advertisement


EHRC report into Labour

gavreid said:
Few people here know enough about it all to know the truth KS. I suspect they don't care either. They'd be happy with some Tory-Lite, Starmer Government as long as they themselves remain comfortable...
Click to expand...
I think that’s an assumption. I have learned a lot on here and do see how Corbyn was undermined but I never thought he would make a good leader from the start. He has little gravitas and I felt he was was too invisible. His flaws were mercilessly exposed on the Andrew Neil show. His principles I mostly agree with. But he was leader, he is accountable for at least some of the mess that’s been left behind and he now needs to exit gracefully. I feel there is a little arrogance, stubbornness and resentment in his responses and exchanges. Perhaps it’s justified but it’s not attractive and it sure ain’t helping the party forge ahead. I think Starmer needs to be gracious and allow him back asap and then work strategically to draw aspirations together. Perhaps Corbyn could play a part working with the equalities division to repair the damage and help rescue the reputation? Risky perhaps but potentially effective. The trick is to knit in the virtuous policies of the left whilst still maintaining electability. Tough one but it may be a time to take screw risks.
 
ks.234 said:
Even a passing knowledge of the Labour Party would tell you that the spilts in the Labour Party were caused by the right wing faction actively campaigning against Labour in two General Elections.
Click to expand...

Plus the now, Tory ennobled, ultra-right wing faction.

How do we know if Corbyn was a good leader? I suspect no-one could be under the attacks from all sides.

Stephen
 
A couple of good articles for anyone who's willing to entertain alternative perspectives:

https://labourhub.org.uk/2020/10/29/the-ehrc-report-a-missed-chance/

https://www.middleeasteye.net/opinion/ehrc-labour-antisemitism-starmer-corbyn-soul

The first is especially thoughtful, I think, while the second is a good summary by Oborne of the context and why it matters.

I think the EHRC report is good, and it's a shame the substance of it has been engulfed in yet another Labour shitefest (for which both Corbyn and Starmer must take responsibility).

However, it's worth noting that the mere act of sharing the second article - or, indeed, expressing any doubt or ambivalence about the details of the EHRC report - puts me at odds with the official party line, theoretically leaving me open to disciplinary action.

Similarly, local Labour parties (CLPs) are under strict instructions not to discuss the report as part of their official business (well, they are not allowed to express any criticism of it). No matter what you think of this particular issue, does anyone think this is a healthy political culture?
 
Del monaco said:
I think that’s an assumption. I have learned a lot on here and do see how Corbyn was undermined but I never thought he would make a good leader from the start. He has little gravitas and I felt he was was too invisible. His flaws were mercilessly exposed on the Andrew Neil show. His principles I mostly agree with. But he was leader, he is accountable for at least some of the mess that’s been left behind and he now needs to exit gracefully. I feel there is a little arrogance, stubbornness and resentment in his responses and exchanges. Perhaps it’s justified but it’s not attractive and it sure ain’t helping the party forge ahead. I think Starmer needs to be gracious and allow him back asap and then work strategically to draw aspirations together. Perhaps Corbyn could play a part working with the equalities division to repair the damage and help rescue the reputation? Risky perhaps but potentially effective. The trick is to knit in the virtuous policies of the left whilst still maintaining electability. Tough one but it may be a time to take screw risks.
Click to expand...
To be honest... I think this is quite fair.

I think Corbyn is a remarkable man in many ways, but he is not perfect, and I certainly recognise the stubbornness you describe and, perhaps, a certain self-righteousness (being right is more important than being diplomatic, maybe?). On the other hand, his core principles are rock solid and put most MPs to shame - unlike them, he would not have "sold out" if he'd become Prime Minister (which is why he had to be stopped, by any means necessary).

I'm still not convinced by Starmer's leadership qualities. On reflection, I think Corbyn could have left out some of his comments yesterday (they are true, in my view, but yesterday was not the time), but Starmer's reaction was brittle and hasty, and it risks triggering full-scale civil war. I'm also not convinced he has any real desire to work constructively with the left of the party, but I admire your optimism.
 
droodzilla said:
A couple of good articles for anyone who's willing to entertain alternative perspectives:

https://labourhub.org.uk/2020/10/29/the-ehrc-report-a-missed-chance/

https://www.middleeasteye.net/opinion/ehrc-labour-antisemitism-starmer-corbyn-soul

The first is especially thoughtful, I think, while the second is a good summary by Oborne of the context and why it matters.

I think the EHRC report is good, and it's a shame the substance of it has been engulfed in yet another Labour shitefest (for which both Corbyn and Starmer must take responsibility).

However, it's worth noting that the mere act of sharing the second article - or, indeed, expressing any doubt or ambivalence about the details of the EHRC report - puts me at odds with the official party line, theoretically leaving me open to disciplinary action.

