years, decades in fact, the Daily Mail has vilified and ridiculed those who have fought and campaigned against racism.
Accusing people people on the left of the Labour Party of being the ‘Looney Left’ and their struggle against racism of ‘political correctness gone mad’.
Now these people, along with the right-wing of the Labour Party, have suddenly become the new champions of the struggle against racism.
And very successful they have become too. Not in fighting racism of course, but in demonising the left.
Consequently a thread which should be discussing Keir Starmer and his role as Labour leader is diverted to discussing rehashed nonsense about whether a man who has spent a lifetime fighting racism and for peace is a “terrorist’s friend”.
Meanwhile Tony Blair who ordered the bombing of hundreds of thousands of foreign people, many of them Semites, in far distant lands, is offered as an example of a great Labour leader.
What you said
but he simply doesn’t hate the Tories and what they are doing enough to provide effective leadership.
I don't read the Daily Mail so wouldn't know
I commented on JC's success as a legislator (the complete lack of)
I think Blair should go on trial for treason (what greater crime is there than to commit the lives of our services on the back of a made up dossier causing massive casualties of combatants and non-combatants)
Starmer's issue is that true to form those who should accept that a different part of the coalition that makes up labour is now running the show essentially are making lots of noise likening the new leadership to the party they seek to depose. It happened to JC in a way but for different reasons. The challenge for any labour leader is as much internal as external
What you said
Yeah I was referring to "the Tories" as an entity, not as individuals.
But if you want to suggest that I was claiming Starmer should be whipping up hatred against individuals rather than their philosophy I'm okay with that.
It's no different to claiming that because I hate Zionism I must therefore hate Jews.
It's just plain daft and in a strange way quite amusing.
I don't recall ever being accused of hating white people because of my opposition to apartheid in South Africa.
Although Jews who criticise Israel are often accused of being "self-haters", and that's kinda amusing too.
Have you read the book Have you read the book politecameraaction?
No, just Corbyn's foreword.
Why? Do you think if I read the whole book I might conclude that "Jews control the banks and the press" isn't anti-Semitic? Or that I might actually start to agree with Hobson and Corbyn that they are the hidden force that controls the world?
it contains troubling antisemitism that was more typical of its time
Nah, Hobson was a terrible anti Semite even for his time, the reviews when it was published were pretty much looking at their shoes saying..."Well, ignore the horrible stuff about International Jewry and there's some interesting stuff" I know "everyone" in history was racist, but Hobson was out there in a league of his own really. Much of the terrible stuff he says about Jews in the book is completely irrelevant to his theories, he seems to have included it because he just really hated Jews.
Edit: There are version of the book on sale that have been edited to remove all the references to Jewish controlled banking, and it all still makes sense.
yet this doesn’t strike them as even an error of judgment.
Sure it's an error of judgement. For once I agree with kelvin - Corbyn has a blind spot regarding anti-semitism and many on the 'hard left' or whatever you want to call it share it, but claiming he is anti-semitic is ridiculous. I could post the video from the jewish labour activist talking about being hounded by right-wing zionists yet again but what would be the point.
I think Corbyn thinks that incredibly wealthy powerful people have too much influence over society and promote wars etc to further their economic interests. I also doubt he gives a shit whether those people are jewish or not. Is he wrong?
I know “everyone” in history was racist, but Hobson was out there in a league of his own really.
Citation needed because this sounds like utter BS TBH.
Here's a quote from around the time Hobson died which was attributed to Churchill but apparently written by his ghostwriter:
“Churchill criticised the ‘aloofness’ of Jewish people from wider society and urged them to make the effort to integrate themselves….Churchill says: ‘The central fact which dominates the relations of Jew and non-Jew is that the Jew is “different.” He looks different. He thinks differently. He has a different tradition and background.’ He then criticises Jewish moneylenders: ‘Every Jewish money-lender recalls Shylock and the idea of the Jews as usurers. And you cannot reasonably expect a struggling clerk or shopkeeper, paying 40 or 50 per cent interest on borrowed money to a “Hebrew Bloodsucker,” to reflect that almost every other way of life was closed to the Jewish people.’”
...
"It may be that, unwittingly, they are inviting persecution - that they have been partly responsible for the antagonism from which they suffer," it said. "There is the feeling that the Jew is an incorrigible alien, that his first loyalty will always be towards his own race."
He definitely said this:
In 1937, he told the Palestine Royal Commission: "I do not admit for instance, that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America or the black people of Australia. I do not admit that a wrong has been done to these people by the fact that a stronger race, a higher-grade race, a more worldly wise race to put it that way, has come in and taken their place."
So how was Hobson in a league of his own exactly?
The book in question was from 1902, a generation or two before Churchill was still writing this crap.
If anyone ever praises Churchill without making clear they don't support these views, that means they endorse them right?
Citation needed because this sounds like utter BS TBH.
yeah, probs it was just a bit of hyperbole for effect, y'know? Hobson was just very anti Semitic is all. that's the take away here really.
I'm not sure if the link will work but at page 405 of "Trials of the Diaspora", a history of English anti semitism, Anthony Julius describes Hobson as "perhaps the most substantial figure of this type [anti-Semitic polemicists]...and the most surprising one, the economist and public intellectual JA Hobson...Hobson stands quite apart from the obsessives and hacks that populate the category".
It seems odd to try to downplay Hobson's anti-Semitism as just normal for the time (cos, apart from anything else, most academics at the time didn't go to the trouble of writing a book and claiming the Jews cause imperialist wars) or to suggest that Hobson was only as bigoted as Churchill (who the left rightly regards as a racial supremacist and imperialist).
The idea that Hobson was a particularly egregious anti-Semite wasn't anything new even when Corbyn wrote the foreword praising his work. Any political figure or academic that wrote a foreword today for Churchill's works that contained anti-Semitic tropes would be expected to either mention them as disagreeable or be seen as endorsing them.
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1123512098263375872.html
Any political figure or academic that wrote a foreword today for Churchill’s works that contained anti-Semitic tropes would be expected to either mention them as disagreeable or be seen as endorsing them.
Yup, an error of judgement, as we've already said - but hardly evidence of being anti-semitic, unless you're really desperate to try and find some.
Corbyn probably read it as a student if at all and didn't bother to check up on it later.
It's a very strange world we live in where we vilify a man for not making caveats about his praise of an author that was against imperialism and colonialism but had dodgy views about jews, whereas the PM can write a largely fabricated book praising unequivocally a white supremacist responsible for starving millions of Bengalis aka 'beastly people' and raping, torturing and murdering thousands in Kenya.
Corbyn probably read it as a student if at all and didn’t bother to check up on it later.
Seems pretty unlikely...
Corbyn began a course in Trade Union Studies at North London Polytechnic but left after a year without a degree after a series of arguments with his tutors over the curriculum.
Still, if anti-Semitism through carelessness seems more attractive to you than anti-Semitism with intent, let's go with that!
You seem to be ok with the latter but not the former, weirdly.
You seem to be ok with the latter but not the former, weirdly.
Are you weirdly suggesting I'm some kind of Churchill fan?
Are you weirdly suggesting I’m some kind of Churchill fan?
I'm suggesting you have weird double standards, and lots of the stuff you've claimed just isn't true.
The most convincing part of your link was the conclusion.
Maybe Jeremy Corbyn just isn't very bright.
politecameraaction - the prroblem you face is there is zero evidence of any antisemitism from corbyn. the accusation was a tool to destroy him in a rather nasty conspiracy between the right wingers in labour and the right wing press
they try this one very labour leader - find something to tar them with. They have tried it on Starmer as well ( the right wing press not the right of the party) Nothing stuck on starmer but they managed to get antisemite to stick on corbyn despite zero evidence.
I’m suggesting you have weird double standards, and lots of the stuff you’ve claimed just isn’t true.
Which weird double standards? You saw above where I called Churchill a bigot, imperialist and racial supremacist, right?
What isn't true and suggests I'm okay with anti-Semitism?
there is zero evidence of any antisemitism from corbyn
He literally described an anti-Semite's anti-Semitic work as "brilliant" and "a great tome", in writing.
How many times do you buy the "oops, that was inadvertent" excuse before you think that actually this is an intentional pattern of behaviour? 2, 3, 4 times?
I called Churchill a bigot, imperialist and racial supremacist
Yup, it is a view of Churchill which is widely shared with Corbyn's detractors, eg the Tory press and the Blairite wing of the Labour Party.
If I had penny for every article I had read in the Daily Mail which claimed that Churchill was a bigoted imperialist racist.....
Corbyn probably read it as a student if at all and didn’t bother to check up on it later.
