Anti semitism

[Donny osmond]

I think the number of votes coming from the far left that suddenly won't be there is perhaps overstated, certainly compared to the number of floating, or centre voters that are potentially available.
On the anti semitism thing, for me JCs problem wasn't whether or not he's actually anti Semitic, although you can't continually defend/ally with anti Semites without being tarred. His problem was and is that he's so profoundly thick that he couldn't help but let himself be manipulated by literally everyone. In not just being able to play the game, but in apparently thinking he didn't even have to play the game he must be about the stupidest politician ever.

Sent from my CPH1951 using Tapatalk

[Puja]

So why would Corbyn make a statement that he must have known would put Starmer in a difficult position and risk causing splits in the party?
Corbyn could have made a graceful statement yesterday acknowledging his personal failings, accepting some responsibility for where the party was under him and vowed to support Starmer fully in his quest to root out AS. That would have served the party well and helped to draw some kind of line under what had gone on before.
Instead we get a situation - dare i say deliberately engineered? - that forced the leader/party into making a dramatic, possibly disruptive, decision.

Corbyn is today blaming it on Starmer not communicating with him as he promised he would and not prenotifying him that Starmer would ake a speech about "downplaying AS is just as bad" shortly before Corbyn actively downplayed it. Frankly, that's mince - it's probably true that Starmer failed to coordinate with him, but equally true that anyone with half a brain should've realised that yesterday was not the day for "I don't think it was as bad as everyone made it out to be," regardless of what Starmer said.

I don't know it's deliberately engineered - that's too cunning and underhanded for Corbyn. I think it's just him spouting off what he believes in with the ardent belief that people will look at the whole statement (which wasn't actually entirely bad, if you just look at the wording and somehow ignore all the context from around it), understand the nuances of it, and give him an empathetic hearing, despite the fact that that has never happened before and never will.

Puja

[Which Tyler]

My read is that this is all on Corbyn being an ideologue and reasonably narcissistic. He couldn't bring himself to be politic.
The report doesn't seem to have been all that damning to him personally, and gave him a reasonable amount of credit (I'm told by neutrals who've read it - I personally can't be arsed). Starmer refused to condemn him, and generally avoided criticism. Starmer has already gone on record saying that he won't tolerate any down-playing of anti-semitism, and has already reinforced that message with RLB.

Corbyn could have accepted the findings of the report. He could have highlighted the positives that it said about him and his leadership. He could have said that we're dealing with an institutionalised problem, and are moving in the right direction, but it's not job done.
But no, he couldn't bring himself to feel slighted, and he'd rather fall on his sword than do so. He forced Starmer's hand.

I really hope this doesn't split the party - if there's ever been a time when we needed a strong opposition, this is it (and the last 5 years TBH, but no point crying over spilt milk).
I am very confident that the tories will find another 30 ways to fuck-up and remove the media spotlight from Corbyn within the next week. I am not remotely confident that it actually will remove the media spotlight.

[Puja]

My read is that this is all on Corbyn being an ideologue and reasonably narcissistic. He couldn't bring himself to be politic.
The report doesn't seem to have been all that damning to him personally, and gave him a reasonable amount of credit (I'm told by neutrals who've read it - I personally can't be arsed). Starmer refused to condemn him, and generally avoided criticism. Starmer has already gone on record saying that he won't tolerate any minimising of anti-semitism, and has already reinforced that message with RLB.

Corbyn could have accepted the findings of the report. He could have highlighted the positives that it said about him and his leadership. He could have said that we're dealing with an institutionalised problem, and are moving in the right direction, but it's not job done.
But no, he couldn't bring himself to feel slighted, and he'd rather fall on his sword than do so. He forced Starmer's hand.

Spot on.

Puja

[Digby]

Corbyn didn't even have to support the report, there was an agreed position with some senior lefties in the Labour Party ahead of the report coming out that they'd take no public position on day 1 (or day 10, or day...), essentially saying some variant of we'll now take some time to read the report. And that view was communicated to Corbyn, so all he had to say was as little as possible, but straight off the bat the politically astute Corbyn distanced himself from some senior folks who like him and who otherwise might have supported him more.

