Forum menu
Ernie is 100% right
the labour right wing constantly undermined Corbyn, briefed against him in right wing papers and showed total disunity even to the point of making up false accusations of antisemitism about him
its the labour right that destroyed any chance of a labour government. they would rather be on the back benches than part of a leftish labour party. Remember NOTHING corbyn proposed would be out of the norm for european social democratic countries.
He bent over backwards for the Blairites. He tried to keep everyone happy with his constructive ambiguity nonsense. He made an arch remainer shadow brexit secretary. He refused to discipline an MP who publicly called him “a f*** racist” with his “I want kinder politics” bollocks. He did whatever he could to keep the Zionists sweet, despite the fact that it was * obvious that nothing would satisfy them short of his complete dimise.
I salute his indefatigability
*EDIT: It bears reminding ourselves that this means voting to defeat your own party.
Its worth reminding ourselves of how few of those occasions he was voting with the tories against labour government as opposed to against the tories and labour government.
Factcheck found 7 out of those 428 cases of the former (although it was caveated with that it is apparently quite hard to get firm figures).
Perhaps a better question would be how did the labour government get tory support on all those occasions?
Hate to get all kelvin/thread police but it's interesting isn't it how we end up talking about Corbyn yet again - probably because there is so little to say about Starmer.
Say what you like about Corbyn but he wasn't a total political irrelevance like Starmer is now.
and showed total disunity
Hardly a massive surprise. Corbyn has been disloyal* all his political career. To then expect loyalty from those same people to whom you've never once shown an iota of it yourself, reveals a startling lack of insight by Corbyn and his team. It was always going to be an issue and it always was an issue.
*Rightly or wrong is not important as a backbencher this is leadership and it's different Corbyn is the goalie that never dives at the opposition, the defender who never tackles. Other team players are never going to follow the person who's never been a team player themselves.
I mean, they could, had they been interested in winning elections rather than settling petty personal scores.
'being a team player' = doing stuff that goes against what you believe in to gain favour/influence
Yes it's how politics works but it's rather sad isn't it.
The centrists are now saying 'never mind all the stuff we did to undermine Corbyn we must have unity' even while kicking out lifelong labour activists for not being 'the right sort of labour'.
There was a golden chance to obtain “unity” but both Corbyn and Starmer blew it.
I suppose I need to clarify this by repeating what I said back in 2020, as we're going around in circles. Starmer made a huge political error in suspending the whip [edit: this also applies to the suspension of membership, even though that was not quite so simply his call], I wish he hadn't. He should have accepted Corbyn's return to being an independently minded out spoken Labour back bencher, rather than respond in the way he did to Corbyn's mistimed comments when the EHRC report's findings were published.
Yes it’s how politics works but it’s rather sad isn’t it.
Treat the world as it is, not how you would wish it to be...As a backbencher voting the way your personal beliefs dictate is laudable. But Corbyn's voting record isn't one or two on long standing personal issues it was time and time again, voting against bills presented by other Labour backbenchers. Your fellow Labour MPs. Every time he did it, he essentially said "we're not on the same side"
disloyalty baked in,
please stop calling them centerists. they are not. they are right wingers
Every time he did it, he essentially said “we’re not on the same side”
Can you provide some examples of bills pushed by the backbenchers rather than led by the Labour government?
Once again a majority of the times he rebelled it was when the tories were supporting the labour government.
Can you provide some examples of bills pushed by the backbenchers rather than led by the Labour government?
No, I can't. (I can't be bothered to look for them) But it largely doesn't matter. Corbyn was the serial rebel, that's what mattered when he became leader. Politics is partly personal relationships...Look at what Ernie said Corbyn did to accommodate the folks in his own party. Why did he do those things? Because he had to, he had no choice, that's not leadership is it?
You have to separate out the man from the position. Corbyn the man is one with laudable personal convictions and by all accounts a selfless and dedicated MP and advocate. I've nothing but admiration for that. But it was blindingly obvious that he had no personal standing with anybody outside of a few MPs in the parliamentary party. To then expect him to go on and lead those people was the most wishful of thinking.
You can partly offset all that by understanding that Corbyn never expected to be put in that position [of leadership], I don't blame him for grasping the opportunity, but he never had the loyalty of the party. That much was obvious from the start, and part of the reason for that his is own previous history at Westminster.
please stop calling them centerists. they are not. they are right wingers
A matter of perspective based on the position of the observer
Very well put. Corbyn as a Labour MP, brilliant. Corbyn as a leader, not so brilliant.
And back to this thread, Starmer as a leader, not so brilliant but for different reasons.
Starmer as a leader, not so brilliant but for different reasons.
Yes, Starmer doesn't have the personal qualities of a leader either. He's too dry, too robotic. He's a bureaucrat. You can't get enthusiastic about following a filing clerk.
No, I can’t. (I can’t be bothered to look for them) But it largely doesn’t matter.
Wait I thought he was undermining them by voting against their bills but now once you are asked for evidence it suddenly doesnt matter?
The problem is he really wasnt a serial rebel against labour. He was a serial rebel against labour when they were doing things the tories approved of.
Because he had to, he had no choice, that’s not leadership is it?
Actually he could have excluded them from the shadow cabinet from day one as opposed to trying to work with them. So yes he did have a choice and did try to work with others.
You have to separate out the man from the position.
Thank you for that condescending attitude.
