Corbyn

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
 MG 29 Oct 2020

Not looking good, really.

1
 Ian W 29 Oct 2020
In reply to MG:

Who?

1
 Oceanrower 29 Oct 2020
 Rob Exile Ward 29 Oct 2020
In reply to MG:

He'll die in denial.

3
OP MG 29 Oct 2020
In reply to Ian W:

Some deluded old bloke.

5
OP MG 29 Oct 2020
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

Drowning him seems a bit harsh.

1
 tom r 29 Oct 2020
In reply to MG:

He's a Total arse. Him and Momentum have dragged Labour back to the 80s.

6
 Ian W 29 Oct 2020
In reply to Oceanrower:

> I assume the OP means this

Yikes! Don't know whether i'm surprised or not....or whether I can get in the slightest worked up about it. Very much yesterday's man.

3
In reply to MG:

Bye bye Jezzer. Just go away!

6
In reply to MG:

> Not looking good, really.

It's looking like an old fashioned purge, particularly suspending him for saying the scale of anti Semitism had been "dramatically overstated for political reasons".   It's a basic principle that if you are charged with something you should be allowed to deny it.

Purges are a sign of a f*cked up party with warring wings that are more worried about the other side of their own party than the Tories.

26
 jkarran 29 Oct 2020
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> It's looking like an old fashioned purge, particularly suspending him for saying the scale of anti Semitism had been "dramatically overstated for political reasons".   It's a basic principle that if you are charged with something you should be allowed to deny it.

He's not charged, he's been tested and found wanting. Even if he doesn't agree he should have the good sense to say make a mealy mouthed half apology like others do then STFU and step back from the limelight for the good of the party.

jk

4
 kevin stephens 29 Oct 2020
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> It's looking like an old fashioned purge,

No shortage of those under Corbyn

2
In reply to kevin stephens:

> No shortage of those under Corbyn

No.  But it is disappointing to see the other side is just as insecure and using the same tactics.

It is a symptom of the two party duopoly at Westminster.   Everybody is sticking with Labour because they think it is turns each with the Tories and no other party has a chance.  Starmer and Corbyn really ought to be in different parties.

21
 r0b 29 Oct 2020
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

Couldn't agree more - Corbyn should be with the Socialist Workers Party

6
In reply to r0b:

> Couldn't agree more - Corbyn should be with the Socialist Workers Party

I wouldn't disagree with that.

It is ridiculous that when Corbyn was leader Starmer was in line for getting suspended and as soon as Starmer is leader it is Corbyn getting suspended.  

9
 neilh 29 Oct 2020
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

Just shows that Starmer is more ruthless about getting a Labour victory.

Funny how a change at the top alters all the dynamics.

2
Removed User 29 Oct 2020
In reply to MG:

If I could para phrase his statement.

"Well yeah, anti semitism is bad and we don't want it but I did loads about it but was sabotaged by the Blairites. A lot of the report is a load of crap though and the whole AS thing is a storm in a teacup anyway."

Not only is it tone deaf if not utterly offensive to many at the receiving end of AS but a staggeringly stupid piece of politics if you want your party to win the 2024 GE.

On the other hand, he has handed Starmer the opportunity to have his Neil Kinnock moment where a decisive action, Corbyn's expulsion, redeems the party in the eyes of most of the electorate.

It's an opportunity I expect Starmer will sieze with both hands.

Post edited at 14:27
2
OP MG 29 Oct 2020
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> It is ridiculous that when Corbyn was leader Starmer was in line for getting suspended and as soon as Starmer is leader it is Corbyn getting suspended.  

I must have missed the bit where the HRC found Starmer to have  undertaken "unlawful harassment and discrimination " while leader.

2
In reply to MG:

> I must have missed the bit where the HRC found Starmer to have  undertaken "unlawful harassment and discrimination " while leader.

He's only been leader for about 10 minutes and most of the time he tells his MPs to abstain.

I'm not a Corbyn fan but setting the EHRC on him is just a tactic.

18
In reply to MG:

> I must have missed the bit where the HRC found Starmer to have  undertaken "unlawful harassment and discrimination " while leader.

I must have missed the bit where they found Corbyn to have undertaken any of those activities.

16
 Andy Hardy 29 Oct 2020
In reply to MG:

> Not looking good, really.


I agree - shocking way to wear a mask - https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2020/oct/29/uk-politics-live-ehrc...

 fred99 29 Oct 2020
In reply to Oceanrower:

> I assume the OP means this

When I heard this one word came to my lips;

Hooray !

The lying two-faced back-stabbing racist anti-semitic bullying b*st*rd deserves nothing less than a complete removal from any democratic party.

And the same goes for his acolytes.

22
 Rob Exile Ward 29 Oct 2020
In reply to Removed User:

I think Corbyn has just scored what should forever be known as 'a Long-Bailey Own Goal'.

1
 Trevers 29 Oct 2020
In reply to MG:

I remember asking a Jewish colleague of mine last December about Labour, Corbyn and anti-semitism. She has experienced anti-semitism in the UK here, and has also lived in Israel where she was bullied as a child for not being Orthodox enough, narrowly avoided bomb attacks and had been assaulted by a IDF border guard for protesting. She's also a trans woman. So I daresay she knows rather more about discrimination than most of us. She said that it was possible (and likely, in Corbyn's case) to be simultaneously feircely anti-racist and also antisemitic. She also said that she held a Johnson government to be a far greater threat to British Jews, and far more racist in general.

“You can agree that antisemitism is definitely a problem on some parts of the left and needs to be loudly denounced while also agreeing that Jeremy Corbyn’s political opponents are cynically using it as a stick with which to beat him.” - Mehdi Hassan, 2018

I do not disagree with the findings of the report. I think that Corbyn did foster an antisemitic climate within the party and I'm glad he's no longer its leader. I think that Corbyn should have accepted its findings, apologised and agreed to stand down from his seat at the next election, if not immediately. Nothing else needed to be said.

However, although I think he was ill-advised to say it, he was right in saying that the scale of antisemitism was overstated. I absolutely do think the antisemitism charge was weaponised and exaggerated to particularly brutal effect. Not only did it render the party toxic in the eyes of many, not just Jews, but it also forced many into a defensive position who would also decry antisemitism, unfairly bringing the charge against them too. I canvassed for Labour last December and that does not make me an antisemite, although I was repeatedly labelled one for doing so.

There was a time last year when you could not move for Tory MPs screaming "ANTISEMITE!" at any given opportunity, MPs with far less interest in Jewish history and culture than Corbyn and far fewer links to Jewish communities. The accusations of antisemitism were often antiesemetic themselves, assuming all Jews as one homogenous mass or conflating Israel with Judaism. They deliberately sowed confusion and division.

What'll result now is more division and acrimony within Labour, at a time when the country has never been in more desperate need of a strong and united opposition.

4
 fred99 29 Oct 2020
In reply to MG:

> Drowning him seems a bit harsh.

Dunno about drowning ?

I thought the appropriate sentence for treason was Hanging, Drawing and Quartering.

6
 neilh 29 Oct 2020
In reply to Andy Hardy:

I had to laugh...brilliant...10/10

1
OP MG 29 Oct 2020
In reply to Trevers:

I agree with most of that, particularly the Tory party bit.  Our new Tory MP seems obsessed with the previous incumbent's remarks about Jews, which certainly were antisemitic, but although she's gone he keeps on bringing them up.

I don't think your last sentence is right though.  I think Momentum etc will slowly fade leaving in fact a stronger Labour opposition and inward navel gazing.

1
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> Purges are a sign of a f*cked up party with warring wings that are more worried about the other side of their own party than the Tories.

Perhaps, but then if a party is f*cked up, the leader would be foolish to fail to attempt to do anything about it - Corbyn failed to and Starmer is now doing so.

Also probably worth noting that the Tories had a purge during 2019 which, at least in part, facilitated their landslide win in the general election.

Post edited at 16:14
1
 jkarran 29 Oct 2020
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> Starmer and Corbyn really ought to be in different parties.

