Forum menu
Danny if you’re right then it proves my point that the centrist approach is fatalistic and pessimistic. We give up on the problems that face us because the system we use can’t solve them. There’s a solution to that.
Minor and slow changes the people can accept, not massive changes/revolution that they cannot.
And then the massive changes/revolution will come anyway, and we will be woefully unprepared.
Pretty much every poll puts climate change at the top of people’s priorities
Yeah sure, and then when it comes to voting for a party that will actually do anything about climate change what happens?
Clue, they get about 2.7% of the vote - yes, 2.7% !
Daz. Your ideas are great, but they will only come after a real, not metaphorical, lamppost moment for the likes of Johnson, Cummings, Aaron Banks etc.
Much as I wouldn't mind seeing that, it ain't gonna happen whilst the populace is engaged in destroying the last vestiges of 'society' in a frantic, self centred race to the bottom.
Yeah sure, and then when it comes to voting for a party that will actually do anything about climate change what happens?
Clue, they get about 2.7% of the vote – yes, 2.7% !
This.
I’d love to see a green revolution too. But it won’t happen under the current system of electing our representatives. When the real difficulties of climate change start, idiots will vote for parties that yet again will shout out simple solutions for complicated problems.
Until we abandon this twee ****ing idea of “constituency MPs”, **** all is going to change.
The first “big” change we need is electoral reform. And people will need to get used to the idea of coalition government that can’t just railroad policy through parliament when it has a large majority. It’s tyranny disguised as democracy.
I agree re electoral reform but it will be a cold day in hell before that happens.
How do those who blame JC/the left of the Labour party for everything feel about the fact that KS' deputy party leader has been accused of anti-semitism on more than one occasion?
https://antisemitism.org/politics/labour/angela-rayner/
Attention was drawn to a tweet she had posted in September 2018 (after the Labour Party had faced months of scrutiny over its resistance to adopting the full IHRA definition of antisemitism with examples), for which she had been criticised, and which she had reportedly defended, saying: “It was smears against Labour Party in general, no mention of antisemitism smears? Our membership continues to grow despite hostility from sections of the MSM.”
Looks like she also believes in JC's wacky conspiracy theories that got him booted out of the party. Is she next to go then? Kind of calls into question KS' judgement and real commitment to ridding the party of AS doesn't it.
Rayner was very vocal this week… apologising, accepting the findings of the report unequivocally, saying that over the last few years they got it wrong, saying that she got things wrong, personally apologising for her own part in all this, apologising for the team running the party at the time, apologising for the current team, and then apologising again. It’s not difficult… this week should have been all about contrition in the wake of the report being published, and promises to act on it… not about how it’s all unfair and that the public have been misled and that the problem is far wider than the Party… that just weakens or nullifies any contrition and apology… save it for another time. It’s simple… report published… apologise… say we got things wrong… point out improvements have been made already… promise more will be done based on the report’s findings… apologise again. Rayner got it spot on this week. Others would do well to learn from her.
Andrew Rawnsley always had the measure of Jezza and he's bang on today, again...
Mr Corbyn’s shameless self-pity betrays the victims of the antisemitism scandal
Mr Corbyn’s vanity simply will not allow him to accept responsibility. Many things have been said about his character over the years, but one thing has not been said enough: he is a narcissist. He cannot deal with criticism because it challenges his self-conceited estimation of his own purity. He can never be the transgressor, he must always be the sufferer.
Given that she had already apologised for posting the stuff people are calling anti semitic, before she tweeted about how the party were being smeared, that doesn't make her new apology too convincing does it.
They've been absolutely backed into a corner now where they have to accept any kind of public whipping on this issue, despite how innacurate or unreasonable it is, for fear of being called anti semitic.
Re binners link - he didn't reject the findings of the EHRC report so that article is complete bobbins
It also subtly implies that any intervention by JCs office was to try and get people off the hook for AS, when actually sometimes it was the opposite.
Poor Jeremy
It's just, like, SOOOOOO not fair
Yes he's the sulky child, and you're a model of maturity binners.
JC turned out to be a crap leader but the amount of supposedly left leaning people who have swallowed Tory propaganda uncritically is frightening.
that doesn’t make her new apology too convincing does it
I found her apology this week very convincing… and she delivered it, many times, in what I found to be a very human, honest, and very unpolitical fashion. I find myself rating her more highly the more I see how see responds in highly pressured and difficult situation. Someone I’d love to see in government.
