UK Politics Thread XIII: The Brexit Ship Departs

[Salandriagado]

Is your blood green? If so Sinn Fein will hire you. If its union jack coloured and you are a prod the DUP will take you.

What if you are neither?

Nah, that's not how Northern Ireland works. You're either Catholic or Protestant. Even if you're Hindu, you're either Catholic Hindu or Protestant Hindu.

[Albrenia]

What if you are neither?

Nah, that's not how Northern Ireland works. You're either Catholic or Protestant. Even if you're Hindu, you're either Catholic Hindu or Protestant Hindu.

The old joke of 'Protestant Atheist or Catholic Atheist', eh?

[The Blaatschapen]

What if you are neither?

Nah, that's not how Northern Ireland works. You're either Catholic or Protestant. Even if you're Hindu, you're either Catholic Hindu or Protestant Hindu.

Reminds me of my travel through Bosnia.

Where, after I said that I am atheist, they asked, yeah, but Orthodox atheist or catholic atheist.

[The Huskar Social Union]

SNAP POLL: Was suspending Jeremy Corbyn from the Labour party the right or wrong decision?

ALL BRITONS
Right decision - 58%
Wrong decision - 13%

2019 LABOUR VOTERS
Right decision - 41%
Wrong decision - 26%

Also:

% who think Jeremy Corbyn was / Keir Starmer is a good or bad leader of the Labour party

Corbyn
All Britons - 20% good / 66% bad
Labour voters - 45% good / 44% bad

Starmer
All Britons - 46% good / 22% bad
Labour voters - 62% good / 17% bad

[Vassenor]

Asked for clarity on confusion, BBC said pride is fine if it is seen as a “a celebration”, but if the “trans issue" (as it was described) is involved then it passes as a protest and news and current affairs staff should not attend.

Well that phrasing has some pretty serious "Jewish Problem" vibes.

[The Nihilistic view]

freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences :^)

Depends what you mean by consequences.

[Maccian]

I got a question: Where the hell did UKIP go?

[Vassenor]

I got a question: Where the hell did UKIP go?

Collapsed into obscurity now that they aren't needed.

[The Huskar Social Union]

I got a question: Where the hell did UKIP go?

They became irrelevant after the referendum and imploded losing almost all of their voters. They still exist but literally no one cares about them any more.

Especially after Farage formed his latest fan group the Brexit Party.

[The New California Republic]

I got a question: Where the hell did UKIP go?

They became irrelevant after the referendum and imploded losing almost all of their voters. They still exist but literally no one cares about them any more.

Yes at this point it's a zombie party: it's dead but it still goes through the motions of being alive.

[Ifreann]

I'm just saying. Why shouldn't Boris' comments about Muslim women looking like postboxes and that whole "watermelon smiles" crap, along with just about everything about migrants that's come out of Piri Patel's mouth be subjected to the same level of scrutiny as this issue? I'm sure it has nothing to do with the fact that the upper echelons of the EHRC are packed with ex-Tory donors. There is a conversation to be had about the level of toxic behaviour across the political spectrum, but those in power are only willing to have it when it benefits them.

I could say the crown in your flag makes the snake look like it is having an anal prolapse. Rather than what I assume it is being the crown toppled from a milanese Biscione as some sort of representation of your general anti establishment political views ( or maybe it just looks cool) I get the snake isn't a person but it's making fun of the crown rather than the snake itself.

To go back to the politics side of things directly. If you want to talk about Jewish facial features you are talking directly about Jews, if you want to say someone's clothes look stupid you aren't talking about the person. Maybe that's too subtle of a difference these days but it's no different really to saying the pope's hat looks like a bellend and what's the problem with that?

It's the anti-covid flag. A crown(as in, corona) inverted and broken by the rod of Asclepius, god of healing, the symbol of medicine.

---

kier starmer: i will not tolerate anti-semitism or the denial of anti-semitism and saying it's exagerrated

lol. fucking lol. like actually lol. you can literally just make up some bullshit about how corbyn and labour hate the jews and they're not allowed to say you're making shit up because doing so means they're denying anti-semitism which ummmmm is denying anti-semitism and makes you an anti-semite sweaty??? literally cannot win.

This is the Labour Party that will defend the working class in a post-Brexit Britain. One that lies down and meekly accepts whatever the Murdoch press says about them.

---

BBC staff told they could be suspended if they attend LGBT pride events under new rules

BBC staff have been told not to attend LGBT pride marches under new impartiality rules announced on Thursday, i has learned.

One employee in news and current affairs was informed they could be issued with a formal warning or suspended from their job if they attend LGBT events.

David Jordan, the corporation’s director of editorial policy and standards, told a meeting of senior executives on Wednesday that the new rules include a ban on attending “political protests”, such as Black Lives Matter events and LGBT prides.

According to sources, senior staff challenged Mr Jordan to extend the ban to pride events over concerns the BBC could be seen to take a side in the debate around transgender rights.

‘Virtue signalling’ apology

The new policy is said to have left LGBT staff furious. Senior managers from across the UK have complained about in recent weeks as the new guidelines emerged.

The guidelines only apply to staff who are expected to be politically neutral, such as in news and current affairs.

One source told i the change is “obviously to please the Daily Mail and to make the BBC less of a target by rowing back”.

The new guidance on partiality, issued by director general Tim Davie, tells BBC staff they must avoid “virtue signalling” and hold back from supporting campaigns “no matter how apparently worthy the cause or how much their message appears to be accepted or uncontroversial”.

In an internal call to staff on Thursday, Fran Unsworth, director of BBC News, apparently apologised for the term “virtue signalling” but reiterated the implications of following guidance to not be seen as political.

But apparently there's exceptions to this "no virtue signalling" rule for poppies. Because apparently some virtue signalling is OK.

[Glorious Hong Kong]

Jeremy Corbyn suspended from Labour Party over response to antisemitism report



Jeremy Corbyn's ignominious demise is now complete and Starmer's purge of the cringe, ultra-woke, intolerant, radical Left continues. Flush them all out. Every single one of them. Restore sense and sensibility to left-wing politics once again.

[Hirota]

When did Corbyn's office repress anything?

---

The same general public you're disparaging as you brown-nose career politicians. I understand that people who spend a lot of time talking about politics on this website enjoy looking down on other people who spend a lot of time talking about politics on other websites, but users of "twatter"( ) who want Starmer out are members of the general public, are probably voters, and are probably members of the Labour Party, at least for the time being.

But never mind them, the pragmatism of parliamentary party members who see that keeping that position means standing by the current party leader, that will surely see Labour swept into power in a landslide.

Apparently there were 23 occasions where his office had inappropriate involvement in complaints such as staff trying to influence decisions made on things like suspensions. I can only assume you get involved to help your mates out of because you don't think or have a problem with what they have said or done. At best that makes him out of touch with reality or at worst he really does also hold those views himself deep down.

The only documented example that satisfies Ifreann's question regarding "When did Corbyn's office repress anything?" was this one:

The others, that were listed in the report appear to be almost the reverse of what you are claiming, such as involving Ken Livingstone:

But that misses the point. The report makes clear that the involvement of Corbyn's office led to discrimination in the complaints process, not that the involvement was in one direction or the other.

In effect, the findings in the report regarding political interference are that whilst the leadership did get involved in earlier cases - which they shouldn't do - Corbyn and his office later getting involved in trying to micro-manage the complaints process was also one of the reasons the complaints process was determined to be unlawful for Political interference. Corbyn yesterday said he had "acted to speed up, not hinder the process" of dealing with complaints, which does fit with the reports findings, but the point is how he acted led to more problems and more examples of unlawful behaviour, specifically surrounding Political interference. Which isn't to say he is or isn't anti-semetic, but instead raises questions about his and his staffs competency.

[Honeydewistania]

Jeremy Corbyn suspended from Labour Party over response to antisemitism report



Jeremy Corbyn's ignominious demise is now complete and Starmer's purge of the cringe, ultra-woke, intolerant, radical Left continues. Flush them all out. Every single one of them. Restore sense and sensibility to left-wing politics once again.

It isn’t anti-Semitic or intolerant to stand up against an apartheid state.

[Vassenor]

Jeremy Corbyn suspended from Labour Party over response to antisemitism report



Jeremy Corbyn's ignominious demise is now complete and Starmer's purge of the cringe, ultra-woke, intolerant, radical Left continues. Flush them all out. Every single one of them. Restore sense and sensibility to left-wing politics once again.

You do realise people liked his policies even if they didn't like him, right?

[Celritannia]

sCaReMoNgErInG!

This will not benefit anyone.

[Vassenor]

Also had a shower thought. Does anyone else find it terribly convenient that the EHRC dropped this judgement right around the time the government is facing criticism from across the board on its pandemic response and Labour is somewhat surging in opinion polling?

Almost like it's an attempt to deflect attention away from the government and its problems.

[An Alan Smithee Nation]

Also had a shower thought. Does anyone else find it terribly convenient that the EHRC dropped this judgement right around the time the government is facing criticism from across the board on its pandemic response and Labour is somewhat surging in opinion polling?

Almost like it's an attempt to deflect attention away from the government and its problems.

That's stupid conspiracy theory thinking.

[Hirota]

Also had a shower thought. Does anyone else find it terribly convenient that the EHRC dropped this judgement right around the time the government is facing criticism from across the board on its pandemic response and Labour is somewhat surging in opinion polling?

Almost like it's an attempt to deflect attention away from the government and its problems.

If I ever was to do a metaphorical poo in the shower, the last thing I'd do is smear it around for everyone to see my poo. What you've done here is taken a poo in the shower, and then tried to proudly proclaim it's some incredible revelation, even though it simply fell from your arse.

[An Alan Smithee Nation]

Corbyn is 71, he could retire from Labour Party politics, or he can carry on the infighting and fuck up their electoral chances. If he cares more about defeating the Conservatives, than his ego, he should step away.

[Hirota]

Corbyn is 71, he could retire from Labour Party politics, or he can carry on the infighting and fuck up their electoral chances. If he cares more about defeating the Conservatives, than his ego, he should step away.

His questionable judgement is why Boris Johnson was generally considered more credible.

Just let that sink in - Boris Johnson was considered more credible.

[The Nihilistic view]

Jeremy Corbyn suspended from Labour Party over response to antisemitism report



Jeremy Corbyn's ignominious demise is now complete and Starmer's purge of the cringe, ultra-woke, intolerant, radical Left continues. Flush them all out. Every single one of them. Restore sense and sensibility to left-wing politics once again.

You do realise people liked his policies even if they didn't like him, right?

My favorite policy was to have a vote on a sensible leave deal or remain. ...

[The Archregimancy]

Corbyn is 71, he could retire from Labour Party politics, or he can carry on the infighting and fuck up their electoral chances. If he cares more about defeating the Conservatives, than his ego, he should step away.

His questionable judgement is why Boris Johnson was generally considered more credible.

Just let that sink in - Boris Johnson was considered more credible.

Many - by no means all, but many - Corbyn supporters strike me as the British left of centre equivalent of MAGA voters in the United States.

Some of the pro-Corbyn posts in this thread and its predecessors over the years can read a bit like Greater Miami Shores's posts on Trump, except with much better vocabulary and grammar.

The accusations are all exaggerated, it's all a media conspiracy by biased media opponents, it's a deliberate attempt to distract from the government's current problems, he's far more popular than those pesky actual election results might suggest, just give him a chance and he'll lead us forward into the glorious future at some unspecified point if we just give him a chance.

The key differences are that Corbyn is clearly a much nicer person on a personal level (though not necessarily a much more effective party leader), and Trump actually won an election.

That the historically unpopular Corbyn might really have been a bit shit as a party leader for any number of reasons, of which facilitating a climate of anti-Semitism is just one (note that I don't believe Corbyn himself is an anti-Semite, just that he has a blind spot to the issue), never really seems to come under consideration.


Ostroeuropa is one of the few Corbyn supporters posting in the thread who actually acknowledged there was a problem with anti-Semitism; yes, he thought the scale of the problem was exaggerated for political purposes, but at least he acknowledged there was a problem.


It's all a bit depressing.


Note that I think some of the conservative-leaning posters in the thread are prone to similar levels of confirmation bias over Brexit and Johnson, but it can be particularly jarring coming from Corbyn supporters. I sort of expect that from the Brexit populists these days; Labour voters, not so much.

[The New California Republic]

Sky will not broadcast its TV carpentry contest The Chop after an investigation into a contestant's face tattoos found they "could be connected to far-right ideologies".

It said: "A contestant's tattoos included symbols that could be connected to far-right ideologies and could cause offence; we sincerely apologise for that and we are sorry that our processes did not prompt further investigation at an earlier stage. The contestant continues to strenuously deny that he has, or ever had, far-right leanings. We are thoroughly reviewing our internal processes following the investigation. AETN UK and Sky History stand against racism and hate speech of all kinds."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-54747089

And now The Chop has definitely got the chop.

