Join the Labour Party and save your country!

surrey_commuter

DeVlaeminck wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

DeVlaeminck wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

DeVlaeminck wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Here is a widely accepted definition of anti-semitism
https://www.holocaustremembrance.com/wo ... tisemitism

You and Derek Hatton are welcome to voice your opinions but should be aware that for most of the rest of the world that makes you anti-semitic.

Well for about the millionth time I do not share Hatton's views I simply don't think that makes him anti-semitic - I don't know why you keep repeating the same mistake. I realise that politics has become polarised but there are still some of us who would defend the right of someone to say something we personally disagree with.

I don't see anything in that published definition saying that anyone that disagrees with that definition is anti-semitic so feel free to apologise any time.

So if I understand it correctly - you don't believe that disagreeing with the IHRA definition of anti-semitism makes you anti-semitic.

Correct. And if you like I can copy and paste Roger Silverman's reasons for disagreeing with the same definition and you can write and tell him why he as a Jewish man with family who have died for being Jewish and a personal history of being active in Jewish life and pitucs is anti-Semitic.

so I have an internationally agreed definition of anti-semitism and you have the opinion of one bloke

Well once again you miss the point. You may think I'm wrong in rejecting elements of your definition but if you think it's OK to call me anti-semitic just because I reject elements of it you are also by definition calling quite a few Jewish people (I'm not saying a majority) anti-semitic.

I find your argument tremendously illiberal - not only do you argue that Hatton is being anti-semitic in his tweet - but you think anyone that disagrees with you is also anti-semitic.

Is it my definition or is it an internationally agreed definition of anti-semitism.

It seems you have looked down the list ticked a few boxes and decided you are (or your words are) anti-Semitic. This self-awareness will allow you to modify your behaviour. Or to carry on but be aware how it is perceived.

As to your last point - they are still not my definitions of anti-Semitic behaviour so don’t blame me.

I happily fail the liberal test on a number of issues.

DeVlaeminck

Surrey Commuter wrote:

DeVlaeminck wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

DeVlaeminck wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

DeVlaeminck wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Here is a widely accepted definition of anti-semitism
https://www.holocaustremembrance.com/wo ... tisemitism

You and Derek Hatton are welcome to voice your opinions but should be aware that for most of the rest of the world that makes you anti-semitic.

Well for about the millionth time I do not share Hatton's views I simply don't think that makes him anti-semitic - I don't know why you keep repeating the same mistake. I realise that politics has become polarised but there are still some of us who would defend the right of someone to say something we personally disagree with.

I don't see anything in that published definition saying that anyone that disagrees with that definition is anti-semitic so feel free to apologise any time.

So if I understand it correctly - you don't believe that disagreeing with the IHRA definition of anti-semitism makes you anti-semitic.

Correct. And if you like I can copy and paste Roger Silverman's reasons for disagreeing with the same definition and you can write and tell him why he as a Jewish man with family who have died for being Jewish and a personal history of being active in Jewish life and pitucs is anti-Semitic.

so I have an internationally agreed definition of anti-semitism and you have the opinion of one bloke

Well once again you miss the point. You may think I'm wrong in rejecting elements of your definition but if you think it's OK to call me anti-semitic just because I reject elements of it you are also by definition calling quite a few Jewish people (I'm not saying a majority) anti-semitic.

I find your argument tremendously illiberal - not only do you argue that Hatton is being anti-semitic in his tweet - but you think anyone that disagrees with you is also anti-semitic.

Is it my definition or is it an internationally agreed definition of anti-semitism.

It seems you have looked down the list ticked a few boxes and decided you are (or your words are) anti-Semitic. This self-awareness will allow you to modify your behaviour. Or to carry on but be aware how it is perceived.

As to your last point - they are still not my definitions of anti-Semitic behaviour so don’t blame me.

I happily fail the liberal test on a number of issues.

Sorry what do you mean by "It seems you have looked down the list ticked a few boxes and decided you are (or your words are) anti-Semitic. This self-awareness will allow you to modify your behaviour."

