#jeremy corbyn (implied)

[feckcops]

Starmer’s so-called “landslide victory” is built on sand

A deeply unpopular leader, Starmer has not secured the resounding endorsement his 412 seat tally would suggest, while record numbers of Green and independent MPs could pose a robust leftist challenge to Starmer’s Government ­– if they get organised

Keir Starmer, an ersatz Blair without a hint of his charisma or vision, is now Prime Minister, despite securing a vote share six percentage points lower than Jeremy Corbyn in 2017. These results expose the widespread disillusionment, if not outright resentment, towards both Labour and the Tories. Smaller parties and independents had a great showing, with shock wins for Greens and pro-Palestine independents, but also Farage's Reform Party (if indeed you can call a limited company with a CEO and no membership a party). However, a large minority of eligible voters chose not to vote at all, with turnout dropping to 60 percent. This matches the record low set in 2001, when everyone knew Blair was set to be re-elected on a landslide. In elections expected to produce a new government, turnout usually rises – but not so this time. Shockingly, Labour’s mantra of “false hope is worse than no hope” failed to inspire any hope for real change.

It is a damning indictment of our voting system that a party can win over two thirds of seats and celebrate a “landslide victory” after winning over just one in five eligible voters. (Out of the 60 percent who voted, Labour only won a third of the vote.) Thanks to our twee unwritten constitution, this technical win grants Keir Starmer the right to form an electoral dictatorship for the next five years. However, the results do offer some silver linings...

Corbyn won his seat as an independent with a 7,250 vote lead over Labour, after he was blocked from running as Labour’s candidate in Islington North, a seat he'd held for 40 years. Labour also lost Chingford and Woodford Green to Ian Duncan Smith, after Faiza Shaheen was similarly blocked by Labour on dubious grounds and continued her campaign as an independent – ultimately this helped IDS win with around 17,200 votes, compared to Faiza Shaheen and the Labour candidate who each got around 12,500 votes. Shadow cabinet minister Jonathon Ashworth lost his seat to a pro-Palestine independent, along with three other Labour MPs, while another pro-Palestine independent left prominent Terf and shadow health minister Wes Streeting clinging on by a thread. Israel's brutal escalation of its 75 year-long genocide in Palestine has not only dismayed Muslims and anti-Semites, as the media love to imply, but a diverse coalition of people united by their outrage at leading politicians excusing, if not actively cheerleading, such barbarity. These results prove there is an electoral cost for enabling rogue states to commit crimes against humanity.

Beyond the three largest parties, the balance of power in Parliament now lies with a socialist, environmentalist, pro-Palestine left. The Greens won all four of their target seats – not only in the young, urban constituencies of Brighton Pavilion and Bristol Central, but also in the rural, once solidly Tory constituencies of Waveney Valley and North Herefordshire – an achievement few really thought possible. (Greens and pro-Palestine independents also came second in a record number of constituencies, laying the ground for more gains next time.) Those four Green MPs, along with Corbyn and the other four pro-Palestine independents, make up nearly double Reform’s five MPs. As such, we will have a principled leftist grouping in Parliament, not beholden to the Labour whip, to hold Starmer to account.

There is hope the new pro-Palestine independents can put aside subtle philosophical differences and work together to offer a robust left opposition to Starmer. We could see Corbyn and other independents join the Green Party. This would be a strategic move; they could still reasonably claim to be independent voices for their constituents as Green MPs, as the Green Party does not whip its MPs like other parties. Meanwhile, they would benefit from this established party’s resources, networks and mass membership. The highly democratic structure of the party means, if they brought a lot of their voters with them, new Green MPs could even secure a change to any Green policies they disagreed with. As for socialist Labour MPs, we could even see some defect to the Greens now they've secured their seats, especially if Labour remains a deeply hostile environment for them. Defections from Labour seem unlikely at this stage, but they cannot be ruled out.

More than anything, we should take heed that our best chance of enacting real change lies in our communities, through grassroots organising and direct, solidaristic action. Green and pro-Palestine independents only won by rooting themselves in their communities, engaging with the voters they hoped to represent, and inspiring masses of people to join their campaigns. We cannot rely on career politicians, whose class interests are diametrically opposed to ours, to protect us and our interests.

There's more to politics than elections, which only come around every few years and, all too often, seem to yield no real change. Real progress does not come from above. It is not gifted to us by the powers on high. It is fought for, from the ground up. In the words of Frederick Douglass, power concedes nothing without a demand. We must keep faith, keep fighting and keep organising. This election shows us that hard work can bear fruit. We know a better world is possible, but we won't achieve it by just voting. It’s on us to bring it about.

[hjohn3]

Quiet Radicals or Fiscal Fools? The Dilemma of Starmer’s Labour

‘Consistency is all we ask… give us this day our daily mask’ - Tom Stoppard

Splits by Blower. Source: X

By Honest John

IT HAS become a political truism to describe Keir Starmer’s Labour as opaque, vision-free, untrustworthy and craven. It is not particularly hard to see why. Ever since standing on a Corbyn-lite platform in order to win the Labour Party leadership in 2020, Starmer’s tenure has been characterised by “ditching”, “diluting”, “rowing back” and “moving beyond” pledge after pledge, commitment after commitment. Cleaving to Rachel Reeves’ fiscal rule, committing Labour to have brought down public debt relative to income by the end of its first term in office, Labour appears to have made fiscal rectitude a financial fetish - a “reassurance” to presumed Tory voters tempted to switch to Labour at the general election, that the party won’t trash the economy by embarking on an unfunded spending spree when in office. In the minds of many of the leadership’s critics however, this iron discipline has so constrained the party’s room for manoeuvre that it will, on paper at least, be instituting £20bn of public spending cuts in its first year in office, given its commitment to maintain Conservative spending plans. Ignoring opinion polls which indicate Labour is on track for a majority of 1997 proportions, the leadership seem determined to promise nothing whatsoever, while also claiming to be a transformational government when in office. For many on the left, this is simply not good enough: after 14 years of Tory social vandalism, with the very infrastructure of the country apparently on the point of collapse, implied promises to maintain Jeremy Hunt’s Austerity 2.0 is a betrayal of voters who look set to give Labour its first majority in nearly 20 years and are hoping for meaningful change from the dead end into which Toryism has driven the country. Many leftists now openly espouse the view that Labour and the Conservatives are essentially the same: both are neo-liberal entities committed to a deregulated, low-wage and low-tax economy, whose political platforms consist of tinkering at best with the marketised state established by Margaret Thatcher and her successors.

