I was just about to post about Mensch - I think she actually has something wrong with her. Very odd behaviour.
Her continued attempts to label Corbyn supporters as Anti-Semites is quite funny tbf, especially as her criteria for this seems to be the use of the word “Zionism”.
You can just look at Louise Mensch’s Twitter feed for the past couple of weeks and you can see she is obsessed with linking Corbyn with anti-semitism. First off, I think the power of that particular attack has diminished. Second, she doesn’t seem particularly bright to start with.
I don’t know if there’s anything wrong with her. I’ve met a few rabid pro-Israel Tories in my time that would make many of the same arguments as her. The difference is that not all of them married Peter Mencsh. I think she’s probably been to a few too many ADL dinners, and has bought into the idea of new antisemitism, which conflates criticism of Israel and opposition to the Zionist project as implemented with ill intent for Jewish people.
Mensch can do her number to her heart’s content - she’s an idiot. The question isn’t whether Corbyn is or isn’t anti-Semitic (I’m unsure on this charge but I don’t think it’s helpful to raise it in the way many have). It’s rather that Corbyn has a track record for seeking to associate himself with causes in what can only be a self-aggrandising way, with little to no practical consequence.
I’m aware of not a single episode in which he’s met a controversial figure or orgnaisation as part of a process to effect change. Meet Hamas or Hezbollah by all means, but the minute you describe them as ‘friends’ you alienate the other side. Any actual progress made by political interventions like this absolutely requires an ability to talk to both sides - no matter how uncomfortable that may be personally or politically. It just doesn’t seem to be in poor Jeremy’s DNA to een consider this. Yet another reason, I suspect why he’s spent three decades in a dusty Westminster corner.
I suspect his associations with Holocaust deniers like James Thring (himself an associated of David Duke of the KKK) were the product of nothing more than the desire to impress his rather particular consituency in Islington. On that score - as consituency MP keeping up with the on-trend Joneses - he’s been singularly successful.
All this may work for an obscure constituency MP, but as a prospective statesman it’s comically inept.
What day do we find out if the Tories are going to walk the next election or not?
Furball vs the rest of Papsweb. Good effort! (Most entertaining).
Corbyn addresses your concerns in this interview here. The reason that people are kicking off about this is that Hamas and Hezbollah have been labelled as terrorists, militants etc and they’ve been excluded from the discussion because of this. Taking a step to talk to them and involve them in the debate is logical, even despite their actions. To be honest though, if we’re looking at who should be involved in the discussion on peace in the Middle East purely based on who hasn’t committed horrible offences, we’ll be looking for someone to talk to for a long time. Nobody has clean hands in all of this, but involving all the relevant parties in the debate is the best way to a solution.
In Corbynomics news however, his policies and theories have been lent a bit of credence by an open letter published by 41 leading economists who are all saying that his economic policy is feasible and implementable. Interesting to see some fairly prominent figures speaking out in favour of this type of economics - especially as Corbyn seems to be vehemently against the Free Market (good on him I say!).
Nope, the interview does nothing of the kind. It merely reinforces what I’ve just said. If you want to include people in a conversation you behave in such a way that you can also talk to the other side. Besides, a political pygmy like Corbyn is simply not going to move any conversation on with pointless grandstanding.
As for prominent economists, there’s just as much if not more of a contrary opinion among economists. Getting the support of someone like Krugman is fine, until you take into account that he also praised the economic policies of Kirchner in Argentina and the Workers’ Party in Brazil - policies that have produced double-digit inflation, years of recession and mounting economic chaos. Krugman also supported Syriza’s particular method of rejecting austerity - and look at the result.
There are good reasons to reject the austerity orthodoxy, not least the frightening damage it does. But that doesn’t mean that merely to stand on the other side of the fence is sufficient - especially if it produces the same chaos in different garb for the very people that are supposed to be helped by it.
Be very careful what you wish for.
I quite fancy Louise Mensch … 
In other news, Corbyn’s austerity plans aren’t that leftfield after all
How should he have greeted Hamas & Hezbollah representatives then? “Hello filthy terrorist scum”? Within a few weeks we’ll be welcoming Benjamin Netanyahu to the UK and you can bet that he’ll be spoken of as a friend and ally by our government, but he’s just as much of a terrorist as anyone in Hamas or Hezbollah. The 76,000 people who have signed a petition to arrest him on his arrival to the UK would probably agree with me on that one as well… I don’t think we’ll have a problem getting Israeli representatives to the negotiation table given that we provide Israel with £6bn+ annually, and the US provides $15bn+. Netanyahu won an election off the back of a promise to negotiate towards a two-state solution which he promptly reneged on as soon as he was in power - we’ve got to start seeing things in black and white and realise that both sides in this are pretty much as bad as each other and neither deserves any sort of preferential treatment in terms of how the other side is addressed and referred to.
They’re not Corbyn’s plans - they’re the plans of a TUC advisor called Richard Murphy, who has a first degree in ecomonics at least. His main rap is that most problems can be solved by cutting out large scale corporate tax avoidance. A worthy aim, but hell might well get mildly chilled before any tax clawback is big enough to fundamentally affect the economy in such as a way as restore public services to the degree that Corbyn reasonably wants.
And as I’ve already said, you can line up economists on both sides of the fence. It’s not called the ‘dismal science’ for nothing.
Aside from that the ‘people’s QE’ even on Murphy’s plan doesn’t kick in until Osborne has so royally screwed up the economy that it’s on its knees. Murphy does at least see the danger of this kind of QE in relatively stable economic conditions. There’s actually nothing new with ‘people’s QE’ - it was essentially the economics of Roosevelt’s New Deal (itself a response to the Great Depression). This was a much bolder plan than the one Murphy is talking about, and there are some important lessons to be learned from it - but it was at its root a policy designed to entrench American capitalism, not displace it. It ushered in far greater trade liberalisation, for example. To translate that into today’s world, that means support for the EU’s liberalisation programme and greater unification, as well as support for TTIP.
Land grabs and occupation, ask any mp on that situation and you’ll find exactly what they are about, one will say it’s wrong and should be stopped immediately and the other will say it’s wrong and dislogue with the Israeli’s is the answer, the answer or question is would you like chunks of Hampshire being settled on by an occupying force?
Life is too short to worry about shit like this.
By the time you change your mind umpteen times about what you believe in and are sorely disappointed by those that are supposed to represent you, you will be too old to care.
Have fun.
Live life.
Originally posted by @SuperMikey
How should he have greeted Hamas & Hezbollah representatives then? “Hello filthy terrorist scum”?
Who’s saying he should? Certainly not me. I don’t understand your point.
Within a few weeks we’ll be welcoming Benjamin Netanyahu to the UK and you can bet that he’ll be spoken of as a friend and ally by our government, but he’s just as much of a terrorist as anyone in Hamas or Hezbollah.
And so he is, no doubt. We still have to deal with him, although you wouldn’t know it from Corbyn’s behaviour so far.
The 76,000 people who have signed a petition to arrest him on his arrival to the UK would probably agree with me on that one as well… I don’t think we’ll have a problem getting Israeli representatives to the negotiation table given that we provide Israel with £6bn+ annually, and the US provides $15bn+.
This point (above)…
Netanyahu won an election off the back of a promise to negotiate towards a two-state solution which he promptly reneged on as soon as he was in power.
…contradicts this point.
And to make your argument even more puzzling…
- we’ve got to start seeing things in black and white and realise that both sides in this are pretty much as bad as each other and neither deserves any sort of preferential treatment in terms of how the other side is addressed and referred to.
Seeing things in black and white? That’s the opposite of what you do in negotiated settlements!! You find points of agreement of work from those, inch by inch.
Besides which, your last point is an admonishment of Corbyn. Aren’t you trying to defend Corbyn?
Regarding Hamas specifically. We really ought to be the last nation on earth that says “NEVER!” when it comes to dealing with people that are labelled terrorists, particularly when the British and American governments have got the label maker.
When our governments stood side by side with the most racist government on the planet in the 1980s, the ANC were labelled terrorists. They are now in power as a legitimate political entity.
Most of us on here have lived through a bombing campaign by the Provisional IRA. Those living in NI had to deal with day to day violence, ranging from highly publicised events that we saw on TV to isolated incidents that are just as devastating for the people involved. The most extreme sides of the conflict are now sharing power.
Dialogue has demonstrated itself to be the only acceptable way to resolve these conflicts. Hamas are democratically elected to serve the people of Gaza, therefore they have to be part of the dialogue. Corbyn, much like he was in the 1980s when talking to people in the PIRA, is simply ahead of the game.
No, he’s not! The idea that no one apart from Corbyn is talking to Hamas is absurd. The EU are, as are the individual EU member representatives, and even Blair is (and hs been for a long time), as well as, on the QT, the Americans and even the Israelis. That’s aside from more naturally sympathetic regimes in the region and elsewhere. Hamas leaders can travel quite freely in most places of the world and often do so.
My point isn’t that Corbyn, or anyone else, shouldn’t meet them. It’s that if he wants to be part of anyone meaningful progress he should watch his language - words are everything in such delicate negotiations. My complaint is that he was grandstanding, for which he has form, and it will now come back to haunt him if he’s ever in the position of being able to actually do something from a position of power.
I think the point about watching your language is entirely fair comment.
I know about other people talking to Hamas - I made the exact same points over on TSW when Chapel End Charlie was sloshing off about how we shouldn’t talk to terrorists. I pointed out that Israel and Hamas were talking in Egypt at that very point (they were in Cairo trying to bring an end to the 2014 Gaza incursion).
The problem is, you’ve got sections of the UK press trying to equate dialogue with condonement of the more extreme actions or statements, plus a setup in Parliament where 80% of Tory MPs have come through CFI. LFI is seen as a vehicle for advancement in Labour and has been very well funded in the past.
So yep, let’s agree that Corbyn could perhaps have moderated his language, and that the Conservatives probably already have tons of material to take out of context - as long as we avoid the simplistic claptrap that speaking to people the country doesn’t like isn’t tantamount to treason. I know you haven’t made this case, but is very much the character of a lot of the attacks now, and we’re talking Martha Kearney in addition to the usual suspects such as the Mail or Express.
6 links Jeremy Corbyn doesn’t want you to know about.
https://markfiddaman.wordpress.com/2015/08/21/6-links-jeremy-corbyn-doesnt-want-you-to-know-about/
Some peas
At a charity supper in 1993, Corbyn accidentally tripped up at the buffet table, causing his elbow to become submerged in some peas.
While healthy in moderation, peas can contribute to weight gain in children, if consumed in vast quantities, or in conjunction with lard.
Why does Corbyn condone childhood obesity? Is it because, as PM, he would require a generation of hefty youngsters to pull carts as they toil in his socialist salt mines?
Yes. It almost certainly is.
