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

438 posts / 0 new
Last post
Ken Burch

 

JKR wrote:

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.

Could you please kindly stop simply cutting and pasting the same "talking points" into each response over and over again?  I engage your posts- that means you have an obligation to engage mine in return.

 

nicky

Jesus Ken, criticizing someone for "cutting and pasting"!

you never say anything you haven't said a dozen times already

JKR

Michael Moriarity wrote:

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?

That's the part I consider a disaster. People are going to use those quotes to damage Corbyn and Labour. A politician at Corbyn's level should know better than to make statements that can very easily be used by others to damage them and their party. I think in politics it is often what you don't say that is important in dealing with issues. Having this huge debate over antisemitism is a losing proposition for Labour. Corbyn should have figured that out a very long time ago. Corbyn should have simply agreed with the EHRC without equivocating in any way, shape or form. His rebuttal to the EHRC was counterproductive. Starmer understandably does not want to defend Corbyn's equivocal statements so he suspended Corbyn instead of joining the fruitless debate on the acceptability of Corbyn's statements. Starmer understandably does not want to debate whether antisemitism has been exaggerated and used as an political weapon against Labour. 
 

I think it's also possible that Corbyn's responded the way he did because he purposely wants to undermine Starmer's leadership. 

josh

What!?  After what Corbyn's opponents did to the party for over 4 years?  Monumental chutzpah.

josh

This comes after the suspension of another left-wing Jewish Labour Party member, prominent mathematician and philosopher Moshé Machover on 30 November. It also comes after Angela Rayner’s warning that Labour will suspend “thousands and thousands” of party members over alleged antisemitism unless they “get real”. Judging by the suspension of Jewish Labour Party members for expressing views on antisemitism, it looks as though the Labour Party is more than happy to target its left-wing Jewish members.

https://www.thecanary.co/trending/2020/12/04/dear-keir-starmer-rooting-out-left-wing-jewish-anti-racists-is-not-rooting-out-antisemitism/

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

Here is another video from Novara Media in which Michael Walker and Aaron Bastani discuss the suspension of Naomi Wimbourne Idrissi over a CLP vote to restore the whip to Corbyn. In their opinion, this whole purge of Corbyn supporters (Angela Rayner threatened this week to expel thousands of members from the Party if necessary to shut down dissent) will ensure a Con victory in the next election.

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

JKR]</p> <p>[quote=Michael Moriarity wrote:

Quote:
<snip>

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?

That's the part I consider a disaster. People are going to use those quotes to damage Corbyn and Labour. A politician at Corbyn's level should know better than to make statements that can very easily be used by others to damage them and their party. I think in politics it is often what you don't say that is important in dealing with issues. Having this huge debate over antisemitism is a losing proposition for Labour. Corbyn should have figured that out a very long time ago. Corbyn should have simply agreed with the EHRC without equivocating in any way, shape or form. His rebuttal to the EHRC was counterproductive. Starmer understandably does not want to defend Corbyn's equivocal statements so he suspended Corbyn instead of joining the fruitless debate on the acceptability of Corbyn's statements. Starmer understandably does not want to debate whether antisemitism has been exaggerated and used as an political weapon against Labour. 
 

I think it's also possible that Corbyn's responded the way he did because he purposely wants to undermine Starmer's leadership. 

So, I still need some clarification from you. What do you consider wrong with the statement? Do you think it is factually false that the problem was exaggerated for the political purpose of smearing Corbyn? If you do, you are denying a ton of evidence, a lot of which has been posted on babble over the past 5 years. You might as well be a flat-earther as take this position.

On the other hand, if the statement is true, how can it be a problem? Aren't politicians theoretically supposed to tell the truth if they are ethical?

JKR

Michael Moriarity wrote:

So, I still need some clarification from you. What do you consider wrong with the statement? Do you think it is factually false that the problem was exaggerated for the political purpose of smearing Corbyn? If you do, you are denying a ton of evidence, a lot of which has been posted on babble over the past 5 years. You might as well be a flat-earther as take this position.

On the other hand, if the statement is true, how can it be a problem? Aren't politicians theoretically supposed to tell the truth if they are ethical?

I think Corbyn's response to the EHRC's verdict left the impression that he thinks the EHRC's verdict overstates antisemitism snd that the EHRC was used for political purposes to unfairly attack Corbyn and his supporters. I think Corbyn's response to the EHRC's verdict undermined the verdict and Labour has the right to require that Corbyn apologize for undermining the EHRC's verdict.

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

Well, we narrowed it down to one problematic sentence, then I asked whether you thought this sentence was true or not. Will you answer this question?

