Anti semitism

[Stom]

We can only deal with facts.

Fact 1) Starmer is trying to remove the anti-semitic smear from Labour. He can only do this by being very strong about it. There's no room for nuance.
Fact 2) A report was released that criticised the Labour party and had both positive and negative things to say about the previous leadership.
Fact 3) Corbyn responded to this report in a broadly positive way but then couldn't resist including a paragraph that undermined his message.
Fact 4) Starmer suspended him and urged him to look to the words he used and if they were the right ones.

Corbyn was being a dick. It doesn't matter if you feel like you're being slighted or attacked, you need to stand up, admit your mistakes, look to the future, and not try to make it about how you were unfairly treated.

As for the rest of this discussion...

When did politics get so goddamned radical? I mean, it's possible to see where Sandy comes from now when he's confronted by Zhivago and Cas in such petulant, radical ways, with slurs and insults, and an inability to see a bigger picture...

The world is not black and white.

Starmer is not Blair mk2.

Just because you don't believe something is true doesn't mean it isn't true for someone else.

[Sandydragon]

You're just repeating propaganda now.

The reality is that he stood in solidarity with Jewish people many times over his career. Unlike the media who only cared once they could make political capital from the issue.
https://www.jewishvoiceforlabour.org.uk ... sh-people/

Thats not the input from his Jewish MPs who felt marginalised by him and his office. And its a matter f record that he has endorsed literature and imagery that is anti-semitic. Either deliberately or due to a lack of intelligence on how such endorsement might be construed.

Unless you consider the report to be propaganda, its very clear that as a leader he failed to deal with this issue and failed those MPs (and other staff) who are Jewish or were otherwise impacted by this situation.

As leader he was in between a rock and a hard place. On the one hand he is told by the media that he should take personal responsibility to ensure the complaints are dealt with, and on the other hand he is told that as leader is must not interfere in the complaints process. All the while he has a part of his party who wants him out and will do everything they can to work towards that end.

He probably should have been more ruthless and consolidated his power early on, then he would have been able to deal with the issues more effectively, but as you suggest, he was ultimately a weak leader.

Starmer on the other hand is trying to be a strong leader, but he'll face different issues. At least the media isn't calling him stalinist though, which it would have called Corbyn if he had taken a stronger approach at consolidating power, and in any case did so whenever there was the hint that he would try to consolidate even the least little bit.

p.s. The infamous mural was more anti-capitalist than anti-semitic, as the figures depicted were the monopolist tycoons of America in the 1900s. The anti-semitism claims relate to the noses on the two individuals who were Jewish, which in my opinion is a bit of a small detail to take note of when you're just liking a post on Facebook.

Which might have been a justifiable line if his office hadn't interfered with the complaints procedure, primarily to ensure that investigations were halted.

[Digby]

I would like to note Labour in those groups they have that are so anti-Semitic also have a problem with misogyny in those same groups, both in the traditional hard left members who come at it with the Britain is Imperial ergo Britain is bad slant, and those who come from a muslamic background and perhaps take a particular stance over Israel. That's not to say all such people are part of problem groups, but it's interesting to me at least how little the misogyny gets talked about, almost as though it's not seen as a problem.

Your claim that muslim members are anti-semitic is Islamophobic, because we've seen more complaints against white anti-Israel campaigners than we have seen against muslim ones.

The scale of the problem is about 0.3% of members. They should just be kicked out. It's not worth having them in the party. Some complaints have clearly been somewhat spurious though, and of course in such factional infighting you'll even get fake complaints, no doubt. It just means that every complaint needs to be thoroughly and transparently investigated.

Actually I was claiming misogyny was a parallel and yet ignored problem, and in addressing that you've focussed on the men rather than the women, which rather speaks to the problem. And I don't think they're misogynistic because of their faith, more that the culture is massively patriarchal, though there are elements of the faith which are problematic, as there are in both the jewish and christian faith too, I don't for instance see many women cardinals or much chance of a female pope, which is just another disgusting problem in the christian church

[Digby]

He probably should have been more ruthless and consolidated his power early on, then he would have been able to deal with the issues more effectively, but as you suggest, he was ultimately a weak leader.

So Corbyn should have been more like Trump seeking to eradicate those who question his truth?

[Zhivago]

I would like to note Labour in those groups they have that are so anti-Semitic also have a problem with misogyny in those same groups, both in the traditional hard left members who come at it with the Britain is Imperial ergo Britain is bad slant, and those who come from a muslamic background and perhaps take a particular stance over Israel. That's not to say all such people are part of problem groups, but it's interesting to me at least how little the misogyny gets talked about, almost as though it's not seen as a problem.

