Politics Thread (encompassing Brexit) - 21 June 2017 onwards

[Guest]

The group have put an article out via the Guardian:

 

Jeremy Corbyn celebrated Passover with us. It’s a simple good news story

Jewdas

As a radical Jewish collective, we were delighted Corbyn came to our seder. To claim we are not ‘real’ Jews is offensive and antisemitic 

 

Published:16:37 BST Tue 3 April 2018

 Follow Jewdas

‘If you’re determined to brand Jeremy Corbyn an antisemite, it seems that literally any story will do.’ Photograph: David Hartley/Rex/Shutterstock

We are a group of British Jews who are deeply proud of being Jewish. We have always put humour and satire at the heart of what we do – because, frankly, politics and religion are far too dull otherwise. But don’t be mistaken: we are completely serious about what we do.

Since 2005, we have attempted to build a community based around activist, socialist and diasporist Judaism in the UK. While most of us are also active in our local synagogues and other Jewish cultural organisations, only together have we felt able to build the kind of freethinking, traditionally radical Judaism that is needed in the 21st century.

Jewdas: political activists who make fun of communal bodies

Over those 13 years we have held many events. We have hosted Rootless Cosmopolitan Yeshivas, and Jewish study nights, where participants learn about Talmud, philosophy, and Jewish poetry. We organised the East London Sukkah – a week-long festival in Hackney City Farm, packed with music, film and interfaith events. We coordinated a film festival at the Rio Cinema in Dalston, showcasing a documentary about the long tradition of Jewish socialist and anarchist activism.

AdvertisementHide

 

We organised a concert of classical Judeo-Arabic music in a synagogue, harking back to a rich tradition of Jewish-Islamic co-operation. We have regularly called out, condemned and marched against neo-fascists, such as when far-right groups attempted to demonstrate in Stamford Hill and Golders Green. We have regularly spoken out against antisemitism on both the right and the left. We organise Friday night dinners, festival gatherings and community celebrations.

We created the organisation Babel’s Blessing – a radical language school that teaches diaspora languages and uses the profits to offer free English classes to migrants in the UK. And we have organised a large number of life-affirming and deeply Jewish parties attended by hundreds of young Jews and their friends – from the legendary Punk Purim in 2005, to our most recent Purim Queer Cabaret, only a month ago.

Many young Jews have told us that without our activities they would have left Judaism altogether, dismayed by strands in the Jewish world which grow ever more rightwing, closed-minded, and nationalistic.

We are one chain in a long historical tradition of radical Judaism, both in Britain and abroad. We particularly celebrate the heritage of the Jewish Labour Bund, the great Jewish socialist organisation that had a huge following in Russia and eastern Europe in the first half of the 20th century. Last night we paid tribute to an old Bundist friend – Chaim Neslen – who died only days ago. We hope to uphold the traditions that Chaim and others built.

One event that we organise every year is a Passover seder, demonstrating the importance this Jewish holiday has for all of us. We have always tried to blend traditional rituals with radical commentaries, following the traditions and practices of progressive Jews for well over 100 years. A socialist understanding of the seder is deeply in keeping with the traditional texts that we read, particularly the famous Aramaic declaration Ha Lachma Anya: “This is the bread of oppression that our ancestors ate in the land of Egypt. Let all who are hungry come and eat, let all who are in need come and share our Passover”.

Initially small-scale private events, these have grown every year as more people wanted to come, attracted by the joyful atmosphere, warm community and serious religious and cultural reflection. Around 100 people attended this year, almost all of them Jewish.

When this year a friend and constituent of Jeremy Corbyn invited him to attend, he accepted the invitation. He came, bringing horseradish from his own allotment for use on the communal seder plate (the horseradish symbolises the bitterness the Israelites experienced as slaves to Pharaoh in Egypt). He sat attentively through a four-hour event, agreeing gamely to read the Elijah’s cup section when asked. He participated fully, and chatted afterwards to many attendees. We were very happy to have him as a guest, and he was happy to join us.

In a normal situation, you might think that the leader of the opposition attending a seder with a group of 100 young, committed Jews might be a simple good news story. But if you’re determined to brand Jeremy Corbyn an antisemite, it seems that literally any story will do.

'I learned a lot': Corbyn defends taking part in radical Jewish event

We have grown used to being smeared as self-hating Jews. But labelling us a source of “virulent antisemitism” as the Board of Deputies leader, Jonathan Arkush, did today is seriously scraping the barrel. The truth is, we love Judaism and Jewish culture, as every one of our events demonstrates.

The idea that there is a “mainstream Jewish community” is a fiction, promoted by a group of self-selecting individuals and institutions who have run out of ideas. There are approximately 300,000 Jews in Britain, with a huge diversity of religious and political ideas represented among them.

No single organisation can speak for us all. To claim that we in Jewdas are somehow not real Jews is offensive, and frankly antisemitic. Chag Sameach to everyone – wishing you all a happy Passover. May we use this festival to liberate ourselves from all oppression and stand up for justice everywhere.

• Jewdas is a radical Jewish collective based in the UK

[Buce]

58 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

I'm putting faith in the idea that only a very small proportion of nutters who say that they're ready and willing to die to go to Paradise will actually go through with it, and that those people will never be in charge of a nation in enough strength or long enough to threaten the existence of the Israeli state in any meaningful and tangible manner (all of this being the only circumstance I can think of where Israel would actually have to use its nuclear arsenal).

 

You are assuming that there will be a nation-state to target - militarily, the greatest threat to Israel now is Hezbollah. It is also reasonable to assume that nukes would only be used if and when it became apparent that they were going to lose a conventional war. By that time, nuking a foreign capital would be too late to call off the dogs. Israel's nuclear deterrent is a bluff, which is why they spend so much of their GDP on conventional defence. What would really happen, should they be in a position where defeat looked likely, is that America would intervene on their side.

[leicsmac]

2 minutes ago, Buce said:

 

You are assuming that there will be a nation-state to target - militarily, the greatest threat to Israel now is Hezbollah. It is also reasonable to assume that nukes would only be used if and when it became apparent that they were going to lose a conventional war. By that time, nuking a foreign capital would be too late to call off the dogs. Israel's nuclear deterrent is a bluff, which is why they spend so much of their GDP on conventional defence. What would really happen, should they be in a position where defeat looked likely, is that America would intervene on their side.

I don't disagree. I guess that my point is that groups like Hezbollah and other associated nation-states can talk all they like - they're never going to be in a position to destroy the Israeli state, for all of the above reasons (you make a good point about American intervention before a nuclear option is considered).

 

Of course given past Israel is going to look out for itself but the narrative that it is under actual, tangible and realistic existential threat that can be carried out (as opposed to the by comparison low-grade warfare going on in that area now) is false IMO.

[Alf Bentley]

Serious error by Corbyn to attend this Jewdas event when he did. It would have been fine to attend after the Party had tightened its procedures on antisemitism, or had met mainstream Jewish representatives to discuss the problem. But attending as a first response risks being seen as a deliberate snub - and, frankly, it was probably intended as such.

 

Don't get me wrong. I don't think this means either that Corbyn is antisemitic or that Labour will not take antisemitism seriously. But it is yet another bit of short-sighted, narrow-minded "we know best" attitude. Rubbish politics, rubbish PR.

 

Yes, some of the people attacking Corbyn have an agenda (papers, political opponents, Jewish elements with an uncritically pro-Israel stance). But some of the people expressing dismay at Labour inaction on antisemitism do NOT have an agenda. They have genuine, justified concerns. Attending this event now gives the impression (hopefully a false impression) that they will not be taken seriously. It is like the act of a petulant teenager (sorry, teenagers!): "You're not going to boss me about! I'm going to do this to spite you, regardless of consequences, because I know best!" Typical Hard Left moral self-righteousness and egotism, frankly.

