Labour party problems.

andicole0

andicole0

andicole0

Soldato
Joined
12 Sep 2005
Posts
6,490
Location
Grundisburgh
I hope this doesn't go badly, but I don't understand the difference between the different anti somethings being bantered around the Labour party. I also don't understand why Ken Livingstone is being castigated for making a statement about Hitler. Are we not supposed to even mention him these days?
I'm looking for enlightenment here not a broadening of the troubles.
Andi.
 
Partly because a lot of the media and Labour MP's want Corbyn out...partly because Ken Livingston is an idiot.

"There is a lot more in this anti-Semitism issue - a lot more. And the people we will take out are all close to Corbyn."

That's what a Labour MP confided to BBC political correspondent Iain Watson, more than a week before Naz Shah's Facebook activities were exposed.

Iain says there is no suggestion that this particular MP was involved - and equally no suggestion that the shock felt by long standing Labour Party members at anti-Semitic comments by newer recruits is synthetic.

But for those opposed to Jeremy Corbyn's leadership, the week could hardly have gone better, he says."
 
dowie said:
He was sort of right - they did initially want to send Jews to Palestine in the 30s.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haavara_Agreement
Click to expand...


One of the Ironies of History is that if Britain had kept out of it (Or been defeated in the "Battle of Britain"#) the Holocaust might never have happened.

#

Defeat in the BoB would not necessarily have resulted in ultimate defeat. Sealion would have likely failed. However both sides would have been sufficiently badly damaged that I can easily see us having come to terms with Germany that would have seen us undefeated but playing no further part in the War.
 
VincentHanna said:
Partly because a lot of the media and Labour MP's want Corbyn out...partly because Ken Livingston is an idiot.

"There is a lot more in this anti-Semitism issue - a lot more. And the people we will take out are all close to Corbyn."

That's what a Labour MP confided to BBC political correspondent Iain Watson, more than a week before Naz Shah's Facebook activities were exposed.

Iain says there is no suggestion that this particular MP was involved - and equally no suggestion that the shock felt by long standing Labour Party members at anti-Semitic comments by newer recruits is synthetic.

But for those opposed to Jeremy Corbyn's leadership, the week could hardly have gone better, he says."
Click to expand...

Funny it was never brought up by them when millibad was leader, I mean, if they were anti-semitic surely he as jewish would have been most likely the one to deal with it?
 
Dr Who said:
Funny it was never brought up by them when millibad was leader, I mean, if they were anti-semitic surely he as jewish would have been most likely the one to deal with it?
Click to expand...

On that note, the two candidates for the Leadership were both Jewish, Miliband and his brother. If there is such a big anti-Semite wing in Labour how come they were selected. As a supporter of neither main party it seems the Tory media have egged this to distract from the Tory infighting over Europe.
There is definitely a Labour right wing agenda here to get rid of Corbyn.
 
One only has to look at the reaction of the Tory MPs whenever Corbyn stands up. He was put as head of Labour by arguably the largest membership joining rate in the history of any party.

People want him there. He is not weak, he is being undermined at every turn and the party is full of backstabbers. My own Mp is one and she will never be getting a vote from me or several households again.

When Corbyn stands up it makes me realize just how far this nation has slipped in the type of people who are elected. Corbyn is not an attacker but he is a man of principle.

The media in this nation and their behaviour is showing itself to be what I've been saying for some time now, its no different than the KCNA.

Regarding Kens comments a certain Orwell quote fits this perfectly in sure we know which
 
JohnnyG said:
Is this all being discussed in the Naz Shah thread?
Click to expand...

I didn't want to discuss anything about persons in the current argument, more I wanted to understand what is upsetting people. It seems to me stating historical facts should be Ok but I understand you can't even mention the H word in some countries.
I think this is more about personal vendettas rather than historical embarrassments. How can we deter people repeating tragic events if we can't mention those that took place.
Andi.
 
OldCoals said:
Corbyn made a career out of rebelling now he wants loyalty, good luck with that!
Click to expand...

Having his own opinion you mean? political party members today are just a bunch of paid for mouthpieces with no opinions of their own, when they do voice a dissenting opinion they get lynched in the media and kicked out of office so it's no suprrise they all just keep their heads down and snouts in the trough, coming up only to regurgitate party lines on things like Question Time.
 
Last edited:
mmj_uk said:
Having his own opinion you mean? political party members today are just a bunch of paid for mouthpieces with no opinions of their own, when they do voice a dissenting opinion they get lynched in the media and kicked out of office so it's no suprrise they all just keep their heads down and snouts in the trough, coming up only to regurgitate party lines on things like Question Time.
Click to expand...

So he, and his followers can't really complain then if people disagree with him can they.
 
Malevolence said:
He classes Hezbollah and Hamas as 'friends' for a start. Then there's the whole wanting to get rid of the country's nuclear deterrent thing.
Click to expand...

Rofl

Or even better - lets renew trident but take out the nuclear capability, just so everyone keeps their jobs.... :p
 
Years of unquestioning support bordering on hero worship of the Palestinian cause has resulted in a situation where it's hard to see where British left stops and radical Islam starts.
 
andicole0 said:
I hope this doesn't go badly, but I don't understand the difference between the different anti somethings being bantered around the Labour party. I also don't understand why Ken Livingstone is being castigated for making a statement about Hitler. Are we not supposed to even mention him these days?
I'm looking for enlightenment here not a broadening of the troubles.
Andi.
Click to expand...

There are a few things going on here:

1. The Naz Shah episode is a political play designed to undermine the Labour leadership. Suspending Ken Livingstone only happened because the Labour leadership have been backed in to a corner on this one, rather than because what he said was so bad. He demonstrated bad judgement and a smattering of insensitivity (i.e. the Holocaust is taboo), but nothing he said was actually wrong.

2. Jews are a protected species for reasons unknown. Racism against Jews is pretty much the worst type of Racism with significantly stricter barriers over what is/is not acceptable. We even give it a special name. The Holocaust is often cited as the reason, but Jews weren't the only group targeted, and other affected groups aren't afforded such protections. Heck, it's socially acceptable to mock Roma.

3. There are a significant number of Muslims in the Labour Party now. It's difficult for them to be as tolerant of Israel and the Semites as we expect, given the tensions over Palestine. Labour needs to be clear with its membership - feeding racial division won't be tolerated. Labour and its members need to be part of the solution, not part of the problem. Anyone unhappy with this arrangement can leave, or expect to be removed.

The timing of the whole episode is rather convenient given the Prime Minister and Zac Goldsmith were just last week coming under fire for their discriminatory, inaccurate comments about Sadiq Khan.

IMHO, it was absolutely right to make an example of Naz Shah. Ken Livingstone deserves a slap on the wrist and a stern talking to about his judgement. And the Labour Party needs to be clear about its position on racism in all its forms. Singling out anti-Semitism and placing it on a pedestal isn't the answer.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom