UK Politics : Groundhog May

[A Horse Named Stranger]

1 minute ago, williamjm said:

While I can understand some of their frustrations with Corbyn's lack of leadership on Brexit, I'm not really sure what they're hoping to achieve with their breakaway. I think it would have made more sense if they had launched their own party rather than forming a group of independents, it feels a bit half-hearted.

I think the idea is to keep the option open to re-join Labour, if either Corbyn develops some coherent policy, or gets removed, they can delay the formation of the new party for a few weeks (post Brexit), if Corbyn does not move policy wise, there might be more defection coming and they can launch a new party in April. So this is to some extent a clear warning for Corbyn move policy wise, or face defectors, our patience has run out.

[Mosi Mynn]

6 hours ago, SeanF said:

At the time, I thought the Remain campaign was much more effective than the Leave campaign, but that proved not to be the case..

I think the problem was that it advocated the status quo everyone was complaining about.  And the deal Cameron came back with was quite underwhelming.

[Heartofice]

41 minutes ago, A wilding said:

Well, that may be the reason, but I note that the quote you provide is by the two local Tory MPs, that Turkey is not in the EU, and that Honda themselves have yet to put out a statement.

I also note a couple of other quotes from the 

Turkey is in a customs union with the EU.

Its just worth pointing out that many of these stories are being used as fuel for the fire of Brexit, when the true is seemingly a bit more complex and often Brexit doesn’t appear to be the main cause. ‘Project Fear’ gets thrown around as a jibe around here but you don’t have to look too hard at what much of the press has been doing to see what what is going on.

[Maltaran]

2 hours ago, williamjm said:

While I can understand some of their frustrations with Corbyn's lack of leadership on Brexit, I'm not really sure what they're hoping to achieve with their breakaway. I think it would have made more sense if they had launched their own party rather than forming a group of independents, it feels a bit half-hearted.

It does mean they don’t have to reveal any details of who’s funding them.

[Chaircat Meow]

Today feels like a good day. Britain is suffering because bands of slobbering zealots have seized control of its two great parties. Corbyn and his pathetic Stalinist tribute act clowned their way to the top of the Labour party, and the ERG led by the charlatan Rees-Mogg sabotaged and betrayed Cameron and have now also taken control of May and are driving us to ruin. Finally someone fought back. The Magnificent Seven have shown us the way forward and struck a terrific blow against Corbyn and his acolytes. On 27 February it is the Tory party's turn. When the Cooper amendment returns we shall see if the promised reinforcements from the payroll arrive to save the day and secure a delay. Until then Corbyn will live in fear of more defections and his chances of ever getting into number 10 diminish steadily. 

[The Anti-Targ]

I don't care so much about the policy issues that caused the defectors to leave. It's the anti-semitism accusations that concern me. Are they blowing smoke conflating criticism of Israel with anti-semitism, or is there an actual anti-smite faction in labour.

I heard mention of anti-semite because anti-capitalist, which is a non-sequitur, unless people are using anti-semitic statements, like the Rothschilds are taking all the money, or using anti-semitic dog whistles. Is any of that happening?

[polishgenius]

4 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said:

or is there an actual anti-smite faction in labour.

I don't know if there's an actual faction but there's definitely some anti-semitic people around. Whether it's as many as some of Corbyn's opponents and the media want to make out I'm not convinced and Corbyn certainly isn't with them, but he does sometimes make himself trouble because his desperation to find allies in condemning Israel leads him to not always examine people who are willing to too closely, or to be hesitant to condemn them.

But there is also an element of the blowing smoke and trying to make out he's anti-semitic when it is just about Israel, too.

[The Marquis de Leech]

15 hours ago, SeanF said:

There has usually been very little anti-Semitism among social democrats, but it's always been rife among communists and Trotskyists.   And, quite a few of the latter have joined the Labour Party.

"Always been rife" is a bit silly, considering who formed the backbone of the British Communist Party for decades (bonus points for Trotsky himself being Jewish).

There are idiots out there who have slid from Anti-Zionism into Anti-Semitism, and Corbyn has done a terrible job at dealing with them, but it has been blown out of proportion by the anti-Corbynites (looking for a stick, any stick, to whack him with), and by those with an interest as portraying any critic of Israeli foreign policy (which Corbyn is) as anti-semitic. 

[The Marquis de Leech]

6 hours ago, Nothing Has Changed said:

Today feels like a good day. Britain is suffering because bands of slobbering zealots have seized control of its two great parties. Corbyn and his pathetic Stalinist tribute act clowned their way to the top of the Labour party, and the ERG led by the charlatan Rees-Mogg sabotaged and betrayed Cameron and have now also taken control of May and are driving us to ruin. Finally someone fought back. The Magnificent Seven have shown us the way forward and struck a terrific blow against Corbyn and his acolytes. On 27 February it is the Tory party's turn. When the Cooper amendment returns we shall see if the promised reinforcements from the payroll arrive to save the day and secure a delay. Until then Corbyn will live in fear of more defections and his chances of ever getting into number 10 diminish steadily. 

Corbyn's a democratic socialist (in his case an unreconstructed Bennite), not a Stalinist. Chucking that around makes as much sense as calling Rees-Mogg a fascist (which he obviously isn't).

Meanwhile, despite media hype, the Seven Dwarves will disappear without trace. Much like their predecessors did thirty years ago.

[SeanF]

1 hour ago, The Marquis de Leech said:

"Always been rife" is a bit silly, considering who formed the backbone of the British Communist Party for decades (bonus points for Trotsky himself being Jewish).

There are idiots out there who have slid from Anti-Zionism into Anti-Semitism, and Corbyn has done a terrible job at dealing with them, but it has been blown out of proportion by the anti-Corbynites (looking for a stick, any stick, to whack him with), and by those with an interest as portraying any critic of Israeli foreign policy (which Corbyn is) as anti-semitic. 

Communists and Trotskyists see conspiracies everywhere and took their inspiration from the parties of Eastern Europe.  It 's not much of a leap from believing that international finance is controlled by a shadowy clique to then believe in the oldest conspiracy theory of them all.

 

1 hour ago, The Marquis de Leech said:

Corbyn's a democratic socialist (in his case an unreconstructed Bennite), not a Stalinist. Chucking that around makes as much sense as calling Rees-Mogg a fascist (which he obviously isn't).

Meanwhile, despite media hype, the Seven Dwarves will disappear without trace. Much like their predecessors did thirty years ago.

Much will turn on whether the group attracts Conservatives.  I think it will attract a few.

[The Marquis de Leech]

10 minutes ago, SeanF said:

Communists and Trotskyists see conspiracies everywhere and took their inspiration from the parties of Eastern Europe.  It 's not much of a leap from believing that international finance is controlled by a shadowy clique to then believe in the oldest conspiracy theory of them all.

Obsessing about international finance being controlled by a shadowy clique is the domain of the far-right, not the far-left. The far-left is inherently internationalist, and in terms of conspiracies, it tends to see fascists everywhere, not Jews.

[Heartofice]

35 minutes ago, The Marquis de Leech said:

Obsessing about international finance being controlled by a shadowy clique is the domain of the far-right, not the far-left. The far-left is inherently internationalist, and in terms of conspiracies, it tends to see fascists everywhere, not Jews.

I think there is a definite crossover when it comes to conspiracy loons. The political scale is less of a left right line and more of a circular loop!

[mormont]

17 hours ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

What has really changed with the split? Labour has (thus far) lost 7 MPs who did not agree with the Leadership's policy and were more likely to defy the whip anyway. There's no GE announced (as of now at least). 

What has changed? Well, for one thing, the conversation. The chat now is about these seven MPs, whether they are going to form a new party, who'll join them, what it means for Labour... meanwhile, time ticks on and May and Corbyn continue to stall over Brexit, but the spotlight on them has been removed. Indeed, Corbyn is arguably benefiting, because loyal Labour MPs with concerns about Brexit are not going to be putting pressure on him for fear of being seen as likely to leave and join the breakaway seven. 