JKR

I think that the problem of antisemitism within Labour has not been exaggerated as many Labour members have been victimized by antisemitism within Labour.

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

JKR wrote:

I think that the problem of antisemitism within Labour has not been exaggerated as many Labour members have been victimized by antisemitism within Labour.

Well, this is a bit of an evasion. Whether or not some or even many Labour members have been victimized in this way, the question is, did the media and the PLP statements accurately reflect the degree of actual antisemitism, or were they exaggerations? I think they were exaggerations, but of course I could be wrong.

kropotkin1951

So tell me who thinks that the antisemitism in Labour was as bad as the anti-indigenous  racism in our hospitals in BC? I'd sort of like to know a baseline. In BC it is overt and deeply systemic. Did Labour people get treated with that level of disrespect? I don't have a clue but am interested. Hell the report in BC notes that about a quarter of the responses from health care providers contained racist statements embedded in their responses.

Ken Burch

JKR wrote:

Michael Moriarity wrote:

So, I still need some clarification from you. What do you consider wrong with the statement? Do you think it is factually false that the problem was exaggerated for the political purpose of smearing Corbyn? If you do, you are denying a ton of evidence, a lot of which has been posted on babble over the past 5 years. You might as well be a flat-earther as take this position.

On the other hand, if the statement is true, how can it be a problem? Aren't politicians theoretically supposed to tell the truth if they are ethical?

I think Corbyn's response to the EHRC's verdict left the impression that he thinks the EHRC's verdict overstates antisemitism snd that the EHRC was used for political purposes to unfairly attack Corbyn and his supporters. I think Corbyn's response to the EHRC's verdict undermined the verdict and Labour has the right to require that Corbyn apologize for undermining the EHRC's verdict.

The only response he would need to make is to clarify that he wasn't talking ABOUT the report.  He endorsed the report and called for its recommendations to be carried out, which was all that could fairly be asked of him

Corbyn had every right to reject the frenzied and unjust attacks and smears his supporters were subjected to, and to absolutely reject the idea that criticism of what the Israeli government does to Palestinians or even principled refusal to support Zionism- a nationlist movement which acheived its goals decades ago- could ever be comparable to expressing hatred of or violent intent towards people who are Jewish.

It could fairly be said that in some things- mainly the platform-sharing issue- Corbyn didn't always seem to be aware of the implications of what he was doing- but he's certainly been subjected to more than enough consequences for that, and in any case none of that justifies the current situation in which Jews are being suspended or expelled from the party- by disciplinary bodies almost totally controlled by Gentiles- on bogus accusations of AS.

Can everyone here agree that when things like that happens, Starmer has gone way too far and needs to dial it back?

Ken Burch

kropotkin1951 wrote:

So tell me who thinks that the antisemitism in Labour was as bad as the anti-indigenous  racism in our hospitals in BC? I'd sort of like to know a baseline. In BC it is overt and deeply systemic. Did Labour people get treated with that level of disrespect? I don't have a clue but am interested. Hell the report in BC notes that about a quarter of the responses from health care providers contained racist statements embedded in their responses.

Thanks for offering perspective on that, Kropotkin.  

NDPP

BC has been a racist and genocidal enclave from its inception. Too little has changed alas.

 

Despised: Why the Modern Left Loathes the Working Class

https://youtu.be/yc3bYFNrssI

"Book launch and panel discussion featuring Paul Embery (author), Maurice Glasman and Philip Cunliffe, chaired by Mary Davis."

JKR

Michael Moriarity wrote:

JKR wrote:

I think that the problem of antisemitism within Labour has not been exaggerated as many Labour members have been victimized by antisemitism within Labour.

Well, this is a bit of an evasion. Whether or not some or even many Labour members have been victimized in this way, the question is, did the media and the PLP statements accurately reflect the degree of actual antisemitism, or were they exaggerations? I think they were exaggerations, but of course I could be wrong.

I think Labour is better off accepting and supporting the EHRC's verdict than debating the extent to which the media and PLP accurately reflected the level of antisemitism within Labour.

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

JKR wrote:

I think Labour is better off accepting and supporting the EHRC's verdict than debating the extent to which the media and PLP accurately reflected the level of antisemitism within Labour.

Thanks, I now understand your position. I disagree, but again, I could be wrong.

Ken Burch

JKR wrote:

Michael Moriarity wrote:

JKR wrote:

I think that the problem of antisemitism within Labour has not been exaggerated as many Labour members have been victimized by antisemitism within Labour.

