Forum menu
As far as the public at large are concerned, where there's smoke there's fire. Starmer is just stampimg down on the embers. He knows that he has to divest the Labour party entirely of it's Marxist and anti semitic elements if it's ever going to stand a chance of getting back into Government.
Agree that the Labour Party could do with an Alistair Campbell type figure to control the messaging but not sure if he's needed just yet. There's a purge going on at the moment so simple headlines like RLB gone, Corbyn suspended etc read well in the press. The actions speak for themselves so don't need over explaining.
It's all a bit groundhog day though isn't it. Its Militant Tendency all over again. The harping of the Corybynistas is probably helping Starmer to be honest, doing his comms for him. The more they decry Starmer and separate themselves from the mainstream of the Labour Party the better it is for Starmer, it leaves no skeletons in the cupboard when it comes time to fight the next election.
I'm guessing that most of the Corbyn supporters on here will still vote Labour at the next election. Labour knows there are more votes to be gained in the middle ground than there are to be lost to the far left.
Don't think of politics as a horizontal line, with the Far Left on the left hand side the line and the Far Right on the far right hand side of the line, think of it as a circle, like a clock face with the far left at 11 o'clock and the far right at 1 o'clock. The last two elections have seen the hands of the clock tick past midnight, with traditional, dyed in the wool Labour voters going right wing.
Labour needs to reset the clock to 6 o'clock and fight the battle there.
The problem is the left has never forgiven Tony Blair for winning an election.
Are there other topics where you are arrogant enough to unequivocally claim knowledge of what an entire group of people is thinking?
Are there other topics where you are arrogant enough to unequivocally claim knowledge of what an entire group of people is thinking?
Yes, loads...
It’s simply not fit for purpose, and needs to be put out of its misery.
They call it a 'broad church' but in reality it's a directionless rabble of people who all have their 'vision' of what the party should be. It only takes a small push from the tories in any one of several topics to kick off the in-fighting.
They call it a ‘broad church’ but in reality it’s a directionless rabble of people who all have their ‘vision’ of what the party should be. It only takes a small push from the tories in any one of several topics to kick off the in-fighting.
One thing the Tories have got sussed is that come election time they will compromise on their differences to get elected and then go back to arguing once they're back in power.
A lesson Labour don't seem to be interested in.
It’s all a bit groundhog day though isn’t it. Its Militant Tendency all over again. The harping of the Corybynistas is probably helping Starmer to be honest, doing his comms for him. The more they decry Starmer and separate themselves from the mainstream of the Labour Party the better it is for Starmer, it leaves no skeletons in the cupboard when it comes time to fight the next election.
Didn't work out that well for Neil Kinnock, he purged the fruit loops but still lost. However, Starmer does come across much better.....
I’m guessing that most of the Corbyn supporters on here will still vote Labour at the next election.
Yep, I will. I like Corbyn for his principles, typically being on the right side of things etc,.
He was however shite at being a leader and he was disliked by a lot of the voters whose vote he needed yet I still voted Labour when he was leader as even with him as leader a Labour government would have been a much better thing to have had than what we have now.
I am actually more of a Green party person but that vote is even more a waste of a vote than Labour in my super tory constituency.
I’m guessing that most of the Corbyn supporters on here will still vote Labour at the next election
Or they could get disillusioned and give up voting? But hey who gives a **** about them.
Lets return to the good old days where we had a centrist party chasing the tories ever further to the right. Just think looking by the good start we could end up with US style politics in 20 years or so.
I’m guessing that most of the Corbyn supporters on here will still vote Labour at the next election.
Probably not. It'll be green or not at all. There's no point voting for an organisation which won't change anything.
Or they could get disillusioned and give up voting? But hey who gives a **** about them.
Corbyn certainly doesn't, happy to drag Labour through the mud till his dying breath.
One thing the Tories have got sussed is that come election time they will compromise on their differences to get elected and then go back to arguing once they’re back in power.
A lesson Labour don’t seem to be interested in.
It's much more difficult for them due to the bottom-up structure of the party. Everyone at conference thinks it's their chance to shape the party.
I don't really know the solution. The tories simply don't have that problem.
Why, after 12 years Labour still haven't managed to shake the feeling in the general public that the 2008 crash was their fault, I really can't tell you. Keir doesn't seem to be managing any better than his predecessors in that regard.
Well he may or may not be antisemitic but when I saw this picture of him I just wanted to give him a slap and tell him to wear his effing mask properly
Probably not. It’ll be green or not at all. There’s no point voting for an organisation which won’t change anything.
Sometimes changing nothing (clearly they wouldn't change nothing) is better than a tory party actively changing things for the worse but you carry on helping the tory party.
Why, after 12 years Labour still haven’t managed to shake the feeling in the general public that the 2008 crash was their fault, I really can’t tell you.
