carlton43
Reform Party
Posts: 50,943 
Member is Online
|
Post by carlton43 on Jun 8, 2019 7:52:49 GMT
according to the beeb the charges are that she liked a facebook post of a video with accompanying antisemitic text (she claims she didnt read), and that she argued against the adoption of the full list of examples in the IHRC definintion of antisemetism. I do worry that even discussing how to define antisemetism is considered to be antisemitic. And am I now guilty as well? I agree with all of that. There has to be difference between formulating a personal statement and then publishing it as your considered opinion and the lower position of agreeing with someone else, and the still lower ticking an approval on social media, and the still lower retweeting of material or sharing by any means. Then also are we at the stage where failure to endorse a form of words put together by an active special interest group in precisely their own terms is to be regarded as opposition or antagonism? Are we at the point where such organizations may blackmail us into having to endorse their own wordings or be tainted by slurs? If so, such organizations must be strongly resisted. |
|
|
|
Post by yellowperil on Jun 8, 2019 7:57:36 GMT
Come to think of it, "liking "Carlton's post there probably puts me on a proscribed list.
|
|
|
|
Post by greenchristian on Jun 8, 2019 9:15:16 GMT
There has to be difference between formulating a personal statement and then publishing it as your considered opinion and the lower position of agreeing with someone else, and the still lower ticking an approval on social media, and the still lower retweeting of material or sharing by any means. You may have got those last two the wrong way round. But otherwise, I agree. |
|
|
|
Post by John Chanin on Jun 8, 2019 9:16:38 GMT
according to the beeb the charges are that she liked a facebook post of a video with accompanying antisemitic text (she claims she didnt read), and that she argued against the adoption of the full list of examples in the IHRC definintion of antisemetism. I do worry that even discussing how to define antisemetism is considered to be antisemitic. And am I now guilty as well? Absolutely. Whipping up anti-semitism where none previously existed is now a major industry amongst some organizations like the Times and establishment Jewish organizations. It isn't clear why they should want to do this, as I can't see any conceivable benefit, but there you are..... |
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 38,952
Member is Online
|
Post by The Bishop on Jun 8, 2019 9:36:15 GMT
Already calls to suspend the putative new MP for anti semitism. (The Times front page). Our former paper of record proving yet again that it is now the most ludicrous propaganda rag. Should have been forcibly closed down for a month after its "EVIL MUSLAMICS ARE COMING FOR YOUR KIDS" total confection. You can throw its blatant trans hate in as well. |
|
|
|
Post by polaris on Jun 8, 2019 9:46:06 GMT
Already calls to suspend the putative new MP for anti semitism. (The Times front page). Our former paper of record proving yet again that it is now the most ludicrous propaganda rag. Should have been forcibly closed down for a month after its "EVIL MUSLAMICS ARE COMING FOR YOUR KIDS" total confection. You can throw its blatant trans hate in as well. You're responding to a serious moral and ethical issue with whataboutery and shooting the messenger. That's the response that I would expect from someone like Merseymike. But when it comes from someone like yourself, that shows just how deep are the cultural problems in Labour, and why this issue won't go away. |
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Jun 8, 2019 9:53:53 GMT
Our former paper of record proving yet again that it is now the most ludicrous propaganda rag. Should have been forcibly closed down for a month after its "EVIL MUSLAMICS ARE COMING FOR YOUR KIDS" total confection. You can throw its blatant trans hate in as well. You're responding to a serious moral and ethical issue with whataboutery and shooting the messenger. That's the response that I would expect from someone like Merseymike. But when it comes from someone like yourself, that shows just how deep are the cultural problems in Labour, and why this issue won't go away. To be fair, The Bishop only wants to metaphorically 'shoot the messenger' in forcibly closing down a free press when Labour come to power. Presumably this would involve expropriation, perhaps imprisonment, but not actually shooting people. Whereas Merseymike would literally have them shot |
|
|
|
Post by Merseymike on Jun 8, 2019 10:00:14 GMT
