Forum menu
Does anybody think the Panorama program was balanced? Does anyone think the BBCs coverage of Corbyn and AS was balanced?
Does anybody think the Panorama program was balanced?
No. Definitely not.
Does anyone think the BBCs coverage of Corbyn and AS was balanced?
Much harder to determine.
Balance isn’t always the aim of journalism though.
I'm pretty much the last person to be accused of being tone deaf tbh, I'm a total handwringer.
As you say yourself, it can be used without any connection to religion at all- you wouldn't bat an eyelid if someone says it in another context, about a referee or shouted at Bob Dylan. Context is important of course but if it can be not just innocently used, but in fact completely without any connection to judaism at all, then to presume it in this case just because it is in a discussion of antisemitism, seems like jumping at shadows. Whatever the exact opposite of tone deaf is.
TBF, most times when people get accused of taking 30 pieces of silver or of being a judas, it'll be completely unconnected to religion other than the fact that the person knows it from christianity.
How many people saying these things even thinks of Judas as jewish? (to do so, you need to both know that he was jewish by birth, but also you need to disregard the fact that he had converted to Christianity before the betrayal. And also I suppose you need to disregard that the gospels say he was possessed by the devil. I think to most people being one of the twelve apostles is about as christian as it gets)
And that's not "tone deafness", that's just understanding how the term is generally understood and used, and why it's in the general lexicon.
If the use of language is deeply embedded enough, and in general use, there’s no need to question its use in sensitive situations?
Jeez, even when he’s gone he’s still producing negative headlines for Labour.
like I said, he was happy on his allotment and working in the local food bank. The people who he beat In 2015 just can’t leave it. It’s not enough that he’s gone and they back in control (although possibly with not the wrong leader). They want revenge and they want it at any cost, including it would seem the bankruptcy of the party.
The pay out was to prevent bankrupting the party, and to draw a line under this mess… Corbyn and others no longer at the top of the party just had to keep quiet about it.
You might wish to question its use. Accusing anyone using it of having a "loud dog whistle" then repeatedly jumping on them out in the same way, not so reasonable. You've been pretty aggressive about this, and absolutely dismissive of both Daz and my responses. "no excuses", "tone deaf".
(and big and daft suggesting it should be a banning offence ffs)
I questioned the use of the phrase in the context it was. And I’m being piled on for doing so. Which I find odd to be honest. There is no way I would refer to Judas or pieces of silver when referring to anyone involved in a row over antisemitism, and it find it very odd that anyone would. And also odd that people would defend doing so in the manner you and Dazh have.
Jeez, even when he’s gone he’s still producing negative headlines for Labour.
Corbyn and others no longer at the top of the party just had to keep quiet about it.
Gone? Stay quiet? Fat chance of that. The only time that clown has ever shut up was during the EU referendum, when his extended vow of silence was more than noticeable.
To paraphrase his last speech as Labour leader, wasn’t it along the lines of “I’m never going to go away. I’m way to narcissistic for that. I’m going to carry with my lifelong mission of ensuring the Labour Party is unelectable, as long as I have breath in my body”
Daz... I don’t know how many times you need this spelling out but this entire legal nonsense is the fault of one person only...
Jennie Formby.
A fully paid up member of the Corbynite cabal
She was told by lawyers what would happen if that report was published. She did it anyway. To be now bleating that’s it’s just... like ... SOOOOOOOO NOT FAIR, is frankly embarrassing
You can try and dress it up as a right-wing/Blarite plot, or whatever, but the bottom line is that she is where she is because she’s an idiot. A rain she shares with many of her comrades
All Keir Starmer is doing is trying to not bankrupt the party by spending millions of pounds defending a gang of morons who were given ample warning of what would happen, but went ahead and did it anyway
This slipped past me originally! Popped up on my twitter
For the tone deaf foghorns on here
If I can see the problem with the phrase especially in the context with the Labour party report then it's as glaring as it gets
Doubling down on it makes it worse
STW are in a funny place here, banhamner for inane stuff, anti-Semitic tropes, well it's their forum as they like to remind us.
I bet they are on twitter Monday and Tuesday as well
STW are in a funny place here, banhamner for inane stuff, anti-Semitic tropes, well it’s their forum as they like to remind us.
We’ve dealt with this thanks.
It's not the first time the left/left leaning have been lulled into a false sense of hope, overreached and undermined, then routed with a depressingly predictable fallout!
Similar junctures and different faces that's all.
It’s not the first time the left/left leaning have been lulled into a false sense of hope, overreached and undermined, then routed with a depressingly predictable fallout!
Boris.
