Starmer As Labour's leader - what should he do?

438 posts / 0 new
Last post
Ken Burch

nicky, if you're still arguing that Corbyn's election as leader was a thing that had no right to happen-even though it reflected a massive shift in opinions among the Labour rank-and-file- you can't legitimately argue, at the same time, that Starmer has the right to run the party like a Stalinist dictator.

He does not have the authority to bar CLPs from debating either his intransigence about making Corbyn crawl OR or their confidence in him as leader.

Starmer has no greater authority to do anything as leader than Corbyn did.

It's absurd to act as though he "counts" as leader but his predecessor didn't.

And it is now clear that the voters are not turning away from Starmer over his authoritatian bullying tactics and his decision to keep the war against the Left going rather than unifying the party and focusing on what he is supposed to be focusing on, which is attacking the Tories and the Right and no one else.

nicky

I dont know how any Corbynite can be so self righteous as you Ken about Starmer's electoral prospects given the depth of the ditch into which Corbyn drove the party.

Ken Burch

Again, there is no such thing as a "Corbynite"- there were simply people who wanted Labour to cease being the second Conservative Party it was in the days when your hero Blair ran it as a socialist-free zone- and I don't want Corbyn back as leader, nor do most of the people fighting for his reinstatement to the PLP-  they simply reject the idea that Corbyn deserves to be treated as a figure in disgrace, to be anathemized by the party til the end of his days.  He's been out as leader as months and there was never any good reason for Keir not to let it go at that.

The poll ratings Labour had in Corbyn's last few months as leader, after the election and during the leadership campaign to succeed him, are not a valid measure of anything.  They simply measure where he was in the public eye as a lame duck who had been destroyed by an endless smear campaign.

The only possible justification for Starmer's tactics would be if he had actually moved the party into a huge lead in the polls.  He hasn't, and we already know he's not going to.  

And his current slow slide in the polls, coupled with increasing intra-party and overall public opposition to Keir's refusal to end the war against Corbyn and the left and his increasingly dictatorial tactics for suppressing dissent- I assume you'll concede that he has no right to bar CLP's from voting no-confidence in his leadership since he was part of a no-confidence motion against Corbyn and since the CLP's have just as much right to have a say in what the party stands for as the PLP did in 2016- that Labour is NOT a party where what the PLP wants is the only thing that matters.

I started this thread to encourage positive suggestions about what Starmer might do to increase Labour's chances at the next election.  Would you mind at least having the decency to explain why you absolutely refused to engage that discussion?  

What harm would have come of Starmer saying "ok, I'm leader.  My job is to win the next election for Labour on the socialist policies we now hold and holding the Tories accountable for what they do.  My job is not to make my predecessor into a pariah, nor to punish those allied with him, nor to prevent people from fighting to keep the socialist policies".

Why would it have been unthinkable for Starmer to approach the job that way- rather than to focus solely on persecuting, apparently, everybody who won't renounce their support for Corbyn?

We now know Labour can't gain votes by kicking Corbyn and the Left out of the party.  

The fact that Labour's position in the polls is actually where it was for most of Corbyn's tenure- and that it should be massively higher because Starmer is not the victim of a 24-7 media/PLP hate campaign- proves that Starmer's approach isn't working.

And quite frankly, we also know that doing what you want and dragging the party back to Blairism wouldn't gain Labour any votes, because it lost badly in 2010 and 2015 on what can only be called Blairite manifestos, coupled with the fact that Labour had been sharply losing ground at the polls since the 2005 election and in every one of the last rounds of local and Euro-elections in the last five years Labour was in power prove that The Third Way is politically extinct.

There simply isn't any significant popular support for Labour blurring the differences and reducing its policy offer to "it's enough that it would be a Labour government doing that to you".

So why stay with your insistence on that?

It's just that there's no reason to force the man to make the statement "apologizing without qualifications" would mean- to essentially say what Keir wants him to say- that he and those allied with him

Ken Burch

Starmer's unjustified war against the Left continues-  if he does this, nobody who wants Labour to be different than the Tories will still be in the party, and it can't possibly do anything radical or even "progressive" in government either: 

Rayner says “thousands” of Labour members may be suspended from party – LabourList

nicky

Ken surely you must agree that the disease of Corbynism must be eradicated before the Labour Party can seriously contend for power. 
Starmer to his imense credit is striving to do just that. Good for him.

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

nicky wrote:

Ken surely you must agree that the disease of Corbynism must be eradicated before the Labour Party can seriously contend for power. 
Starmer to his imense credit is striving to do just that. Good for him.

LOL. My hat's off to you, nicky. That is some world class trolling. I still can't stop giggling.

Ken Burch

nicky wrote:

Ken surely you must agree that the disease of Corbynism must be eradicated before the Labour Party can seriously contend for power. 
Starmer to his imense credit is striving to do just that. Good for him.

There is no such thing as "Corbynism"- all Corbyn and those he sands with support is democratic socialism, green values, peace, and an anti-imperialist relationship with the world  How is any of that something that needs to be eradicated?  How is any of that a "disease"? Why shouldn't Labour be anti-imperialist?  It's not as though Labour values have been served by backing U.S. foreign policy at any point since 1945.

Corbyn's policies were and are popular and none of them were evil, for that matter.  

And there is no excuse for Starmer's insistence on silencing all criticism of the Israeli government- which is what he is essentially pledged the party to at that horrible JLM event today.

A few weeks ago,  Starmer even punished Stephen Kinnock, the most right-wing MP in the entire party, a man who never held any of the socialist values his father totally abandoned, and one of Corbyn's most savagely brutal enemies in the PLP- for making the mildest possible critical comments about what the IDF does to Palestinians.  Can you actually defend that?  

Doesn't that prove to you YET that the Starmer has gone totally off the rails and is doing nothing but harm?

He had no mandate for purges and essentially agreed there'd be none.

Ha had no mandate to anathemize Corbyn.

It's gone to far.

There is no way Starmer can offer a program of radical change if he forces Corbyn and everyone associated with the man out of the party, and the EHRC, as I've repeatedly pointed out, said Corbyn had the right to make the comments he made-comments which, as you know full well, weren't even ABOUT the report.

BTW...on the whole "interference in disciplinary proceedings" thing in the report...most of the interference was to SPEED UP suspensions and expulsions of those guilty of AS.  He was doing exactly what Hodge was demanding.  And Starmer is interfering in disciplinary proceedings by refusing to reinstate Corbyn to the PLP when party rules explicitly state that when an MP is readmitted to the party, that MP is readmitted to the whip and that's the end of it.

Give this a rest.

Labour can't crush the Left and still be Labour.  It wasn't Labour under Blair, and Blair and Kinnock never needed to crush the Left to beat the Tories.

Aristotleded24
nicky

Gee, I thought for sure you would agree with me Ken.

JKR

Rayner: "What Jeremy said in response to the EHRC report was totally unacceptable."

Turning to Corbyn’s comments, Rayner said: “What Jeremy said in response to the EHRC report was totally unacceptable. Any attempts to minimise or downplay the extent of antisemitism are part of the problem. This is the issue.

“I knew this would happen. It is a matter of public record now that I contacted Jeremy to try and get him not to say what he said, and to apologise and withdraw it afterwards. Because I don’t think Jeremy really quite gets how upsetting it is.

“How really upsetting it is when he made those comments. And I just want to say that I really do hope that Jeremy really does reflect now on what he said on the day that report was published and his response to that.

“I truly hope he reflects. I understand that he thinks he’s always tackled issues of antisemitism. I understand he thinks he’s always tackled issues of racism. But on this, he’s wrong. He has to accept as a leader that we failed.

“We all have to accept that. I’ve accepted my failure in that. Then we’ve got to go and make sure that we do everything we possibly can to regain that trust and respect.

“I don’t think Jeremy has done enough for that now, no, so at the very least I think he should apologise, absolutely.”

Corbyn was suspended in October after commenting that “one antisemite is one too many” but also claiming that “the scale of the problem was… dramatically overstated for political reasons by our opponents."


 

JKR

Aristotleded24 wrote:

I'm Jewish, I lost 39 family members in the Holocaust, and Jeremy Corbyn is no anti-semite: Andrew Feinstein

The vast majority of British Jews consider Jeremy Corbyn to be an antisemite.

-----

The vast majority of British Jews consider Jeremy Corbyn to be an antisemite. In the most recent poll, last month, the figure was 87 per cent.

Putting oneself in the shoes of another person, or another group, can be difficult. But we believe it is important — and urgent — that you do that. Perhaps the fact that nearly half (47 per cent) of the Jewish community said in that same poll that they would “seriously consider” emigrating if Mr Corbyn wins on December 12 will give you an indication of what it feels like to be a British Jew at a time when the official opposition is led by a man widely held to be an antisemite.

Ken Burch
nicky

I think we should all listen to what Angela Raynor has to say. She is on the left of the party and was a prominent backer of Corbyn, even when he was regarded as poison by the vast majority of Labour MPs. So she doesn't come to her opinion from a pre-baked anti-Corbyn perspective.

I know you will say she is a sellout,Ken, but then then Donald Trump is calling Fox News a sellout too now that it is acknowledging a bit of truth about his election loss.

Ken Burch

There is nothing else Corbyn can do on the AS issue.  It is not reasonable to ask him to say something that would be taken as agreeing that his supporters deserved the relentless, demonizing smears.

Angela Rayner can no longer claim to be a socialist if she is threatening mass suspensions and expulsions in order to stop legitimate exercises in internal party democracy.

And quite frankly, it's silly to act as though the UK Jewish community was ever in any danger here.  Nobody was going to do anything to that community. Nothing WAS doine to it.

All there was was the media-PLP frenzy.

And there was no reason to for the frenzy to be continued once Corbyn stood down as leader. He doesn't deserve to be driven out of the party and out of public life,  and there's no reason to force everyone who stood with him as leader to choose between renouncing the guy or expulsion.

