Keir Starmer Labour Leader

Shamwow said:
You're drawing an equivalence between all lives matter and fighting all forms of racism, which certain types will absolutely pick up on and exploit.
Click to expand...

No, the equivalence being drawn is responding in generalities to specifics as a means to delegitimise the topic at hand. People who espouse all lives matter are doing so because they wish to delegitimise black lives matter movement; there is a similar feeling that Corbyn's response to 'all forms of racism' when the matter at hand is specifically anti-semitism is an attempt to do the same thing.

It's easy to see why jewish people may feel like it's serving to evade the main point — his party's failure to tackle this specific form of discrimination — and point towards a general disinterest to opposing the specific form of racism that is actually at stake here, especially when Corbyn's track record on anti-semitism is unideal. Whatever we personally think about the issue, there are plenty of Jews who think that Corbyn is an antisemite.

That doesn't mean that there aren't other forms of racism which need to be tackled, nor that Corbyn invoking them is hollow, or that he is invoking them as disingenuously as ALM wankers, but that the general response to the specific question has the effect of making Corbyn seem uninterested or unconcerned on focussing on this particular form of racism and discrimination.
 
Frosty said:
From what I know, and have been told, Starmer basically gave an instruction to clear the backlog of anti-Semitism suspensions as quickly as possible.

Under the current rulebook, passed by conference, if I was to openly post something anti-Semtiic on social media, I would be auto-suspended and the investigation would be fast tracked: https://labour.org.uk/wp-content/up...atistics-Report-No-Place-For-Antisemitism.pdf

However, if for example it could be proven that I campaigned for another political party, or supported ideas incompatible with the Labour Party, I could be expelled without a hearing.

There was a trawl of suspended members social media history, and the Party used what they found (previous membership of the SWP, openly supporting the Greens etc) as a way of getting rid of people without appeals and reducing the backlog.

Previously, under Corbyn, head office was relaxed about people joining Labour who may have been members of TUSC or the SWP very recently. Their attitude was that if MPs can cross the floor and change affiliation, it is only fair that members can do the same.
Click to expand...

Ah, that's pretty smart.
 
NinjaFletch said:
No, the equivalence being drawn is responding in generalities to specifics as a means to delegitimise the topic at hand. People who espouse all lives matter are doing so because they wish to delegitimise black lives matter movement; there is a similar feeling that Corbyn's response to 'all forms of racism' when the matter at hand is specifically anti-semitism is an attempt to do the same thing.
Click to expand...

If putting anti semitism alongside other forms of racism delegitimises it to you then that suggests a hierarchy of racism in your mind.
 
Frosty said:
The first was eventually suspended after the story was leaked, then defended by a Labour MP, and she left the Party before any measures were taken.

The latter was only suspended after the story was leaked to a bunch of media outlets - Jenny Formby sat on it for 10 days doing nothing. I believe they were eventually expelled within a few days of Starmer taking over.
Click to expand...

Who was the first case you mention out of interest?
 
NinjaFletch said:
That's a completely disingenuous reading and you know it.
Click to expand...

The irony of that claim :lol:

Especially after writing 'Whatever we personally think about the issue, there are plenty who'

"However, tackling antisemitism isn’t just about procedures. It is also about making sure that the Labour Party has a culture that clearly reflects its zero tolerance of antisemitism and indeed of all forms of discrimination."

Do you think it's appropriate for the EHRC to tack on the final words in the above or is that also detracting from the issue of anti-semitism? Might it be perhaps that the solution, rules, procedures have to be equal to all types of discrimination so when you speak about one you speak generally?
 
MikeUpNorth said:
It's being said in direct response to the Equalities and Human Rights Council finding that the Labour Party has an antisemitism problem and has illegally discriminated against and harassed jews, for goodness sake!

Black lives matter. "All lives matter."
Antisemitism matters. "All racism matters."
Click to expand...
Nah, sorry, I'm not having it.

You're not comparing Jeremy Corbyn, a man who's spent decades campaigning against racism, to a bunch of gammons who aren't happy black people are asking to be treated like humans.
 
Mogget said:
Nah, sorry, I'm not having it.

You're not comparing Jeremy Corbyn, a man who's spent decades campaigning against racism, to a bunch of gammons who aren't happy black people are asking to be treated like humans.
Click to expand...
Campaigning against racism, laying wreaths, liking murals, getting found to have presided over unlawful discrimination and harassment of jews by the EHRC. Top bloke.
 
