Corbyn's Magnetism

"There are many threats to Jews – and we are right to be vigilant. These threats come primarily from resurgent nationalism, anti-immigrant sentiment and a Brexit narrative that seeks to restore Britain to a mythical age of ethnic purity. The idea that Britain’s leading anti-racist politician is the key problem the Jewish community faces is an absurdity, a distraction, and a massive error."

Very old, Monica? Didn't think I was that much older than you, if at all.
Annie's older than I am and she's not attracted to Corbyn.

Good post, bmacca.
Those 30-40 labour MPs outside parliament yesterday, when they were supposed to inside debating, are the same 30-40 who have always wanted him out. They saw what they thought was an opportunity and took it.
Haven't noticed any more joining them today.

Luciana Berger brought this up, six years after it had been dealt with, six years after the mural had been painted over. Why?
She was saying that Corbyn failed to understand the hurt and anguish, but she caused it to resurface.
Why?

bmacca It's an interesting post from the JVL. With regard to the membership, you don't need to be Jewish to join them, just a member of the LP. Is there anywhere they publish membership numbers? I couldn't find it.

I think the blog post absolutely supports the 2 aims of the organisation. To promote the rights of Palestinians, which I think they've done in that article. And to counteract claims of anti-semitism in the LP, which I think they've done too.
I don't see one condemnation of anti-semitism. I do see some pretty wild justifications, though like "anti-Zionists easily slide into antisemitic tropes because Israel ....."
I don't think any of JVL leadership would say that on MSM TV interviews !

twitter.com/lucianaberger/status/977183210051338241

Horse. Dead. Flogging.

Then why don't you stop doing it?

I totally agree trisher. You just have to ask what they are afraid of where Corbyn is concerned.

"Yes Primrose, I agree that others surrounding Jeremy Corbyn have played a huge part in developing the Labour party into a mass movement. Lansmans contribution has been enormous along with McCluskey and other union general Secretaries for they have been hugely successful in portraying Corbyn as a leader for their memberships."

I think you are right Grandad. The contributions and schemes of others like Lansman and the Unions took Corbyn like a bit of putty, and shaped him. He didn't have to do much. He is hardly an orator of note and he blows with the wind as far as the EU is concerned, given he has been a Eurosceptic for decades.

He has been groomed by those with plans for the Labour Party. He was bewildered when thrust into the limelight, criticised for his bearing and attire and his inability to speak off the cuff at PMs Question Time. He read from lists. It as all a bit much for him, and many commented that his natural place was on the backbenches being a rebel. I don't see him as a good and natural leader; he's more of a figurehead for a movement.

He has adjusted but he is not charismatic. He has been trained in the art of public speaking, and he has embraced the tie and a smarter appearance. The stylists have been busy. The message of rebellion that he espouses probably appeals to those with more militant tendencies and the young who have anarchic ideals. I cannot count now how many times I have heard or read the phrase "Tory scum" from young and aggressive Labour members. That saddens and worries me.

I think you have to be with Corbyn all the way or reject him, there seems to be no middle ground. The hard left have moulded him and the new membership has embraced him. Many more centre left Labour voters don't like what's happened to Labour, and that includes Labour MPs.

Then of course the trans/self-identifying women issues, the Russian nerve agent crisis and his first reaction to exonerate Russia rather than support the government and now the anti-Semitism row and Jewish rallies against him and the party makes one wonder what's coming next.

However, to the faithful he can do no wrong, as shown here by left wing support for him.

"I agree that a lot of it is unpleasant and uncalled for. I think some people don't know how to debate, some just hate being challenged, some are just sad individuals who like to make mischief for their own amusement. Obviously we can have opposing views but we should always try to be respectful but somehow this doesn't happen in a lot of exchanges on social media. I don't know what the answer is."

Fair comment bmacca.

Social media has created bad feeling and huge rifts. You have to be on a side and the emnity between groups of supporters has become aggressive. I remember the days when we left our politics to biased newspapers. You'd get one daily view, not constant snippets and a running commentary on who is doing what. They'd take up the torch for the party they wanted to see in Number 10. Now hatred rules and it is so very unpleasant. A friend remarked recently that she feels so much better when she closes down her phone and ignores the political ranting from all sides on social media. I have never known a time when so many people have been politically engaged but at loggerheads. Sadly much of the 'debate' in papers and comment columns online tends to be shallow and of the slagging-off and crude nature. We are older and should know better I suppose.