To test the veracity of this despairing conclusion, most eye-catchingly articulated by journalist Owen Jones who, having very publicly left the Labour Party, is now intending to campaign actively against Labour MPs and candidates at the general election, we need to focus not on Labour’s dropped commitments, but on what remains of its policy offer and set that against the requirements of the fiscal rule. Will Labour, like New Labour, who became rather more left wing in office, surprise its critics and reveal itself to be a government of quiet radicals, or will it indeed apply its self-imposed fiscal strait jacket literally, and so box itself in, that transformational change will be impossible? Will Starmer’s Labour ultimately be viewed by history as a fiscally foolish government, that maintained the miserablist legacy of Sunak and Hunt and achieved nothing of worth in a brief and embarrassingly short period in power?

If Labour do win the next general election, it will be in no small part to the sudden and visible collapse in public services: the chickens of 14 years of austerity coming home to roost, and bringing the whole hen house of the Thatcherite model tumbling down with them. For clear, existential, reasons, it is the state of the NHS that most concerns the public. The failure of the Boris Johnson government to deliver the funding dividend to the health service supposedly made possible by Brexit, is viewed as a grievous betrayal by many who voted Tory in 2019. The frustration of an exponential increase in mean waiting time for elective procedures combined with a horror at ambulances not turning up in time to save lives, has destroyed the public’s faith, carefully curated by David Cameron in his austerity messaging to “protect” the NHS, that the Tories can be trusted to do anything other than preside over serial neglect when it comes to health services. The King’s Fund estimates the NHS needs an annual increase in funding of 3.3% (approximately £5bn per annum) just to stay still. Labour’s fiscal rule would appear to rule out any such increase, and yet the party is committed to funding two million additional elective and diagnostic procedures in its first year in government; 700,000 additional dental appointments, 8,500 additional mental practitioners, to be recruited in the course of its first term and a doubling of CT and MR imaging capacity as well as, more controversially, expanding elective surgical capacity by utilising private hospitals. If enacted, this would represent the biggest expansion in healthcare provision since 2000, and given its targeting and lack of obsession with structures and internal markets that wasted so much of the additional funding associated with Blair’s NHS Plan, it could make a material difference to elective waiting lists in relative short order. There is dispiritingly little being said by Labour about the need to rectify the catastrophic defunding of social and community care in the austerity years, which is the root cause of crowded A&E Departments, blocked beds and delayed ambulances, but despite this glaring omission, the Labour health offer is not insubstantial.

Perhaps the biggest disappointment to Labour supporters hoping for radical change after the election was Labour’s dropping of its commitment to fund fully its Green Prosperity Plan. The Plan was the pivot on which so much transformational change hung and, dropped because the right wing press had turned the £29bn per annum required to fund it into an attack line, the heart seemed to have been ripped out of the Starmer project for little discernible political gain. Nonetheles, Labour remain committed to £24bn spend on green energy in the course of the Parliament, in stark contrast to Sunak’s witless defunding of Tory net zero commitments in his frantic search for a culture war he might actually win, and to the establishment of Great British Energy, a publicly owned research and provision company which would represent the UK’s first venture into public ownership since the 1970s. What has also survived is the Corbynite policy of establishing a National Wealth Fund, something that looks suspiciously like a Keynesian vehicle to attract and direct inward investment, and quite possibly the engine for genuine attempts to “level up” the deindustrialised towns and communities of England and Wales. Hardly the stuff of neoliberal orthodoxy.

Then there is Labour’s New Deal For Working People - a commitment to increase the Living Wage, legislate for fair pay, ban zero hour contracts and the oppressive tactic of “hire and rehire” utilised by unscrupulous employers, and even a hint that the most restrictive trade union laws in Europe might be revisited. This would represent the biggest rebalancing of the economy in favour of workers since New Labour’s introduction of the Minimum Wage. Taken with Labour’s plans to introduce an Industrial Strategy Council, and its stated intention to devolve decision making powers for the English regions to the Mayoralties, we may see the beginning of post-Brexit active management of the economy by the state. The commitment to a Wilsonian programme of affordable house building is at piece with this, an ambitious attempt to rebalance the housing market whose artificial pumping up of asset prices has been a boon to the better off. If we throw in some class war tit bits like ending charitable status for public schools, getting rid of the hereditary peers and clamping down on tax evasion, we have the contours of a very recognisably Labour administration, to the left of New Labour and streets away from the libertarian chaos of Tory Britain. An emerging government perhaps of quiet radicals.

And yet - there remains that wretched fiscal rule, which Reeves and Labour spokespeople mention every other sentence. Taken at face value, if maintained and implemented, little of Labour’s health or remaining green energy proposals would survive; furthermore the chances of the “iron chancellor” allowing the sort of regional fiscal independence that would make devolved powers worth having to the Mayors and local government, look remote at best while the rule remains in place. Whenever faced with the illogicality of this position, Reeves and her acolytes parrot the mantra that public services will be funded by “growth” while being unable to point to a single Labour policy that will stimulate that growth. The fact of the matter is that Labour’s current offer is dishonest. Labour in power, on the basis of its current policies, can indeed be a genuinely innovative government of renewed social democracy. On the other hand, it can equally be a faithful curator of a busted economic system whose “rules” remain defined by the money markets, neo-liberal economists and the right wing press, but it cannot be both. As Tom Stoppard memorably had his characters complain in Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead, sooner or later, the opportunistic masks have to stop being replaced and consistency of offer will have to be achieved.

Quiet radicals or fiscal fools? As scrutiny of Labour as a government-in-waiting in the last seven months before a General Ellection increases and these questions become more and more focused, the ever-opaque Keir Starmer may find himself forced to make up his mind.