It's because labour failed to propose anything different. If we're going to have a neo-liberal small-state deregulated economy, the tories are the natural choice to manage it because they believe in it. Labour want to have their cake and eat it. They criticise the obvious ill effects of neo-liberalism, but then don't propose to change it in any material way. This gives the tories all the ammunition they need to paint labour as unfit to manage the economy. Even under Corbyn and McDonnell they did't really tackle the issue, instead they fell back on outdated Keynesianism rather than pursue more modern and relevant solutions.
For every dazh vote that Labour loses they'll pick up a few more from the centrists that voted Conservative, Lib Dems or those that didn't vote at all last two times.
It did work for Kinnock up until the point he blew it by celebrating victory at the US style celebratory rally just before the votes were cast. He did however manage to purge the party of extremist elements which gave the party a stable platform on which to build.
For every dazh vote that Labour loses they’ll pick up a few more from the centrists that voted Conservative, Lib Dems or those that didn’t vote at all last two times.
The evidence for this is?
If we look at the new labour results they did nicely initially as they kept the traditional voters and added some new ones but then over the next couple of elections they lost massively amongst the core voters.
"Centrists" are a minority. if they werent the Libdems would be a more significant power.
Its fascinating the love of purges the centrists display. After years of announcing it should be a broad church the determination to purge anyone who disagrees with them is a tad hypocritical
but you carry on helping the tory party
Ha! The tory party does require any help from me when the so-called opposition do their job for them.
For every dazh vote that Labour loses they’ll pick up a few more from the centrists that voted Conservative, Lib Dems or those that didn’t vote at all last two times.
Probably true, and nothing will change as a result. I can confidently predict in 10 years time we'll all be on here arguing about exactly the same things, except we'll all be poorer, the rich will be richer, and the people at the bottom will be even more f***** than they are now.
Even under Corbyn and McDonnell they did’t really tackle the issue, instead they fell back on outdated Keynesianism rather than pursue more modern and relevant solutions.
I remember reading some pretty good ideas early on that were encouraging, but they never got any attention in the press. Credit Unions, worker-owned co-operatives, a group of advising economists, etc. Renationalising did get some traction and seemed to be popular, but was too easily dismissed with all the magic money-tree talk.
It’s because labour failed to propose anything different.
There are two things you have to get right to be elected, policies and credibility.
You can all the right polcies, but come across an incompetent and no one will vote for you.
With Starmer they at least have a credible leader.
The sooner JC shuts up and vanishes the quicker Labour can start to put its house in order and sort out a platform for the next GE.
I remember reading some pretty good ideas early on that were encouraging, but they never got any attention in the press. Credit Unions, worker-owned co-operatives, a group of advising economists, etc. Renationalising did get some traction and seemed to be popular, but was too easily dismissed with all the magic money-tree talk.
Yep, right polices, wrong person pushing them.
That's just how it is, if you come across an incompetent, no one cares what you say, they just won't trust you.
He went and did his weekly shift at the local foodbank.
One could see that as part of his path to secularsainthood
Or seeing that he is essentially in charge of his own time whilst getting £80k+ p.a. plus expenses plus funding for an office etc etc it's relatively easy to fit that in your diary especially as it's it's easy voter canvasing
I remember reading some pretty good ideas early on that were encouraging
Some were, but they were still frilling round the edges. 20th century tax-and-spend Keynesianism was still the preferred solution when instead they should have been looking at root and branch reform involving PR, MMT and UBI all being used to deliver a central policy goal of the green new deal. They got the green new deal bit right, but missed the opportunity on the rest. Starmer is going to get it even more wrong. He's allowed the party to turn inwards again and is offering nothing on any of these subjects. It's political cowardice, plain and simple.
Some intersting points here from Richard Murphy on the state of labour - https://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2020/10/30/labour-is-life-expired-its-sole-remaining-core-purpose-should-be-to-build-the-new-political-settlement-that-the-country-it-seeks-to-represent-needs/
dissonance,
The evidence for this is 3 consecutive election victories.
YMMV.
The evidence for this is 3 consecutive election victories.
And remind me what happen to the vote share in each? As I pointed out. Its a trick which worked for a time but will work it work again? I doubt it.
The difference between Blair and the "moderates" now is Blair had the political skill to realise it was a deadend. Thats why he walked away and left the mess to everyone else.
So good luck doing it again especially when the rabid "moderates" have made it absolutely clear they want to purge the nonbelievers.
For every dazh vote that Labour loses they’ll pick up a few more from the centrists that voted Conservative, Lib Dems or those that didn’t vote at all last two times.
The evidence for this is?
Well, New Labour - for all it's faults - suggests there might be something in it.
I think all this just shows that we never really did want someone with principles that they stick to in charge. He has admitted some failings but also thinks a lot of the criticism is unfair, so that's what he said. If was a 'better politician' he would have just apologised and shut up like many are demanding.
The fact is we live in a right wing country (England anyway) and Starmer's unimpressive poll numbers in the face of probably the most incompetent government of all time shows all the claims that JC was the problem were well wide of the mark.
The evidence for this is 3 consecutive election victories.
The last 3 elections were all about brexit. You think centrists wanted brexit? In one of those elections Corbyn won a higher number of votes and higher vote share than Blair, before the tories and labour right wing deployed the nuclear bomb of anti-semitism to defeat him. Applying late 20th century centrist electoral theory to recent elections is ridiculous.
Read the report or don't talk about it.
Corbyn has apologised for AS numerous times.
The report really wasn't that damning Corbz could have just said so and put the thing to bed.
Labour need to show credibility with economy. Corbz wasn't that.
British politics is ****ed. Political system needs re-drawing. Tories and Labour happy as it is so it won't happen. IMO Labour should be brave and campaign for a new system.
Or they could get disillusioned and give up voting? But hey who gives a **** about them.
Lets return to the good old days where we had a centrist party chasing the tories ever further to the right. Just think looking by the good start we could end up with US style politics in 20 years or so.
The usual moans of those interested in Politics in the 90s was that you couldn't really pick between the two parties who'd moved closer to the centre as it represented where the UK was at the time. They both battled to get the vote of "Mondeo Man".
John Major's centrist principles, policies and background made right of Centre Tories wonder if perhaps he'd gotten lost on the way to joining the Labour party early in his career. He spent his time as Leader fighting the exact kind of people who steer the Tories now. It was Sleaze and the shadow of Thatcher that lost the election for him in '97.
It was the Credit Crunch that lost the election for Brown in 2010, not the Iraq War, no Government, whatever the colour or their actual performance would survive that (the only hope Johnson, or whoever is PM is will survive Covid / Covid recession will be them having both fixed by the time of the next election).
In 2010 David Cameron won, not because of any great policies or Statesman qualities, but because Brown, handicapped slightly by Blair's refusal to hand-over when he promised was in charge when the US sub-prime scam dragged the whole Western World into the worst Financial Crisis since the 30s.
He faced the same problem John Major faced, UKIP was an issue, but mostly it was the right-wing, eurosceptics in his own party, and maybe more importantly withing it membership threatening to split the party over the EU. We all know what happened, and why and that, and that alone is why the Tories have lurched to the right, they didn't even have a Tori-Right leader until last year (okay Boris is a shape-shifter, but he's their Man) towards the end of Corbyn's leadership.
Being absolutely frank, Corbyn's problem was that either he was too fond of his on ideology or too indebted to those who put in charge and unable to actually represent Labour voters. He couldn't be pro EU without losing the protectionists in the Unions, but he couldn't be anti-Eu without losing Voters in London. In the end, he lost because he managed to do the unthinkable, he made life-long, dyed in the wool working class Labour voters, vote Tory.
The last 3 elections were all about brexit. You think centrists wanted brexit? In one of those elections Corbyn won a higher number of votes and higher vote share than Blair, before the tories and labour right wing deployed the nuclear bomb of anti-semitism to defeat him. Applying late 20th century centrist electoral theory to recent elections is ridiculous.
That's a bit meaningless though isn't it?
So TB got 9.6m votes and JC 10.2m, 27m votes were made in 2005, and 32m in 2019 because the the UK population had grown from 60m to 66m between 2005 and 2019, at the same time as Voter Turnout rose from 61% to 67%.
This isn't Trump v Clinton thing when one candidate had more votes, just in the wrong place when they can claim some kind of 'technical victory'. It's a meaningless footnote, don't make the mistake of thinking you can just do the same thing harder and it'll work next time.
In the end, he lost because he managed to do the unthinkable, he made life-long, dyed in the wool working class Labour voters, vote Tory.
No.
Northern racists backed Get Brexit Done.
Didn’t work out that well for Neil Kinnock, he purged the fruit loops but still lost. However, Starmer does come across much better…..
I still maintain a loathing for Derek Hatton and his ilk who brought the party into disrepute with their antics. Hatton subsequently reinvented himself as a capitalist (complete with £60k Range Rover) and is mates with Andy Wigmore of Brexit fame. Hatton's brand of Sixth Form common room politics did lasting damage, I hope that he steps on an upturned plug.
Although I consider myself on the left of the political spectrum, we have to get elected before we can bring much needed change. I renewed my party membership when Starmer got the gig.
One of the reasons that Labour got elected in the last 1990's was that Kinnock, Smith, Blair and Brown recognised that you had to be electable. That meant having policies that appealed to a majority of the population, not just those on the left. It meant showing that you could lead by making tough decisions (e.g. Clause IV).
You can't change the country by being in opposition, you have to be in Government. And that means working out which policies are acceptable to your party and the country.
