Jeremy Corbyn - Not Not Labour Party(?), not a Communist (BBC)

Well that's internment for Steve then, at least until next season.



I was at the London Transport Museum a few weeks ago, and it's safe to say that the modern rolling stock lacks in a few areas. If any of you have travelled on the tube recently, the lack of upholstery on newer trains will be soon apparent (somebody's on the take IMO). Whereas you could sink into the seats on the ones from the 30s-50s, and there were compartments.
 
I'm blaming my posts on fat-burning pills.
 
Not too keen on this sort of opportunistic (and frankly misleading) statement from Rachel Reeves

We know we’ve got a growing problem of anti-Semitism in the Labour Party. Over the last few days and weeks we’ve seen more and more instances of people coming out with views which really have no place in the Labour Party. But also part of the problem is the slow response from the leadership of the party. We do need to see much swifter and more decisive action.
 
The Labour leader faced further criticism after it was claimed members of his inner circle demanded that Mr Mann was also suspended from the party for hitting out at Mr Livingstone.

Seumas Milne, Mr Corbyn’s most senior adviser, is said to have claimed Mr Livingstone “has a point”, prompting calls for his resignation.

Facing the most damaging scandal of his leadership so far, Mr Corbyn said: “No, there is not a problem. We are totally opposed to anti-Semitism in any form within the party.

"The very small number of cases that have been brought to our attention have been dealt with swiftly and immediately, and they will be."

He added: “The party membership is the biggest it has been in my lifetime. There are 400,000 individual members, there's 100,000 affiliated supporters, there are three million affiliated trade union members.

"It's a very big organisation and I suspect that much of this criticism that you are saying about a ‘crisis’ in the party actually comes from those who are nervous of the strength of the Labour Party at local level."

David Abrahams, a major party donor, withdrew his support for the party over the anti-Semitism scandal.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04/28/ken-livingstone-suspended-labour-party-anti-semitism/



What ought to have been a short, if forthright statement, was somewhat tarnished by those two closing sentences.
 
Last edited:
You know it's been a great day for party PR when the main headline on the BBC front page is "what's the difference between anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism?" over a picture of Ken.
 
Antisemitism has rocked Labour’s self-belief

Party members assumed they were the good guys, incapable of prejudice. But now Ken Livingstone and Naz Shah have laid bare the left’s capacity for racism

By Gaby Hinsliff
Thursday 28 April 2016


Actually, you’re just like a concentration camp guard. You’re just doing it because you’re paid to, aren’t you?” If you’re Jewish, and live in London, you might dimly recall those words. But if not, here’s a clue. They were spoken to a Jewish reporter a decade ago by the man who today indignantly described himself as having fought a lifelong battle against discrimination – shortly before being suspended from the Labour party for potentially bringing it into disrepute with clumsy references to Hitler.

Rereading the transcript of that 2005 exchange between Ken Livingstone and a hapless Evening Standard reporter today, what takes the breath away isn’t the rather tasteless suggestion from London’s then mayor that anyone working for a paper whose owners he disliked was probably “a German war criminal” in a previous life. It’s that when the reporter explained he was Jewish and was offended by the Nazi reference, Livingstone didn’t stop. He doubled down on the concentration camp stuff, took his spade and kept digging. And he got away with it. There were calls for his resignation, of course, but he got away with it.

He carried on being mayor for another two years, and has carried on ever since being feted by people who would have bayed for the blood of any Tory making racially insensitive remarks to a black reporter. He went on blithely to suggest that Jews have stopped voting Labour because they’re rich, and still didn’t really seem to see what the problem was; but then, he was surrounded by people who didn’t seem to want to see the problem either.

And that’s one explanation for how a politician as naturally gifted as Livingstone could ever think it a good idea to summon Hitler as a witness for the defence, when defending his party against allegations of antisemitism.

