Should Corbyn remain as Labour leader?

[moof]

We have long had serious concerns about the lack of due impartiality and accuracy in the reporting of allegations of antisemitism against Jeremy Corbyn and the Labour party. The recent report by the Media Reform Coalition examining coverage of Labour’s revised code of conduct on antisemitism shows that we are right to be concerned.

The research examined over 250 articles and broadcast news segments and found over 90 examples of misleading or inaccurate reporting. In relation to the IHRA definition of antisemitism that was at the heart of the dispute, the research found evidence of “overwhelming source imbalance” in which critics of Labour’s code of conduct dominated coverage, with nearly 50% of Guardian reports, for example, failing to include any quotes from those defending the code or critiquing the IHRA definition. Moreover, key contextual facts about the IHRA definition – for example that it has only been formally adopted by eight countries (and only six of the IHRA member states) – were consistently excluded.

The researchers conclude these were not occasional lapses in judgment but “systematic reporting failures” that served to weaken the Labour leadership and to bolster its opponents within and outside of the party.

It is of course entirely appropriate and necessary for our major news outlets to report on the horrors of antisemitism, but wrong to present it as an issue specific to the Labour party.

In covering the allegations that Labour is now “institutionally antisemitic”, there have been inaccuracies, clear distortions and revealing omissions across our most popular media platforms. We believe that significant parts of the UK media have failed their audiences by producing flawed reports that have contributed to an undeserved witch-hunt against the Labour leader and misdirected public attention away from antisemitism elsewhere, including on the far right, which is ascendant in much of Europe.
Prof Noam Chomsky
Brian Eno
Francesca Martinez
Yanis Varoufakis
Ken Loach
Raoul Martinez
Justin Schlosberg Birkbeck, University of London
Prof Des Freedman Goldsmiths, University of London
Prof Imogen Tyler Lancaster University
Prof Aeron Davis Goldsmiths, University of London
Prof Annabelle Sreberny Soas, University of London
Prof Greg Philo University of Glasgow
Prof Natalie Fenton Goldsmiths, University of London
Prof David Miller Bristol University
Prof David Hesmondhalgh University of Leeds
Prof James Curran Goldsmiths, University of London
Prof Julian Petley Brunel University
Stephen Cushion Cardiff University
Jason Hickel Goldsmiths, University of London
Einar Thorsen Bournemouth University
Mike Berry Cardiff University
Tom Mills Aston University
Jenny Manson Jewish Voice for Labour
Leah Levane Jewish Voice for Labour
Lindsey German Stop the War Coalition
Mike Cushman Free Speech on Israel
Glyn Secker Jewish Voice for Labour

[Numero Veinticinco]

Right, pull your socks up; we've got people to discredit and paint as antisemites. You take the top half, I'll take the bottom half.

[aRdja]

On 9/4/2018 at 8:43 PM, Strontium Dog said:

What rubbish. I think the nation state law is racist. Plenty in Israel do too. There's absolutely nothing whatsoever in the definition preventing you from saying so.

 

@Strontium Dog, I stumbled upon the below article on Twitter and it reminded me of the conversation we were having last month on this. In summary, a Vice President of BoD is facing the sack for criticising the Nation State Law.

 

https://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/attempt-to-initiate-no-confidence-vote-against-board-of-deputies-vp-for-nation-state-law-statement-1.470401

[AngryOfTuebrook]

6 hours ago, Numero Veinticinco said:

Right, pull your socks up; we've got people to discredit and paint as antisemites. You take the top half, I'll take the bottom half.

Brian Eno worked with Bowie on his Berlin Trilogy.

 

On his return from Berlin, Bowie reportedly gave a Nazi salute to the crowd.  Obviously he'd spent too much time under the influence of that raging anti-Semite Eno.

[AngryOfTuebrook]

6 hours ago, moof said:

We have long had serious concerns about the lack of due impartiality and accuracy in the reporting of allegations of antisemitism against Jeremy Corbyn and the Labour party. The recent report by the Media Reform Coalition examining coverage of Labour’s revised code of conduct on antisemitism shows that we are right to be concerned.

The research examined over 250 articles and broadcast news segments and found over 90 examples of misleading or inaccurate reporting. In relation to the IHRA definition of antisemitism that was at the heart of the dispute, the research found evidence of “overwhelming source imbalance” in which critics of Labour’s code of conduct dominated coverage, with nearly 50% of Guardian reports, for example, failing to include any quotes from those defending the code or critiquing the IHRA definition. Moreover, key contextual facts about the IHRA definition – for example that it has only been formally adopted by eight countries (and only six of the IHRA member states) – were consistently excluded.

The researchers conclude these were not occasional lapses in judgment but “systematic reporting failures” that served to weaken the Labour leadership and to bolster its opponents within and outside of the party.

It is of course entirely appropriate and necessary for our major news outlets to report on the horrors of antisemitism, but wrong to present it as an issue specific to the Labour party.

In covering the allegations that Labour is now “institutionally antisemitic”, there have been inaccuracies, clear distortions and revealing omissions across our most popular media platforms. We believe that significant parts of the UK media have failed their audiences by producing flawed reports that have contributed to an undeserved witch-hunt against the Labour leader and misdirected public attention away from antisemitism elsewhere, including on the far right, which is ascendant in much of Europe.
Prof Noam Chomsky
Brian Eno
Francesca Martinez
Yanis Varoufakis
Ken Loach
Raoul Martinez
Justin Schlosberg Birkbeck, University of London
Prof Des Freedman Goldsmiths, University of London
Prof Imogen Tyler Lancaster University
Prof Aeron Davis Goldsmiths, University of London
Prof Annabelle Sreberny Soas, University of London
Prof Greg Philo University of Glasgow
Prof Natalie Fenton Goldsmiths, University of London
Prof David Miller Bristol University
Prof David Hesmondhalgh University of Leeds
Prof James Curran Goldsmiths, University of London
Prof Julian Petley Brunel University
Stephen Cushion Cardiff University
Jason Hickel Goldsmiths, University of London
Einar Thorsen Bournemouth University
Mike Berry Cardiff University
Tom Mills Aston University
Jenny Manson Jewish Voice for Labour
Leah Levane Jewish Voice for Labour
Lindsey German Stop the War Coalition
Mike Cushman Free Speech on Israel
Glyn Secker Jewish Voice for Labour

Francesca Martinez only agreed to appear in Extras on condition Ricky Gervais dressed as a Nazi. She says she only feels comfortable with Nazis, because they're "her kind of people".

[cloggypop]

7 minutes ago, AngryofTuebrook said:

Brian Eno worked with Bowie on his Berlin Trilogy.

 

On his return from Berlin, Bowie reportedly gave a Nazi salute to the crowd.  Obviously he'd spent too much time under the influence of that raging anti-Semite Eno.

Here Come The Warm Jets is blatantly a call to attack Israel. 

[AngryOfTuebrook]

Prof. Natalie Fenton shares her name with that dog that chased deer around the park: obviously a wrong'un. 

[Jairzinho]

Lindsey German

 

Say. No. More.

[AngryOfTuebrook]

3 hours ago, Jairzinho said:

Lindsey German

 

Say. No. More.

And Jenny MANSON!!!

[Jairzinho]

Leave "The" Levant - Jewish Voice for Labour? A likely story.

 

 

[Denny Crane]

Worth a read 

 

The long read

The death of consensus: how conflict came back to politics

New Labour’s ‘third way’ promised to end the clash between left and right. But did the fantasy of politics without strife create our age of anger

 

A snippet full article below.

 

In 2005, the year New Labour won its third consecutive general election, Chantal Mouffe, a Belgian political theorist who had been living and teaching in Britain for more than 30 years without attracting much attention outside academia, published a short, sharp book called On the Political. Its anodyne title concealed an original and unsettling argument, which Mouffe had been honing for two decades.

