Current Affairs The Labour Party

[zzr45]

You need to back that up.

That wasn't the conclusion of the EHRC report. Even though it's a non-credible political take down document that exists purely because of a smear campaign, it underlines that there was no one person 'responsible' for 'anti-semitic' behaviour. It states it was a collective failure of leadership...which means also Starmer and Rayner and the rest of them.

I really don’t need to back it up at all. You’ve just proven my point entirely. In your world, people haven’t complained because they felt they have been the victims of anti semitism, which you put in quotation marks because you don’t believe it, but rather because they had an axe to grind with Corbyn. You have effectively denied a group of people the ability to have their grievances heard because it doesn’t suit your agenda. Anyone that has spoken out has been a troublemaker rather than someone with a legitimate grievance.

 

[davek]

I really don’t need to back it up at all. You’ve just proven my point entirely. In your world, people haven’t complained because they felt they have been the victims of anti semitism, which you put in quotation marks because you don’t believe it, but rather because they had an axe to grind with Corbyn. You have effectively denied a group of people the ability to have their grievances heard because it doesn’t suit your agenda. Anyone that has spoken out has been a troublemaker rather than someone with a legitimate grievance.

Lol.

Bankrupt.

 

[catcherintherye]

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.

Well unfortunately according to the rules of course you are. I don't think believe you to be, but the rules would dictate you are. They would also add, your secondary denial you were now amounts to harassment as you refuse to take it seriously.

That is what is happening now, any discussion of context is reduced to racism by a group of people who are in most cases are not even Jewish themselves!

On the 2nd point, I'm not sure what that Corbyn has done that at all. In his statement he opens up by acknowledging the existence of anti-semitism, it's existence in the Labour Party, the damage it does and the measures they tried to put in to eliminate it. Whichever way you look at it, that is not looing to nullify the issue.

I don't agree with everything Corbyn has said at all, but I'm not sure I can really go along with the above based on what I have read myself.

 

[Paris]

Corbyn is still a member mate but if things escalate with this and he does leave then I suspect that you will be correct. The entryists will cry foul and go back to their parties or form a new super left alliance.

Most of those weirdos won't be happy until we're bowing to pictures of Kim Jung-un.

They should promptly bugger off and start using the SWP apparatus to start promoting their views so that Labour can stop being associated with them in the eyes of the most important group.

 

[Catfish Blues]

Without going into the much more complex details of the enquiry and the wider-leadership issues within the party, his actions yesterday came across crass.

If it is politically motivated by Starmer and Co., for me Corbyn gave them all the ammunition they needed when he could have been more shrewd with how he acted.

Put simply, Corbyn knew Starmer wanted to put as much distance between them as possible. He knew his initial remarks would get a response from Starmer, and he knew what the likely response would be.

Starmer makes his response, gives him the rope, and Corbyn chooses to stick his head in the noose.

Either both sides understood completely where this would end up, or Corbyn's incredibly thick, and he's not thick ( nor is he an anti-semite ). He knew what he was doing, and for whatever reasons, he chose that path. To be honest, this isn't a massive surprise.

 

[davek]

Put simply, Corbyn knew Starmer wanted to put as much distance between them as possible. He knew his initial remarks would get a response from Starmer, and he knew what the likely response would be.

Starmer makes his response, gives him the rope, and Corbyn chooses to stick his head in the noose.

Either both sides understood completely where this would end up, or Corbyn's incredibly thick, and he's not thick ( nor is he an anti-semite ). He knew what he was doing, and for whatever reasons, he chose that path. To be honest, this isn't a massive surprise.

Even if that all were true, it still doesn't make his suspension either morally or technically right.

The "forensic" Starmer will pay the price for his inexactitude on this.

 

[catcherintherye]

Is that meant to absolve Corbyn, on the basis that they were all at it?

When he was the leader?

As I think most can see on here, I'm certainly very defensive of Corbyn (although I'd like to hope people can see there is a balance to it!) but what has happened certainly does not absolve Corbyn. I think the positions that he takes no blame or takes all of the blame are both quite extreme positions to take.

If I'm putting my cards on the table and drop some of my more PC language, I think he handling of this issue was chaotic and very poorly communicated. I also think this sums up his entire tenure. His policy on Brexit. His 2019 manifesto. His performance at PMQ's. His handling of the PLP. His performance during the Brexit referendum. His stance on Trident.

Ultimately a guy who was completely out of his depth. Thats before we even get to the chaotic structure below him.

I do think it was this, rather than any racism that led to his handling of anti-semitism to be bodged. The natural conclusion is to see a leader not handling things very capably and assume it is because they don't care. This is a rare example where I think he was incapable of handling this issue, as he was so many others. Incompetency rather than racism is wat I see.

I will reiterate the first point though, that should not and does not absolve Corbyn. Likewise he is also not solely responsible for every members individual comment.

 

[catcherintherye]

Put simply, Corbyn knew Starmer wanted to put as much distance between them as possible. He knew his initial remarks would get a response from Starmer, and he knew what the likely response would be.

Starmer makes his response, gives him the rope, and Corbyn chooses to stick his head in the noose.

Either both sides understood completely where this would end up, or Corbyn's incredibly thick, and he's not thick ( nor is he an anti-semite ). He knew what he was doing, and for whatever reasons, he chose that path. To be honest, this isn't a massive surprise.

Starmer absolutely did not have to suspend him.

I said recently, Russell Lloyd Moyle wrote in a national paper, who was already targetting a woman who had suffered domestic abuse, he attacked said woman and reproduced rape myths. The comments were far more explicit and dangerous than any I've seen from an MP on anti-semitism, certainly Corbyn. When asked he gave a lame, none apology.

Starmer refused to take any action against him and he was satisfied with his none apology.

The man picks and chooses who he does or doesn't act against. Reproducing rape myths and women are clearly not a high priority for him. It's fair enough as well. But lets not have that this is some sort of decent principled man, who will always act consistently on wrongdoing. He picks and chooses his fights.

 

[davek]

As I think most can see on here, I'm certainly very defensive of Corbyn (although I'd like to hope people can see there is a balance to it!) but what has happened certainly does not absolve Corbyn. I think the positions that he takes no blame or takes all of the blame are both quite extreme positions to take.

If I'm putting my cards on the table and drop some of my more PC language, I think he handling of this issue was chaotic and very poorly communicated. I also think this sums up his entire tenure. His policy on Brexit. His 2019 manifesto. His performance at PMQ's. His handling of the PLP. His performance during the Brexit referendum. His stance on Trident.

Ultimately a guy who was completely out of his depth. Thats before we even get to the chaotic structure below him.

I do think it was this, rather than any racism that led to his handling of anti-semitism to be bodged. The natural conclusion is to see a leader not handling things very capably and assume it is because they don't care. This is a rare example where I think he was incapable of handling this issue, as he was so many others. Incompetency rather than racism is wat I see.

I will reiterate the first point though, that should not and does not absolve Corbyn. Likewise he is also not solely responsible for every members individual comment.

There was no Labour AS problem. The problem, such as it was, was that in a party of 500,000 members who were all online they had hundred or more of people amongst them who used anti-semitic tropes. When they were identified they were addressed. The other charges on 'cases' within the party at the level of constituencies or people close to Corbyn like Williamson were outragous twisting of anti-apartheid sentiments concerning the state of Israel.

I wouldn't cede ground on this issue at all. There's nothing to charge the Corbyn leadership with that couldn't have been levelled at a LP under Wilson, Blair, or Miliband. Nothing. The AS thing was a political take down of a left leadership. Pure and simple.

 

[Catfish Blues]

Even if that all were true, it still doesn't make his suspension either morally or technically right.

The "forensic" Starmer will pay the price for his inexactitude on this.

He plainly feels that the internal issues caused by suspending Corbyn are worth suffering if it gives the party a better chance of power.

Is he right ? Havn't a clue to be honest, but, rightly or wrongly, Corbyn was seen as toxic by enough of the electorate to make a difference last time out, but whether that memory would linger long enough to make a difference next time out I doubt.

For years, before he was leader, Jeremy was a thorn in the flesh for many leaders, which was part of the reason he didn't get the support from the PLP that he should have done, but it's different poking the fire when you're just a backbencher as to when you're the previous leader. He knew this, but did it anyway.

It's very harsh on him, and probably isn't morally right , but , outside the confines of his own supporters, very few people will care if he's sacrificed by Starmer to make a point. It's a tough old world, but there you go, I won't be shedding any tears over it.

 

[roydo]

The AS thing was a political take down of a left leadership. Pure and simple.

By the EHRC?

 

[Blue 1]

I think a big part of the problem was the massive influx of members that came with Corbyn winning the leadership, some of who came from David Icke la-la land and the complaints process that existed at the time being not fit for purpose.

While there was beyond any doubt antisemitic abuse of Jewish MP's within the Labour Party, there was just as clearly an orchestrated campaign by Labour MP's to "do over" Corbyn from the outset, many of whom happen to be prominent supporters of Israel, Jewish and otherwise.

 

[Catfish Blues]

Starmer absolutely did not have to suspend him

Course he didn't have to, but you didn't have to be Brain of Britain to realise that would be the outcome. Anyone that says they're surprised is either thick or naive.

 

[davek]

He plainly feels that the internal issues caused by suspending Corbyn are worth suffering if it gives the party a better chance of power.

Is he right ? Havn't a clue to be honest, but, rightly or wrongly, Corbyn was seen as toxic by enough of the electorate to make a difference last time out, but whether that memory would linger long enough to make a difference next time out I doubt.

For years, before he was leader, Jeremy was a thorn in the flesh for many leaders, which was part of the reason he didn't get the support from the PLP that he should have done, but it's different poking the fire when you're just a backbencher as to when you're the previous leader. He knew this, but did it anyway.

It's very harsh on him, and probably isn't morally right , but , outside the confines of his own supporters, very few people will care if he's sacrificed by Starmer to make a point. It's a tough old world, but there you go, I won't be shedding any tears over it.

It's technically not right too. Something the 'granular' and 'forensic' Starmer will find out to his cost. Corbyn will be back in the Labour fold and he'll be seen as weak. And if he pulls a fast oneto kick him out he makes Corbyn a martyr in the party and he sows the seeds of a party war - and no party wins that's divided.

Starmer has ballsed this up big time. He allowed his own arrogance to trump strategic thinking on what suspending Corbyn meant in the bigger picture. That's the cut of him.

 

[davek]

By the EHRC?

That's part of it, yes.