Already calls to suspend the putative new MP for anti semitism. (The Times front page). Our former paper of record proving yet again that it is now the most ludicrous propaganda rag. Should have been forcibly closed down for a month after its "EVIL MUSLAMICS ARE COMING FOR YOUR KIDS" total confection. You can throw its blatant trans hate in as well. I think they are being foolish, as their ridiculous over-reaction is promoting what they claim to dislike. Have a look at Streeting or Phillips' twitter feed - and look at the reaction of those commenting. Then consider that the voters of Peterborough , who know just how easy it is to casually like something on Facebook, treated these allegations with the contempt they deserve. Its getting to the 'boy cried wolf' stage, where genuine deliberate prejudice will not be taken seriously - but then, given that the Times promotes both Islamophobia and anti-trans attitudes, their inconsistency should not be surprising |
|
|
|
Post by Merseymike on Jun 8, 2019 10:05:47 GMT
Probably all the Labour MPs who congratulated Lisa Forbes on her win, a move which will probably burn all her remaining bridges with the party for good. She has burned them already in Liverpool. Even her former cheerleader - a local Jewish former councillor - wants nothing more to do with her and thinks her accusations are incorrect. The nonsense about being sad to see her go - I cheered to see the back of a remarkably stupid, ineffective, useless MP - and when her mentor Kennedy left too, even better |
|
andrea
Non-Aligned
Posts: 7,773
|
Post by andrea on Jun 8, 2019 10:08:44 GMT
The calls in the Times are Louise Ellman's
As suggested by Mondialito, I guess Berger is unfollowing all these who were tweeting their delight for the victory in Peterborough and/or those MPs who went to campaign in the last few days against the call by Jewish Labour Movement not to campaign for Forbes.
Some such as Streeting and Creasy openly said they didn't campaign in Peterborough since the revelations came to light. I guess few others may have not gone there without publicizing too much one way or the other.
Others went along on Election Day. From a random selection from tweeters, I see the following MPs were campaigning in Peterborough or doing phone canvassing on Monday to Thursday:
Louise Haigh and Vernon Coaker (as Labour campaign managers), Diane Abbott, Ed Miliband, Mary Glindon, Caroline Flint, Pat Glass, Liz Twist, Rupa Huq, Val Vaz. Stephen Pound, Lyn Brown, Daniel Zeichner, Stephanie Peacock, Angela Rayner, Lesley Rayd, Christina Rees, Stephen Kinnock, Imran Hussain, Margaret Greenwood, Dan Carden, Dawn Butler, ...
|
|
|
|
Post by polaris on Jun 8, 2019 10:24:27 GMT
Our former paper of record proving yet again that it is now the most ludicrous propaganda rag. Should have been forcibly closed down for a month after its "EVIL MUSLAMICS ARE COMING FOR YOUR KIDS" total confection. You can throw its blatant trans hate in as well. I think they are being foolish, as their ridiculous over-reaction is promoting what they claim to dislike. Have a look at Streeting or Phillips' twitter feed - and look at the reaction of those commenting. Then consider that the voters of Peterborough , who know just how easy it is to casually like something on Facebook, treated these allegations with the contempt they deserve. Its getting to the 'boy cried wolf' stage, where genuine deliberate prejudice will not be taken seriously - but then, given that the Times promotes both Islamophobia and anti-trans attitudes, their inconsistency should not be surprising Your attitude seems to be that a bit of racism isn't a problem because it doesn't have an electoral impact. You really have lost your moral compass, haven't you? As for the electoral impact, you dropped 17% of the vote and the winning score of 31% was the lowest in a by-election since God knows when. You were reduced to your core vote and fluked a win because the right-wing vote was split down the middle. I think anti-semitism is hurting Labour- it paints a picture of a party in the grip of intolerant, conspiratorial crankery. Even in this age of post-truth, post-shame politics, most people don't find that attractive. |
|
|
|
Post by Merseymike on Jun 8, 2019 10:25:41 GMT