She was told by lawyers what would happen if that report was published. She did it anyway. To be now bleating that’s it’s just… like … SOOOOOOOO NOT FAIR, is frankly embarrassing
When was it published?
She was due to leave anyway in September and had Breast cancer treatment for a while so it's hardly a suprise she left earlier.
The idea that the report shows selective quotes is ridiculous when you read them. Quite clearly a toxic culture from the Labour right
You had Ian Austin openly sending letters telling people not to vote Labour. The man is vile.
John Mann who put all is effort attacking Corbyn and jumping on any Labour AS but ignoring Tory AS. Still at it now.
All Keir Starmer is doing is trying to not bankrupt the party by spending millions of pounds defending a gang of morons who were given ample warning of what would happen, but went ahead and did it anyway
Well it's actually the exact opposite of that but carry on.
The idea that the report shows selective quotes is ridiculous when you read them. Quite clearly a toxic culture from the Labour right
Labour’s most senior lawyer under Jeremy Corbyn formally warned the party that an internal report on antisemitism was deliberately misleading and relied upon improperly obtained private correspondence, leaked documents show.
Thomas Gardiner, Labour’s director of governance and legal until last month, wrote that the report should not be circulated because party employees’ emails and WhatsApp messages had been “presented selectively and without their true context in order to give a misleading picture”.
The report, which was leaked to the media, was compiled to be submitted to an inquiry by the Equalities and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) into Labour’s handling of antisemitism complaints.
So, not the Labour right, but the Labour legal team, trying to protect the party from itself...
All you need to know Rone is that "Corbynism" is bad, even though no one can actually define what it is (a clue - it's a nine letter word beginning with S which they had to reconstruct because the policies presented by said nine letter word are so inherently popular with the public, and just enough useful idiots bought it. I've cancelled my membership, but that's exactly what they want isn't it? Such a low point in this country. Desperately need press ownership reform and PR and a decent education system, and until then, nothing is going to really change.
Corbynism” is bad, even though no one can actually define what it is
...or thankfully needs to. But for what it's worth you can look back over this thread and see it's not his policies that were the issue for most of us (exception Brexit, and anyway what's changed policy wise) it was the utterly cack handed execution.
So @fatmountain why have you left? Which party do you see as most likely to bring a fairer more socialist, oh yes, society?
Desperately need press ownership reform
If people bought left wing newspapers then they would be what is printed
Whatever you think about Murdock etc they produce what people will buy, until the left start buying newspapers they will see a press they don't like
I can define what Corbynism is
A set of fairly sound socialist policies with an overall objective of a more equal society completely ****ed up by a useless leader called Corbyn.
When was it published?
It was 'published' the day someone within the labour party (I wonder who?) 'leaked' it to the press.
If you leak something to a national newspaper or put it out on Twitter, or whatever, then, legally, you 'published' it just as much as if you'd have called a press conference for the entire media and handed a copy to every journalist as they walked in. As everyone in the labour party will have been informed by the party's own lawyers
I used to work for the Guardian (boo, hiss!! Bloody right-wing MSM). It was great fun! The journalists would come into the office with all kinds of lurid stories about politicians and celebrities, always told to you with the inevitable refrain 'but obviously we can't publish any of this'
Because if you were a journalist about to start lobbing serious accusations around about people, then you'd be sat down with an editor and a lawyer who would ask a simple question: if we publish this, do you have the evidence to justify it that will stand up in a court of law?
And that's a yes/no answer
If the answer is yes, and you can prove it, go ahead and publish...
If the answer is no, then forget it. It's not being published. It's that simple.
Because to do so would leave the publisher liable for legal actions where the legal fees alone could head into millions.
So if Len McClusky, Jeremy Corbyn and chums are maintaining they would win a legal case, here's a suggestion:
Why don't they put THEIR money where their mouths are. They've got enough of it. If they're so certain this is defensible in a court of law, then defend the legal action with their own money, not the Labour Party's
I'm a party member and there is no way on earth I want my fees being used to defend a legal case resulting from an action taken by Jennie Formby which the labour party's own lawyers clearly told her would result in said legal action if that hatchet job/report found its way into the press, which it duly did.
It's their mess. Let them pay for it! Take some personal responsibility for their actions for a change.
If the labour party settles now, then I believe the cost is about £170,000. If the legal case goes ahead then the legal costs alone will head into the stratosphere and potentially bankrupt the party.
Unsurprisingly, the QC and former DPP believes the best thing to do is draw a line under it, settle out of court, and move on with the labour party not bankrupt
I used to work for the Guardian
BURN HIM!!!!!