14th April 2024

[influencermagazineuk]

Labour's Big Win Brings Calm to UK Markets

The pound stayed steady after polls showed Labor triumphing large in the UK election. Investors believe this will carry stability after years of turmoil. Financial markets have been looking ahead to Labor's win, which could imply smoother politics and a stable economy for the United Kingdom. The pound did not change a lot after exit polls confirmed that Keir Starmer's Labor Party turned into set for a big win within the UK election. Investors suppose this large victory will convey stability to the United Kingdom after a few years of political and monetary uncertainty.Six weeks in the past, Rishi Sunak known as for a sudden standard election in the rain outside Downing Street. Since then, monetary markets were expecting Labour to win by way of a big margin. Opinion polls showed that Labour may get considered one of the most important majorities in cutting-edge history.Anything other than a big Labour victory might were a large surprise. City investors were organized for a relaxed night within the forex markets. They had been greater interested by how big Starmer’s victory would be as opposed to whether he might win.Official results have been predicted early on Friday morning, but go out polls suggested that Labour could win a majority of one hundred seventy seats. This predicted majority for Starmer's Labor Party would make financial markets consider in a period of stability in UK politics. The us Has seen a variety of turmoil beneath the Conservatives for the reason that Brexit vote in 2016, which induced a crash within the pound's cost.The UK had four top ministers in five years. During this time, the pound fell to a document low of $1.03 in 2022 whilst Liz Truss’s mini-price range precipitated financial markets to crash. The Bank of England had to step in to shop pension price range from collapsing. Recently, the pound has been one of the strongest currencies amongst main economies due to the anticipated election end result.After the go out polls have been posted on Thursday, the pound remained regular at about $1.27.Under Starmer, Labor has moved in the direction of the financial center, far away from the more radical regulations of former chief Jeremy Corbyn, who misplaced badly to Boris Johnson in 2019. Analysts said that if Labor's majority was less than a hundred seats, it may have affected economic markets. Traders had been additionally looking to see if Nigel Farage’s Reform Party could win many seats. This should suggest future political pressure on Starmer concerning the EU and immigration. The go out poll predicted that Reform might win thirteen seats.Starmer has been cautious with monetary coverage after Labour’s 2019 defeat while Corbyn promised large changes to the economic system, and after Truss’s failed economic plans.UK authorities borrowing prices remained regular earlier than Thursday’s ballot , unlike French bond yields which rose because of uncertainty round Emmanuel Macron's snap elections. Investors stated that uncertainty approximately the USA presidential election in November had made UK property more appealing. There changed into communicate of the UK becoming a more secure location for investors in a volatile world.Chris Beauchamp, the chief marketplace analyst at IG, a web trading platform, said, “The go out ballot didn’t cause much trade in the FX markets because Labour’s large win became predicted. This win means investors can fear less about UK political chance. Now, the focal point shifts to France, wherein Sunday’s election may want to have larger results.” Read the full article

[txttletale]

obvsies i am not op and cannot speak to her meaning directly but imo the scare quotes are not meant to imply that leftist spaces don't have antisemitism problems or that the left is somehow immune to or exempt from antisemitism -- but that the specific framing of "left-wing antisemitism", meant to imply that the left in particular has some unique and distinctive problem with antisemitism, is absolutely something used by the right & their media outlets to disingenously attack anyone expressing any solidarity with palestine whatsoever.

in the uk in particular, accusations of "left-wing antisemitism" were cynically weaponized to completely destroy the left-social-democratic wing of the labour party and jeremy corbyn by a right-wing government that simultanously defended victor órban and accused their enemies of 'cultural marxism'. so while antisemitism in left-wing spaces is real and worth discussing, i think being skeptical of bad-faith accusations of "leftist antisemitism" makes perfect sense

its really epic that we raised this big stink about "leftist antisemitism" in online spaces meanwhile zionists can have a whole website (canary mission) dedicated to harassing and stalking people because they supported BDS too loudly

[oneminutetoeleven]

I can't celebrate Theresa May resigning.

I can't celebrate it because all of her potential successors are worse than she is.

I can't celebrate it because she got her petty victory over Gordon Brown.

I can't celebrate it because it won't change anything.

There is no competent opposition who can reliably take the Tories on.

There is no death of Brexit.

There is likely another general election - which has a significant chance of causing more Brexity parliamentary arithmetic.

[dogsliampaynedoesntinstagram]

so i loved your answer about louis and politics because in my head hes in the left but like, in the real left, not some weak ass centrist liberal. In my ideal world i like to image he is a socialist. He is someone from south yorkshire, his mother was a single mother who worked for the NHS he HAS TO BE on the left. Im sure he gave harry a lecture when he tweeted that about thatcher. I wish he had tweeted fuck thatcher. GOD I WANT TO TALK ABOUT UK POLITICS WITH HIM SO BADLY sorry if this is weird

Oh Anon - it’s certainly not weird to me, because I have all those feelings, including the caps lock.  I agree there’s no reason to think Louis’ be a centerist liberal.  Like if he’s not thinking at least partly in terms of redistribution of wealth then the other option is nihilism. 

And also you are absolutely right when it comes to Thatcher. The day that Thatcher died Stan replied to a friend of his who said he didn’t know who Thatcher was ‘hang your head in shame man! As a Donny lad your name should fill her with anger!’ And I’m willing to take that as a good indication of where Louis’ stands (also I’ve written fanfic about this)

Honestly if I could ask someone associate with 1D one question - I’d just want a blow by blow of the day Thatcher died.

[philosopherking1887]

This is why you need to be careful about what kind of rhetoric you’re using in your anti-Israel/pro-Palestine posts... and this kind of thing is also why a great many Jews remain convinced that there needs to be a state somewhere where we control our own fate, where Jews will be guaranteed a refuge when we are driven out of other places, which has been a consistent theme of Jewish experience for 2,000 years.

Statistics can’t fully convey the massive surge in anti-Jewish behavior in Britain over the past two weeks. The Community Security Trust, an organization that monitors and fights antisemitism in the U.K., officially noted a growth of 500% in antisemitic incidents comparing May 8-18 to the similar period before.

That is an extremely conservative estimate — Attorney General Michael Ellis, the British government’s top legal advisor, cited a media report of a 600% growth. It’s likely that, due to delays and underreporting, the growth is higher.

