UK General Discussion: 2017 and onwards, Mayhem

[Phony Moderate]

Some typical British upper-class antisemitism right here: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/prince-charles-blames-jews-middle-east-turmoil-1986-letter-a8050586.html.

Meanwhile, there's this.

http://www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/news/local/localbrad/15652178.Fresh_anti_Semitism_row_as_Labour_shortlists_woman_who_faced_criticism_for_posts_about_Jews/

Labour is an institutionally anti-semitic party.

Yes, and so are the Lib Dems: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Ward_(British_politician)

And UKIP: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/us-jewish-lobby-nigel-farage-power-anti-semitism-ukip-leader-a8031191.html

And the Tories: https://antisemitism.uk/conservatives-reinstate-councillor-suspended-in-antisemitism-row-and-provide-full-details-to-caa/

Or, rather, they all have (like Labour) unsavoury individuals who make inexcusable remarks.

[parochial boy]

Some typical British upper-class antisemitism right here: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/prince-charles-blames-jews-middle-east-turmoil-1986-letter-a8050586.html.

Meanwhile, there's this.

http://www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/news/local/localbrad/15652178.Fresh_anti_Semitism_row_as_Labour_shortlists_woman_who_faced_criticism_for_posts_about_Jews/

Labour is an institutionally anti-semitic party.

It's last leader was Jewish - and was the victim of a hell load of dog-whistling from the right wing press

[Stand With Israel. Crush Hamas]

Some typical British upper-class antisemitism right here: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/prince-charles-blames-jews-middle-east-turmoil-1986-letter-a8050586.html.

Meanwhile, there's this.

http://www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/news/local/localbrad/15652178.Fresh_anti_Semitism_row_as_Labour_shortlists_woman_who_faced_criticism_for_posts_about_Jews/

Labour is an institutionally anti-semitic party.

It's last leader was Jewish - and was the victim of a hell load of dog-whistling from the right wing press

Yes, it wasn't an institutionally anti-semitic party until a few years ago. No argument there. Now it is.

Most parties have an an anti-semite or five lurking in their ranks, and they're not always expelled, unfortunately. Only one party has dozens that always get reinstated and even promoted, no matter how vile they may be.

(The libdems have a signficant problem too, but it's mostly the old guard there, not the recruits.)

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Your beloved Theresa May appointed Alan Duncan - an odious antisemite of the old school right-wing Arabist variety - to a ministerial post at the Foreign Office, which he continues to hold. Alas, the JC doesn't kick up a fuss about this (though actually it should) because its editor is almost as much of a hack for the Tories here as he is for Likud in an Israeli context. It's unfortunate.

[Lumine]

It seems there's already 40 Tory MP's ready to sign a letter of no confidence on Theresa May (they would only need a few more signatures in that case):

https://news.sky.com/story/forty-conservative-mps-prepared-to-call-for-theresa-may-to-go-11123282

Your beloved Theresa May appointed Alan Duncan - an odious antisemite of the old school right-wing Arabist variety - to a ministerial post at the Foreign Office, which he continues to hold. Alas, the JC doesn't kick up a fuss about this (though actually it should) because its editor is almost as much of a hack for the Tories here as he is for Likud in an Israeli context. It's unfortunate.

Wait, Alan Duncan is an anti-semite?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Yes, it wasn't an institutionally anti-semitic party until a few years ago. No argument there. Now it is.

Most parties have an an anti-semite or five lurking in their ranks, and they're not always expelled, unfortunately. Only one party has dozens that always get reinstated and even promoted, no matter how vile they may be.

(The libdems have a signficant problem too, but it's mostly the old guard there, not the recruits.)

