UK Politics: Drawing Priti Patterns

[Gaston de Foix]

I was drawn into this thread by the title despite my post-GE heartbreak and vow to stay away from British politics.   From a quick read it seems obvious that a much needed dissection of anti-semitism in the Labour party is taking place.  Did people in this thread watch the Labour debate? Who won and who has the best chance of succeeding Corbyn? Also, what's taking so frikking long?

Also Priti Patel is the first British Asian politician whose political success I haven't been joyous about.  Back in the old days, a British Asian politician was so rare you felt an instant sense of possessiveness/pride.  I still feel that about Sunak.  But Priti, not at all. 

[Derfel Cadarn]

10 minutes ago, BigFatCoward said:

Every single one of my staff have young children, if schools close i have no idea how we are going to police effectively. 

You mean you’ve an idea now???

[BigFatCoward]

Just now, Derfel Cadarn said:

You mean you’ve an idea now???

Normally the less i get involved, the better things work. 

[Rippounet]

8 hours ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

I’m confused, you understand that people conflate Judaism and Zionism, you understand why people conflate Judaism and Zionism, it’s okay to conflate these ideas, some combination of these three ideas, or I’m completely off my rocker and misunderstanding your statement?

I understand why people do it, but I personally don't like it.
I guess I have to come clean about all this now (*sigh*).
I come from a family of Israeli communists. Secular Jews are a minority in Israel, to be sure, but they do exist. Pretty much all of them (us) are nationalist, but "Zionist" only as long as Zionism is expressed in non-religious terms. The moment Zionism is linked to religious beliefs, we are out ; at the very least we will strongly reject the idea that the diaspora must end and the Temple be rebuilt, as the logical conclusion of this line of thought is that Israel will sooner or later be at war with the Muslim world.
For this reason I personally despise recent colonization (the establishment of new "settlements"), which is generally linked to religious Zionism.
Such a position can be controversial for conservative Jews (as you can imagine, there is no love lost between us), but it is not surprising for whoever knows what they're talking about.
Sara Gibbs in her excellent article (which I had not read until today) pretty much says the exact same things. Most notably:

Quote

[...] the majority of the Jewish community, who do identify as Zionists, do not recognise the definition of Zionism as imposed on them by popular discourse. For many, Zionism simply means support for a safe haven for Jews after pogroms & the Holocaust in a diaspora. While Zionism, both religious and political, existed pre-Holocaust, it gained more traction in the wake of the slaughter of six million Jews in Europe. Those who survived simply no longer felt they could trust the wider world with their safety. In that context it doesn’t seem an unreasonable position. However many non-Jewish people infer from the word “Zionist” unquestioning support for the Israeli government and all its policies and actions. It can also be read to mean a colonialist movement intended to oppress Palestinians or support for the killing of Palestinians. While that might be true for a horrible minority, it is certainly not what Zionism means to almost all Jews.

Now the problem is that this distinction itself raises other questions. To make it simple, it's a distinction which is far easier to make when Israel isn't in fact controled by the political or religious right. When the Likud supports illegal settlements, it also condones and fuels religious Zionism. Every single victory of the Israeli right makes it increasingly difficult to distinguish Israel itself (its existence) from its policies, and those policies from Zionism.
And I am guilty too. In my mind I tend to think of "Israeli nationalism" rather than "political/secular Zionism." Because I feel the latter is dying while the fight to define the first one continues. It's fine to say you don't "recognise [yourself] in the definitions imposed on [you] by the popular discourse" but you also need to bear in mind that definitions do evolve with geopolitical and sociocultural realities. So depending on the definition I can be as passionately Zionist as passionately anti-Zionist (*insert joke about Jews and schizophrenia here*).

Even if Gibbs is correct that only a "horrible minority" of Jews support this evolution, it is probably not obvious from the outside. And then, how correct is she? I personally do not feel I belong to any kind of majority. As I type this, it appears the Likud has won the latest elections. Are a majority of Jews living outside Israel less conservative than Israelis? I am personally not sure, and that would depend on how one defines "conservative" anyway. You can only know what a Jew's position is if you ask them the right questions, and that is not exactly polite in most circumstances.