Simply sticking to a single left-wing agenda failed to accept that the country would not elect that party. A failure to make tough decisions (e.g. to deal with "anti-Semitic" issue in Labour) showed that the leader of the party would never be acceptable as a PM. Leaders need to lead, Corbyn failed in that respect. He also failed to work out that to implement some "left" policies he needed to be in Government.
He now wants to stuff the current Labour leadership in spending time and effort in managing the situation to which he created by claiming he is the victim. If he really believes in a left wing Government then he needs to support what is left of Labour and retreat from public life and stop making stupid statements. At least Foot had the ability to recognise that leaving the public spotlight was the best thing that he could do was to quietly go into the background.
And while I'm here, we rightly stand up and blame Blair for being partially/fully responsible for the mess in Iraq. But before that the changes that him and his Government made, improved the life for many people in Britain. I don't want Blair 2, but I do want a Labour Government with realistic and achievable policies to replace the idiotic and shambolic fools currently in place. Corbyn gives the impression that his sainthood is far more important than that. Go away JC and retire to your allotment, your time has gone.
The usual moans of those interested in Politics in the 90s was that you couldn’t really pick between the two parties who’d moved closer to the centre as it represented where the UK was at the time
No they moved to target swing voters not "the centre". Both sides took their traditional voters for granted. The tories have been going further and further right since Thatchers time. The only reason it isnt so obvious was for most of it Labour were chasing them rightwards and it then got accepted that even centre left positions were considered hard left whereas positions which Thatcher thought were too hard right were pushed through as centrist.
Our political spectrum is skewed to an extent which is only beaten by the US. What are seen as moderate left policies in Europe are portrayed as hard left.
Our political spectrum is skewed to an extent which is only beaten by the US
Yup. And it seems we are determined to ape the US more and more, for some bizarre reason.
No.
Northern racists backed Get Brexit Done
that's helpful, about as helpful as Corbyn was to the remain cause during the referendum.
Being absolutely frank, Corbyn’s problem was that either he was too fond of his on ideology
Corbyn's problem was that his near miss in 2017 terrified the tory and labour establishment so much that they deployed the issue of anti-semitism to defeat him. They could have done so in 2015 but they didn't because they thought they could defeat him easily without resorting to such low tactics. I'd expect that from the tories, but the labour right have basically thrown the party, and the people who depend upon it, under the bus in order to prevent a Corbyn government. They were successful, but now the party is paying for it and its very survival is under threat as a result.
They were successful, but now the party is paying for it and its very survival is under threat as a result.
It's survival isn't in doubt, they'll be arguing about AS for the next 20 years or until JC pops his clogs.
Their electability on the other hand, JC buried that very deeply somewhere......
The usual moans of those interested in Politics in the 90s was that you couldn’t really pick between the two parties who’d moved closer to the centre as it represented where the UK was at the time
No
they moved to target swing voters not “the centre”. Both sides took their traditional voters for granted.
The tories have been going further and further right since Thatchers time.
The only reason it isnt so obvious was for most of it Labour were chasing them rightwards and it then got accepted that even centre left positions were considered hard left whereas positions which Thatcher thought were too hard right were pushed through as centrist.
Our political spectrum is skewed to an extent which is only beaten by the US. What are seen as moderate left policies in Europe are portrayed as hard left.
Says "No" then agrees with me,
Then makes a statement that's that's a contraction of the previous sentence.
Then, makes a statement that's another contraction of that one, which also untrue. Major, Cameron and May all more left that Thatcher. You might argue that Hague, Smith and Howard were to the right, but they lost. The Tories biggest leap to the right was when they lost the EU referendum they called and handed over power to the Loonies (eventually).
Corbyn’s problem was that his near miss in 2017 terrified the tory and labour establishment so much that they deployed the issue of anti-semitism to defeat him. They could have done so in 2015 but they didn’t because they thought they could defeat him easily without resorting to such low tactics
oh my god come on! The anti semitism in the labour party wasn't created as some ploy to get rid of Corbyn this is a real issue. This just sounds like you're totally pushing aside people that have been racially discriminated and passing it off as some conspiracy theory.
Says “No” then agrees with me,
Ermm no I didnt so try again. All of those carried on with Thatchers policies but took them even further. A classic example being the post office which she saw as a step to far.
They did throw some fluff around it on the social side of things (hence "Thatcherism with a human face") but on the economic side of things they were to her right.
Corbyn’s problem was that his near miss in 2017 terrified the tory and labour establishment so much that they deployed the issue of anti-semitism to defeat him.
Wow, do you don't believe that ANY of the issues raised by the report reflect badly on the labour leadership at the time? the smearing, the lack of appropriate investigation, the interference at a senior level, the undermining of valid complaints?
To quote SKS... frankly, you are part of the problem.
the interference at a senior level,
Out of curiosity have you looked at the examples of these? I assume you mean political interventions which were counted as wrong whichever way they went.
The anti semitism in the labour party
It was there yes, as it was in other parties and wider society. it's always been there, the point is that Corbyn's enemies found a way to weaponise it against him without it impacting everyone else.