MikeUpNorth said:
Probably this: https://www.theargus.co.uk/news/15401660.labour-mp-slammed-in-anti-semitism-row/
Click to expand...

The row began before the election when Labour Party member Melanie Melvin was suspended for actions including a tweet which read:“Breaking: Sarin gas was filmed by the BBC at Pinewood on the orders of Mrs May and the Israeli lobby.”

Following a conversation with Ms Melvin, Mr Russell-Moyle wrote to Labour Party general secretary Iain McNicol on June 30 to say her tweet seemed “unhinged at best” but had, he believed, been made as a parody of online conspiracy theorists.

He said her behaviour showed “naivety but no malicious intent” and said, as a “stalwart of the campaign” who has apologised, the member should be reinstated.
Click to expand...

Am I mad or does that tweet actually read like a parody. Or is that just the point we've reached.

"“Breaking: Sarin gas was filmed by the BBC at Pinewood on the orders of Mrs May and the Israeli lobby.”
 
Shamwow said:
Am I mad or does that tweet actually read like a parody. Or is that just the point we've reached.

"“Breaking: Sarin gas was filmed by the BBC at Pinewood on the orders of Mrs May and the Israeli lobby.”
Click to expand...
I wondered that so looked at her twitter account just now. Yeah, not a parody I'm afraid.
 
Smores said:
The irony of that claim :lol:

Especially after writing 'Whatever we personally think about the issue, there are plenty who'

"However, tackling antisemitism isn’t just about procedures. It is also about making sure that the Labour Party has a culture that clearly reflects its zero tolerance of antisemitism and indeed of all forms of discrimination."

Do you think it's appropriate for the EHRC to tack on the final words in the above or is that also detracting from the issue of discrimination? Might it be perhaps that the solution, rules, procedures have to be equal to all types of discrimination so when you speak about one you speak generally?
Click to expand...

Of course, but that's a conflation of the argument I am making.

My issue is with responding to direct issues of, in this instance, anti-semitism with general claims about anti-racism work in a culture of a party who has been rapped over the knuckles for not taking the issue seriously enough.

As today's report has made clear the repeated assurances that 'all forms of racism' are taken seriously has not sufficiently been extended to antisemitism and more needs to be done. It does not undermine other anti-racist work, as seems I think to be the argument, to reassure a specific group that you have been specifically asked about because of specific instances of racism against then that you are specifically opposed to racism against them. In fact, surely taking issues of specific discrimination seriously on their own merits seems to me to be the way you build a zero tolerance approach?
 
MikeUpNorth said:
It's being said in direct response to the Equalities and Human Rights Council finding that the Labour Party has an antisemitism problem and has illegally discriminated against and harassed jews, for goodness sake!

Black lives matter. "All lives matter."
Antisemitism matters. "All racism matters."
Click to expand...
"All lives matter" = my life matters.
"All racism matters" = all racism matters.
 
RK said:
"All lives matter" = my life matters.
"All racism matters" = all racism matters.
Click to expand...
And what a fine day it was to choose to remind jews that it is in fact all racism that matters.
 
NinjaFletch said:
Of course, but that's a conflation of the argument I am making.

My issue is with responding to direct issues of, in this instance, anti-semitism with general claims about anti-racism work in a culture of a party who has been rapped over the knuckles for not taking the issue seriously enough.

As today's report has made clear the repeated assurances that 'all forms of racism' are taken seriously has not sufficiently been extended to antisemitism and more needs to be done. It does not undermine other anti-racist work, as seems I think to be the argument, to reassure a specific group that you have been specifically asked about because of specific instances of racism against then that you are specifically opposed to racism against them. In fact, surely taking issues of specific discrimination seriously on their own merits seems to me to be the way you build a zero tolerance approach?
Click to expand...

That's quite a claim there.

Is there any assurance that Labours procedures would have been adequate for a significant increase of other forms of discrimination as you're suggesting? I can't recall reading such a thing but if there was I'm certain they'd have found the party to be institutionally anti-semitic which they explicitly did not.

Many of todays findings would have applied equally to any form of racism or discrimination. The benefit isn't exclusive.
 
MikeUpNorth said:
And what a fine day it was to choose to remind jews that it is in fact all racism that matters.
Click to expand...

