Keir Starmer Labour Leader

Mogget said:
Why? I'd say this current Conservative party is a successful political party and full of morally bankrupt individuals who are "good" at being politicians and staying in power. Look where that's got us.

Wanting Labour to emulate them just so they can get in power sort of defeats the purpose of having Labour in power. What's the point if they're basically trying to be Tory lite?
Click to expand...
The Tory-lite Neoliberal Blairite New Blue Labour Party, to give us our full name.
 
Mogget said:
Why? I'd say this current Conservative party is a successful political party and full of morally bankrupt individuals who are "good" at being politicians and staying in power. Look where that's got us.

Wanting Labour to emulate them just so they can get in power sort of defeats the purpose of having Labour in power. What's the point if they're basically trying to be Tory lite?
Click to expand...

Honestly after nearly a year of full fat Tory, I'm starting to yearn for a bit of Tory-lite just to settle things down for a bit and slow the descent.
 
Mogget said:
Why? I'd say this current Conservative party is a successful political party and full of morally bankrupt individuals who are "good" at being politicians and staying in power. Look where that's got us.

Wanting Labour to emulate them just so they can get in power sort of defeats the purpose of having Labour in power. What's the point if they're basically trying to be Tory lite?
Click to expand...

It's possible to be a good politician (aka a slimy conniving shit) without being either as morally bankrupt as the Tory party or near as damaging to the country. Maybe even while being able to make the country better, god forbid.

Better that than a bad politician with wonderful principles, who fails to make the country in any way better because he can't implement any of his ideas. Or worse, who allows literally the worst people in the country to run it, making things significantly worse for those he's trying to help, because he refuses to compromise enough to take power away from these much, much worse people.

The thing about politicians is that politics is literally their job. If they're not good at actual politics then they're pretty fundamentally useless.
 
Mogget said:
Why? I'd say this current Conservative party is a successful political party and full of morally bankrupt individuals who are "good" at being politicians and staying in power. Look where that's got us.

Wanting Labour to emulate them just so they can get in power sort of defeats the purpose of having Labour in power. What's the point if they're basically trying to be Tory lite?
Click to expand...
I don't think the Tory leaders are particularly good politicians actually, they just happened to be marginally better than labour's at the election, who were all time bad. The speed they have thrown their poll lead since the election sort of proves it.
 
nickm said:
I don't think the Tory leaders are particularly good politicians actually, they just happened to be marginally better than labour's at the election, who were all time bad. The speed they have thrown their poll lead since the election sort of proves it.
Click to expand...

That’s more to do with the brilliance of Sir Keith.
 
It's such a saddening point of view that people really believe the best this party can do is Tory lite. That's It's so inept at winning the argument that it has to be a slightly better version of their opponents.

It's as if there's this belief that the country is what it is and the Tories never move the debate just benefit from it.

Let's just give in lads, the worst of the Tory party can get the country to commit actual economic suicide but Labour can't do shit. Maybe if we pretend enough we might get some scraps.

I eagerly await the difficult sell on action against climate change.
 
Smores said:
It's such a saddening point of view that people really believe the best this party can do is Tory lite. That's It's so inept at winning the argument that it has to be a slightly better version of their opponents.
Click to expand...
There's a range of options between Tory lite and barking Corbyn mad. But it is beyond stupid to reject the basic methods Blair used to win.
 
I would wager that the EHRC report would have taken the party down a few pegs regardless of who was in charge.

That being said, it would be interesting to see whether the fall is due to Labour voters or non-Labour voters, or a combination of the two.
 
It's gone beyond tory/labour or left/right for me at this point. I'll vote for anything that isn't a gang of complete thickos who also happen to be horrible people.

I don't like Starmer at all but he probably has more braincells than the entire current cabinet put together. Problem is I don't think that necessarily makes him more electable. People have started to feel comfortable with idiots in charge because idiots will always point the blame at things and give you something to be angry at.
 
balaks said:
The point is that without that you keep getting the Tories. Surely even a 'Tory lite' as you put it - is still much better than the actual bloody Tories.
Click to expand...
Thats not necessarily how it works across the electorate. You need to look at the 2010 and 2015 election results for context.
 
Fluctuation0161 said:
"I'm not Corbyn" is not going to be enough to win an election I'm afraid. This latest own goal by Starmer needs to be resolved quickly.
Click to expand...
Its a massive step in the right direction though. He didn't get rid of him because he thought it would win votes anyway, he did it on principal.
 
711 said:
Looks like Starmer calling for a national lockdown first might not have been such a bad decision after all.
Click to expand...

The polling in here showed no change in Labours perceived ability on covid so i don't think it had any impact.

The fact the Tories are still ahead on that criteria i think shows the regional approach was welcomed by the public as a prelude to national lockdown.

Not that i agree mind you. We should have been in national lockdown in September in my view.
 
balaks said:
Its a massive step in the right direction though. He didn't get rid of him because he thought it would win votes anyway, he did it on principal.
Click to expand...

Indeed. To me, Starmer is a breath of fresh air for the Labour party and easily it's best chance of getting back into power.
 
Fluctuation0161 said:
Click to expand...


Not unexpected, it's simply bad press as it always has been and 95% who read/heard the reporting will have assumed the EHRC found Labour institutionally anti-semitic.