That doesn't even make sense so it's hard to respond to. Are you trying to suggest that I have decided that I am anti-semitic ?? Erm, no I haven't, I have told you I reject the definition of anti-semitism you are putting forwards for the same reasons that many Jewish people do - more here for example :
https://ijv.org.uk/2018/07/26/not-in-our-name/

Following your logic all the prominent members of the Jewish community in that link above are also anti-semitic - that is how ridiculous your argument is. Even if you want to accept your definition of anti-semitism there is nothing in it which says you can't disagree with it without being anti-semitic - that is your own addition which you are yet to substantiate in any way.

As for it not being your definition. You may not have written the definition but you seem to be accepting it so in effect it is your definition - you aren't being forced to accept it.

surrey_commuter

DeVlaeminck wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

DeVlaeminck wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

DeVlaeminck wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

DeVlaeminck wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Here is a widely accepted definition of anti-semitism
https://www.holocaustremembrance.com/wo ... tisemitism

You and Derek Hatton are welcome to voice your opinions but should be aware that for most of the rest of the world that makes you anti-semitic.

Well for about the millionth time I do not share Hatton's views I simply don't think that makes him anti-semitic - I don't know why you keep repeating the same mistake. I realise that politics has become polarised but there are still some of us who would defend the right of someone to say something we personally disagree with.

I don't see anything in that published definition saying that anyone that disagrees with that definition is anti-semitic so feel free to apologise any time.

So if I understand it correctly - you don't believe that disagreeing with the IHRA definition of anti-semitism makes you anti-semitic.

Correct. And if you like I can copy and paste Roger Silverman's reasons for disagreeing with the same definition and you can write and tell him why he as a Jewish man with family who have died for being Jewish and a personal history of being active in Jewish life and pitucs is anti-Semitic.

so I have an internationally agreed definition of anti-semitism and you have the opinion of one bloke

Well once again you miss the point. You may think I'm wrong in rejecting elements of your definition but if you think it's OK to call me anti-semitic just because I reject elements of it you are also by definition calling quite a few Jewish people (I'm not saying a majority) anti-semitic.

I find your argument tremendously illiberal - not only do you argue that Hatton is being anti-semitic in his tweet - but you think anyone that disagrees with you is also anti-semitic.

Is it my definition or is it an internationally agreed definition of anti-semitism.

It seems you have looked down the list ticked a few boxes and decided you are (or your words are) anti-Semitic. This self-awareness will allow you to modify your behaviour. Or to carry on but be aware how it is perceived.

As to your last point - they are still not my definitions of anti-Semitic behaviour so don’t blame me.

I happily fail the liberal test on a number of issues.

Sorry what do you mean by "It seems you have looked down the list ticked a few boxes and decided you are (or your words are) anti-Semitic. This self-awareness will allow you to modify your behaviour."

That doesn't even make sense so it's hard to respond to. Are you trying to suggest that I have decided that I am anti-semitic ?? Erm, no I haven't, I have told you I reject the definition of anti-semitism you are putting forwards for the same reasons that many Jewish people do - more here for example :
https://ijv.org.uk/2018/07/26/not-in-our-name/

Following your logic all the prominent members of the Jewish community in that link above are also anti-semitic - that is how ridiculous your argument is. Even if you want to accept your definition of anti-semitism there is nothing in it which says you can't disagree with it without being anti-semitic - that is your own addition which you are yet to substantiate in any way.

As for it not being your definition. You may not have written the definition but you seem to be accepting it so in effect it is your definition - you aren't being forced to accept it.

Why don’t we argue about climate change - I will be a denier. You can post up white papers and validated scientific evidence. I will refer to them as your proof and produce a few scientists who disagree.

rjsterry

I think DeV is mistaken about Hatton, but that is a fairly silly comparison.

surrey_commuter

rjsterry wrote:

I think DeV is mistaken about Hatton, but that is a fairly silly comparison.

I am open to suggestions

tangled_metal

Surrey Commuter wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

I think DeV is mistaken about Hatton, but that is a fairly silly comparison.

I am open to suggestions

For what? Ideas to change someone's views? Why bother?

surrey_commuter

Tangled Metal wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

I think DeV is mistaken about Hatton, but that is a fairly silly comparison.

I am open to suggestions

For what? Ideas to change someone's views? Why bother?

I saw it as opening his eyes rather than changing their views.

rjsterry

Surrey Commuter wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

I think DeV is mistaken about Hatton, but that is a fairly silly comparison.

I am open to suggestions

I agree that the IHRA definition is the closest we have to an internationally recognised definition of antisemitism, but one cannot take measurements of phenomena to show that it is the one correct definition. That is why it is not comparable to the theory of anthropogenic climate change. DeV is right in that a disagreement with the details of a part of the IHRA definition does not automatically render one antisemitic. If the definition were as axiomatic as you suggest it would include that point. The IHRA definition is actually pretty short, with a longer series of illustrative examples which *may* constitute antisemitism. It is intended to be used with a degree of judgment, not as a tick-box checklist.

tangled_metal

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Tangled Metal wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

I think DeV is mistaken about Hatton, but that is a fairly silly comparison.

I am open to suggestions

For what? Ideas to change someone's views? Why bother?

I saw it as opening his eyes rather than changing their views.

Unfortunately when you get into matters that play into free speech territory you tend not to change views. What starts out as a discussion on antisemitism ends up as a free speech discussion, or other ways into that excuse for inappropriate views not being confronted.

The antisemitism definition is a guide but we all have our views on what it really is. Use that widely recognised definition as a start, but it's your own views that define antisemitism for you. It is why it's a grey area without an obvious and accepted definition. The Israel factor also muddies the waters a bit I reckon.

tangled_metal

What do people think about Ian Watson monitoring of the Labour antisemitism investigations? Dual process? Will it help much?

bobmcstuff

DeVlaeminck wrote:

Following your logic all the prominent members of the Jewish community in that link above are also anti-semitic - that is how ridiculous your argument is. Even if you want to accept your definition of anti-semitism there is nothing in it which says you can't disagree with it without being anti-semitic - that is your own addition which you are yet to substantiate in any way.

May be ridiculous, but has been done plenty of times

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-hating_Jew

rjsterry

Tangled Metal wrote:

What do people think about Ian Watson monitoring of the Labour antisemitism investigations? Dual process? Will it help much?

Tom, not Ian. I see Chris Williamson is keen to make sure the issue doesn't get off the front page.

john80

I personally don't think that the term antisemitic and its international definition is that helpful. If you assume that antisemitism is a form of racism then the definition of racism being as one example, "prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior."

Antisemitism is its own more detailed definition is not easy to repeat verbatim or conceptualise for every statement because it is a very detailed definition of racism or prejudice. The next difficulty is that criticism of Israel as a state is not antisemitism if the same criticism would be levelled against other nations for the same acts such as the racism in Israel to which there is a whole wikipedia entry. However it does become antisemitic if you group Jews together for collective criticism for the failing of Israel's actions so it is quite nuanced.

It is easy to see why a lot of people get this wrong as to be honest any time you get into Israeli/Arab politics of the region you need the definition on hand to remain compliant. The question I would have within the Labour party is if it is riddled with antisemitism as people have claimed then is this driven by the racism definition above in that they feel Jews are in inferior race ignoring the fact that really they are a religion or is it more of a political ideology that is similar to the Nazis view that the Jews were seen as wealthy amongst non Jews and Hitler was able to scape goat this group for his own ends?

rjsterry

john80 wrote:

I personally don't think that the term antisemitic and its international definition is that helpful. If you assume that antisemitism is a form of racism then the definition of racism being as one example, "prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior."

Antisemitism is its own more detailed definition is not easy to repeat verbatim or conceptualise for every statement because it is a very detailed definition of racism or prejudice. The next difficulty is that criticism of Israel as a state is not antisemitism if the same criticism would be levelled against other nations for the same acts such as the racism in Israel to which there is a whole wikipedia entry. However it does become antisemitic if you group Jews together for collective criticism for the failing of Israel's actions so it is quite nuanced.