(Apropos of nothing, I like your user name. I am hoping you're channelling Beverley Macca, of Royle Family fame. . Apologies if you're not!)

Day6, not Beverley but that is funny.
The difference is I do find Corbyn good to listen to and feel he has a certain charisma. I went to one of the hustings for the first leadership election, at that point probably going to vote for Andy Burnham. At the hustings, I felt that Corbyn spoke for me, what he said was what I believed about wanting a fairer society. My daughter and a work colleague said exactly the same. Since then I've spoken to him quite a few times and have not been disappointed. I worked on his Remain campaign in my area and again was impressed with what I heard and how he tried to include everyone. So I can only go from my experience and my belief in the Labour Party manifesto. A lot of what is written in the MSM and on social media is just not my experience

Extracts from Daniel Finkelstein's viewpoint in Times today:

Hatred of colonialism, capitalism and Zionism are so intertwined in left-wing minds that distaste for Jews comes easily.

Zionism became a shorthand for colonial oppression, and anti-Zionism a statement of opposition to western capitalism and of confidence that there is a workable popular alternative to the free market economy. Nazism was imperialist so Zionism must be like Nazism, and Hitler and the Jews were collaborators. This was the politics championed by Ken Livingstone, Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell as they worked together in the early 1980s, each with their own emphasis. It is all over the articles they produced for London Labour Briefing and Labour Herald. And it defined the allies that they accumulated.

Believing that there is a global conspiracy of bankers, Zionist colonialists, and the freemasons to oppress the workers of the world is a dangerously bonkers idea. And it is also bound to attract and sustain antisemites. The man who painted Corbyn’s mural is just one example.
Jeremy Corbyn wasn’t on those Facebook groups of antisemites by accident, nor did the mad conspiracy mural come to his attention by happenstance. He belonged to these groups because he shares their conspiracy-driven way of looking at the world, even if he wouldn’t always use the same language.

www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/comment/corbyn-s-world-view-is-made-for-antisemites-ckrc0b5lj

"conspiracy-driven way of looking at the world" is a phrase that describes much of what appears on politics threads on Gransnet.

The two posts above from bmacca and Baggs reflect the real issues here (for me)
I saw Jeremy Corbyn and the other leadership candidates speak at two hustings during the campaign. Like everyone else at both those meetings, I was impressed by what Jeremy said and the way he said it. He was inspirational, seemed to speak from the heart and from genuine long standing beliefs. I didn't vote for him because I was a huge Michael Foot fan and lived through the devastation caused by years of tory misrule. I hoped that Andy Burnham/Yvette Cooper would be more able to convince so called "ordinary" rather than true Labour voters, to vote for the LP. I accept that many LP voters here disagree with my feelings at that time. I was delighted that Labour did as well as it did at the last election.
Baggs - thanks for printing so much of the Finklestein article. It sums up the feelings I have about the simplistic way the so called Left sees "conspiracy" everywhere. I won't say any more just now about the anti semitism issue because I've made my position clear and recognise that the majority of fellow LP voters here disagree with me. I may well find myself unable to vote Labour - how grim would that be, first time in my life.

Groups who do not want the likes Corbyn or his views to be heard or get any power do use what they can and propagandise the stories they think will work against both. There are anti- Semites in every walk of life, including, but not only, both main parties, and they should be challenged just as any racist comment should be challenged. There is special pleading re racism against the Jews that we do not hear for other races and religions who have suffered attempts to wipe them out or take away their human rights. There is a lack of knowledge about world history that would enable people to understand what they are doing when they make stupid remarks, stereotyping a particular group, re sins which include only some who are of that group but also include others.

All the things we have discussed over the last few days have a basis of truth in them but are not a truth that only applies to the group currently under attack.

To then end up coming back with "conspiracy-driven way of looking at the world" is a phrase that describes much of what appears on politics threads on Gransnet. shows just how little some people 'listen'. Their tin ear tells them there is only one side to this argument, not that there is a basis of truth in much that has been said. They cannot hear because they choose not to and they, yet again, see insulting other GN members as the answer to it all.