The media were quite keen to try and blame Starmer of inaction too so I'm sure that would have had an impact.

To be honest it's a fair point that many of the failings could have been resolved by a number of people. I said way back Corbyn should have offloaded responsibility for fixing the issue but rightly/wrongly i don't think they trusted anyone.
 
711 said:
Looks like Starmer calling for a national lockdown first might not have been such a bad decision after all.
Click to expand...
Unlike the govt he seems to be able to understand a forecast.
 
So I've been processing the events of the last day and a half and whilst I'm not vain enough to think my ramblings will matter to anyone except myself, this will be cathartic and it's a forum so why the hell not.

The EHRC Report

Having now downloaded and read the report in full, it's an excellent report. People expected it to work like VAR and give a definitive answer to the question of 'are the Labour Party institutionally anti-Semitic?' but it's a process and they delivered on a far more narrow remit than that. Being a lawyer, the attention to detail and adherence to process were excellent, and the findings and recommendations all seem completely fair. My minor lawyerly nitpick is that the report overreaches in their definition of 'harassment' as defined by s26 of the Equality Act. It claims that stating 'there is a problem with antisemitism in the Labour party, but I think the extent has been exaggerated' is in and of itself harassment, which absolutely wouldn't meet the objective test of harassment and the courts have found against harassment claims in similar situations in the past. Nevertheless, the EHRC doesn't have the power to change the law and it's fairly normal for a report to cast the net wider and then be rolled back in by the courts.

Minor nitpick aside, it's a great report and succeeds in being a constructive and informative entry into the discussion on anti-semitism and Labour party structures, rather than the 'final decision' that some people expected it to be.

It's hard to imagine a worse complaints process than that of the Labour Party between 2015 and 2018 and the report rightly highlights the key weaknesses and provides key recommendations neutral to the factionalism and in fighting that plagued the issue during Corbyn's tenure.

Corbyn's Comments

Totally tone deaf and unneeded but ultimately probably true.

It sounds like he wanted to get his 'side' of the story out first because he assumed he'd get a battering. That's understandable if you've endured the 5 years of hostility that he has, but it's really un-savvy and it allowed the media to portray him as wholesale rejecting the report when he explicitly stated that he wanted all of the report's recommendations implemented.

If I was his advisor, I would have told him to make a dry factual and conciliatory statement 'I welcome the report's findings, their recommendations should be implemented as soon as possible, anti-semitism is a scourge, the two cases identified in the report were beyond the pale and I'm glad that the report agreed with the party's decision for the perpetrators to be suspended under my leadership, we had an unfit complaints process and lots of organisational failures, I hope that Starmer can build on the improvements the report identified that were implemented under mine and Jenny Formby's leadership and continue the culture change to rid the party of the scourge of anti-semitism etc etc.'

Starmer's Decision To Suspend Corbyn

Okay so technically it was David Evans and the general secretary's office, but much like a mob hit, I think it's clear that it doesn't happen unless Starmer made the call.

The decision is supported by the majority of the British public, but opposed by the majority of Labour members and it's decending into a bit of a farce at this point. David Evans couldn't point to the rule that Corbyn broke and there's a huge problem with the central party deciding to suspend a former leader on the same day the leader said they would be implementing all of the report's suggestions, when the decision is contrary to a key finding of the report (the complaints and suspension process should be impartial and not politically motivated).

At this point it appears clear that whilst his personal sentiments might be towards the liberal soft left of the party, Starmer is letting the party's right call the tune and take control. 'A t-rex when disciplining his own party but bow-peep when it comes to opposing the government' was a phrase I heard that seemed quite apt. I'm worried that he'll go down the same road as Kinnock and be so preoccupied with appearing 'tough on the party's left' to centrists that he'll be on a hiding to electoral failure.

It would have been easy for him to criticise Corbyn's statement, say that if he was a minister, he'd sack him from the shadow cabinet for that statement, but because he's a backbencher it's not under his jurisdiction, so if anyone complains he'll let the independent complaints process handle it. Civil war avoided and still comes across as new effective leadership.

He seems to be chasing good short-term headlines and PR without thinking about the long-term strategy. Only a day later, we're starting to see the difficulty of that decision. Sky News asked him how he can take Unite's money given that in the past Len Mcluskey said essentially the same thing Corbyn did (that there was some anti-semitism but it's impact was being exaggerated by the media). It's a fair question, but obviously Starmer can't distance himself from the largest Union in the country as easily as he can from an unpopular former leader. I don't think he realises that if he chases nothing but good headlines, he'll never stop folding himself into pretzels. The external criticism of anti-semitism doesn't go away by suspending Corbyn. We're already seeing complaints against dozens of Labour members including his deputy leader, and the press are going to keep picking at this carcass to extract as much pain as possible. With the Forde report coming up soon, it's worrying that Starmer's teams response has been so chaotic and contradictory when they've had months to prepare.

The Tories and Freedom of Speech

I think Starmer's response has been an absolute gift to the Tories.

They can easily say 'you served as a senior minister to this monstrous leader that you've now had to suspend for being a raving anti-semite' 'How can the country trust you to be in charge of the levers of power when your party is in disarray?' Etc.