To then expect him to go on and lead those people was the most wishful of thinking.
He did have the loyalty of the majority of the party just not of the parliamentary labour party. Which does beg the question how exactly did the parliamentary party get so far away from the rest of its members.
Look at what Ernie said Corbyn did to accommodate the folks in his own party. Why did he do those things? Because he had to, he had no choice, that’s not leadership is it?
It isn't how leadership normally works in our stupid antiquated adversarial system no. And yes he hadn't cultivated a bank of supporters who owed him favours/who knew he would be willing to make deals etc.
For years people have claimed they want more straightforward, principled politicians - turns out they didn't...
Actually he could have excluded them from the shadow cabinet from day one as opposed to trying to work with them. So yes he did have a choice and did try to work with others.
No he couldn't, he didn't have enough support in the parliamentary party to do that. Otherwise he would've excluded them. Every time Corbyn needed loyalty it always came with a price tag.
Which does beg the question how exactly did the parliamentary party get so far away from the rest of its members.
It's a good question, you could equally ask, why is the larger party supporting all these MPs with whom they have little in common?
I don't think the parliamentary party covered itself in glory with it's behavior towards Corbyn. Lots (if not most) of it was hugely counter-productive, but Ernie asked what did Corbyn do to be disunifying, and the answer to that is; Look at his prior behavior.
Thank you for that condescending attitude.
Sorry, I'm genuinely not trying to be, apologies if that's how it reads.
Corbyn was the serial rebel, that’s what mattered when he became leader.
Oh come on, you know as well as I that there's an enormous difference between rebelling in a parliamentary vote on a point of principle, and calling your party leader a terrorist sympathiser, a 'f***ing racist', organising mass shadow cabinet resignations, leadership challenges, and briefing the tory press about everything said in PLP meetings. Compared to what the right wing of the labour party got up to in those four years, Corbyn's and the labour left's disloyalty doesn't even register.
Dissonance of course points out the obvious, Corbyn was completely loyal to the people who voted for him. He was elected as a Labour MP and voted as a Labour MP, not a Tory.
It is the Blairite/right-wing who were elected as Labour but voted for PFI, more privatisation, imperialist wars, thatcherism, etc etc
But of course it is not about how people vote when the division bell is rung, that's just a distraction which Nick has thrown in to take flack away from the Blairite right-wingers.
We are talking about actively working to undermine the party, briefing the press against senior party politicians, coordinating resignations to create maximum damage, publicly demanding the expulsion of party members on frivolous made-up charges, openly boasting of working everyday to undermine the party leader, doing whatever possible to sabotage the chances of Labour winning a general election.
Corbyn has always worked to secure a Labour government, no matter how much he has disagreed with the leadership. The Blairite neo-tories would rather Labour lost an election than be led by a leader who offers something different to the Tories.
The right-wing are by far the greatest source of disunity within the party. Obviously acting openly against the party isn't normally necessary for them as they are almost always in total control of the party, but they have shown just how far they are prepared to go when they feel it is necessary.
A matter of perspective based on the position of the observer
nope - a simple matter of fact. they are certainly the right wing of the labour party and most of them are right of centre politically
Given labour is a center party then anyone on the right of it is right of centre
distraction which Nick has thrown in to take flack away from the Blairite right-wingers.
I'm not a Blairite, I don't support the right wing of the party and I don't have any affinity with them. They don't get a blank cheque from me to behave the way they did with Corbyn, nor continue to do now.
You asked why Corbyn was a dis-unfying force, and I answered it. He did not have the support of the larger section of the parliamentary party. A fact that isn't going away any time soon. One of the reasons for that was his own behavior in not building the sorts of personal affinities one needs to be an effective leader. largely because he never expected to need them. Once he needed those things it was too late for him to develop them amongst a group of MPs with whom he had no shared interests.
Corbyn was never going to be an effective leader of a party that draws support from such a width of beliefs as the Labour party does. In any other system that has PR or similar, I don't think the Labour party would exist, and Corbyn could've been a very effective leader of a party more concentrated. But in out naff FPTP system he never could've hoped to.
I'll remind you Nick that the charge at the top of the page against Corbyn was :
The was a golden chance to obtain “unity” but both Corbyn and Starmer blew it.
Yes you can point out why there wasn't party unity under Corbyn, even if it bizarrely includes blaming the FPTP system, but it doesn't prove that Corbyn "blew it" and that the disunity under his leadership was his fault.
He didn't instruct the right-wing to attack him and the party at every given opportunity.
In contrast Starmer is directly responsible for the growing disunity within the Labour Party. He is taking decisions which are guaranteed to sow disunity, eg, appointing a general secretary who has zero interest in party unity, expelling members for disagreeing with his decision to deny Corbyn the party whip, throwing all the promises he made to the Labour Party straight into the bin as soon as he won the leadership election, etc
If Starmer's mission was specifically to sow disunity within the Labour Party he couldn't be doing a better job.
but it doesn’t prove that Corbyn “blew it” and that the disunity under his leadership was his fault.
He did blow his chances, otherwise he'd still be party leader, no?...and of course he must bear some blame for that, As I've pointed out you can't be serially disloyal (to a group) and expect loyalty in return (from that same group). That fault is entirely his own. That MPs didn't support him is entirely theirs to own.