It is easy to see why a lot of people get this wrong as to be honest any time you get into Israeli/Arab politics of the region you need the definition on hand to remain compliant. The question I would have within the Labour party is if it is riddled with antisemitism as people have claimed then is this driven by the racism definition above in that they feel Jews are in inferior race ignoring the fact that really they are a religion or is it more of a political ideology that is similar to the Nazis view that the Jews were seen as wealthy amongst non Jews and Hitler was able to scape goat this group for his own ends?

This is the IHRA definition.

Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.

The illustrative examples attached to the definition are the bit that people get hung up on. The IHRA is very clear that they *may* serve as illustrations and "Manifestations might include...". I think the problem comes when people ignore the words "illustrations", "may" and "might" and treat it as a checklist with tickboxes, without referring back to the main definition.

kingstongraham

john80 wrote:

I personally don't think that the term antisemitic and its international definition is that helpful. If you assume that antisemitism is a form of racism then the definition of racism being as one example, "prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior."

Where's that definition from?

bobmcstuff

john80 wrote:

The next difficulty is that criticism of Israel as a state is not antisemitism if the same criticism would be levelled against other nations for the same acts such as the racism in Israel to which there is a whole wikipedia entry. However it does become antisemitic if you group Jews together for collective criticism for the failing of Israel's actions so it is quite nuanced.

I don't really see any nuance there.

Criticising Israel for something you would criticise any other country for - not anti-semitic
Criticising Jews in general for the actions of Israel - anti-semitic

Perhaps more difficult is the double standards bit - holding Israel to higher standards than other countries. This is the bit I think Corbyn had issues with because while he would say he treats countries equally*, it is quite subjective and easy to argue the other way.



* given he likes to slag off the west and turns a blind eye to bad things done by other countries, I don't believe this is true

john80

KingstonGraham wrote:

john80 wrote:

I personally don't think that the term antisemitic and its international definition is that helpful. If you assume that antisemitism is a form of racism then the definition of racism being as one example, "prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior."

Where's that definition from?

It was the standard Google definition however the Online Oxford Dictionary is the same.

rjsterry

Encouraging news for TIGers.

https://www.politico.eu/article/poll-th ... ur-voters/

DeVlaeminck

bobmcstuff wrote:

DeVlaeminck wrote:

Following your logic all the prominent members of the Jewish community in that link above are also anti-semitic - that is how ridiculous your argument is. Even if you want to accept your definition of anti-semitism there is nothing in it which says you can't disagree with it without being anti-semitic - that is your own addition which you are yet to substantiate in any way.

May be ridiculous, but has been done plenty of times

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-hating_Jew

Clearly Surrey Commuter thinks a number of prominent members of the Jewish community fall into this category - the quote is a useful reminder as to the fact he has yet to provide any argument as to why disagreeing with the definition is anti-semitic.

surrey_commuter

DeVlaeminck wrote:

bobmcstuff wrote:

DeVlaeminck wrote:

Following your logic all the prominent members of the Jewish community in that link above are also anti-semitic - that is how ridiculous your argument is. Even if you want to accept your definition of anti-semitism there is nothing in it which says you can't disagree with it without being anti-semitic - that is your own addition which you are yet to substantiate in any way.

May be ridiculous, but has been done plenty of times

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-hating_Jew

Clearly Surrey Commuter thinks a number of prominent members of the Jewish community fall into this category - the quote is a useful reminder as to the fact he has yet to provide any argument as to why disagreeing with the definition is anti-semitic.

Good to see you are still dancing on the pin head.

rick_chasey

https://stumblingandmumbling.typepad.co ... he-01.html

This is an excellent blog post.

rjsterry

Rick Chasey wrote:

https://stumblingandmumbling.typepad.com/stumbling_and_mumbling/2019/03/the-1-vs-the-01.html

This is an excellent blog post.