There's never a bad day to mention fighting all forms of racism in solidarity with fighting anti-semitism.
 
Smores said:
That's quite a claim there.

Is there any assurance that Labours procedures would have been adequate for a significant increase of other forms of discrimination as you're suggesting? I can't recall reading such a thing but if there was I'm certain they'd have found the party to be institutionally anti-semitic which they explicitly did not.

Many of todays findings would have applied equally to any form of racism or discrimination. The benefit isn't exclusive.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure I'm arguing that is, am I? Just why Corbyn's response has not gone down well with people who felt let down by his leadership on the issue.
 
Fingeredmouse said:
I'm still reading the report but it does seem that there is a genuine issue so far to me.

That, however, doesn't deflect from the fact that this has been gleefully weaponised to destroy Corbyn who I see no evidence is antisemitic (and plenty of evidence to the contrary).
Click to expand...
Corbyn doesn't have to be personally antisemitic, although he does seem to have a strange blind spot about it. I mean, that mural - c'mon.
 
Smores said:
It'll be interesting to see if this sets an expectation from the Tory probe into islamaphobia. Anyone who dares downplay the issue or suggest alternative motives as they have done in the past will be expected to go?
Click to expand...

Labour now has the political cover to go after the Tories on this, that they might have otherwise found difficult. I sincerely hope they do.
 
NinjaFletch said:
I'm not sure I'm arguing that is, am I? Just why Corbyn's response has not gone down well with people who felt let down by his leadership on the issue.
Click to expand...

That's how i read this passage:

"As today's report has made clear the repeated assurances that 'all forms of racism' are taken seriously has not sufficiently been extended to antisemitism and more needs to be done."

I don't even buy the argument if you're just talking about perception because plenty of groups have expressed concern recently about hierarchies.

Labour need to sort out the complaints procedures and take it more seriously that was the findings of the EHRC report. It might have been raised by one specific group given the entryism of the hard left but it's an effort needed for all.

Anywhere this debate has run it's course for me. I think you just want to 'win' rather than reflect so feel free to consider yourself to have won :lol:
 
neverdie said:
They know he isn't an antisemite.
Click to expand...

"They" don't know any such thing. You can make the case that anyone who is so often adjacent to anti semites, is comfortable with some sort of a hierarchy of racism.
 
Smores said:
That's how i read this passage:

"As today's report has made clear the repeated assurances that 'all forms of racism' are taken seriously has not sufficiently been extended to antisemitism and more needs to be done."

I don't even buy the argument if you're just talking about perception because plenty of groups have expressed concern recently about hierarchies.

Labour need to sort out the complaints procedures and take it more seriously that was the findings of the EHRC report. It might have been raised by one specific group given the entryism of the hard left but it's an effort needed for all.

Anywhere this debate has run it's course for me. I think you just want to 'win' rather than reflect so feel free to consider yourself to have won :lol:
Click to expand...

I'm just confused why you think that was at issue in the debate?

But anyway, I think we both essentially want the same thing, both in terms of how Labour ultimately responds to the report, and with the general direction of the party, and, probably, where Starmer is falling short. Corbyn's response to it is ultimately a storm in a tea cup, and if you don't agree then fine.
 
Frosty said:
There was a trawl of suspended members social media history, and the Party used what they found (previous membership of the SWP, openly supporting the Greens etc) as a way of getting rid of people without appeals and reducing the backlog.
Click to expand...

Former membership of the SWP prevents you joining the Labour party? Is it all political parties or just a select group?
 
MikeUpNorth said:
I wondered that so looked at her twitter account just now. Yeah, not a parody I'm afraid.
Click to expand...

Shamwow said:
Am I mad or does that tweet actually read like a parody. Or is that just the point we've reached.

"“Breaking: Sarin gas was filmed by the BBC at Pinewood on the orders of Mrs May and the Israeli lobby.”
Click to expand...

Yep, completely serious. She was elected to an office in the CLP on the basis of standing up in 2016 and saying she supported Jeremy Corbyn. Zero vetting took place.
 
sun_tzu said:
something like this
Click to expand...
I'll give Untied his due, he is at least out here defending the view that was so prevalent on the Corbyn thread, unlike the rest of those cultists, so marks for consistency even if he's still learned absolutely nothing.
 
