The deathly triumph of “moderation”
JVL Introduction
In a lengthy and thought-provoking analysis, Daniel Finn compares the political trajectories of Jeremy Corbyn and Nicola Sturgeon, whose departure from centre stage heralds, according to some, a “new moderation” in British politics.
In reality it is more the establishment closing ranks and reasserting its power in the face of what it recognised – and feared – as strong challenges to the status quo.
In this essay, Finn takes a fresh look at the relatively familiar territory of the use of the antisemitism in the Corbyn crisis (his use of Jonathan Freedland’s devastating critique of the 2004 Hutton Report is particularly telling in the context of the EHRC Report, treated as holy writ).
He also considers the shifting fate of the Scottish National Party, a subject largely ignored in the English media.
He concludes:
“For all the differences between them, Corbyn and Sturgeon both argued that there was something fundamentally wrong with the manner in which Britain is governed and suggested that there might be a better way of doing things. That was the sin for which they could not be forgiven.”
This article was originally published by Jacobin on Fri 17 Mar 2023. Read the original here.
Britain’s Power Elite Has Defeated Its Challengers by Creating a Political Wasteland
Media pundits claim that British politics is experiencing a “great moderation” with the departures of Nicola Sturgeon and Jeremy Corbyn. What they really mean is that a decrepit model based on food banks and xenophobia no longer faces mainstream opposition.
Loading article text…
“in reality, there are several good reasons for not comparing Israel with Nazi Gemany”………such as? Seems OK for Gary Lineker to suggest that the Tories had much in common with the policies of at least one political party of ’30s Germany (no intention to imply any support for this gov’t).
Antisemitism was weaponized to topple Jeremy Corbyn, of that there is no doubt, and to understand why you have only to look at the consistent way Jeremy argued for international law to be respected in the treatment of Palestinians. Westminster governments have treated Scotland with disdain and Nicola Sturgeon fought against that. Other factors contributed to her demise. The Scot-Nats did stand out for championing causes which the Labour Party ducked.
Nicola Sturgeon expressed an animus towards Jeremy Corbyn that I always wondered about.
I suppose they were political rivals in Scotland, which would account for some of it, but how much of it was genuine?
Surely, she must have realised that Scotland stood a better chance of an IndyRef2, under a Corbyn Premiership, than she would have done – as has been proven – under the Tories, or, even Starmer.
Above all else, Jeremy Corbyn is a democrat, who believes in allowing people to have their democratic choice.
Could her animus – no matter how disingenuous, or slight – have been a self-inflicted wound?
Just came across this artcle by Ian Austin in the Jewish Chronicle from a few days ago:
‘Starmer can’t erase his former support for Corbyn’
https://www.thejc.com/lets-talk/all/starmer-can't-erase-his-former-support-for-corbyn-DDms1mbbf2nMB5uNezjlI
PS I’ve just been re-researching the early days of A/S allegations – ie pre Shah/Livingstone – and, as such, delved deeper into the Vicky Kirby episode, and I’d be really interested to know if JVL regards any of the comments she posted (bar the Big Nose one which was quoting David Baddiel) as anti-semitic.
They are listed down the page (in a tweet) in this Huff Post article:
https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/jeremy-corbyn-vicky-kirby-anti-semitism_uk_56e80319e4b03fb88ede23bf
Thanks