The Chairman Mao resembling, Monarchy hating, threat to Britain, Labour Party thread

[maqroll]

Anyone know anything more about this?

 

[Seat68]

44 minutes ago, maqroll said:

Anyone know anything more about this?

 

I think he created a caricature of Richard Sharp in the guardian, perhaps picking up jewish tropes. That’s a guess as I have seen the cartoon but not the fallout.  

[ml1dch]

1 hour ago, maqroll said:

Anyone know anything more about this?

 

 

Edited April 29, 2023 by ml1dch

[Demitri_C]

On 28/04/2023 at 13:45, bickster said:

 

Yay we are saved

[maqroll]

2 hours ago, ml1dch said:

 

The only thing I see here that could be interpreted as a trope is the octopus/squid holding what might be gold coins. But isn't there a level of truth there, regardless of Sharp's religion? Banks like Goldman Sachs are parasitical. I get queasy when satirists are censored.

 

[bickster]

1 hour ago, maqroll said:

The only thing I see here that could be interpreted as a trope is the octopus/squid holding what might be gold coins. But isn't there a level of truth there, regardless of Sharp's religion? Banks like Goldman Sachs are parasitical. I get queasy when satirists are censored.

 

You realise the whole Jewish bankers thing is an antisemitic trope?

It is literally the second part of the widely accepted IHRA definition of Antisemitism

"Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as collective — such as, especially but not exclusively, the myth about a world Jewish conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal institutions.

[bickster]

1 hour ago, maqroll said:

I get queasy when satirists are censored.

Also, there was no censorship. The paper that paid for it and owned the rights to it chose not to use it any more after complaints, that isn't censorship

[maqroll]

2 minutes ago, bickster said:

Also, there was no censorship. The paper that paid for it and owned the rights to it chose not to use it any more after complaints, that isn't censorship

True, that. But you know what I'm saying. The editors gave it the ok and then pulled it after public pressure. A self-censoring, if you will.

[bickster]

1 minute ago, maqroll said:

True, that. But you know what I'm saying. The editors gave it the ok and then pulled it after public pressure. A self-censoring, if you will.

Someone points out that something you did was wrong, you accept the criticism, you correct the error and apologise.

That isn't even self censorship. That's what you'd expect sane rational .well adjusted people to do.

[Chindie]

The IHRA definition isn't what I'd reach for with anti-Semitism definition. Labour were **** feeble in their kowtowing to it and no-one else should either.

[maqroll]

8 minutes ago, bickster said:

You realise the whole Jewish bankers thing is an antisemitic trope?

It is literally the second part of the widely accepted IHRA definition of Antisemitism

"Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as collective — such as, especially but not exclusively, the myth about a world Jewish conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal institutions.

Of course I know all that, but the guy in question was in fact a banker and has been operating corruptly within media and government. The similarity to the stereotype is unfortunate, but should he not be skewered by satirical cartoonists just because the stereotype exists? The stereotype is an ugly slur on the Jewish people and feeds into the worst aspects of conspiratorial thinking and basic bigotry, but that shouldn't give immunity from satirical skewering to any Jewish governmental or quasi governmental figure who is found to be sleazy and corrupt.

In my view there is nothing about the drawing of Sharp that seems offensive like a "hooked nose" or a crafty, drooling ghoul like you'd see in Nazi propaganda. I do concede that the octopus with the gold coins imagery leans too far into those tropes. But on the whole, it's a typical Rowson production, very edgy and boundary pushing, which is what a satirical political cartoon should be.

I'm sensitive to the use of harmful tropes intentional or not. Having read Rowson's statement on his website, I believe it wasn't. The octopus is troublesome though. I don't know, perhaps he crossed a line with it and betrayed some internalized prejudice.

 

 

[bickster]

19 minutes ago, maqroll said:

Of course I know all that, but the guy in question was in fact a banker and has been operating corruptly within media and government. The similarity to the stereotype is unfortunate, but should he not be skewered by satirical cartoonists just because the stereotype exists? The stereotype is an ugly slur on the Jewish people and feeds into the worst aspects of conspiratorial thinking and basic bigotry, but that shouldn't give immunity from satirical skewering to any Jewish governmental or quasi governmental figure who is found to be sleazy and corrupt.

In my view there is nothing about the drawing of Sharp that seems offensive like a "hooked nose" or a crafty, drooling ghoul like you'd see in Nazi propaganda. I do concede that the octopus with the gold coins imagery leans too far into those tropes. But on the whole, it's a typical Rowson production, very edgy and boundary pushing, which is what a satirical political cartoon should be.

I'm sensitive to the use of harmful tropes intentional or not. Having read Rowson's statement on his website, I believe it wasn't. The octopus is troublesome though. I don't know, perhaps he crossed a line with it and betrayed some internalized prejudice.

 

 

He's got a puppet of Rishi Sunak in the box in his hands. Sunak has nothing to do with the issues. The inference is that a Jewish Banker is the puppet master of the government. It's antisemitic

[maqroll]

4 minutes ago, bickster said:

He's got a puppet of Rishi Sunak in the box in his hands. Sunak has nothing to do with the issues. The inference is that a Jewish Banker is the puppet master of the government. It's antisemitic

Apparently he was Sunak's boss at Goldman Sachs and a major donor to the Tories. So the inference in the cartoon is that he's got a measure of control/influence over Sunak, and I don't think it's too far fetched to assume that it's a correct inference, as it's kind of standard practice in politics that party donors wield considerable power, no matter their ethno-religious background.

 

[ml1dch]

7 minutes ago, maqroll said:

Apparently he was Sunak's boss at Goldman Sachs and a major donor to the Tories. So the inference in the cartoon is that he's got a measure of control/influence over Sunak, and I don't think it's too far fetched to assume that it's a correct inference, as it's kind of standard practice in politics that party donors wield considerable power, no matter their ethno-religious background.

As that thread that I linked points out, context and history matter, and not all subjects can be treated the same.

A cartoonist could portray Boris Johnson or Donald Trump as a gorilla and nobody would bat an eyelid. 

Do the same with James Cleverly or David Lammy and he will never work again.

Edited April 29, 2023 by ml1dch

[bickster]

10 minutes ago, maqroll said:

Apparently he was Sunak's boss at Goldman Sachs and a major donor to the Tories. So the inference in the cartoon is that he's got a measure of control/influence over Sunak, and I don't think it's too far fetched to assume that it's a correct inference, as it's kind of standard practice in politics that party donors wield considerable power, no matter their ethno-religious background.

 

You keep describing why it's antisemitic.

[bickster]

Quote

New polling for The Constitution Society has revealed the Labour Party would remain on course to regain all Red Wall seats and could expand its overall support if it said Brexit was a mistake. The polling suggests that the Party could even win an increased Commons majority at a general election if it made such a move. 

At present, the Party is committed to a policy of making Brexit work. The Labour leader, Sir Keir Starmer, has ruled out ever rejoining the EU, the Single Market or the Customs Union, or returning to Freedom of Movement. Starmer and other senior Labour figures who were previously pro-Remain now insist it is time to move on from the issue. They have maintained a position of not criticising Brexit despite evidence of public opinion turning increasingly against UK withdrawal from the EU.

Labour seems to be motivated by the fear that appearing to be anti-Brexit would risk its chances of regaining the so-called ‘Red Wall’ seats at the next General Election. The ‘Red Wall’ label applies to constituencies which produced ‘Leave’ majorities in the 2016 EU referendum, and which Labour lost to the Conservatives in the 2019 General Election. Regaining lost ground in the ‘Red Wall’ is often regarded as being essential to a Labour return to power at the next General Election.

The Constitution Society

This is from 21st March, Labour doesn't appear to have smelt the coffee yet

[chrisp65]

Quite an inspiring interview with Starmer this morning on R4.

Whilst he has set out a pledge to scrap Uni Fees, he believes he’s now unfortunately going to change his position on this. Similarly, whilst he previously mentioned increasing taxes on the wealthiest 5% he feels now is not the time what with everything being so expensive. Also, whilst he’s previously suggested renationalising energy that isn’t really feasible and he also volunteered that he feels Labour may have to alter their previous position on renationalisation of water.

 

[Chindie]

Well, I for one an shocked, shocked I tell you, that Starmer has no principles and basically wants a slightly more respectable continuity of 15 (or whatever number of years you reckon it's been bad) years of shit.

[Demitri_C]

1 hour ago, chrisp65 said:

Quite an inspiring interview with Starmer this morning on R4.

Whilst he has set out a pledge to scrap Uni Fees, he believes he’s now unfortunately going to change his position on this. Similarly, whilst he previously mentioned increasing taxes on the wealthiest 5% he feels now is not the time what with everything being so expensive. Also, whilst he’s previously suggested renationalising energy that isn’t really feasible and he also volunteered that he feels Labour may have to alter their previous position on renationalisation of water.

 

Is this for real? So every pledge he made he is going to roll with?

[Seat68]

1 minute ago, Demitri_C said:

Is this for real? So every pledge he made he is going to roll with?

One for @chrisp65 Chris only mentions pledge once, so I am not certain if they were policies or just things Starmer has talked about. I don't know the answer to that. I am still deliberating if I vote for them as I am not a fan of the previous administration, or back pedalling. When I get time I will look to see if this is reneging on policies or just being pushed on suggestions from previous interviews.