Anyway, all this will explain, I hope, why I was so skeptical about the case against Corbyn (less so now that I've read her take on this). As Gibbs wrote:

Quote

I also recognise there are serious grey areas. Some people are too quick to react to legitimate criticism of Israel. Some types of criticism are disputed. I will get to that. Some people argue that ALL anti-Zionism is antisemitism. I don’t believe that either. There is plenty of debate within the Jewish community itself about this.

An understatement, from my perspective. More like... some Jews are very ready to kill fellow Jews over these things.
The problem is that the progression of the right in the last decades (not just in Israel) threatens to erase any kind of subtle distinction. And to be clear, a great many people want just that, for reasons which should be self-evident at this point. Accusations of antisemitism are in fact a powerful weapon, not just of the right, but of the far-right. Yes, these days, Neo-Nazis love religious Zionism and are willing to defend it.
Calling out people for using dogwhistles is laudable, but... This is kind of a special case. I believe the shortcut "anti-Zionism = anti-semitism" is even more dangerous. It should not be, and I may deserve scorn for taking this as a fait accompli, instead of fighting to reclaim the term. But Netanyahu has won, again, so religious Zionism should keep dominating the news for the foreseeable future. That's the stuff of nightmares.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

25 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

I understand why people do it, but I personally don't like it.
I guess I have to come clean about all this now (*sigh*).
I come from a family of Israeli communists. Secular Jews are a minority in Israel, to be sure, but they do exist. Pretty much all of them (us) are nationalist, but "Zionist" only as long as Zionism is expressed in non-religious terms. The moment Zionism is linked to religious beliefs, we are out ; at the very least we will strongly reject the idea that the diaspora must end and the Temple be rebuilt, as the logical conclusion of this line of thought is that Israel will sooner or later be at war with the Muslim world.
For this reason I personally despise recent colonization (the establishment of new "settlements"), which is generally linked to religious Zionism.
Such a position can be controversial for conservative Jews (as you can imagine, there is no love lost between us), but it is not surprising for whoever knows what they're talking about.
Sara Gibbs in her excellent article (which I had not read until today) pretty much says the exact same things. Most notably:

Now the problem is that this distinction itself raises other questions. To make it simple, it's a distinction which is far easier to make when Israel isn't in fact controled by the political or religious right. When the Likud supports illegal settlements, it also condones and fuels religious Zionism. Every single victory of the Israeli right makes it increasingly difficult to distinguish Israel itself (its existence) from its policies, and those policies from Zionism.
And I am guilty too. In my mind I tend to think of "Israeli nationalism" rather than "political/secular Zionism." Because I feel the latter is dying while the fight to define the first one continues. It's fine to say you don't "recognise [yourself] in the definitions imposed on [you] by the popular discourse" but you also need to bear in mind that definitions do evolve with geopolitical and sociocultural realities. So depending on the definition I can be as passionately Zionist as passionately anti-Zionist (*insert joke about Jews and schizophrenia here*).

Even if Gibbs is correct that only a "horrible minority" of Jews support this evolution, it is probably not obvious from the outside. And then, how correct is she? I personally do not feel I belong to any kind of majority. As I type this, it appears the Likud has won the latest elections. Are a majority of Jews living outside Israel less conservative than Israelis? I am personally not sure, and that would depend on how one defines "conservative" anyway. You can only know what a Jew's position is if you ask them the right questions, and that is not exactly polite in most circumstances.

Anyway, all this will explain, I hope, why I was so skeptical about the case against Corbyn (less so now that I've read her take on this). As Gibbs wrote:

An understatement, from my perspective. More like... some Jews are very ready to kill fellow Jews over these things.
The problem is that the progression of the right in the last decades (not just in Israel) threatens to erase any kind of subtle distinction. And to be clear, a great many people want just that, for reasons which should be self-evident at this point. Accusations of antisemitism are in fact a powerful weapon, not just of the right, but of the far-right. Yes, these days, Neo-Nazis love religious Zionism and are willing to defend it.
Calling out people for using dogwhistles is laudable, but... This is kind of a special case. I believe the shortcut "anti-Zionism = anti-semitism" is even more dangerous. It should not be, and I may deserve scorn for taking this as a fait accompli, instead of fighting to reclaim the term. But Netanyahu has won, again, so religious Zionism should keep dominating the news for the foreseeable future. That's the stuff of nightmares.