 

This does two other things: it further strains party unity and it keeps the issue high up the media agenda. Both of those consequences were entirely obvious. While Corbyn is no genius, he isn't a fool either, so the consequences would have been clear to him and his advisors....yet the egotism of saying "we know best who are the good Jews" took precedence. Given those consequences, his decision was unforgivable.

 

Ffs! We have a weak, incompetent and divided govt. Arguably the most important political issue for 70 years (Brexit) is reaching a critical phase. The country faces all sorts of economic and social issues. And the Labour leadership wilfully opts to create a divisive, alienating distraction?!?

 

He could have met with the Board of Deputies, built bridges where possible, politely disagreed where appropriate (e.g. Israeli excesses), taken on board any good ideas for tackling antisemitism, then met Jewdas at a later date, with no media furore.....all the while being in a better position to reunite the party, to be a strong, smart opposition and to be ready to win votes and form a govt, if the opportunity arises. I despair at the irresponsibility! I'm sure some Tory supporters are rubbing their hands with glee, but these are seriously high-risk times. More than ever, we deserve and need a competent govt and a competent opposition, but we seem to have neither.

[Sharpe's Fox]

so many antisemites on this forum deciding which Jews are good enough to meet with smh. 

[Guest]

I think JRM is slowly being put back in his box. MPs, including his party's negotiators, basically ignoring his fundamentalist bs.these days.

 

Brexit: UK should not rule out free trade deal with Europe, say MPs

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/apr/04/brexit-uk-free-trade-deal-europe?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard

 

[breadandcheese]

4 minutes ago, toddybad said:

I think JRM is slowly being put back in his box. MPs, including his party's negotiators, basically ignoring his fundamentalist bs.these days.

 

Brexit: UK should not rule out free trade deal with Europe, say MPs

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/apr/04/brexit-uk-free-trade-deal-europe?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard

 

I don't think his party has ever treated him seriously.  Granted he's had attention from the press and from similar minded party members but most don't take him seriously. 

 

[Rogstanley]

Stop the press, Theresa May does care about people's wages after all. Turns out all you have to do is be a woman!

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-43632763

 

In all seriousness, the fact that even the prime minister is buying into this very crude, simplistic and flawed method of looking at gender pay is quite troubling. Makes me wonder what else she is intentionally dumbing down in order to appease pressure groups.

[Guest]

2 hours ago, Rogstanley said:

Stop the press, Theresa May does care about people's wages after all. Turns out all you have to do is be a woman!

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-43632763

 

In all seriousness, the fact that even the prime minister is buying into this very crude, simplistic and flawed method of looking at gender pay is quite troubling. Makes me wonder what else she is intentionally dumbing down in order to appease pressure groups.

What shows this as flawed is the nhs figures showing a gender pay gap. There is literally no way of cheating the pay system, it's entirely fair and equal and everybody is exactly the same within it. Fact is most nurses are women and so the Dr to nurse ratio is much lower for women which is where the gap comes from. I've seen no evidence of women not rising in their roles as huge numbers of leaders are women.

[SMX11]

14 minutes ago, toddybad said:

What shows this as flawed is the nhs figures showing a gender pay gap. There is literally no way of cheating the pay system, it's entirely fair and equal and everybody is exactly the same within it. Fact is most nurses are women and so the Dr to nurse ratio is much lower for women which is where the gap comes from. I've seen no evidence of women not rising in their roles as huge numbers of leaders are women.

Femanist zealots don't care for scrutiny into these figures.

[Carl the Llama]

To use a cliche it's a wonder men get hired at all if you can pay women less for the same job ceteris paribus..

[Carl the Llama]

 

[Strokes]

28 minutes ago, Carl the Llama said:

To use a cliche it's a wonder men get hired at all if you can pay women less for the same job ceteris paribus..