Similarly, local Labour parties (CLPs) are under strict instructions not to discuss the report as part of their official business (well, they are not allowed to express any criticism of it). No matter what you think of this particular issue, does anyone think this is a healthy political culture?
Click to expand...


The EHRC let itself down by failing to consider the leaked report. I've read a couple of reports that mention the fact but none that explains why. It's worth looking at the make up of the board - it's establishment - lawyers, HR professional from multinationals etc with an interest in 'inclusion' - touchy feely personal, political stuff. Nobody from a TU background, no socialists, nobody with a background in human rights politics, no leading activist from the leading charities, Amnesty etc, Nobody with experience of middle east politics or the 'peace process', I could go on. Importantly, they were taking their cues from Starmer not Corbyn - history is written by the victors. What it has produced is a narrow legal narrative that isn't full of blame and attrition, which is the minimum that I would have expected from it, but it can be read anyway you choose to read it and that was the objective. Other than by vidicating Corbyn completely it was always going to be read as direct criticism of him and and the Party, whatever it had said.
 
droodzilla said:
To be honest... I think this is quite fair.

I think Corbyn is a remarkable man in many ways, but he is not perfect, and I certainly recognise the stubbornness you describe and, perhaps, a certain self-righteousness (being right is more important than being diplomatic, maybe?). On the other hand, his core principles are rock solid and put most MPs to shame - unlike them, he would not have "sold out" if he'd become Prime Minister (which is why he had to be stopped, by any means necessary).

I'm still not convinced by Starmer's leadership qualities. On reflection, I think Corbyn could have left out some of his comments yesterday (they are true, in my view, but yesterday was not the time), but Starmer's reaction was brittle and hasty, and it risks triggering full-scale civil war. I'm also not convinced he has any real desire to work constructively with the left of the party, but I admire your optimism.
Click to expand...
I think Starmer is in a difficult place but he would have known this was coming. He would have spoken with JC prior to the report but he probably would have been disappointed at JCs untimely response. I do believe Starmer wants to unite and he would have found JCs response ill considered. For me Starmer has got to engage the left and compromise enough to unite. I have no time for Mcluskey. His heavy boots are unhelpful at this time. But on reflection and having absorbed the varying views on this forum and the recent video I think conciliation is the only way to go. They’ve maybe got to put the election aside for a time and sew up the two sides and work out what they stand for and base it around the principles that Corbyn promoted at the beginning. I don’t know. Perhaps naive but better than just swarming endlessly around bitterness, regret and undecided values. They’ll just fold into themselves otherwise and the Conservatives will not have an opposition that can challenge and question effectively. It’s a knotty problem.
 
gavreid said:
The EHRC let itself down by failing to consider the leaked report.
Click to expand...
This made it worthless as far as I was concerned.

The anti-Corbyn factionalism was the cause of much of the criticism, but the report has deliberately avoided confronting this, which has left Corbyn carrying the can.
 
gavreid said:
Few people here know enough about it all to know the truth KS. I suspect they don't care either. They'd be happy with some Tory-Lite, Starmer Government as long as they themselves remain comfortable...
Click to expand...
Absolutely. My position exactly.
 
I do wonder if Corbyn is planning on bringing a book out.

I’ve never bought the idea that he was uniquely targeted by media in a way other Labour leaders were not. He just never had a good strategy to engage with the media & he was a crap leader. Some people can’t lead but have the ego to think they can.

I may have misunderstood some of the coverage of this but apparently JC did give Starmer prior warning of what he was going to say.

This could potentially be very good for Starmer, most of the coverage I have seen appears positive.

Given that the next Tory/Covid shitstorm is just round the corner I am sure this will not damage Labour in the medium term.
 
Woodface said:
I do wonder if Corbyn is planning on bringing a book out.

I’ve never bought the idea that he was uniquely targeted by media in a way other Labour leaders were not. He just never had a good strategy to engage with the media & he was a crap leader. Some people can’t lead but have the ego to think they can.

I may have misunderstood some of the coverage of this but apparently JC did give Starmer prior warning of what he was going to say.

This could potentially be very good for Starmer, most of the coverage I have seen appears positive.

Given that the next Tory/Covid shitstorm is just round the corner I am sure this will not damage Labour in the medium term.
Click to expand...
So long as they can come to an agreement quickly so it doesn’t hang around like a bad smell. What happens in the next few days is crucial. If compromises aren’t made and old wounds aren’t healed the notion of a Party that can be successful in opposing the Tory Juggernaut will die away and all that will be left is a torn, ragged and split Party that will not recover for years.
 
droodzilla said:
A couple of good articles for anyone who's willing to entertain alternative perspectives:

https://labourhub.org.uk/2020/10/29/the-ehrc-report-a-missed-chance/

https://www.middleeasteye.net/opinion/ehrc-labour-antisemitism-starmer-corbyn-soul

The first is especially thoughtful, I think, while the second is a good summary by Oborne of the context and why it matters.

