Labour at it again... anti-Semitism... #II

[Brian]

I was shocked by the revelation tonight that after 3 years there have only been 15 expulsions relating to anti-semitism. That statistic alone does seem to suggest there may well be a problem with institutionalised racism within the party. It will be instructive to see what the The Equality and Human Rights Commission investigation concludes.

That there are "only" 15 (out of how many?) it could show there is no institutionalised racism within the party. Impossible, do you think? Have you already formed the opinion there is institutionalised racism in the Labour party?

Or it shows that the problem is blown out of all proportion. Or amounts of either are true.

Absolutely.

I marvel at the amount of media attention directed toward it compared with the political crisis Britain is in and religious bigotry and racism in other organisations.

It's not a surprise though.

Fact is, because Labour is the only credible alternative to the Tory party when it comes to GE time, for the last decade the media has been shining a light on anything they can drag up about Labour in order to divert attention away from criticism of the tory party and the mess it has created. They have created massive problems, hence the amount of anti-Labour "attention" required to counter it.

 

[flatpopely]

Tom Watson on R4 'Today' this morning just shows how divided Labour is over this situation and is unable to deal with it.
How can the deputy leader of the Labour party be denied acces to the facts and figures on anti-semitism and has asked for but not been given sight of a report to be submitted to the equalities commission?

It is well worth a listen.

 

[Stunsworth]

I marvel at the amount of media attention directed toward it compared with the political crisis Britain is in and religious bigotry and racism in other organisations.

You’re right, Brexit has hardly been mentioned over the last few years.

 

[Still]

I didn't watch it, but I saw the BBC News report on it. I won't comment on the substance of it. But context really does matter: I'm not denying there's a problem with antisemitism in the Labour Party, but the question is, is the media's treatment of it proportionate to the scale of the problem? If not, what are the consequences? Personally I think the consequences are just awful all round but especially awful for antiracist struggle. The solution within the Labour Party is not a mass purge, IMO, but education, and creating a situation in which people feel they're being unfairly attacked, or ignored (many BAME members are angry that there is a clear hierarchy of racism being put in place here) is not one in which that's likely to happen. Secondly it very obviously serves the far right: we've got to a point where sensible progressive people are throwing up their hands and saying, "There all as bad as each other!" Just look back at the racist stuff that the Tories have done just in the last year, the last week, and ask, whose interests does that actually serve?

The question why hasn't Labour solved its' AS problems?
If Labour had've deployed 10% of the energy it's used deflecting, it would've been over a long time ago.

 

[myles]

I marvel at the amount of media attention directed toward it compared with the political crisis Britain is in and religious bigotry and racism in other organisations.

No doubt these other organisations deny to a man the existence of religious bigotry and racism in their ranks, but the accusations pointed at labour have come from within the party. That's the difference.

 

[ks.234]

Tom Watson on R4 'Today' this morning just shows how divided Labour is over this situation and is unable to deal with it.
How can the deputy leader of the Labour party be denied acces to the facts and figures on anti-semitism and has asked for but not been given sight of a report to be submitted to the equalities commission?

It is well worth a listen.

So is the bit earlier from the Guardian journalist. It was a much shorter piece in which she had to talk over the interviewer to make her point, but she effectively rebuffed the central accusations of interference. The full text of the Milne email actually shows he is calling for faster more efficient tackling of antisemitism, not interfering as Sam Matthews was claiming. Also Sam Mathews actually requested assistance from Milne as there was a vacuum after former GS, Iain McNicol, moved on and before Jenny Formby took up her post.

Jenny Formby was also accused of interference, but her intervention was only to, again, try to speed up the process.

Tom Watson was denied access to membership lists, not facts and figures. Tom Watson stands accused of misusing membership lists when he spent so much energy calling new labour members ‘entryists’ and ‘trotskists’ just after Corbyn was elected leader. He an McNicol launched a campaign to disenfranchise all new members who joined the LP in support of Corbyn.

 

[Woodface]

Well, sounded a bit like a hatchet job but some interesting responses on The Today programme. I am a little dismayed that 'Dear Leader' or another senior figure has not fronted up for an interview. It is worth noting that media loves a hypocrisy angle, LP harbouring racists is a bigger story than in the Tory party. MSM has gone after what it perceives to be Boris's weaknesses in quite a concentrated way. Correction, Tom Watson did front up, this is probably not what the party wanted though

 

[Tony L]

Fact is, because Labour is the only credible alternative to the Tory party when it comes to GE time, for the last decade the media has been shining a light on anything they can drag up about Labour in order to divert attention away from criticism of the tory party and the mess it has created. They have created massive problems, hence the amount of anti-Labour "attention" required to counter it.

No facts there I’m afraid. Sure, the media is hungry to publish anything negative, but you can not deny that the endless stream of anti-Semitism claims is coming from deep within the Labour Party itself. All the media are doing is reporting on a party actively ripping itself apart. If it was just right-wing gobshites like Toby Young, Michael Gove or Isabel Oakeshott screeching about it we could all easily dismiss it as a smear or propaganda campaign, but this is coming directly from Labour MPs, Labour Lords, Labour aids, Labour party workers, Labour members, Labour affiliates etc. As an outsider/non-Labour voter it really is a sorry spectacle. Our two main parties are clearly broken and entirely unfit for purpose.

 

[Enfield boy]

A good analysis there ks234
Watson has form for getting stuck in every time there is a concerted effort by the old right wing of the party to restart the coup. Thankfully some consigned themselves to the Tinge bin, others will go the way of Hoey. Hopefully more yet will be democratically removed by their CLPs.

 

[flatpopely]

So is the bit earlier from the Guardian journalist. It was a much shorter piece in which she had to talk over the interviewer to make her point, but she effectively rebuffed the central accusations of interference. The full text of the Milne email actually shows he is calling for faster more efficient tackling of antisemitism, not interfering as Sam Matthews was claiming. Also Sam Mathews actually requested assistance from Milne as there was a vacuum after former GS, Iain McNicol, moved on and before Jenny Formby took up her post.

Jenny Formby was also accused of interference, but her intervention was only to, again, try to speed up the process.

Tom Watson was denied access to membership lists, not facts and figures. Tom Watson stands accused of misusing membership lists when he spent so much energy calling new labour members ‘entryists’ and ‘trotskists’ just after Corbyn was elected leader. He an McNicol launched a campaign to disenfranchise all new members who joined the LP in support of Corbyn.

Why is a deputy leader denied lists because he stands accused of something, also what about the report he has not seen? If this is the public face of the leader and deputy leaders relationship it must be totally broken internally.

 

[jackbarron]

You have been told countless times about Labour Party procedures. The "Rulebook"can be changed, subject to due process, so that a member against whom there is a clear case of anti-semitism, subject to due process, is automatically expelled. What you and he (presumably) wants is for it to happem more quickly.

As to your interest, that is only to with your ant-Labour pathology....

I posted what Sir Keir Starmer said will improve Labour's handling of anti-Semitism and got in return an abusive post by Cav.

It isn't a surprise I left the Labour Party. Some of its members are obviously bitter and twisted.

Jack

 

[myles]

I posted what Sir Keir Starmer said will improve Labour's handling of anti-Semitism and got in return an abusive post by Cav.

It isn't a surprise I left the Labour Party. Some of its members are obviously bitter and twisted.

Jack

This is how it goes - dare to rally against the failings of the Labour Party and you get shouted down on here.

 

[Seanm]

The question why hasn't Labour solved its' AS problems?
If Labour had've deployed 10% of the energy it's used deflecting, it would've been over a long time ago.