Bloody women undercutting us  

[Fox Ulike]

16 hours ago, Alf Bentley said:

Serious error by Corbyn to attend this Jewdas event when he did. It would have been fine to attend after the Party had tightened its procedures on antisemitism, or had met mainstream Jewish representatives to discuss the problem. But attending as a first response risks being seen as a deliberate snub - and, frankly, it was probably intended as such.

 

Don't get me wrong. I don't think this means either that Corbyn is antisemitic or that Labour will not take antisemitism seriously. But it is yet another bit of short-sighted, narrow-minded "we know best" attitude. Rubbish politics, rubbish PR.

 

Yes, some of the people attacking Corbyn have an agenda (papers, political opponents, Jewish elements with an uncritically pro-Israel stance). But some of the people expressing dismay at Labour inaction on antisemitism do NOT have an agenda. They have genuine, justified concerns. Attending this event now gives the impression (hopefully a false impression) that they will not be taken seriously. It is like the act of a petulant teenager (sorry, teenagers!): "You're not going to boss me about! I'm going to do this to spite you, regardless of consequences, because I know best!" Typical Hard Left moral self-righteousness and egotism, frankly.

 

This does two other things: it further strains party unity and it keeps the issue high up the media agenda. Both of those consequences were entirely obvious. While Corbyn is no genius, he isn't a fool either, so the consequences would have been clear to him and his advisors....yet the egotism of saying "we know best who are the good Jews" took precedence. Given those consequences, his decision was unforgivable.

 

Ffs! We have a weak, incompetent and divided govt. Arguably the most important political issue for 70 years (Brexit) is reaching a critical phase. The country faces all sorts of economic and social issues. And the Labour leadership wilfully opts to create a divisive, alienating distraction?!?

 

He could have met with the Board of Deputies, built bridges where possible, politely disagreed where appropriate (e.g. Israeli excesses), taken on board any good ideas for tackling antisemitism, then met Jewdas at a later date, with no media furore.....all the while being in a better position to reunite the party, to be a strong, smart opposition and to be ready to win votes and form a govt, if the opportunity arises. I despair at the irresponsibility! I'm sure some Tory supporters are rubbing their hands with glee, but these are seriously high-risk times. More than ever, we deserve and need a competent govt and a competent opposition, but we seem to have neither.

 

So now Corbyn is friends with the wrong Jews?!

 

This whole thing (can we call it Jew-gate?) is just incredibly bizarre.

 

Corbyn’s serious error was to apologise for the original message he sent, which had absolutely zero anti-semetic content. He only needed to say that he hadn’t paid attention to the mural.  

 

It was an unfathomable decision, as you say, to willingly create this scandal out of absolutely nothing. In fact, initially, I wondered whether this whole thing has been orchestrated by Labour’s PR gurus in order to justify giving a full blast of ‘what-about-ery’ to the Tories on their own record on racism. Maybe that’s still to come? I don’t know. I don’t see Labour as being that clever or manipulative.. but who knows?

 

Ultimately though, does the electorate actually care about this? No-one seems to mind Boris as Foreign Secretary nor the seemingly endless list of Tory scandals about race. Much of what we’ve gone through over Brexit has been about standing up to perceived political correctness. Whilst the snowflakes combust, are a lot of floating voters secretly wondering what all the fuss is about?

 

Corbyn has a habit of coming through these things smelling of roses. This is because most people end up defending him against the ridiculous extent of criticism he gets for doing fairly innocuous things. Once this all dies down, people will ask themselves, what has he actually done wrong? He has supported an artist (via a single tweet) without paying attention to his work, and then he met one Jewish group (who no-one has heard of or cares about) rather than a different Jewish group (who no-one has heard of or cares about)

 

I wouldn’t be surprise to see Labour actually gaining support in the polls after all this.