Those statistics, however, don’t tell you what it feels like to be caught in a bubble of hostility.

There are less than 400,000 Jews in Britain, and more than half of those live among the 9 million people of London. Beyond London, there are no other sizable Jewish communities by American terms. And this tiny minority community is looking for its neighbors to stand up for them as they face racist abuse.

Over the course of the recent Gaza conflict, cars — or convoys of cars — with Palestinian flags on them have driven around Jewish areas in a clear attempt to intimidate local Jews.These incidents took place in all cities with significant Jewish communities, one almost every day, quite independent of pro-Palestinian or pro-Israel protests.

Many of these drive-bys included men shouting out anti-Israel slogans on loudspeakers. Most infamously, on May 16 on London’s Finchley Road, men yelled out antisemitic abuse including, “F—k their mothers, rape their daughters.”

I’ve put the rest of the article under a cut, in case you can’t follow the link due to paywall, but here’s another highlight in advance:

David Baddiel — a British Jewish celebrity and author of the recent “Jews Don’t Count” about the abandonment of Jews as an ethnic minority by the progressive left in Britain — tweeted a photograph of a pro-Palestinian demonstration where a marcher carries a banner accusing Jews of being Christ-killers. As he points out, “The way to spot if anti-Zionism is blurring into anti-Semitism is to keep your eye out for the age-old tropes: the ones that existed a long, long time before 1948. And they don’t come much more age-old and recognizable than this one.”

To be sitting in your house while people yell violent racist abuse outside is frightening. The atmosphere is doubly hostile online.

As well as the racist posts like ones that equate Jews with Nazis (racist in any context), ones that rehash antisemitic tropes (they lie and manipulate the media) and ones that simply promote the genocide of the Jews (“from the river to the sea,” “Hitler was right”) there have been direct, overt attacks on British students. For example, some young Jewish women at British universities were added to antisemitic group chats on Instagram and, according to the CST, antisemitic content was sent to “Jewish students and schoolchildren via direct messages.”

Working with the team at the Center for Countering Digital Hate, I have seen them demonstrate how social media platforms foster hate even without geopolitical causes. This month has shown new ways platforms enable users to share their hate. The Tab, a British site where young journalists cover youth and student culture, quotes a student from the University of Leeds talking about being thrown from the callous, widespread antisemitism of social media, into specific, personal racism and misogyny:

“It was really shocking after days of seeing friends share antisemitic rhetoric on Instagram to then be directly targeted. I was shocked my private Instagram could be added into a group of such hateful behavior. What made it even worse was that when I shared it, not one of my non-Jewish friends reached out for support. I felt so intimidated and threatened.”

This is the microcosm of the Jewish community’s experience. Britain’s Jews, and the middle-class communities in which they live, believe in the rights of Palestinians. While facing disgusting antisemitism by bad actors online or in person, British Jews feel let down by their non-Jewish friends and neighbors who are neither standing up against those who physically cultivate an atmosphere of hostility to Jews nor offering support against the torrent of abuse online. Indeed, many friends and neighbors’ own protests against the Israeli government often imply that all Jews are to blame.

Across the country, there have been a number of demonstrations against Israel’s actions that have included offensive anti-Jewish banners. Though these are a minority, they are well-represented and happily included by the leaders of the demonstration.

David Baddiel — a British Jewish celebrity and author of the recent “Jews Don’t Count” about the abandonment of Jews as an ethnic minority by the progressive left in Britain — tweeted a photograph of a pro-Palestinian demonstration where a marcher carries a banner accusing Jews of being Christ-killers. As he points out, “The way to spot if anti-Zionism is blurring into anti-Semitism is to keep your eye out for the age-old tropes: the ones that existed a long, long time before 1948. And they don’t come much more age-old and recognizable than this one.”

Baddiel was not surprised that this millennia-old slur appeared, but what hurts British Jews is that the racism was not questioned and removed by others in this progressive march.

This hurtful wave comes at a time when, despite the clear and independently-verified antisemitism of Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour Party, Jews are being accused by significant numbers of the left of having sabotaged a so-called progressive agenda by pointing out its deep-seated bigotry.

[artiegayberg]

"A vote for labour is a vote to put a terrorist sympathiser in charge of our nuclear codes" Shit lad ur right I forgot that bit from the labour manifesto where it says Jezza's going to turn around and fire the whole nuclear arsenal at his own country

[whatevergreen]

A lecturer at Northumbria University (Newcastle upon Tyne) has made a despicable alteration to a picture of Jeremy Corbyn reading to children, falsely implying his association with antisemitism (Corbyn is lifelong pro-palestinian, anti-zionist, and equally opposes antisemitism). The "Protocols" is an antisemitic text from 1903 which purported to be a Jewish plan for world domination.

To perpetuate this appalling lie - "jokingly" or not, and during current events in Israel is bad enough, but to do so using a book by Jewish author Michael Rosen is indefensible.

[gstqaobc]

STEPHEN GLOVER: How cynical of MPs to claim sisterly solidarity with Meghan Markle in a bid to stifle a free Press By STEPHEN GLOVER FOR THE DAILY MAIL PUBLISHED: 18:26 EDT, 30 October 2019 | UPDATED: 20:04 EDT, 30 October 2019

STEPHEN GLOVER: How cynical of MPs to claim sisterly solidarity with Meghan Markle

What’s this? On Tuesday, a group of 72 female MPs, the great majority of them Labour, issued an open letter of solidarity with a leading member of the Royal Family.

In normal circumstances, no one would be more delighted than me, since the signatories include hard-Left Labour frontbenchers such as Diane Abbott and Angela Rayner. Not the sort of people you would expect to have a picture of the Queen hanging on their wall.

But it turns out the letter is not a welcome airing of monarchist sentiment from women who might not usually be the first to jump to the aid of a member of the Royal Family.

No, it is an expression of support for the Duchess of Sussex. The MPs assert that some very beastly things have been done to her by the wicked Press.