Iam, if you do not vote labour for the first time in your life because of the way you now see Corbyn, then the conspiracy has worked.

Day6 He is hardly an orator of note Read some of the posts above and listen to the speeches of Corbyn. He speaks well, he speaks with authority, he speaks from the heart. Even before he became leader his speeches at ant-war rallies in 2003 were moving. Try googling and listening

Durhamjen, no it isn’t because any conspiracy has worked. It’s because of my lack of confidence I Corby, McDonald and Abbott. There are some good labour MPs of course. I find your accusation that I’m not a person who can evaluate what I see offensive. I’m familiar with conspiracy theories and well able to make a decision for myself. The LP needs to be convincing more people than it is currently. At the last election, our excellent MP s majority dropped but thankfully he still represents us. The most common comment on the doorstep was “I can’t vote for that Jeremy Corbyn”. The answer had to be, you’ll be voting for me, I’m the person whose represented you and will continue to do so, if you elect me”

I remember the days when we left our politics to biased newspapers. You'd get one daily view, not constant snippets and a running commentary on who is doing what.

I think that's a good point too. Now politicians really do need to be on top of the 24-hour news cycle in the MSM and on social media. Rightly or wrongly, this is all part of the job of being a senior politician now and they get the staff to manage it.
There's a trade off I suppose - when parties promote themselves well using all forms of media then we praise the way they've galvanised people to join them but you have to take the other side of the coin and accept the screw ups and people exposing unsavoury behaviour.

I think that's a good point too. Now politicians really do need to be on top of the 24-hour news cycle in the MSM and on social media.

I don't think it is true that 'politicians really of need to be on top of the 24-hour cycle in the MSM". More and more it is becoming, if not irrelevant, then certainly less relevant except to, perhaps, people of our age.

At its widest there are two groups in the world. One who have wealth and wish to hold onto it and one who wishes to use that wealth for as many as possible. Each of them will tell you they are the best for you. Each will almost certainly believe what they are saying.

Those with wealth will tell you that, like the cream, the "best" rise to the top - by this they mean those who can make and keep wealth. They will say that if they keep their wealth they will improve the lives of others.

The other will tell you that wealth needs to be used to open up opportunities for all directly and should not be so unevenly held and nor should individuals or companies have the power of nations because of it.

And ... just to get back to what we have been talking about, there are Jews in both groups.

And ... both groups will do what they can, sometime in a very underhand way, to get their message across or to try and defeat the other groups. It is not a conspiracy, it is how the world works.

I think when the BBC has 9.3 million Twitter followers, it probably exerts an influence on the news on social media too. A lot of news generated by the MSM is discussed on social media. Journalists for the MSM use it to promote their work. It certainly shapes the conversations. It's really not a separate news universe, just a different mechanism of delivering the same stories.
There are very few news stories that are generated from the bottom up on social media, not none, just few - it's still very top down via the MSM accounts.

The British "Media Barron's" would have us all believe that the growth in the Labour party combined with the election of Jeremy Corbyn would be down to people seeing a "capital conspiracy" working against them. I firmly believe that is totally untrue, and what Britain and other developed economies have witnessed is the unacceptable face of uncontrolled capitalism in recent years, and that is not conspiracy.

Every business in a capitalist society has a duty to produce as much profit as possible to those who have invested their capital in that business. In recent years due to weak regulation in advanced economies, we have seen the growth of multinational corporations (Globalized companies) that hold enormous power over governments and those that reside under those governments.

In the foregoing, production for multinationals can be placed in weak economy nations where employment rights, safety and wage legislation are at their poorest. Therefore, costs can be cut in those multinationals and that in turn produces huge profits and enormous power for its owners. However, in the above process good well paid employment is taken from developed economies leaving many previous employees of those companies without work or having to find poor wage and conditions employment in the gig economy.

The above is the situation that has brought forward the very left wing Labour party, Jeremy Corbyn and the mass growth of membership in that movement we all have witnessed. It is people's experience of globalization that has exclusively produced the radicalisation of British politics and nothing else.