People keep saying this but we've seen precious little policy from Starmer who actually seemed reasonably comfortable with the economic position under Corbyn. So far the clearest difference is in managerial competence and risk management, we're guessing where he positions Labour economically in 2024, indeed we have no idea if the left-right axis will have much relevance in that election, likely it will hinge on one skewed more strongly toward the authoritarian-socially liberal axis with the union a hot topic (why you won't be getting your vote until, then likely also after 2024) and perhaps (though very probably not for another couple of cycles, EU membership/relationship).

jk

Post edited at 16:32
 mondite 29 Oct 2020
In reply to jkarran:

Main issue with Starmer is no one quite knows what he stands for.

Going back on topic its somewhat odd people praising him for taking prompt action since, if it was him, that would seem to be political interference by the leader into the disciplinary system. Which was one of the major complaints in the report.

Removed User 29 Oct 2020
In reply to mondite:

> Main issue with Starmer is no one quite knows what he stands for.

> Going back on topic its somewhat odd people praising him for taking prompt action since, if it was him, that would seem to be political interference by the leader into the disciplinary system. Which was one of the major complaints in the report.

He wasn't involved in the decision.

 mondite 29 Oct 2020
In reply to Removed User:

> He wasn't involved in the decision.


Which is why I said its somewhat odd people praising him for it.

 Dewi Williams 29 Oct 2020
In reply to jkarran:

Yes he should - but he won't! Corbyn, the gift that keeps on giving to the tories.

1
 hang_about 29 Oct 2020
In reply to MG:

I'm unsure of the precise timing of events but from reporting, it seems to be that the report was published and Starmer  said (a) there's no place for antisemitism in the labour party and (b) if you don't accept the findings of the report, then you are part of the problem.

Fair enough - but clearly setting a trap.

Corbyn then says precisely that - the results are overblown. So Starmer has no choice but to suspend him. They are both politically savvy creatures, so I accept Starmer was making those statements in all sincerity, but also knowing what Corbyn would say. It plays to Starmer's powerbase.

Corbyn then said it, knowing that the reaction would be, because he sincerely believes it, but it also plays to Corbyn's powerbase. I doubt either of them are surprised by this turn of events.

  

1
 Wainers44 29 Oct 2020
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> It's looking like an old fashioned purge, particularly suspending him for saying the scale of anti Semitism had been "dramatically overstated for political reasons".   It's a basic principle that if you are charged with something you should be allowed to deny it.

> Purges are a sign of a f*cked up party with warring wings that are more worried about the other side of their own party than the Tories.

That's a load of old rubbish even by your high standards.

5
Removed User 29 Oct 2020
In reply to hang_about:

I read something earlier that members of the shadow cabinet got wind of Corbyn's statement and tried to stop him releasing it, but of course he wouldn't.

Anyway, here's Keir on the matter. He's right of course and also implies the decision to suspend wasn't his, which is also right. There are rules and you'd expect a party run by a QC and ex director of Public Prosecutions to stick to them.

https://twitter.com/LabourList/status/1321872868238643202?s=19

 Rog Wilko 29 Oct 2020
In reply to MG:

This the end of Corbyn's political career. He won't be much missed.

3
 climbingpixie 29 Oct 2020
In reply to Trevers:

I agree with pretty much everything you've written above. It's an excellent and balanced summary of the situation.

> What'll result now is more division and acrimony within Labour, at a time when the country has never been in more desperate need of a strong and united opposition.

On the other hand perhaps it's a case of the earlier the better for lancing the AS boil? It's hopefully far enough in advance of the next election that Labour can get their shit together, end the internecine warfare and rebuild their reputation.

 FactorXXX 29 Oct 2020
In reply to r0b:

> Couldn't agree more - Corbyn should be with the Socialist Workers Party

Wouldn't he better in the 'Party for Socialist Workers'?

1
In reply to MG:

> Seems so

The closest thing to an allegation against Corbyn that I can find contained in that report is that he was once involved in a conversation about the Ken Livingstone disciplinary case. In another part of the report though it acknowledges that the leadership of a political party has a legitimate interest in being made aware of cases of high reputational risk and may take decisions in this context.

Post edited at 19:10
7
OP MG 29 Oct 2020
In reply to cumbria mammoth:

You seem to have missed the very first phrase, among many others "Our investigation has identified serious failings in leadership..."

1
 felt 29 Oct 2020
In reply to MG:

He's the lovechild of Rosa Klebb and Tim Nice But Dim.

1
In reply to MG:

> You seem to have missed the very first phrase, among many others "Our investigation has identified serious failings in leadership..."

Well if by leadership they mean Jeremy Corbyn they haven't bothered to provide any evidence. 

Chapter 10 is supposedly about leadership but it talks about failures in the complaint handling process which is a matter that the leader is not involved in (apart from the cases where it is acknowledged that the leader has a legitimate interest). They appear to mean leadership in a more general sense, e.g. the Labour Party should provide leadership on antisemitism. 

It's funny that they have chosen to use the ambiguous word leadership which allows a casual reader to mistakenly believe they have identified a failure of Corbyn when in fact the failures lie elsewhere. I wonder why they didn't use more precision in their language?

Post edited at 20:27
10
OP MG 29 Oct 2020
In reply to cumbria mammoth:

> Well if by leadership they mean Jeremy Corbyn they haven't bothered to provide any evidence. 

So what was he if not the leader of the party?

> Chapter 10 is supposedly about leadership but it talks about failures in the complaint handling process which is a matter that the leader is not involved in 

Err "The  evidence shows  that  staff from  the  Leader  of  the  Opposition’s  Office (LOTO)  were able to  influence decisions  on complaints, ..."

> It's funny that they have chosen to use the ambiguous word leadership which allows a casual reader to mistakenly believe they have identified a failure of Corbyn 

Umm, again, he was the leader!

Post edited at 20:32
2
Removed User 29 Oct 2020
In reply to cumbria mammoth:

> Well if by leadership they mean Jeremy Corbyn they haven't bothered to provide any evidence. 

> Chapter 10 is supposedly about leadership but it talks about failures in the complaint handling process which is a matter that the leader is not involved in (apart from the cases where it is acknowledged that the leader has a legitimate interest). They appear to mean leadership in a more general sense, e.g. the Labour Party should provide leadership on antisemitism. 

From the chapter you refer to:

We have identified serious failings in leadership during the period the investigation looked at, and an inadequate process for handling antisemitism complaints across the Labour Party. While there have been some improvements in how the Labour Party deals with antisemitism complaints, our analysis points to a culture within the Party which, at best, did not do enough to prevent antisemitism and, at worst, could be seen to accept it. In earlier chapters, we identify relevant recommendations from previous reports which the Labour Party has not implemented adequately.

This includes:

• a failure to publish a comprehensive antisemitism complaints procedure

• a failure to provide adequate training for staff and members involved in the investigation and disciplinary process, and

• inadequate resourcing of antisemitism complaint handling, at least until 2018.

.. Our analysis also uncovered serious failings in complaint handling. We found that the Labour Party’s response to antisemitism complaints has been inconsistent, poor and not transparent, in terms of the process used, reasons for decisions, record-keeping, delay and failures to communicate with complainants. Some complaints were unjustifiably not investigated at all.

..We found that the Labour Party committed unlawful harassment through the acts of its agents, including one individual who was a National Executive Committee member. Their conduct included suggesting that complaints of antisemitism were fake or smears, which undermines the Labour Party’s commitment to zero tolerance of antisemitism and ignores legitimate and genuine complaints of antisemitism within the Party.

We also found evidence of political interference in the handling of antisemitism complaints throughout the period of the investigation.

The Labour Party has shown an ability to act decisively when it wants to, through the introduction of a bespoke process to deal with sexual harassment complaints. It is hard not to conclude that antisemitism within the Labour Party could have been tackled more effectively if the leadership had chosen to do so.