Perhaps he has simply lost sight of how it looks, outside the circles – once fringe, now mainstream in the Labour party – in which he moves. You could see today’s extraordinary day of bloodletting – which saw first the suspension of the Labour MP Naz Shah for pre-election Facebook posts suggesting Israel be forcibly transported to the US, and then that of Livingstone for only making matters worse – simply as payback for all the times someone got away with it. Fail to challenge dubious attitudes and they quickly seep into the mainstream.

But there is another possible explanation, and that’s the belief found close to many leftwing hearts that they, and they alone, are the good guys – the champions of equality and fairness – and therefore incapable of prejudice. They don’t need to question their assumptions, or take a long hard look in the mirror, because the racists are the other guys.

As Ken explained in injured tones to the BBC’s Martha Kearney today, real racism is when you’re rude to your neighbour’s face in Stoke Newington, which he’d never do. And anyway, racists would hardly be attracted to Labour, would they? To which one could almost hear his colleagues screaming at the radio; well if they weren’t before, mate, they might now.

The ferocity of the backlash against Livingstone from left to right of the party is a measure of MPs’ deep frustration and shame that a party that prides itself on fighting discrimination should have come to this. It’s not about factional infighting any more, rightwingers finding excuses to snipe at Jeremy Corbyn and his Stop the War mates. This is about a party trying desperately to stop itself being dragged into the gutter, and to assert values it once thought people took as read.

There is prejudice in all parties, from the Tory golf club bores who used to mutter that Michael Howard couldn’t be leader because of what was euphemistically called his “background” to the shaven-headed thugs of the far right. But for some time now it’s been clear Labour too had a boil to lance.

There were too many stories piling up; lurid although unproven allegations about Labour students using “Zio” as a routine term of abuse for Jews; a dismal string of councillors and activists peddling anti-Jewish conspiracy theories on social media; prominent Jewish leftwing figures saying they no longer felt comfortable in what the party had become. Ritual sacrifice was required.

But God, it’s depressing that it had to be Shah, on whom so many other women’s hopes were pinned after she famously survived a violent childhood, forced marriage at 15, the jailing of her mother for killing an abusive partner, and then a viciously dirty election campaign in order to reach parliament.

What a dismal way to end a career, over a motley collection of dubious posts shared on Facebook before she was elected; an “#apartheidIsrael” hashtag, some dark-sounding stuff about how the “Jews were rallying”. To be honest, I really didn’t want her to lose the whip any more than Corbyn did.

But there was no alternative, for all the reasons the frontbencher Lisa Nandy gave when she broke ranks to call for the suspension. It can’t be one rule for obscure councillors and activists and another for popular MPs. And besides, the blunt truth is that having under-reacted for so long to this creeping cancer spreading through the party, nothing but radical surgery now will do.

Some will see in this a chilling of debate over the Middle East, a silencing of pro-Palestinian voices in the Labour party. But that’s a mirror image of the eternal rightwing grumble that they’re not “allowed” to talk about immigration any more thanks to political correctness, and about as well founded.

Here’s a clue, for those confused about how to champion Palestinian rights or condemn an oppressive regime without overstepping the line: just treat Israel as you would any other country guilty of human rights abuses.

There’s nothing inherently antisemitic about seeking economic sanctions against Israel, supporting an oppressed minority’s right to self determination, condemning a government, or anything else you’d do if this was Burma.

But calling for its people to be swept into the sea, or forcibly transplanted somewhere else, or in any other way denying Israel’s right to exist, is crossing a line because that simply doesn’t happen to other countries no matter how oppressive their regime. No other nation state on the planet is constantly asked to prove itself morally worthy merely of being allowed to exist.

We don’t argue that the civilian population of Syria, or 1930s Germany for that matter, should have been forcibly removed from their homes and their nation states obliterated because of abuses committed by governments and condoned by some if not all of their citizens. Activists direct their fire at governments and political movements, people with the power to change. But there’s an uglier name for those who single out and target a race, religion or group of people; who talk about “the Jews” in a way they’d never talk about “the blacks”.

The wider lesson from Labour meanwhile, from what has been a dark and depressing week even by current standards, is that the trust of minorities is not given as of right to progressive parties but must be earned. For too long, Labour hasn’t done enough to deserve it.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/apr/28/antisemitism-rocked-labour-self-belief



A good article IMO.