In contrast Starmer is directly responsible for the growing disunity within the Labour Party
Yes, I don't disagree, but as many folk have endlessly pointed out, the Labour party fights like rats in a sack and has done for it's entirety. Roy Hattersley said in the early 80's that he'd "never known in-fighting that was so bitter" So to lay the blame at successive Party leaders is entirely pointless, but all sides of the party indulge in it, and have done since the first meeting of the Fabians and the Independent Labour party in the 20's
I’ll remind you Nick that the charge at the top of the page against Corbyn was
I've clarified what my "charge" was, and it referred to a key moment early in Starmer's leadership. Corbyn response to the EHRC report did nothing to help the party, and Starmer's over the top response made it worse. "Unity" was never going to happen from that moment onwards.
He did blow his chances, otherwise he’d still be party leader, no?
LOL, yes Nick, this was Corbyn's fault, he has only himself to blame :
Yes Corbyn is personally responsible for failing to control the behaviour of Blairites like Peter Mandelson, otherwise he would still be party leader.
Thanks for pointing it out.
As I’ve pointed out you can’t be serially disloyal and expect loyalty in return. That fault is entirely his own
I'm not quite sure you can equate a token leftie back bencher with half of the shadow cabinet. The latter is a serious problem when trying to get elected; the former less so.
Thanks for pointing it out.
Anything to help.
So to lay the blame at successive Party leaders is entirely pointless, but all sides of the party indulge in it
'There's some very fine people on both sides'
Such a massive false equivalency to claim what's going on now is even on the same scale as what happened to Corbyn.
You asked why Corbyn was a dis-unfying force, and I answered it. He did not have the support of the larger section of the parliamentary party.
So he wasn't actively creating disunity in the party, his mere existence created this disunity?
Does Starmer's existence create disunity or is it his actions and decisions that are causing it?
Such a massive false equivalency to claim what’s going on now is even on the same scale as what happened to Corbyn.
I didn't say there was equivalence. I just point out that each time a leader is drawn from either wing of the party, the infighting continues. Under any reasonable political system the Labour party as it currently exists shouldn't be a thing. I think it was Neil Kinnock who said "It's a party that knows where it wants to go, but can't agree on how to get there". the thing I find astonishing (in a good way) is the amount of folks on this site that profess to dislike it, and yet defend it endlessly when it's pointed out that it probably needs putting out of it's misery. (myself included)
You'll not get the right wing of the party to **** off, any more than the left will form a new independent party. For all the obvious reasons.
even to the point of making up false accusations of antisemitism about him
I thought it was especially awful when they made Corbyn write a foreword praising a book that blamed WW1 and capitalism on the Jews. It was terrible when the rightists in the Labour Party made him attend a wreath-laying at the graves of people who murdered Israelis. And what about when the Labour right hacked Corbyn's Facebook to make it look like he praised a mural of big-schnozzed Jews playing cards? Is there NOTHING they won't do to cast him in a bad light?
it’s interesting isn’t it how we end up talking about Corbyn yet again – probably because there is so little to say about Starmer.
Agreed. Starmer has failed miserably.
Say what you like about Corbyn but he wasn’t a total political irrelevance like Starmer is now.
Give it up mate. Corbyn is a footnote of history. Stop trying to make Corbyn happen. It's not gonna happen!
Having lived in Scotland I think plenty of people would disagree with a fair bit of that statement.
If only there were some way to judge how many people think a political party is doing a good job and ought to run the government... 🤔
You’ll not get the right wing of the party to **** off, any more than the left will form a new independent party. For all the obvious reasons.
Whenever the left take a position of leadership in the party the right-wing have a tendency of doing precisely that. They would rather have a Tory government than a Labour government which follows an alternative path.
And very successful they have been too. In the 1980s many right-wingers in the Labour Party buggered off to form their own party which very effectively kept Thatcher in power.
More recently some leading right-wingers in the Labour Party with huge media coverage buggered off to form their own party, whilst others remained inside the party to inflict maximum damage. The result was the same - a Tory government.
The fact these parties despite massive publicity and the full support of the Tory press no longer exist is a testimony of how little electoral support they enjoyed.
Not that the left and right of the party have the same commitment to party unity, which is clearly not the case.
The left never want a Tory government. The right ideally prefer to form their own Tory government but are perfectly happy to leave it to the official Tory Party, if the alternative is some sort of vaguely left-wing social democratic government.
I think Starmer's lack of passion in attacking the Tories sums it up. Of course he wants to be able to say that 10 Downing Street is his home address, but he simply doesn't hate the Tories and what they are doing enough to provide effective leadership.
[politecameraaction - you do realise you swallowed the whole corbyn anti semitism nonsense? for example is anyone who has any contact with any palestinian anti semetic?
there is not a single sherd of antisemitism in the man. all that was used by zionists in the party to attack him because he condemned as I do the apartheid isreali state
I thought it was especially awful when they made Corbyn write a foreword praising a book that blamed WW1 and capitalism on the Jews. It was terrible when the rightists in the Labour Party made him attend a wreath-laying at the graves of people who murdered Israelis. And what about when the Labour right hacked Corbyn’s Facebook to make it look like he praised a mural of big-schnozzed Jews playing cards? Is there NOTHING they won’t do to cast him in a bad light?
You do realise that most right-wingers have never claimed that Corbyn is a racist, don't you? It's only a tiny minority, in fact I can only think of one MP.