[Mostrov]

https://www.the-tls.co.uk/articles/left ... is-mullin/

Divided they fell
Charting Jeremy Corbyn’s time as Labour leader

This is a chronicle of a death foretold, even if the death took rather longer than many had anticipated and produced one or two surprises along the way. Gabriel Pogrund and Patrick Maguire, journalists at the Sunday Times and TheTimes respectively, begin their narrative at 10pm on the night of the June 8, 2017 general election, at the moment a BBC exit poll was predicting that, against all odds, the Conservatives would lose their overall majority. For Theresa May it marked the beginning of the end. For Corbyn it was the hour of his greatest triumph. Labour gains included such improbable places as Kensington and Canterbury. As the night wore on a Labour Party official whispered to Corbyn, through “gritted teeth”, “There’s a small chance you could form a government, Jeremy”.

It was not to be, but for months afterwards, as May struggled with the deadlock in her own party, the tantalizing possibility remained that the Tory implosion would eventually see Corbyn in Downing Street. After that it was downhill all the way to the electoral disaster of 2019. This is the process the authors chart, having enlisted most of the main players in all factions (though not apparently Corbyn himself) to produce a forensic, blow-by-blow account. This is not an anti-Corbyn tract, just a serious attempt to tell it like it was. Almost no one comes out of it well.

The battles between rival camps are revealed in all their ferocity. For much of Corbyn’s reign, party headquarters in Victoria Street remained a New Labour bastion. Many officials there made little effort to conceal their contempt for their political masters. Some worked actively to undermine the leadership and were openly looking forward to the much anticipated wipeout in 2017. When it failed to materialize they could hardly conceal their dismay. A tranche of internal communications leaked earlier this year illustrated the scale of the problem. The parliamentary Labour party was overwhelmingly hostile. It was always a high-risk strategy for members to elect a leader who enjoyed the support of only a small number of Labour MPs – and so it proved. Many of the more capable MPs retreated to the backbenches. Others plotted. Following the brief respite of the 2017 election, normal service soon resumed, fuelled by rows over Brexit and antisemitism.

Then there was the problem of the deputy leader, Tom Watson. Like Corbyn, he had been directly elected by the members and therefore enjoyed his own mandate. His interventions were rarely helpful to the Labour leader, and he regularly popped up in the media to say how “appalled” he was at the latest allegations being chucked at Corbyn. He was, say the authors, “the de facto leader of the internal resistance”.

As for the leader’s office: it was dysfunctional, presided over by Karie Murphy, a female version of Malcolm Tucker from The Thick of It (her management style is described by one source as one of “brute force”). Over all this, exuding a Zen-like calm, floated the leader himself: indecisive, idiosyncratic, a man congenitally averse to confrontation. Time and again when difficult decisions had to be taken he would absent himself.

The only member of the top brass who appeared to be serious about power was the shadow chancellor John McDonnell. Belying his reputation as an intolerant hardman, McDonnell reinvented himself as an amiable, self-deprecating politician capable of compromise. But despite his best efforts to keep the show on the road, it was continually derailed by conflict, both internal and external.

The two intractable problems persisted: antisemitism and Brexit. The huge increase in Labour Party membership that resulted from Corbyn’s election undoubtedly brought with it a relative handful of antisemites, and the issue was badly handled; but Corbyn’s allies felt it was being weaponized by his many enemies. Brexit was a bigger problem. The plain fact is that Labour was as divided as the Tories. The membership and Labour voters were overwhelmingly pro-Remain, but in core working-class northern constituencies the electorate had voted overwhelming for Leave. Corbyn attempted to resolve this dilemma by sitting on the fence, which pleased nobody. But it is hard to see how any Labour leader, including Keir Starmer, could have resolved this. Brexit, not Corbyn, was the main dividing line. This was the chief difference between the 2017 and 2019 elections, with the first focused on Tory austerity and the second concentrated solely on Brexit, with Boris Johnson capitalizing on two years of public frustration over all the wrangling.

Inexplicable, then, was the decision to let him have the election he demanded in December 2019 when the Tories might just have been left swinging in the wind. It was, say the authors, “the biggest miscalculation of Corbyn and McDonnell’s four decades in politics”.