 

The downside of all this is that, if a real scandal ever hit Corbyn – if he ever did anything seriously wrong, how would we actually know?  

[James.]

1 hour ago, toddybad said:

What shows this as flawed is the nhs figures showing a gender pay gap. There is literally no way of cheating the pay system, it's entirely fair and equal and everybody is exactly the same within it. Fact is most nurses are women and so the Dr to nurse ratio is much lower for women which is where the gap comes from. I've seen no evidence of women not rising in their roles as huge numbers of leaders are women.

In that case the statistic's value is in highlighting the lack of women in doctor roles within the NHS. It now becomes a benchmark to evaluate progress towards having a more even split in future. In fact given the way NHS staff are paid it becomes quite a powerful measure... if the gap is lower next year it may demonstrate that women are better represented in more senior positions.

 

Obviously it's crude but I think the simplicity of it makes it a powerful way to monitor progress and identify where there are not just genuine pay discrepancies but also a lack of women in better paid jobs.

[leicsmac]

12 minutes ago, James. said:

In that case the statistic's value is in highlighting the lack of women in doctor roles within the NHS. It now becomes a benchmark to evaluate progress towards having a more even split in future. In fact given the way NHS staff are paid it becomes quite a powerful measure... if the gap is lower next year it may demonstrate that women are better represented in more senior positions.

 

Obviously it's crude but I think the simplicity of it makes it a powerful way to monitor progress and identify where there are not just genuine pay discrepancies but also a lack of women in better paid jobs.

5

That's what the pay gap is for me for the most part - there isn't many cases (anymore) in the OECD of a woman getting reduced pay overall for the same job as a guy, but rather a lack of women in higher paid jobs that can't be explained by straight meritocracy.

 

TBH this is a pretty highly charged issue and with the amount of data on the topic various parties can and do present whatever argument they like (there's a lot of conflicting data too) so it's difficult to figure out what the actual situation is. However, going by my own gut and experience there may not be as much of a problem regarding payment but there still is issues regarding sexism and misogynistic attitudes in at least some well-paid workplaces.

[Rincewind]

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/apr/02/stop-jeremy-corbyns-trial-by-media-over-antisemitism?CMP=fb_gu

 

 

[Carl the Llama]

5 minutes ago, James. said:

In that case the statistic's value is in highlighting the lack of women in doctor roles within the NHS. It now becomes a benchmark to evaluate progress towards having a more even split in future. In fact given the way NHS staff are paid it becomes quite a powerful measure... if the gap is lower next year it may demonstrate that women are better represented in more senior positions.

 

Obviously it's crude but I think the simplicity of it makes it a powerful way to monitor progress and identify where there are not just genuine pay discrepancies but also a lack of women in better paid jobs.

Imo the best way to chart the state of things is to look at the imbalances in emerging generations and therefore what we can expect to see in the future when they become established and according to 2016 figures (link leads to a PDF), in the UK 60% of GPs under the age of 50 are female and 55% of medical students are female. 

 

It's when you look at their list of the 10 most common specialisations being chosen that makes it really interesting though: Obstetrics & gynaecology, pathology and paediatrics are all majority women specialisations for the under 50s whereas surgery stands out at only 20% uptake in the under 40s.  Are we supposed to tell women that they should change their decisions so we can have more equitable figures or do we continue to allow them the agency to make their own choices even if they appear to reinforce traditional gender roles?

[leicsmac]

1 minute ago, Carl the Llama said:

Imo the best way to chart the state of things is to look at the imbalances in emerging generations and therefore what we can expect to see in the future when they become established and according to 2016 figures (link leads to a PDF), in the UK 60% of GPs under the age of 50 are female and 55% of medical students are female. 

 

It's when you look at their list of the 10 most common specialisations being chosen that makes it really interesting though: Obstetrics & gynaecology, pathology and paediatrics are all majority women specialisations for the under 50s whereas surgery stands out at only 20% uptake in the under 40s.  Are we supposed to tell women that they should change their decisions so we can have more equitable figures or do we continue to allow them the agency to make their own choices even if they appear to reinforce traditional gender roles?