You're just demonstrating that you don't understand how British political parties function. The Labour Party presently has a membership of about 570,000. Most of these people are not politicians, most of these people are not even political activists. The Party is organised locally - at Constituency and Branch levels - but disciplinary proceedings are handled centrally. The Party is not particularly flush with cash and the total number of employees is rather tiny compared to the total number of members; I believe the Compliance Unit (which investigates all claims of abusive behavior) has a staff of about three. The Labour Party - as befits a political outgrowth of trade unionism - has a rather legalistic mindset and disciplinary proceedings are byzantine with multiple avenues to appeal (in fact appeals can be taken all the way up to the National Executive Committee itself). The process tends to take a long time, and factional considerations mean that things can get messy and paranoid.* But people who act badly and post racist or abusive stuff online are generally kicked out; Labour is actually better at doing this than other parties. The problem is that the process is as described which is not ideal from a PR perspective in an internet age. Generally speaking if the offense is not particularly serious the offending individual will eventually be readmitted if they've given some indication of having Changed Their Ways (this is the case with all parties, not just Labour, and over all issues).

Selections for candidates for local elections are handled locally. Some local parties are disasters; factionalist messes of one hue or another, or hotbeds of incestuousness. In such circumstances blind eyes are often turned to all kinds of things (this applies to all parties). Additionally local parties are usually welcome when anyone wants to run for anything and vetting is not exactly strenuous (and given the limited financial resources available strenuous vetting is not possible most of the time anyway). There is an additional issue - again not just a Labour Party one - in that sometimes additional blind eyes are turned to candidates from minority communities, though this isn't even always intentional (if you aren't part of the community in question you won't know where to search for stuff to vet often anyway). There are, for instance, as I type multiple Labour councillors who are outspoken supporters of the BJP.

Labour has an issue with antisemitism because British society does in general - this is a country in which the leading satirical paper runs a regular cartoon strip about the publishing industry called 'Snipcock & Tweed' and no one bats an eyelid - but I do think it's perfectly acceptable to hold Labour to a higher standard than average. One unique issue it does have - and this is where attitudes do need to change - is that there's a widespread sentiment that Good Comrades Cannot Be Racists and therefore always an urge from some to find excuses for others, particularly if they're longstanding members. The present Party Leader in particular often displayed that attitude in the past, which is another problem in itself, needless to say. Another unique issue it has is that media outlets hostile to Labour regularly comb through social media to try to find instances of bad behavior; they actually have more resources to do this than the aforementioned Compliance Unit.

Of course an odd issue with antisemitism in Labour is that the general tone is different to wider society, even if the problem is an outgrowth of it. A lot of the most common forms of antisemitism aren't really found in the Labour membership. The main forms, though, are:

1. Basically well intentioned people who are so severely White that they have allowed sympathy for the Palestinian cause to degenerate into something rather ugly. In most cases they don't even realise (because 'severely White') and react badly when called out (after all they could not be racists, the are anti-racist you know). This is largely a consequence of ignorance and a bad habit to treat conflicts as football matches in which one picks a team and roots for it - the tendency in student Labour Societies for views on the Middle East to be used as a proxy for factional alignment is a major contributing factor - and is presumably the easiest to deal with, at least so long as the journey down the rabbit hole hasn't been too far.

2. Certain Muslim members who take a partisan stance over the Middle East for a different set of reasons and who lack the inherited guilt over European antisemitism that usually acts as a block on really nasty overt sh!t. This is actually an issue wrt the Muslim members of all parties; in Bradford, for instance, quite a few Conservative members have been caught sounding off alarmingly in this direction over the years. Dealing with this is presumably somewhat beyond the Labour Party's remit.

3. Certain Far Left morons with no real loyalty or interest in the Labour Party as an institution but who joined to vote for Corbyn. Disproportionately prone to abusive behavior online, typically very into what Bebel correctly termed the 'Socialism of Fools' variety of antisemitism, generally vile. Generally not Party activists, generally not even particularly politically active (except on twitter). I don't think much can be done here other than to expel them whenever they out themselves. It's also rather obviously absurd to blame the Party as an institution for these people.