Although presumably from your sarcastic remarks you personally think he was.
The criticism from right-wingers was that he wasn't doing enough to deal with alleged antisemitism in the party.
Edit : Accusations of Corbyn being a racist came overwhelmingly from the Tory press, you know from newspapers which are at the vanguard of fighting racism, newspapers like the Daily Mail.
you do realise you swallowed the whole corbyn anti semitism nonsense?
All of the things I mentioned happened. What Corbyn is asking us to believe is that there isn't one simple explanation for all of these things. Instead, he asks us to believe that his life is a Some Mothers Do Ave Em-style series of unfortunate mistakes, oversights and verbal gaffes that all - by some weird coincidence - end up with him behaving exactly the way an anti-Semite would.
for example is anyone who has any contact with any palestinian anti semetic?
I don't think so. I've been in contact with at least one Palestinian and I haven't blamed WW1 on the Elders of Zion yet.
Yes you think Corbyn is a racist. And under him the Labour Party was a racist party.
It's a view you share with that newspaper which has always been at the forefront of the struggle against racism and hatred :
Thank goodness, and the Daily Mail, that we now have a Tory government committed to fighting racism, eh?
Stop trying to make Corbyn happen.
I'm still trying to make fetch happen so why not Corbyn too?
attend a wreath-laying at the graves of people who murdered Israelis.
Pretty sure this didn't happen btw. I don't think he praised the mural either, he just said it shouldn't be removed when he hadn't actually seen it.
Edit: pretty tenuous isn't it
https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-jeremy-corbyn-and-the-wreath-row
If you compare it to a Tory pm being good pals with Pinochet even after his massive crimes came to light....
exactly Grum. completely made up assertions about a man who spent his life fighting prejudice - trouble is he included anti arab prejudice in that and criticized Israel for being a racist state - which it is
I wouldn't even have known the people in that mural were meant to be Jewish.
attend a wreath-laying at the graves of people who murdered Israelis.
If you've ever been to a graveyard does that make you responsible for the crimes of all the people buried there? If so I imagine many of us are in a lot of trouble.
I was happy with Corbyn's approach to the Middle East, it was consistent with UN resolutions:
: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_Nations_resolutions_concerning_Palestine
The Munich bombers thing doesn't stand up to fact checking:
https://www.theweek.co.uk/100943/fact-check-is-jeremy-corbyn-a-terrorist-sympathiser
I think Starmer is wrong to change that stance, he pays lip service to supporting the Palestinians but then attacks those in his own party (Jews included) who voice their irritation with Israel. I'm uneasy with any leader with strong religious links.
Where both leaders have really pissed me off is on Europe. Corbyn hated Europe that much I understood. That Starmer has no plans to renegotiate anything is a waste of an opportunity. The current deal is a shit sandwich which dropping a red line or two could significantly improve. What we have isn't Lexit, it's possibly worse than no deal, and can be improved on. But that would take courage and commitment.
If ever I'm given a vote it's going to the Lib Dems on current policies.
I doubt Corbyn is anti-Semitic. He's been at the cable street demonstration commentative events, there's any number of early-day motions about anti-Semitism in his voting history, I think in the 70's he was at loads of anti NF marches.
Equally I think he's guilty of just being in the wrong place at the wrong time (the cemetery event ) and at worst could claim that he didn't really have a clue who's graves he was standing over. The mural was a bit of cock -up, it's clearly anti-Semitic and once I think he'd actually saw it he distanced himself from earlier remarks (that were really just about letting art stay in place) but I don't think it proves anything.
The book's a bit of blind spot for loads of Labour historians and politicians I remember reading it at University (given to me by a lecturer with a warning about the anti-Semitism in it) It's pretty bad, but has been praised by both Blair and Brown I think in the past.
I've seen some very distasteful anti-Israeli/pro-Palestinian twitter posts from various "labour" members aimed at Jewish MPs, and a friend at schul was on the receiving end of it over selling the site to developers. and some just garden-variety anti Semitism as well, some of it really horrible, but that's not JC's fault, but still some of it took longer to deal with than it should've done. Again not JC's fault.
I think at worst he's got the same sort of blind spots that lots of folks have, and I don't hold him responsible for an issue that's literally thousands of years old now. None of this row has helped any, mind.
I wouldn’t even have known the people in that mural were meant to be Jewish.
See, this is the thing. Corbynites ask us to believe that it's not that he's actually an anti-Semite, it's just that he didn't realise that the painting of large-nosed men counting money on a table resting on the backs of slaves under all all-seeing eye was anti-Semitic...or that he didn't realise that a PLO cemetery might contain the graves of PLO terrorists and that if he can't read Arabic, maybe he shouldn't go attending wreath-layings or commemorative events of unknown persons...or that when he described Hobson's work as "brilliant" he didn't realise that this included the bits where Hobson said Jews control global finance, politics and the media.
For a guy that's supposedly so attentive and committed to peace and equality, he really does seem to make some howlers through obliviousness. And isn't it weird that he's never made any similar mistakes in respect of black people or Muslims or anyone else? Always, by massive coincidence, one group of people. 🤔
Corbyn/Labour did actually, you can't actively target particular cutural or religious groups in your campaigning and claim never to didsrimate. So does any party that specifically adresses a particular community if you think about it. Positive discrimination maybe, still discrimination. Not that I think Labour are any more guilty of this than others, a lot less in fact.