The calls in the Times are Louise Ellman's As suggested by Mondialito, I guess Berger is unfollowing all these who were tweeting their delight for the victory in Peterborough and/or those MPs who went to campaign in the last few days against the call by Jewish Labour Movement not to campaign for Forbes. Some such as Streeting and Creasy openly said they didn't campaign in Peterborough since the revelations came to light. I guess others didn't go there without publicizing too much one way or the other. Others went along on Election Day. From a random selection from tweeters, I see the following MPs were campaignin in Peterborough or doing phone canvassing on Monday to Thursday: Louise Haigh and Vernon Coaker (as Labour campaign managers), Diane Abbott, Ed Miliband, Mary Glindon, Caroline Flint, Pat Glass, Rupa Huq, Val Vaz. Stephen Pound, Lyn Brown, Daniel Zeichner, Stephanie Peacock, Angela Rayner, Lesley Rayd, Christina Rees, Stephen Kinnock, Imran Hussain, Margaret Greenwood, Creasy, Streeting, Ellman. Well, there's a surprise! They are all MP's who I fully expected and hoped would go. They still should. Ellman will be deselected. Creasy and Streeting have right-wing CLP's so might survive, but their purpose as Labour MP's is questionable, as they are semi-detached at best - I'd say good examples of LINO (Labour In Name Only) |
|
|
|
Post by Merseymike on Jun 8, 2019 10:28:17 GMT
I think they are being foolish, as their ridiculous over-reaction is promoting what they claim to dislike. Have a look at Streeting or Phillips' twitter feed - and look at the reaction of those commenting. Then consider that the voters of Peterborough , who know just how easy it is to casually like something on Facebook, treated these allegations with the contempt they deserve. Its getting to the 'boy cried wolf' stage, where genuine deliberate prejudice will not be taken seriously - but then, given that the Times promotes both Islamophobia and anti-trans attitudes, their inconsistency should not be surprising Your attitude seems to be that a bit of racism isn't a problem because it doesn't have an electoral impact. You really have lost your moral compass, haven't you? As for the electoral impact, you dropped 17% of the vote and the winning score of 31% was the lowest in a by-election since God knows when. You were reduced to your core vote and fluked a win because the right-wing vote was split down the middle. I think anti-semitism is hurting Labour- it paints a picture of a party in the grip of intolerant, conspiratorial crankery. Even in this age of post-truth, post-shame politics, most people don't find that attractive. Its making no difference whatsoever, other than to people like you who, frankly, I would be worried if you wanted to vote for us, given your political views - you should be voting for a centre party, and we are definitively not a centre party, though some of our MP's still haven't come to terms with that yet! The Brexit issue and that alone is skewing things, and the Brexit party vote is very clearly not only 'right wing' |
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Jun 8, 2019 11:51:53 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by hullenedge on Jun 8, 2019 12:06:29 GMT
Can't locate a definitive list for BRX targets. Peterborough said to be 201st target but using the Hanretty 2016 figures I get 197th and Marriott 2016 193rd, which is pretty close to 201st. (Peterborough was UKIP's 254th target seat after the 2015 election). BRX's Euro 19 result in Peterborough was 'bang on' for that type of seat but Labour were 7.5% higher than expected compared to 2017 election. Possibly the by-election campaign energising Labour voters?
A good thread by Nigel Marriott about potential BRX gains:-
|
|
|
|
Post by matureleft on Jun 8, 2019 12:46:45 GMT
I'm not sure anyone has been claiming that voters of Asian origin were unimportant. They are a significant proportion of the constituency's electorate. They tend generally to lean toward Labour. (I say generally because these communities are not one homogenous unit as some contributors seem to suggest. They have their own cultures, general economic positions, influencers and places to exchange views. There are also large generational differences in some cases. There are plenty of examples of parties other than Labour winning support around the UK among voters of Asian origin.)
These points have already been made: 1. Labour certainly couldn't have won simply by getting an even overwhelming vote from these communities.
2. The Tories in Peterborough (and elsewhere) have had some success among these communities too in local government elections. It is likely, assuming that they campaigned effectively, that they collected a substantial vote too on Thursday. This wouldn't have been a monolithic Labour vote.
I'd add some obvious points that, nevertheless, need spelling out.
1. While the Tories certainly have a significant base of support among these communities in Peterborough, unless the Brexit party acquired these people recently through defections, with their contacts, they'd have had none. The picture posted of Brexit activists queueing to help didn't suggest that they'd have many with that experience.
2. The core messages of the Brexit party are focused on one overriding goal. You'd find some within these communities who share the general Brexit objective. The likely difference is going to be just how much weight they put on that objective as against other things that concern them. This narrow focus, of course, puts off many voters, not just those from these communities. The hyperbole and anger presented galvanises those who feel very strongly about Brexit. It however repels those who see Brexit merely as one of the governance issues this country faces. It probably plays particularly poorly among these communities because of the nationalist undertone (or even explicit messaging) which can cause concern.
|
|
mondialito
Labour
Everything is horribly, brutally possible.
Posts: 4,961
|
Post by mondialito on Jun 8, 2019 13:09:14 GMT
I'm not sure anyone has been claiming that voters of Asian origin were unimportant. They are a significant proportion of the constituency's electorate. They tend generally to lean toward Labour. (I say generally because these communities are not one homogenous unit as some contributors seem to suggest. They have their own cultures, general economic positions, influencers and places to exchange views. There are also large generational differences in some cases. There are plenty of examples of parties other than Labour winning support around the UK among voters of Asian origin.)
These points have already been made: 1. Labour certainly couldn't have won simply by getting an even overwhelming vote from these communities.
2. The Tories in Peterborough (and elsewhere) have had some success among these communities too in local government elections. It is likely, assuming that they campaigned effectively, that they collected a substantial vote too on Thursday. This wouldn't have been a monolithic Labour vote.
I'd add some obvious points that, nevertheless, need spelling out.
1. While the Tories certainly have a significant base of support among these communities in Peterborough, unless the Brexit party acquired these people recently through defections, with their contacts, they'd have had none. The picture posted of Brexit activists queueing to help didn't suggest that they'd have many with that experience.
2. The core messages of the Brexit party are focused on one overriding goal. You'd find some within these communities who share the general Brexit objective. The likely difference is going to be just how much weight they put on that objective as against other things that concern them. This narrow focus, of course, puts off many voters, not just those from these communities. The hyperbole and anger presented galvanises those who feel very strongly about Brexit. It however repels those who see Brexit merely as one of the governance issues this country faces. It probably plays particularly poorly among these communities because of the nationalist undertone (or even explicit messaging) which can cause concern.
Certainly, dark muttering since the by-election about some nefarious plot by the Muslamics and win the election for Labour won't help with your last point, not least because it implies that their votes are by their nature less legitimate than other people's. |
|
|
|
Post by rivers10 on Jun 8, 2019 14:32:45 GMT
The issue we on the left have with this argument isn't that we claim its not true (one has to be oblivious to electoral data to outright deny that the Muslim community as a whole leans fairly heavily to Labour) the issue we have Is that the "MOSLEMS WAT WUN IT" argument is a lazy trope repeatedly rolled out by some on the right that heavily insinuates that Muslim votes are somehow illegitimate and indeed are secured via nefarious and illegal means.
Yes had Muslims not voted in Peterborough the Brexit party might have won it but equally had Jewish voters in Barnet not voted in the last GE Labour probably would have won the three Barnet constituencies but nobody is making that argument cos its absurd.
Its a simple fact of elections globally that minority groups often lean a particular way and community leaders influencing within each group are a key factor in that but why is it always Muslims voting for Labour that invokes outrage? Where was/is the outrage from the right over the anti Muslim/Pro Hindu caste baiting politics of the Harrow Tories and Harrow East MP Bob Blackman in particular? Where was/is the outrage over the highly insular and from what I've heard cliquey political culture amongst the North Hackney ultra orthodox Jewish community that overwhelmingly votes Tory? Or indeed where was the outrage when Muslim voters repeatedly kept giving Labour in the Blair years a bloody nose over Iraq by voting for Respect or the Lib Dems in by elections? We seem to be in a unique situation where its only when a minority group backs Labour that it becomes a national outrage and a threat to democracy.