I quite like her too but there's massive double standards at play here.
Again in dumb binary internet/tabloid world: everything to do with JC = crap anti semitic 70s socialism, anything to do with KS - fine.
What I see here is the same shit that allowed the Tories to make everyone think a global financial crisis was Labour's fault. Rather than saying yes we made some mistakes but actually it wasn't our fault they let the Tories set the agenda.
What's wrong with saying, yes we didn't handle this well and there is a real problem but it has also been unfairly exaggerated for political reasons? I honestly don't get it.
We are now in a situation where it's apparently not ok for people to say they are proud of the Labour party's record on racism and anti semitism. The public now thinks it's an exclusively Labour party problem. And no amount of genuflecting will ever be enough for some people.
I quite like her too but there’s massive double standards at play here.
No double standards from me. If Corbyn had responded the same way as Rayner did this week, I would have been very pleased… not least because it would have put him in a better position to push for his own policy platform (which I mostly agreed with) to be built upon… instead he’s ready to make himself a martyr over the AS issue, which is utterly depressing to some of us that moved to voting Labour because of his successful refreshing of the party’s policies.
I honestly don’t get it.
All the “blown out of all proportion by my enemies” stuff should not form part of the immediate response to this report. That makes the response a non-apology. You don’t have to ‘get it’, but he should.
Again in dumb binary internet/tabloid world: everything to do with JC = crap anti semitic 70s socialism, anything to do with KS – fine.
Proving once again that KS is doing something right that JC never could. You work the press to your advantage not sit back harping about how unfair everything is.
So a question for daz & others:
You are American. You have a choice between Joe & Bernie. If Bernie wins then he has no chance at all against Donald. If Joe wins there is a very good chance that Donald loses. (oh & if you don't supprt Joe then Bernie gets to challenge Donald)
Who do you give your support to?
JC turned out to be a crap leader but the amount of supposedly left leaning people who have swallowed Tory propaganda uncritically is frightening.
Ah, yes... how utterly predictable. Everyone who doesn't think Jeremy is wonderful is an unthinking drone, a lackey of the military-industrial complex, incapable of independent thought, and having their opinions spoon-fed to them by the Mail and Telegraph. Not like the warriors of the left who possess far more insight into everything due to their superior intellect and moral values
That's not at all patronising, is it?
If Bernie wins then he has no chance at all against Donald. If Joe wins there is a very good chance that Donald loses.
There was plenty of polling evidence that Sanders would be in a better place to defeat Trump so to say 'no chance at all' is pretty stupid. Biden may beat Trump (I don't think he will BTW, he'll get screwed by the electoral college and supreme court), but even if he does his policy programme is so unambitious and watered down it doesn't come close to addressing the problems in the US. So vote for a decent chance of doing f-all, or vote for slightly lower chance of doing a lot? That's a no-brainer. There's no point in defeating Trump if nothing is going to change, and very little will change under Biden for the average American.
I literally just said he was a crap leader. But carry on thinking following a right wing tabloid media agenda somehow makes you more 'one of the people' or something.
The 'Overton window' is lurching further and further right and you just shrug your shoulders and dance to their tune.
And yes, people who don't employ basic critical thinking and speak in cartoonish diatribes deserve to be patronised.
It’s a total mystery why that attitude doesn’t lead to left-wing governments, isn’t it?
Calling people a bunch of gullible thicko’s normally has them rallying to your cause in other spheres of life
You work in marketing, I take it? 😂
So a question for daz & others:
You are American. You have a choice between Joe & Bernie. If Bernie wins then he has no chance at all against Donald. If Joe wins there is a very good chance that Donald loses. (oh & if you don’t supprt Joe then Bernie gets to challenge Donald)
Who do you give your support to?
Bernie. Every time.
So Donald gets elected
So Donald gets elected
You could vote for Bernie, if you don’t want Trump to get in.
And yes, people who don’t employ basic critical thinking and speak in cartoonish diatribes deserve to be patronised.
A despicable attack on one of the smartest guys on this forum.
This is a good article that mostly sums up how I feel better than I could
Weirdly enough it doesn't hysterically wail that JC is the devil nor build him up to be the messiah, and it accepts that Labour must do much better while recognising that AS was used as a stick to beat him with by people who didn't really GAF.
A despicable attack on one of the smartest guys on this forum.
🤣
Many see electoral reform as part of the problem, at the moment the priority is to protect democracy rather than improve it. Donald and Boris are trying to 'improve it' by destroying it.