This just sounds like you’re totally pushing aside people that have been racially discriminated and passing it off as some conspiracy theory.
There we go again with the racism accusation. It's done a disservice to those people in actual fact because once it was unleashed it stoked the flames and amplified the problem. It's not hard to mobilise the mob, especially on such a historically inflammatory subject. The use of AS as a stick to beat Corbyn made the problem much worse than it was.
Did anyone worry or obsess about anti-semitism before 2017? Before then no one even talked about it. Not in the labour party, not in society at large, because on the whole it wasn't a big issue, and there were other forms of racism which were more prescient, like the long running race/culture war between muslims and the white population which resulted in terrorist atrocities.
If I was going to be conspiratorial about I'd say the reason they didn't deploy it in 2015 was because they knew that once the genie was out of the bottle they wouldn't be able to put it back. I doubt that's the case though, and I suspect they stumbled upon it accidentally in the wake of the 2017 election as they were forced to consider other options beyond 'Corbyn is an IRA sympathiser'.
I love how everyone is calling for Corbyn to shut up and stop making life difficult for the fairly elected leadership.
The irony is hilarious.
To quote SKS… frankly, you are part of the problem.
Part of the problem because I think AS was used as a political tool to damage Corbyn? Do you deny that Corbyn's opponents used it as a political tool against him?
Funny that you can come out with McCarthyite rubbish like this and then say I'm being a conspiracist. Anyway, I'm stopping now because it'll ultimately end up in me overtly being accused of anti-semitism, at which point I'd really lose my temper.
Instead of jumping to accuse people of racism or anti-semitism, why not ask questions of those who thought it a good idea to use it, and all the people who suffer because of it, to win a political game?
Out of curiosity have you looked at the examples of these? I assume you mean political interventions which were counted as wrong whichever way they went.
I'm referring to this
Political interference
The EHRC found evidence of political interference in the complaints process, with 23 instances of inappropriate involvement by the Leader of the Opposition’s Office (LOTO) and others in the 70 files looked at. This included LOTO staff influencing decisions on complaints, especially decisions on suspensions or to investigate a claim. Some decisions were made because of likely press interest rather than any formal criteria.
The Labour Party adopted a practice of political interference in certain complaints and the evidence indicates that it occurred more regularly in antisemitism cases. The EHRC has found this to be indirectly discriminatory and unlawful. The practice puts the person making a complaint of antisemitism at a disadvantage as they could face different and detrimental treatment and a risk that their complaint would not be handled fairly.
A transparent and independent antisemitism complaints process, where all cases of alleged discrimination, harassment or victimisation are investigated promptly, rigorously and without interference is an essential part of the reforms needed to rebuild trust.
Complaints processes and training
The Labour Party’s response to antisemitism complaints has been inconsistent and lacking in transparency in its process and decision-making. The report also identifies issues with record-keeping, lengthy delays and communication with complainants.
Those making complaints were poorly served by the Party, and those responding to complaints were often treated unfairly. For example, the complaints inbox was largely left unmonitored for a number of years and no action taken on the majority of complaints forwarded to it. Sixty-two of the 70 files reviewed had records missing, which required the EHRC to seek further information.
So it's quite clear that there was senior interference in a significant number of complaints, and reason to to believe that complaints that had been ignored were also likely to be treated inconsistently if they were eventually reviewed.
If you are trying to suggest a specific example to argue that they were being overly diligent and proactive in their dealings with complaints of anti Semitism, then I don't buy it.
If you are trying to suggest a specific example to argue that they were being overly diligent and proactive in their dealings with complaints of anti Semitism, then I don’t buy it.
I was simply checking if you had read it. To make it clear I am not suggesting I am stating.
There are some which reflect badly on Corbyn and co (namely the murals one) but if you actually read the examples rather than the headline you will see that several were ones where his office interfered to push for suspension/harder action.
I suspect they stumbled upon it accidentally in the wake of the 2017 election as they were forced to consider other options beyond ‘Corbyn is an IRA sympathiser’.
And this to me answers the question as to why I think you are part of the problem. You, and a fair few others, seem unable to accept that the issue might, just might, be that people quite rightly complained that they were subject to anti Semitic behaviour whilst members of the labour party, or whilst engaging with members of the labour party. They were then were treated so badly and ineffectually that it resulted in the party itself breaching the equality act.
So what if it was weaponised by the tories, the problem is that it was allowed to happen in the first place. Even if the tories fired the gun, the labour leadership gave them the ammunition.
It’s survival isn’t in doubt
If even fraction of the members who joined in 2015-17 leave, and the likes of Unite remove funding then that's millions per year they'll lose. Given they were worried about the party's finances when paying out damages to the AS whistleblowers I doubt they can afford to lose that.