I think the EHRC report is good, and it's a shame the substance of it has been engulfed in yet another Labour shitefest (for which both Corbyn and Starmer must take responsibility).

However, it's worth noting that the mere act of sharing the second article - or, indeed, expressing any doubt or ambivalence about the details of the EHRC report - puts me at odds with the official party line, theoretically leaving me open to disciplinary action.

Similarly, local Labour parties (CLPs) are under strict instructions not to discuss the report as part of their official business (well, they are not allowed to express any criticism of it). No matter what you think of this particular issue, does anyone think this is a healthy political culture?
Click to expand...
No
 
Tony L said:
FWIW from a personal perspective I certainly don’t. Corbyn’s stance (or total lack thereof) on Brexit and the rise of truly vile ethnic nationalism told me everything I needed to know about the man and the party he represented, as did his total lack of support shown to some Jewish MPs suffering abuse (Berger etc). Similarly the recent abstentions on terrifyingly authoritarian Tory bills and the lack of support for teachers and health-workers during the pandemic tells me everything I need to know about the party Starmer leads. Why care about a party which is so clearly unfit for purpose? I’d have to be in a hopelessly close Tory marginal to even consider voting Labour when there are other way more progressive and decent options to be found on the ballot paper.
Click to expand...
Putting aside Corbyn’s position on Brexit just for one moment! .... There are assumptions being made about the EHRC reports that are incorrect. The most prevelant being that where the reports say the Labour Party was guilty of certain transgressions, that means Corbyn. The report was explicitly not an investigation into Corbyn, it was an investigation into the Labour Party. Secondly it was an investigation into different but specific complaints brought 2 principle groups. As such Corbyn may be guilty of some transgressions, but not others, and not all. He might be guilty of interfering in processes regarding the anti Semitic mural, as the report says, but where the report looks at a different specific complaint about investigations into AS it says the ‘Labour Party’ was responsible for not investigating Antisemitism with sufficient ‘robustness’. The report has no remit to say who it was in Labour that was responsible for those investigations. The responsibility for internal investigations was, according LP rules, the responsibility of the NEC. Iain McNicol was head of the NEC and under LP was Rules separate and distinct from the leader’s office. Corbyn could not get rid of McNicol without going through the democratic process of voting him out. McNicol, a self-avowed anti-Corbynite, was responsible for the non-investigation of AS allegations and it was not until he was replaced by Jenny Formby in 2018 that AS allegations were investigated with any rigour at all.

The report is not a judges black cap for Corbyn that some are taking it for. Other actors are at play in this whole sorry (for Labour) business. Antisemitism in the Labour part did not start with Corbyn. Corbyn was not responsible for not dealing with it. Antisemitism has not left the Labour Party with Corbyn’s demise.
 
Has JC said at any point, "The NEC is the body that deals with these issues - as Leader of the Labour Party, I do not have that power."
 
ks.234 said:
There are assumptions being made about the EHRC reports that are incorrect...
Click to expand...

That was a very good post and I’d not argue with much at all beyond the key point that it was still all about leadership. Sure, you can say there was an NEC process, but once it was so abundantly clear not only that it was dysfunctional but it was also causing untold damage to the party’s credibility the leader should have stepped in and acted decisively. Contrast and compare with Starmer; the report came out yesterday, Corbyn made a spectacularly idiotic comment, and he was immediately out on his ear. That is exactly the way it needed handling. If the internal process wasn’t working then fix it later out of view, but not whilst the problem was mounting up.

Had Labour had a proper leader the anti-Semitism thing could never possibly have gained traction IMHO. I’m still beyond astonished that it ever did, even with someone as feckless as Corbyn. It takes spectacularly dumb leadership and broken internal processes to allow a genuinely institutionally racist party, let alone one built out of the slave trade such as the Tories and with a lot of more recent blood on its hands, to be able to land knock-out blows on an allegedly progressive left party. Even that duplicitous back-stabbing vulcanised epic fail Michael Gove is in on the act (Twitter, warning: contains Michael Gove).
 
Anti-semitism existed in the Labour Party before, during and after Corbyn. Corbyn empowered anti-semites to be more vocal (in certain parts of the country more than others, I'm led to believe) and brought more of the ultra pro-Palestine supporters into the party. This is why Starmer is keen to put the structures in place to deal with it. and importantly, empower Jews to speak out and get immediate action when it happens. Corbyn didn't.
 
Can someone clarify something? Who suspended Corbyn; Starmer, the General Secretary or the NEC?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top