Anti semitism

[Digby]

I'm sure Starmer would prefer not have had this spat, but he can't control the daft things coming out of Corbyn's mouth. And the idea if he doesn't act that this story goes away is laughable, that was Corbyn's plan to hope if he didn't speak about being racist everyone would forget he was a racist, and oddly that plan didn't work. If you stick the ball in your own net plenty of people supposedly on your side will point it out, and loads of people not on your side will do the same

Starmer is going to destroy the party at this rate. He's the Nick Clegg of Labour.

How? And on what are you basing this?

Starmer seems far more aligned with both the party's general tendencies over many years and the party's general membership.

He's also not released any policy yet...

If he's like Nick Clegg I like him more

[Zhivago]

I'm sure Starmer would prefer not have had this spat, but he can't control the daft things coming out of Corbyn's mouth. And the idea if he doesn't act that this story goes away is laughable, that was Corbyn's plan to hope if he didn't speak about being racist everyone would forget he was a racist, and oddly that plan didn't work. If you stick the ball in your own net plenty of people supposedly on your side will point it out, and loads of people not on your side will do the same

Starmer is going to destroy the party at this rate. He's the Nick Clegg of Labour.

How? And on what are you basing this?

Starmer seems far more aligned with both the party's general tendencies over many years and the party's general membership.

He's also not released any policy yet...

The comparison is that he lied to the left of the party to get the leadership, and then acts against the wishes of those who elected him.

[Zhivago]

Starmer is going to destroy the party at this rate. He's the Nick Clegg of Labour.

How? And on what are you basing this?

Starmer seems far more aligned with both the party's general tendencies over many years and the party's general membership.

He's also not released any policy yet...

If he's like Nick Clegg I like him more

Didn't he sell his soul to Zuckerberg? Not sure what's to like about him to be honest.

[fivepointer]

Starmer is no Nick Clegg. Thankfully.
Right now he's trying to save the Labour party from the brink that the disastrous leadership of Corbyn took it.
That he has had to deal with this is not a situation he has created, nor one he wanted.
But having laid out in very clear terms where he was going to on rooting out AS in the party and in accepting in full the EHRC's findings and recommendations, its difficult to see what else he could have done .
Once Corbyn wasnt prepared to withdraw and apologise - fat chance of that - this collision was inevitable.

[Zhivago]

Starmer is no Nick Clegg. Thankfully.
Right now he's trying to save the Labour party from the brink that the disastrous leadership of Corbyn took it.
That he has had to deal with this is not a situation he has created, nor one he wanted.
But having laid out in very clear terms where he was going to on rooting out AS in the party and in accepting in full the EHRC's findings and recommendations, its difficult to see what else he could have done .
Once Corbyn wasnt prepared to withdraw and apologise - fat chance of that - this collision was inevitable.

What exactly is there to apologise for in this statement?

"Antisemitism is absolutely abhorrent, wrong and responsible for some of humanity’s greatest crimes. As Leader of the Labour Party I was always determined to eliminate all forms of racism and root out the cancer of antisemitism. I have campaigned in support of Jewish people and communities my entire life and I will continue to do so.

“The EHRC’s report shows that when I became Labour leader in 2015, the Party’s processes for handling complaints were not fit for purpose. Reform was then stalled by an obstructive party bureaucracy. But from 2018, Jennie Formby and a new NEC that supported my leadership made substantial improvements, making it much easier and swifter to remove antisemites. My team acted to speed up, not hinder the process.

“Anyone claiming there is no antisemitism in the Labour Party is wrong. Of course there is, as there is throughout society, and sometimes it is voiced by people who think of themselves as on the left.

“Jewish members of our party and the wider community were right to expect us to deal with it, and I regret that it took longer to deliver that change than it should.

“One antisemite is one too many, but the scale of the problem was also dramatically overstated for political reasons by our opponents inside and outside the party, as well as by much of the media. That combination hurt Jewish people and must never be repeated.