Corbyn’s problem was that his near miss in 2017 terrified the tory and labour establishment so much that they deployed the issue of anti-semitism to defeat him.
And so another "good socialist" speaks
It seems very odd that a party that was home to so many successful Jewish politicians suddenly became a toxic place to be and led to many giving up on their careers in one way or another
Part of the problem because I think AS was used as a political tool to damage Corbyn? Do you deny that Corbyn’s opponents used it as a political tool against him?
What were they supposed to do?, Be "good socialists" and keep quiet for the cause of a left wing opportunity to be in power?
There we go again with the racism accusation. It’s done a disservice to those people in actual fact because once it was unleashed it stoked the flames and amplified the problem. It’s not hard to mobilise the mob, especially on such a historically inflammatory subject. The use of AS as a stick to beat Corbyn made the problem much worse than it was.
You know what, what ever gets you through the day. Its hard to admit the party you support (myself included) have had a racist undertone for so long its not the ideals or behaviour i align with. Difference seems to be I can admit its a problem and that problem wasn't solved by Corbyn you seem unable to for what ever reason.
For the record I never accused you of being racist I simply said it sounds like you fail to acknowledge it and are passing the blame to the Tories / ring wing part of politics. Fact is there are racists in the Labour party and those people need to go, if people want to deny it they are simply supporting those people too so they can also go... AND that includes Corbyn.
If this was JRM, Raab or any of the other Tories we would be calling for resignations so we have to expect the same when our own party fall short
I was simply checking if you had read it. To make it clear I am not suggesting I am stating.
There are some which reflect badly on Corbyn and co (namely the murals one) but if you actually read the examples rather than the headline you will see that several were ones where his office interfered to push for suspension/harder action.
I don't believe that a lot of the complaints are actually public, but certainly some of Corbyn's historical actions have been particular tone deaf. Its also clear that despite repeated public assurances that he would take a grip on anti-Semitism within the party, he was pretty ineffectual in his efforts.
Is he antisemitic? probably not. Did he sail pretty close to the wind? Yes. Did he preside over a party that increasingly became a hostile place for Jews? Yes, absolutely.
And all he did yesterday was make it worse.
the point is that Corbyn’s enemies found a way to weaponise it against him without it
The average voters couldn't care less about anti-semitism in the Labour party and it would have had a very, very minor part in his loss.
Corbyn wasn't liked/trusted for all sorts of reasons (rightly or wrongly) plus they liked Brexit, a lot.
I don’t believe that a lot of the complaints are actually public
Lets stick to your claim of political interference. So have you bothered to read the section yet and looked at the examples they have provided?
Lets stick to your claim of political interference. So have you bothered to read the section yet and looked at the examples they have provided?
Yes, I have 'bothered'. And its not my claim. Its the legal finding of the EHR commission.
If even fraction of the members who joined in 2015-17 leave, and the likes of Unite remove funding then that’s millions per year they’ll lose. Given they were worried about the party’s finances when paying out damages to the AS whistleblowers I doubt they can afford to lose that.
Union funding would be a big deal, but why would they withdraw that? Who would they give it to instead?
They might make a modest cut as a way of showing displeasure if Labour start to look electable, but other than that I can't see a big change coming.
Len McCluskey is always threatening to withdraw funding, I think he last did it when the labour party paid compensation to whistleblowers in the, hang on, anti-Semitism scandal!
Apropos of nothing, He also once told Peter Mandelson to go count his gold.
Yes, I have ‘bothered’. And its not my claim.
Do you still stand by your declaration "being overly diligent and proactive in their dealings with complaints of anti Semitism, then I don’t buy it." bearing in mind that how many of the examples listed by the ECHR were his office forcing harder action.
Do you still stand by your declaration “being overly diligent and proactive in their dealings with complaints of anti Semitism, then I don’t buy it.” bearing in mind that how many of the examples listed by the ECHR were his office forcing harder action.
Yes I do. because I'm of the opinion that interference didn't take place to fairly advance complainants, it was done for political purposes (hence the charge being proven). There was no need for the LOTO to be involved in the process, there was no need for Thomas Gardiner to be installed there when he did, and there is evidence that he and others subverted the process to the potential detriment of complainants or to lessen the punishment for those found in breach.
Its also worth reminding that the document references a sample of the total complaints.
Edit to add: I don't want to give the mistaken impression that I think interference is ok, even if the outcome for the complainant is improved.
because I’m of the opinion that interference didn’t take place to fairly advance complainants, it was done for political purposes
Which would still be "overly diligent and proactive" even if the reasons for doing so were suspect.
and there is evidence that he and others subverted the process to the potential detriment of complainants or to lessen the punishment for those found in breach.
There is also evidence that they did so to increase the punishment.
Its also worth reminding that the document references a sample of the total complaints.
Are you claiming that the choice by the ECHR was flawed?
Which would still be “overly diligent and proactive” even if the reasons for doing so were suspect.