The letter, addressed to Meghan Markle (above) claimed that the MPs stood with her on her stance against the media The letter was sent by Holly Lynch and claimed that the MPs 'shared an understanding' with the Duchess For example, newspapers have ‘cast aspersions on her character’ and published ‘distasteful and misleading’ stories ‘concerning you [that’s Meghan], your character and your family’.Unfortunately, in what is admittedly a short letter whose leading signatory is the Labour MP Holly Lynch, not a single instance of the media’s alleged persecution of the Duchess is produced.Wouldn’t it have been helpful if the missive had at least hinted at what is meant by the charge that newspapers are ‘seeking to tear down a woman for no apparent reason’?If only one illustration of what sounds like bullying bordering on intimidation had been cited, we would at least have the basis for a sensible debate. But nothing whatsoever is offered.

For example, newspapers have ‘cast aspersions on her character’ and published ‘distasteful and misleading’ stories ‘concerning you [that’s Meghan], your character and your family’.

Unfortunately, in what is admittedly a short letter whose leading signatory is the Labour MP Holly Lynch, not a single instance of the media’s alleged persecution of the Duchess is produced.

Wouldn’t it have been helpful if the missive had at least hinted at what is meant by the charge that newspapers are ‘seeking to tear down a woman for no apparent reason’?

If only one illustration of what sounds like bullying bordering on intimidation had been cited, we would at least have the basis for a sensible debate. But nothing whatsoever is offered. The letter was spearheaded by Halifax MP Holly Lynch (pictured above) who said the MPs would 'stand with' the DuchessThis did not prevent Meghan from telephoning Ms Lynch yesterday to thank her for her support. According to the MP, she was ‘pleased to have seen that letter’.There is one wild and unsubstantiated accusation in it which tops all the others. It is that ‘some of these stories’ — naturally, no examples are given — have ‘outdated, colonial undertones’.Is this a suggestion that there is an element of anti-Americanism in the supposed hounding of Meghan by the vicious media? After all, the country of her birth, the United States, was once a colony.It’s possible, I suppose, but I think the MPs are getting at something else. They are implying, without quite daring to say as much, that news-papers’ criticisms of the Duchess of Sussex are partly motivated by racism.Of all the smears in this ill-conceived epistle of nonsense, this is easily the most outrageous — and also potentially the most damaging. What could lower the Press more in public esteem than the insinuation that it has a secret racist agenda against Meghan?It’s rot. And dangerous, politically driven rot at that. I have read countless articles about the Duchess in the mainstream media, and I haven’t come across a single example of anything remotely resembling racism in the faintest sense.If the MPs can dig up one shred of evidence to support their disgraceful innuendo, they should produce it forthwith. But, of course, they can’t — because it doesn’t exist.What they would very probably do, if forced to defend their idiocy, is to say that while there are no instances of racism to be found in Press coverage, it nonetheless underlies all the criticisms that are made of Meghan.In other words, if newspapers grumble about the hundreds of thousands of pounds spent on Meghan’s six-day ‘baby shower’ trip to New York earlier in the year (flying there and back by private jet), that is a clear case of racism.When some in the media express surprise that the Duke and Duchess of Sussex should conceal the names of the godparents of Archie, who is seventh in line to the throne, that is another appalling manifestation of racism.

And if columnists harrumphed after Harry delivered a lecture about the perils of global warming before he and Meghan took four journeys by private jet in 11 days, it was, of course, another expression of sublimated racism.

Could anything be madder? Harry and Meghan are immensely privileged people in receipt of considerable public funds. For example, their home, Frogmore Cottage in Windsor, was refurbished at a cost of more than £2.4 million of taxpayers’ money.

But it would appear that whatever inconsistencies the Duke and Duchess may display, the Press is enjoined to stay schtum for fear of being accused of the worst form of bigotry.

Such is the debased level of public debate in modern Britain. We are not talking about louts name-calling on a street corner but Members of Parliament (four of them in the Shadow Cabinet) who might be expected to show discrimination, intelligence and discernment.

Let me add that I wish Harry himself would supply chapter and verse when lashing newspapers. He recently accused them of running ‘knowingly false and malicious stories’ and other such excesses without offering a single example. But he hasn’t — at least, not yet — accused them of racism.

So what we have here are insidious and baseless accusations circulated by a group of female MPs. I don’t doubt that there is at least a smidgen of sisterly affection for the Duchess.

Jeremy Corbyn (pictured above) is thought to want to bring newspapers under a measure state control

But the deeper motivation behind the letter is, of course, political. As I say, most signatories are Labour. And it is Jeremy Corbyn’s intention to bring newspapers under a measure of state control.

Although details have not yet been revealed, the Labour leader spoke four years ago of the need for a ‘multiplicity of ownership’ in the Press. That might imply confiscation.

Last year he warned news-papers that ‘change is coming’. A Labour administration could set in train a second Leveson Inquiry into newspapers. He has questioned Press freedom by claiming titles are ‘controlled by billionaire tax exiles’.

The motives of many of the signatories of Holly Lynch’s letter should be partly interpreted in this light. If the Press is to be curbed, it is necessary to demonstrate that it has overstepped the bounds of decency and ignored people’s privacy.

But, as I’ve argued, the women MPs have shown no such thing. They have made charges without foundation — without, indeed, bothering to adduce any evidence at all. Their cunning purpose is to disseminate the idea that newspapers are not to be trusted, and so should be regulated.

How a handful of female Tory MPs could have been caught up in such a devious plot is bewildering, though it seems that some were astute enough to smell a rat, and refused to sign.

It is even more regrettable that Meghan should have thanked Holly Lynch for her support. She has done what no member of the Royal Family should ever do by entering the political arena — whether deliberately or inadvertently I can’t say — and given comfort to the enemies of a free Press.

Prince Harry is taking legal action against two national newspapers, and Meghan is suing the Daily Mail’s sister paper, the Mail on Sunday. The rights and wrongs of these cases need not concern us here.

What should concern us, though, is the possibility that the Duke and Duchess of Sussex might foolishly broaden their battle with the Press and line up with Labour MPs intent on undermining its freedoms.

[eretzyisrael]

I've read the Jewish Labour Movement EHRC report, so you don't have to. I'm going to list some of the most shocking points raised by the report below. I will not be including details of Jeremy Corbyn's personal antisemitism, as this has already been done elsewhere. 

