Current Affairs The Labour Party

[davek]

Article 10 of the EHRC Report (p.27):



So that's that then. How can Corbyn be suspended for questioning the scale of anti-semitism.

No wonder the LP wont specify the charge against Corbyn. They are utterly snookered.

Incompetent gets.

 

[Tubey]

Article 10 of the EHRC Report (p.27):

View attachment 106407

So that's that then. How can Corbyn be suspended for questioning the scale of anti-semitism.

No wonder the LP wont specify the charge against Corbyn. They are utterly snookered.

Incompetent gets.

Because he stated why he believed the scale of antisemitism was wrong - e.g. blaming a conspiracy for exaggerating it.

That's the problem.

 

[catcherintherye]

Oh, without question there's an element of truth in what Corbyn is saying. He was factionally attacked on it, without question. It'd be mad to pretend otherwise; it happened.

But it's the level of blame he places on it that is uncomfortable. He's using it as his get out of jail card constantly, belittling the actual anti-semitism by saying it barely exists. Which is quite blatantly false.

He's reacted this way to an EHRC report slamming the party under his leadership. He's completely, totally incapable of accepting blame or acknowledging the problem, even when presented with something as damning as an EHRC report. To blame factional politics in the face of a report like that is insane.

He enabled anti-semitism through his words and actions. He continues to enable it now. Which is why I think any right minded person would see his suspension as completely fair, given he's absolutely bang to rights on this. But there was always a cult around Corbyn and people leave their brains at the door when he's the subject matter.

I think we are debating slightly different things here.

The issue you have, is to suggest as you do above that he was factionally attacked, makes you an anti-semite according to the rules. If thats the case, I just don't think the rules are fit for purpose. If you then protest your case and explain the context (as you do below eloquently) you are then doubly anti-semitic for harassment and refusing to accept the finding.

I disagreed with Corbyn's wording. I wouldn't have phrased it how he did. However the point that anti-semitism cases went down under his watch but the impression created is that they spiralled out of control is a worthwhile point in this. I don't think that is racist to point it out. I actually think throwing the label of racism at someone, when they point out a truth that is inconvenient is unhelpful intrying to resolve debates (thats not an accusation to you,just the wider movement).

If people could show me, clearly what he did to enable anti-semitism in his actions I'd be very open to seeing it, or the evidence that hes bang to rights. Even his statement today, the first 2 paragraphs outline why anti-semitism is wrong and we need to fight it. It just doesn't fit with the notion of a guy who isn't accepting of anti-semitism.

I also think, going back to the origina point, him contesting that the scale of anti-semitism was made out to be greater than the concrete reality (that cases had been going down) automatically makes him (or myself, or you above for rightly noting the factional element of it) automatically prejudicial towards Jewish people. I mean we could be, but it's not categorically the case that we are. FWIW I dont think you are, I am certainly not and I don't think Corbyn is either.

 

[Mrk]

We are both in agreement they have an institutional desire to win. It's a good point and often one that is missed when people hold the view of "oh the tories will never do x,y or z" and you think, if they can see a shortt term electoral benefit they will try most things.

It is probably unhelpful to view things as classically "left" and "right" but they ultimately want to govern in the interests of allowing the wealthy to maximise profits. In general that involves lower taxation, less regulation etc. That is the marriage that governs the tories though, that contradiction between longer term, broader goal for a narrower group, and a shorter term pragmatism to attract a bigger group of voters.

I know plenty of Tories as well. The ones who were more political were very spooked by Corbyn. They also knew that Corbyn didn't really gift them anything, they could see that the decision to turn on Brexit, allied to Farage's decision to step aside gave them an opening. When they recorded their lowest electoral performance ever 6 months before the election, they were a long long way off being delighted at facing Corbyn. They had no idea how he managed 2017.

There's a lot of nonsense in what is said and what is felt by them. Their main ploy electorally is to drive down Labour voters. Voter suppression is their biggest goal. They will give it the churchillian rhetoric, but they want to suppress enthusiasm, and were always concerned Corbyn could outdo that.

Some fair points - but on the subject of Corbyn, they knew he could never win a majority since day one. The key undeniable fact is for Labour to win a majority, they must secure soft-conservative voters - they simply cannot win without them.

It seems like Labour need to split, as the party can’t go on having this war between ideology and success. It’s going to be very interesting how this plays out, but I can only hope for the sake of everybody that they get their **** together.

 

[catcherintherye]

Wow. Blair was some anti-semite. All that's missing off this is Howard saying "Oy vey!"

These were billboards as well, front and centre of the campaign. It's absolutely horrendous. I can't stand Michael Howard, but it's absolutely horrendous. Even my fairly tribal loyalty to Labour over the Tories can see that. This is like Banana's thrown at John Barnes bad. Yet the people who dreamt this up, are now judging you me and everyone else on what is or isn't anti-semitic. Forgive me for not being too keen to take their opinions very seriously.

 

[catcherintherye]

Some fair points - but on the subject of Corbyn, they knew he could never win a majority since day one. The key undeniable fact is for Labour to win a majority, they must secure soft-conservative voters - they simply cannot win without them.

It seems like Labour need to split, as the party can’t go on having this war between ideology and success. It’s going to be very interesting how this plays out, but I can only hope for the sake of everybody that they get their **** together.

Well could anyone have? Barring a couple of elections where the Tories were on their knees, Labour have never won a majority without Scotland, which had long since been surrendered. My experience of them, was the austerity consensus they had built and were proud of was beign dismantled and they weren't massively happy about it.