And very successful they have been too. In the 1980s many right-wingers in the Labour Party buggered off to form their own party which very effectively kept Thatcher in power.
More recently some leading right-wingers in the Labour Party with huge media coverage buggered off to form their own party, whilst others remained inside the party to inflict maximum damage. The result was the same – a Tory government.
The fact these parties despite massive publicity and the full support of the Tory press no longer exist is a testimony of how little electoral support they enjoyed.
The SDP merged with the liberals, a legacy SDP still stands for election. Their fortunes reflective of the reality of our FPTP system.
Not that the left and right of the party have the same commitment to party unity, which is clearly not the case.
As I understand it, the left voted with their feet during Kinnocks era and sat in the sidelines during Blair/Brown, flooding back into labour when JC held the reins. This caused a number of the PLP to leave and try and setup a new party, for some due to horrendous abuse from party members new or emboldened by the new direction.
The left never want a Tory government. The right ideally prefer to form their own Tory government but are perfectly happy to leave it to the official Tory Party, if the alternative is some sort of vaguely left-wing social democratic government.
So the left abandon labour when it shifts to the right of their policies/ principles, the right leave the party when it swings left. Labour's problem is that it cannot hold together a broad coalition to mount a serious challenge. The left's need to label everyone to the right of them "Tories" and that Tories are racist, selfish, etc etc just alienates the people who they need to vote for them
I think Starmer’s lack of passion in attacking the Tories sums it up. Of course he wants to be able to say that 10 Downing Street is his home address, but he simply doesn’t hate the Tories and what they are doing enough to provide effective leadership.
Leadership built on hate is exactly what we don't need, it's leadership built on hope that will turn things around.
Corbyn was a virtue signaller who made exactly zero difference as a legislator in parliament.
Meanwhile in other news...
Remind me? When was Johnson editor?
or that when he described Hobson’s work as “brilliant” he didn’t realise that this included the bits where Hobson said Jews control global finance, politics and the media.
His work is highly influential. I don't recall where Corbyn said he endorses every aspect of it.
And apparently it's fine for Johnson to continuously lionise Churchill, a racist advocate of chemical weapons seen as a vicious colonial mass-murderer by many in India and elsewhere. Does that mean we can say Johnson is in favour of gassing the Kurds?
And yeah if you cherry pick a lifetime of campaigning you can find some examples of vaguely problematic stuff. Well done.
Remind me? When was Johnson editor?
That's the ok kind of racism though, were you forgetting?
Hard to tell what your point is: Are you suggesting anti-Semitic Labour leader would be a good counterweight to an anti-Muslim Prime Minister? Or that they cancel each other out?
I don’t recall where Corbyn said he endorses every aspect of it.
"In a new edition of the text, published while Mr Corbyn was a backbencher in 2011, the MP described the work as "brilliant, and very controversial at the time" and "a great tome"...Hobson's railing against the commercial interests that fuel the role of the popular press with tales of imperial might, that then lead on to racist caricatures of African and Asian peoples, was both correct and prescient."
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/jeremy-corbyn-responds-to-antisemitism-row-over-book-foreword-language-absolutely-deplorable-a4132046.html
Ooh Betty I done a woopsie! I accidentally endorsed Hobson's antisemitic conspiracy theory about Jews controlling the banks and banks controlling the press!
I’m still trying to make fetch happen so why not Corbyn too?
To be fair - Mean Girls is getting a reboot. Corbyn won't though.
https://screenrant.com/mean-girls-musical-movie-remake-development/
So the left abandon labour when it shifts to the right of their policies/ principles, the right leave the party when it swings left. Labour’s problem is that it cannot hold together a broad coalition to mount a serious challenge. The left’s need to label everyone to the right of them “Tories” and that Tories are racist, selfish, etc etc just alienates the people who they need to vote for them
The Labour members/supporters are just as bad. Many examples of people on this very forum wanting a perfect Labour party that 100% matches what they want and won't vote for them until it does and labelling anyone along the lines of Blair a tory.
Hard to tell what your point is: Are you suggesting anti-Semitic Labour leader would be a good counterweight to an anti-Muslim Prime Minister? Or that they cancel each other out?
That their shouldn't be a hierarchy of racism depending on who is being targeted. That standards regarding racism should be applied vaguely consistently. Thought that was fairly obvious tbh.
Hobson’s railing against the commercial interests that fuel the role of the popular press with tales of imperial might
Is that the best you've got? I mean, what with him bring such a massive anti-Semite and everything, you'd think you'd have some clearer examples wouldn't you.
I'll remember next time someone says Tintin is brilliant that they are actually endorsing colonialism/racism.
Leadership built on hate is exactly what we don’t need, it’s leadership built on hope that will turn things around.
You need to understand the subtle difference between hating a Tory government and what it does and hating people.
Although my apologies if I didn't make that absolutely 100 percent clear, I guess I was lazy and assumed my point was clear and wouldn't be misinterpreted.
A bit like criticising Israel, you have to constantly look over your shoulder to check that there isn't someone waiting and ready to misinterpret your criticism and accuse of being motivated by hatred.
The level of hypocrisy over this issue is frankly quite staggering. For years, decades in fact, the Daily Mail has vilified and ridiculed those who have fought and campaigned against racism.
