Current Affairs The Labour Party
- Thread starter Number_25
- Start date
- Status
BigMick
Player Valuation: £20m
Yes Corbyn's supporters are deliberately provoking the leadership by defying their instructions due to, as I said earlier, stupidity or their need to show solidarity with their hero, and then receive the plaudits of their like-minded friends.
Incredible if you can't see that.
Give me some examples of a 'slightest pretext', so I can look out for them in the future.
davek
Player Valuation: £150m
Discussing a suspension at a CLP is an offence and you think it's the CLPs suspended who are to blame? That's called democracy.
Pretext: RLB 'liking' a tweet of Maxine Peake's on Israeli heavy handedness, being pressurised on it, qualifying it and then still having to leave her shadow cabinet post.
And before you say "oh well, she asked for it criticisng Israel": that is something allowed and underlined as being allowed even by the right wing star chamber AKA the EHRC.
...just so you'll know what pretext means in the future where the right wing leadership of the LP are concerned in their relationship with the left membership.
BigMick
Player Valuation: £20m
Not the first time Dave: https://labourlist.org/2019/03/excl...-not-to-accept-motions-on-disciplinary-cases/
When have I ever said, "oh well, she asked for it criticisng Israel"? Please don't attempt to put words into my mouth. As for Long-Bailey, all she had to do was retract a tweet, which she refused to do. Starmer may well have been looking for an excuse to sack her, but why give him the ammunition?
You are aware that the judgement of the 'right wing star chamber' EHRC is legally binding? You can rant and rail against it all you like but the Labour Party have no option but to implement their recommendations.
So criticising Israel is the only example of a pretext for suspension you can think of, by which I presume you mean the Israeli government.
davek
Player Valuation: £150m
And where in that link was the instruction to not discuss a matter at CLPs or suspensions will follow if they did? You're comparing apples and pears.
On RBL and the left in general: what you advocate is that every single free thought on an issue like Israel is outlawed and that if one is expressed that displeases the leader then they have to recant in public and thereby add to the atmosphere of proscription and strengthen the leader's hand to dictate how the party is run. That's not a party that's a dictatorship.
As for the EHRC: its the LP leadershp who have transgressed its report, not those suspended. You surely know that much?
And as for the EHRC in general: it is a Tory Party pawn and cant be seen as a neutral player.
Rachel Shabi | Conservative Islamophobia and the EHRC
Is a reasonable discussion about the Equality and Human Rights Commission and racism in political parties even possible...
www.lrb.co.uk
BigMick
Player Valuation: £20m
No suspensions took place because, I imagine, the CLP's obeyed Formby's (and Corbyn's) request. Might be wrong on that but the point is Formby advised CLPs not to discuss individual cases. In that case it was Chris '635' Williamson.And where in that link was the instruction to not discuss a matter at CLPs or suspensions will follow if they did? You're comparing apples and pears.
On RBL and the left in general: what you advocate is that every single free thought on an issue like Israel is outlawed and that if one is expressed that displeases the leader then they have to recant in public and thereby add to the atmosphere of proscription and strengthen the leader's hand to dictate how the party is run. That's not a party that's a dictatorship.
As for the EHRC: its the LP leadershp who have transgressed its report, not those suspended. You surely know that much?
And as for the EHRC in general: it is a Tory Party pawn and cant be seen as a neutral player.
Rachel Shabi | Conservative Islamophobia and the EHRC
Is a reasonable discussion about the Equality and Human Rights Commission and racism in political parties even possible...
Where have I advocated 'every single free thought on an issue like Israel is outlawed'? Criticising the Israeli government is not antisemitic; I'm not aware Starmer has said that it is, so I'd be grateful for any evidence you have to the contrary.
On the EHRC, Dave, you remind me of an old lag, banged up inside and ranting about the judge who sent you there! Makes no difference, you still have to do the time and the Labour Party legally have no alternative but to implement its recommendations. Simple really. Naomi Wimborne-Idrissi was suspended, like her hero, for repeating the claim that antisemitism was weaponised in the party - do you agree with her?
By the way, there's an urgent NEC meeting today called to approve the Labour Party complying with a statutory action plan that the EHRC require by law by 10 December.
Anyway, why are you focusing on Israel, when this was about Corbynistas getting suspended? Is it an obsession?
Finally, I'm not interested in anything to do with the Tory party, so why bring them into it other than to deflect attention from the EHRC report on Labour?
As for Islamophobia, Labour, too, have work to do on that front:
Over one in three Muslims report seeing Islamophobia in Labour Party
Abuse within party has gone ‘unnoticed’ and deserves ‘immediate attention,' parliamentary chair of Labour Muslim Network says
www.independent.co.uk
UK’s first hijab-wearing mayor resigns from Labour citing racism
Rakhia Ismail left the post of Islington mayor in September attacking system that ‘allows white men to have what they want, when they want’
www.independent.co.uk
davek
Player Valuation: £150m
So there were no suspensions from Formy's instructions? Right. Now we know where the similarities to what's going on now and then begin and end.No suspensions took place because, I imagine, the CLP's obeyed Formby's (and Corbyn's) request. Might be wrong on that but the point is Formby advised CLPs not to discuss individual cases. In that case it was Chris '635' Williamson.
Where have I advocated 'every single free thought on an issue like Israel is outlawed'? Criticising the Israeli government is not antisemitic; I'm not aware Starmer has said that it is, so I'd be grateful for any evidence you have to the contrary.
On the EHRC, Dave, you remind me of an old lag, banged up inside and ranting about the judge who sent you there! Makes no difference, you still have to do the time and the Labour Party legally have no alternative but to implement its recommendations. Simple really. Naomi Wimborne-Idrissi was suspended, like her hero, for repeating the claim that antisemitism was weaponised in the party - do you agree with her?
By the way, there's an urgent NEC meeting today called to approve the Labour Party complying with a statutory action plan that the EHRC require by law by 10 December.
Anyway, why are you focusing on Israel, when this was about Corbynistas getting suspended? Is it an obsession?
Finally, I'm not interested in anything to do with the Tory party, so why bring them into it other than to deflect attention from the EHRC report on Labour?
As for Islamophobia, Labour, too, have work to do on that front:
Over one in three Muslims report seeing Islamophobia in Labour Party
Abuse within party has gone ‘unnoticed’ and deserves ‘immediate attention,' parliamentary chair of Labour Muslim Network saysUK’s first hijab-wearing mayor resigns from Labour citing racism
Rakhia Ismail left the post of Islington mayor in September attacking system that ‘allows white men to have what they want, when they want’
Second, you ask me where you say curbs on free thought/speech on Israel is backed by you...the same person telling LP members not to do it because it's against party rules!
On the EHRC: both Idrissi and Corbyn would be safe as houses under EHRC guidelines. The criticism of AS being used by the leadership to advance their agenda is allowed; it's demonisation of Jews that isn't. It;s the LP leader and his Gen Sec who fall foul of the EHRC report because they fail to allow what's acceptable. I feel sure that you understand that by now...
And lastly, why aren't you interested in the non-investigation of the Tory Party over their chronic Islamophopia by the same body that seeks to take control of LP affairs and steamroller through reforms because of *AS*? That's just bizarre: the two issues are interconnected.
Last edited:
BigMick
Player Valuation: £20m
I'm sorry Dave, you're getting a little confused. I've never mentioned 'free thought/speech on Israel' - you've dragged that into the conversation. You seem to be mixing up antisemitism with criticism of the Israeli government. Two different things as far as I'm concerned.
Bringing the Tory party into an amicable discussion about the Labour party is just bizarre, unless it's an attempt to distract from the discussion about Labour and the EHRC.
I'll repeat my questions for you: Do you agree that antisemitism was weaponised in the Labour party? Why do you have this apparent obsession with Israel? Perhaps I'm doing you an injustice but I can't be bothered scrolling back through this thread, it's just that you seem determined to bring Israel into the conversation.
davek
Player Valuation: £150m
Your position here as I understand it is that "Corbyn and his supporters are provoking the leadership by defying orders". Those orders are to forbid (in the case of Corbyn) the questoning of the volume of AS in the LP, which led to his suspension but which is perfectly allowable under EHRC guidelines, and (for the members) their discussion of the illegitimate act (as per the EHRC report) of the leaderfship. But to you the provocation and blame lies not with the LP leaderr and his hamfisted Gen Sec, but with those suffering from their illigitmate use of the party rule book and ignorance of the EHRC report. So THAT is how you have put your shoulder to the wheel of forbidding free speech in the party.