No it doesn't, it could have been slapdash and tardy for all we know. If you want to continue to believe that they were being diligent and proactive then go on ahead.
There is also evidence that they did so to increase the punishment.
And evidence they did the contrary. seems like political interference doesn't get anyone a fair hearing, does it?
Are you claiming that the choice by the ECHR was flawed?
what do you think?
You, and a fair few others, seem unable to accept that the issue might, just might, be that people quite rightly complained that they were subject to anti Semitic behaviour whilst members of the labour party,
If you can find a single instance of me saying those complaints were unfounded or should be ignored then go for it. I promise you won't find any. I'm not disputing the existence of AS in labour, or anywhere else for that matter. I'm questioning the motivations of those who weaponised it to defeat Corbyn, and in the process made the issue a whole lot worse. Those people weren't interested in eliminating AS from labour, they wanted to pour fuel on it, and that's exactly what happened once they turned it into a partisan factional issue.
Yet again, why is it being presented as a binary choice between 'it's all just a conspiracy against Corbyn' and 'AS in the Labour party is all his fault and he's awful'. Are we really only capable of tabloid newspaper level debate?
From an outside view, it seems labour is a split party, you've got your further left corbyns and your more centrist/establishment Starmers for a start.
All it takes is for the tories to toss a hand grenade over the fence, and they can sit back and watch the in-fighting, which seems to be labours biggest issue. They Can't present a united party front.
Starmer seems to be addressing that but also alienating the corbyn types. Parhaps the labour party needs to decide what it is, and then those members who don't like it, can form a new party.
Corbyn’s problem was that his near miss in 2017 terrified the tory and labour establishment so much that they deployed the issue of anti-semitism to defeat him
Mate, much as I love you, you really need to lay off the mushrooms during the day 😃
Nobody has ever been terrified of Jeremy Corbyn. Least of all the Tory party. They gave thanks to lord the day the sixth formers elected the clown and they’ve not stopped laughing since.
Well... until yesterday, anyway
Yet again, why is it being presented as a binary choice between ‘it’s all just a conspiracy against Corbyn’ and ‘AS in the Labour party is all his fault and he’s awful’. Are we really only capable of tabloid newspaper level debate?
It clearly can't be all his fault, AS existed before and will exist after Corbyn. The sad reality is that some people believe the tropes or can't navigate the issue due to their concerns about the Palestinian people. AS exists on the left and the right and the centre of British politics because it involves people, and people sometimes have nasty opinions in amongst their passion to help others.
Nor is it a conspiracy, AS became more open when the membership ballooned as very politicised people to the left of labour as it was, joined the party to get Corbyn and his fellow travelers in the driving seat of labour. There is a clear change in personality of the party which then drove out previously successful labour Jewish politicians.
The party machine struggled when it ballooned, he failed to lead, he failed to believe his supporters could include AS members. He had cognitive dissonance on the whole issue, he couldn't see the problem and still doesn't nor do his fellow travelers
I reckon. 1. The Israeli Govt does some shit awful things, 2. Many critics of Israel also dislike Jews 3. Corbyn's leadership failed. 4. The left clearly has an anti Semitic problem, some of those folk are in the Labour party. 5. Some folk used an actual problem to attack Corbyn. It worked, because Corbyn (it turns out) wasn't a very good political operator. 6 some people are still angry about it.
To my mind, all Corbyn had to do was STFU, and not play the victim, That's literally all he had to do, and he even had an agreement with the current leadership to do that. In the context of an investigation into the failure of a leadership organisation to deal with an internal problem, this should've been obvious to the most clueless of first term MPs. That Corbyn couldn't or didn't, speaks volumes about the man (for clarity, and not in a good way)
you really need to lay off the mushrooms during the day
Fear not, this is all just mental exercise and distractions from work. Not that we ever would, as it's a complete waste of time, but if we were to discuss in real life it would be somewhat more nuanced, sensible and a whole lot more philosophical 😉
The left has a problem with anti semitism implies it is only the left or mainly the left.
In other worrying incidents over recent months, the Tory MP for Bolton West last week apologised for sharing a poem on social media which included references to Rothschild conspiracy theories.
And last month a councillor, who also stood as a parliamentary candidate in December, was readmitted to the party after expressing regret over posts he made questioning aspects of the Holocaust.
In April, the Tories suspended an activist in Scotland who had promoted antisemitic posts suggesting “Jews are behind bestiality brothels
In 2015, the Campaign Against Antisemitism (CAAS) found that more than three in ten Tory voters believe that “Jews chase money more than other British people.” Twenty percent believe that “Jews think they are better than other people.” One in ten think that in business, “Jews are not as honest as most people” and would be unhappy “if a family member married a Jew.” Seventeen percent think that Jews have too much “power” in the media. Twenty-two percent think that Jews are more loyal to Israel than Britain and 12 percent think that “Jews talk about the Holocaust too much in order to get sympathy.”