We find that the Labour Party has failed to address antisemitism within the Party in a way that demonstrates its stated commitment to zero tolerance, or that ensures all Jewish members feel welcome and can be confident that antisemitism will be dealt with effectively. ...

I don't know about you but much of the above seems like a failure of leadership to me. It's not even about ideology or racism, it's simply about someone who is unable or unwilling to effect changes.

1
 balmybaldwin 29 Oct 2020
In reply to FactorXXX:

> Wouldn't he better in the 'Party for Socialist Workers'?


Don't be silly, he should be in the Worker's Socialist Party

1
 mondite 29 Oct 2020
In reply to MG:

> Err "The  evidence shows  that  staff from  the  Leader  of  the  Opposition’s  Office (LOTO)  were able to  influence decisions  on complaints, ..."

Looking at the examples though several of those are the LOTO pushing a harder line eg the Chris Williamson and Ken Livingstone examples.

It seems a somewhat damned if you do damned if you dont scenario.

 coinneach 29 Oct 2020
In reply to balmybaldwin:

Splitter !

In reply to Removed User:

> From the chapter you refer to:

> We have identified serious failings in leadership during the period the investigation looked at, and an inadequate process for handling antisemitism complaints across the Labour Party. While there have been some improvements in how the Labour Party deals with antisemitism complaints, our analysis points to a culture within the Party which, at best, did not do enough to prevent antisemitism and, at worst, could be seen to accept it. In earlier chapters, we identify relevant recommendations from previous reports which the Labour Party has not implemented adequately.

> This includes:

> • a failure to publish a comprehensive antisemitism complaints procedure

> • a failure to provide adequate training for staff and members involved in the investigation and disciplinary process, and

> • inadequate resourcing of antisemitism complaint handling, at least until 2018.

> .. Our analysis also uncovered serious failings in complaint handling. We found that the Labour Party’s response to antisemitism complaints has been inconsistent, poor and not transparent, in terms of the process used, reasons for decisions, record-keeping, delay and failures to communicate with complainants. Some complaints were unjustifiably not investigated at all.

So there's a bad culture in the party which in theory could be down to a failure of the leader of the party to set the right example. Is this what the report says though, no, the evidence of the bad culture is the elements I've underlined. They are administrative and process failures that are reasonably delegated down to the Governance and Legal Unit and, as many are keen to point out, the Leaders Office is not meant to interfere with the work of the GLU. And who ran the GLU - it is the Blairite right of the party.

The report shows that within the party the bad culture that accepts antisemitism comes from the Blairite right wing of the party.

> ..We found that the Labour Party committed unlawful harassment through the acts of its agents, including one individual who was a National Executive Committee member. Their conduct included suggesting that complaints of antisemitism were fake or smears, which undermines the Labour Party’s commitment to zero tolerance of antisemitism and ignores legitimate and genuine complaints of antisemitism within the Party.

The report identifies two Labour members as committing unlawful harassment who it describes as agents of the party. Neither of whom were in roles connected with the Leadership of the party or acting for the leadership.

> We also found evidence of political interference in the handling of antisemitism complaints throughout the period of the investigation.

The political interference was that the GLU were deliberately delaying investigating antisemitism complaints (as noted above) which led to the Leaders office asking for speed and action. Then the GLU began inappropriately firing unsolicited antisemitism complaints across to the Leaders Office to engineer an impression of political interference, and they continued to do so after they were ordered to stop. The EHRC report notes this but says "it does not matter for our analysis whether the formal process was instigated by LOTO staff or by GLU staff".

So the report is again finding evidence of wrongdoing by the Blairite right wing of the party and using the ambiguity of the term "leadership" to allow a casual observer to think this is somehow Jeremy Corbyn's fault.

> The Labour Party has shown an ability to act decisively when it wants to, through the introduction of a bespoke process to deal with sexual harassment complaints. It is hard not to conclude that antisemitism within the Labour Party could have been tackled more effectively if the leadership had chosen to do so.

A number of improvements are noted throughout the report so this comment seems to be a bit disingenuous and of course it is a vague statement unsupported by evidence.

> We find that the Labour Party has failed to address antisemitism within the Party in a way that demonstrates its stated commitment to zero tolerance, or that ensures all Jewish members feel welcome and can be confident that antisemitism will be dealt with effectively. ...

> I don't know about you but much of the above seems like a failure of leadership to me. It's not even about ideology or racism, it's simply about someone who is unable or unwilling to effect changes.

Failure of leadership in the subjective sense that the Labour Party should be the leaders in the fight against antisemitism in this country. Not failure of leadership in the sense of any wrongdoing by Jeremy Corbyn or his allies in leadership positions in the party. The report acknowledges that there were many positive changes during Jeremy Corbyn's leadership.

9
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> It is a symptom of the two party duopoly at Westminster.   Everybody is sticking with Labour because they think it is turns each with the Tories and no other party has a chance.  

Of course!! Another shot fired at Westminster. After all, I'm sure you'll agree that duopolies are far worse than single party monopolies in government, right? 

Post edited at 23:23
 FactorXXX 29 Oct 2020
In reply to cumbria mammoth:

> So there's a bad culture in the party which in theory could be down to a failure of the leader of the party to set the right example. Is this what the report says though, no, the evidence of the bad culture is the elements I've underlined. They are administrative and process failures that are reasonably delegated down to the Governance and Legal Unit and, as many are keen to point out, the Leaders Office is not meant to interfere with the work of the GLU. And who ran the GLU - it is the Blairite right of the party.

> The report shows that within the party the bad culture that accepts antisemitism comes from the Blairite right wing of the party.

> The report identifies two Labour members as committing unlawful harassment who it describes as agents of the party. Neither of whom were in roles connected with the Leadership of the party or acting for the leadership.

> The political interference was that the GLU were deliberately delaying investigating antisemitism complaints (as noted above) which led to the Leaders office asking for speed and action. Then the GLU began inappropriately firing unsolicited antisemitism complaints across to the Leaders Office to engineer an impression of political interference, and they continued to do so after they were ordered to stop. The EHRC report notes this but says "it does not matter for our analysis whether the formal process was instigated by LOTO staff or by GLU staff".

> So the report is again finding evidence of wrongdoing by the Blairite right wing of the party and using the ambiguity of the term "leadership" to allow a casual observer to think this is somehow Jeremy Corbyn's fault.

> A number of improvements are noted throughout the report so this comment seems to be a bit disingenuous and of course it is a vague statement unsupported by evidence.

> Failure of leadership in the subjective sense that the Labour Party should be the leaders in the fight against antisemitism in this country. Not failure of leadership in the sense of any wrongdoing by Jeremy Corbyn or his allies in leadership positions in the party. The report acknowledges that there were many positive changes during Jeremy Corbyn's leadership.

The alternative to all of that is that Corbyn was ineffective as a leader and allowed the whole anti-Semitism thing spiral out of control due to incompetence and arrogance.  

2
 Trevers 29 Oct 2020
In reply to FactorXXX:

> The alternative to all of that is that Corbyn was ineffective as a leader and allowed the whole anti-Semitism thing spiral out of control due to incompetence and arrogance.  

The two possibilities aren't mutually exclusive.

 NathanP 30 Oct 2020
In reply to MG:

'Jeremy Corbyn suspension "could cost Labour next election"' according to Len McClusky. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-54742096

Breathtaking lack of self-awareness and reflection there on what actually did cost Labour the last two elections. 

2
OP MG 30 Oct 2020
In reply to cumbria mammoth:

That is some serious mental gymnastics to defend an utter failure of leadership by Corbyn. 

Why are the left always looking backwards to blame others? Blair has been gone 13 years now.

3
 Michael Hood 30 Oct 2020

I showed this thread to Tony, how he laughed 😁

The other thing he said was "some of your posters are better at spin than the people I used to employ, wish I'd known"

1
 summo 30 Oct 2020
In reply to MG:

Hardly surprising. He got hammered in two general elections and afterwards his fans declared them a success. 

1
 neilh 30 Oct 2020
In reply to cumbria mammoth:

As I understand it Corbyns suspension was nothing to do with the report, and more about his comments yesterday .He could easily just have said I accept  the recommendations and moved on after all he is very much yesterdays man.

Disappointing really that in the midst of Covid and Brexit that Corbyn has not kept quiet as the Tories will now use this to every advantage. So Labour will now miss out on the biggest prize- sticking the knife in Johnson -  just typical.

1
 Rob Exile Ward 30 Oct 2020
In reply to NathanP: Don't you know, Labour didn't lose the last election, it was the electorate's fault for marking their ballot papers wrongly.

 Cobra_Head 30 Oct 2020
In reply to MG:

> Why are the left always looking backwards to blame others? Blair has been gone 13 years now.


Well it might be because everyone seems to look backwards to suit their agenda, remember going back to the 70's when it looked like Corbyn might win? I don't think it was the left saying that.

1
 Cobra_Head 30 Oct 2020
In reply to neilh:

> As I understand it Corbyns suspension was nothing to do with the report, and more about his comments yesterday .He could easily just have said I accept  the recommendations and moved on after all he is very much yesterdays man.

> Disappointing really that in the midst of Covid and Brexit that Corbyn has not kept quiet as the Tories will now use this to every advantage. So Labour will now miss out on the biggest prize- sticking the knife in Johnson -  just typical.


I sort of agree but if you're accused of something YOU don't think you're guilty of, and haven't had you voice heard as to why YOU think you're not guilty of it, what do YOU do?

He might be totally in denial, but surely he has the right, if not the obligation, to ask the question of the accuser and to defend what was said, if it defensible.

1
 Cobra_Head 30 Oct 2020
In reply to MG:

Where did it all go, this anti-Semitism that was rife in the Labour party, they changed a leader and got rid of a few front benchers but most are still there. So the AS we heard about everyday has now disappeared into thin air now the bloke the establishment and media didn't want as leader is not the leader any more.

Doesn't this make you feel uneasy in any way?

3
 summo 30 Oct 2020
In reply to Cobra_Head:

The honourable thing to do would be to accept responsibility even if others were to blame. Then resign as an mp at the next election. He's a pensioner now and the only time he's ever agreed with Labour policy was his brief window as leader.

4
 Trevers 30 Oct 2020
In reply to NathanP:

> 'Jeremy Corbyn suspension "could cost Labour next election"' according to Len McClusky. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-54742096

It is a serious blow to Labour if they can't keep their activist base on board.

> Breathtaking lack of self-awareness and reflection there on what actually did cost Labour the last two elections. 

As opposed to the sweeping victories of 2010 and 2015, you mean? Blaming everything on Corbyn is far too simple an explanation. Even though last year's GE was devastating, he still achieved a higher popular vote share and higher total number of votes than either Brown in 2010 or Milliband in 2015.

1
 neilh 30 Oct 2020
In reply to Cobra_Head:

As I said a big Tory win on this. Makes you realise  that Corbyn could not see the big picture.They must be laughing their heads off.

In reply to neilh:

> As I understand it Corbyns suspension was nothing to do with the report, and more about his comments yesterday .He could easily just have said I accept  the recommendations and moved on after all he is very much yesterdays man.

Yes you're right and he did accept the report. Here is his statement, in what world do you get suspended for this?

Antisemitism is absolutely abhorrent, wrong and responsible for some of humanity’s greatest crimes. As Leader of the Labour Party I was always determined to eliminate all forms of racism and root out the cancer of antisemitism. I have campaigned in support of Jewish people and communities my entire life and I will continue to do so.

“The EHRC’s report shows that when I became Labour leader in 2015, the Party’s processes for handling complaints were not fit for purpose. Reform was then stalled by an obstructive party bureaucracy. But from 2018, Jennie Formby and a new NEC that supported my leadership made substantial improvements, making it much easier and swifter to remove antisemites. My team acted to speed up, not hinder the process.

[Note: the report does acknowledge these improvements from 2018]

“Anyone claiming there is no antisemitism in the Labour Party is wrong. Of course there is, as there is throughout society, and sometimes it is voiced by people who think of themselves as on the left.

“Jewish members of our party and the wider community were right to expect us to deal with it, and I regret that it took longer to deliver that change than it should.

“One antisemite is one too many, but the scale of the problem was also dramatically overstated for political reasons by our opponents inside and outside the party, as well as by much of the media. That combination hurt Jewish people and must never be repeated.

[Note: he is not saying that the EHRC report has overstated the problem. Indeed it doesn't, it reports very little evidence of antisemitism and does not find the Labour Party to have been institutionally antisemitic which was the claim of the right and the pretence for opening the investigation. The substance of the report must be very disappointing for the right but they'll spin it for their purposes anyway]

“My sincere hope is that relations with Jewish communities can be rebuilt and those fears overcome. While I do not accept all of its findings, I trust its recommendations will be swiftly implemented to help move on from this period.

> Disappointing really that in the midst of Covid and Brexit that Corbyn has not kept quiet as the Tories will now use this to every advantage. So Labour will now miss out on the biggest prize- sticking the knife in Johnson -  just typical.

How could he keep quiet on the day he is centre of a news story and the media are on his doorstep expecting a comment?

Yes his suspension is disappointing and a gift to the Tories. Another tactical masterpiece from the Silent Knight who is still trailing in the polls with his brand of bland non opposition. 

5
 neilh 30 Oct 2020
In reply to cumbria mammoth:

Well worth listening to Starmer on R4 Today catchup this morning. He expains the position in full. Basically he is saying the party will not stand for any views that in effect say this is a minor problem.( which in effect is what Corbyn said yesterday)

Quite clear and specific.

Post edited at 10:19
OP MG 30 Oct 2020
In reply to Cobra_Head:

> Where did it all go, this anti-Semitism that was rife in the Labour party, 

> Doesn't this make you feel uneasy in any way?

No. Leadership sets the tone and defines what is acceptable and what isn't. It's pretty clear Corbyn ignored or was deaf to antisemitism. Starmer clearly isn't. That's a good thing, I think. 

See.Neils post above this too.

Post edited at 10:27
2
 mondite 30 Oct 2020
In reply to MG:

> No. Leadership sets the tone and defines what is acceptable and what isn't. It's pretty clear Corbyn ignored or was deaf to antisemitism.

If he ignored it then why are many of the examples of "political interference" into complaints ones where his office forced action?

 planetmarshall 30 Oct 2020
In reply to cumbria mammoth:

> Well if by leadership they mean Jeremy Corbyn they haven't bothered to provide any evidence. 

It's rather telling that even someone well disposed towards Corbyn is unsure if he was the leader of the Party.

1
 planetmarshall 30 Oct 2020
In reply to cumbria mammoth:

> Yes you're right and he did accept the report.

Corbyn's statement directly contradicts this.

“That combination hurt Jewish people and must never be repeated. My sincere hope is that relations with Jewish communities can be rebuilt and those fears overcome. While I do not accept all of its findings, I trust its recommendations will be swiftly implemented to help move on from this period.”

By saying this, Corbyn made it impossible for Labour HQ to do anything other than suspend him (and in classic Corbyn fashion, positions himself as the victim).

2
 Rob Exile Ward 30 Oct 2020
In reply to cumbria mammoth:

What alternative universe do you exist in? You may not have noticed but we are in the middle of a pandemic. It's like being in a war; the government must still be held to account but the opposition cannot be seen to be opposing just for the sake of it, while people are dying.

People always say they've had enough of ya boo politics, and Starmer is playing a blinder avoiding exactly that and acting like a grownup (IMHO). It's about time a Tory shuffled off this mortal coil (obviously there's no scandal heinous enough that could persuade any of them to resign) and we get a by election to really start showing which way the wind is blowing. But even if Labour won Essex you'd still be saying that it was Corbyn what won it.

