UK General Discussion: 2017 and onwards, Mayhem

[GoTfan]

OK, I'll say it: Corbyn has to go.

Because the media is after him for thinking that Palestinians should have rights?

No, because he's an open, unrepentant, and increasingly extreme anti-semite who poses a clear and present danger to every last Jewish person in the UK.

Good thing no one listens to you.

[Stand With Israel. Crush Hamas]

OK, I'll say it: Corbyn has to go.

Because the media is after him for thinking that Palestinians should have rights?

No, because he's an open, unrepentant, and increasingly extreme anti-semite who poses a clear and present danger to every last Jewish person in the UK.

Good thing no one listens to you.

They never do when anti-semitism is concerned, because the goal is to silence Jews and then eliminate us.

Let me make this as unambiguous as possible.

- Corbyn is an anti-semite.

- If you support Corbyn, it means you are endorsing an anti-semitic candidate.

- If you are supporting Corbyn because you like his approach towards the Jews, it means you are an anti-semite.

[warandwar]

OK, I'll say it: Corbyn has to go.

Because the media is after him for thinking that Palestinians should have rights?

No, because he's an open, unrepentant, and increasingly extreme anti-semite who poses a clear and present danger to every last Jewish person in the UK.

Good thing no one listens to you.

They never do when anti-semitism is concerned, because the goal is to silence Jews and then eliminate us.

Let me make this as unambiguous as possible.

- Corbyn is an anti-semite.

- If you support Corbyn, it means you are endorsing an anti-semitic candidate.

- If you are supporting Corbyn because you like his approach towards the Jews, it means you are an anti-semite.

stop being such a shonda dude.

[DavidB.]

stop being such a shonda dude.

Are you, of all people, saying this? Lmao.

[warandwar]

stop being such a shonda dude.

Are you, of all people, saying this? Lmao.

Throwing around the term "anti-semitism" with no intellectual rigor at all is not a good move. It cheapens it at a time when it's a very real and pressing issue.

[Blair]

Ken Loach is vile. Not only did he fund the far left party 'Left Unity' (which took a grand total of something like 300 votes in 2015) to run against Labour but he has a history of absolutely awful comments.

He's got Michael Moore's talent for making films that openly propagate leftist causes, albeit in a completely different film style. 'I, Daniel Blake' was a brilliant film; but he's still a prick.

On Powell...

I love that they've got Palpatine to read the rivers of Blood speech; I studied it in history and was shocked at how much worse is it than I thought. The line about the 'foaming tiber' isn't even the worse part; it's his claim that one day 'the black man will be holding the whip' over white people, which is by far the most disgusting.

I'm not that upset about the BBC doing this; at least I'll wait to listen before giving a judgement. I don't think Radio 4 showing a speech at 8PM on a saturday will have an effect on terms of race relations. People who have these views already have them; they don't need a speech from 40 years ago (which touches on a completely different set of tropes around immigration) to make them any more racist.

Of course, if if was the BBC doing 50 minutes of the Norman Tebbitt, Baroness Young or some other homophobe ranting about 'the perils of sodomy' I might have different views on it being shown.

[Silent Hunter]

I might well record that one, actually. Certainly interesting to hear it. At any rate, the fear of 'white genocide' is definitely a thing among the far-right and will probably only increase as the US declines.

[Stand With Israel. Crush Hamas]

No matter how badly the Tories do, they can't seem to get THAT man above 40-42, ensuring he has no real shot at a majority. Gives me hope for the UK.

[Lachi]

No matter how badly the Tories do, they can't seem to get THAT man above 40-42, ensuring he has no real shot at a majority. Gives me hope for the UK.

The latest poll from the gold standard (and quite frankly the only poll worth placing confidence in after 2017) that is Survation showed Labour up 44-37.

Unfortunately not, it was a tie, 40-40
https://twitter.com/Survation/status/985311874693640197

[ViaActiva]

Janan Ganesh has set out the most compelling argument for why a centrist party could be successful so far: https://www.ft.com/content/29587d86-414f-11e8-803a-295c97e6fd0b?emailId=5ad546be0c0c9100040063a6&segmentId=2f40f9e8-c8d5-af4c-ecdd-78ad0b93926b (Paywall)

Some great writing as usual:

"The unavailability of such a leader is one of British centrism’s besetting curses, but there is an even more obvious problem. Nothing has happened yet. The hard but crucial thing to remember about the great age of populism, the historic rout of the centre, globalisation’s writhing ordeal, is that almost all of it is prospective. It amounts to a series of electoral shocks that have not had time to work much tangible effect on the governance of nations, and therefore on people’s lives."