Thread. One Jewish Labour member listed 22 examples of antisemitic abuse directed at him at CLP meetings. These included the phrases “Hitler was right”, “child killer” and “shut the f**k up Jew”. (page 4)

  One Jewish member shared a breakfast table at party conference with delegates who agreed that Jews were “subhuman” and should “be grateful we don’t make them eat bacon..every day.” (page 5) 

One Jewish Labour member alleged an article arguing Jews were overrepresented in the capitalist class was defended on official Labour Party mailing lists. (page 7)

  A Jewish sixth-former was forced to leave the Labour Party Forum on Facebook after members sifted through his account for links to Jewish organisations. (page 7

) A Jewish Labour member had made a comment online condemning holocaust denial. The administrator of the Labour Party Forum group responded by calling him a “frothing Hasbara Troll.” (page 8) 

One Jewish member faced death threats after she was filmed being upset watching a debate about antisemitism at the Labour Party Conference. (page 8)

  One Jewish was the subject of a 30-minute film made by an antisemitic member, who abused him as a “f**king Jew” and threatened to punch him in the face. (page 8) 

The membership secretary in South Tottenham CLP allegedly objected to 25 applications from the Jewish community, and required home visits to their houses. This was not a requirement for other members. (page 9) Three branches in Stockton CLP refused to vote for a motion condemning the Pittsburgh attack in 2018. The opponents felt the word “antisemitism” should be removed from the motion, despite it being the deadliest attack on the Jewish community in the history of the US. (page 14) 

A Jewish member was told at a CLP meeting that he should “feel responsible for the Palestinian conflict.” (page 16) 

Margaret Hodge was subject to abuse after expressing her feelings on Labour antisemitism. One example includes the phrase “your smear campaign…would make Goebbels proud.” (page 17) 

A staff member was appointed despite allegedly having a history of antisemitism. The appointment was signed off personally by Katie Murphy and Jennie Formby. (page 19) 

The Leader’s office allegedly interfered directly in the disciplinary process. An advisor allegedly stated that “JC [is] interested in this one, while discussing action on a specific case. (page 22) 

Staff in the complaints team were allegedly told that they were not to provide updates or responses in respect of antisemitism complaints. (page 24) 

Staff allege that after the 2017 GE, the Leader’s Office expected staff to disregard antisemitic incidents from a long time ago. (page 25)

  In early 2019, the decision was taken that Laura Murray would head the complaints team. This means the Leader’s office could control the team directly. (page 26) Pete Willsman and Claudia Webbe (both alleged to have a history of antisemitism, separately to this report) were said to defend alleged antisemites to the complaints team. (page 27) 

One example of a person permitted to remain linked to the party despite suspension was the vice-chair of Woking Labour, who tweeted that Hitler was the “Zionist God”. (page 28) 

Some antisemitism cases that go word for word against the Labour Party rule book were subject to blanket exceptions. No suspension issued. (page 32) 

Alex Scott-Samuel, who has promoted Rothschild conspiracy theories on a David Icke show, chaired the meeting to discuss Luciana Berger’s replacement. He was never sanctioned. (page 42) 

Elleanne Green, a close friend fo Jeremy Corbyn, shared a post blaming “scriptwriters in Tel Aviv” for the Christchurch massacre. The report implies her case is ongoing or she has never been sanctioned. (page 42) 

Tom Watson had allegedly forwarded 50 complaints to Corbyn, and no action was taken. Examples of complaints included tweets linking Hitler & the Rothschilds, and questioning whether Jewish MPs had “human blood”. (page 43) 

Correction: I spell Karie Murphy's name as "Katie" - autocorrect error, apologies. There's also one additional typo from what I see. If you want to read the report for yourself or to check the contents of my tweets, you can find the report here:

 https://www.scribd.com/document/438367082/Redacted-JLM-Closing-Submission-to-the-EHRC

[schraubd]

The Trouble with (Jewish) Anger

If you read contemporary political theory publications, you've probably seen that "anger" is having quite the moment as a political emotion right now. As against a skeptical literature where anger is viewed as necessarily destructive or reactionary, a bunch of theorists have sought to identify and promote the uses of anger as a tool of public mobilization, asking what anger can do or promote under appropriate circumstances. Whenever I go to talks or read articles on that subject, though, I always find myself a bit perplexed. The authors seem to concentrate on defending the thesis that anger is powerful -- they suggest that anger (again, in the right circumstances) can accomplish things that might otherwise be out of reach. But it seems to me that the classical knock on anger isn't that it isn't powerful -- virtually everyone concedes that (how many fantasy novels tie anger to a powerful dark side that allows access to eldritch magic?). The problem with anger is that it's hard to control. Anger is difficult to contain and difficult to cabin. Once it is unleashed, it is hard to bottle back up. It ends up hurting those one doesn't intend to hurt, it lashes out in unpredictable and uncontrollable directions. And, of course, anger has the difficult property of being self-generating against critique -- trying to persuade someone that they should be less angry only makes them more angry (convenient, that!). The Jewish community in America is, I think it is fair to say, getting angry. What are we angry about? Well, a few different things, I suspect:

We're angry that a community and a politics that we've long called our own seems to be increasingly comfortable with the promotion of antisemitic stereotypes, and is indifferent, at best, to our feelings of hurt and fear at that fact;

We're angry that we've been unable to muster any significant public attention towards or mobilization against antisemitism from the mainstream political right, no matter how much effort we expend trying to raise it, and we're angry that media sources who are utterly indifferent when we try to talk about right-wing antisemitism only perk up when we talk about left-wing antisemitism;

We're angry at left-wing antisemitism because we're angry about antisemitism generally but this antisemitism is in our home, and also because this is the antisemitism where we actually seem able to touch it and make people pay attention to it and make its perpetrators take notice of us, and so all the anger over the antisemitism where we can't make anyone care about it gets displaced and funneled into this one social arena where somebody will pay attention to it, even as we realize how unfair that is and we're angry about that too;

We're angry that we're blamed for how other people talk or don't talk about antisemitism, and we're angry that people seem less interested in hearing what Jews have to say than in cherry-picking the Jews whose views are consonant with the narrative they want to draw and trumpeting to high heaven;

We're angry that any time we try to talk about antisemitism in a case that's within a half-mile of "Israel", we're accused of being unable to tolerate "any" (any!) criticism of Israel, or of being in the bag for Likud, or of proving the point that maybe our loyalties are in doubt;

And, I think, we're angry that the Israeli government has been racing off to the right, busily making some -- some -- arguments that once were outlandish now plausible, and putting us in increasingly difficult positions. We're angry that we've been basically powerless to stop this decay of liberal democracy in Israel, we're angry that a community and a place that we care deeply about seems not to care about us in return and is mutating into something unrecognizable to us, and we're displacing that anger a bit.