 

Despite being a supporter of the radical left, Mouffe defined “the political” in a similar way to thinkers often associated with the right, such as Machiavelli: as an arena of competing interests and perpetual conflict. “Liberal theorists are unable to acknowledge … the primary reality of strife in social life,” she wrote. In a democracy, different groups compete for economic resources, and cultural and physical space. Politics, therefore, involves incompatible choices and dilemmas “for which no rational solution” – meaning objective solution – “could ever exist”. Such conflicts result only in temporary victories; then the balance of power between the winner and loser shifts, thanks to social or other change, and the conflict starts again.

Such unresolved battles, Mouffe argued, were not a threat to democracy, but its vital essence. “To be able to mobilise passions,” she wrote, “to have a real purchase on people’s desires and fantasies … democratic politics must have a partisan character.” A healthy democracy required “opposed camps with whom people can identify”: in order to be politically engaged, people needed to have a “we” and a “they”. And besides, any attempt to eradicate such tribalism by building a consensus was bound to fail – no consensus could include everyone.

 

 

Mouffe regarded New Labour’s third way as a prime example of such a doomed strategy. “Far from creating the conditions for a more mature and consensual form of democracy”, she wrote, it would lead to “exactly the opposite”. It would create a society where the conflicts that New Labour had tried to suppress, or whose existence it had denied altogether, would resurface, more vicious than before. Their antagonists would no longer see each other as legitimate competitors, but as “enemies to be destroyed”. In Britain and across the west, she warned, “conditions are ripe for political demagogues … [for] disaffection with political parties [and] the growth of other types of collective identities … nationalist, religious or ethnic.” In particular, she foresaw a surge in “rightwing populism”.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/sep/20/the-death-of-consensus-how-conflict-came-back-to-politics

 

[AngryOfTuebrook]

Corbyn on Granby Street.

 

 

[aRdja]

 

Is Labour’s brexit’s position (or lack thereof) alienating the 52%? Could be his undoing.

[Numero Veinticinco]

1 minute ago, aRdja said:

Is Labour’s brexit’s position (or lack thereof) alienating the 52%? Could be his undoing.

There is no 52% anymore, and even the ones who wanted Brexit generally think the Tories are fucking it up. Not to mention that Labour will still leave, or give another vote on how to leave, with a possibility of a full second referendum. So my answer would be no. 

 

 

[Dr Arthur De Sabre]

21 hours ago, Denny Crane said:

Worth a read 

 

The long read

The death of consensus: how conflict came back to politics

New Labour’s ‘third way’ promised to end the clash between left and right. But did the fantasy of politics without strife create our age of anger

 

A snippet full article below.

 

In 2005, the year New Labour won its third consecutive general election, Chantal Mouffe, a Belgian political theorist who had been living and teaching in Britain for more than 30 years without attracting much attention outside academia, published a short, sharp book called On the Political. Its anodyne title concealed an original and unsettling argument, which Mouffe had been honing for two decades.

 

Despite being a supporter of the radical left, Mouffe defined “the political” in a similar way to thinkers often associated with the right, such as Machiavelli: as an arena of competing interests and perpetual conflict. “Liberal theorists are unable to acknowledge … the primary reality of strife in social life,” she wrote. In a democracy, different groups compete for economic resources, and cultural and physical space. Politics, therefore, involves incompatible choices and dilemmas “for which no rational solution” – meaning objective solution – “could ever exist”. Such conflicts result only in temporary victories; then the balance of power between the winner and loser shifts, thanks to social or other change, and the conflict starts again.

Such unresolved battles, Mouffe argued, were not a threat to democracy, but its vital essence. “To be able to mobilise passions,” she wrote, “to have a real purchase on people’s desires and fantasies … democratic politics must have a partisan character.” A healthy democracy required “opposed camps with whom people can identify”: in order to be politically engaged, people needed to have a “we” and a “they”. And besides, any attempt to eradicate such tribalism by building a consensus was bound to fail – no consensus could include everyone.