Given the current situation we would do well to recognise how fragile democracy is. As flawed as our system is we should cherish it. Oftentimes amendments to democratic systems only result in 'duking' the system and end up compromising democracy rather than improving it, look what minority effect measures like party members voting for party leaders (a fraction of a % of the electorate having a say) and Eoropean parliament elections (20% having a say) have done for our democracy.
Democracy needs to be protected not perfected.
Calling people a bunch of gullible thicko’s normally has them rallying to your cause in other spheres of life
Well it was certainly your modus operandi during the whole Brexit debate. I believe there was something about thick racists in flat roof pubs in there?
Once again your hypocrisy knows no bounds.
🤣
QFT
Kelvin, it's a bit hypocritical of Angela Rayner to roll out the apologies for abuse within the party only a week after she called another MP "Scum" in the House of Commons and subsequently resulting in the other MP and his family immediately receiving all manner of threats from Labour activists.
On the wider points in this thread there's a good article about Luciana Berger in The Sunday Times today. The abuse she received off Labour activists included threats of being killed, stabbed, raped and having acid thrown at her. This is the "gentler kinder politics" that Jeremy was promising us all. Even though she's no longer a Labour MP she received further threats this week because apparently it's her fault that Jeremy was suspended for his failure to see the blindingly obvious.
One further point of interest - even though it's been years since Berger first became the victim of sustained abuse within the Labour Party, Kier Starmer only picked up the phone this week to apologise for it - having sat on the shadow cabinet for the interim and apparently having had nothing to say on the matter for the whole of that time.
And Labour's Brexit policy under JC was a disaster, but the man in charge of it is now the solution to everything. 🤔
Personally I think calling what Rayner did anti semitism (tweeting a link to a book by a Jewish author was it?) is a bit of a stretch, but this is the bind Labour find themselves in now, everything is being picked apart for the tiniest hint of inappropriateness and everyone is afraid of being labelled an anti Semite.
If you don't agree with every aspect of every criticism sometimes made by people with an agenda other than simply anti-racism, and repeatedly say how incredibly sorry you are for everything then you're an anti Semite too.
Anyone abusing/threatening MPs is disgusting, but let's remember that the person who gets the most abuse of any MP is Dianne Abbott, but less people seem to care about that. If some of those doing the abusing of Berger were Labour members of activists they should obviously be kicked out if not prosecuted also. Suggesting that if you think AS was weaponised against JC means you support that kind of abuse is just a total straw man. I imagine binners will be along shortly to do just that.
Democracy needs to be protected not perfected.
If you think what we have now is democracy then you're deluded. What we have is a plutocracy and oligarchy which holds an opinion poll every few years to see what they can get away with, so that they can adjust their strategy to maintain power. The reason western democracy is under attack is because it doesn't serve the people, and everyone knows it, and with no other alternative they turn to snake-oil demagogues. It doesn't need to be protected, it needs to be replaced with something else which is truly democratic and accountable to the people.
Andrew Rawnsley always had the measure of Jezza and he’s bang on today, again…
Yep, pretty fair summary I thought.
Some are talking about a “civil war” in Labour, but one man’s obtuse refusal to take responsibility for what he did is a terrible reason for anyone to start one. What’s most interesting is not that some of the hard left are calling for a great fight, but that many of Mr Corbyn’s ideological companions do not appear to think him worth such a battle. Threats that Labour MPs in the Socialist Campaign Group would resign the whip have yet to come to anything. John McDonnell and other senior figures from the Corbynite project have protested the suspension while being very clear that they do not endorse what he said about the EHRC report. At least some of the hard left have the nous to grasp that trying to excuse the antisemitism scandal is a wretched hill to perish on.
Those who can’t see this now have the story of betrayal that they have been yearning for. Poor old St Jeremy, they cry, victim of the brutal Keir Starmer, martyred for the satisfaction of the anti-Corbyn media. Spare your tears. The victim of this hideous chapter in Labour’s history is not Jeremy Corbyn. The victims are those who were scared and scarred by the vile antisemitism that occurred when he was in charge. The victims are all those who needed an electable challenger to the Tories, not the toxic and sectarian party that Labour became under Mr Corbyn. The victims are the many millions of people who depend on having a Labour party capable of commanding the confidence of the public so that it can effectively represent those it exists to champion. Jeremy Corbyn is no martyr. He is a victim only of his own arrogantly self-pitying, self-denying delusions.