In 2017, these figures were re-confirmed when CAAS’s Antisemitism Barometer found that 40 percent of Tory voters “endorsed” at least one anti-Semitic statement
Then there's all the George Soros conspiracy stuff people like Farage have pushed on Alex Jones show etc
And that's without even getting started on the Islamophobia
But yeah it's just the left that has the problem.
If you can find a single instance of me saying those complaints were unfounded or should be ignored then go for it. I promise you won’t find any. I’m not disputing the existence of AS in labour, or anywhere else for that matter.
Perhaps not but what it sounds like is you are trying to make excuses for a group of people who have behaved appallingly by claiming there was some tory / labour ploy in the background seeding these anti semitic views and comments to people like its some big game to get rid of Corbyn. And its that which basically makes you sound like your denying it happened. I just don't understand when he was the leader of the party you can't see that its his fault. Corbyn simply didn't do enough.
No one has claimed anyone was 'seeding anti-semitism', but there was a concerted effort by right wing press, right wing of labour party and the Tory party to 'get' Corbyn by making out anti semitism was somehow exclusively a trait of his supporters. He fell right into the trap because he's crap at politics.
Corbyn simply didn’t do enough.
Doesn't Jeremy Corbyn even concede this? Pretty sure he does.
Are people even reading his actual statement or just making it up for themselves?
https://m.facebook.com/JeremyCorbynMP/posts/10158940021628872
Joepud you have to read the report.
But yeah it’s just the left that has the problem.
I don’t think anyone is saying that
When it comes to the Tory’s, from their leader down, I expect to attach a lot of ‘ists’ to them. Racist, sexist, everythingist...
But I expect a far higher standard from a party that I’m a member of. Especially from a man who’s supporters are perpetually wanging on about being a ‘man of honour and integrity’
Do I think Jezza is personally antisemetic? No
But I always got the impression that he was, at best, indifferent to the issue, and I suspect that that was because a lot of those responsible for it were idealogical fellow travellers from his particular wing of the party, and those who were hounded out of the party, he was quite happy to see the back of
But yeah it’s just the left that has the problem.
No it's not, the centre and right has a problem.
They just manage not to drive their successful Jewish elected members out of the party. Don't remember this happening in the libdems or conservatives.
No one has claimed anyone was ‘seeding anti-semitism’,
To quote another person on this forum "Corbyn’s problem was that his near miss in 2017 terrified the tory and labour establishment so much that they deployed the issue of anti-semitism to defeat him." it would be nice to get clarity on the wording of "deployed" but it normally means do something, take action and so on so suggests someone was doing something to "deploy" anti semitism within the Labour party.
There was a concerted effort by right wing press, right wing of labour party and the Tory party to ‘get’ Corbyn by making out anti semitism was somehow exclusively a trait of his supporters.
It’s a hysterical witchhunt stirred up very successfully by people who have benefitted politically from it. It’s got nothing to do with racism, anti-semitism or anything else. It’s politics, plain and simple
Can you not even for a second reflect on how comments actually sounds. How do you think people who have been victims of this would feel? It sounds like these claims are just being denied. Corbyn was head of the table he should have put a better structure in place but didn't so its his fault.
It sounds like these claims are just being denied.
Only in tabloid newspaper/the internet bizarro-world where straw-manning is an Olympic sport and nuance is strictly prohibited.
People can say until they're blue in the face that anti semitism is a real problem in the Labour party and JC was bad at dealing with it, but that doesn't count unless you also say that no-one has ever cynically exploited it and that media treatment isn't insanely one-sided.
Corbyn was head of the table he should have put a better structure in place but didn’t so its his fault.
Except this is Trump / Corbyn we're talking about, so he can never be at fault and never takes responsibility for anything. It's always someone else's fault (deep state anyone) whose out to get him.
Corbyn talked about stopping selling arms to Saudi in his first speech as Labour leader.
Awesome, so he'd just sell arms to the leftist despots he refused to condemn and had so much time for such as Chavez and Castro.
He's just like his central hate figure Thatcher and her support for Pinochet in that regard. The fact that he got called out on this whilst the Tories don't is that the Tories don't pretend to care about human rights, whilst Corbyn does.
Awesome, so he’d just sell arms to the leftist despots he refused to condemn and had so much time for such as Chavez and Castro.
These "leftist despots" were democratically elected or led popular revolution. I don't remember the House of Saud standing for election at any point?
Otherwise, yeah, thanks for your balanced viewpoint
FWIW I have today become a member of the Labour Party, a party that should be my natural political home. A party that I have not voted for since the Iraq war. I hoped that a generational change after that debacle would give me the confidence to vote for them again. Instead there was (as it came across to me) leadership by a group so convinced of the correctness of their own ideology that they could not engage with another who held even slightly differing views. Today I have some confidence that the Labour Party is rebuilding into something decent and electable.