The suspension of Corbyn for saying something true but ill timed also lets them paint the 'censorious liberal left' trying to police what people say and engage in the culture war that only benefits the right.

Jewish Labour Members

Finally and most importantly, I don't think the actions in the last 2 days have been in the interests of the victims of anti-Semitism. They've squandered a chance to make the report a learning experience and the first step to the culture change necessary to understand and then eradicate the issue of anti-Semitism on the left.

I hope I'm wrong but I think that the tone deaf Corbyn statement and the over the top response by Starmer will probably create even more weaponising of the very real pain of Jewish leftists for party political gains and also result in even more victim blaming from Corbyn supporters within the membership who feel subject to a mcarthyite purge (e.g. the erroneous idea that a nefarious 'Jewish lobby' have robbed us of the chance for a socialist progressive government).

I'm not saying that we should downplay anti-Semitism because taking a hard line will lead to anti-Semetic reprisals, it's a scourge that needs to be confronted and eradicated, but I think the division created by the reaction to the report robs us of the opportunity to calmly, carefully and constructively move forward.

Going forward I hope Corbyn releases a statement apologising for his remarks and the party apparatus revoke the suspension, and there's a joint statement made supporting the implementation of the report's findings and crucially the creation of a speedy, robust and truly independent complaints process for anti-Semitism. Then we stand a chance of developing the unity needed to move on to holding the Tories to account for their awful handling of COVID and the economic damage.
 
Smores said:
Well when reduce your entire argument down to people fitting their own narratives (which you of course are abovr) then you're not really bringing worthwhile debate to the table.

The regional lockdowns to most come across as being led by the science and a balanced approach. To argue the government shouldn't be trying to strike a balance is a failing argument which is what Starmer is doing.

There's plenty Starmer could be putting forward but his argument this time doesn't come across well at all. He should be arguing for the merits of keeping the R low in low incidence areas so we can avoid waiting too long and ruining Christmas for people.

The government have left a huge gap to fill with people fed up and Labour right now aren't giving them anything. Take the science and bring a plan to the table.
Click to expand...
Smores said:
Not that i agree mind you. We should have been in national lockdown in September in my view.
Click to expand...
 

Are you trying to flag some contradiction? because the first post isn't my opinion on what should happen as policy but public perception.

As i say right there if Starmer wanted to sell a national lockdown back then he needed to sell the benefit to low incidence areas, ideally 5hrough christmas.
 
Last edited:
I really don't think "we struck a balance that was worth the extra thousands of dead people" is going to cut it for the government down the line.
 
Lebowski said:
So I've been processing the events of the last day and a half and whilst I'm not vain enough to think my ramblings will matter to anyone except myself, this will be cathartic and it's a forum so why the hell not.

The EHRC Report

Having now downloaded and read the report in full, it's an excellent report. People expected it to work like VAR and give a definitive answer to the question of 'are the Labour Party institutionally anti-Semitic?' but it's a process and they delivered on a far more narrow remit than that. Being a lawyer, the attention to detail and adherence to process were excellent, and the findings and recommendations all seem completely fair. My minor lawyerly nitpick is that the report overreaches in their definition of 'harassment' as defined by s26 of the Equality Act. It claims that stating 'there is a problem with antisemitism in the Labour party, but I think the extent has been exaggerated' is in and of itself harassment, which absolutely wouldn't meet the objective test of harassment and the courts have found against harassment claims in similar situations in the past. Nevertheless, the EHRC doesn't have the power to change the law and it's fairly normal for a report to cast the net wider and then be rolled back in by the courts.

Minor nitpick aside, it's a great report and succeeds in being a constructive and informative entry into the discussion on anti-semitism and Labour party structures, rather than the 'final decision' that some people expected it to be.

It's hard to imagine a worse complaints process than that of the Labour Party between 2015 and 2018 and the report rightly highlights the key weaknesses and provides key recommendations neutral to the factionalism and in fighting that plagued the issue during Corbyn's tenure.

Corbyn's Comments

Totally tone deaf and unneeded but ultimately probably true.

It sounds like he wanted to get his 'side' of the story out first because he assumed he'd get a battering. That's understandable if you've endured the 5 years of hostility that he has, but it's really un-savvy and it allowed the media to portray him as wholesale rejecting the report when he explicitly stated that he wanted all of the report's recommendations implemented.

If I was his advisor, I would have told him to make a dry factual and conciliatory statement 'I welcome the report's findings, their recommendations should be implemented as soon as possible, anti-semitism is a scourge, the two cases identified in the report were beyond the pale and I'm glad that the report agreed with the party's decision for the perpetrators to be suspended under my leadership, we had an unfit complaints process and lots of organisational failures, I hope that Starmer can build on the improvements the report identified that were implemented under mine and Jenny Formby's leadership and continue the culture change to rid the party of the scourge of anti-semitism etc etc.'

Starmer's Decision To Suspend Corbyn

Okay so technically it was David Evans and the general secretary's office, but much like a mob hit, I think it's clear that it doesn't happen unless Starmer made the call.

The decision is supported by the majority of the British public, but opposed by the majority of Labour members and it's decending into a bit of a farce at this point. David Evans couldn't point to the rule that Corbyn broke and there's a huge problem with the central party deciding to suspend a former leader on the same day the leader said they would be implementing all of the report's suggestions, when the decision is contrary to a key finding of the report (the complaints and suspension process should be impartial and not politically motivated).

At this point it appears clear that whilst his personal sentiments might be towards the liberal soft left of the party, Starmer is letting the party's right call the tune and take control. 'A t-rex when disciplining his own party but bow-peep when it comes to opposing the government' was a phrase I heard that seemed quite apt. I'm worried that he'll go down the same road as Kinnock and be so preoccupied with appearing 'tough on the party's left' to centrists that he'll be on a hiding to electoral failure.

It would have been easy for him to criticise Corbyn's statement, say that if he was a minister, he'd sack him from the shadow cabinet for that statement, but because he's a backbencher it's not under his jurisdiction, so if anyone complains he'll let the independent complaints process handle it. Civil war avoided and still comes across as new effective leadership.

He seems to be chasing good short-term headlines and PR without thinking about the long-term strategy. Only a day later, we're starting to see the difficulty of that decision. Sky News asked him how he can take Unite's money given that in the past Len Mcluskey said essentially the same thing Corbyn did (that there was some anti-semitism but it's impact was being exaggerated by the media). It's a fair question, but obviously Starmer can't distance himself from the largest Union in the country as easily as he can from an unpopular former leader. I don't think he realises that if he chases nothing but good headlines, he'll never stop folding himself into pretzels. The external criticism of anti-semitism doesn't go away by suspending Corbyn. We're already seeing complaints against dozens of Labour members including his deputy leader, and the press are going to keep picking at this carcass to extract as much pain as possible. With the Forde report coming up soon, it's worrying that Starmer's teams response has been so chaotic and contradictory when they've had months to prepare.

The Tories and Freedom of Speech

I think Starmer's response has been an absolute gift to the Tories.

They can easily say 'you served as a senior minister to this monstrous leader that you've now had to suspend for being a raving anti-semite' 'How can the country trust you to be in charge of the levers of power when your party is in disarray?' Etc.

The suspension of Corbyn for saying something true but ill timed also lets them paint the 'censorious liberal left' trying to police what people say and engage in the culture war that only benefits the right.

Jewish Labour Members

Finally and most importantly, I don't think the actions in the last 2 days have been in the interests of the victims of anti-Semitism. They've squandered a chance to make the report a learning experience and the first step to the culture change necessary to understand and then eradicate the issue of anti-Semitism on the left.

I hope I'm wrong but I think that the tone deaf Corbyn statement and the over the top response by Starmer will probably create even more weaponising of the very real pain of Jewish leftists for party political gains and also result in even more victim blaming from Corbyn supporters within the membership who feel subject to a mcarthyite purge (e.g. the erroneous idea that a nefarious 'Jewish lobby' have robbed us of the chance for a socialist progressive government).

I'm not saying that we should downplay anti-Semitism because taking a hard line will lead to anti-Semetic reprisals, it's a scourge that needs to be confronted and eradicated, but I think the division created by the reaction to the report robs us of the opportunity to calmly, carefully and constructively move forward.

Going forward I hope Corbyn releases a statement apologising for his remarks and the party apparatus revoke the suspension, and there's a joint statement made supporting the implementation of the report's findings and crucially the creation of a speedy, robust and truly independent complaints process for anti-Semitism. Then we stand a chance of developing the unity needed to move on to holding the Tories to account for their awful handling of COVID and the economic damage.
Click to expand...
Great post and well thought out, enjoyable read. I would have to disagree on your conclusion though, at no stage should Corbyn apologise for his comments. They were factually correct and he has a right to defend himself.
 
Lebowski said:
So I've been processing the events of the last day and a half and whilst I'm not vain enough to think my ramblings will matter to anyone except myself, this will be cathartic and it's a forum so why the hell not.

The EHRC Report

Having now downloaded and read the report in full, it's an excellent report. People expected it to work like VAR and give a definitive answer to the question of 'are the Labour Party institutionally anti-Semitic?' but it's a process and they delivered on a far more narrow remit than that. Being a lawyer, the attention to detail and adherence to process were excellent, and the findings and recommendations all seem completely fair. My minor lawyerly nitpick is that the report overreaches in their definition of 'harassment' as defined by s26 of the Equality Act. It claims that stating 'there is a problem with antisemitism in the Labour party, but I think the extent has been exaggerated' is in and of itself harassment, which absolutely wouldn't meet the objective test of harassment and the courts have found against harassment claims in similar situations in the past. Nevertheless, the EHRC doesn't have the power to change the law and it's fairly normal for a report to cast the net wider and then be rolled back in by the courts.

Minor nitpick aside, it's a great report and succeeds in being a constructive and informative entry into the discussion on anti-semitism and Labour party structures, rather than the 'final decision' that some people expected it to be.

It's hard to imagine a worse complaints process than that of the Labour Party between 2015 and 2018 and the report rightly highlights the key weaknesses and provides key recommendations neutral to the factionalism and in fighting that plagued the issue during Corbyn's tenure.

Corbyn's Comments

Totally tone deaf and unneeded but ultimately probably true.