[parochial boy]

Janan Ganesh has set out the most compelling argument for why a centrist party could be successful so far: https://www.ft.com/content/29587d86-414f-11e8-803a-295c97e6fd0b?emailId=5ad546be0c0c9100040063a6&segmentId=2f40f9e8-c8d5-af4c-ecdd-78ad0b93926b (Paywall)

Some great writing as usual:

"The unavailability of such leader is one of British centrism’s besetting curses, but there is an even more obvious problem. Nothing has happened yet. The hard but crucial thing to remember about the great age of populism, the historic rout of the centre, globalisation’s writhing ordeal, is that almost all of it is prospective. It amounts to a series of electoral shocks that have not had time to work much tangible effect on the governance of nations, and therefore on people’s lives."

As ever, Anthony Well's blog probably has the most sensible perspective on this. As much as the "it's all hypothetical, we don't know how people will react" angle, it is worth remembering that while alot of people call themselves "centrist", this tends not to be the liberal-third-wayish type centrism that such it is anticipated that such parties would be.

[EPG]

Fortunately, we now have a name for that movement - "populists" - well, it isn't any worse as a descriptor than "socialists" or "liberals". Last time the Tories took that bloc wholesale from Ukip. It's not an unknown factor any more. Ganesh is saying the opposite - that the party would appeal to people who don't call themselves centrists but are more sympathetic to the status quo.

I think Ganesh is right and the potential is there, even if very small, like the SDP. Tying the centre-party idea to stopping Brexit is the problem. It cripples their movement with the smell of elitism from the get-go. Far better to act once Brexit creates losers who can vote. However, this may mean that the proposed centre party is named the Conservative and Unionist Party, or perhaps the Labour Party. Finally, it is also notable how few of the prospective donors have backed the actually-existing, anti-Brexit, centre parties, which with a combined 50 seats in the HoC are not exactly small players.

[ViaActiva]

Yeah I agree, a majority of people just want the government to get on with Brexit given the referendum result. I think that the climate is only really going to change if there is a sudden decline in living standards and/or a Corbyn government, which really would mobilise a reaction among apolitical people.

[cp]

I don't think it's accurate to say most people want the government to 'get on' with Brexit, if only because what 'Brexit' constitutes is still, absurdly, undefined.

Extrapolating from the various polls gauging opinion about the EU, the UK leaving, the actions of the current government, and the stated positions of the major parties, it's fairer to say that there's a sizeable plurality that would like to call off Brexit completely (all Lib Dems plus Greens/SNP/PC, 2/3 to 4/5 Labourites, 1/6 Tories, and good chunk of unaligned voters/non-voters), a slightly smaller plurality that would like to see some version of a 'soft Brexit' (Most of the rest of Labour, half of the Tories, most non-voters), and a small minority that want a 'hard Brexit (all of UKIP, DUP, about 1/3 of Tories).

The dilemma for the government (and for all intents and purposes Labour, too) is that their stated policy of 'hard Brexit' is both unpopular and impossible to deliver due to the Irish border problem BUT there's no way to cobble together the political support for anything else (soft Brexit or no Brexit) without splitting the party and likely collapsing the government.

If and when that happens I suspect it would be a sufficient shock to initiate the mobilization and reshuffling of loyalties that you described, though it's worth noting there would not be a commensurate economic shock to propel it any further.

[Blair]

Re posting my rather long (but still good to brag) thoughts on a 'centrist party'

There is absolutely no appetite among Labour supporters for 'The Democrats' or whatever this latest grift will be called, but obviously it would be awesome if Garrard and Franks waste a fortune on it.

Reading the article it's hilariously vague; they're not going to seek Labour MP's to defect, and they're going to look for non-ideological people to run in 2022. Almost seems similar to 'No Labels' or one of these groups that provides funding, from the looks of it. But yeah stories where they say 'up to £50 million could be provided' are often bogus.

The ultimate problem that can't be fixed is that a new party needs 40+ Labour MP's to defect, and equally needs to appeal to people like George Osborne/Nick Clegg etc. If the new party tries to only take one of these groups it will fail.

A group of Labour MP's forming their own 'Real Labour' (or whatever they call it) will appear to be extremely dated whilst only consisting of backbench MP's from the 2010, or 2015 intake. The SDP had Roy Jenkins, David Owen and Shirley Williams, who all represented different branches of the right in Labour, and who were all 'big beasts' to term that awful phrase. The creation of a New labour would just die in the next election; even if it gets 10% of the vote. The easiest way to change Labour party policy, as this group want to do, is to stay in the party. Both the Right, and Left have shown over the last 40 year

If you try and form this new 'Democrats' party it will have to be explicitly anti-Brexit (it's worth noting that some of the most anti-Corbyn MPs are hardly rabid remoaners- Woodcock, Flint, Kinnock etc) This would shut them out of 52% of the electorate, and would allow them to be easily parried away. On top of this they need to work out what their anti-Brexit stance is; do they oppose leaving all together because it's awful, or do they want referendum on leaving in the hope we come to our senses. Ignoring this, the party without the Labour MPs would have no real power base, beyond being the Liberal Democrats with a new name. They might get a 1-2 Tory MPs, and a handful from Labour, plus the Liberals gives them what 20 MPs.