Your claim that muslim members are anti-semitic is Islamophobic, because we've seen more complaints against white anti-Israel campaigners than we have seen against muslim ones.

The scale of the problem is about 0.3% of members. They should just be kicked out. It's not worth having them in the party. Some complaints have clearly been somewhat spurious though, and of course in such factional infighting you'll even get fake complaints, no doubt. It just means that every complaint needs to be thoroughly and transparently investigated.

Actually I was claiming misogyny was a parallel and yet ignored problem, and in addressing that you've focussed on the men rather than the women, which rather speaks to the problem. And I don't think they're misogynistic because of their faith, more that the culture is massively patriarchal, though there are elements of the faith which are problematic, as there are in both the jewish and christian faith too, I don't for instance see many women cardinals or much chance of a female pope, which is just another disgusting problem in the christian church

I haven't mentioned men anywhere.

[Zhivago]

He probably should have been more ruthless and consolidated his power early on, then he would have been able to deal with the issues more effectively, but as you suggest, he was ultimately a weak leader.

So Corbyn should have been more like Trump seeking to eradicate those who question his truth?

No, he needed to have greater influence of internal party structures in order to enact change more effectively.

[Zhivago]

We can only deal with facts.

Fact 1) Starmer is trying to remove the anti-semitic smear from Labour. He can only do this by being very strong about it. There's no room for nuance.
Fact 2) A report was released that criticised the Labour party and had both positive and negative things to say about the previous leadership.
Fact 3) Corbyn responded to this report in a broadly positive way but then couldn't resist including a paragraph that undermined his message.
Fact 4) Starmer suspended him and urged him to look to the words he used and if they were the right ones.

Corbyn was being a dick. It doesn't matter if you feel like you're being slighted or attacked, you need to stand up, admit your mistakes, look to the future, and not try to make it about how you were unfairly treated.

As for the rest of this discussion...

When did politics get so goddamned radical? I mean, it's possible to see where Sandy comes from now when he's confronted by Zhivago and Cas in such petulant, radical ways, with slurs and insults, and an inability to see a bigger picture...

The world is not black and white.

Starmer is not Blair mk2.

Just because you don't believe something is true doesn't mean it isn't true for someone else.

LOTO is not supposed to intervene in complaints. Starmer has flip flopped on whether he personally did it, when he wants to look strong he says it was him, but at other times when he remembers he's not supposed to intervene, he says it was the General Secretary.

When people are being purged, they are right to act in self defense.

[Sandydragon]

He probably should have been more ruthless and consolidated his power early on, then he would have been able to deal with the issues more effectively, but as you suggest, he was ultimately a weak leader.

So Corbyn should have been more like Trump seeking to eradicate those who question his truth?

Quite ironic the concept of Corbyn insisting on discipline when he was so indisciplined himself.

[Sandydragon]

I would like to note Labour in those groups they have that are so anti-Semitic also have a problem with misogyny in those same groups, both in the traditional hard left members who come at it with the Britain is Imperial ergo Britain is bad slant, and those who come from a muslamic background and perhaps take a particular stance over Israel. That's not to say all such people are part of problem groups, but it's interesting to me at least how little the misogyny gets talked about, almost as though it's not seen as a problem.

Your claim that muslim members are anti-semitic is Islamophobic, because we've seen more complaints against white anti-Israel campaigners than we have seen against muslim ones.

The scale of the problem is about 0.3% of members. They should just be kicked out. It's not worth having them in the party. Some complaints have clearly been somewhat spurious though, and of course in such factional infighting you'll even get fake complaints, no doubt. It just means that every complaint needs to be thoroughly and transparently investigated.

Actually I was claiming misogyny was a parallel and yet ignored problem, and in addressing that you've focussed on the men rather than the women, which rather speaks to the problem. And I don't think they're misogynistic because of their faith, more that the culture is massively patriarchal, though there are elements of the faith which are problematic, as there are in both the jewish and christian faith too, I don't for instance see many women cardinals or much chance of a female pope, which is just another disgusting problem in the christian church

There are female bishops filleting through (bearing in mind how recently women were allowed to be ordained and the time it takes to rise through the ranks). There will be a female Archbishop in the UK before too long. I can't comment on the Catholic Church which is a whole different ball game.

