Expecting Corbyn to root out antisemitism is, to quote a German proverb, to give the billy-goat the job of gardener
172 Labour MPs tried to get rid of him in 2017 but the only way to remove his faction from power under the current rules would be if enough people paid 3 quid to become Labour members and voted against Corbyn or his successor
TIG robably came to the conclusion it's not possible
I'm hung up on this, because it looks like you're saying you need to pay to change parties, so I'm assuming I read it completely wrong.
Only if you want a say in how they are run. Bear in mind that general candidate selection etc is not generally something done by party members, so it's not like Primary season over there for example. Labour changed their rules a few years back to make the voting membership level a lot cheaper, the result being a flood of new folk voting for Corbyn under the Momentum banner.
Leadsom's the Boris superfan who lied on her CV and thinks you need to be a parent to be a good leader. Also vaguely remember her being into homeopathy in someway, but again I might be mixing my Tories.
The £3 thing entitled you to "registered supporter status" but it only entitled you to vote in a single leadership election and there is no telling if it will make a return if it doesn't benefit Corbyn
You can still sign up for £3 if you're under 19, a student or a current or former member of the armed forces but it's a separate thing from the supporter status which helped elect Corbyn (84% of those who bought their right to vote with the £3 voted Corbyn)
Platy on
0
Options
ceresWhen the last moon is cast over the last star of morningAnd the future has past without even a last desperate warningRegistered User, ModeratorMod Emeritus
edited April 2019
So... the Labour party, for all intents and purposes, has a patreon?
ceres on
And it seems like all is dying, and would leave the world to mourn
So... the Labour party, for all intents and purposes, has a patreon?
That's how parties work under a parliamentary system. It's not, like, a public institution. It's a political group and you pay to join and have a say in it's internal decisions.
The Jewish Labour Movement has passed a motion of no confidence in Jeremy Corbyn over the party's handling of antisemitism complaints.
The motion was "almost unanimously" approved at the Jewish affiliate's AGM on Sunday afternoon, according to its Twitter account.
Labour MPs Dame Margaret Hodge, Ruth Smeeth and Louise Ellman delivered "strong" speeches, JLM added.
Sky News has contacted Labour for a comment.
Speaking to Sky News before the meeting, national secretary Peter Mason said Jewish members of the party were "looking on in horror" at what has been happening in the party in recent years.
He also said the group would be prepared to consider voting to disassociate from the party, having previously warned the leadership it had to act on concerns.
Funny thing is how the main Labor movement is defending this:
Speaking before the vote, shadow attorney general Baroness Chakrabarti pleaded with JLM "not to personalise" the issue.
The frontbencher, who led a review into antisemitism allegations in the party, told Sky News: "My plea to the Jewish Labour Movement is to stay in the Labour movement and to tackle racism together, not to personalise it and make it about Jeremy Corbyn, because he is one person and he won't be leader forever."
Corbyn ain't moving despite repeatedly losing against the Tories and causing a party split, but somehow people shouldn't get fed up with him. Of course that Mason ain't having any of that. Corbyn is the party leader and the buck stops with him, and also:
Mr Mason said Jewish members were wrestling with the fact that their core identities both of being Jewish and being Labour members were being challenged.
He added: "It wasn't that long ago our parliamentary chair Luciana Berger resigned from the Labour Party citing antisemitism.
"Not that long ago we had a conversation about the party trying to redefine anti semitism."
"The Jewish community is looking on in horror. We have had this affiliation for 99 years and it looks like it could come to an end."
In my experience, when a political party is making pleas for "party unity", those only go towards the direction of the party leadership. Is just a way to shutdown criticism when that party leadership can't justify their positions.
In my experience, when a political party is making pleas for "party unity", those only go towards the direction of the party leadership. Is just a way to shutdown criticism when that party leadership can't justify their positions.
Funny, this feels true when the government calls for national unity as well.
In my experience, when a political party is making pleas for "party unity", those only go towards the direction of the party leadership. Is just a way to shutdown criticism when that party leadership can't justify their positions.
Funny, this feels true when the government calls for national unity as well.
While true, the Tories aren't the ones making the decisions in Labor, Corbyn is.
In my experience, when a political party is making pleas for "party unity", those only go towards the direction of the party leadership. Is just a way to shutdown criticism when that party leadership can't justify their positions.
Funny, this feels true when the government calls for national unity as well.
While true, the Tories aren't the ones making the decisions in Labor, Corbyn is.
Of course, but I've definitely seen "calls for unity" regarding the larger deadlock.
0
Options
ceresWhen the last moon is cast over the last star of morningAnd the future has past without even a last desperate warningRegistered User, ModeratorMod Emeritus
Funny thing is how the main Labor movement is defending this:
Speaking before the vote, shadow attorney general Baroness Chakrabarti pleaded with JLM "not to personalise" the issue.
The frontbencher, who led a review into antisemitism allegations in the party, told Sky News: "My plea to the Jewish Labour Movement is to stay in the Labour movement and to tackle racism together, not to personalise it and make it about Jeremy Corbyn, because he is one person and he won't be leader forever."
From me to her: Prove it.
And it seems like all is dying, and would leave the world to mourn
In my experience, when a political party is making pleas for "party unity", those only go towards the direction of the party leadership. Is just a way to shutdown criticism when that party leadership can't justify their positions.
Nah, it's also a way to tell people to stop engaging in ye olde circular firing squad. Sometimes people need to get their shit together and look at the bigger picture.
In my experience, when a political party is making pleas for "party unity", those only go towards the direction of the party leadership. Is just a way to shutdown criticism when that party leadership can't justify their positions.
Funny, this feels true when the government calls for national unity as well.
While true, the Tories aren't the ones making the decisions in Labor, Corbyn is.
Of course, but I've definitely seen "calls for unity" regarding the larger deadlock.
Which pretty much translates as "remainers need to get behind Brexit, specifically May's Brexit". As is normal for May's negotiating tactic of "so we'll do it my way and I won't compromise on literally anything, that cool with you?".
Funny thing is how the main Labor movement is defending this:
Speaking before the vote, shadow attorney general Baroness Chakrabarti pleaded with JLM "not to personalise" the issue.
The frontbencher, who led a review into antisemitism allegations in the party, told Sky News: "My plea to the Jewish Labour Movement is to stay in the Labour movement and to tackle racism together, not to personalise it and make it about Jeremy Corbyn, because he is one person and he won't be leader forever."
From me to her: Prove it.
Well, presumably he is mortal.
+1
Options
ElJeffeNot actually a mod.Roaming the streets, waving his gun around.Moderator, ClubPAMod Emeritus
Okay, I have a stupid question as a non-Brit type:
What would happen if the UK leaving the EU just resulted in defaulting to whatever UK-European relations existed (pertaining to trade, immigration, and whatnot) prior to the formation of the EU?
Is it that the pre-EU status quo sucked, or is it that the existence of the EU makes the dynamics so different that the suggestion doesn't even make sense? I know that this pre-dates the Good Friday agreement, so relations pertaining to Ireland would still be an issue, but I'm trying to better understand the idea that the whole notion of Brexit is fundamentally a nightmare.
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
The concept doesn't make sense, pretty much. Before the EU, the UK would negotiate trade with sovereign european nations*. That's no longer possible, because there is an EU umbrella framework in place for all those countries, so there is nothing to 'fall back' on - the UK now has to negotiate with the EU from the outside. Additionally, pretty much all international agreements with non-EU countries have been negotiated with the UK as part of the EU, so those would need to be completely redrawn from the ground up.
And yeah, Ireland/the irish border is the sticking point regardless of what trade agreements can be cobbled together.
It's kind of like arguing that Maryland could secede from the Union by just 'falling back' onto trade agreements with the other states that predate the Union. There's no continuous throughline that would make those agreements even make sense any more.
* ok yes as of most of the 20th century it's more complicated than that but even under the simplest possible framing it's still a logistical nightmare so
Okay, I have a stupid question as a non-Brit type:
What would happen if the UK leaving the EU just resulted in defaulting to whatever UK-European relations existed (pertaining to trade, immigration, and whatnot) prior to the formation of the EU?
Is it that the pre-EU status quo sucked, or is it that the existence of the EU makes the dynamics so different that the suggestion doesn't even make sense? I know that this pre-dates the Good Friday agreement, so relations pertaining to Ireland would still be an issue, but I'm trying to better understand the idea that the whole notion of Brexit is fundamentally a nightmare.
It's more the latter (there isn't really a sensible way to frame the question) - it means unwinding several decades of cumulated law and treaty, with the added dimension that large segments of the law governing the UK's interaction with other, non-EU countries has been delegated to the EU and no longer works if the UK is no longer a member state (because the relevant treaties simply no longer apply to it).
The "no-deal" scenario is effectively what you describe.
The concept doesn't make sense, pretty much. Before the EU, the UK would negotiate trade with sovereign european nations*. That's no longer possible, because there is an EU umbrella framework in place for all those countries, so there is nothing to 'fall back' on - the UK now has to negotiate with the EU from the outside. Additionally, pretty much all international agreements with non-EU countries have been negotiated with the UK as part of the EU, so those would need to be completely redrawn from the ground up.
And yeah, Ireland/the irish border is the sticking point regardless of what trade agreements can be cobbled together.
It's kind of like arguing that Maryland could secede from the Union by just 'falling back' onto trade agreements with the other states that predate the Union. There's no continuous throughline that would make those agreements even make sense any more.
* ok yes as of most of the 20th century it's more complicated than that but even under the simplest possible framing it's still a logistical nightmare so
Maybe think of it like asking why can't Texas leave the US and just go smoothly back with no hiccups to whatever Texas-US relationship existed back before Texas joined the union. Its more extreme in the Texas example to help draw out the answer: the world has changed significantly, Texas is deeply economically interwoven with the rest of the US, and simply no longer has the institutional knowledge that it used to have in order to run all the things that it had given up to the federal government to run. And, moreover, despite the groans of populists who threaten to leave the union over whatever latest outrage the federal government has foisted up Texas, a large part of the civil service and political leadership who need to actually perform the tasks of leaving don't actually want to leave, with the result that the task would probably get dumped down onto the less competent, with perhaps tragically comical results.
Also, doesn't Canada have a trade agreement that gets automatically updated if someone gets a better deal with the EU? Meaning that the EU would have to take that into consideration in any negotiations it may have with the UK.
There's also the wrinkle that in addition to needing to negotiate brand new agreements with non-EU nations, the UK needs to negotiate without being a market the size of the EU.
+8
Options
surrealitychecklonely, but not unloveddreaming of faulty keys and latchesRegistered Userregular
owen really not having a good few months here, cmon old boy
although entertainingly this kind of lobbying is not even formally against the rules, just restricted in how you can go about it, which is one of those absurdities of the british system that never really gets addressed
There's also the wrinkle that in addition to needing to negotiate brand new agreements with non-EU nations, the UK needs to negotiate without being a market the size of the EU.
And everybody outside of Brexiteers knows it and several countries around the world including the USA lead by Trump are really looking forward to sticking the boot in.
The sky was full of stars, every star an exploding ship. One of ours.
+2
Options
ElJeffeNot actually a mod.Roaming the streets, waving his gun around.Moderator, ClubPAMod Emeritus
Cool, thanks for the explanations, folks! I am now slightly less ignorant!
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
It seems that Speaker Bercow is getting so popular with his "OOORRRRRDDAAAAA - orrrddaaaa" calls to order that the UK Parliament has made a video about it. https://youtu.be/i9EQN-6v43I
To mix things up and be mad about something else for a moment, the headline of The Times today is someone calling for an end to the trans "experiment", expressing concerns for children in the NHS being allowed to undergo surgery without any evidence of long term effects.
Applying arguments about vaping to gender identity. I'm kind of impressed at how annoyed I am at it.
To mix things up and be mad about something else for a moment, the headline of The Times today is someone calling for an end to the trans "experiment", expressing concerns for children in the NHS being allowed to undergo surgery without any evidence of long term effects.
Applying arguments about vaping to gender identity. I'm kind of impressed at how annoyed I am at it.
Thats the headline?? Wow im really looking forward to how incredibly sued they are about to get. Fuck them.
To mix things up and be mad about something else for a moment, the headline of The Times today is someone calling for an end to the trans "experiment", expressing concerns for children in the NHS being allowed to undergo surgery without any evidence of long term effects.
Applying arguments about vaping to gender identity. I'm kind of impressed at how annoyed I am at it.
How would they get that "evidence of long term effects" anyway? Like, what studies are they proposing here?
Hah. Just kidding. Transphobes don't give a fuck about children's health.
Also "brexit weary britons long for political strongman"? The times has lost all credability it once had, what a trashfire of a newspaper it has become.
Also "brexit weary britons long for political strongman"? The times has lost all credability it once had, what a trashfire of a newspaper it has become.
I think there's always been a strong strain of wanting a strongman/strongwoman leader in the UK. Thatcher scratched that itch for many, Farage is doing it now. We're in the midst of problems we were told by those who won the referendum wouldn't happen. Someone needs to take the blame and it won't be them, but they can't solve them, so they'll promise strongman tactics short on detail and long on rhetoric about betrayal and make those yearning for quick and easy solutions happy.
key note about no deal support among leave voters (data from ucl/yougov, 5k sample size)
no deal is the favourite of those who just arent that worried about their finances...
I wouldn't be at all surprised if some of the very rich are planning to use the economic disaster of No Deal to buy up a bunch of companies or properties on the cheap and make bank that way.
+6
Options
Brovid Hasselsmof[Growling historic on the fury road]Registered Userregular
To mix things up and be mad about something else for a moment, the headline of The Times today is someone calling for an end to the trans "experiment", expressing concerns for children in the NHS being allowed to undergo surgery without any evidence of long term effects.
Applying arguments about vaping to gender identity. I'm kind of impressed at how annoyed I am at it.
An anti-trans story in the UK press? Must be a day ending in Y.
+24
Options
surrealitychecklonely, but not unloveddreaming of faulty keys and latchesRegistered Userregular
To mix things up and be mad about something else for a moment, the headline of The Times today is someone calling for an end to the trans "experiment", expressing concerns for children in the NHS being allowed to undergo surgery without any evidence of long term effects.
Applying arguments about vaping to gender identity. I'm kind of impressed at how annoyed I am at it.
An anti-trans story in the UK press? Must be a day ending in Y.
this stuff crosses borders - had a swedish friend recently asking about it because the uk stories were escaping there and she didnt really know what to say to her friends about it. lots of people with ugly feelings looking for something, anything, to legitimise them and the uk seems to be ground zero for a certain kind of middle aged middle class pseudo-educated transphobia of a particularly stupid kind
of course their concern never extends to trans men. very peculiar
Posts
Only if you want a say in how they are run. Bear in mind that general candidate selection etc is not generally something done by party members, so it's not like Primary season over there for example. Labour changed their rules a few years back to make the voting membership level a lot cheaper, the result being a flood of new folk voting for Corbyn under the Momentum banner.
D3 Steam #TeamTangent STO
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3
Leadsom's the Boris superfan who lied on her CV and thinks you need to be a parent to be a good leader. Also vaguely remember her being into homeopathy in someway, but again I might be mixing my Tories.
The £3 thing entitled you to "registered supporter status" but it only entitled you to vote in a single leadership election and there is no telling if it will make a return if it doesn't benefit Corbyn
You can still sign up for £3 if you're under 19, a student or a current or former member of the armed forces but it's a separate thing from the supporter status which helped elect Corbyn (84% of those who bought their right to vote with the £3 voted Corbyn)
That's how parties work under a parliamentary system. It's not, like, a public institution. It's a political group and you pay to join and have a say in it's internal decisions.
Funny thing is how the main Labor movement is defending this:
Corbyn ain't moving despite repeatedly losing against the Tories and causing a party split, but somehow people shouldn't get fed up with him. Of course that Mason ain't having any of that. Corbyn is the party leader and the buck stops with him, and also:
Funny, this feels true when the government calls for national unity as well.
While true, the Tories aren't the ones making the decisions in Labor, Corbyn is.
Of course, but I've definitely seen "calls for unity" regarding the larger deadlock.
From me to her: Prove it.
Nah, it's also a way to tell people to stop engaging in ye olde circular firing squad. Sometimes people need to get their shit together and look at the bigger picture.
Not in this case though.
Which pretty much translates as "remainers need to get behind Brexit, specifically May's Brexit". As is normal for May's negotiating tactic of "so we'll do it my way and I won't compromise on literally anything, that cool with you?".
Steam | XBL
Well, presumably he is mortal.
What would happen if the UK leaving the EU just resulted in defaulting to whatever UK-European relations existed (pertaining to trade, immigration, and whatnot) prior to the formation of the EU?
Is it that the pre-EU status quo sucked, or is it that the existence of the EU makes the dynamics so different that the suggestion doesn't even make sense? I know that this pre-dates the Good Friday agreement, so relations pertaining to Ireland would still be an issue, but I'm trying to better understand the idea that the whole notion of Brexit is fundamentally a nightmare.
And yeah, Ireland/the irish border is the sticking point regardless of what trade agreements can be cobbled together.
It's kind of like arguing that Maryland could secede from the Union by just 'falling back' onto trade agreements with the other states that predate the Union. There's no continuous throughline that would make those agreements even make sense any more.
* ok yes as of most of the 20th century it's more complicated than that but even under the simplest possible framing it's still a logistical nightmare so
It's more the latter (there isn't really a sensible way to frame the question) - it means unwinding several decades of cumulated law and treaty, with the added dimension that large segments of the law governing the UK's interaction with other, non-EU countries has been delegated to the EU and no longer works if the UK is no longer a member state (because the relevant treaties simply no longer apply to it).
The "no-deal" scenario is effectively what you describe.
The UK has been part of the European project for 46 years
Maybe think of it like asking why can't Texas leave the US and just go smoothly back with no hiccups to whatever Texas-US relationship existed back before Texas joined the union. Its more extreme in the Texas example to help draw out the answer: the world has changed significantly, Texas is deeply economically interwoven with the rest of the US, and simply no longer has the institutional knowledge that it used to have in order to run all the things that it had given up to the federal government to run. And, moreover, despite the groans of populists who threaten to leave the union over whatever latest outrage the federal government has foisted up Texas, a large part of the civil service and political leadership who need to actually perform the tasks of leaving don't actually want to leave, with the result that the task would probably get dumped down onto the less competent, with perhaps tragically comical results.
owen really not having a good few months here, cmon old boy
although entertainingly this kind of lobbying is not even formally against the rules, just restricted in how you can go about it, which is one of those absurdities of the british system that never really gets addressed
And everybody outside of Brexiteers knows it and several countries around the world including the USA lead by Trump are really looking forward to sticking the boot in.
Applying arguments about vaping to gender identity. I'm kind of impressed at how annoyed I am at it.
Thats the headline?? Wow im really looking forward to how incredibly sued they are about to get. Fuck them.
Links to a fairly short but interesting blog post.
Steam | XBL
How would they get that "evidence of long term effects" anyway? Like, what studies are they proposing here?
Hah. Just kidding. Transphobes don't give a fuck about children's health.
The Graun is reporting on what I assume is the same story, but with a slightly less pants-on-head headline: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/apr/08/uk-more-willing-embrace-authoritarianism-warn-hansard-audit-political-engagement
Steam | XBL
no deal is the favourite of those who just arent that worried about their finances...
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3
I wouldn't be at all surprised if some of the very rich are planning to use the economic disaster of No Deal to buy up a bunch of companies or properties on the cheap and make bank that way.
An anti-trans story in the UK press? Must be a day ending in Y.
this stuff crosses borders - had a swedish friend recently asking about it because the uk stories were escaping there and she didnt really know what to say to her friends about it. lots of people with ugly feelings looking for something, anything, to legitimise them and the uk seems to be ground zero for a certain kind of middle aged middle class pseudo-educated transphobia of a particularly stupid kind
of course their concern never extends to trans men. very peculiar