Corbyn is just yet another in a long line of ideological failures, he’s like the revolutionary who looks out the window one morning at a stream of people heading somewhere.
He turns to his aide and says ‘find out where those poor people are going so I can lead them’.
If you think what we have now is democracy then you’re deluded. What we have is a plutocracy and oligarchy which holds an opinion poll every few years to see what they can get away with, so that they can adjust their strategy to maintain power. The reason western democracy is under attack is because it doesn’t serve the people, and everyone knows it, and with no other alternative they turn to snake-oil demagogues. It doesn’t need to be protected, it needs to be replaced with something else which is truly democratic and accountable to the people.
What would you replace it with?
Which utopia are you going to model our new system on?
Which utopia are you going to model our new system on?
Are you seriously suggesting anything better than what we have now is unrealistically utopian? This is exactly what I'm talking about. The bar has been lowered so much we barely even remember what a basic functioning democracy looks like. How about this for a start, MPs to be properly accountable to their constituents, with established mechanisms to remove them if they're not doing their jobs, complete transparency as to their activities, a ban on second jobs, a ban on lobbying, a cap on individual political donations and an end to corporate donations. That's pretty much the same level of ethics most working people have to adhere to, and it would remove most of the corruption that goes on.
Once you deal with corruption and conflicts of interest, then you can start to change the democratic system itself. Bring in PR, dilute the power of party whips, have a written constitution, replace the lords with an elected body tasked with reviewing legislation, limit the power of the executive, add elements of participatory democracy which supplement the representative, people's assemblies, citizens panels, properly empowered local government etc. Also democratise institutions which hold non-executive power. The bank of England, the CIty, the BBC, Government Agencies. Make them all accountable, and throw the book at anyone who uses the power granted to them by the public to enrich themselves.
That too utopian? It's not asking too much, and its all do-able within a single parliamentary term.
Full Member
Corbyn is just yet another in a long line of ideological failures, he’s like the revolutionary who looks out the window one morning at a stream of people heading somewhere.
He turns to his aide and says ‘find out where those poor people are going so I can lead them’.
Sigh.
This thread is so depressing. dazh, I don’t know how you find the strength to carry on, but I appreciate your efforts.
That too utopian? It’s not asking too much, and its all do-able within a single parliamentary term.
So no corporate speaking gigs for BBC staff and contracted personalities?
People's Bank?
Community MoD?
Where is this system in operation? There are 190+ countries to pick from
dazh, I don’t know how you find the strength to carry on
Ha! I've spent my entire life being told I'm everything from a dreamer, fantasist, extremist, utopian, do-gooder, hand-wringing liberal etc. What people have never told me is why they put so much effort into supporting and justfiying a system which is so obviously f**** that schoolkids can recognise it before they even get to high school. I reckon I put much less effort into banging on about this stuff than most others do suppressing what stares them in the face. I don't how people manage to accept all the crap they see every day and think it's always been that way and always will be that way. It hasn't and it won't be.
Still waiting for a working model of utopia
Or are you proposing just tinkering with what we have?
Still waiting for a working model of utopia
Care to tell me where I've claimed we could have a utopia? I said we should replace a dysfunctional democratic system with a different one which serves the people rather than a tiny elite and tackles the existential problems we have rather than ignoring or exacerbating them. That's it. No utopia, no revolution, just some fundamental change from this blinkered and self defeating shitshow we currently live under.
Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.
I don’t know how you find the strength to carry on
And another thing.. The other reason I carry on with these endlessly pointless arguments is I'm genuinely interested in and fascinated by how everyone manages deal with all this crap. I figured out my coping mechanisms a long time ago and they seem to be the opposite of everyone else. I know for certain if I did what most do in ignoring the problems or pretending theres nothing that can be done I'd probably be on the depression and mental health threads.
I said we should replace a dysfunctional democratic system with a different one which serves the people rather than a tiny elite and tackles the existential problems we have rather than ignoring or exacerbating them.
How Dazh? It’s all sounding a bit Maoist from you at the moment.
I said we should replace a dysfunctional democratic system with a different one which serves the people rather than a tiny elite and tackles the existential problems we have rather than ignoring or exacerbating them.