[Digby]

I can't comment on the Catholic Church which is a whole different ball game.

Probably for the best not to get dragged wide of the conversation with a flippant comment about Team Paedophile

[Son of Mathonwy]

The guardian have published a view supporting Corbyn, which I largely agree with:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... sciplinary

[Zhivago]

The guardian have published a view supporting Corbyn, which I largely agree with:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... sciplinary

That is indeed a fair article. Unfortunately that wasn't the narrative that the media took, which decided to constantly ask Starmer if he thinks Corbyn is anti-semitic etc.

In any case Labour should split, it currently covers too wide a spectrum of political opinion for one party. I'm sure that a few decades of Tory rule will move the country towards supporting PR. A heavy price though.

[Digby]

All parties contain too wide a political spectrum. Well, all parties with more than one member, and judging from some of the comments on here some parties with just one member would still see significant infighting

[cashead]

Fact 3) Corbyn responded to this report in a broadly positive way but then couldn't resist including a paragraph that undermined his message.

Corbyn was being a dick. It doesn't matter if you feel like you're being slighted or attacked, you need to stand up, admit your mistakes, look to the future, and not try to make it about how you were unfairly treated.

It has just as much to do with Corbyn being really fucking bad at politics.

When did politics get so goddamned radical? I mean, it's possible to see where Sandy comes from now when he's confronted by Zhivago and Cas in such petulant, radical ways, with slurs and insults, and an inability to see a bigger picture...

[cashead]

He probably should have been more ruthless and consolidated his power early on, then he would have been able to deal with the issues more effectively, but as you suggest, he was ultimately a weak leader.

So Corbyn should have been more like Trump seeking to eradicate those who question his truth?

No, he needed to have greater influence of internal party structures in order to enact change more effectively.

So when you say "been more ruthless and consolidated his power," what exactly do you mean?

Also, "should have been more like Trump." Nice false choice there.

Pro-tip, Zhivago: don't bother engaging with this sort of bad faith bullshit.

[Digby]

So Corbyn should have been more like Trump seeking to eradicate those who question his truth?

No, he needed to have greater influence of internal party structures in order to enact change more effectively.

So when you say "been more ruthless and consolidated his power," what exactly do you mean?

Also, "should have been more like Trump." Nice false choice there.

Pro-tip, Zhivago: don't bother engaging with this sort of bad faith bullshit.

No false choice intended. Both Trump and Corbyn have tried to deny access and to shutdown those who speak out against them, neither seems to get democracy much

[Zhivago]

So Corbyn should have been more like Trump seeking to eradicate those who question his truth?

No, he needed to have greater influence of internal party structures in order to enact change more effectively.

So when you say "been more ruthless and consolidated his power," what exactly do you mean?

Also, "should have been more like Trump." Nice false choice there.

Pro-tip, Zhivago: don't bother engaging with this sort of bad faith bullshit.

I mean that winning power is not enough, power needs to be consolidated. Olive branches to enemies who will stab you in the back is just foolish, and he should not have been so naive to believe that his generous attempts of inclusion would be met with a change of heart from the right of the party. Politics is about power, and I don't think Corbyn fully grasped that, at least in terms of the practicalities of gaining and keeping political power.

[Zhivago]

No, he needed to have greater influence of internal party structures in order to enact change more effectively.

So when you say "been more ruthless and consolidated his power," what exactly do you mean?

Also, "should have been more like Trump." Nice false choice there.

Pro-tip, Zhivago: don't bother engaging with this sort of bad faith bullshit.

No false choice intended. Both Trump and Corbyn have tried to deny access and to shutdown those who speak out against them, neither seems to get democracy much

Your comparison is grossly indecent.

[Zhivago]

All parties contain too wide a political spectrum. Well, all parties with more than one member, and judging from some of the comments on here some parties with just one member would still see significant infighting

Utter guff. Political plurality is common in most advanced democratic countries.

Netherlands is a great example - they have 13 parties represented in their parliament. I can't vote for any of them of course because I refuse to give up my British citizenship, but I wish I could take part. I would actually have a tough decision to take, because I'd be presented with genuine choice, instead of a choice of the lesser of two evils.

This is what a healthy and democratic political spectrum looks like:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of ... 8-2017.svg

[Sandydragon]

All parties contain too wide a political spectrum. Well, all parties with more than one member, and judging from some of the comments on here some parties with just one member would still see significant infighting

Utter guff. Political plurality is common in most advanced democratic countries.

