Corbyn's statement was quite clearly a direct challenge to Starmer's authority, basically goading and daring them to suspend him. As well as making himself look like a prick, obviously. It needed to be dealt with. But I've no idea how Labour drag themselves out of this hole.
Keir Starmer Labour Leader
- Thread starter Damien
- Start date
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
sullydnl
Ross Kemp's caf ID
- Joined
- Sep 13, 2012
- Messages
- 34,766
Of course the corollary of that is that those who (with admiration) point to Corbyn's suspension as an example of Starmer showing "brave" leadership are also off. Having given advance notice of his speech to Corbyn, then given Corbyn the opportunity to retract his statement, it would therefore be a case of Starmer being boxed into a corner by Corbyn rather than taking a defiant stand himself.
That's assuming you accept it was Starmer's decision to suspend Corbyn, in which case you could also ask whether it's appropriate for him to be making that call. Or you could accept that it was indeed the General Secretary who made the decision, in which case Starmer again shouldn't be getting so much credit for "leadership".
That's assuming you accept it was Starmer's decision to suspend Corbyn, in which case you could also ask whether it's appropriate for him to be making that call. Or you could accept that it was indeed the General Secretary who made the decision, in which case Starmer again shouldn't be getting so much credit for "leadership".
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?
What is to no longer be tolerated? Members are not allowed to voice a difference of opinion that the level of antisemitism within the party has been exaggerated?
As leader, Starmer may not want them to do so, but the EHRC report explicitly states that this right should be protected under article 10 of the human rights act.
All Starmer had to do was say in the strongest terms that he disagrees, but it is not for him to be involved in disciplinary matters as the EHRC report states throughout.
As things stand, nobody has even said what rule he has broken and the General Secretary would not answer the question.
sullydnl
Ross Kemp's caf ID
- Joined
- Sep 13, 2012
- Messages
- 34,766
What is to no longer be tolerated? Members are not allowed to voice a difference of opinion that the level of antisemitism within the party has been exaggerated?
As leader, Starmer may not want them to do so, but the EHRC report explicitly states that this right should be protected under article 10 of the human rights act.
All Starmer had to do was say in the strongest terms that he disagrees, but it is not for him to be involved in disciplinary matters as the EHRC report states throughout.
As things stand, nobody has even said what rule he has broken and the General Secretary would not answer the question.
I would assume it was some variation of "bringing the party into disrepute"? Not sure what the threshold for that is in the Labour party but a former leader openly disputing the findings of a statutory regulator that criticized his leadership would seem a good start.
But to focus on the main point then, you would be happy with Corbyn's statement disagreeing with the EHRC's findings and continuing to say that the anti-semitism in Labour was being exaggerated by Labour's enemies? That Labour should have let that stand and hoped that all the Jewish members who have openly spoken about their issues within the Labour party shrug their shoulders, pretend the former leader didn't just say what he said and amiably agree that the Labour party is indeed going to be different from now on? Hardly seems likely.
As for Starmer "getting involved", as you indicate it was the Secretary General who suspended Corbyn. Does the report say what constitutes the Labour leader getting involved? Because a lot of the excerpts I've seen seem to involve the LOTO office, which seems a lot more direct.
I would assume it was some variation of "bringing the party into disrepute"? Not sure what the threshold for that is in the Labour party but a former leader openly disputing the findings of a statutory regulator that criticized his leadership would seem a good start.
But to focus on the main point then, you would be happy with Corbyn's statement disagreeing with the EHRC's findings and continuing to say that the anti-semitism in Labour was being exaggerated by Labour's enemies? That Labour should have let that stand and hoped that all the Jewish members who have openly spoken about their issues within the Labour party shrug their shoulders, pretend the former leader didn't just say that and amiably agree that the Labour party is indeed going to be different from now on? Hardly seems viable.
As for Starmer "getting involved", as you indicate it was the Secretary General who suspended Corbyn. Does the report say that constitutes the Labour leader getting involved? Because a lot of the excerpts I've seen seem to involve the LOTO getting involved, which seems a lot more direct.
Personally, I don’t think Corbyn should have made the statement despite not disagreeing with what he has actually said... but that doesn’t mean he shouldn’t have the right to say it. A right the EHRC explicitly states in the report that he has.
I mean, we can pretend Starmer wasn’t involved in the decision to suspend Corbyn... but who are we trying to kid? His interview on LBC suggests he was involved... unless he was just pretending that he had some influence over it.
Don't Kill Bill
Full Member
- Joined
- May 14, 2006
- Messages
- 5,793
Corbyn's statement was quite clearly a direct challenge to Starmer's authority, basically goading and daring them to suspend him. As well as making himself look like a prick, obviously. It needed to be dealt with. But I've no idea how Labour drag themselves out of this hole.
He has spent his entire career as an awkward cnut with a martyr complex. He was never going to go gracefully. The scale of electoral disaster he caused the labour party won't cow him, watching Boris feck things up won't bring a moments introspection about the role he has played in putting him in Downing Street. The man is utterly contemptable. Most voters loath him and yet he is still going to hang around like a bad smell stinking up the party for as long as he can.
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.
I don't buy this Tory lite nonsense.
When was the last time that the UK voted in a genuinely left wing government.
Whatever our personal views, Labour has to appeal to the majority. And the evidence is that the majority don't want hard left policies.
Starmer is no fool. He understands perfectly well that the biggest issue with Labour is trust. Fortunately that is now a big problem for the Tories.
So Starmer has to show that he is a safe pair of hands.
sullydnl
Ross Kemp's caf ID
- Joined
- Sep 13, 2012
- Messages
- 34,766
Personally, I don’t think Corbyn should have made the statement despite not disagreeing with what he has actually said... but that doesn’t mean he shouldn’t have the right to say it. A right the EHRC explicitly states in the report that he has.
I mean, we can pretend Starmer wasn’t involved in the decision to suspend Corbyn... but who are we trying to kid? His interview on LBC suggests he was involved... unless he was just pretending that he had some influence over it.
Okay, so say Starmer says: "I completely disagree with Jeremy, but it is not for me to be involved in disciplinary matters as the EHRC report states throughout."
What happens then? Presumably some disciplinary procedure takes place that you think is better than the Sec Gen suspending Corbyn, which (I think you think) results in Corbyn not being punished?
At which point Starmer is asked: "You said this was a new beginning for how anti-semitism would be dealt with in Labour and re-assured the Jewish community and those members who felt they were driven from the party that things had changed. Yet we have just seen a high profile Labour member openly dispute the findings of the EHRC report, describe the state of anti-semitism within the party as being dramatically exaggerated, then use the same report he had disputed to justify his right to say that the level of anti-semitism was dramatically exaggerated. All without any punishment from the disciplinary procedure you left to resolve the issue. How can you possibly stand over this as Labour party leader? And how can the Jewish community have any faith that things have changed?"
What then? In other words, even if Starmer hands the issue over to a disciplinary process that deals with it more cleanly, what possible viable outcome is there that doesn't involve Corbyn being punished for disputing the EHRC's findings?
Ubik
Nothing happens until something moves!
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2010
- Messages
- 19,408
The report in that section is defining what they constitute as unlawful harassment by the party under equality law. It is not saying that the Labour party can't discipline someone for saying something not covered, in the same way that voting and saying you've voted for another party is perfectly valid speech, but an automatic expulsion under party rules.Personally, I don’t think Corbyn should have made the statement despite not disagreeing with what he has actually said... but that doesn’t mean he shouldn’t have the right to say it. A right the EHRC explicitly states in the report that he has.
I mean, we can pretend Starmer wasn’t involved in the decision to suspend Corbyn... but who are we trying to kid? His interview on LBC suggests he was involved... unless he was just pretending that he had some influence over it.
The report in that section is defining what they constitute as unlawful harassment by the party under equality law. It is not saying that the Labour party can't discipline someone for saying something not covered, in the same way that voting and saying you've voted for another party is perfectly valid speech, but an automatic expulsion under party rules.
Under what specific party rule has he been suspended?
nickm
Full Member
- Joined
- May 20, 2001
- Messages
- 9,633
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).
Those are all laudable things to do, but step 1 is you have to send a strong signal that it won’t be tolerated. There are multiple audiences here. Long Bailey got kicked out of the shadow cabinet for less.
Ubik
Nothing happens until something moves!
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2010
- Messages
- 19,408
Either the catch-all "bringing the party into disrepute", or this oneUnder what specific party rule has he been suspended?
Sweet Square
ˈkämyənəst
complete shit show.
Either the catch-all "bringing the party into disrepute", or this one
David Evans is the general secretary but he is not the NEC. During the recent NEC meeting he wouldn’t even say what rule Corbyn had broken. That’s if we even believe he made the decision when Starmer suggests it was himself in an interview.
The disrepute rule is a cop out.
Ubik
Nothing happens until something moves!
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2010
- Messages
- 19,408
David Evans is the general secretary but he is not the NEC. During the recent NEC meeting he wouldn’t even say what rule Corbyn had broken. That’s if we even believe he made the decision when Starmer suggests it was himself in an interview.
The disrepute rule is a cop out.
It's not a particularly big secret that the Labour party is an arcane mess of an organisation with clauses that allow pretty much any course of action you want to take.
It's not a particularly big secret that the Labour party is an arcane mess of an organisation with clauses that allow pretty much any course of action you want to take.
Unfortunately. I don’t see how suspending Corbyn should be a decision made unilaterally by the general secretary or the leader of the party. Especially in a case where they can’t say what rule has been broken. That has issues written all over it.
- Joined
- Nov 19, 2009
- Messages
- 58,576
complete shit show.
It's not exactly the smoking gun that the tweet is claiming, given Starmer explicitly says the general sec suspended him.
What would you have told Starmer to do re Corbyn if you were his adviser?
- Joined
- Nov 19, 2009
- Messages
- 58,576
Luciana Berger in the Times on Corbyn.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/...i-know-jeremy-corbyn-is-antisemitic-9n35dn5f5
“What was required was a wholesome apology, not another moment when he has chosen to obfuscate and not take that responsibility. This wasn’t just one event — this is a sea of incidents and processes and the culture,” Berger said.
“He and the people around him will not take responsibility and see that they caused this: by the words he said, the lack of action and by not speaking out. He and his supporters can see this only through the prism that ‘this has all been done for political reasons’, rather than acknowledging the facts.”
“Once is a mistake, twice careless; more than that and you are antisemitic. You can’t profess not to be and engage in antisemitic actions. If you seek to deny the experience of victims of racism, you are complicit.”
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/...i-know-jeremy-corbyn-is-antisemitic-9n35dn5f5
Sweet Square
ˈkämyənəst
He can't have it both ways.It's not exactly the smoking gun that the tweet is claiming, given Starmer explicitly says the general sec suspended him.
He can't claim to be the guy who makes the tough decisions on anti semitism(Using recent events with Corbyn an an example) but also claim not be the one who didn't make the decision on Corbyn getting kick out. If you think it was just the general sec then my Nigerian banker friend would love to give you a call some day.
Send out some letter saying you disagree with Corbyn and are disappointed at his response to the report.What would you have told Starmer to do re Corbyn if you were his adviser?
You can't on any good grounds be kicking someone out over such a incredibly dull response(Corbyn was just stating very obvious truths and his view was that of Owen Smith supporters in 2016). You might think he's a wanker, cnut, bigot etc etc well ok but that shouldn't be enough to kick someone out from the party imo. It certainly doesn't solve any issues with regards to anti semitism in the party.
Although I'm coming from view the Labour party should be mass democratic organisation/party which is clearly something Starmer has no interest in.
Last edited:
She can piss right off, she's garbage.Luciana Berger in the Times on Corbyn.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/...i-know-jeremy-corbyn-is-antisemitic-9n35dn5f5
I got behind Corbyn and still believe that his heart has always been in the right place along with his ideology however he’s without question a flawed politician and that was always going to be heavily amplified by the right wing media.