[Mikey Brown]

I don’t seem to be able to copy the text from Facebook, maybe because I don’t have an account, but is this the statement everyone is talking about?



It certainly seems different to what I expected based on the picture painted in the news so far. “One anti-Semite is too many, but...” is always bound to end badly though, but I got the impression that was the actual thrust of the statement.

Corbyn doesn’t seem to get that there’s absolutely no room for explaining nuance or grey areas in politics.

[Puja]

I don’t seem to be able to copy the text from Facebook, maybe because I don’t have an account, but is this the statement everyone is talking about?



It certainly seems different to what I expected based on the picture painted in the news so far. “One anti-Semite is too many, but...” is always bound to end badly though, but I got the impression that was the actual thrust of the statement.

Corbyn doesn’t seem to get that there’s absolutely no room for explaining nuance or grey areas in politics.

It is that statement, yes.

As I said, it's not actually a particularly bad statement if you just look at the words and not the context of the situation, it's just incredibly naive of him to think that people will focus on the "Anti-Semitism is abhorrent" sentiment that takes up 5 paragaphs instead of the "dramatically overstated by our opponents and the media" which takes up 1.

Puja

[Mikey Brown]

Yeah. That’s fair.

It’s sad though, anti-semitism was just a convenient stick to beat him with for many people who clearly couldn’t give less of a fuck about prejudice or persecution in any form. I’m not sure how you communicate how awful a thing that is without appearing to be deflecting, but this certainly didn’t seem to be the right time or place for it.

[Stom]

Corbyn completely screwed up his response to this pretty manufactured problem. Firstly, and Ken Livingstone dug his hole with this, comparing Israel to the Nazis is both not really a fair comparison and one intended to be offensive. It's indefensible.

But there's no reason not to compare Israel's actions in Gaza to previous prejudices against Jews, especially in the middle east, and also to call out the fact that a country that was founded because a group of people were driven out of their historical homeland by racial prejudice should know better...

And that the time for a debate on what forms anti-semitism isn't when you're in the midst of a crisis.

And that anti-semitic views dressed up as criticism of Israel are still anti-semitic.

He's not bright enough to understand nuance.

Also, I'm unsure why, as a progressive member of the LGBTQ community, you'd want old fashioned socialists? I mean, they're not exactly the most liberal group in the world. Nor are they progressive or humanist. In fact, their entire manifesto is a rejection of another ideology rather than being an independent ideology itself.

Starmer belongs to a group of modern humanists. And to suggest he's right leaning is insane considering his actions throughout his previous career and so far in his current career. He's just sensible. He believes that Labour has to make itself electable again by removing all the potential points of attack, whether or not he agrees with them.

I think Starmer far more fits a modern, liberal progressive than Corbyn.

[Puja]

Also, I'm unsure why, as a progressive member of the LGBTQ community, you'd want old fashioned socialists? I mean, they're not exactly the most liberal group in the world. Nor are they progressive or humanist. In fact, their entire manifesto is a rejection of another ideology rather than being an independent ideology itself.

Starmer belongs to a group of modern humanists. And to suggest he's right leaning is insane considering his actions throughout his previous career and so far in his current career. He's just sensible. He believes that Labour has to make itself electable again by removing all the potential points of attack, whether or not he agrees with them.

I think Starmer far more fits a modern, liberal progressive than Corbyn.

I'm not so much thinking of old-fashioned socialists as I am new-fashioned ones. There's a lot of angry young people, shaped by growing up in a world where the rich get richer, corruption in power is flaunted, the right celebrates tax-cuts and austerity, home ownership is a distant dream, and a university degree gets you sweet fuck all in the jobs market. They are, as of a rule, pretty liberal and progressive. And they idolise Corbyn as the first national politician to appear to give a damn about the fact that they feel left behind - they're what got him re-elected when Owen Smith challenged him and what got him close in 2017. They're definitely fewer than the number of centrists that Starmer stands to gain, but for the Greens to not want to court those people if they feel rejected by the new Labour regime is utter madness, to my mind.

