Current Affairs The Labour Party

[peteblue]

You could donate it to a cause that might benefit others if you really think it's absurd.

I don’t really believe it will happen because that would just deprive funds from the NHS and other government spending.....oh and Corbyn obviously won’t get in anyway....

 

[Bruce Wayne]

I had understood the argument not to be about a change to retirement age changing, indeed I think that is an expectation of most people, but rather about the notice and preparation time that these women have been given in respect of the change in legislation.

£60bn or so is a heck of a figure for 'only' giving people five years to get their house in order.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

Yes I agree. But if you make grand claims about your policy and use those as the cornerstone of your appeal then subsequently don't deliver, don't be surprised when people turn their backs on you.

Most kids learn in the real world that you might have to compromise your sweets in order to get your cola. The LDs were a minority partner in a coalition so the titty lipping of students over tuition fees is frankly pathetic.

 

[peteblue]

Well there are 2 issues here Pete. The first is to substantiate the calls of anti-semitism. You have seen what I put in the post, namely that I do not believe in religious states of any persuasion. I think they bring with them division, bigotry and difficulties wherever they have been tried. Do you believe I should have to apologise for that view? Is this the view that is now held as being racist? Come on, even you can concede that this is complete madness?

As for the 2nd point, yes lots of what the British Empire did was a long time ago. I am not sure if there has been any apology yet? There are also people who as of this day are campaigning for justice because of the crimes of the British empire. I must sayI am deeply uneasy with dragging squaddies through the courts, while the politicians who sent them to places get off scot free.

Would you say, for example, that the none aligned, none political grandmother of someone who was in a republican group should be smashed over the face with a rifle, and if she was we would owe her an apology? Or a young boy (under 16) who rang in an IRA compartment of weapons, was instructed to go and wait at the site for the RUC to arrive and was shot dead by the SAS on his way that his family are due an apology?

Maybe I am wrong, but the more I see of our news agenda, the more I think we are living in an Orwellian nightmare, where peace is war.

I appreciate you taking the time to respond. If people believe me to be racist I am happy to here why, as it's the last thing I'd want to be. However I just can't square the position that opposition to religious states are the same thing as racism.

Like you, I do not believe opposition to religious or non religious states necessarily equates to racism. But comments should then only ever be directed against the state. However, a number of Jewish Labour MP’s feel threatened by others within the Labour Party and this has not properly been addressed, either through incompetence or a wilful disregard for what has happened. The fact that no end of front line Labour Politicians are saying similar really should be getting through the apparent cloth ears of the leadership.....

 

[catcherintherye]

Like you, I do not believe opposition to religious or non religious states necessarily equates to racism. But comments should then only ever be directed against the state. However, a number of Jewish Labour MP’s feel threatened by others within the Labour Party and this has not properly been addressed, either through incompetence or a wilful disregard for what has happened. The fact that no end of front line Labour Politicians are saying similar really should be getting through the apparent cloth ears of the leadership.....

I'd ask though, when has it ever not been directed at the state of Israel? I don't think he, or anyone associated at the upper echelons of Labour have ever suggested it's down to Jewish people. I mean if there's evidence out there I will revise my view, but I've not seen it.

As for Jewish MP's (and mainly none Jewish MP's it has to be said) there is a very close bond between the UK, Israel and particularly a strand of socially democratic thought. The Labour Party were big advocates for the creation of a Jewish state, and it happened under arguably our greatest administration. For many decades it was as a prototypal socialist type state. This tradition remains strong amongst Labour MP's.

Would you not say, the main criticism of him from Labour MP's is that he is simply not supportive enough of Israel? As when I see them interviewed that seems to be the core demand.

And in a lot of ways that is fine. I have a fairly clear opinion on Israel, but I also respect and understand others have different views and that within a broad organisation we are all entitled to such views. It's also fine to be critical of Corbyn for not being supportive enough. Where the line is blurred though, is to state that his ideological position is born out of racism, or that criticism more broadly towards Israel is automatically racist.

 

[catcherintherye]

Most kids learn in the real world that you might have to compromise your sweets in order to get your cola. The LDs were a minority partner in a coalition so the titty lipping of students over tuition fees is frankly pathetic.