The problem, ISTM, is 1) bullying and abuse at meetings; 2) inadequate disciplinary mechanisms, and/or failure by disciplinary team to observe due process and 3) a broader culture of denialism that makes these hard to address. 1+2 are more or less well-defined problems and can be solved. 3 is a matter of education and antisemitism, like other forms of racism, can never be simply solved at this level: it's always a case of confronting it and attempting to reduce it, because it's not like Labour members are recruited from critical race studies courses or anything: they're ordinary members of the public and we live in a society in which racist ideas circulate.

So I mean that's one issue: solving this problem is necessarily a work in progress, and because of the climate this is all taking place in that's not often acknowledged. The second issue is that the problems I've pointed to above have been conflated with the wider issue of random members of the public being dicks online, and there is simply nothing that Labour can do about that: they're not the internet police. Members who engage in online abuse should obviously be disciplined, but the vast majority of people doing it aren't members. And again in the current climate, where the best you can really say is that not everyone loudly denouncing Labour is interested first and foremost in tackling racism, this means that the issue is never going away, not even if Wes Streeting and co get the party back: all some intern at Guido has to do is find someone in Wes's mentions being abusive and it's back in the headlines.

 

[ks.234]

The problem, ISTM, is 1) bullying and abuse at meetings; 2) inadequate disciplinary mechanisms, and/or failure by disciplinary team to observe due process and 3) a broader culture of denialism that makes these hard to address. 1+2 are more or less well-defined problems and can be solved. 3 is a matter of education and antisemitism, like other forms of racism, can never be simply solved at this level: it's always a case of confronting it and attempting to reduce it, because it's not like Labour members are recruited from critical race studies courses or anything: they're ordinary members of the public and we live in a society in which racist ideas circulate.

So I mean that's one issue: solving this problem is necessarily a work in progress, and because of the climate this is all taking place in that's not often acknowledged. The second issue is that the problems I've pointed to above have been conflated with the wider issue of random members of the public being dicks online, and there is simply nothing that Labour can do about that: they're not the internet police. Members who engage in online abuse should obviously be disciplined, but the vast majority of people doing it aren't members. And again in the current climate, where the best you can really say is that not everyone loudly denouncing Labour is interested first and foremost in tackling racism, this means that the issue is never going away, not even if Wes Streeting and co get the party back: all some intern at Guido has to do is find someone in Wes's mentions being abusive and it's back in the headlines.

Yes, I think that pretty much nails it

 

[Seanm]

No facts there I’m afraid. Sure, the media is hungry to publish anything negative, but you can not deny that the endless stream of anti-Semitism claims is coming from deep within the Labour Party itself. All the media are doing is reporting on a party actively ripping itself apart. If it was just right-wing gobshites like Toby Young, Michael Gove or Isabel Oakeshott screeching about it we could all easily dismiss it as a smear or propaganda campaign, but this is coming directly from Labour MPs, Labour Lords, Labour aids, Labour party workers, Labour members, Labour affiliates etc. As an outsider/non-Labour voter it really is a sorry spectacle. Our two main parties are clearly broken and entirely unfit for purpose.

Well yes, this is part of the problem: all they're doing is reporting on it, instead of providing context, analysis and so on. And by reporting what I mean really is acting as stenographers: someone phones them, they write it down, it gets published or broadcast. And there are a lot of people in Labour willing to make the phone calls, for one reason or another, and say some fairly wild things knowing that they're not going to be questioned. This is part of a larger failure of political journalists to do any actual work. I've actually heard journalists explain their reluctance to take the Conservative Party to task over Islamophobia by saying that, well, no-one in the Tory party will talk to them! I mean, that's it as far as they're concerned: no-one phoning them with their daily word count, so end of story.

 

[Still]

The problem, ISTM, is ....

I pretty much agree with all of your post.
However I see the dubious use of NDAs as another problem.

fwiw I recommend watching the Panorama ep.
My take away, in many respects, was AS problems in Lab not as widespread as I feared.

Well yes, this is part of the problem: all they're doing is reporting on it, instead of providing context, analysis and so on.

That's what investigative journalism is, and quite rightly so.