Worse than Hitler etc etc
It was ‘published’ the day someone within the labour party (I wonder who?) ‘leaked’ it to the press.
If you leak something to a national newspaper or put it out on Twitter, or whatever, then, legally, you ‘published’ it just as much as if you’d have called a press conference for the entire media and handed a copy to every journalist as they walked in. As everyone in the labour party will have been informed by the party’s own lawyers
Not really. In this case they were sued for defamation for the statement they put out officially ahead of the Panorama programme which lambasted the whistleblowers/journo and made accusations of bad faith. The party can't be on the hook for a leaked document unless it can be demonstrated exactly who distributed it, and that this action was on party leadership orders.
I used to work for the Guardian
Your spelling seems too good for that to be plausible. 🙂
If the labour party settles now, then I believe the cost is about £170,000. If the legal case goes ahead then the legal costs alone will head into the stratosphere and potentially bankrupt the party.
The GDPR breach fines alone could do it, let alone anything else.
The party can’t be on the hook for a leaked document unless it can be demonstrated exactly who distributed it and that this action was on party leadership orders.
Everyone and their uncle knows full-well who leaked it. But, as we've noted already, proving that in court may be another thing. But let's not be under any illusions about who's responsible for all this very, very costly and easily avoidable nonsense, through an act (in ignoring the legal advice) of gross stupidity or spite, or likely both.
It's actually criminally irresponsible when you consider the potential implications for the party ie: complete bankruptcy.
I used to work for the Guardian
Your spelling seems too good for that to be plausible.
I onlee used too drore the piktures 😉
big_n_daft
Member
Desperately need press ownership reformIf people bought left wing newspapers then they would be what is printed
Whatever you think about Murdock etc they produce what people will buy, until the left start buying newspapers they will see a press they don’t like
Propaganda is manipulation of public opinion - public opinion does not manipulate propaganda. Here's an interesting take on it for you (my bold):
All propaganda must be popular and its intellectual level must be adjusted to the most limited intelligence among those it is addressed to. Consequently, the greater the mass it is intended to reach, the lower its purely intellectual level will have to be.
The art of propaganda lies in understanding the emotional ideas of the great masses and finding, through a psychologically correct form, the way to the attention and thence to the heart of the broad masses. The fact that our bright boys do not understand this merely shows how mentally lazy and conceited they are.
The receptivity of the great masses is very limited, their intelligence is small, but their power of forgetting is enormous. In consequence of these facts, all effective propaganda must be limited to a very few points and must harp on these in slogans until the last member of the public understands what you want him to understand by your slogan*. As soon as you sacrifice this slogan and try to be many-sided, the effect will piddle away, for the crowd can neither digest nor retain the material offered. In this way the result is weakened and in the end entirely cancelled out.
- Adolf Hitler discussing propaganda in Mein Kampf
* sound familiar? Corbynism, Get Brexit Done, Control the Virus etc. It's all the same shit but it appeals to enough people because they are not equipped to deal with it. Interestingly, Finland is investing heavily on 'digital literacy' to try and combat this. I think propaganda now is more complex than it was 70 years ago, but it exploits the same basic premise.
johnx2
Member
Corbynism” is bad, even though no one can actually define what it is…or thankfully needs to. But for what it’s worth you can look back over this thread and see it’s not his policies that were the issue for most of us (exception Brexit, and anyway what’s changed policy wise) it was the utterly cack handed execution.
A significant and influential minority of the party simply refused to accept the overwhelming leadership result, never failing to miss an opportunity to stick the knife in and cause serious division and damage.
Before the revolt we were leading the Tories in polling, and looked in a strong position to win that key election. This was despite the billionaire press and media going into overdrive. At one point, the army said they'd launch a coup against a potential Corbyn-led government. That speaks volumes about our political system. And this is to mention nothing of foreign interference from Israel or Russia, which is of course not allowed to be discussed.
A key difference between the Tories and Labour is that the former will generally fall in line, no matter how imperfect the leadership is. I'd totally accept that the leadership wasn't perfect, and as a matter of fact I thought the campaign message was clunky and out of touch. I thought Corbyn's strengths lay in his principled and evidence-based approach, not necessarily in public speaking. He was a solid campaigner and I actually think he held his nerve amazingly well - few other politicians or public figures would have survived that level of defamation.
I also found Corbyn's position on Brexit vague and I think this did him no favours. But the policy was sound and so I voted for that. I'd be far less bitter if we'd all have had an adult debate about things, but now seeing these foaming-mouthed morons implore me to forget about it is just absolutely infuriating. Blair implores me to get behind Starmer after he publicly stated he'd rather countenance a Tory government. I saw a lot of Labour "supporters" do nothing but sabotage the party over the past few years and now they expect me to forgive and forget. That's really difficult.