As for the 2nd part I agree. What does getting their stuff together look like to you?

I think Labour should split. It's 2 parties in one and it's very hard for them to coexist together. It wouldn't have been impossible but I think the opportunity for that to occur has probably gone.

 

[Moomin]

Because he stated why he believed the scale of antisemitism was wrong - e.g. blaming a conspiracy for exaggerating it.

That's the problem.

I just went to the world football forum.

Typed your username and the word lazy.

Over 50% of the posts was about Romelu.

That's the problem.

 

[Mrk]

Well could anyone have? Barring a couple of elections where the Tories were on their knees, Labour have never won a majority without Scotland, which had long since been surrendered. My experience of them, was the austerity consensus they had built and were proud of was beign dismantled and they weren't massively happy about it.

As for the 2nd part I agree. What does getting their stuff together look like to you?

I think Labour should split. It's 2 parties in one and it's very hard for them to coexist together. It wouldn't have been impossible but I think the opportunity for that to occur has probably gone.

I believe it is possible for Labour to win a majority without Scotland. Far from easy, and it will probably take a few elections to get there, but possible. Think the worst thing Labour could do now is throw the towel in because they think it’s impossible.

Getting their stuff together for me looks like this: Competence. That’s all I want. Since 2016 we’ve had the most incompetent government and opposition in modern history and the country is much poorer as a result. Boris is incompetent to his fingertips, so a competent opposition would be a dream.

 

[davek]

Because he stated why he believed the scale of antisemitism was wrong - e.g. blaming a conspiracy for exaggerating it.

That's the problem.

Ha Ha Ha. How can you have one without the other? Only a madman would state something for no reason.

That's a BS defence I'm afraid.

 

[catcherintherye]

I believe it is possible for Labour to win a majority without Scotland. Far from easy, and it will probably take a few elections to get there, but possible. Think the worst thing Labour could do now is throw the towel in because they think it’s impossible.

Getting their stuff together for me looks like this: Competence. That’s all I want. Since 2016 we’ve had the most incompetent government and opposition in modern history and the country is much poorer as a result. Boris is incompetent to his fingertips, so a competent opposition would be a dream.

Labour shoudn't throw in the towel, welive in volatile times. However given Theresa May got over 13 million votes, and Scotland had gone, it was almost impossible for any Labour leader to have won that election. Even Blair's vote share in 97 would have seen him lose. His 2001 & 2005 share would have seen him get absolutely trounced.

 

[davek]

These were billboards as well, front and centre of the campaign. It's absolutely horrendous. I can't stand Michael Howard, but it's absolutely horrendous. Even my fairly tribal loyalty to Labour over the Tories can see that. This is like Banana's thrown at John Barnes bad. Yet the people who dreamt this up, are now judging you me and everyone else on what is or isn't anti-semitic. Forgive me for not being too keen to take their opinions very seriously.

AS is a means to wipe out the left in the LP. I completely reject the authority of the EHRC report too. It's devoid of all credibility; a thjnly veiled attack on anyone wanting to pipe up against apartheid.

 

[tim cahill]

Starmer has seriously messed up here. He's basically telling millions of Labour voters that if they believe that anti-Semitism in the Labour party has been exaggerated then he doesn't want their votes. I haven't seen anything in that report that makes me think it warranted 3 years worth of headlines.

 

[TheSecondComing]

Longest running smear campaign against a movement which could have changed politics in this country for years.

All to save a few Billionaires some money and control.

 

[Tubey]

I think we are debating slightly different things here.

The issue you have, is to suggest as you do above that he was factionally attacked, makes you an anti-semite according to the rules. If thats the case, I just don't think the rules are fit for purpose. If you then protest your case and explain the context (as you do below eloquently) you are then doubly anti-semitic for harassment and refusing to accept the finding.

I disagreed with Corbyn's wording. I wouldn't have phrased it how he did. However the point that anti-semitism cases went down under his watch but the impression created is that they spiralled out of control is a worthwhile point in this. I don't think that is racist to point it out. I actually think throwing the label of racism at someone, when they point out a truth that is inconvenient is unhelpful intrying to resolve debates (thats not an accusation to you,just the wider movement).

If people could show me, clearly what he did to enable anti-semitism in his actions I'd be very open to seeing it, or the evidence that hes bang to rights. Even his statement today, the first 2 paragraphs outline why anti-semitism is wrong and we need to fight it. It just doesn't fit with the notion of a guy who isn't accepting of anti-semitism.

I also think, going back to the origina point, him contesting that the scale of anti-semitism was made out to be greater than the concrete reality (that cases had been going down) automatically makes him (or myself, or you above for rightly noting the factional element of it) automatically prejudicial towards Jewish people. I mean we could be, but it's not categorically the case that we are. FWIW I dont think you are, I am certainly not and I don't think Corbyn is either.

No, I wouldn't be guilty of that as recognising it happened isn't the same as placing massive weight on the fact it happened as the core of the issue, using it to nullify the whole subject.

That's what Corbyn has done and by doing do he has enabled anti semitic conspiracy theories regarding the issue.

 

[Tubey]

I just went to the world football forum.

Typed your username and the word lazy.

Over 50% of the posts was about Romelu.

That's the problem.

Yeah that'd be because around 80% of my posts in that forum are about him.

It's funny you specified that forum though, as my last post using that word was about James.

Oh, and as I say quite a bit, say what you're insinuating flat out, bring your evidence and stop being a coward, or don't say anything at all.