Accusing people people on the left of the Labour Party of being the 'Looney Left' and their struggle against racism of 'political correctness gone mad'.
Now these same people, along with the right-wing of the Labour Party, have suddenly become the new champions of the struggle against racism.
And very successful they have become too. Not in fighting racism of course, but in demonising the left.
Consequently a thread which should be discussing Keir Starmer and his role as Labour leader is diverted to discussing rehashed nonsense about whether a man who has spent a lifetime fighting racism and for peace is a "terrorist's friend".
Meanwhile Tony Blair who ordered the bombing of hundreds of thousands of foreign people, many of them Semites, in far distant lands, is offered as an example of a great Labour leader.
Not a new strategy mind, it's a strategy previously used in the United States when far right politicians there repeatedly accused Barack Obama of being "chummy with terrorists".
I mean, what with him bring such a massive anti-Semite and everything, you’d think you’d have some clearer examples wouldn’t you.
I mean, what with him being such a massive anti-racist and everything, you'd think when writing a foreword to a book that contains anti-Semitic conspiracy theory Corbyn'd say "I'm not so keen on the Jew-baiting stuff in the book, tbh, but despite that there's some good ideas in here".
What's striking here is the reality distortion field that surrounds Corbynites. Corbyn literally - voluntarily, in his own time and in print, where he could choose his words - praised an anti-Semite's anti-Semitic book, and yet this doesn't strike them as even an error of judgment.
I’ll remember next time someone says Tintin is brilliant that they are actually endorsing colonialism/racism.
Well, yeah - anyone today writing in an academic or formal context about Tintin (or Asterix) who called the works "brilliant" and "great" without even mentioning in passing the fairly awful racial stereotypes in the books would rightly be regarded with some suspicion.
That their shouldn’t be a hierarchy of racism depending on who is being targeted.
The "hierarchy" isn't because of who is targeted, but based on who is being "clumsy"... Johnson can throw around racist comments, and support racist writers, and get away with it. No, that's not fair, or consistent, or the way it should be. But Labour leaders have to be better than Conservative leaders, they are held to a far high standard. Not fair, but something anyone taking on the role, or hoping to, needs to consider, all the time.
Have you read the book politecameraaction?
corbyn is no antisemite - stop believing the daily wail!
The book is antisemitic... but then it's also over a hundred years old. Easy to argue that Corbyn should have been able to praise the work when he wrote the forward without having to make it clear that in a modern context it contains troubling antisemitism that was more typical of its time, and that he should haven't had to make it clear that his praise didn't extend to supporting those views in any form. But a wiser man would have done exactly those things. Corbyn had a blind spot to antisemitism over the years. Or at least was not active enough in condemning it when appropriate. I still don't think he is an antisemite though.
The level of hypocrisy over this issue is frankly quite staggering. For years, decades in fact, the Daily Mail has vilified and ridiculed those who have fought and campaigned against racism.
Accusing people people on the left of the Labour Party of being the ‘Looney Left’ and their struggle against racism of ‘political correctness gone mad’.
Now these people, along with the right-wing of the Labour Party, have suddenly become the new champions of the struggle against racism.
And very successful they have become too. Not in fighting racism of course, but in demonising the left.
Consequently a thread which should be discussing Keir Starmer and his role as Labour leader is diverted to discussing rehashed nonsense about whether a man who has spent a lifetime fighting racism and for peace is a “terrorist’s friend”.
Meanwhile Tony Blair who ordered the bombing of hundreds of thousands of foreign people, many of them Semites, in far distant lands, is offered as an example of a great Labour leader.
What you said
but he simply doesn’t hate the Tories and what they are doing enough to provide effective leadership.
I don't read the Daily Mail so wouldn't know
I commented on JC's success as a legislator (the complete lack of)
I think Blair should go on trial for treason (what greater crime is there than to commit the lives of our services on the back of a made up dossier causing massive casualties of combatants and non-combatants)
Starmer's issue is that true to form those who should accept that a different part of the coalition that makes up labour is now running the show essentially are making lots of noise likening the new leadership to the party they seek to depose. It happened to JC in a way but for different reasons. The challenge for any labour leader is as much internal as external
What you said
Yeah I was referring to "the Tories" as an entity, not as individuals.
But if you want to suggest that I was claiming Starmer should be whipping up hatred against individuals rather than their philosophy I'm okay with that.
It's no different to claiming that because I hate Zionism I must therefore hate Jews.
It's just plain daft and in a strange way quite amusing.
I don't recall ever being accused of hating white people because of my opposition to apartheid in South Africa.
Although Jews who criticise Israel are often accused of being "self-haters", and that's kinda amusing too.
Have you read the book Have you read the book politecameraaction?
No, just Corbyn's foreword.
Why? Do you think if I read the whole book I might conclude that "Jews control the banks and the press" isn't anti-Semitic? Or that I might actually start to agree with Hobson and Corbyn that they are the hidden force that controls the world?
it contains troubling antisemitism that was more typical of its time
Nah, Hobson was a terrible anti Semite even for his time, the reviews when it was published were pretty much looking at their shoes saying..."Well, ignore the horrible stuff about International Jewry and there's some interesting stuff" I know "everyone" in history was racist, but Hobson was out there in a league of his own really. Much of the terrible stuff he says about Jews in the book is completely irrelevant to his theories, he seems to have included it because he just really hated Jews.