Nah, when he wrote the foreword in 2011 he was asked to do so because he's quite well known for being an historian of the Labour movement. Hobson's book is quite important. There's no way he didn't know or understand it's content. I mean I did read it as an undergrad, and it certainly leaves an "impression"
Blair called him (Hobson) the first of New Labour, and I think Brown said nice things about the book as well, I don't think anyone thinks those two are massive anti Semites.
He literally described an anti-Semite’s anti-Semitic work as “brilliant” and “a great tome”, in writing.
Imperialism isn't an anti semitic work there is one dodgy passage in it which alludes to the Jews. He also criticises the influence of such famous wealthy Jews as, erm... JP Morgan.
Some of his other works were definitely anti Semitic
Hobson was also quoted uncritically by Gordon Brown in a speech, guess he's another anti Semite.
Who said this?
Second, there are people who have come to see capitalism and imperialism as the product of conspiracy by a small shadowy elite rather than a political, economic, legal and social system. That is only a step from hoary myths about “Jewish bankers” and “sinister global forces”.
These views do no service to the struggle for a just society. Instead, they reproduce the sort of scapegoating that we recognise when directed at ethnic or religious minorities.
From the same piece:
a small number of our members and supporters hold anti-Semitic views and attitudes, which need to be confronted...The evidence is clear enough. Labour staff have seen...crude stereotypes of Jewish bankers...
🤣 Evidently someone's been in the country long enough to get our sense of British irony!
An anti-Semite can write a brilliant book/ great tome.
Loads of great art has racism/ misogony in it.
Bojo writes racist stuff that is nowhere near great art
Nobody cares.
And, on a thread about Kier Starmer, here we are once again, talking about Jeremy Corbyn. Surprise surprise. And once again, the old 'anti-Semitism' smear has been brought out. But the great thing about when people try this, is that you can show just how stupid and wrong it actually is, and completely destroy their fictitious claims.
Let's start with:
I thought it was especially awful when they made Corbyn write a foreword praising a book that blamed WW1 and capitalism on the Jews
So; Hobson's book was first published in 1902. Now; I'm not a historian, but WW1 was between 1914 and 1918, was it not? So; vile anti-Semitism notwithstanding, Hobson could not possibly have blamed a war that was 12 years in the future, on the Jews. I'm not defending Hobson in any way, but I must challenge such blatant revisionism, especially when it's used to attack someone in this way.
Again as already mentioned; both Blair and Brown (and others) positively referenced Hobson:
I think it only fair to point out that the article linked was written by a Jewish person, and quoted on a Jewish political website.
It was terrible when the rightists in the Labour Party made him attend a wreath-laying at the graves of people who murdered Israelis.
So; he attended a wreath-laying ceremony for those murdered by Israeli operatives, in a war where Israel has massive advantage and is guilty of indescribable acts of brutality against innocent people. One man's terrorist is another mans' freedom fighter. But that still doesn't prove any actual 'anti-Semitism'.
And what about when the Labour right hacked Corbyn’s Facebook to make it look like he praised a mural of big-schnozzed Jews playing cards? Is there NOTHING they won’t do to cast him in a bad light?
As already mentioned; Corbyn's comments were more about the removal of public art; I don't think he actually considered the piece itself. Naive at best, but again, no evidence of actual 'anti-Semitism'.
It's awkward, isn't it, when the facts don't actually tally with the particular narrative you're trying to push. But that's the problem with revisionism such as this; it invariably ignores actual facts.
I've actually met and spoke with Jeremy Corbyn a few times, and know people who are close friends of his. Who are Jewish. Who laugh off any suggestion that Corbyn is anti-Semitic. It's interesting that the views of such Jewish people are seldom used for any real media balance; it's almost as though certain sections of the press don't really want to be objective:
Corbyn even gets flak for attending actual Jewish cultural events:
Oy vey. Probably because it was 'the wrong kind of Jews' or something...
So now we've established that politecameraction's rant has no real foundation or substance, and can be quickly and easily dismissed as little more than resentful, angry nonsense, can we move back to Kier Starmer? Please? After all, this thread is about him...
Naive at best, but again, no evidence of actual ‘anti-Semitism’.
I suspect most people would agree with that.
Moving on…
I know it’s from a PR group, but they probably have this right. More focus on Labour where they are in a position to make a difference, and less on what they can’t do from the opposition benches in Westminster, is probably a useful approach to improving chances of ever being on the government benches. Also, presenting Labour as a team, rather than focusing on a (dull) leader and the endless battles behind them, seems wise as well. To be polite, Starmer “needs help”, and also to be seen to be getting help from Labour leaders across the country.
