General Election December, 2019 (U.K.)

This is incredibly damaging for Corbyn.

Daily Mirror and Labour supporter, Kevin Maguire, condemning Corbyn in the most robust terms.

There are many Labour supporters in the comments section saying how "disappointed" and "let down" they are with Corbyn.

https://twitter.com/Co_Passenger/status/1199410579154362368

A Dub in Glasgo

Deleted User wrote: »

Why would Prime Minister Johnson attend a debate on a single issue that is not directly involved with the General Election?

If Channel 4 were holding a GE debate with all leaders, I think it would be advisable for Johnson to take part.

In this case, I don't.

As a proponent of green politics, even I wouldn't attend the debate in the context of a General Election. It would be equally silly to hold a debate on "austerity" and another debate on "Brexit".

This is a General Election. Let's debate issues in that context.

Yet you want to make this General Election about a different single issue

Has Johnson decided he will not take part in the Neil interviews?

A Dub in Glasgo

A reflection on the 2017 campaign when Labour openly lied to the electorate about Brexit.

https://twitter.com/Change_Britain/status/1185151264792940545

We are seeing the same type of creepy lying take hold now. Eternity spending, maybe-we'll-Leave etc.

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

Yet you want to make this General Election about a different single issue

Has Johnson decided he will not take part in the Neil interviews?

I'm not his personal advisor, so I do not have the answer to that.

As for a "different single issue", not at all. This is about more than Brexit.

Stop moaning ffs

I see bolding random words is the new caps lock

As if doing that every achieved anything

Bannasidhe

sid waddell wrote: »

Corbyn got a right grilling from Neil.

He should have apologised for proven cases of anti-Semitism within the party and that is what the media are going to focus on.

I agree.

Corbyn should have said I apologise on behalf of the Labour Party for any members who have been proven to be antisemitic and give my personal assurances there is no room for bigots of any kind in the Labour Party.

When asked about anti-Semitism and offering an apology, Corbyn's response should have been something along the lines of:

Yes, as leader, I take full responsibility for the incidents of anti-Semitism that have emerged under my leadership. I want our Jewish friends to feel included within the UK, free from fear of threats or attacks. I will do my utmost to ensure that all cases of anti-Semitism are dealt with, and those guilty of this heinous crime kicked out of the party. I agree - not enough has been done to date. Yes, I am sorry for what has happened, and I promise - from this point forward - to put an end to this scourge once and for all.

Instead, he copped out and offered a wishy-washy non-answer and a reference to Islamophobia.

Same with why he wouldn't decide which way to campaign in a second referendum. The purpose of a leader is to provide direction. If Corbyn believes one path is better for the UK to take, he needs to argue that case to the public. By staying neutral, Corbyn is abdicating the role of what a leader should do - and that itself is shameful.

Harry Palmr

Right throughout his time in charge Corbyn has let down his Jewish colleagues and himself by refusing to be generous and open when challenged on his matter. It seems his ego, pride will not allow him to put his hand up and say mea culpa. If he'd done that early and clearly (and taken appropriate action) he'd not be fighting this fire years later.

sid waddell

The Hindu Council is now laughably claiming the Labour party is anti-Hindu.

It's been well documented that India has been quite active in running an interference campaign on behalf of the Tories in this election.

The "Hindu Nationalist" Indian government of Narendra Modi and his BJP is a quasi-fascist operation and deeply anti-Muslim.

In the US, Tulsi Gabbard is heavily funded by the BJP and associated groups and regularly engages in harsh anti-Muslim rhetoric.

sid waddell

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

Just on the Andrew Neil interviews, has Johnson ran away from it?

On another set of interviews, here is Ciarn Jenkins of Channel 4 challenging Johnson about his failure to attend the Climate Emergency debate

https://twitter.com/C4Ciaran/status/1199356729328373760

Oh, what the likes of Johnson have planned for the climate will certainly be transformative, alright.

Not in any good way, mind.