Do I find sectarian and racial based voting unsavoury? Of course but its an inevitability without a truly egalitarian society. Minorities will naturally mix in large part with other minorities, they'll consume the same media etc and its not sinister but instead smart for political parties to tap into that network. As I just mentioned you bet your bottom dollar the Tories have done it with the Hindu community in Harrow and the Jewish community in Hackney.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Jun 8, 2019 14:53:51 GMT
The issue we on the left have with this argument isn't that we claim its not true (one has to be oblivious to electoral data to outright deny that the Muslim community as a whole leans fairly heavily to Labour) the issue we have Is that the "MOSLEMS WAT WUN IT" argument is a lazy trope repeatedly rolled out by some on the right that heavily insinuates that Muslim votes are somehow illegitimate and indeed are secured via nefarious and illegal means.
Yes had Muslims not voted in Peterborough the Brexit party might have won it but equally had Jewish voters in Barnet not voted in the last GE Labour probably would have won the three Barnet constituencies but nobody is making that argument cos its absurd.
Its a simple fact of elections globally that minority groups often lean a particular way and community leaders influencing within each group are a key factor in that but why is it always Muslims voting for Labour that invokes outrage? Where was/is the outrage from the right over the anti Muslim/Pro Hindu caste baiting politics of the Harrow Tories and Harrow East MP Bob Blackman in particular? Where was/is the outrage over the highly insular and from what I've heard cliquey political culture amongst the North Hackney ultra orthodox Jewish community that overwhelmingly votes Tory? Or indeed where was the outrage when Muslim voters repeatedly kept giving Labour in the Blair years a bloody nose over Iraq by voting for Respect or the Lib Dems in by elections? We seem to be in a unique situation where its only when a minority group backs Labour that it becomes a national outrage and a threat to democracy.
Do I find sectarian and racial based voting unsavoury? Of course but its an inevitability without a truly egalitarian society. Minorities will naturally mix in large part with other minorities, they'll consume the same media etc and its not sinister but instead smart for political parties to tap into that network. As I just mentioned you bet your bottom dollar the Tories have done it with the Hindu community in Harrow and the Jewish community in Hackney.
My point is more to illustrate that this is not an optimum seat for the Brexit party as some have sought to suggest. True the particular set of circumstances were favourable, but the seat was far from ideal and precisely because there is a large group of the type of voters here who are the most loyal of core Labour voters (as was seen in the European elections from the strong Labour performances in the likes of Blackburn, Slough, Luton etc - all areas incidentally which also voted Leave by quite a wide margin). There are a dozen seats in the vicinity of Peterborough which are more favourable and would have been won on Thursday night, including some which have a normally large core Labour vote (eg Corby). The reason there is disquiet about the way these voters are organised is because there have been numerous and well-documented examples of electoral fraud occurring in relation to this particular group, to the benefit of various parties as it happens, but usually Labour and Peterborough is one of the specific places where this has occurred and until the postal voting on demand system is reformed there will always be disquiet about this. I have personally made observations about Jewish voting behaviour including recently in relation to the relatively robust Conservative vote in Hertsmere, Harrow and Barnet in the Euro elections. Of course we are going to make these observations on a site which discusses electoral behaviour. It is the defensiveness which is strange here. ' Maybe the Brexit party would have won if Muslims hadn't voted' etc - well there is no maybe about it. It is a certainty but it may be an irrelevant observation as far as Peterborough goes as there are muslim voters and many of them are entitled to vote, many of them no doubt are free to make their own choice of who to vote for and fill in their own postal vote etc. But there are very many constituencies - many Labour constituencies - where there are no muslim voters or not a statistically significant number, and without that we will see some very different results. If Labour supporters want to be triumphalist and complacent about this result, that's going to be fine with me. |
|
timmullen1
Labour
Closing account as BossMan declines to respond to messages seeking support.
Posts: 11,823
|
Post by timmullen1 on Jun 8, 2019 15:00:45 GMT
It may also be worth noting, and I don’t know if there will be numbers published to support or deny it, but following the Peterborough Telegraph live blog on the night Labour had a pretty sizeable wobble about 1am as they reckoned turnout in the predominantly Asian Wards was much lower than they were expecting. Maybe it was still enough to drag them over the line, but equally it may have depressed their vote share and majority noticeably.
|
|