On a regrettable note, both Hinsliff and Owen Jones have been victims of offensive online abuse during the past twenty-four hours.
 
A good article IMO.

On a regrettable note, both Hinsliff and Owen Jones have been victims of offensive online abuse during the past twenty-four hours.

It's a good article in many parts but it's naive to say this isn't a weaponised issue used against Corbyn, it has been long before his actual appointment.

The assertion that you can discuss the human rights violations as a seperate issue from anti-semitism isnt true either. There's many groups associated to Labour including progress that are staunchly pro Israel and criticism of Israel or support for Palestine has been routinely thrown in with anti-Semitism. Many academic discussions on Israel or univerdity boycots have seen political intervention and legal challenges for being anti-Semitic.

The problem for Corbyn is that he now has to be clear that he's tough on anti-Semitism despite his opinions on the Israeli goverment and the pressure he faces to amend those views.
 
Why are the media having a go at Corbyn's response? Seems like he responded well enough, made it clear anti-semitism was unacceptable and upheld Ken's suspension. What more do they want him to say or do? Call Ken a cnut? Burn a Palestinian flag?
 
This week's New Statesman podcast:

http://www.newstatesman.com/podcast

The first twenty minutes are dedicated to the anti-Semitism scandal, and the panel doesn't pull its punches with regard to Corbyn or Livingstone. Sadiq Khan did come in for some praise however.
 
Last edited:
The problem for Corbyn is that he now has to be clear that he's tough on anti-Semitism despite his opinions on the Israeli goverment and the pressure he faces to amend those views.

Nobody would give a toss about the Israeli/Palestinian conflict if the Jews were not involved.

That, and that alone, is the bottom line.
 
Why are the media having a go at Corbyn's response? Seems like he responded well enough, made it clear anti-semitism was unacceptable and upheld Ken's suspension. What more do they want him to say or do? call Ken a cnut? Burn a Palestinian flag?


Not only the media trying to disect his character , some of those blairites have been throwing their accusations about him.
 
Nobody would give a toss about the Israeli/Palestinian conflict if the Jews were not involved.

That, and that alone, is the bottom line.

Nobody would give a toss about South African apartheid if the White South Africans were not involved

Oh wait...
 
This week's New Statesman podcast:

http://www.newstatesman.com/podcast

The first twenty minutes are dedicated to the anti-Semitism scandal, and the panel doesn't pull its punches with regard to Corbyn or Livingstone. Sadiq Khan did come in for some praise however.
New Statesman have been excellent over the past year or so. Here's another article from another columnist that happens to be both Jewish and a lefty - http://www.newstatesman.com/politic...mitism-there-s-only-so-much-left-wing-jew-can

But no doubt people will still claim this is all just being drummed up to get at Corbyn, rather than actually being a deeply concerning recent trend.
 
Not only the media trying to disect his character , some of those blairites have been throwing their accusations about him.

Say what you want about George Galloway, but he was spot on when he said that the outrage generated from within the Labour party has been a concentrated effort by the Blairites to conjure up internal chaos in order to make Corbyn's leadership position untenable.
 
New Statesman have been excellent over the past year or so. Here's another article from another columnist that happens to be both Jewish and a lefty - http://www.newstatesman.com/politic...mitism-there-s-only-so-much-left-wing-jew-can

But no doubt people will still claim this is all just being drummed up to get at Corbyn, rather than actually being a deeply concerning recent trend.

Isn't it mostly from before his time though? Surely those in charge before him should be getting just as much flak. It's being painted as a growing problem thanks to Corbyn's leadership attracting crazy lefties and Corbyn doing nothing about it when was clearly happening before his time and nothing was being done about it then.

Of course something needs to be done about it - and is being done - but all those trying to pin it on Corbyn can feck off!
 
New Statesman have been excellent over the past year or so. Here's another article from another columnist that happens to be both Jewish and a lefty - http://www.newstatesman.com/politic...mitism-there-s-only-so-much-left-wing-jew-can

But no doubt people will still claim this is all just being drummed up to get at Corbyn, rather than actually being a deeply concerning recent trend.