It sounds like he wanted to get his 'side' of the story out first because he assumed he'd get a battering. That's understandable if you've endured the 5 years of hostility that he has, but it's really un-savvy and it allowed the media to portray him as wholesale rejecting the report when he explicitly stated that he wanted all of the report's recommendations implemented.

If I was his advisor, I would have told him to make a dry factual and conciliatory statement 'I welcome the report's findings, their recommendations should be implemented as soon as possible, anti-semitism is a scourge, the two cases identified in the report were beyond the pale and I'm glad that the report agreed with the party's decision for the perpetrators to be suspended under my leadership, we had an unfit complaints process and lots of organisational failures, I hope that Starmer can build on the improvements the report identified that were implemented under mine and Jenny Formby's leadership and continue the culture change to rid the party of the scourge of anti-semitism etc etc.'

Starmer's Decision To Suspend Corbyn

Okay so technically it was David Evans and the general secretary's office, but much like a mob hit, I think it's clear that it doesn't happen unless Starmer made the call.

The decision is supported by the majority of the British public, but opposed by the majority of Labour members and it's decending into a bit of a farce at this point. David Evans couldn't point to the rule that Corbyn broke and there's a huge problem with the central party deciding to suspend a former leader on the same day the leader said they would be implementing all of the report's suggestions, when the decision is contrary to a key finding of the report (the complaints and suspension process should be impartial and not politically motivated).

At this point it appears clear that whilst his personal sentiments might be towards the liberal soft left of the party, Starmer is letting the party's right call the tune and take control. 'A t-rex when disciplining his own party but bow-peep when it comes to opposing the government' was a phrase I heard that seemed quite apt. I'm worried that he'll go down the same road as Kinnock and be so preoccupied with appearing 'tough on the party's left' to centrists that he'll be on a hiding to electoral failure.

It would have been easy for him to criticise Corbyn's statement, say that if he was a minister, he'd sack him from the shadow cabinet for that statement, but because he's a backbencher it's not under his jurisdiction, so if anyone complains he'll let the independent complaints process handle it. Civil war avoided and still comes across as new effective leadership.

He seems to be chasing good short-term headlines and PR without thinking about the long-term strategy. Only a day later, we're starting to see the difficulty of that decision. Sky News asked him how he can take Unite's money given that in the past Len Mcluskey said essentially the same thing Corbyn did (that there was some anti-semitism but it's impact was being exaggerated by the media). It's a fair question, but obviously Starmer can't distance himself from the largest Union in the country as easily as he can from an unpopular former leader. I don't think he realises that if he chases nothing but good headlines, he'll never stop folding himself into pretzels. The external criticism of anti-semitism doesn't go away by suspending Corbyn. We're already seeing complaints against dozens of Labour members including his deputy leader, and the press are going to keep picking at this carcass to extract as much pain as possible. With the Forde report coming up soon, it's worrying that Starmer's teams response has been so chaotic and contradictory when they've had months to prepare.

The Tories and Freedom of Speech

I think Starmer's response has been an absolute gift to the Tories.

They can easily say 'you served as a senior minister to this monstrous leader that you've now had to suspend for being a raving anti-semite' 'How can the country trust you to be in charge of the levers of power when your party is in disarray?' Etc.

The suspension of Corbyn for saying something true but ill timed also lets them paint the 'censorious liberal left' trying to police what people say and engage in the culture war that only benefits the right.

Jewish Labour Members

Finally and most importantly, I don't think the actions in the last 2 days have been in the interests of the victims of anti-Semitism. They've squandered a chance to make the report a learning experience and the first step to the culture change necessary to understand and then eradicate the issue of anti-Semitism on the left.

I hope I'm wrong but I think that the tone deaf Corbyn statement and the over the top response by Starmer will probably create even more weaponising of the very real pain of Jewish leftists for party political gains and also result in even more victim blaming from Corbyn supporters within the membership who feel subject to a mcarthyite purge (e.g. the erroneous idea that a nefarious 'Jewish lobby' have robbed us of the chance for a socialist progressive government).

I'm not saying that we should downplay anti-Semitism because taking a hard line will lead to anti-Semetic reprisals, it's a scourge that needs to be confronted and eradicated, but I think the division created by the reaction to the report robs us of the opportunity to calmly, carefully and constructively move forward.

Going forward I hope Corbyn releases a statement apologising for his remarks and the party apparatus revoke the suspension, and there's a joint statement made supporting the implementation of the report's findings and crucially the creation of a speedy, robust and truly independent complaints process for anti-Semitism. Then we stand a chance of developing the unity needed to move on to holding the Tories to account for their awful handling of COVID and the economic damage.
Click to expand...

Thank you, well composed and a great take. I agree with everything you said, especially about the people who suffered the abuse.
 
Lebowski said:
So I've been processing the events of the last day and a half and whilst I'm not vain enough to think my ramblings will matter to anyone except myself, this will be cathartic and it's a forum so why the hell not.

The EHRC Report

Having now downloaded and read the report in full, it's an excellent report. People expected it to work like VAR and give a definitive answer to the question of 'are the Labour Party institutionally anti-Semitic?' but it's a process and they delivered on a far more narrow remit than that. Being a lawyer, the attention to detail and adherence to process were excellent, and the findings and recommendations all seem completely fair. My minor lawyerly nitpick is that the report overreaches in their definition of 'harassment' as defined by s26 of the Equality Act. It claims that stating 'there is a problem with antisemitism in the Labour party, but I think the extent has been exaggerated' is in and of itself harassment, which absolutely wouldn't meet the objective test of harassment and the courts have found against harassment claims in similar situations in the past. Nevertheless, the EHRC doesn't have the power to change the law and it's fairly normal for a report to cast the net wider and then be rolled back in by the courts.

Minor nitpick aside, it's a great report and succeeds in being a constructive and informative entry into the discussion on anti-semitism and Labour party structures, rather than the 'final decision' that some people expected it to be.

It's hard to imagine a worse complaints process than that of the Labour Party between 2015 and 2018 and the report rightly highlights the key weaknesses and provides key recommendations neutral to the factionalism and in fighting that plagued the issue during Corbyn's tenure.

Corbyn's Comments

Totally tone deaf and unneeded but ultimately probably true.

It sounds like he wanted to get his 'side' of the story out first because he assumed he'd get a battering. That's understandable if you've endured the 5 years of hostility that he has, but it's really un-savvy and it allowed the media to portray him as wholesale rejecting the report when he explicitly stated that he wanted all of the report's recommendations implemented.

If I was his advisor, I would have told him to make a dry factual and conciliatory statement 'I welcome the report's findings, their recommendations should be implemented as soon as possible, anti-semitism is a scourge, the two cases identified in the report were beyond the pale and I'm glad that the report agreed with the party's decision for the perpetrators to be suspended under my leadership, we had an unfit complaints process and lots of organisational failures, I hope that Starmer can build on the improvements the report identified that were implemented under mine and Jenny Formby's leadership and continue the culture change to rid the party of the scourge of anti-semitism etc etc.'

Starmer's Decision To Suspend Corbyn

Okay so technically it was David Evans and the general secretary's office, but much like a mob hit, I think it's clear that it doesn't happen unless Starmer made the call.

The decision is supported by the majority of the British public, but opposed by the majority of Labour members and it's decending into a bit of a farce at this point. David Evans couldn't point to the rule that Corbyn broke and there's a huge problem with the central party deciding to suspend a former leader on the same day the leader said they would be implementing all of the report's suggestions, when the decision is contrary to a key finding of the report (the complaints and suspension process should be impartial and not politically motivated).

At this point it appears clear that whilst his personal sentiments might be towards the liberal soft left of the party, Starmer is letting the party's right call the tune and take control. 'A t-rex when disciplining his own party but bow-peep when it comes to opposing the government' was a phrase I heard that seemed quite apt. I'm worried that he'll go down the same road as Kinnock and be so preoccupied with appearing 'tough on the party's left' to centrists that he'll be on a hiding to electoral failure.

It would have been easy for him to criticise Corbyn's statement, say that if he was a minister, he'd sack him from the shadow cabinet for that statement, but because he's a backbencher it's not under his jurisdiction, so if anyone complains he'll let the independent complaints process handle it. Civil war avoided and still comes across as new effective leadership.

He seems to be chasing good short-term headlines and PR without thinking about the long-term strategy. Only a day later, we're starting to see the difficulty of that decision. Sky News asked him how he can take Unite's money given that in the past Len Mcluskey said essentially the same thing Corbyn did (that there was some anti-semitism but it's impact was being exaggerated by the media). It's a fair question, but obviously Starmer can't distance himself from the largest Union in the country as easily as he can from an unpopular former leader. I don't think he realises that if he chases nothing but good headlines, he'll never stop folding himself into pretzels. The external criticism of anti-semitism doesn't go away by suspending Corbyn. We're already seeing complaints against dozens of Labour members including his deputy leader, and the press are going to keep picking at this carcass to extract as much pain as possible. With the Forde report coming up soon, it's worrying that Starmer's teams response has been so chaotic and contradictory when they've had months to prepare.

The Tories and Freedom of Speech

I think Starmer's response has been an absolute gift to the Tories.

They can easily say 'you served as a senior minister to this monstrous leader that you've now had to suspend for being a raving anti-semite' 'How can the country trust you to be in charge of the levers of power when your party is in disarray?' Etc.

The suspension of Corbyn for saying something true but ill timed also lets them paint the 'censorious liberal left' trying to police what people say and engage in the culture war that only benefits the right.

Jewish Labour Members

Finally and most importantly, I don't think the actions in the last 2 days have been in the interests of the victims of anti-Semitism. They've squandered a chance to make the report a learning experience and the first step to the culture change necessary to understand and then eradicate the issue of anti-Semitism on the left.

I hope I'm wrong but I think that the tone deaf Corbyn statement and the over the top response by Starmer will probably create even more weaponising of the very real pain of Jewish leftists for party political gains and also result in even more victim blaming from Corbyn supporters within the membership who feel subject to a mcarthyite purge (e.g. the erroneous idea that a nefarious 'Jewish lobby' have robbed us of the chance for a socialist progressive government).

I'm not saying that we should downplay anti-Semitism because taking a hard line will lead to anti-Semetic reprisals, it's a scourge that needs to be confronted and eradicated, but I think the division created by the reaction to the report robs us of the opportunity to calmly, carefully and constructively move forward.