Fingeredmouse said:
Former membership of the SWP prevents you joining the Labour party? Is it all political parties or just a select group?
Click to expand...


Rule 2.1.4. of the Labour Party rule book is the important bit:

"A member of the Party who joins and/or supports a political organisation other than an official Labour group or other unit of the Party, or supports any candidate who stands against an official Labour candidate, or publicly declares their intent to stand against a Labour candidate, shall automatically be ineligible to be or remain a Party member..."

As a membership organisation the Labour Party can (broadly speaking) interpret its own rules, and this section is interpreted very broadly.

It is what justified the expulsion of Alastair Campbell for voting Lib Dem, and applies to any and all other parties (I used the SWP as I know of cases where people were expelled for that reason).
 
Frosty said:
Rule 2.1.4. of the Labour Party rule book is the important bit:

"A member of the Party who joins and/or supports a political organisation other than an official Labour group or other unit of the Party, or supports any candidate who stands against an official Labour candidate, or publicly declares their intent to stand against a Labour candidate, shall automatically be ineligible to be or remain a Party member..."

As a membership organisation the Labour Party can (broadly speaking) interpret its own rules, and this section is interpreted very broadly.

It is what justified the expulsion of Alastair Campbell for voting Lib Dem, and applies to any and all other parties (I used the SWP as I know of cases where people were expelled for that reason).
Click to expand...
Sure. It was the "former" part that surprised (and concerned) me.
 
nickm said:
Labour now has the political cover to go after the Tories on this, that they might have otherwise found difficult. I sincerely hope they do.
Click to expand...
It'd need Tories to go after Tories and the media to follow it up. I'd be surprised if it happened, unless those that decide want a change of leadership.

Also, I'm honestly not sure that a perception of Islamophobia hurts the election credentials of the Conservatives.
 
nickm said:
Labour now has the political cover to go after the Tories on this, that they might have otherwise found difficult. I sincerely hope they do.
Click to expand...

Very good point.
I for one agree with what Starmer had done. He has to show the country that he is prepared to make a clean break with the disastrous Corbyn era.
And if others don't agree, then I don't really care. I want this shambolic government out and Labour back in power.
 
Buster15 said:
Very good point.
I for one agree with what Starmer had done. He has to show the country that he is prepared to make a clean break with the disastrous Corbyn era.
And if others don't agree, then I don't really care. I want this shambolic government out and Labour back in power.
Click to expand...
It's only a good point if it is either plausible or practical. Is taking on the Tories on Islamophobia (or, indeed, antisemitism) a viable election strategy.

I'm sure you don't care. The slow death of the left as a political force in Britain, of which this is but the latest chapter, brings me no joy.
 
The timing of gutting Corbyn from the Labour party is terrible. Conservatives have been taking beating after beating over starving school children.

But gutting Corbyn form the Labour party is absolutely necessary
 
rcoobc said:
The timing of gutting Corbyn from the Labour party is terrible. Conservatives have been taking beating after beating over starving school children.

But gutting Corbyn form the Labour party is absolutely necessary
Click to expand...
The timing is surely strategically perfect for Starmer given the distance from the election and Labour's current tactics?
 
Fingeredmouse said:
It's only a good point if it is either plausible or practical. Is taking on the Tories on Islamophobia (or, indeed, antisemitism) a viable election strategy.

I'm sure you don't care. The slow death of the left as a political force in Britain, of which this is but the latest chapter, brings me no joy.
Click to expand...

Of course this is not the time to take the Tories on Islamophobia. But the time will come.
What I care about is getting rid of this incompetent government. That won't happen in the short term. But the most important thing for Labour is winning back the trust of the electorate. And once the EHRC report was issued, Starmer had to accept it in total.
 
rcoobc said:
The timing of gutting Corbyn from the Labour party is terrible. Conservatives have been taking beating after beating over starving school children.

But gutting Corbyn form the Labour party is absolutely necessary
Click to expand...

The timing is perfect.
It clearly demonstrates the difference between the two leaders.
 
Buster15 said:
The timing is perfect.
It clearly demonstrates the difference between the two leaders.
Click to expand...
True, but what I find strange is that everyone seems to think that it marks the end of the far left in the party. I suspect it's just the first shot of a long and bitter struggle to come. A necessary battle, but it won't be a quick one I'm afraid.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.