 

[Tony L]

Well yes, this is part of the problem: all they're doing is reporting on it, instead of providing context, analysis and so on. And by reporting what I mean really is acting as stenographers: someone phones them, they write it down, it gets published or broadcast. And there are a lot of people in Labour willing to make the phone calls, for one reason or another, and say some fairly wild things knowing that they're not going to be questioned. This is part of a larger failure of political journalists to do any actual work. I've actually heard journalists explain their reluctance to take the Conservative Party to task over Islamophobia by saying that, well, no-one in the Tory party will talk to them! I mean, that's it as far as they're concerned: no-one phoning them with their daily word count, so end of story.

I don’t agree. As an example the Panorama program (you really should watch it, knowledge being power and all that) positioned Labour figures, both prominent and junior, in front of the camera and recorded what they said. This is no smear; it comes straight from the heart of party infrastructure itself, and at all levels from the most junior activists through to the Deputy Leader and long-serving Lords. Reporting it is at least as valid as say reporting that John Major and Damian Grieve will take legal action against the Conservative Party should Johnson attempt to force a ‘no deal’ through via a dictatorship coup (“proroguing” parliament). It is news and it is the parties themselves that are making it news. Bottom line: if Labour don’t want things like the Panorama program to spotlight their failings they should maybe consider not being so fractured, broken and dysfunctional as an organisation! Voters have every right to see just how broken both our main parties are at present. I want the very brightest spotlight imaginable shone on all aspects of our politics, and for most of us this is just as valid and interesting as say C4 News investigations into the corruption behind Farage, Leave.Eu, Brexit Corp etc, or seeing how anti-democracy the Tories are in practice. Information is good.

 

[kendo]

Well yes, this is part of the problem: all they're doing is reporting on it, instead of providing context, analysis and so on. And by reporting what I mean really is acting as stenographers: someone phones them, they write it down, it gets published or broadcast. And there are a lot of people in Labour willing to make the phone calls, for one reason or another, and say some fairly wild things knowing that they're not going to be questioned. This is part of a larger failure of political journalists to do any actual work. I've actually heard journalists explain their reluctance to take the Conservative Party to task over Islamophobia by saying that, well, no-one in the Tory party will talk to them! I mean, that's it as far as they're concerned: no-one phoning them with their daily word count, so end of story.

Lazy, enabling and complicit bastards.

 

[Simon Vess]

It is quite natural for those on the “ hard left “ or “ hard right “ to be anti- semitic

All are the result of perverse idealogical reasoning where truth is largely ignored in favour of prejudice

This clearly undermines the lie that the current Labour Party is somehow representative of mainstream, moderate thinking.....all the fuss about antisemitism in Labour is simply a red flag that Labour is now basically a party espousing extremist policies

Simon

 

[Seanm]

I don’t agree. As an example the Panorama program (you really should watch it, knowledge being power and all that) positioned Labour figures, both prominent and junior, in front of the camera and recorded what they said. This is no smear; it comes straight from the heart of party infrastructure itself, and at all levels from the most junior activists through to the Deputy Leader and long-serving Lords. Reporting it is at least as valid as say reporting that John Major and Damian Grieve will take legal action against the Conservative Party should Johnson attempt to force a ‘no deal’ through via a dictatorship coup (“proroguing” parliament). It is news and it is the parties themselves that are making it news. Bottom line: if Labour don’t want things like the Panorama program to spotlight their failings they should maybe consider not being so fractured, broken and dysfunctional as an organisation! Voters have every right to see just how broken both our main parties are at present. I want the very brightest spotlight imaginable shone on all aspects of our politics, and for most of us this is just as valid and interesting as say C4 News investigations into the corruption behind Farage, Leave.Eu, Brexit Corp etc, or seeing how anti-democracy the Tories are in practice. Information is good.

I didn't say it was a smear, and I wasn't talking about that program, I was talking about the endless headlines and the utterly unquestioning, unanalytical, context-free manner in which press releases are regurgitated, and the refusal to investigate situations that can't be turned into stories with a couple of phone calls from "senior sources".