Going forward I hope Corbyn releases a statement apologising for his remarks and the party apparatus revoke the suspension, and there's a joint statement made supporting the implementation of the report's findings and crucially the creation of a speedy, robust and truly independent complaints process for anti-Semitism. Then we stand a chance of developing the unity needed to move on to holding the Tories to account for their awful handling of COVID and the economic damage.
Click to expand...
A fair minded, perceptive and excellent post.
 
Smores said:
Are you trying to flag some contradiction? because the first post isn't my opinion on what should happen as policy but public perception.

As i say right there if Starmer wanted to sell a national lockdown back then he needed to sell the benefit to low incidence areas, ideally 5hrough christmas.
Click to expand...
From your posts, it looked like you supported regional lockdowns, which cannot happen at the same time as a national lockdown. So, yes, a contradiction.
 
Lebowski said:
So I've been processing the events of the last day and a half and whilst I'm not vain enough to think my ramblings will matter to anyone except myself, this will be cathartic and it's a forum so why the hell not.

The EHRC Report

Having now downloaded and read the report in full, it's an excellent report. People expected it to work like VAR and give a definitive answer to the question of 'are the Labour Party institutionally anti-Semitic?' but it's a process and they delivered on a far more narrow remit than that. Being a lawyer, the attention to detail and adherence to process were excellent, and the findings and recommendations all seem completely fair. My minor lawyerly nitpick is that the report overreaches in their definition of 'harassment' as defined by s26 of the Equality Act. It claims that stating 'there is a problem with antisemitism in the Labour party, but I think the extent has been exaggerated' is in and of itself harassment, which absolutely wouldn't meet the objective test of harassment and the courts have found against harassment claims in similar situations in the past. Nevertheless, the EHRC doesn't have the power to change the law and it's fairly normal for a report to cast the net wider and then be rolled back in by the courts.

Minor nitpick aside, it's a great report and succeeds in being a constructive and informative entry into the discussion on anti-semitism and Labour party structures, rather than the 'final decision' that some people expected it to be.

It's hard to imagine a worse complaints process than that of the Labour Party between 2015 and 2018 and the report rightly highlights the key weaknesses and provides key recommendations neutral to the factionalism and in fighting that plagued the issue during Corbyn's tenure.

Corbyn's Comments

Totally tone deaf and unneeded but ultimately probably true.

It sounds like he wanted to get his 'side' of the story out first because he assumed he'd get a battering. That's understandable if you've endured the 5 years of hostility that he has, but it's really un-savvy and it allowed the media to portray him as wholesale rejecting the report when he explicitly stated that he wanted all of the report's recommendations implemented.

If I was his advisor, I would have told him to make a dry factual and conciliatory statement 'I welcome the report's findings, their recommendations should be implemented as soon as possible, anti-semitism is a scourge, the two cases identified in the report were beyond the pale and I'm glad that the report agreed with the party's decision for the perpetrators to be suspended under my leadership, we had an unfit complaints process and lots of organisational failures, I hope that Starmer can build on the improvements the report identified that were implemented under mine and Jenny Formby's leadership and continue the culture change to rid the party of the scourge of anti-semitism etc etc.'

Starmer's Decision To Suspend Corbyn

Okay so technically it was David Evans and the general secretary's office, but much like a mob hit, I think it's clear that it doesn't happen unless Starmer made the call.

The decision is supported by the majority of the British public, but opposed by the majority of Labour members and it's decending into a bit of a farce at this point. David Evans couldn't point to the rule that Corbyn broke and there's a huge problem with the central party deciding to suspend a former leader on the same day the leader said they would be implementing all of the report's suggestions, when the decision is contrary to a key finding of the report (the complaints and suspension process should be impartial and not politically motivated).

At this point it appears clear that whilst his personal sentiments might be towards the liberal soft left of the party, Starmer is letting the party's right call the tune and take control. 'A t-rex when disciplining his own party but bow-peep when it comes to opposing the government' was a phrase I heard that seemed quite apt. I'm worried that he'll go down the same road as Kinnock and be so preoccupied with appearing 'tough on the party's left' to centrists that he'll be on a hiding to electoral failure.

It would have been easy for him to criticise Corbyn's statement, say that if he was a minister, he'd sack him from the shadow cabinet for that statement, but because he's a backbencher it's not under his jurisdiction, so if anyone complains he'll let the independent complaints process handle it. Civil war avoided and still comes across as new effective leadership.

He seems to be chasing good short-term headlines and PR without thinking about the long-term strategy. Only a day later, we're starting to see the difficulty of that decision. Sky News asked him how he can take Unite's money given that in the past Len Mcluskey said essentially the same thing Corbyn did (that there was some anti-semitism but it's impact was being exaggerated by the media). It's a fair question, but obviously Starmer can't distance himself from the largest Union in the country as easily as he can from an unpopular former leader. I don't think he realises that if he chases nothing but good headlines, he'll never stop folding himself into pretzels. The external criticism of anti-semitism doesn't go away by suspending Corbyn. We're already seeing complaints against dozens of Labour members including his deputy leader, and the press are going to keep picking at this carcass to extract as much pain as possible. With the Forde report coming up soon, it's worrying that Starmer's teams response has been so chaotic and contradictory when they've had months to prepare.