1 hour ago, The Marquis de Leech said:

Obsessing about international finance being controlled by a shadowy clique is the domain of the far-right, not the far-left. The far-left is inherently internationalist, and in terms of conspiracies, it tends to see fascists everywhere, not Jews.

I have no idea why you think this. Have you talked to people on the far left?

The idea that the far left is 'inherently internationalist' may be true in theory, but I guarantee you that in any far left group you'll find people who don't give a toss about internationalism. More seriously, there is absolutely a faction on the far left, and not a small one, that will happily talk about conspiracies of rich Jews controlling the world (and insist that it's not anti-Semitic to say so, because it's true). I ran into them twenty years ago and I still run into them today. 

3 hours ago, The Marquis de Leech said:

Meanwhile, despite media hype, the Seven Dwarves will disappear without trace. Much like their predecessors did thirty years ago.

Um... their predecessors recruited 29 MPs, got 25% of the vote (in alliance with the Liberal party), and Roy Jenkins, Shirley Smith and David Owen are still regarded as heavyweight political figures of their day. Arguably only Bill Rodgers is a forgotten figure. Moreover, the foundation of the SDP was a huge factor in the rise of New Labour and the realignment of politics on the 1990s. The current seven and their 'independent group' are not remotely in the same league as the SDP split: this comparison is bizarre, because they're actually far less likely to have a major impact than the Gang of Four (who certainly did not 'disappear without trace') did. 

[Rippounet]

2 hours ago, SeanF said:

Communists and Trotskyists see conspiracies everywhere and took their inspiration from the parties of Eastern Europe.  It 's not much of a leap from believing that international finance is controlled by a shadowy clique to then believe in the oldest conspiracy theory of them all.

Which one would that be? The Protocols of the Elders of Zion only dates back to the early 20th century. I think if you turn back the clock far enough you're more likely to find anti-catholic or anti-protestant conspiracy theories than anti-semitic ones. Or maybe anti-baalic or something...

Anyway, I just popped by to say that there *is* a conspiracy, and it was summed up by Warren Buffet in a 2011 CNN interview:

Quote

Actually, there’s been class warfare going on for the last 20 years, and my class has won.

If you think this class warfare was done without people ever talking about it behind closed doors, I've got stuff to sell you...
Now obviously throwing anti-semitic stuff in there is bullcrap, but I wouldn't be so sure about anti-globalism...

One should also be wary of accusations of anti-semitism btw. Coincidentally, the French yellow vests movement is now being presented as anti-semitic in the press... It's almost as if the media were using a bunch of fringe anti-semitic morons to discredit much wider political movements seeking to oppose the neo-liberal consensus. Or is that also a conspiracy theory?

[The Marquis de Leech]

55 minutes ago, mormont said:

I have no idea why you think this. Have you talked to people on the far left?

The idea that the far left is 'inherently internationalist' may be true in theory, but I guarantee you that in any far left group you'll find people who don't give a toss about internationalism. More seriously, there is absolutely a faction on the far left, and not a small one, that will happily talk about conspiracies of rich Jews controlling the world (and insist that it's not anti-Semitic to say so, because it's true). I ran into them twenty years ago and I still run into them today. 

Um... their predecessors recruited 29 MPs, got 25% of the vote (in alliance with the Liberal party), and Roy Jenkins, Shirley Smith and David Owen are still regarded as heavyweight political figures of their day. Arguably only Bill Rodgers is a forgotten figure. Moreover, the foundation of the SDP was a huge factor in the rise of New Labour and the realignment of politics on the 1990s. The current seven and their 'independent group' are not remotely in the same league as the SDP split: this comparison is bizarre, because they're actually far less likely to have a major impact than the Gang of Four (who certainly did not 'disappear without trace') did. 

The SDP won... 6 seats in 1983. Yes, they utterly screwed the British Labour Party - which was their big legacy - but in terms of actually establishing a major competitor to the duopoly, they really did disappear without trace. First Past the Post and all that. The continuity SDP is still around, and got 469 votes in 2017, total (about one-eighth of what the Monster Raving Loony Party got).

