British Politics Guide

[Travis B.]

That kind of logic is part of why people become Communists, because capitalism is (obviously) bad, and thus anyone opposed to capitalism is (obviously) good - even if they were responsible for far worse oppression than the capitalists in reality. (Of course that kind of logic is part of why people become anarchists, because both capitalism and Communism are (obviously) bad (because they actually read up on what Stalin, Mao, and Lenin did in power), and thus anyone opposed to both is (obviously) good.)

[Nerulent]

Problem is, most of Sal's other points, no matter how salient you might find them, are at least indirectly based on his "you don't like Corbyn therefore you like Breitbart" logic. The main theme of his most recent post in this thread is that supposedly, left-wing Jews support Corbyn and right-wing Jews oppose him, and it is wrong and inappropriate to pretend that only right-wing Jews count. But the main apparent reason why Sal believes that only right-wing Jews oppose Corbyn in the first place is his "you don't like Corbyn therefore you like Breitbart" logic. He assumes a priori that everyone who criticizes Corbyn has to be right-wing, and concludes from this that all the Jews and Jewish organizations which have accused Corbyn and/or some of his supporters of antisemitism obviously must be right-wing, or even far right.

If you don't start out from the a priori assumption hat everyone who criticizes Corbyn has to be right-wing, you might notice that Corbyn and Corbyn's supporters have been criticized for antisemitism by Jews and Jewish organizations from almost everywhere on the political spectrum. At which point Sal's argument in his most recent post in this thread falls apart.

Well as Sal mentions, most of the opposition seems to be staunch Zionists, who tend to be right wing, and the UK right wing, who are looking for reasons to discredit him (whether or not they are valid), so it's at least possible that many of the people calling him anti-semitic are actually against his left-wing or anti-zionist stances. And I haven't looked, so I don't know if there are substantial numbers of left-wing or anti-zionist Jews (or people in general) decrying his anti-semitism, but it seems weird to completely disregard the substantial number of (not just Jewish people he hangs out with but) Jewish organisations and people of authority defending him as simply 'the kind of Jews who automatically defend every antisemite they run across'.

Mainly his position as part of the "anti-imperialist" political camp, which basically means that he supports every murderous dictator in the world as long as the dictator is politically at odds with the West. I should modify the "everything else" part, though. For one thing, I completely agree with his current position on Saudi Arabia. But I also suspect that if the main Western powers would take his advice and turn against Saudi Arabia tomorrow, he would probably start attending Saudi Arabia solidarity events next week.

Aside from that, there's his and his supporters' general "the media are the enemy!" attitude, which, IMO, is generally one of the first and last resorts of the scoundrel.

Um, anti-imperialism means supporting dictators? So we should all just support war because otherwise we're supporting dictators? Libya and Iraq are clearly so much better off now, after all. And maybe if the West suddenly invaded Saudi Arabia, he would oppose that, but he would hardly defend them otherwise when they are currently engaging in an imperialist war (oh wait they have a dictator which means he should support them...)

First of all, that's not the only bit of antisemitism that I have pointed out. I also had a bit of a back-and-forth with Chris Notts on Corbyn's support for an antisemitic mural.

Which Sal pretty cleanly debunked if his account is to be believed.

That said, Corbyn has attended events organized by the holocaust denier Paul Eisen. And he has invited representatives from Hamas and Hizbollah to Parliament, and addressed them as his friends. Both organizations have made it pretty clear that they see Jews in general as evil and would love to be able to kill them all.

The first bit is fairly damning if he knew he was a holocaust denier, which then comes down to whether you believe him or not. And obviously it would be naive to believe him wholesale, but it's possible to give him the benefit of the doubt while still putting him under heavier scrutiny because of his previous associations - or not, but at least acknowledge the bias against him before labelling him an anti-semite.

[Travis B.]

One thing is I do find it interesting to discount the Jewish people who do support Corbyn, as if only those who oppose him matter, as of course Jews who support Corbyn are simply in the category of "some of my friends are Jews" and thus should be dismissed, as if their opinions did not matter.

[mèþru]

I just remembered that Corbyn supports Maduro. I retract my statement about him being better than May in my opinion. They're now tied for awful in my mind.

[Travis B.]

I just remembered that Corbyn supports Maduro. I retract my statement about him being better than May in my opinion. They're now tied for awful in my mind.

That does add to my sense of him having a certain level of political naïveté, in the way that it is supporting anyone opposed to the Imperialists regardless of whether they are actually worth supporting.

