advertisement


Keir Starmer sacks RL-B

Tony L said:
That is revisionism to some degree. Labour clearly had/has an nasty anti-Semitic element in its more frothy pro-Palestine/anti-Israel base (I’m talking members and supporters here more than than MPs) and the party failed to tackle it promptly and fully, so it stuck. It took the party far too long to fully adopt the IHRA definition and some Jewish MPs, members and Jewish groups had already been bullied out of the party by the time it did.

The whole perception of Labour ‘having a problem with Jews’ is down to Corbyn’s hopeless leadership. I fully understand Starmer wanting to kick back against that and dig the party out of that hole, he absolutely needs to, though I do think RL-B was the wrong target here.
Click to expand...

WRT the first para. The problem is that - just as in *other* parties - there has been a range of views, some of which are AS and others which are not. But the LP gets a kicking for it because it is a convenient stick the Tory press can use.

WRT the second. The reality is that Corbyn was *presented* as the problem, by the press, etc, because he tried to take a nuanced view of the above, and tended to have a 'lets sit and sort this out' approach rather than a 'hang and flog' one.

There was a time when the same press did much the same using 'Friends of the IRA' against those on the left who showed any willingness to talk to the IRA, etc. Yet now we have found that (secret) talks did help the peace process.

And so we once again do what the press want when we keep arging about this rather than focus on issues like housing, social inequality, etc, which the Tories and their rich mates want off the headlines...
 
Tony L said:
It actually needs to be viewed in the context of a party that is so factionalised and riddled with division it is no longer of real use to the end-user. .
Click to expand...

I can't comment on that directly because I ceased being a LP member or going to any related meetings decades ago. But I do wonder how many LP meetings or groups you have attended recently. - i.e. Apart from what the press say, what evidence you base that upon.
 
Tony L said:
In other news Tory housing spiv Jenrick has been caught with his grubby fat hands in the till yet again (Guardian). Never mind, Labour can keep the topic on anti-Semitism if it wishes...
Click to expand...

That depends on how many people - which sadly includes you and me - keep arguing about it instead of dealing with other issues! If Jenrick bothers you more, write about that, not this.
 
Jim Audiomisc said:
The reality is that Corbyn was *presented* as the problem, by the press, etc, because he tried to take a nuanced view of the above, and tended to have a 'lets sit and sort this out' approach rather than a 'hang and flog' one.
Click to expand...

Not sure we can say what Corbyn’s view was but it wasn’t him that sat on AS allegations, it was Iain McNicol who as head of the NEC was in charge of the department responsible for investigations and sat on them and then released them in their thousands in order to give the Daily Mail a headline

Corbyn did take some pretty draconian action against Pete Willsman, Chris Williamson and Jackie Walker after very loud accusations but very thin evidence against them
 
Last edited:
^^Someone with personal responsibility for the Tory election victory appointed to replace RLB being repaid for her 'loyalty' to the party, and her 'respect' for the membership.

"It is a return to the shadow cabinet for Ms Green, who served as shadow minister for women and equalities under Jeremy Corbyn's leadership.

She resigned and went on to chair Owen Smith's failed leadership bid."
 
droodzilla said:
Thinking that an issue has been blown up out of all proportion (and misrepresented) is not the same as denying the existence of a problem. The former is reckless and ultimately derails efforts to address anti-Semitism and other forms of bigotry, while the latter is, of course, necessary. There's now convincing evidence that the former is what the right-wing of the party did to further its factional agenda, while positively hindering efforts to deal with the issue.

Anyway, why not name the posters concerned and let them defend themselves.
Click to expand...

You asked what can be done now by Labour given the contents of the leaked report which you appeared to accept. Now you are suggesting that only parts of the report are accurate. As I have argued many times in the past couple of years Labour has a serious problem with AS, do you accept this or not? I'll hold back naming posters for now as that for me is a complete side issue.
 
Jim Audiomisc said:
WRT the first para. The problem is that - just as in *other* parties - there has been a range of views, some of which are AS and others which are not. But the LP gets a kicking for it because it is a convenient stick the Tory press can use.

WRT the second. The reality is that Corbyn was *presented* as the problem, by the press, etc, because he tried to take a nuanced view of the above, and tended to have a 'lets sit and sort this out' approach rather than a 'hang and flog' one.

There was a time when the same press did much the same using 'Friends of the IRA' against those on the left who showed any willingness to talk to the IRA, etc. Yet now we have found that (secret) talks did help the peace process.

And so we once again do what the press want when we keep arging about this rather than focus on issues like housing, social inequality, etc, which the Tories and their rich mates want off the headlines...
Click to expand...
In what way is refusing to visit the Holocaust Museum in Jerusalem “a nuanced approach”? In what way was welcoming Hamas, whose core belief is the obliteration of the state of Israel, to Parliament “a nuanced approach”?
 
