Forum menu
No. The leadership was criticised in the EHCR report for political interference in its handling of complaints. Subsequently, an NEC disciplinary investigation gave Corbyn a slap on the wrist following his unfortunate comments, but the new leadership decided it didn’t like the outcome.
What would have been a less ironic thing to have done?
What would have been a less ironic thing to have done?
My view is that Corbyn's actions either deserve expulsion or they don't. Either way, it's difficult to see a justification on the whip that is at odds with the findings of a disciplinary hearing.
also don’t know what the right move is.
The right move is to defend the party against unjustified accusations, and investigate and act on those that are justified. Starmer, and Corbyn before him did the latter, but unfortunately not the former.
The Israeli lobby have successfully portrayed the entire labour party as anti-semitic. Starmer has just shown that he agrees with them. When he should be talking about climate change and poverty, he's going to spend the rest of his leadership being attacked for failing to stand up for party members who have been unjustifiably labelled as racists. That seems like an odd way to unify the party and win an election if you ask me.
The Guardian writes lots about Labour donors:
it’s difficult to see a justification on the whip that is at odds with the findings of a disciplinary hearing
A disciplinary hearing from a set-up that the EHCR deemed unfit for purpose, advised be disbanded and replaced with an independent system more fitting for an organisation like the labour party.
They could have waited for that independent, impartial system to be established but went ahead and rushed a judgement through on Corbyn that concluded that - surprise, surprise - everything is just tickety-boo.
They made a political decision. So Starmer did the same.
Given Corbyns non-apology and usual total absence of even a shred of contrition, he couldn't really do owt else, really
The Israeli lobby have successfully portrayed the entire labour party as anti-semitic.
What utter twoddle
Suggesting that it's the Jews controlling everything is obviously anti semitic, but we have reached a point now where even to suggest that the influence of a pro-israel lobby in the labour party might not sit well with the party's supposed commitment to human rights is considered anti semitic.
Again, one third of the shadow cabinet are members of an avowedly pro Israel lobby group - why?
And half the people posting the genuinely AS stuff are probably trolls and/or bots. The ones that are real should be either prosecuted and/or kicked off twitter/out of the labour party if they are members. I highly doubt many of them are.
It must have been a tough one for SKS, he was a thorn in the side of Labour when they were in power, defying the whip 428 times, it's pretty clear he had fundamental issues with that Government, and will likely have the same issues with a potential Starmer lead Government, he's not exactly a team player, and has that 'all or nothing' view of politics so many of his core have. There's a certain irony perhaps in the way he's been effectively de-selected, for not singing from the hymn sheet.
Politically, it's probably the least worst option for SKS, thankfully for him, there isn't currently a credible left-wing UKIP ready to welcome voters disillusioned that their chosen Party isn't as fundamentalist as they'd like. There are a couple of Socialist Parties who I'm sure would love to have him, but they're tiny.
There's still a long time until the next election to clear Labour of the ghost of Corbyn, I'm sure the likes of Momentum will try to cause all sorts of mischief to have him readmitted, but it won't work.
he was a thorn in the side of Labour when they were in power, defying the whip 428 time
Glad I'm not the only one seeing the irony on the MP who has defied the party whip more times than any other (by a country mile) getting huffy because it's now been withdrawn.
It was only because Blair seemed to regard him (correctly) as an amusing, ineffective little oddball and just ignored him that he hadn't had it withdrawn years ago.
A disciplinary hearing from a set-up that the EHCR deemed unfit for purpose, advised be disbanded and replaced with an independent system more fitting for an organisation like the labour party.
Corbyn's case was heard by the disputes panel: I believe they haven't been responsible for anti-semitism hearings for some time.
Again, one third of the shadow cabinet are members of an avowedly pro Israel lobby group – why?
Their meetings are a hoot and the buffet is to die for?
Why do you think so many are in key leadership positions in the labour party?
I'm not sure, but I don't see it as appropriate. I wouldn't see it as appropriate for them to be members of an organisation that's purpose is to promote any country tbh, but especially not one with such a dodgy human rights record.
I'm assuming you're trying to imply I think it's because of a Jewish conspiracy?
Which pro-Israeli group?
it’s difficult to see a justification on the whip that is at odds with the findings of a disciplinary hearing.
One is a decision the party leader can make, the other isn't.
Why do you think so many are in key leadership positions in the labour party?
Given we're discussing antisemitic ideas of strings being pulled behind the scenes, I'd suggest it's better to say clearly what you mean rather than ask questions that could be seen to be playing to those tropes.
I’m assuming you’re trying to imply I think it’s because of a Jewish conspiracy?
No I don't, but it's a fine line to tread and clarification important
My assumption is that this issue has polarised many within the labour party and that encourages the group's to recruit and creates a kind of identity politics within the party. That in turn means there is an increased chance of a imbalance if the leader comes from one faction or the other
Others may have a different view, just because you are paranoid it doesn't mean they aren't out to get you
I wouldn’t see it as appropriate for them to be members of an organisation that’s purpose is to promote any country tbh,
prepare to hsve your mind blown then: here's 180 pages of nation specific All Parliamentary Groups:
I only looked at the first two but they don't have the stated aim of promoting a particular country, which Labour Friends of Israel does.
Promoting better relationships and understanding is one thing, promoting a country is another.
And Starmer did receive significant funding from a pro Israeli lobbyist before the leadership election, which he didn't disclose. He describes himself as a Zionist. It's not anti Semitic to suggest there is a powerful Israeli lobby that has influence in UK politics - that's not the same as saying Jews are secretly in control of everything. Some people on both sides seem to struggle with the difference between those two.
