Forum menu
I think most of us want him to purge the idiots not the lefties.
I think most of us want him to purge the idiots not the lefties.
A slight problem with that Tj is that you call nearly everyone idiots. To be called an idiot nowadays all you need, is to be in disagreement with the person calling you one. The path to a better World is not difficult, perhaps we’re better off with idiots with the right intentions, than all those super smart, Elton types presently running the country.
I think most of us want him to purge the idiots not the lefties.
Define idiot. What labour need is an alliance of the professional, managerialist, PR-savvy elements of the party, and the passionate campaigners who form the ideological backbone. I don't think many on the left would disagree that they aren't very good at modern media and PR management, but there has to be a recognition that it isn't the only thing required. There needs to be some radicalism at policy level which seeks to really change things, and there's not much evidence of that right now. Ultimately if he follows the blairite path as expressed by Binners et al, he'll be no more successful than Miliband was. He can't beat the tories without the left.
The party membership of the politician involved is not relevant to the question I'm asking.
Is the headline itself anti-Semitic?
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/jun/25/robert-jenrick-faces-questions-over-meeting-with-israeli-mining-heir
The party membership of the politician involved is not relevant to the question in asking. Is the headline anti-Semitic?
No, as everyone's said. Start another thread if you want a more detailed explanation, though I'll not be bothering. This is about Starmner.
@dazh: So what should he have done with RLB?
But by referring unnecessarily to the nationality of the businessman in that particular story, does it not allude to one of the oldest and most unpleasant tropes perpetrated against the Jewish people?
But by referring unnecessarily to the nationality of the businessman in that particular story, does it not allude to one of the oldest and most unpleasant tropes perpetrated against the Jewish people?
I'm pretty sure his nationality would've been referred to regardless of where he was from.
But by referring unnecessarily to the nationality of the businessman in that particular story, does it not allude to one of the oldest and most unpleasant tropes perpetrated against the Jewish people?
What point do you want to make about Starner?
So what should he have done with RLB?
A firm public rebuke would have been proportionate I think. It may not have been the most politically opportunist solution but there are bigger things to consider than just the anti-semitism issue. There's fault on both sides, but it's his job to unify not start new battles. I think the left want to support him and want him to win, but they're not going to roll over like they did in the 90s.
My concern around Starmers decision to sack her is to do with the issues around labour unity, the anti-semitism issue and culture war politics rather than RLB’s stupidity.
It was for RLB to shut down the story, apologise for sharing the nonsense in the article, and shut down the spreading of the trope by those who support her by making it clear it is wrong and unacceptable. Without that, the damage is unstoppable. The party leader has chosen the right action in the light of that, but there is no way he can stop it being damaging. Only RLB could have limited the damage.
From an outside view, Miliband failed rightly or wrongly he came across like a big dufus rather than what 'faction' of Labour he was closest too.
Starmer I think correctly is very conscious of having loose cannons on his front bench who could inadvertently blurt things out handing the press and the tories all the ammo they need.
A firm public rebuke would have been proportionate I think
Fair enough, so we're disagreeing on severity rather than principle. That was actually my first reaction too.
What point do you want to make about Starner?
I'm suggesting there's a legitimate debate to be had about whether the comment that triggered the action by Starmer was actually anti-Semitic. A number of people in the thread seem to be suggesting the answer is so obvious that no discussion is necessary.
It is obvious. You can’t take an age old anti-Semitic trope, substitute in “Israel” for “Jews”, and think that makes it okay. The racist killings by Police in the USA are not down to Israel in any way. Israel is not behind the subjection based on race in the USA now, just as they were not behind the slave trade. Stamp on those tropes, even if people you like and agree with mistakenly spread them. Apologise if you mistakenly spread them, or lead to the spreading of them, yourself. Do it wholeheartedly and clearly, don’t try and claim that they are not anti-Semitic instead of addressing and stopping the tropes when you have the platform to do so.
I’m suggesting there’s a legitimate debate to be had about whether the comment that triggered the action by Starmer was actually anti-Semitic.
That 'debate' is further up the thread. Conclusion: baselessly linking Israel to a murder in the US is what antisemites would do, so probably best avoided by a shadow minister.
It is obvious. You can’t take an age old anti-Semitic trope, substitute in “Israel” for “Jews”, and think that makes it okay.
I agree. But why are you so sure that is what happened here?
