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 ...?!
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.djchump wrote: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.What have they got to do with anything?
djchump wrote:I mean, I don't want to be all "butwhataboutism"
Maybe becoming an effective and convincing alternative government would be a good way to bring about the end of the current one?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.
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.monkey wrote: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.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.Silly of me to think handling this issue competently might have produced a better outcome.
I've never seen so many people and organisations trying so desperately hard to oust a leader of a political party, no.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 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.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.
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.JonB wrote: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.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.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.Silly of me to think handling this issue competently might have produced a better outcome.
Yossarian wrote:
That might be in part his fault, but it also says something about those people's own prejudices.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*.
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.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.
Yossarian wrote:In ‘what about the Tories?’ news:
https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-conservative-party-rulebook-doesnt-mention-antisemitism
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!