These two halfs need to go together, but the moment they go together it's like trying to force the same poles of magnets together. Besides if the reason for this new party is Brexit, then you've only got 2-3 years before we leave, and then the sole purpose of the party is dead. If the sole reason is this idea of 'ideas above party' 'common-sense solutions' then you're just going to have the bastard child of the Cameron-Clegg years.

I say all this as someone who would have happily ditched the Socialists in France in 2017, and supported Macron, and someone who considers themselves pretty corbynspectic. The tribal nature of Labour is really difficult to explain to non-UK politicos, or even non Labour folk. The vast majority of people in the party are the children of Labour voters (if not members), the party is shrouded in nostalgia, triumphalism, self-righteousness and the idea of betrayal. Labour members see the party as a force of progress in itself.

TL;DR: A new party wouldn't work.

[Slow Learner]

David Miliband should stop helping refugees and instead come back to lead a futile attempt against Brexit.

[Slow Learner]

Ken Loach: Deselect 30 Labour MPs Who Attended Anti-Semitism Protest



https://order-order.com/2018/04/11/ken-loach-deselect-30-mps-attended-anti-semitism-protest/

Obviously this should happen, but doing so would be a logistical and public-relations nightmare. Best to just scalp a few to set an example, IMO.

This is an old post but, erm, wtf? Why should protesting anti-semitism be a deselection worthy offence?

[EPG]

There is a thorny problem for May at the moment. She has been rather imprecise in the House while describing the decision to destroy corroborating evidence for the legal arrival of immigrants in the 1960s and 70s, primarily from the Caribbean. The people affected may have believed they had right to remain, and that the government would keep note of this, which did not seem to happen all the time. Without evidence of legal arrival, it is hard to access free NHS and many other social services, as part of the UK's anti-foreigner crackdown to make life harder for both illegal and legal immigrants.

This would all be less of a problem had the anti-foreigner crackdown not been ring-led since 2010 by one former Home Sec the Rt Hon T. May MP, who launched forth the full panoply of racist buses, moaning about the EU during the referendum, etc. Cue Atlas hard-nats to tell us real non-elite people hate minorities as much as they hate Muslims? Not so applicable to Afro-Caribbeans in the UK these days, negativity against whom is not gone, but is not a vote-winner. Thus the incompetence and treatment of the House of Commons are compounded by a sense that this is mean-spirited.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I mean it's mostly just May trying to evade responsibility. She actually mislead the House (twice!) yesterday, which is not good...

[cp]

Such a sad and disappointing scandal, both Tories and Labour are pointing fingers at each other for Decisions taken in 1971, 2009, 2010 and 2014, this must be solved and sorted out quickly, commonwealth citizens are British citizens and England is their country.

This is so, so, SO wrong: legally, culturally, historically, and practically.

First off, Commonwealth citizens have *zero* right to live in the UK. They have to apply to live or work in the UK like every non-EU citizen does. Once they have a valid visa they are entitled to vote and run in all elections (as opposed to just local/EU ones, which all visa holders can), but they are not entitled to any special services or access to state funds beyond what their visa permits.

Secondly, though I am personally inconvenienced because of this state of affairs, this is very much for the best. Most Commonwealth countries spent a great deal of time, effort, and sacrifice *removing* British control from their internal governance and have no sentimental affection for the UK, never mind anything close to nostalgia about British colonial imperialism.

For the UK to see or treat Commonwealth citizens as British citizens is to condescendingly undermine those people's identities and engage in the most arrogant and jingoistic of self-delusions.

The tragedy of this situation is that the UK, primarily though not exclusively because of right-wing Tory/UKIP agitating, has become immensely more hostile to outsiders over the past 15 years. The draconian immigration enforcement that made the Windrush childrens' lack of documentation a problem in the first place is a direct result of the racist and nativistic rhetoric and policy choices that, regrettably, are pretty much mainstream now.

[NewYorkExpress]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/under-pressure-first-minister-wales-steps-down-154201529.html

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Any ideas as to who replaces Jones?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Jones was obviously going to retire after a decade in post - essentially he's brought it forward by a year. As for replacements... who knows? The Welsh Labour Party is a curious and byzantine organisation and there are many elements to it...

[DC Al Fine]

Is the British state trying to become a movie villain? Between Alfie Evans and that North Yorkshire police photo, I'm beginning to wonder.

[cp]

Well, they *do* have Cruella DeVil in charge, so ...

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Is the British state trying to become a movie villain?

Our entire polity is having a collective mental breakdown I think.