Danzy

Andrew Neil showing why No Platforming is the ineffective option.

Corbyn was effectively dismantled and called out in that interview that few interviewees are.

His opponents ran with it but he gave them ammunition repeatedly.

Mr.Nice Guy

Newsnight coming from Belfast tonight.

sid waddell

prawnsambo wrote: »

Deleted post.

The evolution of the 1980s Revolutionary Communist Party set into US funded anarcho-capitalist "libertarians" has been something to behold.

Claire Fox of the Brexit Party is another one. She's so "libertarian" she supports legalising child porn.

Sort of makes O'Neill's call for riots on the streets look not quite as bad in comparison.

McGiver

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

Tory Manifesto page 10 states there will be 50,000 more nurses in the NHS. Trouble for the lying Tories is that 19,000 already work as nurses in the NHS so they are looking to have 31,000 more nurses

[/url]

Watch Nikki Morgan explain that on TV this morning

https://twitter.com/TartanSeer/status/1198988260476956673

The question is - How many nurses were removed during the last 10 years of Tory "managed finances" as our Eskimo calls it?

sid waddell

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

The BBC has admitted that Neil was wrong in his assertions during the interview

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/50552295

Seems that may have been the case again tonight.

Thread:

https://twitter.com/jrschlosberg/status/1199450735345360896

Neil: "let me give you the case of Lesley Perrin...She posted a video denying the Holocaust and questioned whether the six million figure was accurate. And what did the Labour Party do? It gave her a written warning. No expulsion, no zero tolerance, just a written warning." 2/

According to this apparent Facebook post, she resigned her membership as soon as she received notification of investigation by the party https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D2bNscOW0AEds27.jpg

I am posting this with caveat that I have not done thorough research and have not verified EITHER the facebook post OR whether or not she had received any formal warning from Labour in relation to previous complaint...

But if verified, it appears to suggest that Neil's line of questioning was based on a fallacy in which case the BBC should issue an IMMEDIATE APOLOGY.

I am nevertheless prepared to be corrected on this if other evidence comes to light or if the BBC can confirm the validity of their source. I am raising it now because of the acute prescience of the issue at this stage of election campaign

Mr.Nice Guy

Jamie Bryson getting more air time on the BBC via that Newsnight report.

prawnsambo

SNIP.

Mr.Nice Guy

The unionist parties seem very muddled on what they want to happen in the aftermath of the election.

Looks like the papers will be hammering Corbyn tomorrow.

Danzy

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

The unionist parties seem very muddled on what they want to happen in the aftermath of the election.

Looks like the papers will be hammering Corbyn tomorrow.

They get a PM and Chancellor who more solidly pro IRA than some TDs who have been recently in Sinn féin or a Tory PM who arranged a deal that sees them cast adrift from Britain in a profound and meaningful way, in a way the Union can't survive.

Post election is hell either way for them.

BonnieSituation

liamtech wrote: »

He was asked to apologize for the fact that British Jews think he is antisemitic. Why would he do that? Apologize for what people are accusing him of?

If speaking of the party; Why would he apologize for rooting out racism and antisemitism?
[/url]

This is exactly my problem with all of this.

Letwin_Larry

Danzy wrote: »

They get a PM and Chancellor who more solidly pro IRA than some TDs who have been recently in Sinn féin or a Tory PM who arranged a deal that sees them cast adrift from Britain in a profound and meaningful way, in a way the Union can't survive.

Post election is hell either way for them.

unless we get a hung parliament, and Boris needs their votes again?

BonnieSituation

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

Actually, I think he bullys his way through interviews and hits the interviewee with loads of question trying to get some of them to stick

He has the ability and the reputation and like Paxman he relies on bullying. It's a shame.

Tbf despite his unbelievably right wing leanings at least he bullies everyone.

Bannasidhe

Deleted User wrote: »

This is incredibly damaging for Corbyn.

