Current Affairs - The Bear and Badger

JMW

Because the non-Right press, and everyone else non-Right should be doing whatever they can do bring down the Tories, at a time when that should be a piece of piss, by getting behind the only party/movement that can actually achieve that at the moment.

djchump

Yossarian wrote:

This is pure whataboutery, Chump. The subject under discussion was the Labour antisemitism row, that’s what we’ve been discussing.

djchump wrote:

I'm still not really getting it - you're saying that there's clearly more anti-semites in the Tory Party, that is currently in power, than there is in the Labour Party, but because of Corbyn not stamping it out in the Labour Party, it's more important to point fingers at Labour than the Tories? I mean, I don't want to be all "butwhataboutism", but why is it a problem for Labour/Corbyn but not the Tories? Because we know and expect the Tories to be shitbergs, so we hold Labour up to better/higher standards ...?!

monkey

djchump wrote:

What have they got to do with anything?

Brexit? Austerity? Selling off the NHS? Lots of stuff. But you're choosing to make your noise/rattle your saber at/about Corbyn, for his party updating a Code of Conduct in a way you don't 100% agree with? Okay, carry on then.

You could compile a (not very interesting) book from the amount of shit I've written on here about Brexit, austerity and NHS stealth privatisation and other Tory shenanigans. Corbyn gets a thick pamphlet or novella. This is an internal Labour party dispute, nothing to do with the wretched ghouls currently in government.

Yossarian

djchump wrote:

I mean, I don't want to be all "butwhataboutism"

Then don’t.

monkey

JMW wrote:

Because the non-Right press, and everyone else non-Right should be doing whatever they can do bring down the Tories, at a time when that should be a piece of piss, by getting behind the only party/movement that can actually achieve that at the moment.

Maybe becoming an effective and convincing alternative government would be a good way to bring about the end of the current one?

djchump

Yossarian wrote:

djchump wrote:

I mean, I don't want to be all "butwhataboutism"

Then don’t.

You still not seeing it?
I guess it's pretty close to home.

(Plus, that response was because monkey asked “what have the Tories got to do with anything”, which I thought was a question of the highest derp)

Yossarian

The secret meetings? They happen at work, not home.

djchump

I mean, if it helps you dismiss the concerns people have about the (mis)treatment of Corbyn by various arms of the press, then sure, you can keep banging that "you're all conspiracy nuts" drum. It's a bit of a silly coping strategy though.

Yossarian

Right now I think alcohol may be a better one.

monkey

Corbyn's clear mistreatment by the press and his colleagues doesn't mean he gets to be shit and no one gets to criticise him if they think he's doing something wrong (or not doing something right as is the case here imo).

djchump

Just seems pretty disproportionate. Corbyn/Labour make a sincere attempt to tackle an issue while the Tories lie about having done it, and have done nothing, and were already much worse in the first place.... but Corbyn's the one you're roasting for being shit and doing it wrong?

You've been gaslighted, monkey.

monkey

New Forum Rule:
Any criticism of the Great Leader must be accompanied by text stating that he is far better than his political opponents. Please provide specific examples of his opponents much greater shortcomings in the areas in which you are criticising the Great Leader. Otherwise you are nothing but a puppet of his opponents. In fact just avoid all criticism and hope that he miraculously enters government where any legitimate failings will magically disappear because reasons.

djchump

I get the brexit thing, and the general feeling of him & Labour not putting up a strong enough Opposition Party.
But I just don't get why an attempt at updating a code of conduct has generated such ire from you, especially when contrasted to the Tories haven't made any effort at all...? It just reeks of opportunism and bandwagon-jumping because you're so keen to put the boot in.

JonB

monkey wrote:

Silly of me to think handling this issue competently might have produced a better outcome.

What you said is that "he’s produced ... a huge controversy, loads of negativity and accusations of bad faith on his part." Not that he's been partly responsible for it, or didn't help himself at times etc., but that he personally produced the controversy, negativity, and accusations of bad faith. To say that requires ignoring a hell of a lot of other factors in this, from elements in his own party to the opposition in power and much of the media. I find it bizarre. Edit: Just seen your last post - 'that is politics'. Strange, because I've never seen anything like it in the UK before.

He caused it, rather than produced it himself. But yes. This is a reworking of some technical guidelines. Everyone lost their shit because they don't trust that he is an honest broker. He's failed to convince people, either because he isn't an honest broker or he's shit. I think he's well-intentioned, and orbiting around the right way to handle it but still, ultimately, shit. Let's face it, he's there because of his politics, or because of what his politics aren't. He's not there because he's got a load of outstanding qualities that make him a suitable leader.

Again, it's just ignoring anyone else's role. You turn it into his responsibility to convince all his enemies to like him. And then he failed. Never mind that he's convinced a lot of people who were disillusioned with politics to get involved again, using tactics like coming across as a decent human being. If only he had the qualities of those other leaders that we're all sick of.

Also, just to be clear, you've never seen a powerful politician, media organisation or group exploit an opponents difficulty to their own advantage in UK politics. That's what you're saying is it?

I've never seen so many people and organisations trying so desperately hard to oust a leader of a political party, no.

RedDave2

Find myself siding with djchump here.

If there is no issue with the Tory party not having guidelines (and given they are the party in power they should be held to a higher standard anyway) why is there even a story that Labour's attempts have fallen short.

monkey

djchump wrote:

I get the brexit thing, and the general feeling of him & Labour not putting up a strong enough Opposition Party. But I just don't get why an attempt at updating a code of conduct has generated such ire from you, especially when contrasted to the Tories haven't made any effort at all...? It just reeks of opportunism and bandwagon-jumping because you're so keen to put the boot in.