Edit: There are version of the book on sale that have been edited to remove all the references to Jewish controlled banking, and it all still makes sense.
yet this doesn’t strike them as even an error of judgment.
Sure it's an error of judgement. For once I agree with kelvin - Corbyn has a blind spot regarding anti-semitism and many on the 'hard left' or whatever you want to call it share it, but claiming he is anti-semitic is ridiculous. I could post the video from the jewish labour activist talking about being hounded by right-wing zionists yet again but what would be the point.
I think Corbyn thinks that incredibly wealthy powerful people have too much influence over society and promote wars etc to further their economic interests. I also doubt he gives a shit whether those people are jewish or not. Is he wrong?
I know “everyone” in history was racist, but Hobson was out there in a league of his own really.
Citation needed because this sounds like utter BS TBH.
Here's a quote from around the time Hobson died which was attributed to Churchill but apparently written by his ghostwriter:
“Churchill criticised the ‘aloofness’ of Jewish people from wider society and urged them to make the effort to integrate themselves….Churchill says: ‘The central fact which dominates the relations of Jew and non-Jew is that the Jew is “different.” He looks different. He thinks differently. He has a different tradition and background.’ He then criticises Jewish moneylenders: ‘Every Jewish money-lender recalls Shylock and the idea of the Jews as usurers. And you cannot reasonably expect a struggling clerk or shopkeeper, paying 40 or 50 per cent interest on borrowed money to a “Hebrew Bloodsucker,” to reflect that almost every other way of life was closed to the Jewish people.’”
...
"It may be that, unwittingly, they are inviting persecution - that they have been partly responsible for the antagonism from which they suffer," it said. "There is the feeling that the Jew is an incorrigible alien, that his first loyalty will always be towards his own race."
He definitely said this:
In 1937, he told the Palestine Royal Commission: "I do not admit for instance, that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America or the black people of Australia. I do not admit that a wrong has been done to these people by the fact that a stronger race, a higher-grade race, a more worldly wise race to put it that way, has come in and taken their place."
So how was Hobson in a league of his own exactly?
The book in question was from 1902, a generation or two before Churchill was still writing this crap.
If anyone ever praises Churchill without making clear they don't support these views, that means they endorse them right?
Citation needed because this sounds like utter BS TBH.
yeah, probs it was just a bit of hyperbole for effect, y'know? Hobson was just very anti Semitic is all. that's the take away here really.
I'm not sure if the link will work but at page 405 of "Trials of the Diaspora", a history of English anti semitism, Anthony Julius describes Hobson as "perhaps the most substantial figure of this type [anti-Semitic polemicists]...and the most surprising one, the economist and public intellectual JA Hobson...Hobson stands quite apart from the obsessives and hacks that populate the category".
It seems odd to try to downplay Hobson's anti-Semitism as just normal for the time (cos, apart from anything else, most academics at the time didn't go to the trouble of writing a book and claiming the Jews cause imperialist wars) or to suggest that Hobson was only as bigoted as Churchill (who the left rightly regards as a racial supremacist and imperialist).
The idea that Hobson was a particularly egregious anti-Semite wasn't anything new even when Corbyn wrote the foreword praising his work. Any political figure or academic that wrote a foreword today for Churchill's works that contained anti-Semitic tropes would be expected to either mention them as disagreeable or be seen as endorsing them.
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1123512098263375872.html
Any political figure or academic that wrote a foreword today for Churchill’s works that contained anti-Semitic tropes would be expected to either mention them as disagreeable or be seen as endorsing them.
Yup, an error of judgement, as we've already said - but hardly evidence of being anti-semitic, unless you're really desperate to try and find some.
Corbyn probably read it as a student if at all and didn't bother to check up on it later.
It's a very strange world we live in where we vilify a man for not making caveats about his praise of an author that was against imperialism and colonialism but had dodgy views about jews, whereas the PM can write a largely fabricated book praising unequivocally a white supremacist responsible for starving millions of Bengalis aka 'beastly people' and raping, torturing and murdering thousands in Kenya.
Corbyn probably read it as a student if at all and didn’t bother to check up on it later.
Seems pretty unlikely...
Corbyn began a course in Trade Union Studies at North London Polytechnic but left after a year without a degree after a series of arguments with his tutors over the curriculum.
Still, if anti-Semitism through carelessness seems more attractive to you than anti-Semitism with intent, let's go with that!
You seem to be ok with the latter but not the former, weirdly.
You seem to be ok with the latter but not the former, weirdly.
Are you weirdly suggesting I'm some kind of Churchill fan?
Are you weirdly suggesting I’m some kind of Churchill fan?
I'm suggesting you have weird double standards, and lots of the stuff you've claimed just isn't true.
The most convincing part of your link was the conclusion.
Maybe Jeremy Corbyn just isn't very bright.
politecameraaction - the prroblem you face is there is zero evidence of any antisemitism from corbyn. the accusation was a tool to destroy him in a rather nasty conspiracy between the right wingers in labour and the right wing press
they try this one very labour leader - find something to tar them with. They have tried it on Starmer as well ( the right wing press not the right of the party) Nothing stuck on starmer but they managed to get antisemite to stick on corbyn despite zero evidence.
I’m suggesting you have weird double standards, and lots of the stuff you’ve claimed just isn’t true.
Which weird double standards? You saw above where I called Churchill a bigot, imperialist and racial supremacist, right?
