advertisement


EHRC report into Labour

I really can’t be arsed reading all that, but I made it through the introduction and it is not good reading at all. I’m struggling to see any route the party can regain any credibility as it will just be battered with that report no matter what it does. An easy-access albatross of monumental proportion with which the political right can now sink any argument from Labour regarding civil liberties or human rights reform. An instant knock-out blow.

I’ve made little secret that I’d prefer to shoot the party in the head and see a new far younger and more vibrant progressive party emerge from the Greens, LDs etc, and this just underlines this viewpoint. Labour has been on the wrong side of way, way too many arguments well for over a generation now. Please just bin it and move on. We deserve better than this.

PS I saw some if Starmer’s speech a few minutes ago. There are no words to put it right, it is just an epic fail/clusterf*** of leadership enshrined forever in 129 pages of legal text.
 
Is there a mention of one of the more influential union leaders too? I have one person mind who seemed to be part of this.
 
So Labour has new leadership but it counts for nowt.

Get your money now on another Tory win in 2024, any excuse will do to keep them in govt.
 
2x cases when the Equality Act 2010 was breached, and 18x "borderline" cases, from a party under new leadership. The way the report reads, you'd think there was a much deeper problem than what was uncovered. I don't think that Labour had a broad problem with anti-semitism, but made a grave error in not sacking people on the spot for making comments that were anti-semitic.
 
So Labour has new leadership but it counts for nowt.

Get your money now on another Tory win in 2024, any excuse will do to keep them in govt.
I wonder what COVID will do over several iterations....surely it’s decreasing a portion of their vote.
 
2x cases when the Equality Act 2010 was breached, and 18x "borderline" cases, from a party under new leadership. The way the report reads, you'd think there was a much deeper problem than what was uncovered. I don't think that Labour had a broad problem with anti-semitism, but made a grave error in not sacking people on the spot for making comments that were anti-semitic.
Is that it? Just 2? I’ll read it later, but I mistakenly thought from the first 2 posts it was an disgrace and the party should be wound down, or something.
 
Is that it? Just 2? I’ll read it later, but I mistakenly thought from the first 2 posts it was an disgrace and the party should be wound down, or something.
I’ve not read it but isn’t 2x meaning double? As for 18x.... Labour won’t be alone in this but their reaction over a long time has been pathetically naive.
 
I haven't kept up with this, but has all this AS happened since Milliband was leader? After all, he is Jewish?
 
Starmer is a lawyer. They can read and interpret stuff at a speed that is astounding (I have seen a top barrister in action in chambers, somewhat humbling even if you think you are not thick yourself!)

If he thinks that Corbyn needs to be suspended as part of this, then he must believe something pretty serious is afoot.
 
Is that it? Just 2? I’ll read it later, but I mistakenly thought from the first 2 posts it was an disgrace and the party should be wound down, or something.
Yes, 2 cases + 18 borderline. These are Labour officials/agents for whom the party has legal responsibility under the legislation. The actions of Labour Party members are not covered by the legislation, and are not the focus of the report. There's more of course, including comments about how shite the complaints process was, but we knew that already.

I haven't got time to read it today but I know Michael Walker (Novara Media) has set aside the day for it, and will share his thoughts on tonight's broadcast. It will be a take from the left, of course, but Walker is a thoughtful and decent guy who, I believe, will take on board fair criticism.

As for Corbyn's suspension, it could merely be (highly effective) pantomime that leads to a slap on the wrist, or it could reflect a determined effort to expel him from the party. Time will tell. Regardless, he has a right to defend himself, and there was nothing objectionable in his balanced statement today (especially given what we now know about internal sabotage and the way that complaints were sat on by factional opponents). Unless, that is, we're no longer allowed to talk about the wider context.

It's a tragic mess and, as the partner of a woman of Jewish descent, it's deeply painful to see anti-Semitism being used as a political football this way.
 
I’ve not read it but isn’t 2x meaning double? As for 18x.... Labour won’t be alone in this but their reaction over a long time has been pathetically naive.

Two cases when the Equality Act 2010 was breached, and eighteen “borderline” cases when the act was not breached.

It is the lack of reaction and sacking that has provided the rope by which Labour is being hung from.
 
Before some of you think that the report only mentions two breaches of the Equality Act and as such is no big deal, may I respectfully suggest that you at least read the Executive Summary at the beginning of the report. It’s about 10 pages long.
Then come back and say it’s no big deal.
 
We aren’t saying it isn’t a big deal, because it is, and wasn’t dealt with. However, people are being led to believe that Labour is an anti-Semitic party with the media and government reaction, which they are not.
 
It’s very damning. I can only hope that appropriate action is taken and those in positions of responsibility that are still denying the problems they caused are expelled, stripped of the whip etc. The Labour Party needs to lose those who have dragged them through the mud. The only way forward as a party is now to square up to it, not deny it in any way and put their house in order.

I regret voting for Corbyn as leader. Hindsight is a wonderful thing, but he’s destroyed so much of the party’s credibility.

I can’t believe he’s been so stupid as to presumably read the report, note that a major finding was that party members were claiming AS was overstated, then to say that the report overstated the claims. He deserves his suspension. Hopefully he will be expelled.
 
Before some of you think that the report only mentions two breaches of the Equality Act and as such is no big deal, may I respectfully suggest that you at least read the Executive Summary at the beginning of the report. It’s about 10 pages long.
Then come back and say it’s no big deal.
I’ve now read those pages. Yes...saying two breaches is misleading.

There is AS elsewhere of course but the inability to get to grips with it when it became so public shows even greater disdain.
 
Is it convention to shorten anti-Semitism to AS now? Don't we need the description to be fully unfurled to give the charges the gravitas they deserve?
 
For clarity page 127 of the report defines the scope:

To assess whether the Labour Party had committed unlawful acts of discrimination, harassment, or victimisation in relation to its members, we analysed a sample of 70 complaints of antisemitism made against Labour Party members.
This sample included:

• 58 complaints chosen by us, from over 220 complaints identified in:
• submissions from the JLM and CAA
• a report by Professor Alan Johnson, ‘Institutionally Antisemitic: Contemporary Left Antisemitism and the Crisis in the British Labour Party’ (March 2019), and
• information in the public domain, and
• 12 complaints put forward by the Labour Party.44

To narrow down the sample, we excluded:

• incidents of alleged antisemitism not reported to the Labour Party
• complaints that were outside the timeframe of our terms of reference, and
• ‘member-on-member’ conduct when it was unlikely that the Labour Party
would be responsible for the conduct under the legal provisions we explain in Annex 3.


tldr; not two!
 


advertisement


Back
Top