So @fatmountain why have you left? Which party do you see as most likely to bring a fairer more socialist, oh yes, society?
I think it finally died sometime last year? So now I just think 'let them eat cake' and maybe it will get so severe that we'll have some sense knocked into us, but the recent election seems to contradict that - like I say, I do not foresee much change in this country so long as the press continues to be owned by 5 billionaires and we do not enact sweeping electoral reforms. I suppose Scotland will go soon, and maybe we'll see a United Ireland. Maybe these are just the death throes that will lead to something better. I've no idea really.
A significant and influential minority of the party simply refused to accept the overwhelming leadership result
There's a huge gulf between being elected as leader, and being able to lead. Corbyn was the former, and as it turned out, terrible at the latter. Most folk I know, and my partner (who is Jewish) voted Labour despite Corbyn not because of him, and trust me when I say I wanted so much more from him than it seem he was capable of being. From your perspective I imagine that you feel Corbyn never had the backing of some of the party, equally from the other side, it felt like Corbyn made no attempt to become a leader that could unite a party, and that he pretty much never tried to.
He's had his time in the sun, and despite winning more votes than our last successful leader, failed to beat first an automaton, and then a man who is both a liar and narcissistic clown. In political terms Corbyn was a failure regardless of how you think he was treated.
^^^ +1 to fatmountain's post.
I kind of hoped that Sir Haircut might actually unite the party as well as be "more electable", but as far as I can see he's just given a pay day to the 2017 wreckers :-\
– Adolf Hitler discussing propaganda in Mein Kampf
Adolf Hitler was a man who could orate, he was, in all other aspects, a drug taking narrow minded simpleton with an overinflated ego and a personality that favoured gambling over reason. Anyone who uses Adolf Hitler to lend credence to their argument has either misunderstood, or hasn't read, their 20thC history or fallen for his propaganda.
Christ! We've gone full Godwin!
Anyway... back to the subject in hand
I kind of hoped that Sir Haircut might actually unite the party as well as be “more electable”
All polling suggests he's accomplished the latter to a huge degree in a very short time-frame, which bodes well for the future. He's made up a 20 point deficit from when grandad strolled away from the smouldering wreckage and his personal polling is higher than Johnsons on every metric, compared to Corbyns worse personal polling of any party leader on record.
Corbyns worse personal polling of any party leader on record.
and regardless of any external reasons that any supporters of Corbyn think mitigates his term as leader, Personal leadership and popularity is the start middle and finish of any party leader in the UK system of government today. You may wish it wasn't, and lord knows, many of us do, but it isn't, and at the very least Stamer seems to get it.
To swing the country socialist AND wanting to exit the EU (Corbyn's & the "left's" position - Tony Benn and Enoch Powell shared the same goal) was breathtaking in its stupidity.
You swing left (socialist) as part of a bigger group, you have allies and friends or at least people that "need" you to function.
You swing left (socialist) and the attacks from the neo-cons and frothing pseudo capitalists start - see Cuba, Venezuela and many murky "incidents" that occurred to left-migrating countries.
Being part of nothing, no one is going to GAS.
Being part of the EU, he, the party and the country could have become a talisman for effective, compassionate popularism - socialism. But no. Apparently the EU wasn't "democratic" and/or the useless **** lacked the political nous to reform it from within.
Being anything more than a consistency MP was WAAAAAY beyond his ability.
Meanwhile looking back in history
https://labourlist.org/2020/07/labours-class-of-45-remembered/
Personal leadership and popularity is the start middle and finish of any party leader in the UK system of government today
Yes, and a lot of us realise that. Corbyn and his team seemed to either not realise that (unlikely) or simply didn't care as Corbyn over stayed his welcome after it was clear that he was not the right person for the job (6 months in if I am being kind)
but as far as I can see he’s just given a pay day to the 2017 wreckers :-\
This is my line in the sand. If Starmer hands out hundreds of thousands of member's fees to these ****s then he's sticking two fingers up to the people like myself who voted for him in the leadership election. Yes, it may cost the party more, but there are much bigger things at stake. The labour movement as a whole would support the party in fighting these turncoats and would raise the money to do it. If Starmer chooses to cave in without a fight then everyone who voted for him will conclude that he's done that because it fits with a right wing political agenda. It will split the party and finish off any chances of a future election victory. The party can either move forward united behind Starmer, or it can spend the next few years fighting internecine battles, it's his choice.
You think the original cases should have gone to court? You’re against the settlement?