Donald Trump realized the above in his election victory and in that promised change to the American people. There is little I agree with in the Trump administration, but in telling those multinational companies that if they wish to sell their products in the United States they will have to produce those products there also I entirely agree with. That is a policy that is beginning to show very positive results and long may that continue. Other economies in my view should carry out similar to the benefit of the whole globe.

Every business in a capitalist society has a duty to produce as much profit as possible to those who have invested their capital in that business.

Well, actually, Grandad that is a rather contested point. There is nothing in the 2006 Companies Act (UK) which explicitly states this. The relevant section on the duties of directors says this:

"172: Duty to promote the success of the company

(1)A director of a company must act in the way he considers, in good faith, would be most likely to promote the success of the company for the benefit of its members as a whole, and in doing so have regard (amongst other matters) to—

(a)the likely consequences of any decision in the long term,

(b)the interests of the company’s employees,

(c)the need to foster the company’s business relationships with suppliers, customers and others,

(d)the impact of the company’s operations on the community and the environment,

(e)the desirability of the company maintaining a reputation for high standards of business conduct, and

(f)the need to act fairly as between members of the company."

Of course, I doubt that the Act has many teeth...

And I haven't looked at similar Acts in other countries

There might also be a point to make that many of the shareholders in a company haven't invested any of their capital in a business; the only people who will have done that are those who bought shares when the company was first formed. When shares are purchased from the original shareholders the company sees nothing of the purchaser's money. Which makes it seem ironic that companies should be thought to have obligations to provide maximum dividend to people who have invested nothing at all in their business...

I would agree with you about the unacceptable face of uncontrolled capitalism though mainly on the point I'm making above. Which, in a way isn't 'capitalism' because much of the 'capital' invested is doing nothing for the company. Some economists call it 'rentierism', getting income from a non-productive activity...

Iam64 You have stated exactly what is happening, both for yourself and what you hear on the doorstep.
The fact that some posters still continue to deny your and others viewpoints as somehow not being ‘left’ enough or that you are mistaken entirely,is typical of the new element in the LP, and it seems to have trickled down to the older element now as well.

Every business in a capitalist society has a duty to produce as much profit as possible to those who have invested their capital in that business.

Grandad, that is under neoliberal capitalism which people have been brainwashed as the 'only way' to do things, even though it so often not in their or their neighbours interest. I do agree that some - seeing this as a capitalist conspiracy - have joined a growing number, who feel that only a move to what may ultimately be the far left, will temper this.

There is another way which is being very successful. Under it shareholders do not just pay up and take their divided, a dividend which is often increased at the risk of the company or a pension fund, because the pay of those running that company relates to the dividend. Under this system the shareholders are also the responsible body for the company.

The result is a governance model that encourages strong shareholders to engage in the governance of the company in their own interest, while creating value for the company and all its shareholders.

In recent years, the Nordic region has attracted considerable positive attention around the world. In a special report about the Nordic region published in February 2013, The Economist used the title »The next supermodel«, pointing to the fact that the Nordic countries cluster at the top of global league tables of everything from economic competitiveness to social health. The countries also stand out by being home to a notable share of world-leading companies, which by far exceeds the region’s share of the world economy. About 60 Nordic companies qualify on the Forbes list of the world’s 2000 largest publicly listed companies. This significantly exceeds the number for Germany, although the combined size of the Nordic economies is less than half of that of that country.

I have said before that I would like to see a truly Social Democratic party in this country. One of the things that appeals to me most is that, when asked to define the Nordic Economy model it's meaning is given as both Nordic capitalism and Nordic Social Democracy.

* The Nordic corporate Governance Model

The most common comment on the doorstep was “I can’t vote for that Jeremy Corbyn.” Iam64.
My experience canvassing for Labour before last year’s election differs from those of iam64. I live in a rural Conservative constituency with a new youngish Labour candidate, and we only had one person who brought up Corbyn’s name on the doorstep (she was admittedly quite vehemently against Corbyn). Most people had favourable reactions to the Labour message.
There had been in recent years a fair bit of support for UKIP and a lot of the electorate here is older. But not much dismay about Corbyn here.
But obviously lemongrove won’t believe me.