“My sincere hope is that relations with Jewish communities can be rebuilt and those fears overcome. While I do not accept all of its findings, I trust its recommendations will be swiftly implemented to help move on from this period"

[Stom]

Starmer is no Nick Clegg. Thankfully.
Right now he's trying to save the Labour party from the brink that the disastrous leadership of Corbyn took it.
That he has had to deal with this is not a situation he has created, nor one he wanted.
But having laid out in very clear terms where he was going to on rooting out AS in the party and in accepting in full the EHRC's findings and recommendations, its difficult to see what else he could have done .
Once Corbyn wasnt prepared to withdraw and apologise - fat chance of that - this collision was inevitable.

What exactly is there to apologise for in this statement?

"Antisemitism is absolutely abhorrent, wrong and responsible for some of humanity’s greatest crimes. As Leader of the Labour Party I was always determined to eliminate all forms of racism and root out the cancer of antisemitism. I have campaigned in support of Jewish people and communities my entire life and I will continue to do so.

“The EHRC’s report shows that when I became Labour leader in 2015, the Party’s processes for handling complaints were not fit for purpose. Reform was then stalled by an obstructive party bureaucracy. But from 2018, Jennie Formby and a new NEC that supported my leadership made substantial improvements, making it much easier and swifter to remove antisemites. My team acted to speed up, not hinder the process.

“Anyone claiming there is no antisemitism in the Labour Party is wrong. Of course there is, as there is throughout society, and sometimes it is voiced by people who think of themselves as on the left.

“Jewish members of our party and the wider community were right to expect us to deal with it, and I regret that it took longer to deliver that change than it should.

“One antisemite is one too many, but the scale of the problem was also dramatically overstated for political reasons by our opponents inside and outside the party, as well as by much of the media. That combination hurt Jewish people and must never be repeated.

“My sincere hope is that relations with Jewish communities can be rebuilt and those fears overcome. While I do not accept all of its findings, I trust its recommendations will be swiftly implemented to help move on from this period"

“But...”

[Zhivago]

Starmer is no Nick Clegg. Thankfully.
Right now he's trying to save the Labour party from the brink that the disastrous leadership of Corbyn took it.
That he has had to deal with this is not a situation he has created, nor one he wanted.
But having laid out in very clear terms where he was going to on rooting out AS in the party and in accepting in full the EHRC's findings and recommendations, its difficult to see what else he could have done .
Once Corbyn wasnt prepared to withdraw and apologise - fat chance of that - this collision was inevitable.

What exactly is there to apologise for in this statement?

"Antisemitism is absolutely abhorrent, wrong and responsible for some of humanity’s greatest crimes. As Leader of the Labour Party I was always determined to eliminate all forms of racism and root out the cancer of antisemitism. I have campaigned in support of Jewish people and communities my entire life and I will continue to do so.

“The EHRC’s report shows that when I became Labour leader in 2015, the Party’s processes for handling complaints were not fit for purpose. Reform was then stalled by an obstructive party bureaucracy. But from 2018, Jennie Formby and a new NEC that supported my leadership made substantial improvements, making it much easier and swifter to remove antisemites. My team acted to speed up, not hinder the process.

“Anyone claiming there is no antisemitism in the Labour Party is wrong. Of course there is, as there is throughout society, and sometimes it is voiced by people who think of themselves as on the left.

“Jewish members of our party and the wider community were right to expect us to deal with it, and I regret that it took longer to deliver that change than it should.

“One antisemite is one too many, but the scale of the problem was also dramatically overstated for political reasons by our opponents inside and outside the party, as well as by much of the media. That combination hurt Jewish people and must never be repeated.

“My sincere hope is that relations with Jewish communities can be rebuilt and those fears overcome. While I do not accept all of its findings, I trust its recommendations will be swiftly implemented to help move on from this period"

“But...”

Please be even more laconic and we'll all be very grateful.

[fivepointer]

Starmer is no Nick Clegg. Thankfully.
Right now he's trying to save the Labour party from the brink that the disastrous leadership of Corbyn took it.
That he has had to deal with this is not a situation he has created, nor one he wanted.
But having laid out in very clear terms where he was going to on rooting out AS in the party and in accepting in full the EHRC's findings and recommendations, its difficult to see what else he could have done .
Once Corbyn wasnt prepared to withdraw and apologise - fat chance of that - this collision was inevitable.

