A change in British politics... or a blip?

[rory_20_uk]

In the last few days there's been MPs leaving both the Labour and now the Conservative Party. The stated reasons are rather radically different - anti-semetism in the former case and screwing up Brexit in the latter.

So as things stand, the group appears to stand for little beyond not wanting to be part of the others. Coupled with our dreadful First Past the Post, minority groups have a nasty habit of being subsumed / destroyed "a vote for a third party will give the other block you hate more a better chance!"

Might this be a catalyst for actual change to the Politics in the UK, or will this be another brief flash in the pan?

~:smoking:

[Beskar]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l8XOZJkozfI

[rory_20_uk]

I've seen all of Mr Grey's videos. The rules for rulers was my favourite and I've read the book behind it. Very enlightening.

You might be unaware that a couple of years ago there was a vote on whether we'd move from First Past the Post to single transferrable vote. And people voted to remain with the status quo... Yet these videos clearly demonstrate in about 5 minutes how the system we have is pretty much worse than any alternative.

Is it that a semi-professional has more insight and clarity than the entire UK government - or was there in fact no desire to change the system that works well for the current politicians and their needs.

~:smoking:

[Beskar]

You might be unaware that a couple of years ago there was a vote on whether we'd move from First Past the Post to single transferrable vote. And people voted to remain with the status quo... Yet these videos clearly demonstrate in about 5 minutes how the system we have is pretty much worse than any alternative.

It was a vote on replacing FPTP with Alternative-Vote (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Y3jE3B8HsE) (not STV). It was a Referendum which got zero support in Parliament other than the Lib-dems in the Lib-dem Tory coalition. The Referendum was mandated by the Lib-dems as a condition of coalition.

This lack of support feeds into your ending point. The current system benefits the two-party system (arguably now one-party) and by opening it up, it reduces their power.

[Tuuvi]

Just curious, what's the basis for the allegations that the Labour party is anti-Semetic?

[Pannonian]

Just curious, what's the basis for the allegations that the Labour party is anti-Semetic?

The ruling faction is full of people who perpetuate anti-semitic myths. Do you remember the opening episode of West Wing where this right wing Christian fundie rails against east coast liberals and Tobie reads this (correctly) as Jews? There are left wing equivalents for this anti-semitic vocab, and it's become currency among the ruling faction in Labour. And because it's currency in the ruling faction, it's also become institutionalised. Complaints about anti-semitism have to push against a lot of friction as they typically get lost up the chain, with one of the departing MPs having had death threats against her covered up.

[Beskar]

As Fragony used to point out, the hard-left has a love-affair with the Palestinian movement to an almost irrational level. This feeds into a lot of anti-Israel and further down the line, anti-Jewish sentiment. This strange alliance also resulted in the Respect party of 2004-2007. I think this is part of the opposite to general right-wing conservative support of Israel. As Corbyn's supporters are from individuals from the Palestinian side of the fence, there was resultant attitude to accept the full definition of the IHRA examples last year which made the head-lines and Labour bowed too under pressure.

Outside of the Palestinian-esque arguments, I haven't seen any anti-semitic attitudes as a rule or principle. To me it seems to be focused on this particular hotbed of controversy.

[Pannonian]

As Fragony used to point out, the hard-left has a love-affair with the Palestinian movement to an almost irrational level. This feeds into a lot of anti-Israel and further down the line, anti-Jewish sentiment. This strange alliance also resulted in the Respect party of 2004-2007. I think this is part of the opposite to general right-wing conservative support of Israel. As Corbyn's supporters are from individuals from the Palestinian side of the fence, there was resultant attitude to accept the full definition of the IHRA examples last year which made the head-lines and Labour bowed too under pressure.

Outside of the Palestinian-esque arguments, I haven't seen any anti-semitic attitudes as a rule or principle. To me it seems to be focused on this particular hotbed of controversy.