2

Of course the latter IMO, while making sure any particular attitude blocks in their way to doing so (if any) are sorted out and so ensuring there is equality of opportunity.

[Carl the Llama]

4 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Of course the latter IMO, while making sure any particular attitude blocks in their way to doing so (if any) are sorted out and so ensuring there is equality of opportunity.

Right, but then people look at figures like the surgery mismatch and the 'wage gap' and conclude that there isn't equality of opportunity when in reality it's individual choices reinforcing the supposed disparity, as clearly demonstrated by the fact that until specialisation the women outnumber men.

Edited 4 April 2018 by Carl the Llama

[Fox Ulike]

15 minutes ago, Rincewind said:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/apr/02/stop-jeremy-corbyns-trial-by-media-over-antisemitism?CMP=fb_gu

 

 

 

Interesting.

 

Bizarrely Corbyn could end up being the hero of this story.

 

Is this all deliberate? Is Corbyn now ‘playing’ all the fake media outrage to his advantage?

 

The whole thing is started to feel scripted – like an episode of House of Cards.

[Guest Foxin_mad]

 

Just now, Fox Ulike said:

 

Interesting.

 

Bizarrely Corbyn could end up being the hero of this story.

 

Is this all deliberate? Is Corbyn now ‘playing’ all the fake media outrage to his advantage?

 

The whole thing is started to feel scripted – like an episode of House of Cards.

Only if you live in an echo chamber or read the guardian.

 

I think quite frankly most people couldn't give a ****.

 

Corbyn is a bit of a cvnt and I think most  people can see through the kinder gentle politics bullshit and realise he will make us all significantly poorer with his leadership. I hope the majority continue not to be brainwashed by the promise of free stuff. 

[leicsmac]

1 minute ago, Carl the Llama said:

Right, but then people look at figures like the surgery mismatch and the 'wage gap' and conclude that there isn't equality of opportunity when in reality it's individual choices reinforcing the supposed disparity, as clearly demonstrated by the fact that until specialisation the women outnumber men.

Yeah, as I said earlier people can make these figures pretty much make any argument they like.

 

I honestly don't think in some areas that it is only individual choice that is reinforcing the disparity (not necessarily this particular area btw) or at the very least it's difficult to prove - the big numbers of women there pre-specialisation doesn't really tell us much about exactly why they're not going into particular specialisations IMO - but all I have on that is a hunch, really. I could easily be wrong.

[Fox Ulike]

8 minutes ago, Foxin_mad said:

 

Only if you live in an echo chamber or read the guardian.

 

I think quite frankly most people couldn't give a ****.

 

Corbyn is a bit of a cvnt and I think most  people can see through the kinder gentle politics bullshit and realise he will make us all significantly poorer with his leadership. I hope the majority continue not to be brainwashed by the promise of free stuff. 

 

So is he kind and gentle? Or does he hate Jews?

 

Schrodinger's Corbyn.

[Carl the Llama]

6 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Yeah, as I said earlier people can make these figures pretty much make any argument they like.

 

I honestly don't think in some areas that it is only individual choice that is reinforcing the disparity (not necessarily this particular area btw) or at the very least it's difficult to prove - the big numbers of women there pre-specialisation doesn't really tell us much about exactly why they're not going into particular specialisations IMO - but all I have on that is a hunch, really. I could easily be wrong.

Well one obvious response is that men and women are different and have different interests.  For me that's no more of an oversimplification that claiming they're being held back by some malevolent patriarchal system which would rather discriminate by sex than let society - or more locally one's business - benefit from having the best candidates fill roles.

 

While there is no doubt that sexist bigots exist, I find it hard to buy that such attitudes are institutional to the point that women are globally oppressed in the UK these days when the highest public office is currently held by a woman.