I genuinely don't know what Starmer the Labour leader believes in. I don't infer that he's right leaning (given his previous actions), but he doesn't appear to be taking much in the way of stances and, those which he has taken in booting RLB and not replacing her with someone else from the left wing, plus firing MPs from government positions when they refused to abstain on a government bill that could easily be seen about legalising torture, have not endeared him to the pro-Corbyn crowd.

You are absolutely right that he is sensible and I do agree with both you and him about Labour's need to make itself electable again by avoiding the pitfalls and traps set by the opposition. I am in favour of him as the Labour leader. His actions (or inaction) are very practical; they're just not indicative of any particular ideals.

Puja

[Sandydragon]

Yeah. That’s fair.

It’s sad though, anti-semitism was just a convenient stick to beat him with for many people who clearly couldn’t give less of a fuck about prejudice or persecution in any form. I’m not sure how you communicate how awful a thing that is without appearing to be deflecting, but this certainly didn’t seem to be the right time or place for it.

To be fair, if he had acted decisively when these issues first came to light then there wouldn’t have been an issue. Continued ambiguity followed by his office intervening in the disciplinary process were like fuel to the fire. It’s hard to ignore the view that Corbyn just didn’t see the problem and didn’t feel that it was worth dealing with. Or perhaps he felt that the increase in votes from voting sections that don’t like Israel would be enough of a counter? Either he really is as thick as mince or he didn’t care. Not a great pitch really to the wider country and whilst the media can focus on a story too much sometimes, when someone is that inept it’s hard not to.

[Stom]

Yeah. That’s fair.

It’s sad though, anti-semitism was just a convenient stick to beat him with for many people who clearly couldn’t give less of a fuck about prejudice or persecution in any form. I’m not sure how you communicate how awful a thing that is without appearing to be deflecting, but this certainly didn’t seem to be the right time or place for it.

To be fair, if he had acted decisively when these issues first came to light then there wouldn’t have been an issue. Continued ambiguity followed by his office intervening in the disciplinary process were like fuel to the fire. It’s hard to ignore the view that Corbyn just didn’t see the problem and didn’t feel that it was worth dealing with. Or perhaps he felt that the increase in votes from voting sections that don’t like Israel would be enough of a counter? Either he really is as thick as mince or he didn’t care. Not a great pitch really to the wider country and whilst the media can focus on a story too much sometimes, when someone is that inept it’s hard not to.

I'm going to reiterate a point I've previously made: it didn't matter in the election.

Labour's failure over years and years, they're inability to speak the language of their core vote, their drift away from their core values, and the muddled messaging over Brexit cost them the vote.

Brexit was simply the final nail in the coffin for the "red wall". And those people are not progressives, they're old fashioned socialists who Corbyn should have been targeting and talking to: they're the people who made the backbone of previous Labour party (prior to Blair).

But they were ignored and silenced, and told they were racist (which, while plausibly true, isn't something you tell someone you want to do something for you...).

Labour isn't going to struggle to win in London but it might struggle to win in the North again, unless Starmer turns Labour back toward those people who have felt let down by the party, while still maintaining a modern identity for the party.

It's a tight line to walk as Labour can't make inroads in Tory heartlands and the votes in the cities will not be enough.

Politics is no longer right v left. It's Far right nationalism vs everyone else.

[Son of Mathonwy]

For me, it's not that Corbyn hasn't made a naïve statement, it's that the suspension seems extreme - I don't understand the basis of it, ie what rule has he transgressed? This leaves me feeling that he's been hard done by. And I'm not alone in this - I know Tory voters who've considered Corbyn poisonous in the past who feel sorry for him. Like he's been kicked when he's down.