Surely that's the definition that's been signed up to. The claim is that Israel is such a fundamental part of jewish identity, to criticise one is to criticise the other.
But why are you so sure that is what happened here?
Yes. The very real BLM concerns should not be linked to Israel. Why do so?
The claim is that Israel is such a fundamental part of jewish identity, to criticise one is to criticise the other.
You can critise Israel. You can not claim that racist deaths in the USA are down to Israel. That kind of conspiracy theory trope must be shut down by anyone in a position to do so, they should not spread them, and then step back… mistakenly spread them, and the counter action to undo that needs to be very strong. More action is needed from RLB still, in my opinion. Many people vocally supporting her on social media are doubling down on the idea that racism in the police in the USA has been imported from Israel. She needs to act to shut that down as best she can.
It was for RLB to shut down the story
There was no story until Starmer turned it into one. If RLB is guilty of anything it's not 'spreading tropes', it's sucking up to her celebrity mates to make herself look a bit more cool and interesting. 'Ooh look at me, I'm good mates with Maxine Peake, national television star, and salt of the earth northerner'. She's not the first to do this, and won't be the last. It's a shit hill to die on qute frankly.
You can critise Israel.
Not without being anti-Semitic. See the IHRA definition.
Start another thread for that.
There's no debate on whether it was a stupid article for a Labour MP to share.
If she refused to take tweet down when asked then she is asking to be sacked.
Start another thread for that.
I'm happy to respond to your erroneous claims on this thread.
If she refused to take tweet down when asked then she is asking to be sacked.
If her account is to be believed, that's not quite how it happened.
You can critise Israel
Not without being anti-Semitic. See the IHRA definition.
From page 1, 'working definition of antisemitism' International Holocaust Remembrance Assoc website:
criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic.
Anyway, enough of a derail. What point are you making?
Leave it for another thread. Please.
Leave it for another thread. Please.
It's difficult to see what your objection is, other than wishing to state your views without challenge. It's pretty obvious that we cannot reasonably debate this alleged case of anti-Semitism without considering its definition.
Anyway, enough of a derail. What point are you making?
You need to read the full text, including all of the examples.
For me the big thing is it made a point of mentioning Israel, which seemed strangely specific in the context, the racist American cop who murdered a fellow American could have picked up that particular choke hold from any number of movies, YouTube videos, etc. It's pure conjecture.
It's an incredibly short sighted thing to shared, and even worse not to retract it, and I'd expect kier would expect much higher standards from his shadow cabinet, given that Labour have rightly or wrongly been dragged through the mud on this subject repeatedly in recent history.
The victim was clearly incapacitated, and should have been in the back of the police van down the station to be charged with whatever he did. Due process.
That didn't happen, the cop chose to murder a restrained, incapacitated person. That's not on Israel, any more than it's on a martial arts film or whatever. That was the cops personal choice.
That didn’t happen, the cop chose to murder a restrained, incapacitated person. That’s not on Israel, any more than it’s on a martial arts film or whatever. That was the cops personal choice.
& blaming it on Israel means people are less likely to listen to you when you talk about Israel doing other stuff. Or less likely to listen to you in general. (Outside the bubble at least)
Apologies, even I thought that was nonsense.
we cannot reasonably debate this alleged case of anti-Semitism without considering its definition.
the reason the Labour Party got in the mess it was in on this issue is that it got totally bogged down in an endless, cyclical ‘debate’ about what did and didn’t constitute antisemitism
I’d imagine Starmers reaction to the Corbynite lefts latest outburst of their obsession with Israel was “Oh FFS!!! Not this again!!!”. Hence stamping on it immediately and decisively.
The Labour Party has bigger fish to fry at the moment than disappearing up its own arse yet again on a subject that won’t even register with 99% of the electorate.
You might not of noticed but there’s one or two quite seismic things going on at the moment, so I’m sure he’s got plenty he’s rather be concentrating on.
Given that, he can probably live with fuelling the achingly predictable paranoid persecution complex of a load of sixth formers on Twitter
are you not at risk of spreading the claimed trope
So, when calmly trying to point out what shouldn’t be spread, and why a leading politician needs to act to counter her (I believe) accidental contribution to spreading it… you accuse me of spreading it?
I call troll. Smells like baiting to me.
To be clear, linking the central concerns of the BLM movement to Israel shouldn’t be a thing. You can put this into a historical context yourself by going and doing some reading form sources you consider reliable, if my very short attempt at doing so for you is inadequate for you (and it should be).
There was no story until Starmer turned it into one
You don't think the right wing press would have used it as a werapon? I am sure they would have
Kelvin:
So, when calmly trying to point out what shouldn’t be spread, and why a leading politician needs to act to counter her (I believe) accidental contribution to spreading it… you accuse me of spreading it?
I call troll. Smells like baiting to me.
Sorry, I realised it was too far fetched, quickly edited/deleted it - then found that my idea of quick, is far too slow.
I am struggling with this issue, each time I read one side of the argument I’m swayed that way, then back again with a counter argument.
Apologies, even I thought that was nonsense.
Thanks. I can’t edit my response now, but I apologise for the Troll comment.
I am struggling with this issue
I don’t think you need to resolve anything. If you can see that the original comment in the article was untrue, and not apologising for sharing it is a poor political decision… nothing else is needed really.
Moving on.... I’ve just been reading about Wrong-Daily’s replacement as shadow education secretary, Kate Green. She sounds interesting. From the BBC site:
Ms Green, a Labour MP since 2010, said it was a "privilege" to have been asked to serve in the role.
She said the coronavirus pandemic had had a "devastating impact" on children's education and that she was looking forward to working with teachers, unions, parents and councils to "help ensure we get our children back in school as soon as possible".
Prior to becoming an MP, she was chief executive of the Child Poverty Action Group and before that, director of the National Council for One Parent Families (now Gingerbread).
Looks like someone who might well know what they’re doing in the roll and add more professionalism to the front bench, thus making the party more electable.
Imagine that? Bonkers, eh? Richard Burgon must have been unavailable
pie nails it again
Absolutely bang on! As ever!
Just to add to binners post about Kate Green...she resigned from Corbyn's shadow cabinet so that will have been seen by Starmer as a +ve.
Seems like a sound choice.
A quick glance on Twitter shows that the Momentum lot are shrieking their hysterical indignance and righteous outrage at her appointment, which is always a positive sign about some sense re-entering proceedings
She looks like the best qualified person for the job, an ideal appointment, and she's not new to education or being an MP. And losing his closest rival for the leadership whilst pointing and calling her a racist.
Looks like she was always the right appointment, starmer just had to appease his rivals for a bit then wait for any chance to enact his plan.
Moving on…. I’ve just been reading about Wrong-Daily’s
Makes juvenile comment: check
Calls his opponents sixth-formers:check
Tedious hypocrisy firmly in place: check
Opponents?
Interesting choice of phrase. I thought that was meant to be the Tory’s?
I’m a fully paid up Labour Party member, comrade.
Solidarity, brother
I take it you approve of Mr Starmers latest appointment? She seems able, well-qualified and perfectly suited to bring much to the role, yes?
She did great with Owen Smith's leadership campaign as well 😉
Oh and Binbins practice what you preach ffs. You come across like Mark Francois with all this comrade/ sixth form bs.
Kate Green has a depth and breadth of experience in child-focussed organisations and policy making which makes for a stark contrast with dead-eye williamson.
In other news... some actual opposition taking place.
Granted, it’s not a weekly 10 second shouty YouTube clip on Twitter, but... you know...
So the matter isn’t closed, Boris
Quite a contrast. Firm leadership from Labour this week and the complete absence of it by that fly-tipped sofa
Hardly surprising, Kimbers.
This, however...
https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/1276558018684076037?s=19
As I keep pointing out, the fact that Starmer’s ratings don’t yet result in a similar rise in support for Labour is very worrying. He has a monster task on his hands, one which I don’t think anyone could complete in time. It still feels like Johnson and his successor have 9+ years between them. Obviously want to be wrong.
other polls give a very different story. showing a rise for labour as well to near neck and neck
While the Tories remain four points ahead of Starmer’s party on 44% to Labour’s 39%, the gap has closed from over 20% in February and early March when the Tories enjoyed a regular commanding lead as the country rallied behind the government, and Jeremy Corbyn was reaching the end of his time as Labour leader.
Opponents?
Interesting choice of phrase. I thought that was meant to be the Tory’s?
It should be, but you've made it pretty clear that it isn't.
At this stage and 4 years away from a GE the polls are a bit irrelevant.
Starmer being sure-footed and johnson flailing around hopelessly.
The economic fallout resulting from CV19 will be overlaid with the Brexit transition ending in a hard no deal; combination of those two events will be v bad for tories.
As for Jenrick, have we got onto his involvement with Sirius and Cleveland Potash?
He's been a naughty boy again.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/jun/27/robert-jenrick-admits-israeli-billionaire-he-had-meeting-with-is-family-friend
Also reported yesterday that gov had dropped plans to give him more power over the planning process - oops.
The clown circus really have no understanding of optics, ethics and leadership.
The Tories had the luxury of four years without anything remotely resembling a functioning opposition. They could get away with being a circus because they had been gifted a far more inept bunch of clowns on the front bench opposite.
As Joris demonstrates at PMQ’s every week, they got very complacent - as you would when all you had to worry about was Jeremy Corbyn - and they’re not equipped to deal with the change in circumstances
We’ve about to enter an absolute economic shitstorm the likes of which we’ve never seen before, with Covid fallout and a no deal Brexit
The general public’s tolerance for clowns, whether they speak Latin or not, will wear thin very, very quickly.
In marked contrast to RLBs tinfoil-helmet conspiracy theory nonsense, Lisa Nandy is leading the call for sanctions on Israel, which even the Daily Telegraph surely couldnt even spin as antisemitism
Lisa Nandy urges ban on imports of West Bank goods
So ‘Becky’ must have known about this. I can’t imagine she didn’t. Which makes what she did about ten times as stupid.
Seems she really is as politically clueless as her Bearded, allotment-dwelling cheerleader. Possibly even more so. Which is quite an achievement
Starmer has opponents in his own party just as Corbyn did. Strangely, the people who are Starmers opponents are the same people who said Corbyns opponents should get behind Corbyn and put differences aside for good of party.
It makes a lot more sense to get behind Starmer as he is not a liability and in fact the opposite as the leader polls show, he is preferred to that lovable Boris character.
I don't think I've ever seen a label saying 'made in illegal settlements in the West Bank' over at the Co-op. Do things still get re-labelled like the orange juice from apartheid SA resold as Jaffa? How about all those avocados they are so keen to export, are they legal and ok?
TJ: 'neck and neck', tres bon!
As CFH suggests, while Starmer is doing a good job (in my view) of being the opposition there is some work to be done in getting people to see the labour party as government material.
I don't really know what people see in the current crop of Torys. Starmer needs to figure this out and provide an alternative. This could be tricky because at the minute it seems to be mostly about brexit and immigration driving their support.
"Sol-id-arity with lord sains-bury"
People trust Starmer, not the Labour brand. It's gonna be a hell of a job for him to turn things around in 4 years. I think he's got what it takes though.
Starmer has opponents in his own party just as Corbyn did.
Starmer's opponents, though are the ones who are scared of winning an election.
Starmer’s opponents, though are the ones who are scared of winning an election.
I’m starting to get a feel for ‘tropes’ now. Is this another? Because, I’ve heard this mentioned several times, but never seen any evidence for it.
I’m starting to get a feel for ‘tropes’ now. Is this another? Because, I’ve heard this mentioned several times, but never seen any evidence for it.
Momentum's underlying policy was "keep ideological purity until the tories make so much of a mess of it the revolution delivers the populace into our laps and the revolution happens". It is a total misreading of modern life where people are forced to be so busy trying to keep their jobs and their families fed that they never get a chance to look around them. Combine that with the sneaking message that if you don't kill yourself working we will find someone who will (coz we can) and you get a populace that is run off its feet with work and locked in a rats in a sack struggle with everyone else.
Momentum are basically all about holding the ideological line until the revolution comes to them. For the reasons above, it ain't gonna happen. Childlike obstinacy.
Momentum should do that!
Its for the leadership to keep the base and gain floating voters.
Momentum should do that!
Yes but they're a visible embarrassment that can be used to discredit sensible leadership.
Much easier to have sensible leadership that can skilfully leave enough room for manoeuvre later by keeping promises vague and 'three-wordy'. It is not as if they are up against detailed and fully worked out policies here!
They are up against a shape-shifting, lying rabble.
In marked contrast to RLBs tinfoil-helmet conspiracy theory nonsense, Lisa Nandy is leading the call for sanctions on Israel
Binners you're so transparently partisan. Had anyone from the left said this you'd be howling about how theyre all rabid anti-semites. You constantly go on about Monty Python and the PFJ and you're the worst example. That whole joke was aimed at the labour party and how they spend all their time abusing each other rather than the real enemy, and that's what you do in every single post.
Seems she really is as politically clueless as her Bearded, allotment-dwelling cheerleader.
I rest my case. For christ's sake move on. Try going a week without mentionaing beards, allotments and cabals. You'll feel better for it.
beards, allotments and cabals
A great name for the inevitable book documenting the Corbyn era of the Labour Party!
Good article by Andrew Rawnsley in this mornings Observer with a synopsis of RLBs sacking
Starmer’s sacking of Long-Bailey was vital to show that Labour is changing
A great name for the inevitable book documenting the Corbyn era of the Labour Party!
I think Binners should design a book jacket for it.
That’s a great idea! 😃
Momentum’s underlying policy was “keep ideological purity until the tories make so much of a mess of it the revolution delivers the populace into our laps and the revolution happens”.
Is this a written policy, or something you’ve ascertained? It sounds to me like a different approach to obtaining power. No indication of the fear of power. Since we are yet to see the sort of society that many on the left desire, it is uncertain whether their or your approach is more likely to succeed.
Good article by Andrew Rawnsley in this mornings Observer with a synopsis of RLBs sacking
Lmao. Andrew Rawnsley last week was tearing into Uncle Starmer for his lack of vision and policy. This week he's okay because he sacked a left winger. PMSL.
RLB was sacked because of her sympathy with the Teachers/Unions. Everything else is piss and wind.
The shockingly formatted independent even ran a piece - supporting Starmer after publishing the article that RLB retweeted that got her fired. If they were so bothered by the so-called AS in the piece they didn't have to publish it in the first place.
The whole thing's a mess. You don't regress the damage of the right with more right wing suited competency.
Starmer supporters might end up with a competent manager but there will be a fag packet between the Tories and Labour. The country will be the same downward spiral. Centrists can't see this. They are so desperate to win they just want a line-manager approach to leadership.
Also - Anneliese Dodds - talking about Tax and Spend, same old trappings. They need to spend time with Richard Murphy or Stephanie Kelton to understand how to fix the economy.
Boris is about to go on a spending spree (and we damn well need it) - Labour will have nowhere to turn unless they put something new forward instead of being a party of beige vision.
Lmao. Andrew Rawnsley last week was tearing into Uncle Starmer for his lack of vision and policy. This week he’s okay because he sacked a left winger. PMSL
That’s a somewhat bizarre take on a balanced, objective piece of largely positive analysis
Keir Starmer's first steps are promising, but the road ahead is long and steep
Sky news are Just reporting that their latest polling has Starmers approval ratings going up again as Borises (somewhat unsurpring) plummet.
RLB was sacked because of her sympathy with the Teachers/Unions. Everything else is piss and wind.
What utter twoddle
Can I suggest that Labour copy whatever position the tories have on Israel and just getting ****ing over it.
Israel is so far down the list of things that I give a shit about and even if I did give a shit there's nothing that I can do about it.
The tories are the enemy save all your energy to getting those bastards out of power.
That’s a somewhat bizarre take on a balanced, objective piece of largely positive analysis
This is an opinion Vs fact thing.
That’s a somewhat bizarre take on a balanced, objective piece of largely positive analysis
Rawnsley balanced and objective? That's a joke right? Everything he's written since 2016 has had one purpose, which is to return the blairites to power and neuter the labour party as a transformative force in politics. He's the very epitomy of an establishment hack.
Labour will have nowhere to turn unless they put something new forward instead of being a party of beige vision.
+1. The age-old tax & spend approach won't work this time. They're going to need something else, and that should be the radical green new deal as Starmer has previously promised, along with some novel policies around wealth taxes, universal income, and workplace democracy. I dont hold out much hope with Dodds as shadow chancellor. From what I've seen so far she seems to be completely bereft of any new ideas or ambition.
transformative force in politics
Does this means a party of protest, not governance?
I think the current polling is because the public see someone who they think would make a competent PM, with a genuine social consciousness, leading a party of placard wavers and moaners. The Party needs to start looking like the next government ASAP.
Does this means a party of protest, not governance?
I think you know exactly what it means. As I've said many times, I've no interest in labour gaining power if they don't intend to do anything with it.
leading a party of placard wavers and moaners
Would you prefer it if he led a party of apathetic, selfish, grasping ****s?