What exactly is there to apologise for in this statement?

"Antisemitism is absolutely abhorrent, wrong and responsible for some of humanity’s greatest crimes. As Leader of the Labour Party I was always determined to eliminate all forms of racism and root out the cancer of antisemitism. I have campaigned in support of Jewish people and communities my entire life and I will continue to do so.

“The EHRC’s report shows that when I became Labour leader in 2015, the Party’s processes for handling complaints were not fit for purpose. Reform was then stalled by an obstructive party bureaucracy. But from 2018, Jennie Formby and a new NEC that supported my leadership made substantial improvements, making it much easier and swifter to remove antisemites. My team acted to speed up, not hinder the process.

“Anyone claiming there is no antisemitism in the Labour Party is wrong. Of course there is, as there is throughout society, and sometimes it is voiced by people who think of themselves as on the left.

“Jewish members of our party and the wider community were right to expect us to deal with it, and I regret that it took longer to deliver that change than it should.

“One antisemite is one too many, but the scale of the problem was also dramatically overstated for political reasons by our opponents inside and outside the party, as well as by much of the media. That combination hurt Jewish people and must never be repeated.

“My sincere hope is that relations with Jewish communities can be rebuilt and those fears overcome. While I do not accept all of its findings, I trust its recommendations will be swiftly implemented to help move on from this period"

Those are problematic.
Starmer made it clear he was going to accept the report in full. Moreover, he made it plain that those suggesting that the problem was exaggerated were part of the problem.
Corbyn knew well in advance what Starer's position was going to be.
What is absent is any kind of acceptance of personal responsibility. The report clearly blames the leadership for a lack of attention to the issue, yet all we have is regret that the process was so tardy..
The party failed badly on this issue. There's no getting around that. Corbyn was in charge and some humility and contrition would have been appropriate.
its what Starmer and others in the party have displayed.

[Sandydragon]

Given the initial statement and subsequent retraction, I can't help but feel that this has been a bit of a set up for Starmer. If Corbyn is someone who stands by his principles, and he has been adamant that the anti-semitic reports have been over-reported, then why the sudden retraction during the only fast tracked disciplinary case of the past few years, which allows the disciplinary panel to drop the whole thing a few hours later?

There is definitely a battle underway for the sou of the Labour party. There is also a place for the centre-left party which can appeal to moderates without the affiliation to the Corbyn's of this world.

[Zhivago]

Given the initial statement and subsequent retraction, I can't help but feel that this has been a bit of a set up for Starmer. If Corbyn is someone who stands by his principles, and he has been adamant that the anti-semitic reports have been over-reported, then why the sudden retraction during the only fast tracked disciplinary case of the past few years, which allows the disciplinary panel to drop the whole thing a few hours later?

There is definitely a battle underway for the sou of the Labour party. There is also a place for the centre-left party which can appeal to moderates without the affiliation to the Corbyn's of this world.

Can we stop calling neoliberals moderate please? The centre are just as ideological as the left, just with a different ideology.

[Zhivago]

Those are problematic.
Starmer made it clear he was going to accept the report in full. Moreover, he made it plain that those suggesting that the problem was exaggerated were part of the problem.
Corbyn knew well in advance what Starer's position was going to be.
What is absent is any kind of acceptance of personal responsibility. The report clearly blames the leadership for a lack of attention to the issue, yet all we have is regret that the process was so tardy..
The party failed badly on this issue. There's no getting around that. Corbyn was in charge and some humility and contrition would have been appropriate.
its what Starmer and others in the party have displayed.

Corbyn defended himself against a one-sided report. He has the right to free speech. For this he has basically been driven out of the party. It's a naked war on the left. Every war needs a casus belli, and Starmer was more than happy to be given this one. Corbyn was more than happy to give him one. Quite frankly the continued abuse of anti-semitism accusations as a political weapon is just as offensive as the anti-semitism itself.

[Stom]

Look, how you can call this left vs centist vs neo-liberals I don't know.