I guess I'm not allowed to talk about this either without someone calling me anti semitic
An Israeli embassy official who plotted to “take down” MPs regarded as hostile has also set up a number of political organisations in the UK that operated as though entirely independent.
Shai Masot was filmed covertly as he boasted about establishing several groups, at least one of which was intended to influence Labour party policy, while appearing to obscure their links to Israel.
But unless you are 100% fine with all this you are a Jew-hating socialist dinosaur etc etc
One is a decision the party leader can make, the other isn’t.
Whether or not the leadership can make the decision is in dispute.
Whether or not they should is a different matter. There doesn't seem to be much point in holding disciplinary hearings if their findings are subordinate to the whims of the leadership.
The BBC have just said that Grandad was told that if he said sorry for his initial (stupid and insensitive) comments about the report when it was published, then it'd all be fine and he could return to the Labour whip.
He was offered that by Starmer and was urged to do so by John Macdonell
He refused.
Corbyn chose this fight.
Ever the victim. He'll be revelling in his martyrdom
You got grandad and matyrdom in there, but nothing about sixth-formers or allotments.
3/10. Must try harder.
You got grandad and matyrdom in there, but nothing about sixth-formers or allotments.
3/10. Must try harder.
He also made the point that Corbyn chose to have this entirely unnecessary fight.
He also made the point that Corbyn chose to have this entirely unnecessary fight.
I think we've ample evidence that the anti-Corbyn cult doesn't permit more than one idea to be entertained.
Well… Len McClusky says that Corbyn is being persecuted…
“ The continued persecution of Jeremy Corbyn, a politician who inspired millions, by a leadership capitulating to external pressure on Party procedures risks destroying the unity and integrity of the Party. ”
I'm pretty sure that just because Len disagrees with this decision, it's not automatically right.
What’s the right decision? I’d have rather seen Starmer give him the whip back, but any decision now will have a damaging effect on Labour. The “unity” of the party was thrown under the bus by Corbyn on the day the report was published. He’s not really doing much right now to try and fix that, is he? And, unsurprisingly, nor is McCluskey.
The right decision would have been to decide something and stick to it. Unfortunately Starmer has failed to shut this down:
https://twitter.com/michaeljswalker/status/1329060705287475200
The continued persecution of Jeremy Corbyn, a politician who inspired millions,
I mean, Mussolini "inspired millions" - I've seen stronger credentials for a Labour politician...
The right decision would have been to decide something and stick to it.
the right decision would have been to push him though the new independent process. Then accept the results
The continued persecution of Jeremy Corbyn
Just the normal gentle reminder that the EHRC report was about the persecution of Jewish people, not Jeremy Corbyn
The right decision would have been to decide something and stick to it.
That would still have been damaging… Corbyn has messed this up for Starmer, Rayner, Labour … and possibly all of us … it’s a matter of Starmer zig zagging through the waste deep shit now in front of him … he can’t come through this clean, if it all now … do we think Corbyn cares? It’s clear Len doesn’t.
It's the reason he's ultimately a crap politician; he thought the report was unfair, so that's what he said. I don't think you can read much more into it than that.
As long as Jezza gets to play the martyr to his adoring and unquestioning idiots masses and Len gets to Tweet out his revolutionary zeal from his usual table at The Ivy, that's that pair happy enough in their natural element.
As for the damage it's doing to the party? Well... who cares?
Neither of those pair, that's for sure
The continued persecution of Jeremy Corbyn, a politician who inspired millions,
Hmmm... a persecuted former leader who's a bit of a narcissist, likes to think of himself as an inspiration to millions, railing against the injustice of it all, appealing to his adoring disciples while doing as much damage as possible upon being ushered to the exit
Has a familiar ring to it...
Is the killfile still a thing?
Corbyn is a ****. If he loves the Labour Party as he professes, instead of bitching and moaning and causing more division he'd accept the decision and try to calm his fans by telling them he would be back in time. Which position would probably actually hasten his reinstatement too.
Len McCluskey is as bad. I actually resigned from Unite the other week because of that arsehole's attitudes. (Joined Prospect instead though).
Is the killfile still a thing?
Admit it.. you'd miss me too much 😉
Meanwhile, in the Tory party
The Tory party has always been racist and the people who vote/support it are racist by association. Like trying to point out the BNP had a few race issues.
Oh well that's ok then.
What’s the right decision?
There's no option with a good outcome. But given a major finding of the ECHR was the lack of due process, you don't subsequently override the findings of a disciplinary panel just because they're politically inconvenient.
Agreed on the first point. The second hasn’t happened. Party membership and the parliamentary whip are not the same thing. The decision (I think right but foolishly hurried) about Corbyn’s party membership hasn’t been overruled, has it?
Party membership and the parliamentary whip are not the same thing.
I know that. So all we're left with is a decision made purely on the grounds of political expediency, as a disciplinary panel has already found that there wasn't much of a case to answer. The conclusion is that Starmer could kick anyone out on a whim.
Not exactly a good look for a party which is supposed to be putting its governance in order.
So all we’re left with is a decision made purely on the grounds of political expediency
I’ve said that I think the whip should have been restored… but then I don’t have the responsibly of trying to get Labour out of this shit. There is no clear path out of this. Starmer taking a judgment about Corbyn not getting the whip might end up being the right call, for Labour. Time will tell.
Politically, it may or may not prove to be the right call. But as I say, it's a pretty dangerous precedent.
The conclusion is that Starmer could kick anyone out on a whim.
only if you’re being deliberately obtuse. All Corbyn had to say was “I agree with these findings” and shuffle back off to the back benches where, let’s face it he was always happiest. It was him that decided this report was going to be the hill on which he dies, not Starmer.