3
 FactorXXX 30 Oct 2020
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

>  It's about time a Tory shuffled off this mortal coil (obviously there's no scandal heinous enough that could persuade any of them to resign) and we get a by election to really start showing which way the wind is blowing. 

You want someone to die just so that there is a by election?

4
 Rob Exile Ward 30 Oct 2020
In reply to FactorXXX:

Oh FFS, stop being so precious. MPs dying in service used to be a regular thing, maybe they're all on health trips nowadays. No I don't wish anyone dead (that may not be strictly true...) but it would be good to get a real election result.

6
 AllanMac 30 Oct 2020
In reply to MG:

Whilst I applaud the removal of someone who is electorally toxic, I do think that the whole issue of antisemitism has been politically weaponised to the point where any justified criticism of Israel has been lumped together into tangential accusations of racism. The right of any politician to criticise those who have aggressively oppressed Palestine and its people, has thus become a no-go area. Hiding under antisemitism emboldens Israel's bully boy tactics against its neighbour.

If anything is in urgent need of investigation, it is the fawning mutuality that exists between the conservative party and the majority of the British media (including the news output of the BBC), who are all too ready with all kinds of accusations including antisemitism, while at the same time conveniently sweeping home grown institutionalised racism under a carefully woven carpet. 

3
 NathanP 30 Oct 2020

As a general point: when I pasted the link in my post at 07:14, it linked to a report quoting Len McClusky that suspending that Jeremy Corbyn suspension "could cost Labour next election" - obviously the link goes to something different now so apologies for any confusion caused. 

In reply to Trevers:

To be honest, it was the quote the BBC used in their headline that had be spraying coffee over my keyboard rather than the details of the story. I agree a split and/or a mass exodus of activists would be serious. Not so sure that losing the ex-SWP and Communist Party entryists who joined to support Corbyn would be such a loss or hurt Labour's election chances.

I agree too that it is more complicated than just blaming Corbyn but he clearly wasn't an electoral asset with the centre ground or traditional Labour voters that were needed to actually win. 2010, I think was a combination for voter fatigue after three terms of Labour government plus (unfairly, IMHO) blame for the economic situation after the 2008 financial crisis. Labour's response - thanks there too Mr. McClusky - was to move to the left with Ed Milliband then we he lost to move much further left with Corbyn for two more losses. 

Whatever Labour activists and some Union bosses might think, moving Labour much further left (and making it easy for hostile media to paint them as that) than most of the electorate doesn't seem to be a winning strategy.

1
In reply to Wainers44:

> That's a load of old rubbish even by your high standards.

The thing I find completely distasteful is that he was sacked not for antisemitism but for denying antisemitism.   It is a basic principle that when people are accused of something they should be able to deny it.   If you are convicted by a court nobody makes you admit the offence and you get to make an appeal.

I have no doubt that Corbyn is a big fan of the PLO and probably very much against Israel: not much question of that when he gets invited to PLO funerals.   But I also think that Israel is starting to use accusations of anti semitism as a way of stifling criticism of its actions, some of which are pretty unpleasant.   Israel wants to control the definition anti semitism and then have any politician that crosses their boundary get immediately sacked.  Now , with the 'Starmer doctrine' you can get sacked even for denying an accusation of anti-semitism.   It's like McCarthy or a communist party purge when as soon as you are accused of something you have to admit it and beg forgiveness.

10
 Trevers 30 Oct 2020
In reply to NathanP:

> To be honest, it was the quote the BBC used in their headline that had be spraying coffee over my keyboard rather than the details of the story. I agree a split and/or a mass exodus of activists would be serious. Not so sure that losing the ex-SWP and Communist Party entryists who joined to support Corbyn would be such a loss or hurt Labour's election chances.

I think that's a bit unfair, the vast majority of new activists were not SWP/communist entryists but previously disenfranchised and politically idealistic youth. As a side note, many of the former Revolutionary Communist Party have now ended up on the far right of politics (Brendan O'Neill, Claire Fox etc.)

> I agree too that it is more complicated than just blaming Corbyn but he clearly wasn't an electoral asset with the centre ground or traditional Labour voters that were needed to actually win. 2010, I think was a combination for voter fatigue after three terms of Labour government plus (unfairly, IMHO) blame for the economic situation after the 2008 financial crisis. Labour's response - thanks there too Mr. McClusky - was to move to the left with Ed Milliband then we he lost to move much further left with Corbyn for two more losses. 

I disagree about 2015. If anything, Miliband's electoral platform was much further to the right of Brown, with vows to continue austerity policy and be tough on immigration. It was an attempt to copy the Tories but be a bit less nasty, which just came over as a party bereft of ideas or vision. Combined with Ed's discomfort in interviews and his perceived weakness/lack of patriotism was fatal. I genuinely think Labour would have performed much better and possibly even won if they'd presented a positive alternative to austerity.

> Whatever Labour activists and some Union bosses might think, moving Labour much further left (and making it easy for hostile media to paint them as that) than most of the electorate doesn't seem to be a winning strategy.

Yes and no. The caricature of a crusty old communist which fit Corbyn so perfectly is electoral anathema, especially when combined with the anti-patriotic charge. The actual policies are regularly shown to be popular with voters, and the realities of this pandemic have highlighted the shortcomings of private enterprise and free market economics.

 planetmarshall 30 Oct 2020
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> The thing I find completely distasteful is that he was sacked not for antisemitism but for denying antisemitism.   It is a basic principle that when people are accused of something they should be able to deny it.   

He is absolutely welcome to deny it. He cannot, however, have an expectation of remaining in a party that accepts the conclusions of a report that he does not.

3
baron 30 Oct 2020
In reply to MG:

> Not looking good, really.

I wonder what would have happened had Labour won the last election and Mr Corbyn was now Prime Minister?

Would he have taken the same stance on the report?

Would he have had to resign?

Where does this leave Mr Starmer who was high up in the Labour leadership when all this was taking place and apparently did little to stop it?

1
 Trevers 30 Oct 2020
In reply to planetmarshall:

> He is absolutely welcome to deny it. He cannot, however, have an expectation of remaining in a party that accepts the conclusions of a report that he does not.

I don't think he was either denying antisemitism or failing to accept the conclusions of the report. He was suggesting that the accusations of antisemitism were exaggerated for political gain. I've already said that I agree with him on that specific point, and I think it's a charge that should be taken seriously.

3
 planetmarshall 30 Oct 2020
In reply to Trevers:

> I don't think he was either denying antisemitism or failing to accept the conclusions of the report. 

“...My sincere hope is that relations with Jewish communities can be rebuilt and those fears overcome. While I do not accept all of its findings, I trust its recommendations will be swiftly implemented to help move on from this period.”

That seems pretty clear to me.

 wercat 30 Oct 2020
In reply to AllanMac:

I think you missed out the "mutuality" between Priti Patel and Israel - both stood to gain from the weaponisation of anti semitism

I feel that Corbyn has been a victim of zealotry here but it is hard for me to feel sympathy as the consequences of his void at the centre of Remain are something we'll be living with now.

Post edited at 12:48
1
 Offwidth 30 Oct 2020
In reply to neilh:

I think what Corbyn said was true and in that was deliberately and cynically applying high risk spin in a very sensitive area immediately following a clear position from his party leader. The media and other parties did indeed exaggerate the level of the problem in Labour at times. The key issue Corbyn should have added if he was open and honest was whether or not he accepts what is said in the report. I think it is right he has been suspended subject to investigation and he still has the chance to escape expulsion if he says the report contents are an honest portrayal of the scale of the problems (which I think he wont).

2
 Trevers 30 Oct 2020
In reply to planetmarshall:

> “...My sincere hope is that relations with Jewish communities can be rebuilt and those fears overcome. While I do not accept all of its findings, I trust its recommendations will be swiftly implemented to help move on from this period.”

> That seems pretty clear to me.

I'll accept your correction, thank you. However my understanding is that he was removed for making the claim that accusations of antisemitism were exaggerated, not for failing to fully accept the findings of the report.