Yup I think that seems a decent idea. Makes Starmer/the Labour Party seem more relevant apart from anything else - reminds people that they aren't just whiners!
Johnson has used the fact that Labour are in opposition very smartly to diminish Starmer. Whenever he does his actual job as Leader or the Opposition, Johnson manages to make charges of “talk not action” stick… which is maddening, as it is Johnson who so often refuses to act when it is needed, yet he is the person in the ultimate position to do so.
And, on a thread about Kier Starmer, here we are once again, talking about Jeremy Corbyn. Surprise surprise.
The ironing....
Johnson has used the fact that Labour are in opposition very smartly to diminish Starmer. Whenever he does his actual job as Leader or the Opposition, Johnson manages to make charges of “talk not action” stick…
The PM's job isn't to make the leader of the opposition look good, although Theresa May and John Major had a good go
Starmer needs to start cutting through as do his front bench.
The ironing…
I don't actually think you know what that means.
Oh, I see you sort of did attempt to answer the question I asked about how is Starmer going to change things. Except, you didn't, actually. Some pointless whataboutery, then waffle on about how things are actually ok in your opinion. So; crack on. Vote for Starmer. Or Boris; either way, it won't make any difference...
Anyone else want to attempt to explain how Starmer is going to achieve the kind of changes necessary for our society to move forwards positively?
Anybody?
No?
Ah well. Can't say I didn't try.
Oh, I see you sort of did attempt to answer the question I asked about how is Starmer going to change things. Except, you didn’t, actually. Some pointless whataboutery, then waffle on about how things are actually ok in your opinion. So; crack on. Vote for Starmer. Or Boris; either way, it won’t make any difference…
Did I miss the but where you came up with your definition of democracy and examples of properly democratic countries?
Anyone else want to attempt to explain how Starmer is going to achieve the kind of changes necessary for our society to move forwards positively?
Anybody?
No?
Ah well. Can’t say I didn’t try.
How is he going to do it?
Become PM.
To do this have 326+ labour MPs (possibly less but let's keep it simple)
To do this convince the majority of voters in 326+ constituencies to vote labour at a GE
Anything/ anyone who isn't helping that strategy needs to be sidelined/discarded. He needs to realise that whatever is set out it will not be enough for some loud voices on the left
It needs a Lazer focus and for the conservatives to continue to look increasingly incompetent, Boris will help this as he seems pathologically adverse to reshuffles
The way our system works it's the executive that makes things happen, there can be some disruption from the opposition but it's still the government making the changes to the status quo. So fundamentally the way to make the changes happen is to get 326+ labour MPs.
pointless whataboutery, then waffle
How do you do it? You and your winning ways!
Where did you learn the subtle art of persuasion, diplomacy, and cordial respect?
A stint at the Foreign Office perhaps?
It needs a Lazer focus and for the conservatives to continue to look increasingly incompetent
The conservatives are already looking utterly incompetent, but no one cares.
The public still prefer them to 'bickering preachy do-gooders who only care about illegal immigrants and dole scroungers and being woke'.
How do you do it? You and your winning ways!
Where did you learn the subtle art of persuasion, diplomacy, and cordial respect?
A stint at the Foreign Office perhaps?
The only thing I win at is connect4 when the kids take it easy on me
Not a karate black belt, passport has run out
Don't move in exalted circles with secular saints
The public still prefer them to ‘bickering preachy do-gooders who only care about illegal immigrants and dole scroungers and being woke’.
Start talking about something else then? Bury the rest on page 53 of the manifesto.
Did I miss the but where you came up with your definition of democracy and examples of properly democratic countries?
No, because I never posted up such. Because I'm not talking about 'other countries'; I'm talking about the UK. Because this thread is all about a UK political leader. So as much as you'd clearly love to distract attention away from Armrest, please keep on topic. Thanks.
How is he going to do it?
Become PM.
To do this have 326+ labour MPs (possibly less but let’s keep it simple)
To do this convince the majority of voters in 326+ constituencies to vote labour at a GE
And then what's he going to do?
How do you do it? You and your winning ways!
Where did you learn the subtle art of persuasion, diplomacy, and cordial respect?
A stint at the Foreign Office perhaps?
Nah. A council estate in North London.