If Starmer chooses to cave in without a fight then everyone who voted for him will conclude that he’s done that because it fits with a right wing political agenda. It will split the party and finish off any chances of a future election victory. The party can either move forward united behind Starmer, or it can spend the next few years fighting internecine battles, it’s his choice.
Reading this, it occurs to me that there a perhaps quite a number of Corbyn supporters who might claim they are trying to unite behind him, but never had any intention of doing so, and are simply looking for the first opportunity to declare him a neoliberal sellout and use that as the excuse to enjoy their internecine battles ad infinitum. It's just the reverse side of the never-Corbyn coin, no better, no worse.
It’s just the reverse side of the never-Corbyn coin, no better, no worse.
Definitely not here. There's only two things I (and many others like me) want. The first is to maintain the radical policy position, particularly in relation to the green new deal. Second is to listen to the whole party, not just those who previously opposed Corbyn. The jury's still out on the first and we'll have to wait til later to see, but on the second he's failing miserably. Everything he's done so far, from shadow cabinet, NEC and advisor appointments has signalled the very opposite of his 'unity' promises. Even then many on the left can accept those as long as he can fulfill the first commitment around policy. But now he wants to exonerate and reward those who have been proven to have been working against the party's election chances.
In my experience, people on the left are very forgiving and very open minded, naive even. They're idealists and will fall in behind anyone who offers hope of a real labour government. It's the people on the right who have proven themselves to be the power hungry, self interested, spiteful elements. And now we face seeing those people enriched at the cost of members, and more than likely brought back into party funded jobs. No one on the left is going to accept that. If Starmer wants to avoid blowing apart the party, he needs to find a solution which doesn't allow the likes of McNichol et al to declare victory.
So why do you want the cases to go to court? How will that help? Do you want them to be paid more? Do you want them to be able to point to a successful day in court as a victory? Do you want this to drag on? The best thing to do now, is draw a line under all that, and show the country that the party has moved on, and is now focused on being an alternative government... and like you I want that to include a left wing policy platform. The best chance of that is for the last leadership team to do everything they can to help the party avoid fighting and re-fighting past battles, especially in the courts, and in the media.
Second is to listen to the whole party, not just those who previously opposed Corbyn
The problem wasn't the policies, it was 2 things, 1. the scatter-gun way in which they were presented and easily shot down as more Labour Spending frivolity, and 2. the leadership, and perhaps more importantly the leadership team that were around him. Those people have to be removed (if you don't get that, then you don't get politics). People didn't vote for Labour becasue of the people at the top, those people can no longer be at the top of the party, and it must be made slear to everyone that they are no longer at the top.
Corbyn and those folk had their chance, they blew it...Twice.
Reading this, it occurs to me that there a perhaps quite a number of Corbyn supporters who might claim they are trying to unite behind him, but never had any intention of doing so, and are simply looking for the first opportunity to declare him a neoliberal sellout and use that as the excuse to enjoy their internecine battles ad infinitum
Exactly. They reveled in their totally politically-ineffectual troublemaking and voter-repelling ideological purity for 3 decades through the (annoyingly electorally successful) Blair years, with Corbyn as one of the main instigators. During this period they were tolerated as a bunch of irrelevant oddballs. I suspect that's exactly what we're heading for again
In my experience, people on the left are very forgiving and very open minded
And now we face seeing those people enriched at the cost of members
Are we talking about Seamas here, or Len?
Those people have to be removed (if you don’t get that, then you don’t get politics)
To be clear I'm not talking about Milne, McCluskey et al, I never had any time for them before and much less now. I'm talking about members, MPs and others on the left who put together the policies which everyone (even Binners it appears) seems to agree were the right approach. It's all about that first objective around the policies, but that will never be delivered if everyone from the left is excluded from future involvment. Like it or not the membership voted for Corbyn because he offered an approach which they could identify as labour policies and principles. That sentiment hasn't gone away, and for now many of those people are still behind Starmer, but he's losing them rapidly, and the trickle will become a tide if he is seen to be supporting McNichol et al.
So why do you want the cases to go to court? How will that help?
Not necessarily, I would much rather Starmer find another solution, the key thing is that they can't be seen to be rewarded for their unforgivable behaviour. I'm not saying it's not difficult, clearly it is, but Starmer will be making more trouble for himself if he simply gives in.
I would much rather Starmer find another solution
Suggest one. Otherwise, I would suggest, that there is probably no better qualified person in the Labour movement than the current leader to weigh up the pros and cons of a settlement vs going to court or any other option possible. I'd be listening to him, not Corbyn, on this... why aren't you? What "solution" has Corbyn suggested?