The incidents are noteworthy incidents that have been handled. The story (going bsck over months) though is targeted at Corbyn. The israel lobby group BICOM yesterday tweeted to save the pitchforks for Corbyn. That's the same lobby group where the Oxford "whistle-blower" interned.

I can certainly see why these groups would be concerned with the previous dialogue Corbyn has held as it's against their interests/views.

Do you really think these issues are new? Controversial university demonstrations around Israel certainly arent. Naz Shah was chosen under Milliband so that's a failure in vetting before his time
 
It's quite telling that in so many of these things they talk about the scandals erupting and them being Corbyn's problem but don't mention the fact that the offences happened before Corbyn was actually leader.
 
It's quite telling that in so many of these things they talk about the scandals erupting and them being Corbyn's problem but don't mention the fact that the offences happened before Corbyn was actually leader.

If Liz Kendall was Labour leader you can guarantee there won't be anywhere near as many pitchforks nor would you have Labour MPs lining up to undermine her.

This whole saga has been overblown as a means of uprooting Corbyn. So naturally they're going to hold him culpable, even for events preceding his leadership.
 
New Statesman have been excellent over the past year or so. Here's another article from another columnist that happens to be both Jewish and a lefty - http://www.newstatesman.com/politic...mitism-there-s-only-so-much-left-wing-jew-can

But no doubt people will still claim this is all just being drummed up to get at Corbyn, rather than actually being a deeply concerning recent trend.

In the past i had steered clear of political periodicals, believing the output and subscription fees weren't worth the effort, however i'm contemplating a test-run of both the Spectator and New Statesman subscriptions.

The article you posted was a good read: in addition to the analysis of anti-Semitism, i also liked the snippet on child refugees and the idiom education.



@Smores and @Shamwow - I don't know if you listened to the NS pod as yet, however the charge against Corbyn is one of long term behaviour as well as leadership. Intended on his part or otherwise, he is seen as being representative of a broader cultural problem which exists within the party.
 
Last edited:
@Smores and @Shamwow - I don't know if you listened to the NS pod as yet, however the charge against Corbyn is one of long term behaviour as well as leadership. Intended on his part or otherwise, he is seen as being representative of a broader cultural problem which exists within the party.

You mean him calling Hamas friends etc?
 
@Smores and @Shamwow - I don't know if you listened to the NS pod as yet, however the charge against Corbyn is one of long term behaviour as well as leadership. Intended on his part or otherwise, he is seen as being representative of a broader cultural problem which exists within the party.

I hadn't so I took that recommendation while preparing dinner and now wish I hadn't.

It did comply with what I said above though, these incidents are just being used to bring to the fore opposition of Corbyn's previous actions perhaps fair enough.

The lobby groups discussed are the ones who kick up a fuss at any anti-israel movement/platform at universities, they simply don't want that discussion taking place which is why they've repeatedly called for Corbyn to distance himself from such actions.

I must say asserting Corbyn and the hard left are closet antisemites who perhaps just can't admit it to themselves is a real gem of political opinion podcasting.
 
I'd agree certainly that this didn't start under Corbyn, but it's unquestionably come more to the forefront.

We're in the position at the moment where Burnham was on Question Time last night actually beginning his response to the Ken question with the phrase (paraphrasing here) - "I don't believe I'm a member of an anti-semitic party". Like, fecking hell. How does it not terrify people that that even has to be said, and only "believe" at that. This is the kind of taint that sticks to a party for years.

The main reason people are criticising Corbyn for this is that the responses to both incidents really weren't as quick and forceful as people here have suggested. He let the Shah situation stew past PMQs, where Cameron used it as he obviously would, past the time where she made her apology to the House, past the time shadow cabinet member that can hardly be described as anything close to Blairite had said a suspension was necessary, before finally doing it. With Ken, he was touring the TV studios digging deeper holes for himself with every passing minute, and it was hours before Corbyn did anything. When he finally did, he reportedly wanted Mann suspended as well, before the whip's office said no to that. Seumas Milne, the unrestrained cnut, didn't think anything Ken said was that bad.