Our system has lots of problems, I'm hoping you can name somewhere that has managed to achieve your aims. There must be somewhere close to your proposed paradigm
It’s all sounding a bit Maoist
Sigh, because of course the only way to change anything is through dictatorship? Well it's not, the very opposite in fact, less change happens under that system because they're inherently conservative, because dictators usually want to stay in power. Of course you know that though. Or do you really think nothing can be done? Or that we have to wait for those in charge to decide to do something? Having discussed many issues on here with you I don't think you believe that for a second.
I think lots can be done. The changes need to start with a government elected using the system currently in front of us. There is no skipping over the step of using the existing system to take office… any plan to improve things needs to start right there.
That’s it. No utopia, no revolution, just some fundamental change from this blinkered and self defeating shitshow we currently live under.
Ok. But how do you propose to achieve that? Because, according to you, the system is so corrupt and rigged it ain’t ever going to happen. If the populace votes for change, then ‘the system’ has obviously failed.
The changes need to start with a government elected using the system currently in front of us.
True, but if we elect people or parties who don’t offer that change then it’s pointless, and I’m not seeing anyone offering anything that’s different right now. Or do you subscribe to the fantasy concept of electing someone on an ‘acceptable’ agenda who will then suddenly and miraculously do something else?
I said we should replace a dysfunctional democratic system with a different one which serves the people rather than a tiny elite and tackles the existential problems we have rather than ignoring or exacerbating them.
The problem being that we can only elect people who want to be in power and want to stay in power, not the people who are deserving of it. Nobody will get elected by saying they will change the system to PR. Firstly it means no constituency MP to contact as everything would be centralised. Secondly there would be no chance for independent candidates to get involved.
You need to look at other countries with PR… many still have constituency MPs. Secondly, how many MPs have been elected as independents in UK parliamentary elections in recent years?
PR can work. But, we need to elect a government proposing change using the current system, we can’t just wish we had a better system. Labour should get behind PR as part of their next general election manifesto. Their desire to hold onto a two party system benefits the Conservatives far beyond their own interests (if those interests really are about enabling change for the people, and not just holding together their ever loosening coalition of left leaning groupings).
Dazh,
Maybe you put too much faith in politics, society is like it is for a whole host of complicated reasons, politics is a symptom of the society it finds itself in.
Politics offers a promise of utopia that has never, nor will ever exist. Human beings have existed in systems that are more or less shit and often brutal throughout history. Our present system may be pretty awful when looked at through a moral prism but history shows us that it is a system that has delivered a 75 year period of unprecedented peace. This might be a reason why the public is instinctively nervous about radical change.
Kelvin,
Maybe we could have another referendum on PR, like there was with the Cleggy one a few years back. It failed then so why wouldn't it fail again? As I mentioned earlier, all this tinkering with democracy only ever serves to undermine it.
I'm with that old lady from Bristol when it comes to tinkering with the system :
"What, another one ?"
The two party system benefited Labour for 3 terms pretty well when they had an electable leader didn't it? It would have done so for 4 terms had Brown had the balls to call an election as soon as Blair resigned, (he could have then governed with a mandate).
Politics doesn't shape society, it's the other way round. If you change the system then the public will either get confused or they will make their own adaption to the new rules, the results will likely be similar whatever the system.
Maybe we could have another referendum on PR, like there was with the Cleggy one a few years back. It failed then so why wouldn’t it fail again?
That would be the referendum on electoral reform that was at best “a miserable little compromise” and at worst a blatant Tory stitch up to stymie reform?
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/may/06/reasons-av-referendum-lost
The other reason I carry on with these endlessly pointless arguments is ....
Its because you’re not succeeding in taking people with you but are utterly convinced the way you see forward is ‘the’ way.
Or at least that’s how it reads.
I often read into your posts an absence of pragmatism with how to achieve solutions, that may not be a fair assessment but as is proven on a daily basis in pretty much every theatre of life, fairness isn’t relevant.
Just to bring things back on topic, what was Corbyn’s view on PR then?
https://www.theyworkforyou.com/mp/10133/jeremy_corbyn/islington_north/divisions?policy=1084
https://www.makevotesmatter.org.uk/news/lcer-ask-the-candidates
True, but if we elect people or parties who don’t offer that change then it’s pointless
The problem you have is that YOU (and me for that matter) are not part of the WE. People elect who they think will do the closest to what they want. If that is a Tory party they choose that (which for the vast majority of time in this country is what they do)
You think they are wrong and I think they are wrong but that is democracy. If THEY want a different system, if THEY are really concerned about climate change for example THEY wouldn't vote a Tory party in but that is exactly what THEY did based mostly on their dealings with Brexit (again, another thing THEY wanted)
You can bitch and whine about it for 60 years but at some point you need to have some acceptance that is isn't going to be changing in a big way any time soon.