That's a lot to be angry about. It's not unreasonable to be angry, about any or all of that. And I think it's the case that to some degree, anger has fueled some genuine counterattacks against all of these things. Jewish anger has, certainly, prompted some people to issue apologies who otherwise would've continued about their business, engendered some discussions that otherwise wouldn't have have begun, prompted some solidaristic bonding that might not have otherwise occurred. One could, I think, fairly say that Jewish anger has greased the path towards some accomplishments for the American Jewish community.

But anger, as powerful as it is, is also difficult to control. I don't like the political-me when I'm angry -- and more than that, I don't trust the political-me when I'm angry. My tactical choices are often unwise. And when I look out and say how angry we're getting, I worry. I worry that we're not going to be able to bottle it back up. I worry that it is going to burst it's bounds and rage beyond control.

People have been making a lot of (premature, in my view) comparisons between the Democratic Party and UK Labour. But this is one parallel that concerns me right now. British Jews are angry at Labour, and they're by no means unreasonable to feel that way -- I've been quite vocal in calling out the disgusting cesspool of antisemitism that has taken over the Labour Party under Jeremy Corbyn's watch. That's legitimately anger-inducing. And one could even argue that Jewish anger about this has played a significant role in forcing Labour to come to the table and take what (meager) steps it has taken to tackle antisemitism in its ranks.

But I also worry that this anger and bitterness has gotten so deep that it's almost impossible to imagine any set of steps by which Jews and Labour might reconcile. Even when Labour officials do issue statements or take steps that seem genuinely positive as expressions of the importance of tackling antisemitism, the mistrust runs so thick that they're often immediately rejected -- "what good is this statement or that commitment coming from so-and-so, who's been so terrible to us in the past?"

I'm not saying that these statements or commitments will always be followed through on or even that they're always offered in good faith. I'm saying it almost doesn't seem to matter any more, the efforts that are offered in good faith and would be followed through on are swept away just as decisively by the omnipresent feeling of woundedness and mistrust. At a certain level, what Jewish anger wants out of Labour is for it to have never done such awful things in the first place. But there's nothing Labour can promise to satisfy that demand -- and so the anger can never be placated. And that, ultimately, can only lead us to a destructive place, where Jews and the left must be enemies, because there is no longer anything that can be said or done that is interpreted to be a gesture of friendship (even the most perfectly worded statement can be dismissed as a front or a guise, or insufficient given past sins).

American Jewish anger, I worry, is pushing us towards a similar precipice -- one where we can't stop being angry, where there's no plausible pathway through which our anger can sated. 

Consider reactions to the Democratic leadership delaying a proposed antisemitism resolution, with the suggestion that it be redrafted to more explicitly tie the fight against antisemitism to other forms of bigotry. 

One interpretation of this move is that it helps dissipate the notion that Ilhan Omar is being unfairly singled out, and sends a decisive message that the fights against antisemitism, racism, and Islamophobia are united struggles -- they are not in competition with one another. Another interpretation is that it "All Lives Matters" antisemitism, implies that antisemitism cannot be opposed for its own sake but must be laundered through other oppressions in order to matter, and overall represents a capitulation to those who are upset that Democrats are acknowledging the existence of left-wing antisemitism at all.

Which interpretation is right? Well, one would have to see the newly-drafted language, first of all. But I suspect that the answer will be that there is no one right answer. Either interpretation will be plausible. 

So it's up to us to choose which hermeneutic world we want to live in. We could declare, decisively, that we view such a resolution as not excusing left-wing antisemitism but also not singling it out; not suggesting that antisemitism only matters insofar as it can be tied to racism and other bigotry but rather rejecting the claim that vigorous opposition to antisemitism in any way, shape, or form is hostile to opposing these other hatreds. 

And to some extent, our declaration of interpretation will generate its reality. If we choose to believe that this is what the resolution means, that it is an expression of solidarity and of unity, then that is what it will come to mean. If we choose to believe that it means something else, that it is an insult and a capitulation, then it will mean that instead. It is both weird and, when you think about it, not so weird that it is fundamentally up to us whether any such resolution is an act of solidarity or not.

Viewed that way, the right answer is clear. But I think anger is pushing us toward the wrong choice. Yet know this: there is no resolution the Democratic leadership could write that would make it so that we weren't in this anger-inducing reality where such a resolution felt necessary to begin with. If that is our standard, we will never be placated. So the question is how do we move forward in a damaged world? Does anger get us there?

I think not. Anger doesn't look for common ground. It doesn't look for the positive or the best in people, it doesn't offer much foothold for rebuilding. It hurts those we don't actually want to hurt. Like a fire, it rages past borders and over barriers. Even when anger does do its "job" of mobilizing or organizing or signaling the degree of woundedness a given practice is generating, it doesn't easily return to its cage. Often, anger slaps at hands that really are just trying to reach out, really are trying to figure out how to do better. Which, of course, generates anger of its own. And so a cycle emerges, that is very hard to escape from.

As I mentioned above, one of the most difficult aspects of anger as a political emotion is that telling people to be less angry only makes them more angry. Even still, and even recognizing that we have grounds to be angry, I still find myself imploring my community that we need to let go of our anger here. It's rapidly losing whatever productive attributes it has, and I fear that if we don't bottle it back up now, we will completely lose control over it. 