I don't think Corbyn's anti-semitic for a second. I do think he has far too relaxed an attitude towards it, almost as if it's of slightly lesser importance to other kinds of intolerance. If there were people making islamophobic or anti-black comments, they'd be dealt with unhesitatingly. When it's anti-semitic, we have to go through the initial "well, it's not anti-semitic, it's just anti-zionist" bullshit. It was happening in this very thread.
 
I'd agree certainly that this didn't start under Corbyn, but it's unquestionably come more to the forefront.

It's come to the forefront because you have the media and the PLP adamant that the heat's on Corbyn. Like I said earlier, if the leader was a Blairite drone like Liz Kendall, we wouldn't see a fraction of the witch hunt Corbyn's currently facing.

We're in the position at the moment where Burnham was on Question Time last night actually beginning his response to the Ken question with the phrase (paraphrasing here) - "I don't believe I'm a member of an anti-semitic party". Like, fecking hell. How does it not terrify people that that even has to be said, and only "believe" at that. This is the kind of taint that sticks to a party for years.

The main reason people are criticising Corbyn for this is that the responses to both incidents really weren't as quick and forceful as people here have suggested. He let the Shah situation stew past PMQs, where Cameron used it as he obviously would, past the time where she made her apology to the House, past the time shadow cabinet member that can hardly be described as anything close to Blairite had said a suspension was necessary, before finally doing it. With Ken, he was touring the TV studios digging deeper holes for himself with every passing minute, and it was hours before Corbyn did anything. When he finally did, he reportedly wanted Mann suspended as well, before the whip's office said no to that. Seumas Milne, the unrestrained cnut, didn't think anything Ken said was that bad.

I don't think Corbyn's anti-semitic for a second. I do think he has far too relaxed an attitude towards it, almost as if it's of slightly lesser importance to other kinds of intolerance. If there were people making islamophobic or anti-black comments, they'd be dealt with unhesitatingly. When it's anti-semitic, we have to go through the initial "well, it's not anti-semitic, it's just anti-zionist" bullshit. It was happening in this very thread.

He's already made it adamantly clear that anti-semitism would not be tolerated and upheld the suspensions of both Naz Shah and Ken Livingstone. What more do you want him to do? Send them both to the gallows?

As for your last comment, we had the Prime Minister label the leader of the opposition a terrorist sympathiser, the current Tory London mayor insinuate that the US president hates the UK because of his ancestral background, and the Tory london mayoral candidate (with the blessing of the Prime Minister) label his Muslim counterpart a radical. Did any of those garner nearly as much outrage? Did it feck.
 
It's come to the forefront because you have the media and the PLP adamant that the heat's on Corbyn. Like I said earlier, if the leader was a Blairite drone like Liz Kendall, we wouldn't see a fraction of the witch hunt Corbyn's currently facing.



He's already made it adamantly clear that anti-semitism would not be tolerated and upheld the suspensions of both Naz Shah and Ken Livingstone. What more do you want him to do? Send them both to the gallows?

As for your last comment, we had the Prime Minister label the leader of the opposition a terrorist sympathiser, the current Tory London mayor insinuate that the US president hates the UK because of his ancestral background, and the Tory london mayoral candidate (with the blessing of the Prime Minister) label his Muslim counterpart a radical. Did any of those garner nearly as much outrage? Did it feck.
I'd like him to not look to be doing it reluctantly, or as if he's under pressure to do it. If you think the reaction was quick enough for either case then fair fecks, to others it looked like pulling teeth. I also don't think it's a stretch to say his friendship with Ken, and the fact he's brought him back into the inner workings of the party on the NEC and in the defence review, may have been a factor.

As for those last examples, yeah, the people you'd possibly write-off as Blairites were scathing of those at the time. They were also scathing of the Government's decision not to let in a few thousand lone child refugees from the middle east. A further reminder that being in government is actually quite important.
 