Daily Mirror and Labour supporter, Kevin Maguire, condemning Corbyn in the most robust terms.

There are many Labour supporters in the comments section saying how "disappointed" and "let down" they are with Corbyn.

https://twitter.com/Co_Passenger/status/1199410579154362368

It's more damaging for the Jewish community as a push back against the Chief Rabbi has begun from within the Jewish community.

Jamie Stern-Weiner, an Israeli DPhil candidate at Oxford is particularly critical of Mirvis

In a partisan intervention calculated to inflict maximum damage to Labour’s election campaign, Chief Rabbi Ephraim Mirvis ‘calls upon the citizens of our great country to study what has been unfolding before our very eyes’.

Let’s do that.

The evidence indicates the following:

– There is no antisemitism crisis in Britain. The respected Institute for Jewish Policy Research (JPR) emphasised in 2017 that Jews in Britain are ‘seen overwhelmingly positively by an absolute majority of the British population’. Anti-Jewish animus is relatively low, stable over time, and mild in effect; unlike many other forms of prejudice, it does not appear to translate into socioeconomic or legal discrimination, let alone widespread violence. As Mirvis himself observed, as recently as 2016, ‘life is good for Jews in the UK. . . . It is great to be Jewish in Britain’.

– There is no antisemitism crisis in the Labour Party. No evidence has been presented showing that antisemitic attitudes among Labour members are widespread, or more widespread than in other parties, or more widespread than they used to be. On the contrary: surveys indicate that the prevalence of anti-Jewish attitudes has declined across the political spectrum since 2015, while antisemitism on the Left and among Labour supporters—the Labour Party’s natural constituencies from which its members are disproportionately drawn—is lower than on the Right and among Conservative supporters:

‘[t]he political left, captured by voting intention or actual voting for Labour, appears . . . a more Jewish-friendly, or neutral, segment of the population’ – Institute for Jewish Policy Research, 2017

‘Labour Party supporters are less likely to be antisemitic than other voters’ – Campaign Against Antisemitism, 2017

https://jamiesternweiner.wordpress.com/2019/11/26/a-brief-response-to-chief-rabbi-mirvis/?fbclid=IwAR0znIs1gWkgET7_RbWNc1bv8gxG58nI0HOmH6vweNlI33AdfxEX6I9O87U


By the way, for those not familiar with Judaism it is not a hierarchical religion. It has no central authority meaning a Chief Rabbi is not akin to a cardinal or bishop or anything like that. He is the Chief 'Teacher' of a particular group of Orthodox - but not Ultra Orthodox like the Hasidim - Jews.

Mirvis is the Chief Rabbi of the United Hebrew Congregations of the Commonwealth and although he has the title of Chief Rabbi of the United Kingdom and the Commonwealth this should not be taken as he being some kind of authority figure who speaks for all Jews. 'His' community consists of around 64 synagogues with around 40,000 members - or less than 10% of British Jews*.

He does not represent either the reformed Jews or the ultra Orthodox how ever grand his title. I do not know if he represents the non-Ashkenazi Jews but knowing the divisions between the Ashkenazi Jews and the Sephardic Jews I would be surprised if he did - open to correction if I am wrong.

*amended % figure due to new information.

ancapailldorcha

prawnsambo wrote: »

The BBC do seem to like their little trolls.

No more insults please.

sid waddell

Bannasidhe wrote: »

It's more damaging for the Jewish community as a push back against the Chief Rabbi has begun from within the Jewish community.

Jamie Stern-Weiner, an Israeli DPhil candidate at Oxford is particularly critical of Mirvis

https://jamiesternweiner.wordpress.com/2019/11/26/a-brief-response-to-chief-rabbi-mirvis/?fbclid=IwAR0znIs1gWkgET7_RbWNc1bv8gxG58nI0HOmH6vweNlI33AdfxEX6I9O87U


By the way, for those not familiar with Judaism it is not a hierarchical religion. It has no central authority meaning a Chief Rabbi is not akin to a cardinal or bishop or anything like that. He is the Chief 'Teacher' of a particular group of Orthodox - but not Ultra Orthodox like the Hasidim - Jews.

Mirvis is the Chief Rabbi of the United Hebrew Congregations of the Commonwealth and although he has the title of Chief Rabbi of the United Kingdom and the Commonwealth this should not be taken as he being some kind of authority figure who speaks for all Jews. 'His' community consists of around 64 synagogues with around 40,000 members - or roughly half of British Jews.

He does not represent either the reformed Jews or the ultra Orthodox how ever grand his title. I do not know if he represents the non-Ashkenazi Jews but knowing the divisions between the Ashkenazi Jews and the Sephardic Jews I would be surprised if he did - open to correction if I am wrong.

40,000 would actually be a lot less than half of British Jews, who numbered 269,000 at the last census in 2011.

Capt'n Midnight

Deleted User wrote: »

The rich are getting richer, and the poor are... also getting richer.

Except the poor aren't getting richer.

The have-nots are spending savings.

Bannasidhe

sid waddell wrote: »

40,000 would actually be a lot less than half of British Jews, who numbered 269,000 at the last census in 2011.

I stand corrected. Thank you.

The figures I have for membership of the United Hebrew Congregations of the Commonwealth are for 2013 and puts it at 40,000. I was erring on the side of caution by saying 'half' - although I did think there must be more than 80,000 Jews in the UK. My bad I didn't check.

Going by these figures Mirvis 'speaks' for less than 10% of British Jews (6.45% if my shaky maths are correct)

Joe_ Public

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I stand corrected. Thank you.

The figures I have for membership of the United Hebrew Congregations of the Commonwealth are for 2013 and puts it at 40,000. I was erring on the side of caution by saying 'half' - although I did think there must be more than 80,000 Jews in the UK. My bad I didn't check.

Going by these figures Mirvis 'speaks' for less than 10% of British Jews (6.45% if my shaky maths are correct)

A lot of fair points. There are lots of jewish people not happy with Mirvis intervention and particularly the timing of it. It seems clear to me that his hatred of Corbyn is at least partly behind his motive and his obvious friendship with johnson places it in further context.

Problem for corbyn, though, is he cant push back against this criticism in any way without inflaming it and deepening the wound. Thats partly his own fault for not getting to grips with the issue sooner. Damage limitation is the best he can hope for and i dont think it'll be ultimately all that bad. Though they could potentially keep stoking it up against him right up to polling day with a willing media to help them so hard to be certain about it.

ancapailldorcha

Unfortunately, it just seems like the current lot of British Jews is just to be a political football to be kicked around to deflect any criticism of the Conservative party because the iteration of it has virtually nothing to show for its ten years in power and they know it.

The Economist, a longstanding pro-free market publication has found antisemitism to be more common on the right than the left of British politics:




According to the BBC:

In a report about cases of anti-Semitism within the Labour Party, our correspondent said according to party figures, "the number of allegations only concern 0.6% of the party membership."

In fact Labour says the correct figure is 0.06%.

In my personal experience, there is a narrow gap in socialist thinking between hostility to wealthy capitalists and an antisemitic belief that there is a furtive cabal of Jewish financiers like George Soros running the world. Having said that, it's plainly obvious that this antisemitism scandal is almost completely manufactured by the right wing, pro-Brexit and pro-Conservative press to deflect criticism of the Tory party. I do not entirely trust Corbyn when it comes to antisemitism. He has form for gaffes on the subject but he also has a long and storied history as a fervent anti-racism campaigner. I'm not a Socialist by any stretch but I will be voting Labour on December the 12th and I do not intend to let the least trusted press in Europe sway me.

liamtech

Bannasidhe wrote: »

It's more damaging for the Jewish community as a push back against the Chief Rabbi has begun from within the Jewish community.

Jamie Stern-Weiner, an Israeli DPhil candidate at Oxford is particularly critical of Mirvis

https://jamiesternweiner.wordpress.com/2019/11/26/a-brief-response-to-chief-rabbi-mirvis/?fbclid=IwAR0znIs1gWkgET7_RbWNc1bv8gxG58nI0HOmH6vweNlI33AdfxEX6I9O87U


By the way, for those not familiar with Judaism it is not a hierarchical religion. It has no central authority meaning a Chief Rabbi is not akin to a cardinal or bishop or anything like that. He is the Chief 'Teacher' of a particular group of Orthodox - but not Ultra Orthodox like the Hasidim - Jews.

Mirvis is the Chief Rabbi of the United Hebrew Congregations of the Commonwealth and although he has the title of Chief Rabbi of the United Kingdom and the Commonwealth this should not be taken as he being some kind of authority figure who speaks for all Jews. 'His' community consists of around 64 synagogues with around 40,000 members - or roughly half of British Jews.

He does not represent either the reformed Jews or the ultra Orthodox how ever grand his title. I do not know if he represents the non-Ashkenazi Jews but knowing the divisions between the Ashkenazi Jews and the Sephardic Jews I would be surprised if he did - open to correction if I am wrong.

Its a very good article - and it raises valid points, and this issue is obviously going to shift back and forth as many Jewish people in the UK, will begin to push back

For me, the problem is more internationally based, and i say that as someone who completed a degree on the subject of International Relations and politics. And, this problem is not unique to the topics of Antisemitism. The problem can be described as a 'Blurred Lines' scenario.

If you examine the case of the book which i have several times cited in this thread: The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy - now said book simply highlights a disproportionate influence of a selection of Lobbying groups in the US. It outlines that the group is widely respected as being powerful, and influential. It offers many reasons for this influence, ranging from campaign contributions, offering 'acceptable' positions' on middle east policy which favor Israel, and sometimes smearing those who disagree with said positions. The obvious example of this being President Jimmy Carter who penned a book called Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid - and was roundly criticized as being Antisemitic.

The problem is, that although Mearsheimer and Walt, (and Jimmy Carter in his book which they cite), argue on purely intellectual and academic lines - They end up being labled as Antisemites, WHILE ALSO being endorsed by ACTUAL Antisemitic Individuals. Whereby, Osama Bin Laden once cited 'The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy' in one of his more notorious proclamations. Therefore its not merely criticism of Israel, that leads to Antisemitic accusations, it is the fact that ACTUAL ANTISEMITES sometimes 'jump on the bandwagon' and align themselves with critics of Israeli Foreign Policy - thusly we have our Blurred Lines

I feel this relates to Jeremy Corbyn and Labour in a significant way. While i acknowledge that some members of the party may hold extreme points of view, i believe Jeremy is being attacked because of his EXPLICIT support for Palestine, being taken as an IMPLICIT condoning of Antisemitism. To a certain extent i believe this is a valid concern, but not a reason to label Corbyn as being explicitly Antisemitic

In a nut shell it can be summed up simply:

Jeremy Supports Palestine and Criticizes Israel
ANTISEMITIC Organizations support Palestine and hate Israel
therefore Jeremy Corbyn must agree with their policies in general

Its a complicated topic - Corbyn is taking a lot of flack now, and could certainly have done better tonight - but i maintain that i dont believe him to be Antisemitic - and remain convinced that it is not right for major religious figures to attack Labour on these basis

sid waddell

The proof that all this is about Israel and not anti-Semitism is the fact that the only major Tory politician to be branded as an anti-Semite in recent years was Alan Duncan, who spoke out forcefully against Israel's policies regarding Palestine.

Duncan never uttered engaged in anti-Semitism, only criticism of Israeli policy.

Meanwhile Jacob Rees Mogg, Michael Gove, James Cleverley, Andrew Bridgen as well as two of their lesser known candidates in this election have all engaged in actual anti-Semitism, and there isn't a peep out of the UK press about it.