Corbyn has gone, why are people going on about him? Restitution of the status quo ante ain't going to happen. Peace for 75 years? So long as we ignore Kenya, Aden, Ireland, poll tax, Iraq, austerity, and so on. The present is the balance of forces between different class interests, reform will not fix system. Alternative electoral systems have not provided better solutions.
There's something very deferential about this, looking up for a better/moderate/whatever party leader. These people are not special geniuses, they do deals, look after themselves, promote their ideologies. The LP can't really fight against this because it's never been a socialist party, even the post war nationalisations, council housing and the NHS were about propping up and revitalising capitalism and the LP introduced 'In Place of Strife' and industrial relations legislation to stop strikes. If it were a socialist party it wouldn't get the backing of the rich lords and industrialists who back Sir.
So long as people can be had by distracting them with identity politics, binary this and that, radicalism frightening the horses and old ladies, immigration, the terrible 1970s, Corbyn was Lenin, then they really have nothing to worry about. But if you're on the bones of your arse, worrying about your future employment, housing, kids, existence even, then you would be well advised to take a broader view. I hate to see those who are suffering argue an essentially tory position and attack socialists and but that's how cleverly manipulative and aggressive the forces are we're up against and not everyone has had the educational opportunity or experience to become class conscious. Time to start thinking a bit differently, or it's game over.
Corbyn has gone, why are people going on about him?
Because he popped his head up end of last week to object to the findings of the Equalities Commission on antisemitism, so dominating the news agenda for a couple of days.
There's a bit of momentum left in the thread because, in the face of overwhelming evidence, a few prolific posters do not regard Labour's Corbyn experiment as a failure.
Its because you’re not succeeding in taking people with you but are utterly convinced the way you see forward is ‘the’ way.
I'm no more able to predict the future than anyone else. What I am convinced of though is that the problems we face are real, and that if we keep repeating the things we've done in the past then we'll won't just fail, we'll be destroyed. We might be able to tolerate and recover from poverty, inequality, even the odd war or pandemic, but we won't be able to ride out climate change, resource depletion and the destruction of the natural world. We depend 100% on the earth and its resources yet we have a system which assumes everything is infinite. It's stupid.
I often read into your posts an absence of pragmatism
Ah yes the good old P-word. You're right, I don't recognise pragmatism, because its simply an excuse for not doing anything. Less than a year ago we were told that the Labour Party's election manifesto would cost 250bn (or something like that) and wasn't possible because we 'couldn't afford it'. We've already spent more than that on covid in 6 months than labour were proposing to spend in 5 years. If we were pragmatic about covid then hundreds of thousands more would be dead and the NHS and economy would be in a state of collapse.
I would argue the reason people are still going on about him is his suspension from the Labour Party, thus making him a martyr to the Labour left and making the Labour Party look even more divided.
a few prolific posters do not regard Labour’s Corbyn experiment as a failure.
We depend 100% on the earth and its resources yet we have a system which assumes everything is infinite. It’s stupid.
This. It's really not difficult to grasp, but people just want to stick their fingers in their ears and say 'lalalala I'm not listening'.
If it's a straw man because everyone accepts the Corbyn experiment failed? That's not what I'm reading.
Or do you mean the straw man on a thread about Corbyn is to bring in uncontestable assertions about finite resources? I'd suggest a new thread for that.
"There’s a bit of momentum left in the thread"
Boom tish.
"making the Labour Party look even more divided."
I'd have disagree. Whilst the Labour Party is divided, the way it looks to the public in general is that the Labour Party has 'taken back control'. I'm far from Starmers biggest fan but the way he has dealt with RLB and Corbyn has echoes how Kinnock dealt with Militant Tendency, only Starmer has gone this without the fanfare and theatre that Kinnock employed.
I think the general view of Starmer was that he was competent and decent but not a strong leader. I think the way he has dealt with the AS problem and the fallout has been like a silent assassin and whilst that may not appeal to elements of the Labour base it appeals to the country at large. It's in part why the RW press hasn't laid into him and also why Labour are polling better than many (including me) expected.
It's not the LP that has 'taken back control'. Starmer is forever going on about 'leadership' ie shiny suit, shoes and shiny hair, following his mentors rather than conference or the membership. He's now widening his base by promoting the principles of decency, electability, employment, family, I reckon he'd do well to promote being nice to cats.