_{*I tend to think that the current processes are not suitable for the age of the internet and social media, in which the ordinary citizen has a much more visible public profile and in which claims can be checked and confirmed/rejected with vastly greater speed.}

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Some typical British upper-class antisemitism right here: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/prince-charles-blames-jews-middle-east-turmoil-1986-letter-a8050586.html.

Yeah, the idea that European Jews aren't "real" Jews is odious by any standard, regardless of what one thinks of Zionism.

[Kingpoleon]

It seems there's already 40 Tory MP's ready to sign a letter of no confidence on Theresa May (they would only need a few more signatures in that case):

https://news.sky.com/story/forty-conservative-mps-prepared-to-call-for-theresa-may-to-go-11123282

Your beloved Theresa May appointed Alan Duncan - an odious antisemite of the old school right-wing Arabist variety - to a ministerial post at the Foreign Office, which he continues to hold. Alas, the JC doesn't kick up a fuss about this (though actually it should) because its editor is almost as much of a hack for the Tories here as he is for Likud in an Israeli context. It's unfortunate.

Wait, Alan Duncan is an anti-semite?

If forty Tories are willing to threaten a vote of no confidence against the government unless May steps down... The real question there is whether or not May would call their bluff.

[YL]

It seems there's already 40 Tory MP's ready to sign a letter of no confidence on Theresa May (they would only need a few more signatures in that case):

https://news.sky.com/story/forty-conservative-mps-prepared-to-call-for-theresa-may-to-go-11123282

If forty Tories are willing to threaten a vote of no confidence against the government unless May steps down... The real question there is whether or not May would call their bluff.

They're not talking about a Motion of No Confidence in Her Majesty's Government (though how anyone could have confidence in them at the moment beats me...); they're talking about a vote among Tory MPs about confidence in May as leader of the Conservative Party.

This is the first stage in the party's processes for getting rid of its leader, and was used in 2003 to get rid of Iain Duncan Smith.  Basically if 15% of the parliamentary party (48 MPs) send letters to the chair of the 1922 Committee calling for a vote on May's leadership, then there will be a vote (among Tory MPs).  If she lost that, then there'd be a full Tory leadership election (oh fun) and IIRC May would be barred from standing.

[Blair]

 

It seems there's already 40 Tory MP's ready to sign a letter of no confidence on Theresa May (they would only need a few more signatures in that case):

https://news.sky.com/story/forty-conservative-mps-prepared-to-call-for-theresa-may-to-go-11123282

If forty Tories are willing to threaten a vote of no confidence against the government unless May steps down... The real question there is whether or not May would call their bluff.

They're not talking about a Motion of No Confidence in Her Majesty's Government (though how anyone could have confidence in them at the moment beats me...); they're talking about a vote among Tory MPs about confidence in May as leader of the Conservative Party.

This is the first stage in the party's processes for getting rid of its leader, and was used in 2003 to get rid of Iain Duncan Smith.  Basically if 15% of the parliamentary party (48 MPs) send letters to the chair of the 1922 Committee calling for a vote on May's leadership, then there will be a vote (among Tory MPs).  If she lost that, then there'd be a full Tory leadership election (oh fun) and IIRC May would be barred from standing.

Correct; although the assumption is of course that she'd resign even if she won it (I recall IDS didn't lose his, and obviously neither did Thatcher in 1990) The irony is that I (and a lot of other Labour people) have said that the Tory system for picking/removing the leader is much better than Labour's own system, when it actually appears that it has both given the party a piss poor leader, and one they can't get rid of.

Does anyone know what the numbers would look like if a vote was say held in January? I'd reckon in a secret ballot there must be at least 80-100 MPs who want to get rid of her.

[Silent Hunter]

IDS did lose the no-confidence vote by 90 votes to 75.

[Phony Moderate]

Surely she couldn't plausibly continue if more than about 100 MPs vote against her in a no-confidence ballot.

John Major stated that he would have quit if just four less MPs had backed him against Redwood in 1995 (where his margin was 218-89).

