Labour have accept the IHRA, ban members...Chris Williams is literally standing against the party because it got rid of him on anti semitic grounds.
With the IHRA and Williamson, massive resistance was put up by the Corbynite wing of the party. Here’s what Corbyn was saying about Williamson in February, not long after Williamson had posted a petition in support of
Gilad Atzmon:
"Chris Williamson is a very good, very effective Labour MP. He’s a very strong anti-racist campaigner. He is not antisemitic in any way.”
We all know that Corbyn would have the likes of Williamson, Livingston and even Galloway back in the party in a heartbeat if they weren’t so poisonous. They’re his buddies, his comrades, and I’ve seen nothing coming from Corbyn himself to suggest he has any major disagreements with them on this issue. So you'll have to forgive people hesitant to credit Corbyn with those moves - they were purely the result of the type of pressure which Corbyn's more steadfast supporters have been complaining about all along.
As for new procedures/process and all that, I’m sure you recall this image (described as “benign” by a Cafe Corbynite):
A guy called Thomas Gardiner, who is variously described as Labour's Head of Compliance/Head of Governance and Legal, and is charged with overseeing complaints, judged at the time that there was no problem with it. He saw it as an example of criticism of Israel, not anti-semitism. Instead of being moved to an entirely different role when the story broke, as he should have been, Gardiner has remained in this position, and doesn't seem to have publicly acknowledged that he has no idea when explicit, neo-Nazi-type antisemitism in staring him right in the face. So it's not really surprising that Andrew Neil was able to catch Corbyn out so easily with those two examples of blatant anti-semitism going unpunished, or that many people generally have no faith that the complaints process is being run as it should. The guy should have nothing to do with any of this process, and his continued presence there undermines any claims that Corbyn's Labour has somehow seen the light in recent months.
...made political educational video on fighting back against crank conspiracy theories.
I praised the Rothschilds video the Momentum people made a while back. Which is why I was genuinely surprised to see Corbyn so reluctant last night to concede (in the very first question he faced) that the Rothschild conspiracy is antisemitic (I think it took him four responses to grudgingly admit it is an "antisemitic trope"). I doubt if Corbyn really understands the problem at all. Again,
this was pretty good, although parts of it could be seen as critiquing Corbyn himself (especially the opening paragraph on conspiracy theories and the opening two paragraphs of the section on Zionism), and of course it makes no mention of the Islamist antisemitism which Corbyn has dismissed or explained away throughout his career. And by the time the video and statement above came out, it was probably seen as too little too late by many. Certainly a section of the party gets some credit from me for those efforts, but the leadership doesn't.
Not to mention the labour party at its best could be a educational tool for working class people, simply kicking anyone out the party for crank conspiracy theories does feck all in helping change the country.
Labour is trying to create socialism in Britain, it isn't trying to get someone on twitter fired.
I understand this is all very irritating for those who have placed all their hopes for the future in Corbyn's hands. For those of us who just see Corbyn as another politician, however, it's all absolutely fair game. I have little doubt in my mind that if a politician whose politics you vehemently opposed invited a far-right proponent of the Blood Libel to Westminster for tea, described him as an "honored citizen", and claimed that criticism of him was a product of the "Zionist Lobby", you would have no hesitation in describing him as an anti-semite, and you probably wouldn't think too highly of anyone who defended him on the matter.