As for the far-left, the ones I have interacted with never bring up Jews (and Jews have played a significantly smaller role in the development of the New Zealand Left than the British Left - as I have said, the British Communist Party really did have a large component of Jewish people). They much prefer denouncing social democratic "traitors" and "reformists" (by which they don't mean the Blairites of the world. They mean everyone who does not completely adhere to their particular view of the world, and most of the people who do). The best analogy for the far-left is not the far-right, but rather religious institutions who believe in a One True Way or You Will Burn Forever. The far-right doesn't care about dogma.  

[SeanF]

1 hour ago, Rippounet said:

Which one would that be? The Protocols of the Elders of Zion only dates back to the early 20th century. I think if you turn back the clock far enough you're more likely to find anti-catholic or anti-protestant conspiracy theories than anti-semitic ones. Or maybe anti-baalic or something...

Anyway, I just popped by to say that there *is* a conspiracy, and it was summed up by Warren Buffet in a 2011 CNN interview:

If you think this class warfare was done without people ever talking about it behind closed doors, I've got stuff to sell you...
Now obviously throwing anti-semitic stuff in there is bullcrap, but I wouldn't be so sure about anti-globalism...

One should also be wary of accusations of anti-semitism btw. Coincidentally, the French yellow vests movement is now being presented as anti-semitic in the press... It's almost as if the media were using a bunch of fringe anti-semitic morons to discredit much wider political movements seeking to oppose the neo-liberal consensus. Or is that also a conspiracy theory?

Many people in finance are dishonest, self-serving, and incompetent.  They attend Davos and similar conferences, and persuade themselves and each other that all is for the best in the best of all possible worlds.   But, I think that stops short of a conspiracy.

[mormont]

21 minutes ago, The Marquis de Leech said:

The SDP won... 6 seats in 1983. Yes, they utterly screwed the British Labour Party - which was their big legacy - but in terms of actually establishing a major competitor to the duopoly, they really did disappear without trace.

That's just not what those words mean. Did they establish a major competitor to the duopoly? No. But failing to do that =/= 'disappear without trace'.  There unquestionably is a 'trace' of the SDP in contemporary politics. It's just a weird way to express your feelings about them, that's all. 

24 minutes ago, The Marquis de Leech said:

As for the far-left, the ones I have interacted with never bring up Jews ( and Jews have played a significantly smaller role in the development of the New Zealand Left than the British Left - as I have said, the British Communist Party really did have a large component of Jewish people).

Well, maybe the NZ far left is different from the UK far left? I have no experience with the former. But my experience with the latter is as I have said. And my experience of the far right is also different: they really do care about dogma and are prone to splits over it. 

[Spockydog]

4 hours ago, SeanF said:

It 's not much of a leap from believing that international finance is controlled by a shadowy clique to then believe in the oldest conspiracy theory of them all.

So you're saying that international finance isn't controlled by a shadowy clique? Who owns the Federal Reserve then?

[Rippounet]

1 hour ago, SeanF said:

Many people in finance are dishonest, self-serving, and incompetent.  They attend Davos and similar conferences, and persuade themselves and each other that all is for the best in the best of all possible worlds.   But, I think that stops short of a conspiracy.

Does it now?
What if these finance or corporate tycoons start funding political campaigns and lobbying politicians to implement policies that favor them but are not actually for the greater/common good?
What if they start funding intellectuals and intellectual organization developing certain theories or points of view that are then disseminated through society in order to convince public opinion that specific policies are for the greater/common good, although they really aren't?
What if they start buying media corporations and then subtly change the editorial lines in order to promote a specific world view at the expense of others?
What if the media then starts favoring the intellctuals and politicians promoting the same ideas that are not for the greater/common good? What if the tycoons, the intellectuals, and the journalists start devising PR strategies together to achieve their goals?

At what point in this story does it become a "conspiracy theory" exactly? I'm playing smartass, but I'm also genuinely curious.

[Proudfeet]

1 hour ago, Rippounet said:

At what point in this story does it become a "conspiracy theory" exactly? I'm playing smartass, but I'm also genuinely curious.

When it is secret and they are working together? Otherwise, it's just plain bribery and propaganda.