BillMC,
The important thing is that it 'looks like' Labour has taken back control to the general public. like the public at large couldn't give a stuff about what 'conference' thinks and 'the mebership' (said in a Hale and Pace style) is as responsible for this mess as anyone (their minority vote gave us Corbyn in the first place FFS)
"Peace for 75 years? So long as we ignore Kenya, Aden, Ireland, poll tax, Iraq, austerity, and so on"
Wouldn't it be great if these things were uppermost in peoples minds when they go to vote but they aren't. With a dad who was stationed in Aden with RAF ground crew and a partner who is Kenyan I feel your pain brother, I've tried talking about Kenya on here a few times, things like 9 million bombs being dropped from Lincoln bombers onto Kenyan tribespeople resisting colonial rule but even on here there's not much interest, yet alone the general public when they're at the polling booth.
If it’s a straw man because everyone accepts the Corbyn experiment failed? That’s not what I’m reading.
It's quite obviously failed and I don't see anyone trying to argue otherwise.
Have we already mentioned Starmer's fibs about Corbyn and AS ?
I don’t recognise pragmatism
Ah, ok I see. That helps me avoid some old mistakes.
Have we already mentioned Starmer’s fibs about Corbyn and AS ?
What was all that banging on about "only 0.0000001% of Labour members investigated" supposed to be about? Why not just apologise and accept the findings of the enquiry...? It's really not hard.
What he said was true though. It was about the fact that everyone has been lead to believe the Labour party is filled to the brim with anti semites, and it's not. He also said it was a real and serious problem regardless.
I know saying stuff that's true with evidence to support it is unpopular these days....
Anti semitism is a society problem but now everyone thinks it's just a Labour party problem.
Accept the report's findings, apologise, don't deliberately neuter your apology with these whatabouterisms. It's not hard.
We depend 100% on the earth and its resources yet we have a system which assumes everything is infinite. It’s stupid.
It doesn't assume everything is infinite, it assumes the goal is to monetise it all as soon as possible.
The effect is the same, though.
Anti semitism is a society problem but now everyone thinks it’s just a Labour party problem.
Absolutely nobody thinks that.
But they may think it is worse within the Labour party than in wider society.
Absolutely nobody thinks that.
I reckon you're probably wrong on that. To the average joe who's only exposure to politics is tabloid newspapers and the 6 o'clock news it absolutely is only a labour party problem.
Well they'd be wrong.
The researchers said the prevalence [of anti semitic views] was considerably higher among right-wingers than on the left.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-41241353
And you've all bought into believing the opposite, and thinking it's not ok to point out the truth. You're on the side of 'evidence and facts don't matter'. Strange world we live in.
Yes... yes... all true... but accepting the findings of the report meant accepting its findings... tempering it with "others are worse" and "it's not as bad as some make out" is not the way to respond to the report and its findings. Accept, apologise, point out that you improved things since the events of the reports while you were leader, say you'll support the new leadership in acting on the report, apologise again... save the whatabouterisms for another time.
So while the EHRC investigate Labour and condemn them, they don't bother investigating the Tories for racism and Islamophobia despite repeated requests from the Muslim Council of Britain and others including Tories, and any attempt to portray this as a bit unreasonable/suspect makes you an anti Semite/narcissist. Cool.
while the EHRC investigate Labour and condemn them, they don’t bother investigating the Tories for racism and Islamophobia despite repeated requests from the Muslim Council of Britain and others including Tories
True
any attempt to portray this as a bit unreasonable/suspect makes you an anti Semite/narcissist
Who's saying this?
The EHRC report says that attempting to claim there has been any kind of weaponising of AS against Corbyn isn't ok. Most on this thread seem to agree.
And KS is trying to make out that JC said it was JUST a witch-hunt etc which he expressly didn't.
Those are different points. Your previous post was (what)about portrayal of the EHRC for not investigating the Tories.
Most on this thread seem to agree.
I don't. You can go ahead and complain about the (very real) AS problem being used by Corbyn's "enemies" against him, and that because of all the noise around it the public thinking it is much more rife among Labour party members than it really is.
But, the person who was leader of the party during the events investigated should, when responding to the publishing of the report, accept its findings without whatabouterisms about AS being prominent elsewhere, or complaining about being the victim. Save that for another time. Accept the report, apologise, apologise again.