No good came of it when Kinnock did things like this, after all- and his defeats in 1987 and 1992 were no one's fault of his own.

josh

JKR wrote:

Aristotleded24 wrote:

I'm Jewish, I lost 39 family members in the Holocaust, and Jeremy Corbyn is no anti-semite: Andrew Feinstein

The vast majority of British Jews consider Jeremy Corbyn to be an antisemite.

-----

The vast majority of British Jews consider Jeremy Corbyn to be an antisemite. In the most recent poll, last month, the figure was 87 per cent.

Putting oneself in the shoes of another person, or another group, can be difficult. But we believe it is important — and urgent — that you do that. Perhaps the fact that nearly half (47 per cent) of the Jewish community said in that same poll that they would “seriously consider” emigrating if Mr Corbyn wins on December 12 will give you an indication of what it feels like to be a British Jew at a time when the official opposition is led by a man widely held to be an antisemite.

The vast majority of British Jews think ethnically cleansing Palestinians is perfectly proper.  So I guess that makes Jeremy Corbyn an anti-Semite.

josh

nicky wrote:

I think we should all listen to what Angela Raynor has to say. She is on the left of the party and was a prominent backer of Corbyn, even when he was regarded as poison by the vast majority of Labour MPs. So she doesn't come to her opinion from a pre-baked anti-Corbyn perspective.

I know you will say she is a sellout,Ken, but then then Donald Trump is calling Fox News a sellout too now that it is acknowledging a bit of truth about his election loss.

And Starmer is purging people in the party like a Stalinist.  If you want to have an idiotic comparison contest,

JKR

josh wrote:

The vast majority of British Jews think ethnically cleansing Palestinians is perfectly proper.  So I guess that makes Jeremy Corbyn an anti-Semite.

That "statistic" is based on what opinion poll? I think it's antisemitic to say that "the vast amounts of British Jews think ethnically cleansing Palestinians is perfectly proper." If Labour does implement the EHRC verdict, a Labour member that says those kinds of things will hopefully be expelled from the party.

 

JKR

dp

nicky

JKR is right about your comment Josh.

you should put up or shut up.

Unless you can document it, your allegation is highly anti-semetic. It would be grounds for expulsion from the Labour Party, if you were a member. At th3 least Babble should take some action.

josh

JKR wrote:

josh wrote:

The vast majority of British Jews think ethnically cleansing Palestinians is perfectly proper.  So I guess that makes Jeremy Corbyn an anti-Semite.

That "statistic" is based on what opinion poll? I think it's antisemitic to say that "the vast amounts of British Jews think ethnically cleansing Palestinians is perfectly proper." If Labour does implement the EHRC verdict, a Labour member that says those kinds of things will hopefully be expelled from the party.

 

A vast majority of British Jews support Israeli policy vis-a-vis the Palestinians in the West Bank and East Jerusalem.  That policy involves ethnically cleansing Palestinians from their land to make room for "settlers."  Therefore, they support it.  Corbyn opposes it, and was willing to do something about it.  Therefore, the "vast majority" consider him to be "anti-Semitic."  Because they equate a political state with a religion.  Fortunately, there are a number of Jewish groups in the UK, albeit a minority, who oppose these policies.

josh

nicky wrote:

JKR is right about your comment Josh.

you should put up or shut up.

Unless you can document it, your allegation is highly anti-semetic. It would be grounds for expulsion from the Labour Party, if you were a member. At th3 least Babble should take some action.

Considering I'm Jewish, that would be interesting.  Apparently, in the Labour Party, you're free to tar people as anti-Semitic, but not free to call people out for being anti-Palestinian.

Ken Burch

josh wrote:

nicky wrote:

JKR is right about your comment Josh.

you should put up or shut up.

Unless you can document it, your allegation is highly anti-semetic. It would be grounds for expulsion from the Labour Party, if you were a member. At th3 least Babble should take some action.

Considering I'm Jewish, that would be interesting.  Apparently, in the Labour Party, you're free to tar people as anti-Semitic, but not free to call people out for being anti-Palestinian.

Sickeningly, Labour did expel Tony Greenstein and Jackie Walker, who are both Jewish, and therefore can't actually BE antisemitic, since you can't be a bigot against your own identity.

I get the point you are trying to make about what general views people in the UK Jewish community would take about the Israel/Palestine dispute, and it's good that you clarified what you were talking about in a separate post

Your anger is justified and there's no excuse for anything the Israeli government is doing to ordinary Palestinians, but using the phrase "ethnic cleansing", gives the people who are inflaming this issue to attack the Left in the UK ammunition to work with that they shouldn't be given.

I'd also be interested in what nicky and JKR would call those policies.  Nothing that you are condeming here can be justified as "self-defense", and it's absurd for the Israeli government to act as though Israel is the vulnerable party in all of this- it has the fourth-largest military on the planet, for god's sakes.

(apologies for initially mis-initially "JKR" above.  It's corrected now.)

JKR

josh wrote:

JKR wrote:

josh wrote:

The vast majority of British Jews think ethnically cleansing Palestinians is perfectly proper.  So I guess that makes Jeremy Corbyn an anti-Semite.

That "statistic" is based on what opinion poll? I think it's antisemitic to say that "the vast amounts of British Jews think ethnically cleansing Palestinians is perfectly proper." If Labour does implement the EHRC verdict, a Labour member that says those kinds of things will hopefully be expelled from the party.

 

A vast majority of British Jews support Israeli policy vis-a-vis the Palestinians in the West Bank and East Jerusalem.  That policy involves ethnically cleansing Palestinians from their land to make room for "settlers."  Therefore, they support it.  Corbyn opposes it, and was willing to do something about it.  Therefore, the "vast majority" consider him to be "anti-Semitic."  Because they equate a political state with a religion.  Fortunately, there are a number of Jewish groups in the UK, albeit a minority, who oppose these policies.

I would like to think that Corbyn completely opposes the idea that the majority of Jewish British people support ethnic cleansing and I hope he supports the idea that Labour members who support such an idea should be expelled from Labour.

JKR

Ken Burch wrote:

... using the phrase "ethnic cleansing", gives the people who are inflaming this issue to attack the Left in the UK ammunition to work with that they shouldn't be given.

Using the phrase "ethnic cleansing", also gives people who are antisemitic ammunition to attack Jewish people.

melovesproles

Ken Burch wrote:

I'd also be interested in what nicky and JKR would call those policies.

Me too. I doubt they will answer though. They would rather shut down debate then engage with Israel's history of erasing Palestinians from the map.

Seth Rogen has spoken publicly about how his education on Israel erased the existence of Palestinians and was attacked by the usual suspects.

“There was just an abandoned desert here and the Jews came and built a country”? That’s what you were told? 

“Essentially, yeah. That’s what me and many people I know were told. And again, all I am attacking there is the education I was given about it. And I talked to my parents about it actually just yesterday and I was like, ‘Do you feel that what we were given ... was a complete story?’ And they said ‘No. Looking back, at the time, you were given a less complex view of the situation than maybe you could have been given.’

https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-seth-rogen-tells-haaretz-wh...

Do JKR and Nicky think historian Daniel Blatman is antisemitic and shouldn't be allowed to join the Labour party?

Yes, Benny Morris, Israel Did Perpetrate Ethnic Cleansing in 1948

Maybe JKR and Nicky are just making the argument that Israel has moved on from outright ethnic cleansing to ethnic asphyxiation using a combination of apartheid policies, militarized policing and constricting settlement placement.. Oh my, I hope I haven't said anything that would make me inelegible to join the Labour party. Wouldn't want the UK to have a political party that opposes imperialism.

JKR

Like the vast amount of Jewish people I also oppose ethnic cleansing. I also support Labour's efforts to root out antisemitism.

I also notice that Seth Rogen's new film is headlining the Jerusalem Jewish Film Festival. I'm sure Rogen also opposes ethnic cleansing even though he is having his movie open up a film festival in Jerusalem.

Jerusalem Jewish film fest to open with Rogen’s ‘American Pickle’

 

 

NDPP

The Israel Lobby in Britain (part 1)

https://youtu.be/ceCOhdgRBoc

 

Norman Finkelstein on the 'anti-Semite Corbyn' Claims

http://normanfinkelstein.com/2020/10/29/222-321-norman-finkelstein-on-th...

"There is no institutionalized anti-semitism in the British Labour Party..."

nicky

I have stated several times that I abhor Israel's ( particularly the Likud led government's) policies towards the Palestinians.

I remember distinctly as a boy sitting in a railway station and listening in on someone following the 1967 war on a transitor radio. That was most of my life ago and I think it is appalling that Israeli has continued for so many years to occupy the territories and deny democratic rights to its inhabitants.

Yet the Corbynistas continually and dishonesty conflate my abhorrence of anti-semitism in the Labour Party under Corbyn as applause for Israeli policies concerning the Palestinians.

This disingenuousness is only because they have no better arguments to make in support of their tarnished, mediocre, blinkered, destructive and thoroughly pathetic idol.

So stop equating lack of blind adulation for Corbyn with approval of Palestinian "genocide" or "apartheid" or whatever cuss word you prefer. 

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

Merriam-Webster sez:

Quote:

Definition of disingenuous

: lacking in candor also
: giving a false appearance of simple frankness : calculating

Disingenuousness, thy name is nicky, who abhors Israeli treatment of Palestinians, but condemns others as anti-semites for those very same beliefs. Shame, shame.

NDPP

Zionism and the acquiesence/appeasement/ of it, as was the case with Corbyn and continues under Starmer  is the real problem. Ditto with Canadian politicians.

Ken Burch

nicky wrote:

I have stated several times that I abhor Israel's ( particularly the Likud led government's) policies towards the Palestinians.

I remember distinctly as a boy sitting in a railway station and listening in on someone following the 1967 war on a transitor radio. That was most of my life ago and I think it is appalling that Israeli has continued for so many years to occupy the territories and deny democratic rights to its inhabitants.

Yet the Corbynistas continually and dishonesty conflate my abhorrence of anti-semitism in the Labour Party under Corbyn as applause for Israeli policies concerning the Palestinians.

This disingenuousness is only because they have no better arguments to make in support of their tarnished, mediocre, blinkered, destructive and thoroughly pathetic idol.

So stop equating lack of blind adulation for Corbyn with approval of Palestinian "genocide" or "apartheid" or whatever cuss word you prefer. 

Again, all of us oppose antisemitism as much as you do-including Corbyn.

No one, as yet, has explained what the hell else Corbyn could have done as leader to fight the small incidence-an incidence which did not grow under his leadership- of AS which had always existed in the party and carried on existing when he was leader.

His office was found to have "interfered with disciplinary proceedings", but don't you think it matters that the EHRC itself said that the vast majority of that interference was about SPEEDING UP disciplinary proceedings against actual AS?

You say you are not about trying to suppress criticism of the Israeli government- but if THAT is the case, why do you not agree that there was no reason to insist that Labour adopt that part of the IHRA guidelines and examples that equated criticism of the Israeli government with AS?

Why not just admit that virtually nothing anybody in the party said about what Netanyahu does to Palestinians is even remotely comparable to expressions of hatred of Jewish people, Judaism as a variety of religious traditions, or Jewish identity as a set of cultures?

Why bring in a refusal to support Zionism as ideology or to support Israel's "right to exist" at all- when the Zionist movement already achieved its objective and the survival of Israel as a country will never actually be in question?

And how do you explain that, prior to Corbyn becoming leader, neither him nor his supporters were ever accused of anything remotely comparable to AS?

You keep acting as if there is a debate on whether AS needs to be fought and there never has been- and you know there never has been.

The only issue has been whether it can possibly be bigotry simply to speak out against the action of a government.  The truth is, it can't be.

And the truth is that it has always been inappropriate to use the term "racism" in this discussion at all-the only reason it was brought into the discussion is because the Labour Right and you personally were obsessed with discrediting Corbyn's lifelong antiracist activism- since AS, which is indefensible and which we all oppose and work to defeat- is about a group, not a "race", and since the concept of "a Jewish race" was actually created by antisemites like the tsars.

Ken Burch

And nobody is asking you to show "adulation" towards Corbyn- just to admit that it's time to end the war against the guy.  Labour doesn't need to make the guy a pariah to win the next election, and he doesn't need to be made to say anything that would sound like an agreement that his supporters deserved the smear campaign waged against them.

NDPP

UK Labour Leadership Tells Zionist Meeting that Thousands of Party Members Face Expulsion

https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2020/12/03/corb-d03.html

"Labour's deputy leader Angela Rayner has declared her readiness to expel thousands of party members on manufactured charges of anti-Semitism or 'denialism', i.e, rejecting the slander that the left is characterised by widespread hatred of Jews...In the face of these outrages, Corbyn is again refusing to fight and allowing those who try to do so on his behalf to be persecuted.

It is the crowing example of a long record of political treachery that saw him refuse to defend hundreds of party members and numerous close allies including Livingstone, Jackie Walker and Chris Williamson from bogus accusations of anti-Semitism. Corbyn took hold of an incipient revolt against the Blairites, defended the right-wingers against demands for their expulsion, demobilised all opposition to the Tory government and then handed the party over to the witch-finders, Starmer, Raymer et al.

In the process he has betrayed countless workers and young people in Britain and internationally seeking to oppose Israel's criminal oppression of the Palestinians by allowing them to be slandered as anti-Semites and opening the gates to a far broader campaign of censorship and repression. Corbyn is the archetypal representative of the party's dwindling group of 'lefts' - whose increasingly mealy-mouthed rhetoric is utilised solely to oppose any independent struggle for socialism..."

Ken Burch

And if this whole thing ISN'T about equating virtually any critical comment on anything even tangentially related to Israel, how do you explain that THIS was the basis on the SECOND suspension of Moshe Machover, the renowned Jewish logician and lifetime anti-bigotry/antiracist activist.  https://scontent-sea1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/129495174_1015819915691991...

In this case, a Jewish human rights activist is being punished by the Labour Party SOLELY for protesting outside an Israeli film festival.  In what universe can THAT possibly be equated to AS, nicky?

And in what universe was it AS for Tony Greenstein simply to speak harshly of Zionism, which was all HE ever did?

Or, really, for Jackie Walker, who is also Jewish, to say that the Holocaust, while one of the most barbaric events in human history, should not be treated as being in a competely different category of evil than what Belgium did in the Congo?

Ken Burch

Why should any of THAT, whatever you might think of Corbyn, be taken as comparable to bigotry against the world's Jewish communities?

And why should there be a disciplinary process in which everyone who is accused of AS within Labour is simply assumed to be guilty and is given no chance to defend themselves?
 

And finally, why do those people-most of whom are Gentiles and none of whom cared about AS within Labour before Corbyn was elected leader-who have obsessed about what turned out to be an utterly imaginary massive increase in AS under Corbyn, care nothing at all about the fact that their demonization of Corbyn and his supporters played a major role in giving Boris Johnson, who wrote an openly antisemitic novel earlier in this century for which he has never apologized, a majority government as the leader of a party which has never had any prohibitions against antisemitic or racist comments among its MPs. MLAs(Scottish Parliament) AMs(Welsh Assembly) members or local councillors?

 

Ken Burch

It's time to see this for what it is:  Starmer is now treating any disagreement with his decisions on anything as antisemitism.

He is treating any disagreement with anyone who happens to BE Jewish as antisemitism.

He is treating any accusation of antisemitism as proof of guilt.

How can this possibly be a tolerably way for the leadership of a supposedly "democratic" political party to act?

How can it be called anything but Stalinism?

Starmer needs to go...he has totally discredited himself and is alienating more and more of the party every day.  And there is no way what he is doing can produce a Labour victory at the next election.  The voters are not saying that they wil only vote Labour if its leader spends almost all of the time attacking the Left instead of the Tories.

Labour with everything and everyone related to Corbyn erased or silenced can only mean a party reduced to the nothing it stood for in 2010 and 2015, the two elections Labour lost badly, with the party being murdered in Scotland by right-wing intransigence about devolution in 2015- why couldn't Scottish Labour be allowed to have its own policy on that and to run a distinctly Labour campaign against independence in the referendum?- before Corbyn was elected leader.  

Why even TRY policies like that again?

And why stay obsessed with delegitimising Corbyn as leader when the country wants the party to move past that and focus on what it will offer as alternatives at the next election?

The AS issue- at whatever level it may have existed- needs to be accepted as put to rest.  

ALL of us are just as much against AS as you are, nicky.  

Stop pretending that is in question.

josh

Naomi Wimborne-Idrissi, a senior official in the Jewish Voice For Labour group, has been suspended by Labour following a JC report on her conduct in a meeting of Chingford and Woodford Green Labour Party.

The JC understands that Ms Wimborne-Idrissi, who is vice-chair of the East London CLP, and the chair, Gary Lafley, have been informed they are administratively suspended from Sir Keir Starmer’s party pending an investigation.

At Monday’s meeting of the local party, the JVL media officer had backed claims about the “weaponization” of antisemitism allegations within Labour.

https://www.thejc.com/news/uk/labour-suspends-senior-jvl-official-after-deeply-unpleasant-meeting-1.509331

Ken Burch

Labour should simply be renamed "Sir Keir Starmer's Party" now.  

None of what is being done here has anything to do what Labour values and Labour's own rules.

Ken Burch

josh wrote:

Naomi Wimborne-Idrissi, a senior official in the Jewish Voice For Labour group, has been suspended by Labour following a JC report on her conduct in a meeting of Chingford and Woodford Green Labour Party.

The JC understands that Ms Wimborne-Idrissi, who is vice-chair of the East London CLP, and the chair, Gary Lafley, have been informed they are administratively suspended from Sir Keir Starmer’s party pending an investigation.

At Monday’s meeting of the local party, the JVL media officer had backed claims about the “weaponization” of antisemitism allegations within Labour.

https://www.thejc.com/news/uk/labour-suspends-senior-jvl-official-after-deeply-unpleasant-meeting-1.509331

And here she is, speaking for herself:

Double Down News on Twitter: "BREAKING: Jewish Socialist Naomi Wimborne-Idrissi has been suspended from the Labour Party https://t.co/7jxlhPIgTC" / Twitter

Ken Burch

If this were about fighting anti-Jewish bigotry- a form of bigotry ALL OF US on the left are implacably opposed- you would not be seeing suspensions of women like this, a woman who is not in any universe guilty of anything that is even remotely comparable to AS.

It's a sham, nicky, and what's being to people like Wimborne-Idrissi proves it.

 

Ken Burch

Last thought- in making its finding that Labour is NOT "institutionally antisemitic",  The EHRC itself found that the incidence of AS within Labour was massively exaggerated for political purposes.

nicky

Eight posts in a row, Ken? And all repeating basically the same thing.

Seems like you are really obsessed with Starmer. And this coming from someone who claimed I was obsessed with Corbyn.

You do weirdly claim that Starmer's  supporters (who are of course  the vast majority in the Labour Party) "care nothing at all about the fact that their demonization of Corbyn and his supporters played a major role in giving Boris Johnson,"

Surely you have seen the polls that uniformly show that Johnson owes his majority to the public's revulsion over Corbyn ( by margins of  80% to 20% for other reasons such as Corbyn 's insufficient opposition to Brexit). Was all this because sane Labour members demonized Corbyn?
 Or do you concede that Corbyn himself for responsible in some measure? Is it not possible that some people just couldn't stomach Corbyn as a potential PM because of his utter lack of qualifications, his inarticulateness, his lack of education, his  shallowness of intellect, his simplistic approach to issues, his indecisiveness, his incoherence on Brexit, and the fact that he surrounded himself with loonies and AntiSemites? 

Could that have been even a tiny part of the voters' electoral calculation? Just askin'.

nicky

Ostracizing Corbyn does not seem to have hurt Labour in the "Red Wall" seats according to a new poll:

Boris Johnson’s Conservative Party is struggling to keep hold of the support won at the 2019 general election among so-called ‘Red Wall’ voters, while the Labour Party has taken a lead in these seats, a new survey has found.

Research by J.L. Partners for Channel 4 News suggests voters in previously Labour-held seats that turned blue last year – some for the first time – are now turning away from the Tories over the government’s handling of the Covid crisis.

Analysis estimates that Keir Starmer’s party could win back 36 out of 45 seats lost in the last election if the current voting intentions were played out in an election on a uniform swing today. This would see the Tories hold on to only nine of those constituencies.

 

 

josh

No comment about suspending Jewish members for alleged anti-Semitism?  Nothing to say about this increasingly absurd witch hunt?

Ken Burch

JKR wrote:

Aristotleded24 wrote:

I'm Jewish, I lost 39 family members in the Holocaust, and Jeremy Corbyn is no anti-semite: Andrew Feinstein

The vast majority of British Jews consider Jeremy Corbyn to be an antisemite.

-----

The vast majority of British Jews consider Jeremy Corbyn to be an antisemite. In the most recent poll, last month, the figure was 87 per cent.

Putting oneself in the shoes of another person, or another group, can be difficult. But we believe it is important — and urgent — that you do that. Perhaps the fact that nearly half (47 per cent) of the Jewish community said in that same poll that they would “seriously consider” emigrating if Mr Corbyn wins on December 12 will give you an indication of what it feels like to be a British Jew at a time when the official opposition is led by a man widely held to be an antisemite.

They think he's an antisemite- btw, the EHRC report said he isn't, so that should put that assertion about him permanently to rest- because the corporate media spent his entire tenure as leader claiming that he was.

Before Corbyn became leader, virtually nobody accused him of AS.  It simply was not said of him before 2015.

Doesn't it strike you as more than a little suspicious that the accusations about Corbyn on that- which are ironic, because the Left is ALWAYS more opposed to AS than any other part of the political spectrum- only happened after he became leader?

 

Ken Burch

nicky wrote:

Ostracizing Corbyn does not seem to have hurt Labour in the "Red Wall" seats according to a new poll:

Boris Johnson’s Conservative Party is struggling to keep hold of the support won at the 2019 general election among so-called ‘Red Wall’ voters, while the Labour Party has taken a lead in these seats, a new survey has found.

Research by J.L. Partners for Channel 4 News suggests voters in previously Labour-held seats that turned blue last year – some for the first time – are now turning away from the Tories over the government’s handling of the Covid crisis.

Analysis estimates that Keir Starmer’s party could win back 36 out of 45 seats lost in the last election if the current voting intentions were played out in an election on a uniform swing today. This would see the Tories hold on to only nine of those constituencies.

 

 

You don't think that Starmer's decision to go all-out Leave and back whatever deal or non-deal Boris came up with has anything to do with that?

You don't think that Starmer NOT being subjected to a 24-7 hate and lie campaign from the media and his own MPs has anything to do with that?

Ken Burch

nicky wrote:

Eight posts in a row, Ken? And all repeating basically the same thing.

Seems like you are really obsessed with Starmer. And this coming from someone who claimed I was obsessed with Corbyn.

You do weirdly claim that Starmer's  supporters (who are of course  the vast majority in the Labour Party) "care nothing at all about the fact that their demonization of Corbyn and his supporters played a major role in giving Boris Johnson,"

Surely you have seen the polls that uniformly show that Johnson owes his majority to the public's revulsion over Corbyn ( by margins of  80% to 20% for other reasons such as Corbyn 's insufficient opposition to Brexit). Was all this because sane Labour members demonized Corbyn?
 Or do you concede that Corbyn himself for responsible in some measure? Is it not possible that some people just couldn't stomach Corbyn as a potential PM because of his utter lack of qualifications, his inarticulateness, his lack of education, his  shallowness of intellect, his simplistic approach to issues, his indecisiveness, his incoherence on Brexit, and the fact that he surrounded himself with loonies and AntiSemites? 

Could that have been even a tiny part of the voters' electoral calculation? Just askin'.