If he genuinely had Labour’s long term interests at heart he’d have worked with the party to handle all this a lot better. A mutual conclusion of “Corbyn mismanaging the situation and making a series of honest, but objectively bad decisions” following him stepping away from the party would have been best for everyone. I don’t know what he thinks he can achieve by staying in the party now, he’s got zero political capital and is nothing but a disruptive, huge grey elephant in the room. His continued fight with the party is pure ego and comes at a time when the party needs to be united and focused on challenging the opposition rather than fighting amongst themselves. I’m genuinely at a loss of what he thinks he can productively achieve right now.
If he genuinely had Labour’s long term interests at heart he’d have worked with the party to handle all this a lot better. A mutual conclusion of “Corbyn mismanaging the situation and making a series of honest, but objectively bad decisions” following him stepping away from the party would have been best for everyone. I don’t know what he thinks he can achieve by staying in the party now, he’s got zero political capital and is nothing but a disruptive, huge grey elephant in the room. His continued fight with the party is pure ego and comes at a time when the party needs to be united and focused on challenging the opposition rather than fighting amongst themselves. I’m genuinely at a loss of what he thinks he can productively achieve right now.
sullydnl
Ross Kemp's caf ID
- Joined
- Sep 13, 2012
- Messages
- 34,766
He can't have it both ways. He can't to be be the guy who makes the tough decisions on anti semitism but also not the one who didn't make the decision on Corbyn. If you think it was just the general sec then my Nigerian banker friend would love to give you a call some day.
Send out some dull letter saying you disagree with Corbyn and are disappointed at his response to the report.
You can't on any good grounds be kicking someone out over such a incredibly dull response(Corbyn was just stating very obvious truths). You might think he's a wanker, cnut, bigot etc etc well ok but that shouldn't be enough to kick someone out from the party imo. It certainly doesn't solve any issues with regards to anti semitism in the party.
Although I'm coming from view the Labour party should be mass democratic organisation/party which is clearly something Starmer has no interest in.
He wasn't "just" stating very obvious truths though. He was explicitly disputing the findings of an independent statutory regulator while downplaying anti-semitism within the party. That's a big deal, especially in a context where a not-insignificant chunk of that report relates to Labour under his leadership not taking anti-semitism seriously enough.
I can't see how Labour could possibly allow the very high-profile former leader to continue to do that without punishment and still claim that things have changed and those who felt they were driven out of the party no longer have cause for concern at how anti-semitism will be treated going forward.
Corbyn also had to know that would be the case given he was told in advance what the party's position would be. Yet he still proceeded with a statement that put him on collision course with the party leadership and, sure enough, his statement was immediately the focus of media attention. I don't understand how he could have expected a much different outcome.
Classical Mechanic
Full Member
She can piss right off, she's garbage.
So after reading
The former MP for Liverpool Wavertree — who had joined the party as a student and was in effect hounded out of it by antisemitism — received a message online threatening that she “would pay” for the suspension of the former leader Jeremy Corbyn. During a Live Chat session run by the Corbyn-sympathising Novara Media, anonymous commentators dubbed her “a vile fifth columnist” and “the face of evil”. On Twitter she was called a “criminal”, “duplicitous” and a host of misogynistic slurs, while all the classic antisemitic tropes were deployed‘
That‘s your response?
Sweet Square
ˈkämyənəst
He wasn't "just" stating very obvious truths though. He was explicitly disputing the findings of an independent statutory regulator while downplaying anti-semitism within the party. That's a big deal, especially in a context where a not-insignificant chunk of that report relates to Labour under his leadership not taking anti-semitism seriously enough.
I would suggest you read his statement again.
- Joined
- Nov 19, 2009
- Messages
- 58,576
It was more the tone of that tweet that was annoying tbh.He can't have it both ways.
He can't claim to be the guy who makes the tough decisions on anti semitism(Using recent events with Corbyn an an example) but also claim not be the one who didn't make the decision on Corbyn getting kick out. If you think it was just the general sec then my Nigerian banker friend would love to give you a call some day.
Would be crazy if it was just the gen sec, of course. Starmer obviously had to be involved. It would be crazy for the leader not to have an input or be in the loop on this.
If there's been a clear issue over perceived lack of action on racism, what do people expect the incoming leader to say? I'll duck the decisions and let issues fester?
A dull letter isn't going to look like taking antisemitism seriously though is it, particularly when Corbyn is downplaying the issue again.Send out some letter saying you disagree with Corbyn and are disappointed at his response to the report.
You can't on any good grounds be kicking someone out over such a incredibly dull response(Corbyn was just stating very obvious truths and his view was that of Owen Smith supporters in 2016). You might think he's a wanker, cnut, bigot etc etc well ok but that shouldn't be enough to kick someone out from the party imo. It certainly doesn't solve any issues with regards to anti semitism in the party.
Although I'm coming from view the Labour party should be mass democratic organisation/party which is clearly something Starmer has no interest in.
Agree it's unhelpful though and perversely seems to shoved the issue of actually tackling antisemitism onto the back-burner again while Corbyn's supporters focus on his suspension.
No. I have a little more knowledge on the matter than just this article. Either way I was specifically referring to her comments on Corbyn.So after reading
The former MP for Liverpool Wavertree — who had joined the party as a student and was in effect hounded out of it by antisemitism — received a message online threatening that she “would pay” for the suspension of the former leader Jeremy Corbyn. During a Live Chat session run by the Corbyn-sympathising Novara Media, anonymous commentators dubbed her “a vile fifth columnist” and “the face of evil”. On Twitter she was called a “criminal”, “duplicitous” and a host of misogynistic slurs, while all the classic antisemitic tropes were deployed‘
That‘s your response?
Just to give you an idea of who she is. She was high up in Labour friends of Israel. Left the party in 2016 along with other bellends like Chuka Umunna to start up Change UK and then when that flopped? Off to the Lib Dems. Whilst I don't agree with being antisemitic or misogynistic towards her but I'm definitely going to say what I think on the matter and that is that she is garbage.
- Joined
- Nov 19, 2009
- Messages
- 58,576
That's one way of dismissing a woman's account of the racial prejudice and abuse she suffered I guess. A despicable one, mind.She can piss right off, she's garbage.
sullydnl
Ross Kemp's caf ID
- Joined
- Sep 13, 2012
- Messages
- 34,766
I would suggest you read his statement again.
"The scale of the problem was also dramatically overstated for political reasons by our opponents inside and outside the party"
If you're saying the level of antisemitism within the party has been dramatically overstated, you are by definition downplaying the level of anti-semitism within the party. I mean it's a pretty unambiguous sentence.
Not entirely sure why you needed to bring her gender into this other than to suggest I'm in some way sexist?That's one way of dismissing a woman's account of the racial prejudice and abuse she suffered I guess. A despicable one, mind.
She is garbage by the way.
It's a FACT that antisemitism was dramatically overstated. Downplaying would suggest that he's saying antisemitism is a lesser problem than it actually is, which is not what he's done. Get a grip, he shouldn't have to accept being falsely labelled a racist and has a right to reply."The scale of the problem was also dramatically overstated for political reasons by our opponents inside and outside the party"
If you're saying the level of antisemitism within the party has been dramatically overstated, you are by definition downplaying the level of anti-semitism within the party. I mean it's a pretty unambiguous sentence.
sullydnl
Ross Kemp's caf ID
- Joined
- Sep 13, 2012
- Messages
- 34,766
It's a FACT that antisemitism was dramatically overstated. Downplaying would suggest that he's saying antisemitism is a lesser problem than it actually is, which is not what he's done. Get a grip, he shouldn't have to accept being falsely labelled a racist and has a right to reply.
If he accepted the degree of anti-semitism highlighted in this independent report and then said it had also been exaggerated beyond that for political purposes, fine. However he explicitly isn't accepting the report's findings, which leaves us little reason to assume he accepts the level of anti-semitism it lays out as accurate.
If he was drawing a distinction between the scale of the problem laid out in the report and the scale of the problem as presented by the media then he should have made that clear in his statement.
If the report had called him racist I would agree that he should dispute it. It doesn't though.
Sweet Square
ˈkämyənəst
"The scale of the problem was also dramatically overstated for political reasons by our opponents inside and outside the party"
If you're saying the level of antisemitism within the party has been dramatically overstated, you are by definition downplaying the level of anti-semitism within the party. I mean it's a pretty unambiguous sentence.
We clearly have very different views of the world .
Last edited:
Fluctuation0161
Full Member
complete shit show.
So, completely ignoring the EHRC recommendations on day 1 of its release. All so he could play politics.
Classical Mechanic
Full Member
No. I have a little more knowledge on the matter than just this article. Either way I was specifically referring to her comments on Corbyn.
Just to give you an idea of who she is. She was high up in Labour friends of Israel. Left the party in 2016 along with other bellends like Chuka Umunna to start up Change UK and then when that flopped? Off to the Lib Dems. Whilst I don't agree with being antisemitic or misogynistic towards her but I'm definitely going to say what I think on the matter and that is that she is garbage.
I‘m fully aware of who she is and regardless of what you think of her political purity she was badly let down by Corbyn’s Labour in all this. They failed to notify her or the police of a physical threat made against her by a Labour member.
And does that make her not garbage? Plenty of shit people are abused and let down by those around them, it certainly won't stop me from calling them what they are.I‘m fully aware of who she is and regardless of what you think of her political purity she was badly let down by Corbyn’s Labour in all this. They failed to notify her or the police of a physical threat made against her by a Labour member.
@Raven seems nice
Anything to add to the discussion... or?@Raven seems nice
jeff_goldblum
Full Member
- Joined
- Dec 6, 2011
- Messages
- 3,917
Putting aside anything else, the fact that the media and anti-Corbyn actors across the political spectrum managed to create a situation where the average person on the street thought 1/3 of the Labour membership had been disciplined for antisemitism is truly shocking and should give us all pause for thought.
Whilst those of us on the left will obviously be very frustrated at the way that false impression was built and used as a rod to beat Corbyn with, the main takeaway should be to consider how terrifying the last few years must have been for the majority of the Jewish community, who have faced or witnessed antisemitic abuse either in person or online, are constantly hearing in the media or from community leaders that one of the candidates to be Prime Minister is backed by hundreds of thousands of antisemites, and whose concerns about the situation, rather than being met with understanding, were often met with antisemitic accusations of complicity with an Israel-backed conspiracy.
With all that in mind, the left should have some empathy and understand why some things we think are self-evident facts might still be sensitive. On the other hand, frankly, there has to be some reckoning for those who created and fed a climate of fear which quite literally left many Jews afraid for their lives for the sake of anti-left factionalism within the Party and anti-left electoral strategy outside of it.
Whilst those of us on the left will obviously be very frustrated at the way that false impression was built and used as a rod to beat Corbyn with, the main takeaway should be to consider how terrifying the last few years must have been for the majority of the Jewish community, who have faced or witnessed antisemitic abuse either in person or online, are constantly hearing in the media or from community leaders that one of the candidates to be Prime Minister is backed by hundreds of thousands of antisemites, and whose concerns about the situation, rather than being met with understanding, were often met with antisemitic accusations of complicity with an Israel-backed conspiracy.
With all that in mind, the left should have some empathy and understand why some things we think are self-evident facts might still be sensitive. On the other hand, frankly, there has to be some reckoning for those who created and fed a climate of fear which quite literally left many Jews afraid for their lives for the sake of anti-left factionalism within the Party and anti-left electoral strategy outside of it.
Last edited:
Sorry, didn't realise referring to victims of mysogynistic and antisemitic abuse as garbage added to the discussion. Duly noted.Anything to add to the discussion... or?
As I've stated, I don't agree with that abuse but she's still a garbage person. Can you please explain to me why you think she isn't garbage?Sorry, didn't realise referring to victims of mysogynistic and antisemitic abuse as garbage added to the discussion. Duly noted.
Share: