Topic: General Political discussion with kesey-style vibes & tantric breathing stuff...

[Sangria]

I've no idea what the authors intent was or if its just a few people projecting their own views onto someone else. But can you remember when Godwins Law was a thing... Seems like a long  time ago doesn't it.

Godwin primarily had frivolous ad Hitlerum arguments in mind when he formulated his law. When it comes to leaders of political parties with tendencies towards anti-semitism, dismissing something on the grounds of Godwin's law somewhat misses the point. Although I think the USSR is a better comparison to make, with all the coded language and all. Orwell's take on it is even more to the point.

[BoRed]

Godwin primarily had frivolous ad Hitlerum arguments in mind when he formulated his law.

So comparing Corbyn with Hitler is not frivolous?

Red Berry, do you still need clarification of what Nobby referred to as "hysterical nonsense"?

[Alan_X]

So comparing Corbyn with Hitler is not frivolous?

Red Berry, do you still need clarification of what Nobby referred to as "hysterical nonsense"?

It kind of depends on who is making the point. I think that being part of a group that has been persecuted, disenfranchised and murdered in their million for more than a thousand years maybe colours their thinking about a man who spends his time with conspiracy theorists and anti-semites.

[Sangria]

So comparing Corbyn with Hitler is not frivolous?

Red Berry, do you still need clarification of what Nobby referred to as "hysterical nonsense"?

It's less frivolous than Godwin had in mind, unfortunately. There's a Harry Enfield sketch where this archetypal English rose is taught to bear herself properly, including striking down the "toothless foreigner" who propositions her; said toothless foreigner being the 19th century Jew stereotype. The humour was because, post-WWII, we were well past the unthinking acceptance of ant-semitism and anti-semitic stereotypes. Or so we thought. Godwin's law dates from that era.

Rather than dismiss every comparison as hysterical, perhaps it might be more appropriate to re-examine the stereotypes we use that might make these comparisons more apt than we may like. After all, Corbyn has in the past endorsed the global octopus image, which is one of these stereotypes that I thought only lived in the past.

[Sangria]

It kind of depends on who is making the point. I think that being part of a group that has been persecuted, disenfranchised and murdered in their million for more than a thousand years maybe colours their thinking about a man who spends his time with conspiracy theorists and anti-semites.

Also, people who spouted that rubbish used to be on the fringes of acceptable society. Now they're the leaders of major parties who expect to form government, and conspiracy theories are mainstream among the ruling faction, while caution and moderation is dismissed to the fringes. We used to laugh at conspiracy theorists. Now we're expected to vote for them.

[Circa1892]

No whip from Labour to vote on the motion to proscribe Hezbollah.

Allows the coward to avoid voting again.

[Red Beret]

So comparing Corbyn with Hitler is not frivolous?

Red Berry, do you still need clarification of what Nobby referred to as "hysterical nonsense"?

Might be a tad excessive, but hysterical?  We live in excessive times, let me put it that way.

[Sangria]

Might be a tad excessive, but hysterical?  We live in excessive times, let me put it that way.

Mike Godwin himself endorses the labelling of alt rightists as Nazis, explaining that his law does not automatically make comparisons wrong. As long as it is historically informed, the comparison is there to be made (says Godwin).

[The Gulleysucker]

Meanwhile, the delightful Chris Williamson perseveres in his personal crusade to mend bridges with the Jewish Community at large.

[TepidT2O]

Anyone describing Corbyn as progressive is (IMO) utterly wrong.

He represents the regressive left, progressive would mean looking at and using evidence to provide the best possible outcomes.  Corbyn is the antithesis of this.

[BoRed]

Might be a tad excessive, but hysterical?  We live in excessive times, let me put it that way.

As long as we agree it's nonsense, I can live with excessive.

[BoRed]

Mike Godwin himself endorses the labelling of alt rightists as Nazis, explaining that his law does not automatically make comparisons wrong. As long as it is historically informed, the comparison is there to be made (says Godwin).

He also said "I wanted folks who glibly compared someone else to Hitler to think a bit harder about the Holocaust". I wonder what Corbyn did that comes close to the Holocaust.

[Sangria]

He also said "I wanted folks who glibly compared someone else to Hitler to think a bit harder about the Holocaust". I wonder what Corbyn did that comes close to the Holocaust.

Actively supporting Holocaust deniers?

[Lush is the best medicine...]

https://twitter.com/graceblakeley/status/1100119551101075456?s=21

“My publisher wants my advance back!!!”

[The Gulleysucker]

https://twitter.com/graceblakeley/status/1100119551101075456?s=21

“My publisher wants my advance back!!!”

That's a great message for all the kids of 18-20 now who didn't get to vote last time and want to remain.

She's obviously toeing the inner circle party line, methinks positioning herself to be selected as a candidate at the next GE.

[Red Beret]

As long as we agree it's nonsense, I can live with excessive.

It's a question of intent. 