Here's the problem with that post:

Everything you said or asked there is based on false assumptions:

1) That I believe Corbyn is flawless and bears no responsibility for the 2019 result at all- if you'd actually read my posts in the last year of his leadership and up to the campaign to replace him as leader, you would have noticed that I made numerous critiques of Corbyn and his work as leader.   The fact that you refuse to acknowledge that I did make those critiques proves you read little of anything I've posted;

2) That I wanted Corbyn to stay on after the 2019 election, and that the reason I oppose his exclusion from the whip is that I want Corbyn to return to the leadership.  The truth is- and again, you would know and accept this if you did read my posts and engage them- that I had been saying he needed to go if the 2019 result went badly all along, and that Labour needed a different leader.   I supported RLB- who has none of the flaws you ascribe to Corbyn- because she would have been a positive new leader, as opposed to Starmer who has been nothing but negative and toxic and had no justification for devoting most of his time as leader to a war against the entire Left- a war he has now expanded to not only include Corbyn supporters, but ANYONE who opposes his treatment of Corbyn and his supporters and any CLP that rejects his Stalinist refusal to allow CLPs to pass motions on Starmer's antisocialist vendetta or to accept that, if the PLP had the right to pass a no-confidence motion on Corbyn, CLP's have an equal right to debate and pass no-confidence motions in himself and his personal Lavrenti Beria, Mr. Davies.

3) That this is about nothing but blind loyalty to a person, when you know full well it is about ideas.  It's not as if the growing number of Labour members and supporters turning against Starmer worship Corbyn like a fucking god or something- they don't, and they never did.  What it is is about Starmer's insistence on running the party like Stalin ran the CPSU.  

Corbyn is just a person.  I've always agreed that he was flawed.  But if he didn't win as leader, it was enough that he ceased to BE leader.  There was no justification for Starmer devoting almost all of his time since becoming LOTO to demonizing and encouraging the perpetuation of what everyone, even YOU, know are lies about his predecessor-  I hope you'd at least agree that, out of simple decency, Starmer should at least tell his supporters to stop calling Corbyn an antisemite.

I'm not a Corbynite- nobody is or actually was.  I'm anti-bullying- there is no other word for what's being done to Corbyn and his supporters, besides Stalinist persecution, than bullying- and I'm a left-socialist who just doesn't want to see the Corbyn policies thrown out and a good person made into a pariah.

And as to whether or not he should have been leader- there is no point in you refusing to move on from that, because the leadership election results can't be reversed and also because, as you continually refuse to acknowledge, the 2010 and 2015 results prove, Labour wouldn't have done any better with a bland centrist leader who kept the Left totally out in the cold.

For Labour to win, the bullying needs to end.  If Corbyn did anything meriting punishment, he's already been made to suffer more than enough.  The party needs to make his supporters and all socialists welcome, and Starmer needs to restore free speech and internal democracy.

What matters is the future- and Starmer is refusing to address the future.   

Isn't it time he started focusing on that?

Ken Burch

Also, it's arrogant to assume that a non "simplistic" approach to the issues would inevitably result in more centrist policies.

There's no argument, however how "nuanced" that supports going back to support for austerity and continued privatization (including Blair's part-privatization of the NHS);

There's no argument, however how "subtle", for going back to refusing to significantly raise taxes on the wealthy.

And there is damn sure no valid argument whatsoever for going back to a Cold War-type foreign policy that obsesses on Russia-rather than treating Russia as it should be treated, as simply another country- or the discredited concept of "humanitarian intervention"- i.e., perpetual invasions of non-European countries by largely white British troops, all of which end up being about oil or corporate profit in the end.

JKR

Ken Burch wrote:

They think he's an antisemite- btw, the EHRC report said he isn't, so that should put that assertion about him permanently to rest- because the corporate media spent his entire tenure as leader claiming that he was.

Before Corbyn became leader, virtually nobody accused him of AS.  It simply was not said of him before 2015.

Doesn't it strike you as more than a little suspicious that the accusations about Corbyn on that- which are ironic, because the Left is ALWAYS more opposed to AS than any other part of the political spectrum- only happened after he became leader?

I think Corbyn has completely mishandled the issue of antisemitism. His response to the EHRC was a disaster for himself and the Labour Party. It would have been better if he had just kept his mouth shut. He seems completely done deaf to how his statements will be received by others. As a politician he is a complete disaster. I agree with much of Corbyn's political outlook even though I think he's a complete failure and a disaster as a political leader.

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

JKR wrote:

I think Corbyn has completely mishandled the issue of antisemitism. His response to the EHRC was a disaster for himself and the Labour Party. It would have been better if he had just kept his mouth shut. He seems completely done deaf to how his statements will be received by others. As a politician he is a complete disaster. I agree with much of Corbyn's political outlook even though I think he's a complete failure and a disaster as a political leader.

Here is Corbyn's complete response that you call "a disaster", quoted from LabourList:

Quote:

Below is the full text of Jeremy Corbyn’s response to the EHRC report.

“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.”

The only bit I can see which could even be considered problematic is this: "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." But this is a true statement. False and exaggerated anti-semitism accusations were legion during the full scale assault on Corbyn by the establishment and the PLP.

In an interview, Corbyn quoted the true fact that in a recent poll, most British citizens guessed that 30% of Labour Party members were anti-semitic, based on what they heard and read in the media. The actual figure was well below 1%. I submit that this is very strong evidence that Corbyn's claim of exaggeration by the media and his Labour opponents for political purposes is true.

Is this the part that you consider a "disaster", or is it something else that I haven't thought of?

Pages

Topic locked