Hmm. It's all going well - and fits precisely with my experience of working for people at the lower end of the 1% - until the last two paragraphs. It's almost as though a third paragraph, connecting the two parts, is missing. I don't know how useful it is to redraw the 'working class boundary' at senior consultant/SME director level.

bompington

rjsterry wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

https://stumblingandmumbling.typepad.com/stumbling_and_mumbling/2019/03/the-1-vs-the-01.html

This is an excellent blog post.

Hmm. It's all going well - and fits precisely with my experience of working for people at the lower end of the 1% - until the last two paragraphs. It's almost as though a third paragraph, connecting the two parts, is missing. I don't know how useful it is to redraw the 'working class boundary' at senior consultant/SME director level.

Then you didn't really understand it - the point is that people do actually perceive - he cites evidence - their wealth and status relative to others in their gang, and for the "bottom of the 1%" that means they look upward. And remember that if, say, you're on benefits in the UK, you're still among the richest people in the world - but it doesn't feel like it, in just the same way, when you compare your situation to the people you regard as your peers.

I can relate to it to some extent - our household income is just about there in the 1%, and yet we couldn't dream of paying for the private education that I and my siblings enjoyed*, despite my parents' income being somewhere close to half what ours is. On the other hand, we look at our bank statement (or the contents of our cupboards - quinoa, dammit!) and are aware that we are actually very, very privileged.

*FWIW, I don't have anything against private education and have always felt that I benefited from mine, but we probably wouldn't even if we could.

rjsterry

bompington wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

https://stumblingandmumbling.typepad.com/stumbling_and_mumbling/2019/03/the-1-vs-the-01.html

This is an excellent blog post.

Hmm. It's all going well - and fits precisely with my experience of working for people at the lower end of the 1% - until the last two paragraphs. It's almost as though a third paragraph, connecting the two parts, is missing. I don't know how useful it is to redraw the 'working class boundary' at senior consultant/SME director level.

Then you didn't really understand it - the point is that people do actually perceive - he cites evidence - their wealth and status relative to others in their gang, and for the "bottom of the 1%" that means they look upward. And remember that if, say, you're on benefits in the UK, you're still among the richest people in the world - but it doesn't feel like it, in just the same way, when you compare your situation to the people you regard as your peers.

I can relate to it to some extent - our household income is just about there in the 1%, and yet we couldn't dream of paying for the private education that I and my siblings enjoyed*, despite my parents' income being somewhere close to half what ours is. On the other hand, we look at our bank statement (or the contents of our cupboards - quinoa, dammit!) and are aware that we are actually very, very privileged.

*FWIW, I don't have anything against private education and have always felt that I benefited from mine, but we probably wouldn't even if we could.

Yes I got that bit. From 18 years of working for them, the lower 1%ers in London don't think of themselves as particularly well off (despite that being demonstrably not the case), and certainly not posh. That said, the perception that they *should* have the trappings of the 0.1%ers lifestyle that they've seen on Pinterest is very much there in spite of that belief that they are 'normal'.

I'm just not sure why (re)categorising the middle classes as working class is useful.

rjsterry

On the £1.6bn promised in regional funding, you will be amazed to hear that by the time it is spread over 7 years and numerous regions and towns, it doesn't amount to much.

The £1bn billion that has been allocated to specific regions of England, which will be spread over seven financial years to 2025/26, matches the amount of money the government agreed to provide over five years to the Northern Ireland executive as part of the deal it struck with the DUP in 2017. This deal saw the DUP’s 10 MPs agree to support the government on all key votes, including the Queen’s Speech and Budgets.

- The combined total allocated to the South East, South West, East & West Midlands and eastern England (£417m) is just £3m below the £420 announced by chancellor Philip Hammond in the 2018 budget for local authorities to fix potholes and renew bridges and tunnels in one year (2018/19).

- Using the latest population estimates from the Office for National Statistics, the pots of money can be roughly compared in terms of spending per person.

For example, if the total amount earmarked for north-east England (£105m) was spread across five of the region’s largest towns - Darlington, Hartlepool, Gateshead, Middlesbrough and Stockton-on-Tees - the spending would be the equivalent of £142 per person.

If the total for north-west England (£281m) was spread across the five towns of Bolton, Oldham, Rochdale, Stockport and Wigan, the spending works out at around £208 per person.

By contrast, if the £33m earmarked for south-west England was allocated to the five towns of Bournemouth, Cheltenham, Poole, Stroud and Swindon, the equivalent total per person would be £41.

And if the £25m for eastern England was spread just across the five towns of Basildon, Bedford, Colchester, Luton and Southend, the spending equates to £27 per head.

- The £33m allocated to south-west England matches the £33m the government has paid to Eurotunnel to settle a legal action over the award of Brexit contracts to ferry firms.

- The total package of £1.6bn funding compares with a total of £3bn in outstanding council tax owed to local authorities in England since 1993 (when the tax was introduced). The same local authorities collected a total of 27.5 billion of council tax for the year to March 2018.

From the Press Association.

hopkinb

Rick Chasey wrote:

https://stumblingandmumbling.typepad.com/stumbling_and_mumbling/2019/03/the-1-vs-the-01.html

This is an excellent blog post.

A colleague at my last employer. She was earning est. £120k plus bonus, her other half the same, if not more, also in banking. We were discussing income deciles, as you do. She, in all seriousness, thought her household income was around the 75th percentile. Simply would not accept that she was firmly in the top 1%. Why? Because all the people around her where she lives, or at her kids' school/nursery seemed to earn more, as partners in law firms, barristers, entrepreneurs, senior traders etc. They were "poor" because they didn't have a second home, hadn't paid off the mortgage, etc etc.

rick_chasey

I can imagine.

The point that those in the 1% have more in common with the other 99% than the top 0.1% is very relevant.

hopkinb

Rick Chasey wrote:

I can imagine.

The point that those in the 1% have more in common with the other 99% than the top 0.1% is very relevant.

Bigger mortgage, tutor, nanny, holidays in the "right" places, school fees, school trips, sports kit, uniform, car payments, Waitrose & farmer's market rather than Lidl, the "right" clothes and accessories. All that stuff people do to be seen to fit in to a certain social circle. That all costs a lot of money, and if you can't quite afford it, it can make you feel hard up.

I kind of see the point, it's a different kind of pressure on resources though.

Alejandrosdog

rjsterry wrote:

bompington wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

https://stumblingandmumbling.typepad.com/stumbling_and_mumbling/2019/03/the-1-vs-the-01.html

This is an excellent blog post.

Hmm. It's all going well - and fits precisely with my experience of working for people at the lower end of the 1% - until the last two paragraphs. It's almost as though a third paragraph, connecting the two parts, is missing. I don't know how useful it is to redraw the 'working class boundary' at senior consultant/SME director level.

Then you didn't really understand it - the point is that people do actually perceive - he cites evidence - their wealth and status relative to others in their gang, and for the "bottom of the 1%" that means they look upward. And remember that if, say, you're on benefits in the UK, you're still among the richest people in the world - but it doesn't feel like it, in just the same way, when you compare your situation to the people you regard as your peers.

I can relate to it to some extent - our household income is just about there in the 1%, and yet we couldn't dream of paying for the private education that I and my siblings enjoyed*, despite my parents' income being somewhere close to half what ours is. On the other hand, we look at our bank statement (or the contents of our cupboards - quinoa, dammit!) and are aware that we are actually very, very privileged.

*FWIW, I don't have anything against private education and have always felt that I benefited from mine, but we probably wouldn't even if we could.

Yes I got that bit. From 18 years of working for them, the lower 1%ers in London don't think of themselves as particularly well off (despite that being demonstrably not the case), and certainly not posh. That said, the perception that they *should* have the trappings of the 0.1%ers lifestyle that they've seen on Pinterest is very much there in spite of that belief that they are 'normal'.

I'm just not sure why (re)categorising the middle classes as working class is useful.

Theres a gulf of a difference between class and cash.

rjsterry

Back to antisemitism for a moment. Surprise, surprise it is being handled like a scene from The Thick of It.

https://twitter.com/ShippersUnbound/sta ... 7932124161