 

 

Mouffe regarded New Labour’s third way as a prime example of such a doomed strategy. “Far from creating the conditions for a more mature and consensual form of democracy”, she wrote, it would lead to “exactly the opposite”. It would create a society where the conflicts that New Labour had tried to suppress, or whose existence it had denied altogether, would resurface, more vicious than before. Their antagonists would no longer see each other as legitimate competitors, but as “enemies to be destroyed”. In Britain and across the west, she warned, “conditions are ripe for political demagogues … [for] disaffection with political parties [and] the growth of other types of collective identities … nationalist, religious or ethnic.” In particular, she foresaw a surge in “rightwing populism”.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/sep/20/the-death-of-consensus-how-conflict-came-back-to-politics

 

it's fairly obvious when you think about it, you can't have 3 parties occupying che same centre ground for too long before they start to move back out to their extremes in order to pick up new votes and engage a swing on the pendulum. Otherwise where is the choice?

Beneficent overlord(s), anarchic syndicalism, these are ideas that can possibly have stability and longevity. I don't quite fancy the first, and I'm not sure as a species we will ever evolve enough to be able to go back to the second.

[polymerpunkah]

“You can fool all the people some of the time and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time.” - Abraham Lincoln (perhaps)

[cloggypop]

https://prruk.org/why-liverpool-fc-fans-unfurled-a-banner-in-honour-of-jeremy-corbyn-on-the-kop/

[Bobby Hundreds]

I don't know how I feel about the political banner at the match. There's millions of Liverpool fans with all varying types of views, backgrounds and beliefs. If it's a banner displaying politics involving football i.e. justice or politics of the game with safe standing or prices and such then fair enough if it's a cause common to those in the ground.

[Pidge]

You'd think they might have got the message when the conga line was working it's way around the away end at Reading a few years back.

[Anubis]

The banner's been out on the Kop before, so it's hardly news. It's also a massive fuck you to RAWK. Heh, heh, heh.

[ZonkoVille77]

On 10/6/2018 at 5:33 PM, polymerpunkah said:

“You can fool all the people some of the time and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time.” - Abraham Lincoln (perhaps)

 

Fool. It was Bob Marley

[moof]

On 10/7/2018 at 1:16 PM, Bobby Hundreds said:

I don't know how I feel about the political banner at the match. There's millions of Liverpool fans with all varying types of views, backgrounds and beliefs. If it's a banner displaying politics involving football i.e. justice or politics of the game with safe standing or prices and such then fair enough if it's a cause common to those in the ground.

I’ve always associated the club/fan base with strong socialist values. There is absolutely room for politics in football, imo 

[Mook]

3 minutes ago, moof said:

I’ve always associated the club/fan base with strong socialist values. There is absolutely room for politics in football, imo 

The club? Maybe during Shankly's era to an extent but now Liverpool Football Club is probably as capitalist an organisation as you will find anywhere, disgustingly so at times.

 

Clearly Liverpool as a city & a lot of the local fan base still have a lot of socialist values but I agree with Bobby to be honest, I like Jeremy Corbyn but he's far from perfect & I think the banner (perhaps inadvertently) says, 'If you're not on board with Corbyn, you're not welcome here'. Plenty of socialists don't vote Labour.

[moof]

4 minutes ago, Mook said:

The club? Maybe during Shankly's era to an extent but now Liverpool Football Club is probably as capitalist an organisation as you will find anywhere, disgustingly so at times.

 

Clearly Liverpool as a city & a lot of the local fan base still have a lot of socialist values but I agree with Bobby to be honest, I like Jeremy Corbyn but he's far from perfect & I think the banner (perhaps inadvertently) says, 'If you're not on board with Corbyn, you're not welcome here'. Plenty of socialists don't vote Labour.

Yeah, obviously I didn’t mean today. There’s nothing “socialist” in the values of premier league football in 2018

 

I haven’t seen the banner, and if it does say that then it’s a little bit on the nose, but I do think the city and local fan base is largely in support of his party, so, *shrugs*

[Mook]

1 minute ago, moof said:

Yeah, obviously I didn’t mean today. There’s nothing “socialist” in the values of premier league football in 2018

 

I haven’t seen the banner, and if it does say that then it’s a little bit on the nose, but I do think the city and local fan base is largely in support of his party, so, *shrugs*

This is the banner that I've seen...