Thank you that was a fulsome and useful explanation of your position.  I also agree that the statement “all anti-Zionism is anti Semitism” is far too broad.  But I do think that there is a serious problem of unaddressed and tolerated anti Semitism among some on the anti-Zionist left.  Corbyn is an example of that problem.  

[Rippounet]

1 minute ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

I do think that there is a serious problem of unaddressed and tolerated anti Semitism among some on the anti-Zionist left.  Corbyn is an example of that problem.  

Yes, I can see that through Gibbs's article. I was far less certain of that with the evidence I had seen until now.
Also, I have personally been faced with strong opposition to -religious- Zionism in the European left without it going as far as antisemitism. I find it extremely difficult to make the difference between idealist leftists (who can be ignorant of many subtleties) and true antisemites, especially since the fiercest antisemites have become so much more subtle than Corbyn.

[DaveSumm]

4 hours ago, mormont said:

Why would you say it at all? 

The remark is about a supposed failure to culturally assimilate. There's no other interpretation that makes sense. And that's a pretty racist thing to deploy as a criticism, even if it's only about a subset of British Jews (that Corbyn disagrees with)

I was about to respond, then checked the video again and now I have a different question: has this been edited down in the middle?

 

The key part where he goes from talking about the specific Zionists in the audience to making the ‘lacking irony’ comment has been smoothed over, when the camera angle changes. I assumed it was one sentence which was why I couldn’t understand why anyone would conclude he’d changed the target of his comment, but if that’s a different part of the speech then I have no idea what he’s referring to...?

[Rippounet]

19 minutes ago, DaveSumm said:

I was about to respond, then checked the video again and now I have a different question: has this been edited down in the middle?

The key part where he goes from talking about the specific Zionists in the audience to making the ‘lacking irony’ comment has been smoothed over, when the camera angle changes. I assumed it was one sentence which was why I couldn’t understand why anyone would conclude he’d changed the target of his comment, but if that’s a different part of the speech then I have no idea what he’s referring to...?

No. I found the full speech here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1rGUsKRUcFA

[DaveSumm]

9 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

No. I found the full speech here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1rGUsKRUcFA

Ah well done, I tried looking but it was buried beneath countless about the edited down version. That’s ... odd. I think that full context makes it much more likely he is talking about Zionists generally, though not definite. He was talking about them generally right before the clip that been more widely circulated kicks in. Maybe I’m reading way too much into it, but it feels like that’s been edited to favour Corbyn as much as possible (is it too conspiratorial that someone intentionally changed sources right when he says a sentence that doesn’t make sense (“they clearly two problems”) to imply it was missing a bit ... yes probably). The past tense of ‘needed’ sounds more like ‘those guys from the other day’ as opposed to Zionists though. Anyway, this has turned into a classic ‘I don’t actually care that much about this clip but now I’ve banged on about it for too many posts’ so I’ll leave it there.

[dornishpen]

5 hours ago, Rippounet said:

I understand why people do it, but I personally don't like it.
I guess I have to come clean about all this now (*sigh*).
I come from a family of Israeli communists. Secular Jews are a minority in Israel, to be sure, but they do exist. Pretty much all of them (us) are nationalist, but "Zionist" only as long as Zionism is expressed in non-religious terms. The moment Zionism is linked to religious beliefs, we are out ; at the very least we will strongly reject the idea that the diaspora must end and the Temple be rebuilt, as the logical conclusion of this line of thought is that Israel will sooner or later be at war with the Muslim world.
For this reason I personally despise recent colonization (the establishment of new "settlements"), which is generally linked to religious Zionism.
Such a position can be controversial for conservative Jews (as you can imagine, there is no love lost between us), but it is not surprising for whoever knows what they're talking about.
Sara Gibbs in her excellent article (which I had not read until today) pretty much says the exact same things. Most notably:

Now the problem is that this distinction itself raises other questions. To make it simple, it's a distinction which is far easier to make when Israel isn't in fact controled by the political or religious right. When the Likud supports illegal settlements, it also condones and fuels religious Zionism. Every single victory of the Israeli right makes it increasingly difficult to distinguish Israel itself (its existence) from its policies, and those policies from Zionism.
And I am guilty too. In my mind I tend to think of "Israeli nationalism" rather than "political/secular Zionism." Because I feel the latter is dying while the fight to define the first one continues. It's fine to say you don't "recognise [yourself] in the definitions imposed on [you] by the popular discourse" but you also need to bear in mind that definitions do evolve with geopolitical and sociocultural realities. So depending on the definition I can be as passionately Zionist as passionately anti-Zionist (*insert joke about Jews and schizophrenia here*).

Even if Gibbs is correct that only a "horrible minority" of Jews support this evolution, it is probably not obvious from the outside. And then, how correct is she? I personally do not feel I belong to any kind of majority. As I type this, it appears the Likud has won the latest elections. Are a majority of Jews living outside Israel less conservative than Israelis? I am personally not sure, and that would depend on how one defines "conservative" anyway. You can only know what a Jew's position is if you ask them the right questions, and that is not exactly polite in most circumstances.

Anyway, all this will explain, I hope, why I was so skeptical about the case against Corbyn (less so now that I've read her take on this). As Gibbs wrote:

An understatement, from my perspective. More like... some Jews are very ready to kill fellow Jews over these things.
The problem is that the progression of the right in the last decades (not just in Israel) threatens to erase any kind of subtle distinction. And to be clear, a great many people want just that, for reasons which should be self-evident at this point. Accusations of antisemitism are in fact a powerful weapon, not just of the right, but of the far-right. Yes, these days, Neo-Nazis love religious Zionism and are willing to defend it.
Calling out people for using dogwhistles is laudable, but... This is kind of a special case. I believe the shortcut "anti-Zionism = anti-semitism" is even more dangerous. It should not be, and I may deserve scorn for taking this as a fait accompli, instead of fighting to reclaim the term. But Netanyahu has won, again, so religious Zionism should keep dominating the news for the foreseeable future. That's the stuff of nightmares.

Sorry this isn't better edited, I'm on mobile and it's difficult.

A few things I think, first I wonder has most of your family left Israel or do you still have a lot of family there?

Second, Most Israelis are secular by Israeli definitions, meaning they're not keeping Shabbat etc, but maybe do some religious things. This might seem religious to someone who is secular by other standards. However Mizrachim are the majority and they are more conservative politically than Ashkenazim, that's where the majority of Likud support comes from. Likud is not a religious party, but in their coalition there are two Charedi parties and they pander to them, this causes resentment, is the main reason the coalition broke up (why Avigdor Lieberman and his party Yisrael Beiteinu split from the coalition denying Netanyahu a majority) and also one reason why Netanyahu was losing support, though people seemed to be getting tired of him generally. Though his support seems to have increased this time unfortunately, though it still looks like there's a good chance no one can form a government. Likud does obviously support settlements, but not for religious reasons, initially probably it was to pander to the religious zionists, but now they support them independent of that. 

Third, support for rebuilding the temple is tiny, because religiously that's something the Moshiach would do or G-d would do when the Moshiach comes and also there will be peace in the whole world when the Moshiach comes so having the temple won't start a war like doing it now would and so on. Support for "greater Israel"/Judea and Samaria should be part of Israel is much higher than support for building a temple. It's possible that support for the absolute worst elements of Zionism: the Kahanists is higher than support for building a temple. All of these things are obviously extremely problematic. Most Israelis are pretty horrified by Kahanists, though I've noticed an alarming trend of right wing American Jews suggesting the JDL (founded by Kahane) should return to protect from the antisemitic attacks in Brooklyn and against Synagogues. I'm not sure what the difference is, Kahanist terrorism was worse in Israel, but it also happened in the US. I think support for "greater Israel" or even just settlements or some unilateral annexations in general is probably the most problematic of these issues because it's the most widespread. I think longer term the issue is that Orthodox Jews, especially Charedim and Chasidim have much higher birth rates than secular Jews (using Israeli definition of secular) and even though there are plenty of people like me who go off the derech the majority do not so the population grows and eventually will become a majority.