And this makes me think that the left will take this very personally and emotionally, and not forgive it. When I say I think it'll lose more far left vote than it gains from the centre, I don't mean that there are more far left votes than centre votes. I mean think this action - punishing Corbyn - will infuriate the left far more than it pleases the centre, so it's impact on the support from these two groups will by asymmetric: it will have an overall negative impact on the Labour vote.

[Puja]

And this makes me think that the left will take this very personally and emotionally, and not forgive it. When I say I think it'll lose more far left vote than it gains from the centre, I don't mean that there are more far left votes than centre votes. I mean think this action - punishing Corbyn - will infuriate the left far more than it pleases the centre, so it's impact on the support from these two groups will by asymmetric: it will have an overall negative impact on the Labour vote.

I don't know if that's necessarily true. Imagine a world where, after giving a speech saying that downplaying AS is as bad as AS, Starmer intervenes with the party's disciplinary to stop the suspension of Corbyn after he downplays AS. Does he have any ability to defend against Tory screams of "Same old anti-Semitic Labour"? Is there any way that this doesn't result in complete electoral unviability?

Starmer might lose the left, but he couldn't win an election with just the left anyway. He has to try and take some of the centre and that requires not being politically poisonous. The left might forgive him/still vote for him as the not-Tory option, but the British press would never let him escape being racist. It was a Hobson's Choice and a completely unnecessary one.

Puja

[fivepointer]

For me, it's not that Corbyn hasn't made a naïve statement, it's that the suspension seems extreme - I don't understand the basis of it, ie what rule has he transgressed? This leaves me feeling that he's been hard done by. And I'm not alone in this - I know Tory voters who've considered Corbyn poisonous in the past who feel sorry for him. Like he's been kicked when he's down.

And this makes me think that the left will take this very personally and emotionally, and not forgive it. When I say I think it'll lose more far left vote than it gains from the centre, I don't mean that there are more far left votes than centre votes. I mean think this action - punishing Corbyn - will infuriate the left far more than it pleases the centre, so it's impact on the support from these two groups will by asymmetric: it will have an overall negative impact on the Labour vote.

What other action could have been taken?

Corbyn chose to make this an issue by issuing his statement. The consequences are as a result of his a) stupidity, b) ego or c) malign intent. Maybe a dash of all 3.

I said above that he could have issued a far milder and supportive statement, but declined to do so.

Electorally this will make little difference i'd say.

Rather then die in a ditch over Corbyn - a deeply flawed, lightweight politician who serially failed - the left should get behind Starmer, show some support and work to try and influence the direction of the party by being effective in Parliament and in the media, and by offering perceptive critique and analysis.

[Son of Mathonwy]

And this makes me think that the left will take this very personally and emotionally, and not forgive it. When I say I think it'll lose more far left vote than it gains from the centre, I don't mean that there are more far left votes than centre votes. I mean think this action - punishing Corbyn - will infuriate the left far more than it pleases the centre, so it's impact on the support from these two groups will by asymmetric: it will have an overall negative impact on the Labour vote.

I don't know if that's necessarily true. Imagine a world where, after giving a speech saying that downplaying AS is as bad as AS, Starmer intervenes with the party's disciplinary to stop the suspension of Corbyn after he downplays AS. Does he have any ability to defend against Tory screams of "Same old anti-Semitic Labour"? Is there any way that this doesn't result in complete electoral unviability?

Starmer might lose the left, but he couldn't win an election with just the left anyway. He has to try and take some of the centre and that requires not being politically poisonous. The left might forgive him/still vote for him as the not-Tory option, but the British press would never let him escape being racist. It was a Hobson's Choice and a completely unnecessary one.

Puja

Agreed, it's not necessaily true, it's just my take on it.

If it's true that Starmer's had no part in this decision then I agree, he shouldn't intervene. If this is the case, he's done nothing wrong.