For example, when you look at Trump, what do you think he would do if he could get away with it?  He has already done much as a private citizen, and he keeps trying to push the boundaries of his executive power.  Just because he could never (perhaps?) do the things Hitler did, doesn't mean the intent isn't there.  And history will judge him so.

Do I think Corbyn would do the things Hitler did if he had the means, the will and the ability to act with impunity?  No.  Do I think he could/would sit idly by whilst others did such things?  I think there is certainly a potential in there, yes.  (To mean, yes he could, perhaps he would.)

If, through his inaction and or incompetence as leader, others were able to assume the power to act in such a manner, then he would be guilty by default; certainly a collaborator and an enabler.  Because he is a weak man and a weak leader.  Almost a figurehead.

You have to decide for yourself whether such a comparison is excessive or hysterical.

[FlashGordon]

Find it strange why she'd have a picture with that clown as the background on her twitter.

[Yorkykopite]

https://twitter.com/graceblakeley/status/1100119551101075456?s=21

“My publisher wants my advance back!!!”

I wonder why she used the word "obviously." It can't make any intelligent person want to read her book.

[Robinred]

That's a great message for all the kids of 18-20 now who didn't get to vote last time and want to remain.

She's obviously toeing the inner circle party line, methinks positioning herself to be selected as a candidate at the next GE.

Indeed. And it’s noteworthy that the T.V producers “like” her.

She epitomises everything that’s wrong with our politics.

[The Gulleysucker]

Indeed. And it’s noteworthy that the T.V producers “like” her.

She epitomises everything that’s wrong with our politics.

It's all slightly incongruous.

If we go back to 2009, the last years of the Brown administration, a common complaint from those of a far left pursuasion and the general politically disillusioned was that there were too many Oxbridge/PPE career politicians within Labour, and yet here we are with the circle going around once again but silence from the far left...

Is this person any different, other than now saying things they want to hear, than any who have gone before?

[ShakaHislop]

That's a great message for all the kids of 18-20 now who didn't get to vote last time and want to remain.

She's obviously toeing the inner circle party line, methinks positioning herself to be selected as a candidate at the next GE.

"Economics commentator for the New Statesman" aka my job isn't a proper one for a media outlet none of the people I lecture the rest of the left about needing to appeal to have ever heard of, let alone read.

What a shocker to see she's yet another Corbynista from London too.

[BoRed]

It's all slightly incongruous.

If we go back to 2009, the last years of the Brown administration, a common complaint from those of a far left pursuasion and the general politically disillusioned was that there were too many Oxbridge/PPE career politicians within Labour, and yet here we are with the circle going around once again but silence from the far left...

Is this person any different, other than now saying things they want to hear, than any who have gone before?

In what sense is she "within Labour"? Does she have a paid position in Labour? Is she even a member?

[Antoine Lavoisier]

That deserves a wider audience, I actually applauded.

[TepidT2O]

In what sense is she "within Labour"? Does she have a paid position in Labour? Is she even a member?

If she’s not she’s still got a decent chance of being a peer by Christmas

[The Gulleysucker]

In what sense is she "within Labour"? Does she have a paid position in Labour? Is she even a member?

Not sure, but she's sharing the stage here with other luminaries.

[Alan_X]

Not sure, but she's sharing the stage here with other luminaries.

But apart from it being a Labour Party event, presented by a Labour MP, with another Labour MP, Labour Peer Chakrabarti, Corbyn apologist Owen Jones, Labour Party backer Len McCluskey all speaking alongside her... what does this have to do with the Labour Party?

[west_london_red]

Indeed. And it’s noteworthy that the T.V producers “like” her.
 

She’s quite easy on the eye to be fair to the TV producers.

[Ray K]

But apart from it being a Labour Party event, presented by a Labour MP, with another Labour MP, Labour Peer Chakrabarti, Corbyn apologist Owen Jones, Labour Party backer Len McCluskey all speaking alongside her... what does this have to do with the Labour Party?

Often wondered why the Guardian employ a columnist who's basically a full time cheerleader for Corbyn. But then I remember who Jones's predecessor on the op-ed pages was.

[Red-Soldier]

Has anyone been on TIG's Facebook page.  It's absolutely rife with Corbynite Labour bots.  They are seriously scared.

[Robinred]

Often wondered why the Guardian employ a columnist who's basically a full time cheerleader for Corbyn. But then I remember who Jones's predecessor on the op-ed pages was.

It’s tradition, I think. All “serious” newspapers have a token leftie/right winger to counter the political stance of its editorial and ownership leanings. And then there are the shock jocks like Liddle or Liittlejohn.

The iPaper give a regular weekly page to Mark Wallace of Conservative Home.

Owen Jones has almost certainly been through a process of agonising over his support for the Corbyn - fronted, Milne - led “Project” (as, evidently, has Paul Mason). So what we can say, I think, is that he’s conflicted. And severely compromised. And diminished as a serious, dissenting voice.

Compare him to Matthew Parris, and you see a marked difference in levels of integrity.

[John C]

Those

Superb and starkly frightening post yorky.

[Red-Soldier]

the Greenites,

 

Who are they?

Do you mean people who are desperately trying to save the planet by fighting against climate change and global extinctions?

[BoRed]

But apart from it being a Labour Party event, presented by a Labour MP, with another Labour MP, Labour Peer Chakrabarti, Corbyn apologist Owen Jones, Labour Party backer Len McCluskey all speaking alongside her... what does this have to do with the Labour Party?

Aren't we moving the goalposts a bit? Some quotes and sources would help, but I presume that when people complained about the Oxbridge influence within Labour in 2009, they were talking about someone more prominent than some journalistic hangers-on. Members of the cabinet, perhaps?

[Sangria]

Aren't we moving the goalposts a bit? Some quotes and sources would help, but I presume that when people complained about the Oxbridge influence within Labour in 2009, they were talking about someone more prominent than some journalistic hangers-on. Members of the cabinet, perhaps?

Journalistic hangers on? Do you mean like Seumas Milneanonymous sources close to the leader?

[BoRed]

Journalistic hangers on? Do you mean like Seumas Milneanonymous sources close to the leader?

Now you're moving the entire pitch . Milne is obviously drawing a salary from the party and is prominent within the leadership. Hence my question about Blakeley.

[Yorkykopite]

Who are they?

Do you mean people who are desperately trying to save the planet by fighting against climate change and global extinctions?

Fair play to them. They've been a large part of the reason why environmentalism is now respectable politics, at least in democratic countries. The German Greens especially. For that, thank you.

But as a party? They're weird and a bit deranged. A home, too often, for Labour people who simply cannot bear how incrementally successful a Labour government can actually be. Hence their popularity during the Blair years. And they ran the city of Brighton (is it a 'city'? I'm not sure!) like a creche full of kids would have run it. Oddly enough their recycling policy was a bloody mess.

[Alan_X]

Aren't we moving the goalposts a bit? Some quotes and sources would help, but I presume that when people complained about the Oxbridge influence within Labour in 2009, they were talking about someone more prominent than some journalistic hangers-on. Members of the cabinet, perhaps?

I get the point you're making but the current Labour project is a different beast. The 'power' in Labour is not with the PLP but with the members and external organisations like Momentum. Someone like James Schneider has far more influence than 90% of the PLP.

[Alan_X]

Fair play to them. They've been a large part of the reason why environmentalism is now respectable politics, at least in democratic countries. The German Greens especially. For that, thank you.

But as a party? They're weird and a bit deranged. A home, too often, for Labour people who simply cannot bear how incrementally successful a Labour government can actually be. Hence their popularity during the Blair years.

Sad but true. Too much pseudo-science. They are on the right side of the climate change debate but are largely ignorant when it comes to actual science. The Green Parties tend to be more about Gaia than analysis of sea temperature trends. Far too many seem to be anti-GMO and support nonsense like homeopathy and alternative medicine.

[The Gulleysucker]

Now you're moving the entire pitch . Milne is obviously drawing a salary from the party and is prominent within the leadership. Hence my question about Blakeley.

I have no quotes, it's just my intuition about her.

She's highly intelligent, articulate (and undoubtedly photogenic) and also has a slightly mysterious rise to prominence and I don't think her political trajectory is over yet.

She has all the skills to probably be a highly accomplished Politician.

We had a brief discussion about her here

I don't happen to agree with her current stance over Brexit and a 2nd referendum, but you have to remember that many of these people like her are used to public speaking, she undoubtedly did it at boarding school, when you are required to often argue passionately and convincingly for something you may disagree with yourself, it's part of the game and also handy skills for any Politician.

As for the discomfort back in 2009, I don't think it was any particular Politician that the the criticism was aimed at, it was more the political environment, in that it seemed to consist increasingly of careerists who seemed to be chiselled from the same Oxbridge/PPE stone rather than people who had worked their way up from shop floors.

As it happens, I don't have a grudge against Oxbridge/PP people, most are very intelligent just like her, but I think we should still be cautious about the motives of such,  they may not always align with what we think they are.

Edit...updated to correct link.

[Red Beret]

Fair play to them. They've been a large part of the reason why environmentalism is now respectable politics, at least in democratic countries. The German Greens especially. For that, thank you.

But as a party? They're weird and a bit deranged. A home, too often, for Labour people who simply cannot bear how incrementally successful a Labour government can actually be. Hence their popularity during the Blair years. And they ran the city of Brighton (is it a 'city'? I'm not sure!) like a creche full of kids would have run it. Oddly enough their recycling policy was a bloody mess.

I personally had no problem with an incrementally successful Labour government.  I had a problem with how Tony Blair just leapt into bed with GWB over Iraq without a by your leave, but I didn't switch to the Greens until the Lib Dems decided to suck Tory d!ck.

As I've said before, if you're not voting Labour in Liverpool what other options do you have?