[Derfel Cadarn]

The great leader has announced an extra 3 days paid sick pay in response to covid19.

Gee thanks.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-51738837

[mormont]

Statutory Sick Pay, even, which is pretty rubbish. 

To no one's surprise, it turns out that Priti Patel has a record of being shitty to civil servants:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-51731753

Again, I'm betting Johnson saw this as a good thing. It makes total sense though. Rutnam wouldn't be going to tribunal unless he thought he'd win, and if he knew there was a record of this behaviour, he would find it easier to win. Note the briefing from No 10 though. It's 'deep state' bullshit. That's what this is really about: whether civil servants should be independent and work for the country, or just do what the party in power tells them. 

[The Anti-Targ]

8 hours ago, mormont said:

Statutory Sick Pay, even, which is pretty rubbish. 

To no one's surprise, it turns out that Priti Patel has a record of being shitty to civil servants:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-51731753

Again, I'm betting Johnson saw this as a good thing. It makes total sense though. Rutnam wouldn't be going to tribunal unless he thought he'd win, and if he knew there was a record of this behaviour, he would find it easier to win. Note the briefing from No 10 though. It's 'deep state' bullshit. That's what this is really about: whether civil servants should be independent and work for the country, or just do what the party in power tells them. 

The civil service tradition is political neutrality and you implement the policies of the govt of the day, because, theoretically, the people of the country have voted for what it collectively has decided are the policies that are best for the country. If a single party = govt of the day, they you are implementing the policies of the party, i.e. do what the party tells you. However "what the party tells you" must be communicated via proper government mechanisms, i.e. passing of laws / regulations and proper exercise of ministerial powers conferred to the minister under legislation. A civil service should not be doing shit because a Dominic Cummings type starts issuing orders. Cummings-types should be told to piss off unless he/she has a letter with the Minister's or PM's signature on it that says the same thing as what Cummings is saying. But in the case of Preti Patel as she is a minister, if she is acting within her ministerial powers then the civil service has to do what she tells them to do.

 

[HexMachina]

The airline Flybe looks like its a goner

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-51746564

[Soylent Brown]

A shame for the people who work for them, though it does irritate me that they went to the government for bailout money rather than the billionaires that own them.

[The Anti-Targ]

11 hours ago, Soylent Brown said:

A shame for the people who work for them, though it does irritate me that they went to the government for bailout money rather than the billionaires that own them.

They probably had an off the record conversation with those billionaires, and the answer was probably "piss off, not gonna lose any more money than I already have on this thing."

[ants]

On 3/3/2020 at 9:52 AM, DaveSumm said:

I began pulling out quotes from that I was going to discuss, but to be honest I agree with the vast majority so it seems nit picky to bother now. It’s a really excellent summary of the issue. I basically agree with her conclusion, that Corbyn doesn’t believe he’s antisemitic. Just the fact that most of the ‘evidence’ comes down to public appearances and speeches that are public record, he’s made no effort to hide his actions. It seems like he’s been so entrenched in pro-Palestinian efforts for so long that he has a pretty huge blind spot when it comes to anyone he sees as fighting for the other side. And a sizeable antisemitic contingent have latched onto that and follow him as a result.
 

My only real departure from her conclusions was the ‘lacking irony’ video which has been debated here; I really can’t see how that’s the smoking gun some people think. My read is, the Palestinian gave a speech and said something ironic. Two Zionists (using Corbyn’s definition here) sat silent and then approached afterward, and Corbyn thought they missed the irony, and he didn’t agree with their view of the history of whatever it was. Genuinely confused at how anyone could think he suddenly switches to talking about all Jews at that point? Why would you say “probably lived in England all their lives” about an entire culture? 