I totally agree that Starmer needs the centre and is correct to prioritise this. But IMO it's not worth earning the undying hatred of the far left to (possibly) gain a little more approval from the centre. Some of whom might think the action is kicking a man when he's down. Corbyn is yesterday's man, defending himself against criticism. So what? Ignore him.

[Son of Mathonwy]

For me, it's not that Corbyn hasn't made a naïve statement, it's that the suspension seems extreme - I don't understand the basis of it, ie what rule has he transgressed? This leaves me feeling that he's been hard done by. And I'm not alone in this - I know Tory voters who've considered Corbyn poisonous in the past who feel sorry for him. Like he's been kicked when he's down.

And this makes me think that the left will take this very personally and emotionally, and not forgive it. When I say I think it'll lose more far left vote than it gains from the centre, I don't mean that there are more far left votes than centre votes. I mean think this action - punishing Corbyn - will infuriate the left far more than it pleases the centre, so it's impact on the support from these two groups will by asymmetric: it will have an overall negative impact on the Labour vote.

What other action could have been taken?

Corbyn chose to make this an issue by issuing his statement. The consequences are as a result of his a) stupidity, b) ego or c) malign intent. Maybe a dash of all 3.

I said above that he could have issued a far milder and supportive statement, but declined to do so.

Electorally this will make little difference i'd say.

Rather then die in a ditch over Corbyn - a deeply flawed, lightweight politician who serially failed - the left should get behind Starmer, show some support and work to try and influence the direction of the party by being effective in Parliament and in the media, and by offering perceptive critique and analysis.

What other action? Not suspending him.

Do you understand the basis of his suspension? Beyond saying something isn't in line with the front bench Labour Party?

Agreed that most likely this will blow over and not have a significant effect on the next election. My feeling is that it's a negative thing but will probably not be much of an issue by then. (But it still feels wrong.)

[Zhivago]

my take for anyone who is interested

-- Corbyn said what he said because he says what he thinks. That's just who he is. I tend to agree with the 'nice but dim' assessment.

-- Labour's media strategy is shit. It's like going into a boxing ring and getting hit without hitting back, and even hitting yourself. The main ambition (apart from the end goal of getting elected) while in opposition should be to move the Overton Window. Influence is often more important for achieving political aims than formal power, as Farage/UKIP showed clearly.

-- The suspension only serves to confirm that Starmer was a trojan horse for centrism. If it was the left doing this, I could easily imagine it being called stalinist, which would be still be ridiculous of course, as it was when those terms were used during Corbyn's term. Starmer only won the leadership election because Corbyn supporters lent him their vote. They will rescind it at the earliest opportunity.

-- Centrism is a pointless ideology, which only serves to enable capitalist exploitation. Corbynism a faux-ideology, a term invented by the media that has zero political meaning. Corbynism is not a new political ideology but old fashioned socialism. Socialism is not the solution for our woes, although the problem it tries to solve still exists and still needs to be solved.

-- Anti-semitism is an unnecessary distraction, as are most social issues (e.g. trans rights). The aspects of the furore that involved discussion of Palestine etc, was pointlessly premature. Focusing on foreign policy before domestic policy puts the cart before the horse. Domestic policy should be focused first and foremost on transforming economic power structures.

[Digby]

Militant have been banging the drum that Labour has only been losing from the 80s onwards because they weren't far enough to the left, and we see more of that thinking with the claim Starmer is a centrist and a seeming inference that that's a negative.

[Sandydragon]

And this makes me think that the left will take this very personally and emotionally, and not forgive it. When I say I think it'll lose more far left vote than it gains from the centre, I don't mean that there are more far left votes than centre votes. I mean think this action - punishing Corbyn - will infuriate the left far more than it pleases the centre, so it's impact on the support from these two groups will by asymmetric: it will have an overall negative impact on the Labour vote.

I don't know if that's necessarily true. Imagine a world where, after giving a speech saying that downplaying AS is as bad as AS, Starmer intervenes with the party's disciplinary to stop the suspension of Corbyn after he downplays AS. Does he have any ability to defend against Tory screams of "Same old anti-Semitic Labour"? Is there any way that this doesn't result in complete electoral unviability?

Starmer might lose the left, but he couldn't win an election with just the left anyway. He has to try and take some of the centre and that requires not being politically poisonous. The left might forgive him/still vote for him as the not-Tory option, but the British press would never let him escape being racist. It was a Hobson's Choice and a completely unnecessary one.

Puja

Totally agree with this. If Corbyn had kept his gob shut then he would have been ignored. Or if he had just made some noncommittal comment about reading the report and reflecting on it, etc etc. But he didn’t and decided to argue with the conclusions. Either Starmer suspends him or he is also guilty by association and thus will get hammered. It might be a long time to the next election but the Tories will bring it up as much as they can in the short term and remind people nearer the next poll.

Alternatively Starmer gets rid of a
Bunch of MPs who only had niche appeal, draws a thick line under the events of the previous leadership, sets out his stall with regards to racism and thus can regain the moral high ground for when Boris makes another letterbox comment.

[Digby]

This sort of nonsense is part of the reason I wondered about Starmer wanting the leadership now, it would in many ways be easier to be the next cab off the rank in my estimation. And the action over Corbyn will cost Starmer, it might even cost him his role as leader, we'll have to see what happens in upcoming NEC elections and the like. But if Starmer can survive and build on this moment it's a positive because he was willing to do the right thing even if it costs him, and voters like that sort of example

[Zhivago]

This sort of nonsense is part of the reason I wondered about Starmer wanting the leadership now, it would in many ways be easier to be the next cab off the rank in my estimation. And the action over Corbyn will cost Starmer, it might even cost him his role as leader, we'll have to see what happens in upcoming NEC elections and the like. But if Starmer can survive and build on this moment it's a positive because he was willing to do the right thing even if it costs him, and voters like that sort of example

I think it's quite likely that he'll face a leadership challenge. If he wants to survive said challenge he needs to move more to the left, and that move will need to be sincere (or at least be perceived as such).

[Zhivago]

Does anyone actually know what Starmer stands for politically?

[Digby]

This sort of nonsense is part of the reason I wondered about Starmer wanting the leadership now, it would in many ways be easier to be the next cab off the rank in my estimation. And the action over Corbyn will cost Starmer, it might even cost him his role as leader, we'll have to see what happens in upcoming NEC elections and the like. But if Starmer can survive and build on this moment it's a positive because he was willing to do the right thing even if it costs him, and voters like that sort of example

I think it's quite likely that he'll face a leadership challenge. If he wants to survive said challenge he needs to move more to the left, and that move will need to be sincere (or at least be perceived as such).

If he moves left it needs to be on some specific policy areas that still have broad popular support among the electorate, and aren't merely popular talking points on the left of the official opposition. Moving left in general seems like a non starter with the electorate.

I'm all set to vote Labour for the first time ever, but if you ditch Keir and go back to someone like RLB I'll stick with voting Lib Dem. I'd even at this point join the Labour Party but the parties are getting better at checking if you appear on the membership list of another party, and oddly they seem to think it's a bad thing to live in a plural society (even weirder it's not just the Tories and Labour against pluralism, the Lib Dems are in on it too)

[Puja]

Alternatively Starmer ... sets out his stall with regards to racism and thus can regain the moral high ground for when Boris makes another letterbox comment.

This is especially key. The Tory party is a turd fire that is constantly relighting itself, led by an incompetent, racist, bloviating fuckwaffle, and the only reason that it's not been turned on by its feral pets in the press is that Labour are proving entertaining to torment (and showed no signs of being willing to come to an accomodation under the previous regime). If Starmer can keep presenting himself as staid, sensible, and statesmanlike, in charge of the reasonable party, the rags will turn on and cannibalise the Conservatives, just as they did during the Blair years.

With luck Starmer won't gain power and then think he's made permanent friends in the press who don't need to be tamed anymore, like Blair did, and will instead turn on them with proper regulation.

Puja