Removed User 30 Oct 2020
In reply to Trevers:

> It is a serious blow to Labour if they can't keep their activist base on board.

Labour won three GEs when membership was less than a half of what it is now and of course the Tories have an eighty seat majority with a membership of less than a third of Labour's. 

I think maybe 10% of the party are actively hostile towards Starmer and that number is dropping by the day as they leave in disgust. As far as I'm concerned the party is better off without them. They have never accepted him and from day one have been trying to pick fights. If they and their icon leave Labour others will return and more importantly more voters will start to look favourably upon Labour than change their allegiance to the Greens or the SWP.

2
 neilh 30 Oct 2020
In reply to Offwidth:

I read that McDonnell is furious with Corbyn ove rhtis.. Over the past few years McDonnell began to grow on me, such a shame his experience over the past few years is now wasted. But you cannot win everything.

Removed User 30 Oct 2020
In reply to Trevers:

> I don't think he was either denying antisemitism or failing to accept the conclusions of the report. He was suggesting that the accusations of antisemitism were exaggerated for political gain. I've already said that I agree with him on that specific point, and I think it's a charge that should be taken seriously.

Perhaps but that really isn't the point. Jews were abused and were let down by the party. Labour handed its opponents a huge stick to beat them with.

Talking down the problem only enrages the victims and the community they live in. Corbyn doesn't seem to understand how hurt people are and has never shown any contrition or accepted any responsibility for the disgraceful behaviour of some members of the party which he led.

 Cobra_Head 30 Oct 2020
In reply to summo:

> The honourable thing to do would be to accept responsibility even if others were to blame. Then resign as an mp at the next election. He's a pensioner now and the only time he's ever agreed with Labour policy was his brief window as leader.


You think that someone who's been a member of the party since he was 16 years old, should not have a chance to give his side of the story, simply fade away, because someone said he was something, he so obviously isn't.

I don't have much time for Corbyn, but I think he's principled and honest. We could probably do with more of this in parliament. For me and many of the people I know, Labour is back to being Tory-lite.

I think everyone should have the right to be heard and to fight your case. The honourable thing to do is to explain yourself, not run away.

Post edited at 13:42
5
 Cobra_Head 30 Oct 2020
In reply to neilh:

> ..... this is a minor problem.( which in effect is what Corbyn said yesterday)

Are you certain he said that, because I thought he said it wasn't as big as it was made out, two very different things.

Indeed, as I said previously, since Corbyn left as leader, the accusations, which were a daily occurrence have dwindled to practically zero. So considering the party was a hot bed of AS is seems to have died rather too quickly for my liking. It stinks of blown up hyperbole, based on some small numbers of idiots.

Something as big as it was made out to be doesn't disappear overnight.

There's AS in society so it's pretty certain there's AS in all parties, it should be dealt with everywhere, but let's make sure it is AS first, and let's not tar everyone with the same brush.

2
 neilh 30 Oct 2020

In reply to Pefa:

How is the EHRC funded?

 Trevers 30 Oct 2020
In reply to Removed User:

> Perhaps but that really isn't the point.

On the contrary, I think it's incredibly important. If we are to accept that all the accusations were fully warranted, does that not set a precedent that no charge of antisemitism can be appealed against? I was labelled an antisemite for canvassing for Labour, as was a Jewish colleague of mine. Were those accusations correct? Can we now call anybody an antisemite to undermine them politically?

I mentioned earlier that I felt that many of the accusations from Tory MPs and in the press were themselves antisemitic. In fact I'd go further. I think that to weaponise antisemitism, by which I mean to deliberately bring false accusations or overstate the scale of the problem in order to whip up a hysteria and hurt your political opponents, is an inherently antisemitic act. It's preying on the fears, grief and trauma of Jewish communities.

> Jews were abused and were let down by the party. Labour handed its opponents a huge stick to beat them with.

This I agree with.

> Talking down the problem only enrages the victims and the community they live in. Corbyn doesn't seem to understand how hurt people are and has never shown any contrition or accepted any responsibility for the disgraceful behaviour of some members of the party which he led.

I also agree with this.

Post edited at 14:06
 Cobra_Head 30 Oct 2020
In reply to Removed User:

> Labour won three GEs when membership was less than a half of what it is now and of course the Tories have an eighty seat majority with a membership of less than a third of Labour's. 

It's not just about membership though is it, Corbyn galvanised a huge swathe of young voters and disenfranchised ex-labour voters, he was seen as a new way, a return to Labour values by many. Unfortunately, he was a bit lacklustre for modern politics while having some great policies, and he frightened the establishment and business.

Media attacked him from day one and the feud within the party, with Labour MPs hoping he would fail, was all to apparent. From his first election as leader there were a large number of his own MPs plotting to bring him down.

So with all that in mind, it's business as usual, they young see politics as being "the establishment" nothing can change and no matter what people want, they end up with something else.

Starmer is cast from the same mould as Tony Blair, for many the person that did most damage to British politics since Thatcher.

6
 GrahamD 30 Oct 2020
In reply to MG:

It doesn't look good that pretty much the first time her majesty's opposition makes the headlines, it's for this infighting.  FFS someone please stand up and be a viable alternative to the current government. 

3
 Cobra_Head 30 Oct 2020
In reply to neilh:

> I read that McDonnell is furious with Corbyn ove rhtis.. Over the past few years McDonnell began to grow on me, such a shame his experience over the past few years is now wasted. But you cannot win everything.


You mean this from McDonnnell Twitter account? Sounds livid.

"On the day we should all be moving forward & taking all steps to fight antisemitism, the suspension of Jeremy Corbyn is profoundly wrong. In interests of party unity let’s find a way of undoing & resolving this."

1
In reply to Trevers:

> I don't think he was either denying antisemitism or failing to accept the conclusions of the report. He was suggesting that the accusations of antisemitism were exaggerated for political gain. I've already said that I agree with him on that specific point, and I think it's a charge that should be taken seriously.

And even if you don't agree with him, he should certainly have the right to state that opinion.

1
 Cobra_Head 30 Oct 2020
In reply to MG:

I'd just like to point out here, we discussing what Corbyn has allegedly said (or at least meant), meanwhile in Israel, people are having their homes demolished, their crops poisoned, and their land stolen, Gaza is an open prison, with the Israeli government as warders, and children are being locked up in military prisons. A 15 year old Palestinian was beaten to death by the IDF last week.

NONE of this makes our news outlets.

Starmer received £50,000 from a pro settlement supporter, and yet no one thinks to question this.

It's hardly surprising some people suspect some for of conspiracy, considering the hypocrisy we asked to swallow.

3
 Cobra_Head 30 Oct 2020

In reply to AllanMac:

>  I wonder if Johnson is a good servant to his billionaire lobbyists?


Considering I think about 80% of the Tories are "Friends of Israel", it makes you think what's in it for them.

3
 summo 30 Oct 2020
In reply to Cobra_Head:

> You mean this from McDonnnell Twitter account? Sounds livid.

> "On the day we should all be moving forward & taking all steps to fight antisemitism, the suspension of Jeremy Corbyn is profoundly wrong. In interests of party unity let’s find a way of undoing & resolving this."

And Corbyn could have aided that moving forward as one party if he hadn't have deliberately caused this divide and admitted things were wrong under his leadership. It's likely he's just trying to make life hard for Starmer and has no real interest in the future of the Labour party. He's already proven he's happy to make the Labour party unelectable in the last two GEs. 

Post edited at 14:43
3
 Rob Exile Ward 30 Oct 2020
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

If Corbyn had an ounce of genuine concern for this country, and its people, then he should get over his personal grievance and quietly take a back seat, and give Starmer the best possible chance of getting rid of this shower of sh*t in 2024.

Instead he is playing the aggrieved schoolboy, 'it's not fair miss! I didn't do anything, honest!' , completely indifferent to the the damage it is causing the party and country he is is supposed to have supported for 50+ years. He's made a good living out of politics, better than most people with his limited qualifications and talents; if he wanted to 'set the record straight' by publishing his memoirs in a couple of years time that would be fine by me. In the meantime he should STFU and let  his successors deal as best they can with his toxic legacy and the electoral mountain he's left them to climb.

3
Removed User 30 Oct 2020
In reply to Cobra_Head:

> It's not just about membership though is it, Corbyn galvanised a huge swathe of young voters and disenfranchised ex-labour voters, he was seen as a new way, a return to Labour values by many.

Actually he didn't. Most young people, like the rest of the population, don't think much of him. Do you know that last December more working class people voted Tory than Labour? That's how much of a man of the people Corbyn is.

2
 summo 30 Oct 2020
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

It's all Corbyn ever done. Bombed out of first year of polytechnics because he disagreed with the syllabus. Decades on the back bench voting against the party leader. Imagine how much he's taken in salary just to spend his time wishing he was in a socialist or communist party instead. 

2
Removed User 30 Oct 2020
In reply to Trevers:

> On the contrary, I think it's incredibly important. If we are to accept that all the accusations were fully warranted, does that not set a precedent that no charge of antisemitism can be appealed against? I was labelled an antisemite for canvassing for Labour, as was a Jewish colleague of mine. Were those accusations correct? Can we now call anybody an antisemite to undermine them politically?

It's not quite what I meant. It is the perception that Labour haven't taken allegations seriously that has been so damaging. Labour must change that perception. By following the recommendations of the report to the letter and by being seen to show zero tolerance to racists the party can move on and accusations of AS in future will be viewed by the public with more scepticism. 

Further of course, at present any criticism of Israel by Labour is neutralised by counter accusations of anti semitism. It is only after Labour has put AS behind it that it will have any legitimacy in standing up for Palestinian rights or criticising the behaviour of the Israeli government. That is the irony of the situation that Corbyn's attitude is stopping Labour from helping those he wants to help.

1
 Andy Hardy 30 Oct 2020
In reply to Trevers:

> I'll accept your correction, thank you. However my understanding is that he was removed for making the claim that accusations of antisemitism were exaggerated, not for failing to fully accept the findings of the report.

I think the full wording was "exaggerated for political reasons" i.e. not something he needed to worry about because it was the enemy within, and their lackies in the media running a smear campaign. 

Let's assume this was the truth, why not deal with AS publicly and robustly so as to shoot the smear campaign's fox?

 Trevers 30 Oct 2020
In reply to Removed User:

Yeah, I can happily agree with that.

 fred99 30 Oct 2020
In reply to FactorXXX:

> Wouldn't he better in the 'Party for Socialist Workers'?

Corbyn has never actually WORKED in his life.

Mind you, I doubt whether many of the "Socialist Workers" have either.

4
 fred99 30 Oct 2020
In reply to NathanP:

> 'Jeremy Corbyn suspension "could cost Labour next election"' according to Len McClusky. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-54742096

> Breathtaking lack of self-awareness and reflection there on what actually did cost Labour the last two elections. 

Len McCluskey - elected by 45% of the 12% who bothered to vote in the last Unite election. Doesn't exactly speak for a large support base does he ?

He does make an awful lot of noise though, and seems to think that he's more important in the Labour Party than anyone else (including his former puppet).

1
 Cobra_Head 30 Oct 2020
In reply to fred99:

> Corbyn has never actually WORKED in his life.

> Mind you, I doubt whether many of the "Socialist Workers" have either.


And Tory MPs? are they exempt from your not working accusations?

3
 fred99 30 Oct 2020
In reply to FactorXXX:

> >  It's about time a Tory shuffled off this mortal coil (obviously there's no scandal heinous enough that could persuade any of them to resign) and we get a by election to really start showing which way the wind is blowing. 

> You want someone to die just so that there is a by election?

Would you complain if the by election under these circumstances was for Johnson's seat (or Gove's) ?

2
 FactorXXX 30 Oct 2020
In reply to fred99:

> Would you complain if the by election under these circumstances was for Johnson's seat (or Gove's) ?

I'm not nasty or bigoted enough to want anyone to die just for the sake of seeing what would happen in an election.

1
 fred99 30 Oct 2020
In reply to Cobra_Head:

> You mean this from McDonnnell Twitter account? Sounds livid.

> "On the day we should all be moving forward & taking all steps to fight antisemitism, the suspension of Jeremy Corbyn is profoundly wrong. In interests of party unity let’s find a way of undoing & resolving this."

Corbyn has simply gone back to hat he was doing for years previously on the back benches - disagreeing with virtually everything the Party has agreed upon and constantly sniping, without actually standing for anything himself.

 Cobra_Head 30 Oct 2020
In reply to fred99:

> Corbyn has simply gone back to hat he was doing for years previously on the back benches - disagreeing with virtually everything the Party has agreed upon and constantly sniping, without actually standing for anything himself.


Are you sure, the party hasn't drifted away from it original core values, for some Labour people, and that Corbyn, might have been and indeed still was fighting for those.

I see you dodged the question about Tories and their work ethic.

Say Corbyn hasn't worked a day in his life is such a childish thing to say anyhow. Ask his constituents who seem to have been quite happy with him for a number of years.

Post edited at 15:41
1
 fred99 30 Oct 2020
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> And even if you don't agree with him, he should certainly have the right to state that opinion.

And he will have, when this matter is properly investigated by the appropriate persons. Meantime he is suspended.

Corbyn was pretty quick to suspend/remove anyone who disagreed with him when he was in charge, so complaining right now, both by himself and his pals does seem a bit rich.

2
 Offwidth 30 Oct 2020
In reply to neilh:

McDonnell hung around with the far left of my union when I was active nationally so although he spoke well and appeared level headed, I was always suspicious of him, as his 'fellow travellers' too often were hateful and at times anti-semitic. The political stunts of some of these far left activists targetting Israel (notably the academic boycott) caused the union a good deal of expense, division and distraction. Lo and behold a good number of those who then were SWP trots and Respect members ended up in Corbyn's Labour. If they leave Labour now in protest, good riddance. I believe the report is a fair representation of the horrible treatment of Jewish members in Labour and it must never be allowed to happen again. That it wasn't as bad as the tories painted it is irrelevant;  that the tories have not been investigated for Islamophoia, although an ongoing scandal, risks Labour distraction from resolving its own serious problems.

1
 mondite 30 Oct 2020
In reply to fred99:

> Corbyn was pretty quick to suspend/remove anyone who disagreed with him when he was in charge

can you give some examples of this?

 summo 30 Oct 2020
In reply to fred99:

> Len McCluskey - elected by 45% of the 12% who bothered to vote in the last Unite election. Doesn't exactly speak for a large support base does he ?

> He does make an awful lot of noise though, and seems to think that he's more important in the Labour Party than anyone else (including his former puppet).

You forgot to mention how mccluskey sacked the only person brave enough to run against him as soon as he'd won. 

Unite is important, Labour needs their money. 

1
 AllanMac 30 Oct 2020
In reply to fred99:

> Len McCluskey - elected by 45% of the 12% who bothered to vote in the last Unite election. Doesn't exactly speak for a large support base does he ?

> He does make an awful lot of noise though, and seems to think that he's more important in the Labour Party than anyone else (including his former puppet).

McCluskey is Labour's de facto Cummings, complete with delusions of behind-the-scenes grandeur and influence, but with marginally better eyesight.

 Cobra_Head 30 Oct 2020
In reply to Removed User:

> Actually he didn't. Most young people, like the rest of the population, don't think much of him.

This is clearly nonsense, why make stuff up, it makes you look daft and weakens any points you put forward.

https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2019/12/17/how-britai...

The fact more working class people voted Tory, might be the same reason more working class people vote for Brexit, it might well have had little to do with Labour itself, rather more to do with Brexit.

1
 Cobra_Head 30 Oct 2020
In reply to fred99:

> Corbyn has never actually WORKED in his life.

How many other MPs work at a food bank doing a regular shift EVERY week. Of course that's not proper work is it?