[Raphael]

Well as Sal mentions, most of the opposition seems to be staunch Zionists, who tend to be right wing, and the UK right wing, who are looking for reasons to discredit him (whether or not they are valid), so it's at least possible that many of the people calling him anti-semitic are actually against his left-wing or anti-zionist stances.

Of course that's possible; with many of them, it's even likely. But that's not really the issue here. The issue is what his party has become under his leadership as far as attitudes towards Jews are concerned. And the answer, judging from what kind of stuff his followers can say or write about Jews without this hurting their standing in the party or the movement in any way, is "nothing good".

And I haven't looked, so I don't know if there are substantial numbers of left-wing or anti-zionist Jews (or people in general) decrying his anti-semitism,

At the moment, it doesn't make much sense to use "left-wing" and "anti-zionist" as synonyms when talking about Jews. Anti-zionists are, for now, still fairly marginal among Jews, and are often people with an axe to grind against their fellow Jews, while seeing oneself as more or less left-leaning is a lot more common. Yes, I completely agree that being a "left-wing zionist" is basically a logically impossible oxymoron, but since human beings are often illogical, the fact that a political position is contradictory and logically impossible doesn't necessarily keep human beings from taking that position. That said, contrary to Sal's ridiculous "Breitbart" ravings, I am mostly moderately left-leaning. And I do see a problem with antisemitism in Jeremy Corbyn's version of Labour.

but it seems weird to completely disregard the substantial number of (not just Jewish people he hangs out with but) Jewish organisations and people of authority defending him

The Jewish organizations defending him are usually organizations that were specifically set up to defend him, so it's not particularly relevant that they defend him. As for, "people of authority", can you name some? Sal mentioned a research center supposedly founded by the "World Jewish Council", but there is no organization or institution called the "World Jewish Council".

Mainly his position as part of the "anti-imperialist" political camp, which basically means that he supports every murderous dictator in the world as long as the dictator is politically at odds with the West. I should modify the "everything else" part, though. For one thing, I completely agree with his current position on Saudi Arabia. But I also suspect that if the main Western powers would take his advice and turn against Saudi Arabia tomorrow, he would probably start attending Saudi Arabia solidarity events next week.

Aside from that, there's his and his supporters' general "the media are the enemy!" attitude, which, IMO, is generally one of the first and last resorts of the scoundrel.

Um, anti-imperialism means supporting dictators?

It shouldn't, but in practice, all too often, it does. The people I think of when I think of the term "anti-imperialist" are perfectly happy with deriding any and all criticism of dictators who are politically at odds with the West as imperialist propaganda, and any and all opposition movements and figures in countries ruled by dictators who are politically at odds with the West as agents of imperialism.

So we should all just support war because otherwise we're supporting dictators?

No. It is perfectly well possible to oppose war without supporting dictators. It is perfectly well possible to take a position somewhere in the middle between "the West should wage war against Country X", and "Whoever is in charge in Country X should be showered in praise and defended against all criticism". I, for instance, usually take that position. However, people in the "anti-imperialist" camp usually don't take that position, either because they don't want to or because they are mentally incapable of understanding that such a position is even possible.

Libya and Iraq are clearly so much better off now, after all.

Iraq isn't, of course. As far as Libya is concerned, I'll note that, in the last ten years or so before 2011, the Colonel had moved closer and closer to the West, and as a result, the Western bombing campaign was condemned by various people in the US right-wing for supposedly hurting a friend and helping enemies. It's not that difficult to imagine an alternate scenario in which the West didn't intervene, the Colonel won the civil war, and "anti-imperialists" ended up condemning the West for not stopping the Colonel from committing massacres.

And maybe if the West suddenly invaded Saudi Arabia, he would oppose that, but he would hardly defend them otherwise when they are currently engaging in an imperialist war

Depending on domestic political developments in the USA, I can well imagine the USA, and afterwards the rest of the West, souring on their alliance with the government of Saudi Arabia at some time in the future. Now, if that should happen, I can guarantee you that the government of Saudi Arabia would look for other allies. The obvious options would be China and Russia. Given Saudi Arabia's relative strength in the Middle East, and their stockpile of US-supplied technology, China and Russia would probably accept. And if there should, at some time in the future, be a situation in which the government of Saudi Arabia has chilly relations with the West and is allied with China and Russia, then, yes, I could very well imagine people like Jeremy Corbin starting to support the government of Saudi Arabia.

(oh wait they have a dictator which means he should support them...)

No, I didn't say that "anti-imperialists" support dictators in general; I said that they support dictators who are politically at odds with the West. Which, for now, clearly doesn't describe the government of Saudi Arabia.