There was a problem with anti-semitism within the Labour party. Corbyn tried to do something but his ideology got in the way of doing the whole thing. Starmer came in and needed to make Labour electable again, which meant anti-semitism needed to be eradicated 100%. Corbyn couldn't drop it. Starmer kicked him out.

It's not left vs neo-liberals.

And, as I'm sure you're aware, the far left has more in common with the far right than the centre. Corbyn isn't a liberal. Labour want to be a liberal party. That's not centrism, that's, well, liberal.

Politicians need to step away from traditional labels. Starmer is. He is very much a liberal, going on his actions, and very much cares about humanity. That gets my vote every day of the week over theory. His previous actions, before becoming a politician, do not point to him being anything like Blair, but instead point to someone who is decent, wants to do the best by the people, and cares about outcomes.

If you want to label it however you please, do so by all means. But that doesn't mean your reality matches the reality of anyone else on the board, most people in the world, or the majority of the Labour Party leadership and membership.

[Zhivago]

Look, how you can call this left vs centist vs neo-liberals I don't know.

There was a problem with anti-semitism within the Labour party. Corbyn tried to do something but his ideology got in the way of doing the whole thing. Starmer came in and needed to make Labour electable again, which meant anti-semitism needed to be eradicated 100%. Corbyn couldn't drop it. Starmer kicked him out.

It's not left vs neo-liberals.

And, as I'm sure you're aware, the far left has more in common with the far right than the centre. Corbyn isn't a liberal. Labour want to be a liberal party. That's not centrism, that's, well, liberal.

Politicians need to step away from traditional labels. Starmer is. He is very much a liberal, going on his actions, and very much cares about humanity. That gets my vote every day of the week over theory. His previous actions, before becoming a politician, do not point to him being anything like Blair, but instead point to someone who is decent, wants to do the best by the people, and cares about outcomes.

If you want to label it however you please, do so by all means. But that doesn't mean your reality matches the reality of anyone else on the board, most people in the world, or the majority of the Labour Party leadership and membership.

Liberalism is a form of centrism. So if you say Labour want to be liberal but not centrist it simply makes no sense.

[Digby]

Given the initial statement and subsequent retraction, I can't help but feel that this has been a bit of a set up for Starmer. If Corbyn is someone who stands by his principles, and he has been adamant that the anti-semitic reports have been over-reported, then why the sudden retraction during the only fast tracked disciplinary case of the past few years, which allows the disciplinary panel to drop the whole thing a few hours later?

There is definitely a battle underway for the sou of the Labour party. There is also a place for the centre-left party which can appeal to moderates without the affiliation to the Corbyn's of this world.

I'd agree there's been an attempt to call Starmer's bluff, and it turned out he wasn't bluffing. Good for Starmer, and poor form from the idiot who can't see the wood for the trees

[Banquo]

Given the initial statement and subsequent retraction, I can't help but feel that this has been a bit of a set up for Starmer. If Corbyn is someone who stands by his principles, and he has been adamant that the anti-semitic reports have been over-reported, then why the sudden retraction during the only fast tracked disciplinary case of the past few years, which allows the disciplinary panel to drop the whole thing a few hours later?

There is definitely a battle underway for the sou of the Labour party. There is also a place for the centre-left party which can appeal to moderates without the affiliation to the Corbyn's of this world.

Starmer has equally been cute in setting up others for removal. RLB as an example.

[Stom]

Look, how you can call this left vs centist vs neo-liberals I don't know.

There was a problem with anti-semitism within the Labour party. Corbyn tried to do something but his ideology got in the way of doing the whole thing. Starmer came in and needed to make Labour electable again, which meant anti-semitism needed to be eradicated 100%. Corbyn couldn't drop it. Starmer kicked him out.

It's not left vs neo-liberals.

And, as I'm sure you're aware, the far left has more in common with the far right than the centre. Corbyn isn't a liberal. Labour want to be a liberal party. That's not centrism, that's, well, liberal.

Politicians need to step away from traditional labels. Starmer is. He is very much a liberal, going on his actions, and very much cares about humanity. That gets my vote every day of the week over theory. His previous actions, before becoming a politician, do not point to him being anything like Blair, but instead point to someone who is decent, wants to do the best by the people, and cares about outcomes.