This is what I hate about the situation we're in as a country. I'm not keen on Corbyn, but people seem to be able to tear into him as if he's a piece of shit, the hatred towards him, makes ME have to defend him.

There's a blindness that people sometime wilfully engaging in to make Corbyn out to be the devil incarnate.

There seems to be no fairness or logic applied to the man or his actions, it's like playground bullying, where the bloke doesn't get a chance to defend himself.

Meanwhile, many of the people happy to rip into Corbyn sit by while this is happening.

https://www.facebook.com/PeterStefanovicJuniorDoctors/videos/36116722514732...

4
Removed User 30 Oct 2020
In reply to Cobra_Head:

I've made nothing up. It's in the Labour party's own report into the reasons it got humped in December.

In fact you haven't even checked the link you posted. If you do you'll see that voters in social grades DE voted 34% Labour and 47% Conservative.

Corbyn was the most cited reason why people stopped voting Labour. Brexit came second by a substantial margin.

Post edited at 18:08
 summo 30 Oct 2020
In reply to Cobra_Head:

> How many other MPs work at a food bank doing a regular shift EVERY week. Of course that's not proper work is it?

People don't want an mp or leader of a party who works in a food bank, they should be so busy doing parliamentary work that they don't have time.  They should be leading from the front trying to improve things, not just ranting at the world how everything is wrong, that's the voters job, the MPs job is to fix it. 

3
In reply to planetmarshall:

> It's rather telling that even someone well disposed towards Corbyn is unsure if he was the leader of the Party.

When you read the report you see that when they use the term "leadership" the EHRC are not referring to Jeremy Corbyn. They are actually talking about the failure in leadership of the teams responsible for handling the antisemitism complaints process, i.e. the senior staff members in charge of the Governance and Legal Unit (GLU). Those people are Jeremy Corbyns opponents within the Labour Party.

It also uses "leadership" in another sense, one in which the Labour Party should be setting the perfect example to the country of how antisemitism should be dealt with. Well of course they should but if your processes are reasonable but not perfect then that is no scandal, the Conservative should also be setting the perfect example but we know they don't take racism seriously. 

> Corbyn's statement directly contradicts this.

> “That combination hurt Jewish people and must never be repeated. My sincere hope is that relations with Jewish communities can be rebuilt and those fears overcome. While I do not accept all of its findings, I trust its recommendations will be swiftly implemented to help move on from this period.”

> By saying this, Corbyn made it impossible for Labour HQ to do anything other than suspend him (and in classic Corbyn fashion, positions himself as the victim).

Fair enough. I actually missed this sentence because it doesn't fit in with the overall tone of the statement which does seem to accept the report. It's there but it's soft and doesn't mean he had to be suspended.

I wonder which of the EHRC findings he disagreed with then? I was expecting the report to be a stitch up but I'm very surprised that, despite the spin, it really is a vindication of the Labour Leaks report.

It found three breaches of the Equality Act (2010) 

  • failure to provide adequate training to those handling antisemitism complaints which is the responsibility of Corbyn's opponents in charge of the GLU.
  • political interference in antisemitism complaints which turns out to be the GLU deliberately mishandling antisemitism complaints and the Leaders Office asking the GLU to sort out the mess caused by their mishandling and failure to provide adequate training. 
  • harassment which is a total of two Labour Party members who went rogue but the Labour Party was legally responsible for (in the same way that if I went on a home visit and stole something then my employer would also have a legal responsibility for what had happened).

It didn't find that the Labour Party is institutionally antisemitic (which was the claim of Corbyn's opponents) and it did find improvements in the handling of antisemitism during the leadership of Jeremy Corbyn and Jennie Formby.

6
In reply to cumbria mammoth:

> When you read the report you see that when they use the term "leadership" the EHRC are not referring to Jeremy Corbyn

Is that because Corbyn never showed any leadership...?

1
 profitofdoom 31 Oct 2020

In reply:

Message for Corbyn:

Dear Jeremy,

Thanks very much but will you please kindly now go away, and keep absolutely quiet from now on

You can write a book if you like - then people can choose whether to listen to you or not by buying the book. Or not

Goodbye

2
 bouldery bits 31 Oct 2020

In reply to Pefa:

If we only let X part of society vote then y would've won.

Strong argument. 

 Rob Exile Ward 31 Oct 2020

In reply to Pefa:

Why are you lot always so keen on gifting elections to Tories? Year after effing year. 

(Incidentally your efforts to demean Starmer with the 'Jeeves' tag is ignorant and misplaced, in the books Jeeves is the one with brains who runs the show and always gets his way. Just sayin'.)

Post edited at 08:12
 summo 31 Oct 2020

In reply to Pefa:

12months ago I'm sure you were saying the billionaires who control the media support the Tories, now you claim it's starmer, what has changed? How do you know? 

1
 GrahamD 31 Oct 2020
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

> Why are you lot always so keen on gifting elections to Tories? Year after effing year. 

Compare and contrast May's humiliation and subsequent behaviour with Corbyn's.  It can't help establish a credible alternative to the current government. 

 Arms Cliff 31 Oct 2020
In reply to cumbria mammoth:

> Fair enough. I actually missed this sentence because it doesn't fit in with the overall tone of the statement which does seem to accept the report. It's there but it's soft and doesn't mean he had to be suspended.

That’s the problem, the general tone of his statement seems appropriate, but it seems he couldn’t resist slipping in the sentence about not accepting the findings and saying it’s been overblown for political reasons. If he’d left those two sentences out I think nothing more would have come from it. The overall tone of the statement doesn’t really matter if you’re going to throw in a couple of clangers like this!

mattmurphy 31 Oct 2020

In reply to Pefa:

A communist, an anti-semite and an idiot walk into a bar.

The Barman says “the usual Jezza?”

On a serious note why you haven’t been banned from the forums yet baffles me. Your anti-Semitic bile has no place here.

2
 Bacon Butty 31 Oct 2020
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

> Why are you lot always so keen on gifting elections to Tories? Year after effing year. 

We live in a country full of turkeys, Christmas is coming. Offer them a fiver off their monthly tax bill so they can buy more shite from Amazon and you've got their votes. Retards the lot of them.

 toad 31 Oct 2020
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

Think its Steve Bell that came up with the jeeves thing

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/picture/2020/jun/29/steve-bells-i...

 planetmarshall 31 Oct 2020
In reply to Bacon Butty:

> We live in a country full of turkeys, Christmas is coming. Offer them a fiver off their monthly tax bill so they can buy more shite from Amazon and you've got their votes. Retards the lot of them.

Quite the vote winning strategy you have there. Hopefully, Starmer and the Labour Leadership now realise that winning an election requires persuading people to vote for you, as opposed to the Corbynite strategy of demeaning everyone you disagree with and referring to even members of your own party as "Tories" and "Retards".

 planetmarshall 31 Oct 2020

In reply to Pefa:

> ...all you on here with your investments and  property portfolios that are reliant on taxpayer billions that go to private landlords and your support of imperialism. 

Certainly my investments in aluminium foil are going very well indeed.

 bouldery bits 31 Oct 2020

In reply to Pefa:

'My two comments on this thread about the Israeli lobbyist multi-millionaire who gave Jeeves £62,000 and my comment with a link that shows a map of 18-24 year olds voting would have given Corbyn's Labour Party 600 seats and the Tories zero seats (its seems British 18-24 Yr olds have more sense than the entire contributers to this thread who are either posh, oaps or both ) have been removed.'

> Who is even making that argument? Not I so wtf are you on about? 

Care to to clarify?

Cheers,

BB

 elsewhere 31 Oct 2020
In reply to MG:

Delivered Brexit, lost two elections putting Johnson in power and four (all?) female Jewish Labour MPs gone during his watch. That is not delivering on Labour values

I generally like his politics but I DESPISE his uselessness, see above.

And in Corbyn's mind he has never made a mistake.

Post edited at 10:32

I'm locking this thread as we don't have time to keep an eye on it over the weekend.


New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...