Corbyn's Elasticity

I do keep asking this question but never receiving an answer:

Who are the right that keep being spoken of on GN?
Anyone who is even slightly to the right of Corbyn, Momentum et al - right up to the far right?

In the country as a whole they would include a huge number of the electorate - and they are not an homogeneous mass with one thought, one ideal. Many, in fact, are to the left of centre.

Please will someone answer me.

Seems I am Jalima ? So anyone who isn't far left are the right , from left of centre to UKIP

Foot proved what trust voters had in the far left, Blair proved what the majority wanted. This is why Corbyn is into Glastonbury etc, targeting the young .

The problem with that Annie is that Blair was a creature of his time. There was a distinct hole in centre politics and Blair took the opportunity to move the Labour party to the right and fill it. But since then the Conservatives have caught up and moved themselves, in rhetoric if not in policies, into the centre ground. So you have UKIP attracting votes on the right and a substantial number of the electorate not bothering to vote because they can see little difference between the parties. Only the rise of the left wing has brought people back to engage with politics and stepping back will not result in more support for Labour, just more people not bothering to vote again.

Who are 'the right' that keep being spoken of on GN?

Anyone who disagrees? Seems I am too Jalima - a right, far-right, Tory, neoliberal capitalist! Personally, I'm relishing the kinder, gentler politics

I disagree Trisher, those drawn to labour now are the young through Momentum , when these young age and have jobs they will be concerned with being taxed heavily and many will vote Tory .

We need a left of centre Labour Party who cares for all and doesn't use the vunerable as vote catchers . There is no left of centre party now and this is what is needed , not an aging man with a murky past in the grips of the Unions

When McCkusky won his last fight for leadership of UNITE the turnout was less than 13%

GracesGran, I'm not sure I can really answer your query about what's criminal/illegal or not but the man who launched an online campaign of anti-Semitic abuse against Labour MP Luciana Berger was convicted of racially aggravated harassment and jailed for two years, so some posts may well fall into that category.
You may also find this useful, though it doesn't give details of what is deemed criminal (probably as this would depend on different laws in different countries):
www.holocaustremembrance.com/sites/default/files/press_release_document_antisemitism.pdf

Thangam Debbonaire has been summoned to "explain her actions" to her CLP as she attended the 'Enough is Enough' rally in Parliament Square. Apparently, it's only the political right who permeate antisemitism.
Shame they got the year wrong on the Battle of Cable Street (they needed to talk about Cable St on their notice to her?) That was one event nearly 80 years ago. I doubt anyone in her CLP attended it. It's almost as though it's the last time the Labour Party did anything they can be proud of for the Jewish community. Looks like Labour MPs are not allowed to stand up for the Jewish community now.

David Lammy's PLC want to deselect him

Anniebach disagree if you like, but try to do so from a real background- Labour membership’s age profile (28 per cent 18-44, 42 per cent 45-64 and 30 per cent 65+) So the largest majority are middle-aged. and people over 44 constitute a massive 72% of members. So hardly the "Oh they're young but they will learn" of your message

Primrose65 why is it anti-semitic to ask a Labour MP why they attended a rally organised and attended by prominent Conservatives?

GG re your last post. I am not surprised you have read the Labour manifesto, but a lot of others on here haven't or haven't actually listened to what Labour has been saying. And my post was intended to be read by all here not just you. :-)
I want to see a Labour government put that manifesto into practice. We haven't had a proper welfare state since the 1970s, and since the crash it has been dismantled bit by bit.
It isn't only the young who support this, there are a lot of us grans who see this as the only hope for our grandchildren. No party is 100% right, but some have more vision than others.
And I am really worried about the dirty tricks brigade on the right who will use anything they can to keep the power and money they have. Corbyn is at a disadvantage because he is trying to stay honourable to his beliefs, which is NOT your average politician's way.

GG: This is the Labour Manifesto
And my post was intended to be read by all here not just you.

I simply thought it was polite to reply to a post addressed to me Yggdrasil. Not much point in saying any more.

It would be easier if there was a proper Quote function on this forum, to make it obvious which post you are referring to without making it look as if you are only talking to one person. Sorry for not being clearer

Thank you bmacca. This was agreed by the Plenary of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) and adopted a 'non-legally binding' working definition of antisemitism under the Romanian Chairmanship.

Some of it seems obvious and some quite a shocking limit to free speech. I also wonder why the IHRA do not realise they would get further, and have more chance of guidelines being legalised by more countries if it had been written to cover every race and every religion.

Thank you again for finding it. It is certainly a bit of an eye-opener as to what they are trying to achieve.

And to get us back to the anti-semitic slurs, the link below shows you what Amnesty International has to say about Israel.
Not about Jews, just about the state that just killed 17 Palestinians and wounded 1400 while they protested about it in Gaza

50yearstoomany.uk/

How can you cover every race and religion in a definition of antisemitism? What do you think they are trying to achieve, other than an agreed working definition of antisemitism?

I think people are really confusing something that's very simple.

Anti-semitism is a form of racism. It is as simple as that.

Then Corbyn supported the anti semetic mural

It isn't simple Primrose65 the real difficulty is in dealing with the actions of Israel without implying that they are anything to do with Jews or a Jewish state. Unfortunately many become confused and anti-semitic by accident. In other cases a vociferous support of Palestinians can result in someone being falsely accused of anti-semitism. In fact it is very difficult.

Fingers. in ears emoticon.!

the real difficulty is in dealing with the actions of Israel without implying that they are anything to do with Jews

Yes trisher, I'm sure for some people it's really tough. Like discussing the actions of Iran without implying that it's anything to do with Muslims. Or discussing Ireland without mentioning Catholics.

I'd avoid political debate if I struggled like that.

How can you cover every race and religion in a definition of antisemitism?

Is that really what I said Primrose? Do you need to go to Specsavers? That would be just silly wouldn't it so why interpret it like that. Are you running out of sensible points to make?

Why isn't all racism treated in the same way. If the laws are not good enough for a particular race or religion then they are surely not good enough for any.

Yes trisher, I'm sure for some people it's really tough. Like discussing the actions of Iran without implying that it's anything to do with Muslims. Or discussing Ireland without mentioning Catholics.

Exactly. It happens and the various groups who are not involved explain and try to educate. We do not get the special pleading we see for those who are Jewish/Israeli. No one should be subjected to illegal racism or attacks because of their religion but if other race/religions/or those of no religion have to accept, as we are constantly told "free speech does not exist without the freedom to offend" then all races/religions should live by the same rules.

If rules need to change they should change for all but I would not want a dictatorship which says I may not voice my opinion on one subject because you can say it is on another. In the end only the law can decide. If that law is not being applied in some areas it should be; if it is not strong enough it should be strengthened. If we are not well enough educated to understand we should be educated. What should not happen is that one area of politics uses the suffering of others to try and defeat their opponent.

GG I assume you're making personal attacks on me before you've even found out who the IHRA is, let alone provide them with strategic advice on how to word their statements.

www.holocaustremembrance.com/index.php/stockholm-declaration