But anyway, the article definitely convinced me it’s a very serious problem with Labour. Hopefully the next leader can deal with it swiftly and shift the narrative toward something that will win the next election (my vote would be to constantly bang on about the Tories selling off the NHS, repeatedly, again and again and again until we’re sick of hearing it, that how you get through to voters).

Generally agree.  I also think the comments on the speech are taken out of context, and I'm not necessarily a believer that being pro a terrorist group means your prejudiced against their target (e.g. I don't think Corbyn being pro-IRA means he's racist against the English), but the whole put together is damning.  Thanks @Rorshach.  

[Rorshach]

Good to know that I wasn't linking already read material. 

It will be interesting to see what Labour does now - whether it'll just be the same going forward, or if the party manages to deal with the problem. 

[Heartofice]

15 minutes ago, Rorshach said:

Good to know that I wasn't linking already read material. 

It will be interesting to see what Labour does now - whether it'll just be the same going forward, or if the party manages to deal with the problem. 

I’d assume without Corbyn in charge some of those who joined Labour because of him would leave or lose interest, those same people being the type to push anti Semitic opinions. I suspect we’ll hear far less on the subject going forward.

[Werthead]

On 3/3/2020 at 12:16 PM, Gaston de Foix said:

I was drawn into this thread by the title despite my post-GE heartbreak and vow to stay away from British politics.   From a quick read it seems obvious that a much needed dissection of anti-semitism in the Labour party is taking place.  Did people in this thread watch the Labour debate? Who won and who has the best chance of succeeding Corbyn? Also, what's taking so frikking long?

The current polling has Keir Starmer on course for a reasonable lead, with Rebecca Long-Bailey in second place. Her second place lead over Lisa Nandy has narrowed a lot though, although Long-Bailey should still secure the second place in the first ballot.

The people voting for Nandy are generally people rather opposed to Corbynism, so they'll likely go over almost entirely to Starmer, whose comfortable lead in the first ballot should become an unassailable victory in the second.

So at the moment Starmer is on course to win. I think he and Nandy have much to recommend them on different fronts and both have some key weaknesses, Long-Bailey has almost nothing to recommend her as a candidate. She has failed to put clear air between herself and Corbyn's failures and she has some issues with Jewish supporters, whilst Starmer appears to have more credibility there (and Nandy the most of all).

Starmer I think would be a much better foil for Johnson in PMQs and I think has the best shot at securing lost Labour voters and also centrist floating voters who felt alienated by both sides in the last election. He has strong establishment credentials (being a knight, being a queen's councillor, being awarded his title by the Tories in the first place etc so shouldn't scare off older people which Corbyn definitely did) whilst also having centre-left ideas and being vaguely New Labourish in that middle-ground way without being tainted by New Labour (since he didn't enter Parliament until 2015). On top of that he is retaining several key Corbyn core pledges (renationalising the railways, Royal Mail and energy companies), the ones that got widespread support even among some right-wing voters in 2017.

He will probably lose the Momentum youth vote, but since they singularly failed to show up to vote as expected in December, that may not be a great strategic loss. If they also fail to get Long-Bailey elected, which looks like the case right now, that would also show that Momentum as a movement cannot survive without Corbyn. They either become irrelevant and fade away or become more of a broad young Labour support movement rather than built around one figure. More problematic might be Starmer's position as a key Remainer - although by 2024 that may be far less of a problem than it is right now - and yet another London Labour metropolian figure when the party is fighting to reclaim the northern red wall seats, although Starmer may be banking on those votes being lost for one election only over Brexit and figuring that the Tories will likely fail to improve things for them and they will come back to Labour (plus a somewhat more centrist Labour Party might win back northern older voters anyway).

Starmer is competent and a safe pair of hands who will likely go for the jugular on Boris whenever he really fucks up, one of the benefits of coming from the legal trade.