The global rule of bankers and media is the left's version of the US Right's complaints about east coast liberals. The Rothschild myth is the left's version of the blood libel. The latter has only made rare appearances from Corbyn's mates (although it has made appearances), but the former is mainstream in the Labour party, even after the Chakrabarti report. Ironically, during the launch for the Chakrabarti report, a Jewish Labour MP was confronted by one of Corbyn's long time friends with precisely these accusations. And when said MP complained to the attending Corbyn about this, he backed his friend rather than the MP.

[Furunculus]

Just curious, what's the basis for the allegations that the Labour party is anti-Semetic?

my own thought is that the problem derives from the neoprogressive view that all relations must be understood through power and oppression of identity groups:
there is no room for any alternative motivation when looking at how one group relates to another, not affection, affinity, self interest, just power and oppression.
power held by one group, used to oppress another.

derida has a lot to answer for, as even though 90% of the identitarian left have never heard of him he has poisoned their view of the world.
and of course we now have the alt-right who choose to see world through the same distorted prism, with themselves as the unjustly 'oppressed'.

back to israel:
it has a problem, they are deemed to have power in the mythology of the left (the protocols of the elders of zion), and there is a group they are intimately associated with who are considered to be more oppressed (those poor old palestinians).
when you view the world solely through identity politics then it is impossible for israel and israeli's to present as anything more than an exploitative oppressor.

when i describe myself as a classical liberal, this above is the antithesis of that view:
I couldn't give a flying buck about [your] group identity, how oppressed it is, or how concerned you are about the legitimacy of your grievance against your notional oppressor.
I care about people, not groups, and my prime political motivation is that people are treated decently, with justice and equity.
but that is not the reality that the identitarian left and right exist within.

that CPG Gray vid suffers from a similar problem; an obsession with group identity. of course there is no way i would vote for a black man, or a woman, or a disabled person! irony alert.

this being a great example:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6733909/John-McDonnell-said-Britons-fought-Israel-stripped-British-citizenship.html
our John is totally justified in believing that a brit fighting for israel deserves removal of citizenship, where he is at worst indifferent to the plight of shamima the headhacker bride. power and oppression.

and another:
https://twitter.com/PureGodfrey/status/1099040636177649664

[Furunculus]

In the last few days there's been MPs leaving both the Labour and now the Conservative Party. The stated reasons are rather radically different - anti-semetism in the former case and screwing up Brexit in the latter.

So as things stand, the group appears to stand for little beyond not wanting to be part of the others. Coupled with our dreadful First Past the Post, minority groups have a nasty habit of being subsumed / destroyed "a vote for a third party will give the other block you hate more a better chance!"

Might this be a catalyst for actual change to the Politics in the UK, or will this be another brief flash in the pan?

~:smoking:

Yes, brexit breaks all of the assumptions that underpin the status quo.

Nothing is sacred, and an institution's survival is only guaranteed by reinventing itself faster than the world is changing to ensure it remains perceived as relevant to the problems of the future.

tories / labour / fptp / monarchy / nhs / nukes

All of it!

[Husar]

Yes, brexit breaks all of the assumptions that underpin the status quo.

Nothing is sacred, and an institution's survival is only guaranteed by reinventing itself faster than the world is changing to ensure it remains perceived as relevant to the problems of the future.

tories / labour / fptp / monarchy / nhs / nukes

All of it!

The neoliberal marketization of everything. :laugh4:

[Furunculus]

i'm sorry, i can't tell; is this a serious response, or are you 'triggering' me?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

i'm sorry, i can't tell; is this a serious response, or are you 'triggering' me?

The two goals are not incommensurate.

[Husar]

i'm sorry, i can't tell; is this a serious response, or are you 'triggering' me?

What Seamus said. It sounds a bit like you would replace the government entirely with an unelected corporation if "the market for organizations" led to that. Putting every aspect of life under the dictate of the market is neoliberalism at its best.
That this would trigger you was just an added benefit. ~;)

[Furunculus]

What Seamus said. It sounds a bit like you would replace the government entirely with an unelected corporation if "the market for organizations" led to that. Putting every aspect of life under the dictate of the market is neoliberalism at its best.
That this would trigger you was just an added benefit. ~;)

since I am certain you have noticed that i didn't mention "market" once or allude to market solutions in any way, i'm going to presume you are having fun rather than providing a serious answer.

that understood, rather than point out that there are hundreds of years of liberal thought before the word "teh-neolibz" was ever heard, i'm going to ask you to stop having 'fun'.

i go to some effort to put time and thought into my replies and i would like to do you the same courtesy with yours, but hey, i'm a busy chap and i'd rather my response was not to simply ignore what you say.

what do you say?

[Montmorency]

my own thought is that the problem derives from the neoprogressive view that all relations must be understood through power and oppression of identity groups:
there is no room for any alternative motivation when looking at how one group relates to another, not affection, affinity, self interest, just power and oppression.
power held by one group, used to oppress another.

derida has a lot to answer for, as even though 90% of the identitarian left have never heard of him he has poisoned their view of the world.
and of course we now have the alt-right who choose to see world through the same distorted prism, with themselves as the unjustly 'oppressed'.

back to israel:
it has a problem, they are deemed to have power in the mythology of the left (the protocols of the elders of zion), and there is a group they are intimately associated with who are considered to be more oppressed (those poor old palestinians).
when you view the world solely through identity politics then it is impossible for israel and israeli's to present as anything more than an exploitative oppressor.

when i describe myself as a classical liberal, this above is the antithesis of that view:
I couldn't give a flying buck about [your] group identity, how oppressed it is, or how concerned you are about the legitimacy of your grievance against your notional oppressor.
I care about people, not groups, and my prime political motivation is that people are treated decently, with justice and equity.
but that is not the reality that the identitarian left and right exist within.

that CPG Gray vid suffers from a similar problem; an obsession with group identity. of course there is no way i would vote for a black man, or a woman, or a disabled person! irony alert.

this being a great example:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6733909/John-McDonnell-said-Britons-fought-Israel-stripped-British-citizenship.html
our John is totally justified in believing that a brit fighting for israel deserves removal of citizenship, where he is at worst indifferent to the plight of shamima the headhacker bride. power and oppression.

and another:
https://twitter.com/PureGodfrey/status/1099040636177649664

I'm sorry, but that all seems well off the mark for me, the heap of straw beneath the right-liberal dogma.

I have a simpler treatment: both the European right and left have always harbored anti-Semitism. Today overall less so, because less so by general society. Stereotypes persist today because of the long-declining consciousness of Jewishness (as opposed to foreign policy toward Israel) within Europe.

[Furunculus]

i'm happy to accept that what you list is [a] factor... in general terms for people at large.

but not a useful explanation for the curiosity of the avowedly "anti-racist" left in uk politics... who seem to have a real problem with teh-jews.

[Husar]

since I am certain you have noticed that i didn't mention "market" once or allude to market solutions in any way, i'm going to presume you are having fun rather than providing a serious answer.

Let me quoite what you said:


Nothing is sacred, and an institution's survival is only guaranteed by reinventing itself faster than the world is changing to ensure it remains perceived as relevant to the problems of the future.

This applies to every corporation on a market, if it doesn't change with the market, its survival isn't guaranteed. So please excuse me for thinking of a market when you didn't say the word but described a market mechanic instead.


i go to some effort to put time and thought into my replies and i would like to do you the same courtesy with yours, but hey, i'm a busy chap and i'd rather my response was not to simply ignore what you say.

As you can see above, I did think about your post, but apparently I get mocked for it... :shrug:

Without interpreting your post in any way, what exactly are you talking about? It's just a heavily generic statement that I can't apply to anything. Give an example. How does it apply to Brexit? The institution of the EU isn't dead and seems to survive quite well so far, so how does what you say even apply? Or how does Brexit even change anything radically given that the French revolution showed that the survival of the insitution of monarchy wasn't guaranteed? A much larger event than your puny Brexit given that monarchy was around for far, far longer than the EU or whatever you're talking about.

[Montmorency]

i'm happy to accept that what you list is [a] factor... in general terms for people at large.

but not a useful explanation for the curiosity of the avowedly "anti-racist" left in uk politics... who seem to have a real problem with teh-jews.

Does it though? I don't know enough about British politics to hash out the competing accounts of the state of affairs there, or the character of the party leadership. Are anti-Corbyn critics more genuine than ideological? Are pro-Corbyn white knights more genuine than ideological? How is the situation to be compared with other parties or civil society at large (https://www.jpr.org.uk/publication?id=9993)? The major report (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chakrabarti_Inquiry) on the Labour Party at least says:


The report concluded that the party "is not overrun by anti-Semitism, Islamophobia, or other forms of racism," but has suffered from an "occasionally toxic atmosphere" and "too much clear evidence [of] ignorant attitudes".

As for the study linked above that, it offers interesting conclusions:

(1) Left-identifying individuals harbor fewer, or are less likely to harbor, anti-semitic attitudes than right-identifying ones, but only on the margins because in general the British population is fairly internally-consistent in this regard
(2) There may be a strong perception against Labour in the Jewish community, as Jewish support for Labour has dropped considerably in recent years
(3) 4% of the population is classified in the study as unambiguously anti-Semitic, but 13% of Muslims are classified so

[Furunculus]

you have said... some stuff... but i don't see that any of it contradicts my hypothesis.

[Montmorency]

you have said... some stuff... but i don't see that any of it contradicts my hypothesis.

If you're talking to me, your hypothesis had its basis in wrong premises about the scary "idpol". :shrug:

So the premises are wrong, and the empirical picture of a "problem" you're trying to explain is unclear at best, divergent at worst - what do you want?

[Gilrandir]

my own thought is that the problem derives from the neoprogressive view that all relations must be understood through power and oppression of identity groups:
there is no room for any alternative motivation when looking at how one group relates to another, not affection, affinity, self interest, just power and oppression.
power held by one group, used to oppress another.

derida has a lot to answer for, as even though 90% of the identitarian left have never heard of him he has poisoned their view of the world.
and of course we now have the alt-right who choose to see world through the same distorted prism, with themselves as the unjustly 'oppressed'.

back to israel:
it has a problem, they are deemed to have power in the mythology of the left (the protocols of the elders of zion), and there is a group they are intimately associated with who are considered to be more oppressed (those poor old palestinians).
when you view the world solely through identity politics then it is impossible for israel and israeli's to present as anything more than an exploitative oppressor.

when i describe myself as a classical liberal, this above is the antithesis of that view:
I couldn't give a flying buck about [your] group identity, how oppressed it is, or how concerned you are about the legitimacy of your grievance against your notional oppressor.
I care about people, not groups, and my prime political motivation is that people are treated decently, with justice and equity.
but that is not the reality that the identitarian left and right exist within.

that CPG Gray vid suffers from a similar problem; an obsession with group identity. of course there is no way i would vote for a black man, or a woman, or a disabled person! irony alert.

this being a great example:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6733909/John-McDonnell-said-Britons-fought-Israel-stripped-British-citizenship.html
our John is totally justified in believing that a brit fighting for israel deserves removal of citizenship, where he is at worst indifferent to the plight of shamima the headhacker bride. power and oppression.

and another:
https://twitter.com/PureGodfrey/status/1099040636177649664

AND

but hey, i'm a busy chap




The two posts are

incommensurate.

[Furunculus]

Let me quoite what you said:
This applies to every corporation on a market, if it doesn't change with the market, its survival isn't guaranteed. So please excuse me for thinking of a market when you didn't say the word but described a market mechanic instead.

Without interpreting your post in any way, what exactly are you talking about? It's just a heavily generic statement that I can't apply to anything. Give an example. How does it apply to Brexit? The institution of the EU isn't dead and seems to survive quite well so far, so how does what you say even apply? Or how does Brexit even change anything radically given that the French revolution showed that the survival of the insitution of monarchy wasn't guaranteed? A much larger event than your puny Brexit given that monarchy was around for far, far longer than the EU or whatever you're talking about.

no. any link to the market or market solutions is something you have inferred, and not something mentioned, implied or intended in my original text.

it isn't a complex idea, or even a controversial one. simply put:
most things in life are quasi stable, we recognise and rail against this fact when we complain about stasis in all manner of domains.
however, life throws curve-balls, and some of these changes are so disruptive that they dislodge the domain from its quasi stable state.
equilibrium always returns, but that does not mean that the new quasi-stable state is anything similar to the status-quo-ante.

this basic truth applies to politics, it applies to climate change, it applies to almost all complex systems.

my point - in the context of how this rule applies to politics - is that the institutions form in response to the quasi-stable state, and the longer that state endure the more they ossify and the more their perceived validity becomes an unconscious assumption.
however, if you introduce such violent change that the world ends up in a new quasi stable state, then those ossified institutions no longer fit the world they exist to shape, and people are forced to question those unconscious assumptions.

in this new post-brexit world it is hubris of the highest order to assume that [your] favoured institutions will still be universally upheld as valuable and worthy of continued support.

this applies to the political parties (tories, labour, etc)
this applies to social institutions (such as the NHS)
this applies to political institutions (such as fptp voting and monarchy)
this applies to defence and foreign policy (i.e. our activist FP and continued nuclear posture)
and yes, it does apply to the accepted business climate (how the public wants to interact with the market)

hopefully this is not too generic?

[Furunculus]

If you're talking to me, your hypothesis had its basis in wrong premises about the scary "idpol". :shrug:

So the premises are wrong, and the empirical picture of a "problem" you're trying to explain is unclear at best, divergent at worst - what do you want?

You haven't really convinced me here that I am wrong...

I note with interest the contributions of Pannonian and Beskar on the question on antisemitism in Labour, and I do not disagree.
I am also happy to accept the point you made more generally about people.
I do question how much weight we should give to a report written about labour antisemitism... from within the party itself. Conflict of interest, much?

All of these are valuable additions, but i've read nothing here that would invalidate my hypothesis as [a] cause for the VERY real problem within UK Labour.

edit - more power/oppression fun:
https://voxpoliticalonline.com/2019/02/23/there-may-be-another-motive-behind-the-resignations-of-all-these-labour-friends-of-israel/

[Husar]

in this new post-brexit world it is hubris of the highest order to assume that [your] favoured institutions will still be universally upheld as valuable and worthy of continued support.

this applies to the political parties (tories, labour, etc)
this applies to social institutions (such as the NHS)
this applies to political institutions (such as fptp voting and monarchy)
this applies to defence and foreign policy (i.e. our activist FP and continued nuclear posture)
and yes, it does apply to the accepted business climate (how the public wants to interact with the market)

hopefully this is not too generic?

No, it's not, I just don't see how this "new post-brexit world" extends beyond Britain itself for now. Maybe it's hubris to assume that Britain leaving the EU will have very strong effects beyond Britain. I'm not saying we won't be affected at all, but probably not as strongly as Britain itself. It might be quite telling that all your examples are about Britain. I don't see Brexit leading to the end of the German healthcare system or even the EU as I said earlier. What some here do see though, is more business contracts that aren't given to UK companies anymore... In that sense your point is quite valid, yes.

What's funny in this regard, is that the Brexit campaign promised more NHS funding and now you say the end of the NHS is now a possibility. :laugh4:

[Furunculus]

You have built a straw man based on the absurdity that i am talking about something beyond britain, when in fact i am iillustrating an example within britain.

this is a universal phenomena, but it so happens that i am describing a local cause and effect.

[Husar]

You have built a straw man based on the absurdity that i am talking about something beyond britain, when in fact i am iillustrating an example within britain.

this is a universal phenomena, but it so happens that i am describing a local cause and effect.

Yes, my mistake indeed. I reread your original post and see where I went wrong. :bow:

[Furunculus]

AND



The two posts are

I'm not quite sure what you're saying, but you've managed to get "incomensurate" into a sentence, so I'll chuck in a 'thanks'.

[Gilrandir]

I'm not quite sure what you're saying, but you've managed to get "incomensurate" into a sentence, so I'll chuck in a 'thanks'.

I tried to point to incompatibility of being a busy chap and the previous long post with a couple of links. Evidently, when you are interested in discussion being busy doesn't matter.

[Furunculus]

I tried to point to incompatibility of being a busy chap and the previous long post with a couple of links. Evidently, when you are interested in discussion being busy doesn't matter.

When I feel like the time and effort is well spent, sure. That is what we were ascertaining in my subsequent post. ;)

[Montmorency]

You haven't really convinced me here that I am wrong...

I note with interest the contributions of Pannonian and Beskar on the question on antisemitism in Labour, and I do not disagree.
I am also happy to accept the point you made more generally about people.
I do question how much weight we should give to a report written about labour antisemitism... from within the party itself. Conflict of interest, much?

All of these are valuable additions, but i've read nothing here that would invalidate my hypothesis as [a] cause for the VERY real problem within UK Labour.

edit - more power/oppression fun:
https://voxpoliticalonline.com/2019/02/23/there-may-be-another-motive-behind-the-resignations-of-all-these-labour-friends-of-israel/

The internal Labour report is the one either you or Pan previously referenced, I'm just relaying its conclusion. On the other hand, the Institute for Jewish Policy Research study (https://www.jpr.org.uk/documents/JPR.2017.Antisemitism_in_contemporary_Great_Britain.pdf) (linked in previous post) of British antisemitism indicates that among left-identifying individuals anti-Semitism is at worst of equivalent grade to that within broader society, at best lesser than that seen among right-identifying individuals. If you believe that contemporary Labour is anti-Semitic, then what is your concept of how this manifests? Is your position that the current Labour leadership is markedly more anti-Semitic than the general party membership, and that Labour defenders are more ideologically-committed to their position vis-a-vis the evidence on the subject than Labour detractors are? The evidence I have seen is not strong enough to accept such an interpretation (and therefore trying to rationalize it ex ante from some stereotypical concept of power relations among the Left is premature, besides being wrong for its own sake).

I appreciate your linked article speculating on the Labour defectors conflating anti-Israel with anti-Semitic in establishing their political commitments, but in the end it would take me too much time to figure out who's right or wrong on this single point.



No, it's not, I just don't see how this "new post-brexit world" extends beyond Britain itself for now. Maybe it's hubris to assume that Britain leaving the EU will have very strong effects beyond Britain. I'm not saying we won't be affected at all, but probably not as strongly as Britain itself. It might be quite telling that all your examples are about Britain. I don't see Brexit leading to the end of the German healthcare system or even the EU as I said earlier. What some here do see though, is more business contracts that aren't given to UK companies anymore... In that sense your point is quite valid, yes.

What's funny in this regard, is that the Brexit campaign promised more NHS funding and now you say the end of the NHS is now a possibility. :laugh4:

Global terms, the collapse of traditional consensus and the feeling that the field of possibilities has opened up for any and all revisionism. Brexit is just one manifestation, but no one is immune.

[Furunculus]

alas, i am not a labour insider/activist/supporter/voter, so I find myself far removed from the truth of the matter.

i have the outsider's perspective of watching labour insiders give uncritical support to Palestine and unsympathetic criticism of Israel, watchings news reports of internal investigations of antisemitism, and seeing jewish labour MP's have a generally miserable life from labour Momemtum activists.

maybe Pannonian can give us a deeper view, (though both Beskar and Pan have already produced plausible responses). Mine merely acts as a possible root explanation for the behaviour they describe.

[Husar]

Global terms, the collapse of traditional consensus and the feeling that the field of possibilities has opened up for any and all revisionism. Brexit is just one manifestation, but no one is immune.

Do you just want to rub in that I based my answer on a misinterpretation? ~;)

I meant that you can't tell anyone in specific has actually been infected until they begin to cough, but that was because I confused this with the exit negotiations topic and thought Furinculus was specifically talking about the EU going down. Which was a mistake. See, now you made me live through it again. Happy now?!? :wall: :creep::clown:

[Furunculus]

hmmm, problem hasn't gone away:

https://twitter.com/make_trouble/status/1101180935540756481