I don't know if it's ire, I'm not angry. I just think his failure to get on top of this has caused the problem to fester and now all it takes is some adjusted guidelines and it's a giant bunfight.

JonB wrote:

Silly of me to think handling this issue competently might have produced a better outcome.

What you said is that "he’s produced ... a huge controversy, loads of negativity and accusations of bad faith on his part." Not that he's been partly responsible for it, or didn't help himself at times etc., but that he personally produced the controversy, negativity, and accusations of bad faith. To say that requires ignoring a hell of a lot of other factors in this, from elements in his own party to the opposition in power and much of the media. I find it bizarre. Edit: Just seen your last post - 'that is politics'. Strange, because I've never seen anything like it in the UK before.

He caused it, rather than produced it himself. But yes. This is a reworking of some technical guidelines. Everyone lost their shit because they don't trust that he is an honest broker. He's failed to convince people, either because he isn't an honest broker or he's shit. I think he's well-intentioned, and orbiting around the right way to handle it but still, ultimately, shit. Let's face it, he's there because of his politics, or because of what his politics aren't. He's not there because he's got a load of outstanding qualities that make him a suitable leader.

Again, it's just ignoring anyone else's role. You turn it into his responsibility to convince all his enemies to like him. And then he failed. Never mind that he's convinced a lot of people who were disillusioned with politics to get involved again, using tactics like coming across as a decent human being. If only he had the qualities of those other leaders that we're all sick of.

Fair enough. I was over-blaming Corbyn. But I stand by the opinion this wouldn't be happening if people thought he was genuinely neutral*. In fact people think he's pro-Palestine, because he always was before, and his stock response to anti-semitism is some weak waffle about not tolerating any form of prejudice. There's stuff here within JC's power to change and improve and he can't or won't. Very difficult to get it completely right though as I've said.

*Neutral is a funny term here and it's not what I mean. You don't have to be neutral about a massacre of civilians, for example, and many British Jews aren't exactly pro-massacre. Maybe objective is more what I mean.

Edit:- Contextualiser
Theresa May is a fucking country-wrecking bitch.

Diluted Dante

Yossarian wrote:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jul/20/labour-code-of-conduct-not-antisemitic

Has everyone read this yes? It explains why the definition was changed, and what the result of that change actually means.

As to talk of any other political party being whataboutery, I disagree. Politics doesn't exist in a vaccum, and there seems to be some pretty big double standards employed. Labour are being dragged through the mud for attempts to tackle antisemitism, and are told they are 'doing nothing'. The leader of the party is publicly called a racist and an antisemite.

The Torys at the very same time have nothing in place to tackle antisemitism in their party, despite having higher levels of it, and a Tory member of the House of Lords accused her own party of having issues with Islamophobia. There has been pretty much silence on these compared to Labour.

Tories frequently are using this as a line of attack against Labour, despite their party being worse and having done nothing. May criticised the new Labour guidelines, saying they should have adopted the IHRA guidelines as the Tories did, even though she knew full well they had done no such thing.

I_R

Worth bearing in mind that adopting the guidelines that the press want doesn't end it. They'd then be going back over old comments and demanding that people be punished for breaching the guidelines. This really is a no win for Labour.

JonB

monkey wrote:

Fair enough. I was over-blaming Corbyn. But I stand by the opinion this wouldn't be happening if people thought he was genuinely neutral*.

That might be in part his fault, but it also says something about those people's own prejudices.

monkey wrote:

In fact people think he's pro-Palestine, because he always was before, and his stock response to anti-semitism is some weak waffle about not tolerating any form of prejudice. There's stuff here within JC's power to change and improve and he can't or won't. Very difficult to get it completely right though as I've said.

I hope he doesn't call himself pro-Palestine - I always find that an odd term, because of the implication that you either have to be pro one and anti the other. I also think the stock response about not tolerating any prejudice should be sufficient, so it's not surprising he started with that. As it's become clear there is a specific problem to deal with, he seems to have reacted pretty well and put in the necessary measures.

WorKid

Fairly pro-Palestine

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/palestine-state-recognition-jeremy-corbyn-labour-government-israel-soon-a8413796.html

in that he's for Palestine.

I have no idea if he's anti-Israel, but I don't think he likes their shitty behaviour, and he's rightly been calling them on it.

Yossarian

Yossarian wrote:

In ‘what about the Tories?’ news:

https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-conservative-party-rulebook-doesnt-mention-antisemitism

The Conservative code of conduct has been updated.

https://twitter.com/FactCheck/status/1020351509157072897

monkey

That's real leadership there.

Yossarian

Makes a change for Theresa May’s government TBF.

g.man

I'd assumed that Jeremy Corbyn was actually dead, because despite the state the country is in, I don't recall seeing him at all in about the last six months?

Yossarian

He addressed the anti-Trump rally, so I am an eyewitness to him being alive a week ago.

g.man

And yet...

Yossarian

You should have heard his talk about the Jewish problem.

Paul the sparky

He was at the Durham Miner's Gala too.

The lad gets about, wether or not it's covered, and wether or not that coverage is fair isn't something he can control.

g.man

''Tis interesting tho. I assume he's always out and about doing stuff, and yet I haven't so much as seen his face in months.

JMW

And you’d have thought, having been in Russia, you would have.

Howdy, Stranger!

Categories