[Leftbehind]

The irony is that I (and a lot of other Labour people) have said that the Tory system for picking/removing the leader is much better than Labour's own system, when it actually appears that it has both given the party a piss poor leader, and one they can't get rid of.

Well, you and other Blairites who hate any internal party democracy.

[Blair]

The irony is that I (and a lot of other Labour people) have said that the Tory system for picking/removing the leader is much better than Labour's own system, when it actually appears that it has both given the party a piss poor leader, and one they can't get rid of.

Well, you and other Blairites who hate any internal party democracy.

I like Blair (hence the username) but I'm not a Blairite. FWIW the actual Blairites supported expanding party democracy with the Collins Review (which scrapped the old Electoral College). I mean as I wrote on the thread a couple of pages ago...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Leftbehind]

The irony is that I (and a lot of other Labour people) have said that the Tory system for picking/removing the leader is much better than Labour's own system, when it actually appears that it has both given the party a piss poor leader, and one they can't get rid of.

Well, you and other Blairites who hate any internal party democracy.

I like Blair (hence the username) but I'm not a Blairite. FWIW the actual Blairites supported expanding party democracy with the Collins Review (which scrapped the old Electoral College). I mean as I wrote on the thread a couple of pages ago...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

They supported democracy for their own ends - as a wider effort to dilute union influence - but it hasn't worked out as intended. That isn't to say they still do, and certainly, ignoring the fiasco of registered supporters, those holding the Tory process up as worth replicating is certainly restricted to a minority within Labour, concentrated amongst mainly Blairites.

[Blair]

The irony is that I (and a lot of other Labour people) have said that the Tory system for picking/removing the leader is much better than Labour's own system, when it actually appears that it has both given the party a piss poor leader, and one they can't get rid of.

Well, you and other Blairites who hate any internal party democracy.

I like Blair (hence the username) but I'm not a Blairite. FWIW the actual Blairites supported expanding party democracy with the Collins Review (which scrapped the old Electoral College). I mean as I wrote on the thread a couple of pages ago...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

They supported democracy for their own ends - as a wider effort to dilute union influence - but it hasn't worked out as intended. That isn't to say they still do, and certainly, ignoring the fiasco of registered supporters, those holding the Tory process up as worth replicating is certainly restricted to a minority within Labour, concentrated amongst mainly Blairites.

I mean every faction within Labour supports internal reforms because it suits their own end; the right wanted Scottish and Welsh Representation on the NEC because they're more corbynskeptic regions, and the left expanded the members (or whatever the new one is called) slate because they want to get 3 more momentum backed people.

To bore people with the differences, the faction who'd benefit from MP's selecting two candidates for the membership, which be the UNITE affliated MPs and the remnants of the Brownites. The Blairites have a far too small parliamentary presence to get their candidate into the final two.

[Kingpoleon]

It seems there's already 40 Tory MP's ready to sign a letter of no confidence on Theresa May (they would only need a few more signatures in that case):

https://news.sky.com/story/forty-conservative-mps-prepared-to-call-for-theresa-may-to-go-11123282

If forty Tories are willing to threaten a vote of no confidence against the government unless May steps down... The real question there is whether or not May would call their bluff.

They're not talking about a Motion of No Confidence in Her Majesty's Government (though how anyone could have confidence in them at the moment beats me...); they're talking about a vote among Tory MPs about confidence in May as leader of the Conservative Party.

This is the first stage in the party's processes for getting rid of its leader, and was used in 2003 to get rid of Iain Duncan Smith.  Basically if 15% of the parliamentary party (48 MPs) send letters to the chair of the 1922 Committee calling for a vote on May's leadership, then there will be a vote (among Tory MPs).  If she lost that, then there'd be a full Tory leadership election (oh fun) and IIRC May would be barred from standing.

Yes, but if they can’t get to 48 for some reason, can’t even just ten or fifteen hold the government hostage by threatening a vote of no confidence against the government?

[Lumine]

Yes, but if they can’t get to 48 for some reason, can’t even just ten or fifteen hold the government hostage by threatening a vote of no confidence against the government?