If you want to label it however you please, do so by all means. But that doesn't mean your reality matches the reality of anyone else on the board, most people in the world, or the majority of the Labour Party leadership and membership.

Liberalism is a form of centrism. So if you say Labour want to be liberal but not centrist it simply makes no sense.

I think you need to go back to your politics textbooks first, then.

[Zhivago]

Look, how you can call this left vs centist vs neo-liberals I don't know.

There was a problem with anti-semitism within the Labour party. Corbyn tried to do something but his ideology got in the way of doing the whole thing. Starmer came in and needed to make Labour electable again, which meant anti-semitism needed to be eradicated 100%. Corbyn couldn't drop it. Starmer kicked him out.

It's not left vs neo-liberals.

And, as I'm sure you're aware, the far left has more in common with the far right than the centre. Corbyn isn't a liberal. Labour want to be a liberal party. That's not centrism, that's, well, liberal.

Politicians need to step away from traditional labels. Starmer is. He is very much a liberal, going on his actions, and very much cares about humanity. That gets my vote every day of the week over theory. His previous actions, before becoming a politician, do not point to him being anything like Blair, but instead point to someone who is decent, wants to do the best by the people, and cares about outcomes.

If you want to label it however you please, do so by all means. But that doesn't mean your reality matches the reality of anyone else on the board, most people in the world, or the majority of the Labour Party leadership and membership.

Liberalism is a form of centrism. So if you say Labour want to be liberal but not centrist it simply makes no sense.

I think you need to go back to your politics textbooks first, then.

Perhaps we're crossing wires here - when I refer to liberalism, I mean economic liberalism. When I talk in terms of left-right, I'm talking economic policy spectrum, not social. For me social policy comes secondary to economic policy.

[Zhivago]

Given the initial statement and subsequent retraction, I can't help but feel that this has been a bit of a set up for Starmer. If Corbyn is someone who stands by his principles, and he has been adamant that the anti-semitic reports have been over-reported, then why the sudden retraction during the only fast tracked disciplinary case of the past few years, which allows the disciplinary panel to drop the whole thing a few hours later?

There is definitely a battle underway for the sou of the Labour party. There is also a place for the centre-left party which can appeal to moderates without the affiliation to the Corbyn's of this world.

Starmer has equally been cute in setting up others for removal. RLB as an example.

Quite. This action shouldn't be seen in isolation, but as part of an ongoing clinical procedure excising the leftist growth from within the Labour party.

[Digby]

Getting rid of a cancer is often looked at as a good idea

[Zhivago]

Getting rid of a cancer is often looked at as a good idea

Unfortunately getting rid of it for good is nigh on impossible when it has metastasised. The only way to kill the cancer is to kill the patient in this case.

Anyway, my metaphor was meant to be an satirical take on how the situation is depicted in the press, so I don't know where to take it from here...

[Stom]

Liberalism is a form of centrism. So if you say Labour want to be liberal but not centrist it simply makes no sense.

I think you need to go back to your politics textbooks first, then.

Perhaps we're crossing wires here - when I refer to liberalism, I mean economic liberalism. When I talk in terms of left-right, I'm talking economic policy spectrum, not social. For me social policy comes secondary to economic policy.

How can you label Starmer's economic policy and what does that have to do with anti-semitism?

[Zhivago]

I think you need to go back to your politics textbooks first, then.

Perhaps we're crossing wires here - when I refer to liberalism, I mean economic liberalism. When I talk in terms of left-right, I'm talking economic policy spectrum, not social. For me social policy comes secondary to economic policy.

How can you label Starmer's economic policy and what does that have to do with anti-semitism?

Starner's economic policy will be in line with the faction he draws his main support from - Labour to Win. Obviously we're not really discussing Labour anti-semitism in a vacuum, we're discussing it in the context of the factional war that has been raging for some time. Anyone who denies this is either in denial, naive, or disingenuous.

[Zhivago]

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/p ... 60936.html

[Zhivago]

Emma Watson criticised

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/ ... mitism-row

[Zhivago]

Casting of Helen Mirren criticised

https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-59878356