Foxbatt
New Member
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2013
- Messages
- 14,297
So he was suspended for saying that he doesn't accept the whole of the report which was that Labour party was institutionally anti semitic under him?
I think more for saying the issues were exaggeratedSo he was suspended for saying that he doesn't accept the whole of the report which was that Labour party was institutionally anti semitic under him?
He said that he did not accept all of the report’s findings, but added: “I trust its recommendations will be swiftly implemented to help move on from this period.”
“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,” Mr Corbyn said.
Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer was challenged several times about Mr Corbyn’s statement during a press conference Thursday.
“I’ll look carefully at what Jeremy Corbyn has said in full but I’ve said a moment ago and I’ll say it again, those that deny it’s a problem are part of the problem.
“Those that pretend it’s exaggerated or factional are part of the problem and under my leadership we will have zero tolerance of antisemitism."
He deserves to be suspended for the stupidity of falling for the trap really. Starmer was always going to jump on anything.
The interview on Sky he rightly says the public perception was way out of whack with reality 0.3% members accused of anti-semtism compared to 33% believed to be the figure but facts don't matter.
He deserves to be suspended for the stupidity of falling for the trap really. Starmer was always going to jump on anything.
The interview on Sky he rightly says the public perception was way out of whack with reality 0.3% members accused of anti-semtism compared to 33% believed to be the figure but facts don't matter.
He was a Brexiter from the start, at least he can say he achieved that.Regarding the new thread title, was he ever really Labour? The party has only been in power for one 13-year spell in Corbyn’s 37 years as an MP, and in that spell he voted against the whip over 400 times. It’s a rather parasitical career, culminating in helping deliver Brexit for the nationalist loons in our country.
One question I have: How did the pro-Brexit parts of the left process the leadership of the nationalist right on the project?He was a Brexiter from the start, at least he can say he achieved that.
Sorry to be dim but I genuinely don't understand that question.One question I have: How did the pro-Brexit parts of the left process the leadership of the nationalist right on the project?
Sorry to be dim but I genuinely don't understand that question.
Exactly, thanks. (The pro-Brexit part of the left, that is.)I think: How do the left get behind something that was driven so fervently by such gross characters from the far right?
Right thanks, you would think they wouldn't, but if you go back to the days of Benn and the like that wing of the party was very anti-EU. It's why Wilson called his referendum, he couldn't reconcile the differences within the party and that was his way out. I don't believe Corbyn and McDonnell ever changed.I think: How do the left get behind something that was driven so fervently by such gross characters from the far right?
Regarding the new thread title, was he ever really Labour? The party has only been in power for one 13-year spell in Corbyn’s 37 years as an MP, and in that spell he voted against the whip over 400 times. It’s a rather parasitical career, culminating in helping deliver Brexit for the nationalist loons in our country.
He doesn't represent the party at all.His values are and have always been in line with the traditional values of the Labour party. He is at odds with much of the party because in those 37 years Labour has shifted from being a left wing workers' party to a centrist party. If you look at his record of voting against the whip, he was almost always right to do so. It is a good thing that he voted against the whip, and we should have more politicians that ignore the whip and vote based on their principles and beliefs. For me he represents the party better than anybody.
You're right, he doesn't. I meant that he represents what it should be, not what it is.He doesn't represent the party at all.
No, partly because the report didn't say that the party was institutionally anti semitic.So he was suspended for saying that he doesn't accept the whole of the report which was that Labour party was institutionally anti semitic under him?
Well that's down to personal opinion but Labour has always been a democratic socialist party, Corbyn is much farther to the left than that.You're right, he doesn't. I meant that he represents what it should be, not what it is.
Exactly, thanks. (The pro-Brexit part of the left, that is.)
Edit: As far as I understand the numbers, conservative voters also provided the largest share of leave votes in the 2016 referendum. So that's part of it too.
You're right, he doesn't. I meant that he represents what it should be, not what it is.
Clever trap. Set a trap for Corbyn to say what is mind-bogglingly obvious to anyone with half a brain, and then alienate the left who revere him. Genius.He deserves to be suspended for the stupidity of falling for the trap really. Starmer was always going to jump on anything.
The interview on Sky he rightly says the public perception was way out of whack with reality 0.3% members accused of anti-semtism compared to 33% believed to be the figure but facts don't matter.
Clever trap. Set a trap for Corbyn to say what is mind-bogglingly obvious to anyone with half a brain, and then alienate the left who revere him. Genius.
This is what people fail to realise, Starmer is playing the long game with this decision which will ultimately pay off in the long run. Hard to argue with based on the leadership being one of the reasons cited for people turning away from Labour at the previous election.
I think you’re wrong. For many on the left, Corbyn is probably the only politician they’ve ever really liked and respected. The real deal. If Corbyn isn’t reinstated, like, now, many of them will never forgive Starmer and he can forget about ever becoming PM.
Well that's down to personal opinion but Labour has always been a democratic socialist party, Corbyn is much farther to the left than that.
Corbyn wouldn't have been to the left of even the parliamentary Labour party until the early 90s. This just isn't true historically.Well that's down to personal opinion but Labour has always been a democratic socialist party, Corbyn is much farther to the left than that.
Beat by a minute!Labour has not always been a democratic socialist party, nor is Corbyn further to the left than that. On what basis do you make both claims, be interested to see how you’ve come to this conclusion?
He's a Bennite, that was on the leftward edges of the PLP long before the 90s.Corbyn wouldn't have been to the left of even the parliamentary Labour party until the early 90s. This just isn't true historically.
By the late 80s arguably and certainly by the time he stood against Kinnock but I would say long before the 90s is hyperbole. He certainly wasn't to the left of Foot.He's a Bennite, that was on the leftward edges of the PLP long before the 90s.
I'd genuinely forgotten that Labour once had a leader as utterly inept and out of touch as Corbyn, but you're right, there was Foot too.By the late 80s arguably and certainly by the time he stood against Kinnock but I would say long before the 90s is hyperbole. He certainly wasn't to the left of Foot.
The ineptness isn't the point. The relative leftness to Benn was.I'd genuinely forgotten that Labour once had a leader as utterly inept and out of touch as Corbyn, but you're right, there was Foot too.
This is a solid decade out, his transformation from the mainstream to the left was in the 70s, to the extent that Foot put himself forward as the unity candidate against Benn's rebellion among the CLPs. The Healey deputy leadership win against him in 81 was seen as pivotal for that reason.By the late 80s arguably and certainly by the time he stood against Kinnock but I would say long before the 90s is hyperbole. He certainly wasn't to the left of Foot.
Aye, this is true.This is a solid decade out, his transformation from the mainstream to the left was in the 70s, to the extent that Foot put himself forward as the unity candidate against Benn's rebellion among the CLPs. The Healey deputy leadership win against him in 81 was seen as pivotal for that reason.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/...tisemitism-concerns-not-exaggerated-d6x3zdn0lMarie van der Zyl, president of the Board of Deputies of British Jews, said Labour should reject Mr Corbyn’s “non-apology”.
“If the party wants to show it is serious about tackling anti-Jewish racism, it will consign this statement, just like the culture that led to the EHRC’s damning findings, to the dustbin of history,” she said. “To do otherwise would be a failure of leadership that would risk the party slipping backwards.”
Gideon Falter, chief executive of Campaign Against Antisemitism, which was one of the complainants to the EHRC, said Mr Corbyn was attempting to “recast his comments gaslighting the Jewish community”.