And that thought terrifies me, because I cannot imagine that a Jewish community that is uncontrollably angry at the political community we've long called home will be a healthy, or happy, or productive place to live.

via The Debate Link https://ift.tt/2UobK0d

[cyanpeacock]

threatening email from Jeremy Corbyn himself, entitled "You were with me, [REDACTED]".

implying we like... what? bonded over personal trauma after a few drinks and i promptly forgot the entire occasion and now he's mad i'm not committed enough 2 our relationship?

jeremy... i didnt know

[braddersbangerz]

Boris Johnson huge racist and general cunt at each other and Jeremy Cunt implying Corbyn could cause another holocaust

And one of them is going to be our Next Prime Minister

[antoine-roquentin]

It’s interesting to try to parse the precise political affiliates and character of the eight. The collection of MPs who have left might seem to come from notionally different strands of the Labour Right. Although he has flirted with a Blue Labour, anti-immigration position (as he has with many others), Chuka Umunna has had most success at convincing Blairite true believers that he is their natural leader: cosmopolitan, pro-business and rich. Mike Gapes, by contrast, belongs to that strand of the traditional, Gaitskellite Labour right that has never really got over its disappointment at the end of the cold war, and tries to compensate by hating pro-Palestinian campaigners and millennial Corbynites as much as they once hated the USSR. But they both nominated Blairite candidate Liz Kendall for the leadership: as did all of the eight apart from Luciana Berger and Chris Leslie.

In fact what seems apparent is that the notional difference between an ‘old right’ tradition represented by the Labour First organisation and the Blairite faction represented by Progress has now almost entirely broken down. Since the moment of Corbyn’s leadership election the two networks have been acting entirely in concert in their efforts to prevent Momentum from gaining influence in constituency parties and to undermine Corbyn and his supporters at every available opportunity. There is no longer any clear or stable ideological difference between them, and it seems evident that the clearest way of understanding their position is in basic Marxist terms. They are the section of the party that is ultimately allied to the interests of capital. Some may advocate for social reform and for some measure of redistribution, some may dislike the nationalism and endemic snobbery of the Tories more than others; but they will all ruthlessly oppose any attempt to limit or oppose the power of capital and those who hold it.

One reason for the erasure of difference between them is the changing composition of the British capitalist class itself. Going back to the 1940s, the old Labour Right was traditionally allied to industrial capital: manufacturers and the extraction industries. The Blairites have always been allied to the City and the Soho-based PR industry. But the long decline of British manufacturing, and the financialisation of the whole economy, has left a situation in which industrial capital is now an almost negligible fraction of that class. Today, in the UK, all capital is finance capital. So on the Labour Right, they’re all Blairites nowadays. A very similar process can be observed taking place in the centrist mainstream of US politics right now, as anti-Trump neocon Republicans and Clintonite, Third Way Democrats increasingly converge upon a common political agenda (this observation was made very persuasively by Lyle Jeremy Rubin on the latest episode of the Chapo Trap House podcast).

Whatever their political lineage, most MPs and their supporters on the Labour Right are therefore not just reluctant to engage in any radical project of social transformation. They are deeply and implacably opposed to any such project. This isn’t to say that they are bad people. It’s a perfectly reasonable position for anyone to take, in the Britain of 2019, that there is simply no point making vain efforts to limit or oppose the awesome power of the City and the institutions that it represents. In the era of globalisation, of China’s rise and the Trump presidency, anyone could conclude that it can only be counterproductive to try to work against it. Many of us take a different view, believing that without severely limiting the power of capital, and soon, the planet itself is probably doomed. But a difference of view is what it is. It shouldn’t lead to moral condemnation.

A good example of the latter is the model motion circulated earlier this week by the Campaign for Labour Party Democracy (a long-standing, small, Bennite factional organisation) for their supporters to take to their local party meetings. The motion begins with the line “This Constituency Labour Party is appalled and disgusted that seven MPs elected by Labour voters have rejected our party and crossed the floor to assist our opponents.”

I regard myself as sharing almost all of the politics, objectives and analysis of CLPD. But this is unhelpful. Apart from anything else, it is disingenuous. We all know that the Blairites simply have a completely different conception of politics, of the useful function of the Labour Party, and of the kind of role they want to play, than do we on the Labour Left. No supporter of Corbyn or CLPD wants to have these people representing us in parliament. To claim that we are disgusted is to imply that somehow, we naively imagined that we were all on the same side. This is, at best, to admit to profound naivety and stupidity. At worst, it is simply dishonest. Why pretend? Why not just accept, calmly and clearly, that these perspectives simply cannot be contained within the same party, and wish the splitters all the best in pursuing their own agendas?

By all means, we should be pointing out that the splitters, and the allies who have just joined them from the Tory Party, are clearly servants of a very particular set of class interests and a very narrow conception of what progressive politics looks like in the 21st century. But the language of outrage only makes us look like we don’t understand the situation.

As I’ve pointed out before most of the Blairite MPs became Labour MPs on the basis of a particular implicit understanding of what that role entailed. According to this understanding, the purpose of a Labour MP is to try to persuade the richest and most powerful individuals, groups and institutions to make minor concessions to the interests of the disadvantaged, while persuading the latter to accept that these minor concessions are the best that they can hope for. That job description might well entail some occasional grandstanding when corporate institutions are engaged in particularly egregious forms of behaviour (such as making loans to very poor people at clearly exorbitant rates), or when the political right is engaged in explicit displays of racism or misogyny. But it doesn’t entail any actual attempt to change the underlying distributions of power in British society; and in fact it does necessarily, and structurally, entail extreme hostility towards anybody who proposes to do that.

It is crucial to understand that what I’m describing here is not a moral or ethical disposition. It doesn’t make you a bad person to have taken up the role I’ve just described. It’s the simple logic of having a particular place in a system of social relationships, and being allied to a particular set of interests within it.

[oneminutetoeleven]

There's nothing I can add to what others have already said about the Labour Party around anti-Semitism. It's an absolute sickness and the party structure is doing nothing to attempt to root it out.

What I do want to talk about is the utter bravery and strength of character demonstrated by the whistleblowers and those interviewed for the Panorama about their experiences. There are few in politics at the moment on whom history will look upon kindly - but they are undoubtedly amongst those who will be.

Feel miserable and drained. I want to switch off from it all but I know I can't.