What isn't true and suggests I'm okay with anti-Semitism?
there is zero evidence of any antisemitism from corbyn
He literally described an anti-Semite's anti-Semitic work as "brilliant" and "a great tome", in writing.
How many times do you buy the "oops, that was inadvertent" excuse before you think that actually this is an intentional pattern of behaviour? 2, 3, 4 times?
I called Churchill a bigot, imperialist and racial supremacist
Yup, it is a view of Churchill which is widely shared with Corbyn's detractors, eg the Tory press and the Blairite wing of the Labour Party.
If I had penny for every article I had read in the Daily Mail which claimed that Churchill was a bigoted imperialist racist.....
Corbyn probably read it as a student if at all and didn’t bother to check up on it later.
Nah, when he wrote the foreword in 2011 he was asked to do so because he's quite well known for being an historian of the Labour movement. Hobson's book is quite important. There's no way he didn't know or understand it's content. I mean I did read it as an undergrad, and it certainly leaves an "impression"
Blair called him (Hobson) the first of New Labour, and I think Brown said nice things about the book as well, I don't think anyone thinks those two are massive anti Semites.
He literally described an anti-Semite’s anti-Semitic work as “brilliant” and “a great tome”, in writing.
Imperialism isn't an anti semitic work there is one dodgy passage in it which alludes to the Jews. He also criticises the influence of such famous wealthy Jews as, erm... JP Morgan.
Some of his other works were definitely anti Semitic
Hobson was also quoted uncritically by Gordon Brown in a speech, guess he's another anti Semite.
Who said this?
Second, there are people who have come to see capitalism and imperialism as the product of conspiracy by a small shadowy elite rather than a political, economic, legal and social system. That is only a step from hoary myths about “Jewish bankers” and “sinister global forces”.
These views do no service to the struggle for a just society. Instead, they reproduce the sort of scapegoating that we recognise when directed at ethnic or religious minorities.
From the same piece:
a small number of our members and supporters hold anti-Semitic views and attitudes, which need to be confronted...The evidence is clear enough. Labour staff have seen...crude stereotypes of Jewish bankers...
🤣 Evidently someone's been in the country long enough to get our sense of British irony!
An anti-Semite can write a brilliant book/ great tome.
Loads of great art has racism/ misogony in it.
Bojo writes racist stuff that is nowhere near great art
Nobody cares.
And, on a thread about Kier Starmer, here we are once again, talking about Jeremy Corbyn. Surprise surprise. And once again, the old 'anti-Semitism' smear has been brought out. But the great thing about when people try this, is that you can show just how stupid and wrong it actually is, and completely destroy their fictitious claims.
Let's start with:
I thought it was especially awful when they made Corbyn write a foreword praising a book that blamed WW1 and capitalism on the Jews
So; Hobson's book was first published in 1902. Now; I'm not a historian, but WW1 was between 1914 and 1918, was it not? So; vile anti-Semitism notwithstanding, Hobson could not possibly have blamed a war that was 12 years in the future, on the Jews. I'm not defending Hobson in any way, but I must challenge such blatant revisionism, especially when it's used to attack someone in this way.
Again as already mentioned; both Blair and Brown (and others) positively referenced Hobson:
I think it only fair to point out that the article linked was written by a Jewish person, and quoted on a Jewish political website.
It was terrible when the rightists in the Labour Party made him attend a wreath-laying at the graves of people who murdered Israelis.
So; he attended a wreath-laying ceremony for those murdered by Israeli operatives, in a war where Israel has massive advantage and is guilty of indescribable acts of brutality against innocent people. One man's terrorist is another mans' freedom fighter. But that still doesn't prove any actual 'anti-Semitism'.
And what about when the Labour right hacked Corbyn’s Facebook to make it look like he praised a mural of big-schnozzed Jews playing cards? Is there NOTHING they won’t do to cast him in a bad light?
As already mentioned; Corbyn's comments were more about the removal of public art; I don't think he actually considered the piece itself. Naive at best, but again, no evidence of actual 'anti-Semitism'.
It's awkward, isn't it, when the facts don't actually tally with the particular narrative you're trying to push. But that's the problem with revisionism such as this; it invariably ignores actual facts.
I've actually met and spoke with Jeremy Corbyn a few times, and know people who are close friends of his. Who are Jewish. Who laugh off any suggestion that Corbyn is anti-Semitic. It's interesting that the views of such Jewish people are seldom used for any real media balance; it's almost as though certain sections of the press don't really want to be objective:
Corbyn even gets flak for attending actual Jewish cultural events:
Oy vey. Probably because it was 'the wrong kind of Jews' or something...
So now we've established that politecameraction's rant has no real foundation or substance, and can be quickly and easily dismissed as little more than resentful, angry nonsense, can we move back to Kier Starmer? Please? After all, this thread is about him...
Naive at best, but again, no evidence of actual ‘anti-Semitism’.
I suspect most people would agree with that.
Moving on…
I know it’s from a PR group, but they probably have this right. More focus on Labour where they are in a position to make a difference, and less on what they can’t do from the opposition benches in Westminster, is probably a useful approach to improving chances of ever being on the government benches. Also, presenting Labour as a team, rather than focusing on a (dull) leader and the endless battles behind them, seems wise as well. To be polite, Starmer “needs help”, and also to be seen to be getting help from Labour leaders across the country.