advertisement


EHRC report into Labour

Can someone clarify something? Who suspended Corbyn; Starmer, the General Secretary or the NEC?

The General Secretary, according to the BBC:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-54746452

'Sir Keir clarified on Friday morning that it was Mr Corbyn's comments about the "exaggeration" of anti-Semitism that was the main reason for his suspension.

He said it was not his decision, but that of the party's general secretary, David Evans.

However, Sir Keir said, while "difficult", it was the "right action" and he fully supported it.'
 
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).
Yes, agreed, except Corbyn could not just get rid of McNicol without going through a democratic process that Starmer did not have to go through when getting rid of Corbyn. The two are apples and stairs, and not comparable.

Yes, Corbyn should’ve kept his gob shut. Saying it how he sees it is just one of his many faults.

To say that AS would not have gained traction with a proper leader is, I think, wrong. AS would not have gained traction with a leader who did as he was told and understood the vested interest in the status quo and it’s cosy relationships. Anti Corbynism gained traction because he promised change, and took off all guns blazing when he looked like he might just make change happen!
 
Last edited:
'It is good to speak the truth, but sometimes it is better to know the truth and speak only of date-stones'.
 
The way forward here is full restructuring of Labour. Split into two parties...something close to a Communist party and an electable Labour...the types of electable people being Alan Johnson, Andy Burnham, David Milliband, Keir, John Smith but most of this ilk have departed the House or worse (ie John Smith).
 


advertisement


Back
Top