Not going to happen, the rebels wouldn't risk an early election with the possibility of PM Corbyn (which is a large part of why May hangs on, the danger that a Corbyn victory represents for many of them). Not even during Maastricht did the rebels risk an early election with the risk of anhilitation by bringing down the government (although they did came close).

[Hnv1]

May may be trying to do a "noble" act. She knows that whatever Tory leader delivers Brexit will be tarnished by the initial economic shock. she'll lead through and let a fresh set of hands (preferably not those of fat c Boris) take over before the next GE.

PM Corbyn is a bigger threat than PM McDonald was (or more accurately, chancellor McDonnell is).

[Phony Moderate]

May may be trying to do a "noble" act. She knows that whatever Tory leader delivers Brexit will be tarnished by the initial economic shock. she'll lead through and let a fresh set of hands (preferably not those of fat c Boris) take over before the next GE.

PM Corbyn is a bigger threat than PM McDonald was (or more accurately, chancellor McDonnell is).

Corbyn and McDonnell will form a National Government with the Tories??

[Hnv1]

May may be trying to do a "noble" act. She knows that whatever Tory leader delivers Brexit will be tarnished by the initial economic shock. she'll lead through and let a fresh set of hands (preferably not those of fat c Boris) take over before the next GE.

PM Corbyn is a bigger threat than PM McDonald was (or more accurately, chancellor McDonnell is).

Corbyn and McDonnell will form a National Government with the Tories??

I meant as a perceived threat (i.e. the first Labour government). McDonnell has been playing "wargames" about emergency laws against capital fleeing the UK...the first Labour government hardly knew where their offices were

[Blair]

Why exactly are Tory apparatchiks so terrified of a Corbyn premiership? If they genuinely believe that he'd be an unmitigated disaster at Downing Street surely that would lead to an enormous Conservative majority in the (then-)following election.

The only thing that Tories really care about is the 'sanctity of the private sector', whether that's privatised rail, water etc. That's why for all the bluster they never really feared, or hated Brown and Blair, and why there were always hesitant of May's slight tinkering of the markets.

I suppose Corbyn is similar to Thatcher in 1979, someone who goes against the established consensus of the last 20 years, and who represents something that has never really been tried. 

[Tintrlvr]

Why exactly are Tory apparatchiks so terrified of a Corbyn premiership? If they genuinely believe that he'd be an unmitigated disaster at Downing Street surely that would lead to an enormous Conservative majority in the (then-)following election.

That perspective is basically the same as a Democrat saying it's no big deal if Trump is elected President (and his party controls Congress) because he'll be a terrible President and the Democrats will win the next election. The Tory leadership sees Corbyn as a Trump-like figure in terms of how harmful they believe he'd be (this is regardless of whether they are right or not).

[Babeuf]

https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/931845154130055168

Leonard beats Sarwar for the leadership of Scottish Labour. I'm surprised it was so close considering the revelations about Sarwar's family business.

This means +1 Left seat on the NEC as well.

[Blair]

https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/931845154130055168

Leonard beats Sarwar for the leadership of Scottish Labour. I'm surprised it was so close considering the revelations about Sarwar's family business.

This means +1 Left seat on the NEC as well.

I mean the revelations weren't that surprising; Sarwar's dad was always know to have a certain amount of skeletons in his closet.

He's also been relatively well know in Scottish Labour; served as an MP from 2010-215, then as an MEP, than as Deputy Leader and Health Secretary. He was actually the favourite for a short time at the beginning, due to him having much higher name ID, better links in the party.

The rather depressing takeaway is that Scottish Labour only had what 22,000 vote? 2,000 people voted in my borough's selection for local mayor (a complete non-position). Scottish Labour basically hasn't benefited from the membership surge.

Also FWIW Scottish Labour is very much on the right; it was the only region to vote for Owen Smith in 2016 and voted for Jim Murphy (probably the most right wing Labour leader) in 2014. Also well it has so few members