The Tories and Freedom of Speech

I think Starmer's response has been an absolute gift to the Tories.

They can easily say 'you served as a senior minister to this monstrous leader that you've now had to suspend for being a raving anti-semite' 'How can the country trust you to be in charge of the levers of power when your party is in disarray?' Etc.

The suspension of Corbyn for saying something true but ill timed also lets them paint the 'censorious liberal left' trying to police what people say and engage in the culture war that only benefits the right.

Jewish Labour Members

Finally and most importantly, I don't think the actions in the last 2 days have been in the interests of the victims of anti-Semitism. They've squandered a chance to make the report a learning experience and the first step to the culture change necessary to understand and then eradicate the issue of anti-Semitism on the left.

I hope I'm wrong but I think that the tone deaf Corbyn statement and the over the top response by Starmer will probably create even more weaponising of the very real pain of Jewish leftists for party political gains and also result in even more victim blaming from Corbyn supporters within the membership who feel subject to a mcarthyite purge (e.g. the erroneous idea that a nefarious 'Jewish lobby' have robbed us of the chance for a socialist progressive government).

I'm not saying that we should downplay anti-Semitism because taking a hard line will lead to anti-Semetic reprisals, it's a scourge that needs to be confronted and eradicated, but I think the division created by the reaction to the report robs us of the opportunity to calmly, carefully and constructively move forward.

Going forward I hope Corbyn releases a statement apologising for his remarks and the party apparatus revoke the suspension, and there's a joint statement made supporting the implementation of the report's findings and crucially the creation of a speedy, robust and truly independent complaints process for anti-Semitism. Then we stand a chance of developing the unity needed to move on to holding the Tories to account for their awful handling of COVID and the economic damage.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure how you use a report as a learning opportunity by denouncing one of its main findings and then going on to do exactly what it states was wrong inside the party leadership IE saying anti Semitism was exaggerated.

The definition of madness is doing the same thing over and over but expecting different results. If you down play what has been shown to be a real problem inside the labour movement you are just going to create an environment which grows the problem.

If it gets to the point where in order to protect Corbyn and his statement you can only do so by repeating his mistake, but you go on and do so anyway, you were never going to use the report as a learning experience in the first place, in fact you will never learn.
 
Don't Kill Bill said:
I'm not sure how you use a report as a learning opportunity by denouncing one of its main findings and then going on to do exactly what it states was wrong inside the party leadership IE saying anti Semitism was exaggerated.

The definition of madness is doing the same thing over and over but expecting different results. If you down play what has been shown to be a real problem inside the labour movement you are just going to create an environment which grows the problem.

If it gets to the point where in order to protect Corbyn and his statement you can only do so by repeating his mistake, but you go on and do so anyway, you were never going to use the report as a learning experience in the first place, in fact you will never learn.
Click to expand...

That's what I'm saying- Corbyn's statement and Starmer's response have made it far harder to use the report as a constructive first step towards tackling anti-Semitism by making the issue a factional battle ground once again.

The report isn't the final decision on anti-Semitism, it's part of an ongoing process and dialogue, a process that has been taken back into a partisan civil war by the events of the last two days.
 
Lebowski said:
That's what I'm saying- Corbyn's statement and Starmer's response have made it far harder to use the report as a constructive first step towards tackling anti-Semitism by making the issue a factional battle ground once again.

The report isn't the final decision on anti-Semitism, it's part of an ongoing process and dialogue, a process that has been taken back into a partisan civil war by the events of the last two days.
Click to expand...

Do you root out racism via dialogue, or do you root it out by kicking out the racists/their enablers? If it wasn’t antisemitism, I wouldn’t even need to ask.
 
nickm said:
Do you root out racism via dialogue, or do you root it out by kicking out the racists/their enablers? If it wasn’t antisemitism, I wouldn’t even need to ask.
Click to expand...

You reduce racism and anti-Semitism by understanding it's history, cause, impact and effects, and yes, by creating a safe and open dialogue with victims. By developing a fast, robust, independent complaints and investigation system that applies consistent standards and enforcement.

By avoiding the partisan politicisation that led to party factions using the very real pain and fear of Jewish members as a weapon to wield and another faction that downplayed their suffering by denying all of the legitimacy of their claims.

Clearly the swift removal of members engaging in anti-Semitism alone isn't sufficient, that's why the report rightly criticised LOTO involvement in the complaints handling process (most of the intervention was to resolve complaints by suspending and banning members).
 
So if suspending Corbyn was the wrong option, what should Labour have done?

It seems pretty clear that Corbyn's statement couldn't be allowed to pass without response. (As the editorial in The Observer today argues) it seemingly contained no contrition or apology to the Jewish members/MPs hounded out of the party during his leadership. It seemed to directly contradict the findings of a statutory regulator. It also deliberately contradicted the point he knew the Labour leader would be making (that there was no place in Labour for people who downplayed anti-semitism) by directly downplaying anti-semitism in the party, saying it been "dramatically overstated" for political reasons by Labour's enemies.

There had to be some sort of response given Corbyn's statement marked a continuation of exactly the sort of problems Labour were trying to make clear would no longer be tolerated. So how do they send that clear message without suspending him?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.