Netherlands is a great example - they have 13 parties represented in their parliament. I can't vote for any of them of course because I refuse to give up my British citizenship, but I wish I could take part. I would actually have a tough decision to take, because I'd be presented with genuine choice, instead of a choice of the lesser of two evils.

This is what a healthy and democratic political spectrum looks like:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of ... 8-2017.svg

It’s not guff at all. The Conservative party has a wide range of views from the liberal faction across to those who would be very at home in the Brexit party. Most large political organisations are wide churches of opinion.

[Zhivago]

All parties contain too wide a political spectrum. Well, all parties with more than one member, and judging from some of the comments on here some parties with just one member would still see significant infighting

Utter guff. Political plurality is common in most advanced democratic countries.

Netherlands is a great example - they have 13 parties represented in their parliament. I can't vote for any of them of course because I refuse to give up my British citizenship, but I wish I could take part. I would actually have a tough decision to take, because I'd be presented with genuine choice, instead of a choice of the lesser of two evils.

This is what a healthy and democratic political spectrum looks like:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of ... 8-2017.svg

It’s not guff at all. The Conservative party has a wide range of views from the liberal faction across to those who would be very at home in the Brexit party. Most large political organisations are wide churches of opinion.

And as a voter, how do I get my political opinion accurately represented in parliament? The fact is that in the majority of cases, I can't. I can only get properly represented in parliament if a party that has a chance of being elected in my constituency chooses a candidate that is representative of my views. The odds of both those things occuring is pathetically slim.

[Digby]

All parties contain too wide a political spectrum. Well, all parties with more than one member, and judging from some of the comments on here some parties with just one member would still see significant infighting

Utter guff. Political plurality is common in most advanced democratic countries.

Netherlands is a great example - they have 13 parties represented in their parliament. I can't vote for any of them of course because I refuse to give up my British citizenship, but I wish I could take part. I would actually have a tough decision to take, because I'd be presented with genuine choice, instead of a choice of the lesser of two evils.

This is what a healthy and democratic political spectrum looks like:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of ... 8-2017.svg

It’s not guff at all. The Conservative party has a wide range of views from the liberal faction across to those who would be very at home in the Brexit party. Most large political organisations are wide churches of opinion.

I would quite like more choice, and I'd prefer those ideally PR elected choices worked together. Still, either within or across parties you'll have to give up much of what you want in some compromise process whatever the system.

[Digby]

And as a voter, how do I get my political opinion accurately represented in parliament? The fact is that in the majority of cases, I can't. I can only get properly represented in parliament if a party that has a chance of being elected in my constituency chooses a candidate that is representative of my views. The odds of both those things occuring is pathetically slim.

Well, you can't. But unless you live in a country of 5 why on earth would you expect to? Parliament at best represents some overall ill considered mishmash aligned with some best intentions

[Zhivago]

Utter guff. Political plurality is common in most advanced democratic countries.

Netherlands is a great example - they have 13 parties represented in their parliament. I can't vote for any of them of course because I refuse to give up my British citizenship, but I wish I could take part. I would actually have a tough decision to take, because I'd be presented with genuine choice, instead of a choice of the lesser of two evils.

This is what a healthy and democratic political spectrum looks like:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of ... 8-2017.svg

It’s not guff at all. The Conservative party has a wide range of views from the liberal faction across to those who would be very at home in the Brexit party. Most large political organisations are wide churches of opinion.

I would quite like more choice, and I'd prefer those ideally PR elected choices worked together. Still, either within or across parties you'll have to give up much of what you want in some compromise process whatever the system.

You'll never get everything you want, true. But you're much more likely to get a fair amount of what you want if a party you vote for that represents your views accurately gets into power (even if it's as a junior coalition partner).

[Digby]

It’s not guff at all. The Conservative party has a wide range of views from the liberal faction across to those who would be very at home in the Brexit party. Most large political organisations are wide churches of opinion.

I would quite like more choice, and I'd prefer those ideally PR elected choices worked together. Still, either within or across parties you'll have to give up much of what you want in some compromise process whatever the system.

You'll never get everything you want, true. But you're much more likely to get a fair amount of what you want if a party you vote for that represents your views accurately gets into power (even if it's as a junior coalition partner).

But then that party will have to negotiate with other parties, and that doesn't seem hugely different to negotiating within parties, it's simply changing the point in the process at which certain tradeoffs occur. I'd prefer a system more akin to the one you propose to our FPP more limited number of parties, but in either system there are problems