I'd agree certainly that this didn't start under Corbyn, but it's unquestionably come more to the forefront.

We're in the position at the moment where Burnham was on Question Time last night actually beginning his response to the Ken question with the phrase (paraphrasing here) - "I don't believe I'm a member of an anti-semitic party". Like, fecking hell. How does it not terrify people that that even has to be said, and only "believe" at that. This is the kind of taint that sticks to a party for years.

The main reason people are criticising Corbyn for this is that the responses to both incidents really weren't as quick and forceful as people here have suggested. He let the Shah situation stew past PMQs, where Cameron used it as he obviously would, past the time where she made her apology to the House, past the time shadow cabinet member that can hardly be described as anything close to Blairite had said a suspension was necessary, before finally doing it. With Ken, he was touring the TV studios digging deeper holes for himself with every passing minute, and it was hours before Corbyn did anything. When he finally did, he reportedly wanted Mann suspended as well, before the whip's office said no to that. Seumas Milne, the unrestrained cnut, didn't think anything Ken said was that bad.

I don't think Corbyn's anti-semitic for a second. I do think he has far too relaxed an attitude towards it, almost as if it's of slightly lesser importance to other kinds of intolerance. If there were people making islamophobic or anti-black comments, they'd be dealt with unhesitatingly. When it's anti-semitic, we have to go through the initial "well, it's not anti-semitic, it's just anti-zionist" bullshit. It was happening in this very thread.

The Shah thing was annoying from a PR point of view but looking at it objectively he still acted swiftly. Ken was gone within 2 hours.

I'm not keen on believing the rumours either. There was a Buzzfeed article that the leader's office had mentions of anti-semitism stripped out of Shah's apology, which apparently came from a party source. They had to retract that article.
 
I'd like him to not look to be doing it reluctantly, or as if he's under pressure to do it. If you think the reaction was quick enough for either case then fair fecks, to others it looked like pulling teeth. I also don't think it's a stretch to say his friendship with Ken, and the fact he's brought him back into the inner workings of the party on the NEC and in the defence review, may have been a factor.

As for those last examples, yeah, the people you'd possibly write-off as Blairites were scathing of those at the time. They were also scathing of the Government's decision not to let in a few thousand lone child refugees from the middle east. A further reminder that being in government is actually quite important.

Reluctantly? Its no secret that Livingstone is a good friend and ally of Corbyn, but he did make a statement the very same day and upheld a suspension which happened almost immediately following the comments. What else would you have him do? Renounce his friendship with Ken?

For the latter point I was talking about the media's response, or rather lack of following those incidents.
 
The Shah thing was annoying from a PR point of view but looking at it objectively he still acted swiftly. Ken was gone within 2 hours.

I'm not keen on believing the rumours either. There was a Buzzfeed article that the leader's office had mentions of anti-semitism stripped out of Shah's apology, which apparently came from a party source. They had to retract that article.
We're in the era of rolling news, where comments are in the public domain minutes after being made or less and then discussed unendingly by talking heads. I'm not sure what excuse there is for taking as long as he did, particularly when PMQs were upcoming. Your Ken timeline is a little off, it was nearly five hours from his initial comments at 8:50am till the suspension announcement at 1:30pm - http://www.theguardian.com/politics...-leading-to-ken-livingstone-suspension-labour

I have no doubt believing the Milne reports in particular, just have to read his Guardian articles to know he's probably even worse than Ken.

Reluctantly? Its no secret that Livingstone is a good friend and ally of Corbyn, but he did make a statement the very same day and upheld a suspension which happened almost immediately following the comments. What else would you have him do? Renounce his friendship with Ken?

For the latter point I was talking about the media's response, or rather lack of following those incidents.
See above. And the media were certainly covering both Boris and Goldsmith's remarks, the former's comments were frequently used to embarrass Leavers in interviews, I remember Farage lying out of his arse trying to say "it wasn't the language I'd use" despite saying exactly the same the previous day, and for the latter they did a good job in digging out the hypocrisy by finding ample Tory links to the cleric, and Khan has had a massive poll bump since. There hasn't been the fervour, it was probably at a similar level to the Gerry Downing stuff a few weeks ago, but two cases of Corbyn-linked prominent politicians saying anti-semitic stuff within a day of each other is always going to get a lot of chat.
 