First of all, that's not the only bit of antisemitism that I have pointed out. I also had a bit of a back-and-forth with Chris Notts on Corbyn's support for an antisemitic mural.

Which Sal pretty cleanly debunked if his account is to be believed.

Sorry, I hadn't noticed that particular post by Sal yet, probably because it came directly after another post by Sal. Ok, if his account is accurate, that would be that. But as for the rest of that particular post - wow. Just wow. So Sal thinks that when members of groups facing bigotry feel hurt and anguish about the bigotry they're facing, the appropriate response is to mock them and make sarcastic remarks about their hurt and anguish. Sal is such a class act.

[Raphael]

One thing is I do find it interesting to discount the Jewish people who do support Corbyn, as if only those who oppose him matter, as of course Jews who support Corbyn are simply in the category of "some of my friends are Jews" and thus should be dismissed, as if their opinions did not matter.

Oh, of course they matter. Just like Sajid Javid matters. Doesn't mean they're right, or that they prove that Labour under Corbyn is ok for Jews. Just like Sajid Javid doesn't prove anything about how great the Tories are for Pakistanis.

[mèþru]

Self-identified centre-left sees me as a radical leftist, the self-identified radical left sees me as a fascist, the fascists think I'm a communist. As I said before, I agree with much of Corbyn's economic policy and the only political label I use for myself is Zionist.

[mèþru]

I think the West-Saudi alliance is here to stay for at least another decade. Even if the US cuts off relations, I doubt the rest of the West will follow in its footsteps.

[Raphael]

Getting back to Brexit, May has asked the EU for a delay until June the 30th.

[mèþru]

I think that's too far. It's really unfair to have an extension beyond the EU elections that the UK can't participate in.

[Raphael]

Oh. Now Emmanuel Macron has apparently said that he'll oppose any Brexit extension in the Council of the European Union. Which, if I understand the way the Council of the European Union works correctly, means that there won't be any Brexit extension. So that's that, then.

[Raphael]

Presented without comment:

https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesig ... ith-brexit

[Moose-tache]

Of course European leaders will say "no extension." Why would they do otherwise? This is just Bargaining 101. Just because Europe wants a good position when negotiating with the UK doesn't mean they're going to set up a blockade. If it's a choice between giving the UK more time (with promises of new elections, new negotiations, or something else concrete) and letting the civilian population of Britain go without food and medicine, it's pretty open-and-shut, isn't it?

[Linguoboy]

Tusk is already sounding conciliatory, though I don't understand how to square a MV3 with Bercow's pronouncement.

ETA: Apparently it's only an issue if the government puts forward the legislation again, but if the Parliament votes to vote on it, it's alright?

[Halian]

Of course European leaders will say "no extension." Why would they do otherwise? This is just Bargaining 101. Just because Europe wants a good position when negotiating with the UK doesn't mean they're going to set up a blockade. If it's a choice between giving the UK more time (with promises of new elections, new negotiations, or something else concrete) and letting the civilian population of Britain go without food and medicine, it's pretty open-and-shut, isn't it?

Is it bad that I don't put it past Europe to let the UK starve?

[chris_notts]

Another group Corbyn apparently won't talk to is Labour traitors. He walked out of a meeting with May because TiG were there.

I suspect he just needed an excuse to leave. From a pure party political view, surrendering to TM doesn't look attractive if you think you can make her and the Conservatives own the mess they created. Of course, doing so does potentially make you look petty and not very statesmanlike.

[sangi39]

Tusk is already sounding conciliatory, though I don't understand how to square a MV3 with Bercow's pronouncement.

ETA: Apparently it's only an issue if the government puts forward the legislation again, but if the Parliament votes to vote on it, it's alright?

As far as I understood Bercow's address, May can still put forward a deal to the Commons, but it has to be substantially different from the one which was the subject of MV1 and MV2 (whatever that actually means). He also said his address wasn't his final word on the matter, so if he thinks May's next deal is different enough (in whatever way), then he might allow the Commons to vote on it.

[Raphael]

From a pure party political view, surrendering to TM doesn't look attractive if you think you can make her and the Conservatives own the mess they created. Of course, doing so does potentially make you look petty and not very statesmanlike.

Another thing: The more people there are in the world to whom you're not willing to talk, the less convincing you sound if you try to justify your willingness to talk to truly horrible people on the grounds that you supposedly believe in talking to everyone.

[Raphael]

In other news, May just made a short TV speech in which, if I parsed it correctly, she said basically nothing at all (except maybe summing up what everyone already knew).