AndyU said:
In what way is refusing to visit the Holocaust Museum in Jerusalem “a nuanced approach”? In what way was welcoming Hamas, whose core belief is the obliteration of the state of Israel, to Parliament “a nuanced approach”?
Click to expand...
It seems to me that Jim A signalled the context of his remarks fairly clearly with his ‘WRT’ prefixes.
 
gassor said:
You asked what can be done now by Labour given the contents of the leaked report which you appeared to accept. Now you are suggesting that only parts of the report are accurate. As I have argued many times in the past couple of years Labour has a serious problem with AS, do you accept this or not? I'll hold back naming posters for now as that for me is a complete side issue.
Click to expand...
The phrase "serious problem" is too vague. However, if you pointed a gun at my head and asked me to say yes or no, I would say no, Labour does not have a serious problem with anti-Semitism. However:

1. Labour does have anti-Semites in it. They should continue to be expelled.
2. Labour has people in it who sometimes say anti-Semitic things. They should be educated and, if they persist, expelled.
3. All the quantitative polls I've seen shows anti-Semitism is no more prevalent in Labour than in society generally.
4. It is dwarfed by the racism in the Tory Party (50%+ of members are not comfortable with the idea of a muslim PM, etc.).
5. As ever, the greatest incidence of anti-Semitism is found on the far-right.
6. The issue of anti-Semitism has been cynically and recklessly exploited by the right of the Labour Party.
7. Accusations of anti-Semitism were not dealt with quickly, but the leaked report shows that right-wing members of the party machine deliberately obstructed the process.
8. The situation improved significantly when Corbyn finally got control of the internal bureaucracy.

All of these propositions can be true and I believe there is good evidence that they all are true. But they are importantly different and demand different actions from us in response.

Arguably Corbyn should have kicked arse sooner so, in that respect, he is certainly at fault. However, for me, that means ruthlessly purging the right-wing of the party after the 2017 election when he was at his most powerful. I used to be in favour of a "broad church" Labour Party but, after five years of horseshit I feel a lot less charitable.

I've said all of this before and I'm not going to get sucked into another futile debate.
 
Last edited:
droodzilla said:
I know discussion of the Israel-Palestine question is discouraged but this is a huge surprise:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...anctions-on-israel-over-west-bank-annexations

It will be interesting to see how this plays out.
Click to expand...

Well Israel has a huge budget for anything related to anti BDS to the tune of over 70 million dollars, so let’s watch what happen next. Corbyn was an easy target but Starmer is more difficult but 70 million is a lot of wedge...


https://www.timesofisrael.com/israel-okays-72-million-anti-bds-project/
 
russel said:
That’s the whole point of a “straw man”, get you to deny a position you don’t hold or have never in any way indicated you hold.
Click to expand...
It seems to be a tactic of the right wingers on here, to try to turn a discussion on evidence into an assumption of something extreme based zero evidence
 
As Drood nicely articulates ‘I used to be in favour of a "broad church" Labour Party but, after five years of horseshit I feel a lot less charitable.‘ is at the root of the discord in the LP and on here too.

Time for the party to split along left/right lines....keeps the Tories in power for the foreseeable though.
 
thebigfredc said:
As Drood nicely articulates ‘I used to be in favour of a "broad church" Labour Party but, after five years of horseshit I feel a lot less charitable.‘ is at the root of the discord in the LP and on here too.

Time for the party to split along left/right lines....keeps the Tories in power for the foreseeable though.
Click to expand...
Yes, hence my thread on proportional representation. Labour needs to keep its fissile internal coalition together long enough to form a government (supported by SNP, Lib-Dems etc.) and then push for PR. Contrary to the doomsayers, I think this is quite feasible if Labour is willing to make a clear offer to the Lib-Dems before the next election. Getting public approval might be another matter (AV was rejected 2:1 in the 2011 referendum) but must be attempted.

I'm not sure how I come across here, but I want to emphasise my commitment to the "broad church" idea was sincere. I've always wanted the various factions of the Labour Party to work together to defeat the common enemy. To be honest, I wouldn't even have considered myself on the left of the party a few years ago, and I still try to give people the benefit of the doubt. But the last few years have been totally demoralising and I think it's time for change.
 
droodzilla said:
Yes, hence my thread on proportional representation. Labour needs to keep its fissile internal coalition together long enough to form a government (supported by SNP, Lib-Dems etc.) and then push for PR. Contrary to the doomsayers, I think this is quite feasible if Labour is willing to make a clear offer to the Lib-Dems before the next election. Getting public approval might be another matter (AV was rejected 2:1 in the 2011 referendum) but must be attempted.

I'm not sure how I come across here, but I want to emphasise my commitment to the "broad church" idea was sincere. I've always wanted the various factions of the Labour Party to work together to defeat the common enemy. To be honest, I wouldn't even have considered myself on the left of the party a few years ago, and I still try to give people the benefit of the doubt. But the last few years have been totally demoralising and I think it's time for change.
Click to expand...

Yes. I’ve always considered myself socialist, but never particularly left. Just recently however my so sensible, considered and cosily centrist views have been called ‘hard left’, Marxist and even revolutionary, which I can only take as a sign of just how far to the right this country is going.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top