Do I believe that AS has been weaponised in the LP? Of course I do. Anyone with two brain cells to rub together would.
My obsession with the apartheid state of Israel...the one that's formalised into law the second hand citizen status of Palestinians living in its borders? I wouldn't call it an obsession, I'd call it a humanitarian concern...and shame on anyone who would down play Israeli state racism. I do hope you condemn them too?
BigMick
Player Valuation: £20m
1st paragraph: correct. My point, which you ignore, is that there's only going to be one winner - Starmer and the Leadership. Those that risk suspension and expulsion by having this fight with the leadership are damaging the future of the left; imagine what it will be like if Rayner's threat of thousands of expulsions is carried out. I know you've advocated leaving the party - that, to me, would be a disaster for the left. and would leave the centralists in full control with no constraints.
2nd paragraph: Please provide evidence that it has been weaponised, not just bluster.
3rd paragraph: I have lots of criticism of the Israeli government. Equally, I have lots of criticisms of Hamas and the Palestinian Authority. Do you? I also have plenty of criticisms about the Lebanese government and their treatment of Palestinians, who are not entitled to citizenship, no matter how many generations of their family have lived there. According to Human Rights Watch, Palestinian refugees in Lebanon live in 'appalling social and economic conditions'. Non-citizen Palestinians are also legally barred from owning property and barred from entering a list of desirable occupations. I've not noticed you fulminating about Lebanon, why just Israel? I do hope you condemn Lebanon too? Israeli Arabs - some don't like to be referred to as Palestinian - are entitled to vote. Arabs hold 15 seats in the Knesset, while Israeli Arabs have also held various government posts. I undoubtedly would agree with some of your criticisms of Israeli policy but apartheid, with its connotations with South Africa is, for me, too strong a term.
While I've been skilfully sidetracked into a discussion about Israel and Palestinians, I'd be interested in your solution to the problem. I'd like to think you believe in the two state solution.
davek
Player Valuation: £150m
You still identify the problem here as being the people being victimized. I'm sorry mate, but there's no way forward on that particular issue if you blame LP members for being expelled when it's clearly a leadership (ACTING IN CONTRAVENTION OF THE EHRC REPORT THEY POINT TO AS BEING SACROSANCT) who are escalating a civil war.
*AS* weaponised in the LP - I refer you back to the above: the leadership are determined to use the issue to deal with the left and have suspended a number of CLPs, a former leader and a shadow cabinet member. If you cant see the wood for the trees, that's your short sightedness not mine.
On Israel: your final point above there gives the game away a bit and indicates to me where you're really coming from - you just dont want a LP that stands shoulder to shoulder with people being persecuted by the multiple UN resolution condemned, apartheid Israeli state. You couch your 'concern' with the plight of Palestinians by again blaming the victims - this time of Israeli aggression. Israel are 'no better or worse than others and they even allow Palestinians to be elected'...as if that covers over their horrendous human rights abuses. No wonder you used the word 'obsession' earlier to describe my opposition to Israel's political rulers - it's all about obscuring their actions and placing the emphasis on others to justify themselves.
Sorry lad, you're not on. I've been round the block way too many times to be hoodwinked by an apologist.
BigMick
Player Valuation: £20m
Sorry you find it disgusting. I'm sure there are many well meaning people in JVL, as small a group as it is in comparison to JLM, just as there were in the Yevsektsiya.
However, JVL has defended Ken Livingstone, supported Jackie Walker as being a victim of a 'vituperative campaign', deemed accusations of antisemitism against Moshé Machover as 'ill founded', opposed and condemned the expulsion of Marc Wadsworth, and welcomed the lifting of the now expelled Chris Williamson's suspension. You might agree with them on these matters, it's a free world.