We're in the era of rolling news, where comments are in the public domain minutes after being made or less and then discussed unendingly by talking heads. I'm not sure what excuse there is for taking as long as he did, particularly when PMQs were upcoming. Your Ken timeline is a little off, it was nearly five hours from his initial comments at 8:50am till the suspension announcement at 1:30pm - http://www.theguardian.com/politics...-leading-to-ken-livingstone-suspension-labour

Which is why I said it's annoying from a PR point of view, but really when you think about it what's the actual issue with how long it took aside from PR? As far as I'm aware Corbyn can't just suspend anyone, it has to go through the NEC. I'd be interested to know the exact process taken on both occasions.

I have no doubt believing the Milne reports in particular, just have to read his Guardian articles to know he's probably even worse than Ken.

Which means that a "Labour source" can claim pretty much anything they want that roughly fits the expected narrative and plenty of people will be happy to lap it up.
 
We're in the era of rolling news, where comments are in the public domain minutes after being made or less and then discussed unendingly by talking heads. I'm not sure what excuse there is for taking as long as he did, particularly when PMQs were upcoming. Your Ken timeline is a little off, it was nearly five hours from his initial comments at 8:50am till the suspension announcement at 1:30pm - http://www.theguardian.com/politics...-leading-to-ken-livingstone-suspension-labour

I have no doubt believing the Milne reports in particular, just have to read his Guardian articles to know he's probably even worse than Ken.


See above. And the media were certainly covering both Boris and Goldsmith's remarks, the former's comments were frequently used to embarrass Leavers in interviews, I remember Farage lying out of his arse trying to say "it wasn't the language I'd use" despite saying exactly the same the previous day, and for the latter they did a good job in digging out the hypocrisy by finding ample Tory links to the cleric, and Khan has had a massive poll bump since. There hasn't been the fervour, it was probably at a similar level to the Gerry Downing stuff a few weeks ago, but two cases of Corbyn-linked prominent politicians saying anti-semitic stuff within a day of each other is always going to get a lot of chat.

The difference between the media coverage of those comments I listed and Corbyn's current witch hunt are like night and day. You can't really compare the two.

Oh and Corbyn has just set up a independent inquiry into anti-semitism within the party.
 
Last edited:
Good start, hopefully anyone found gets kicked out promptly and publicly.
 
I find it a bit bizarre that Corbyn's leadership is being questioned over this.

The response is everything you would want to see (probably thanks to McDonnell to be honest)
 
I find it a bit bizarre that Corbyn's leadership is being questioned over this.

The response is everything you would want to see (probably thanks to McDonnell to be honest)
Possibly an interesting sub-plot to watch unfold.
 
Ken Livingstone's interview on LBC:


Sorry seems to be the hardest word.




^ It is reminiscent of those occasions where football fans defend their club or a player for some crime or act of wrongdoing, they lose all perspective.
 
If your defence of your remarks is that Netanyahu said the same thing (in the context of blaming the Palestinians for the holocaust), you should know something has gone horribly wrong.


I do agree that there is some horrible opportunism on display as well. Take Ian Austin MP:

1. Praise John Mann



2. Blame the leadership/Milne for anti-semitism leading on Question Time, despite John Mann's actions contributing substantially to the prominence of the story



3. Care so deeply about anti-semitism that you make a nice little Hitler joke about the whole affair



Colossal arse
 
Seriously though, Ken needs to shut the feck up. No one is doing close to as much damage to the party as he is right now. He's suspended, he needs to put the ego away (at least for a fecking WEEK) and hide somewhere. Preferably not a disabled toilet though.
 
Right now the headline on the BBC is "Livingstone stands by Hitler Comments" when it could easily be "Morgan Heckled at heads' conference". Thanks Ken!