I doubt it will show in the polls just yet but in 4 years time when we're hearing it repeated for the 6 millionth time, ala Corbyn, nobody will be able to tell the difference between fiction and reality. I'm not entirely sure what else Corbyn could have done, between the internal wreckers clogging up the complaints process with bogus claims and the media leading one of the most vicious hatchet jobs ever seen, I really don't think there was any hope of him getting his message out there. He also improves the complaints process alongside Formby but nobody ever talks about that.
Keir Starmer Labour Leader
- Thread starter Damien
- Start date
It's fair to say that Corbyn's attempts to sort things out were undermined and that he would have gotten stick regardless of what action he took, but it's not true to say he tried everything. He could have done what Starmer has done and made antisemitic language etc. an auto-expulsion offence rather than one that prompts an investigation. He had a choice whether to a) accept a process which, whilst better than what was there before, was still slow and which wasn't making Jewish members feel supported or listened to, b) auto-ban members based on a broad definition of anti-Semitism that likely would have seen a few innocent (if thick) people expelled amongst the crowd of antisemites, or c) auto-ban members based on a limited definition of antisemitism which would allow antisemites to stick around as long as they didn't say anything blatant, and which would have dragged Labour back into a big debate on defining anti-Semitism.
The fact that none of the options are perfect, or that he wouldn't have got any credit regardless, doesn't excuse the fact he chose the option that was most convenient for him (a) rather than the one which would have gotten rid of the wrong'uns quickly and made Jews feel safest in the party (b).
Option B means accepting the IHRA definition, which I know has been done but that I disagree with massively. It's far too broad and vague. A combination of options A and C is the only way I can see working fairly. If people who use outright antisemitic language, expel them from the party, if it's a little less clear, investigate more thoroughly.
Last edited:
Even if that was a thing, I'm not convinced it'll get much traction esp. if Jewish people come back to labour. Not sure either if becoming leader and therefore being in a position to take action is the definition of political convenience.
The never ending drumbeat of justified complaints for years from Jewish people is what inflated the issue. This wasn't a media problem, it was a problem with labour itself.
It is a thing. Because youve clearly missed my previous post concerning this, I'll post again.
This is why I can't get behind the idea that Corbyn did the best he could/that he doesn't deserve any stick. Over the course of two posts of a football forum we've both identified ways of handling the situation which (while not perfect) would have been better than what actually happened, and I don't know about you but I'm not getting paid whatever the LOTO's advisors are.
That's a fair point. But even if that did happen do you think the media would have reported it any differently? I agree that it would have definitely have improved the system but it wouldn't have stopped the attack dogs (not just antisemitism, also terrorist sympathizing, communism, etc) that, I believe, eventually led to the enormous defeat we suffered.
Probably not but the fact that Corbyn got unfair coverage doesn't mean he couldn't have done more to protect Jews in the party and get rid of antisemites. I'm not talking about the media/anti-Corbyn actors here (I wrote a pretty long post about their role in all this a page or two back) but rather whether Corbyn did the best he could have. As someone on the left who voted for him twice for leader, I think he could have done better. I don't think he's an antisemite or that he should be out of the party, far from it, but he could have done better and I don't think it does the left any good to pretend otherwise.
Ok, I think we can agree then that he tried to improve upon a fairly broken system but ultimately didn't go far enough. My point here is that by kicking Corbyn out of the party and allowing the definition of antisemitism become so broad that it includes people who have shared a platform with antisemites, sets an awfully messy precedent especially when it comes to defending his time in the cabinet under Corbyn. It makes him look complicit, morally vacuous and politically opportunistic and I have absolutely no doubt that over the next 4 years, we'll hear that repeated ad infitum.
i believe, if he had gone for 3, which seems to be the politically sensible option if not necessarily the ideal-world one, the attacks would have intensified to accept the "full definition" of anti-semitism (which happened IRL). fair enough though that he should have done that, but the attack headlines would have followed regardless.
Lib Dem suuurge!
To clarify, I wasn't commenting on how it reflects on Starmer, I think that was a debate you were having with Pogue. I was just picking up on the bit of your quote I originally bolded, which was about whether Corbyn could have done more. From this conversation it seems we both think he could have.
Undoubtedly, but like I said to Raven in a previous post, I'm not really talking about the reporting here, just about whether Corbyn could have done more. I've written at length on here recently and over the last few years about how I think the coverage of Corbyn has been unfair and that his ability to lead Labour has been consistently undermined by his political opponents. But, that's not what I'm talking about here, I'm just taking about whether he could have gotten rid of more anti-Semites quicker, as a response to Raven saying in a previous post that he couldn't see what else Corbyn could have done.
I have to say, I concede that point. The reason I referenced back to Starmer is because we're not in the Corbyn thread and I wanted to keep it on topic. As a matter of interest, how do you think recent events will shape the narrative around sir Keith?
Last edited:
Where has this come from and why do people think it's a great gotcha?
I assume it just comes from the fact lots of people do it accidentally and turned in to a thing because it solely annoys people who deserve to be annoyed by it.
Fair enough, it just switches me off to the substance of the argument the same as when Sun Tzu starts frothing about Jezbollah or whatever else he's dreamed up recently.
Oh, definitely. I only approve of its use when childishly making fun of the bloke, not actually trying to make a serious point.
Mehh, I generally call politicians by nicknames. Used to refer to Corbyn as Jezza if that makes you feel better.
Our Becky was the funniest.
I was convinced I was making that up. Found it really weird when informed it was actually a thing.
Yeah I saw that, I just didn’t believe you were seriously doubling down on a Conservative party tweet. Of course the tories are going to throw mud, the question is will it stick. If Jews return to labour, then it’s a dead argument.
You questioned whether it was a thing or not. Blatantly it is.
Er....!?
From my reading of the report, "political interference" is about influencing decision-making in the complaints process, not enquiring as to whether the process can move faster.
Direct quote:
Cheers.
Predictable Tory press release.
And a letter to Keir.
And a letter to Keir.
Yeah at this rate he's not getting my vote and I'll go Green. Honestly I'd accept compromises on every other element of policy but they can feck off with a centrists approach to fighting climate change.
Split all but confirmed then, so much for being a unity candidate. Tories will be jumping up and down in glee at this news, gifts them the next election.
So wait Corbyn is a labour member but also now a independent mp ?
So what is the justification for this not being a politically motivated interference in the complaints procedure?
Is that only true of membership of the party whereas the whip is in the leader's gift?
Is that only true of membership of the party whereas the whip is in the leader's gift?
Did you not see the post above from the Tories? They were jumping up and down in glee at the idea of Corbyn being allowed back in, and making Starmer look like a hypocrite. Refusing to restore the whip was the only logical reaction.
Of course it was
It's almost impossible for Labour to win if the left splits off, people can pretend that's not the case if they wish. Give it a few years and these threads will just be complaints from the centrists blaming the left for letting the Tories win. It's also not just the left that will be leaving at this rate either.
Hopefully Corbyn wins in court and then takes the victory and decides to stick to campaigning instead.
Yeah, I'm sure there'll be a mass exodus to the SWP.
Meanwhile back in reality.......................
Of course it was
It's almost impossible for Labour to win if the left splits off, people can pretend that's not the case if they wish. Give it a few years and these threads will just be complaints from the centrists blaming the left for letting the Tories win. It's also not just the left that will be leaving at this rate either.
Hopefully Corbyn wins in court and then takes the victory and decides to stick to campaigning instead.
Anyone who wants to schism from the Labour party over anti-semitism is welcome to let the door hit them in the ass on the way out. Corbyn literally responded to a report saying Labour had serious antisemitism issues by saying antisemitism in the party was 'dramatically overstated'. I mean what the actual feck? The major Jewish organizations in the UK were calling Labour out for it, Jewish Labour MP's were leaving the party, an independent body had found they broke the law over it, and yet his response was to pretend it wasn't that big an issue?! Feck him.
Of course it was
It's almost impossible for Labour to win if the left splits off, people can pretend that's not the case if they wish. Give it a few years and these threads will just be complaints from the centrists blaming the left for letting the Tories win. It's also not just the left that will be leaving at this rate either.
Hopefully Corbyn wins in court and then takes the victory and decides to stick to campaigning instead.
Who else is?
I've not seen much in the way of vocal criticism of Starmer from anyone other than the left and polling is looking positive.
That's not to say I think that's a good thing (the watered down green energy policy is a hugely regrettable example of how Labour are failing to be anything other than 'not Boris' and a greater push to make Starmer actually stand for something would be to the benefit of everyone), but I can't see much evidence of it filtering through to even left leaning folks who aren't as politically interested.