I am not sure if you are a LD (though that was my presumption) so I'm genuinely interested, do you think the Lib Dems were too cautious in what they extracted from the Conservatives?

Everything you say is true, but to me there was an enormous amount of naivety from the Liberal Democrats. I think they greatly over estimated the intelligence of the British electorate and hoped they'd come to quite a positive conclusion on the coalition.

When you look at what the DUP extracted from the Tories, with about 20% of the MP's the LD's gave, over a 2 year period (where the LD's supported the government for 5 years) I sense the LD's should have got a lot more in their negotiations. They also should have made it a lot more explicit when they achieved it.

 

[Black Belt Jones]

Well there are 2 issues here Pete. The first is to substantiate the calls of anti-semitism. You have seen what I put in the post, namely that I do not believe in religious states of any persuasion. I think they bring with them division, bigotry and difficulties wherever they have been tried. Do you believe I should have to apologise for that view? Is this the view that is now held as being racist? Come on, even you can concede that this is complete madness?

As for the 2nd point, yes lots of what the British Empire did was a long time ago. I am not sure if there has been any apology yet? There are also people who as of this day are campaigning for justice because of the crimes of the British empire. I must sayI am deeply uneasy with dragging squaddies through the courts, while the politicians who sent them to places get off scot free.

Would you say, for example, that the none aligned, none political grandmother of someone who was in a republican group should be smashed over the face with a rifle, and if she was we would owe her an apology? Or a young boy (under 16) who rang in an IRA compartment of weapons, was instructed to go and wait at the site for the RUC to arrive and was shot dead by the SAS on his way that his family are due an apology?

Maybe I am wrong, but the more I see of our news agenda, the more I think we are living in an Orwellian nightmare, where peace is war.

I appreciate you taking the time to respond. If people believe me to be racist I am happy to here why, as it's the last thing I'd want to be. However I just can't square the position that opposition to religious states are the same thing as racism.

There were two things in the labour manifesto on (confusingly) two atrocities in Amritsar - calling for a review into UK involvement in operation Blue Star in 1984 (mass killing of Sikh's in a temple that eventually led to Indira Ghandi's assassination) is entirely legit policy proposition as this is something the UK Sikh community, a labour constituency, have been calling for for ages.
But an apology for the Amritsar massacre of 1919, which JC is also proposing? Just seems like offensively vacuous virtue signalling, IMHO - no one alive today can make that apology mean anything. It was also repudiated at the time as a war crime of the worst order. Churchill himself condemned it, which is saying something and gives you an idea of how awful it was.

 

[TheAlmightyFloater]

...the press continually look to trip up politicians on any subject. Once they find something, they are like a dog with a bone. It’s sad really when we have 300,000 children living in poverty that they aren’t more accountable on issues that matter more.

it’s Labour’s fault for not dealing with this issue effectively when it first raised its ugly head. It confirms my view that the Party lacks a political strategy, it needs people at the top with big brains.

While I agree that the press constantly looks to challenge politicians, I think it's telling when you look at which papers choose to sink their teeth into which politician/party.

The public should always - especially but not limited to the pre election period - be aware that newspapers are privately owned. Their Twitter accounts, Facebook pages, YouTube channels are all privately owned. Private owners expect their privately owned entities to share and promote their privately owned views.

In the past papers have been open about who and what they support. Some - like the daily express - still are shout it loud and proud.
Other more "trustworthy" organisations tend not to openly support candidates or parties but can be identified by who they criticise more.

It's not Labours fault for apologising for Anti Semitism - it's the public for giving money/views to organisations that only serve to strengthen deeply held confirmation biases.
Will conservative voters still buy the Mail when it drops the Anti Semitism approach and takes a more critical stance of the Tory government and the damage some of its social and economic policies have had on poorer people?
Will SNP voters still listen to podcasts that take a more balanced view on Scottish Independence?

We give the media power because it strengthens our preconceived notions of what society should be and ignore the media that challenges our views. So to Tory voters Corbyn's and Labours problems dealing with claims of anti-Semitism are hugely problematic - bigger even than trade negotiations with the US and the media they consume will support that.

 

[Jebus_lives]

£60bn or so is a heck of a figure for 'only' giving people five years to get their house in order.

And yet behind the £60m there is an individual story as to how and what that person has budgeted for, planned and arranged.

I have sympathy for the cause, however as you have said, sometimes unpopular decisions have to be made.

The ECHR ruled on the principle and found it inadmissible. I'd note that it doesn't appear in Labours Manifesto, but was being discussed as a 'moral issue' for Corbyn. So there is no guarantee it's carried forward - indeed the LP could say it's awaiting the outcome of the judicial review.

I often find that Corbyn seems to be more concerned with his principles than the political position (which while appealing to some) I find too rigid. I don't want a leader to stick rigidly to a set of unmovable positions, I want them to be open to compromise and differing views. I rarely see it from Corbyn.

The converse is Johnson who maintains multiple contradictory viewpoints on almost every issue.

 

[Eggs]

While I agree that the press constantly looks to challenge politicians, I think it's telling when you look at which papers choose to sink their teeth into which politician/party.

The public should always - especially but not limited to the pre election period - be aware that newspapers are privately owned. Their Twitter accounts, Facebook pages, YouTube channels are all privately owned. Private owners expect their privately owned entities to share and promote their privately owned views.

In the past papers have been open about who and what they support. Some - like the daily express - still are shout it loud and proud.
Other more "trustworthy" organisations tend not to openly support candidates or parties but can be identified by who they criticise more.

It's not Labours fault for apologising for Anti Semitism - it's the public for giving money/views to organisations that only serve to strengthen deeply held confirmation biases.
Will conservative voters still buy the Mail when it drops the Anti Semitism approach and takes a more critical stance of the Tory government and the damage some of its social and economic policies have had on poorer people?
Will SNP voters still listen to podcasts that take a more balanced view on Scottish Independence?

We give the media power because it strengthens our preconceived notions of what society should be and ignore the media that challenges our views. So to Tory voters Corbyn's and Labours problems dealing with claims of anti-Semitism are hugely problematic - bigger even than trade negotiations with the US and the media they consume will support that.

...the media clearly have a massive impact, but they can’t be blamed for all the Labour Party’s failings. Experienced Labour MPs are saying today they have handled the situation dreadfully, acting too slowly and in no way decisively. Corbyn just intensifies things because he’s not got the brain power to be one step ahead and deal with questions.

 

[catcherintherye]

There were two things in the labour manifesto on (confusingly) two atrocities in Amritsar - calling for a review into UK involvement in operation Blue Star in 1984 (mass killing of Sikh's in a temple that eventually led to Indira Ghandi's assassination) is entirely legit policy proposition as this is something the UK Sikh community, a labour constituency, have been calling for for ages.
But an apology for the Amritsar massacre of 1919, which JC is also proposing? Just seems like offensively vacuous virtue signalling, IMHO - no one alive today can make that apology mean anything. It was also repudiated at the time as a war crime of the worst order. Churchill himself condemned it, which is saying something and gives you an idea of how awful it was.

He would be apologising as a head of state though. I don't see him as apologising for me personally. But what the UK did in India was awful and if there hasn't been an apology yet we probably ought to send one.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

I am not sure if you are a LD (though that was my presumption) so I'm genuinely interested, do you think the Lib Dems were too cautious in what they extracted from the Conservatives?

Everything you say is true, but to me there was an enormous amount of naivety from the Liberal Democrats. I think they greatly over estimated the intelligence of the British electorate and hoped they'd come to quite a positive conclusion on the coalition.

When you look at what the DUP extracted from the Tories, with about 20% of the MP's the LD's gave, over a 2 year period (where the LD's supported the government for 5 years) I sense the LD's should have got a lot more in their negotiations. They also should have made it a lot more explicit when they achieved it.

I'm largely party agnostic to be honest, but have a liberal outlook on life. It's (moderately) interesting, as I do a lot of work in the tech field and the general reporting of technology tends to fall into either the "we're screwed" camp or the "we're saved" camp, with both adopting a generally very unrealistic view of the state of the technology, the speed of its adoption and all sorts of other things. Yet, despite that, the press is how most people develop an opinion on topics, so we can often get distorted viewpoints on things such as GM crops.

I can't help but feel a similar thing occurs in politics, whether on topics such as migration or crime, economics or the NHS. The political parties know that sensationalism is what the media tend to prefer, so they provide it. You can see it with Corbyn's 'NHS is being sold' thing today. It's daft, but it's done to secure column inches and sway people's opinions. It doesn't matter if it's largely nonsense.

Hans Rosling has done a load of research on just how distorted our views are on a whole bunch of things, and I dare say the majority of us are out of kilter on how the world really is. That's not healthy at all, and it's not helped by the bytesized way in which politicians communicate with the public. Heck, even lengthy interviews like the Andrew Neil ones are largely designed to create 'car crash' montages for YouTube rather than to truly inform people. It's a right state.

 

[Jebus_lives]

I'm largely party agnostic to be honest, but have a liberal outlook on life. It's (moderately) interesting, as I do a lot of work in the tech field and the general reporting of technology tends to fall into either the "we're screwed" camp or the "we're saved" camp, with both adopting a generally very unrealistic view of the state of the technology, the speed of its adoption and all sorts of other things. Yet, despite that, the press is how most people develop an opinion on topics, so we can often get distorted viewpoints on things such as GM crops.

I can't help but feel a similar thing occurs in politics, whether on topics such as migration or crime, economics or the NHS. The political parties know that sensationalism is what the media tend to prefer, so they provide it. You can see it with Corbyn's 'NHS is being sold' thing today. It's daft, but it's done to secure column inches and sway people's opinions. It doesn't matter if it's largely nonsense.

Hans Rosling has done a load of research on just how distorted our views are on a whole bunch of things, and I dare say the majority of us are out of kilter on how the world really is. That's not healthy at all, and it's not helped by the bytesized way in which politicians communicate with the public. Heck, even lengthy interviews like the Andrew Neil ones are largely designed to create 'car crash' montages for YouTube rather than to truly inform people. It's a right state.

I'm stealing this

 

[Bruce Wayne]

And yet behind the £60m there is an individual story as to how and what that person has budgeted for, planned and arranged.

I have sympathy for the cause, however as you have said, sometimes unpopular decisions have to be made.

The ECHR ruled on the principle and found it inadmissible. I'd note that it doesn't appear in Labours Manifesto, but was being discussed as a 'moral issue' for Corbyn. So there is no guarantee it's carried forward - indeed the LP could say it's awaiting the outcome of the judicial review.

I often find that Corbyn seems to be more concerned with his principles than the political position (which while appealing to some) I find too rigid. I don't want a leader to stick rigidly to a set of unmovable positions, I want them to be open to compromise and differing views. I rarely see it from Corbyn.

The converse is Johnson who maintains multiple contradictory viewpoints on almost every issue.

Oh Johnson's a [Poor language removed], no doubts. People are living twice as long post-retirement now as when the state pension age was set at 65 in 1940, and with around £160bn per year spent on pensions by the government, it's almost the single biggest expenditure item they have. Pensions were largely predicated on younger generations being wealthier than their predecessors, but that's no longer the case, and old people should have to pay more of the burden.

It's a real vote loser though, as we've seen with May's attempt to get old folk to pay for more of their care. People want their cake and eat it, and politicians largely detached from any accountability for their promises are happy to promise them it in order to get votes. It's a sorry state.

 

[TheAlmightyFloater]

...the media clearly have a massive impact, but they can’t be blamed for all the Labour Party’s failings. Experienced Labour MPs are saying today they have handled the situation dreadfully, acting too slowly and in no way decisively. Corbyn just intensifies things because he’s not got the brain power to be one step ahead and deal with questions.

Not saying Labour don't have their issues - they've clearly not been in touch with the UK majority for some time now - but at this point elections have become more about media image than actual policies and practicalities.
Remember when Milliband was pictured eating that roll and bacon? The press knew exactly how that would make him look - yet had absolutely nothing to do with his policies or campaign.

How are any party supposed to run a campaign when they're constantly having to combat looking "flustered" when out shopping, or looking "suspicious" when photographed writing a speech.

The people with the brains shouldn't have to deal with how to handle media invented crises instead of creating manifestos and policies.