JVL was set up as an off-shoot of the organisation ‘Free Speech on Israel’, certainly four of its founders were the same people including Naomi Wimborne-Idrissi. Free Speech on Israel was a group 'whose formation was sparked explicitly by the recent upsurge in antisemitism within the Labour Party' - their own words. At that time the four founders were not in the Labour Party.
davek
Player Valuation: £150m
BigMick
Player Valuation: £20m
Hoodwink!ed! Get over yourself Dave, your not that important for me to bother! I've actually enjoyed this discussion and it remains amicable on my part as I know you are passionate about the Labour Party. I'm sad that you chose to drag Israel into the centre of the conversation when for me antisemitism has nothing to do with Israel. For that reason I'll begin with your diatribe on Israel, to get it out of the way. I'm saddened that you've resorted to name calling, 'apologist', and twisting my words, 'blaming the victims'. Laughable really, I only mentioned Israeli Arabs voting as a contrast to their plight in Lebanon. You might not regard having the right to vote as important but luckily the Arab population do, turning out in record numbers to vote in the last election. Your silence on the plight of Palestinians being still herded into refugee camps in Lebanon, with no rights, is puzzling. As for me being an 'apologist', I've always been critical of various aspects of Israeli policy, notably the settlements, and fully support the Labour Party stance on the Two State solution and a return to the 1967 borders as a basis for negotiation. I've asked you for your solution to the Israel-Palestine conflict but once again you were silent.
I've tried to figure out why you brought Israel into the conversation. I can only think that you believe a lot of the accusations of antisemitism are really legitimate criticisms of Israel. I fully support the IHRA definition of antisemitism, which Corbyn eventually signed up to, and it says that criticism of Israel is not antisemitic; it says that you need to make a judgement taking into account context, and if anyone wants to try to ban criticism of Israel, IHRA will protect good faith critics. I imagine Starmer supports that too.
Now I'll try to summarise the points I actually tried to make before your obsession with Israel came to the fore. I'll also have a go at what I think your response is but this will involve me putting words into your mouth for once, for which I apologise in advance. Feel free to correct me if I've misunderstood you - I'm sure you will!
1. I want a Labour government in 4 years time.
You want to fight a damaging and unwinnable fight with the leadership.
2. I want a Labour government standing on policies similar to 2019, maybe not so cluttered. To ensure this the left will need to exert as much influence as possible, which means as many leftish members as possible.
You want the left to form a new party, either through quitting or when they are expelled.
3. I want a Labour government with a credible PM. No idea if Starmer is the right man - he hasn't impressed me so far but I await his policies.
You want to fight a battle on behalf of a man who led the party to its worst result since 1935 and to the most shameful day in its history when the EHRC report came out.
4. You accuse me of blaming the victims (of the witchhunt). I haven't blamed anyone, Just stated the fact that members are being suspended every day over what I consider to be a misguided and unwinnable cause.
5. I believe you have to choose your battles carefully and this one is an irrelevance compared to future potential battles over policy.
You say, 'Bring it on, Starmer!'
6. I believe the members being suspended are making it too easy for Starmer to dismiss them. If he does want to purge the left make him do it on flimsier ground than anything connected with antisemitism, EHRC, or Corbyn. That way even some moderates in the party will turn against him.
You say, 'Bring it on, Starmer!'
7. I believe in practical politics. I campaigned for Labour in '83 (God bless Michael Foot), '87, and '92, even though I was by then not a great fan of Kinnock - too many compromises. We lost every time, just as we've lost the last four elections - that's too many defeats and too many Tory governments for me to indulge in fighting unwinnable battles that can be avoided.
You want to fight an unwinnable battle which will only result in you being outside the party and ending up like the man with the loud hailer shouting, 'Stop Brexit!', achieving precisely nothing other than irritating people who might once have supported your cause.
8. I believe Jeremy Corbyn could stop the 'witchhunt' today if he'd just for once swallow his pride and do what is best for the party rather than trying to keep himself relevant.
You believe Starmer will find some other pretext for purging the left, to which I would reply then make him do it rather than giving him an easy target.
I hope I've not traduced your views too much - I'm sure you'll correct me if I have.
I'll end with one that I think we might agree on: Labour agreeing to the 2019 'Brexit' election was a huge mistake for which the former leader must shoulder the blame.
- Status