Well, this is a bit of an evasion. Whether or not some or even many Labour members have been victimized in this way, the question is, did the media and the PLP statements accurately reflect the degree of actual antisemitism, or were they exaggerations? I think they were exaggerations, but of course I could be wrong.

I think Labour is better off accepting and supporting the EHRC's verdict than debating the extent to which the media and PLP accurately reflected the level of antisemitism within Labour.

But it's important to note what the EHRC did NOT say...it did not say there was a massive increase in AS when Corbyn became leader compared to the level existing prior to that time.  It ruled that Corbyn was NOT an antisemite.  And it rule that Labour was not "Instititionally Antisemitic".

Corbyn wasn't questioning the report and everyone knows it.

He was just saying that the problem was made to sound massively worse than it was in the run-up to the report, and that is a valid thing to say.  A person can say that without questioning the report.  

Ken Burch

Eastbourne, Romsey and Soton N, Truro and Falmouth CLPs pass no-confidence votes – SKWAWKBOX

Keir isn't going to get away with suspending EVERY CLP officer who allows these perfectly legitimate motions to be debated and voted on.

kropotkin1951

NDPP wrote:

BC has been a racist and genocidal enclave from its inception. Too little has changed alas.

And more British than the British as they used to say about Victoria. I was seriously wondering what the level of systemic racist talk did happen in the party at the local level. Was it as bad as the misogynist undertones in much of today's mainstream British humour or like it was three decades ago when the misogyny was on display front and center? Does anyone here know what the culture of the Labour party was really like?

Ken Burch

kropotkin1951 wrote:

NDPP wrote:

BC has been a racist and genocidal enclave from its inception. Too little has changed alas.

And more British than the British as they used to say about Victoria. I was seriously wondering what the level of systemic racist talk did happen in the party at the local level. Was it as bad as the misogynist undertones in much of today's mainstream British humour or like it was three decades ago when the misogyny was on display front and center? Does anyone here know what the culture of the Labour party was really like?

I remember hearing that, at one point, Victoria was one of the places a lot of "remittance men"- men from wealthy, generally aristocratic British families who had done so embarassing or disgraceful that their families paid them to live anywhere else on the planet but the UK tended to congregate.  Do you know if that was the case?  It's not the most important thing under discussion in this thread, but it struck me based on what you just said that you might have heard stories of things along that line.

Ken Burch
kropotkin1951

Ken Burch wrote:

kropotkin1951 wrote:

NDPP wrote:

BC has been a racist and genocidal enclave from its inception. Too little has changed alas.

And more British than the British as they used to say about Victoria. I was seriously wondering what the level of systemic racist talk did happen in the party at the local level. Was it as bad as the misogynist undertones in much of today's mainstream British humour or like it was three decades ago when the misogyny was on display front and center? Does anyone here know what the culture of the Labour party was really like?

I remember hearing that, at one point, Victoria was one of the places a lot of "remittance men"- men from wealthy, generally aristocratic British families who had done so embarassing or disgraceful that their families paid them to live anywhere else on the planet but the UK tended to congregate.  Do you know if that was the case?  It's not the most important thing under discussion in this thread, but it struck me based on what you just said that you might have heard stories of things along that line.

Yes and no to that bit of history. Indeed their were many remittance men but most were just second and third sons who thought their prospects in the colonies were better than in Britain.  But that said Victoria had its share of rogues and scoundrels, many of them were politicians.

Here is a link to a local history.

https://www.touchwoodeditions.com/book/vancouver-island-scoundrels-eccen...

NDPP

"The fraudulent 'Labour antisemitism' controversy has empowered the most thuggish element in the organised British Jewish community. Case in point: The Campaign Against Antisemitism calls for Professor David Feldman to keep quiet or be sacked."

https://twitter.com/jsternweiner/status/1334853557447700488

Down with Apartheid Israel and its lobby. Silence is complicity. Resist, don't collaborate.

NDPP

"National security should be our top priority. This cut by the Government is leaving a gaping hole in our defenses..."

https://twitter.com/UKLabour/status/1335516833412214784

There and here. Scratch a 'social-democratic' party and you'll find a  liberal-imperialist one. Tony Bliar returns.

Ken Burch

Evans, Labour general-secretary, breaks party rules to bar his CLP from discussing and passing no-confidence motions against Starmer and himself:

Exclusive: rule breaches as Liverpool Riverside members blocked from voting no confidence in Starmer AND Evans – by Evans – SKWAWKBOX

Starmer and Evans have no mandate to supress all dissent within the party, and Starmer will not be able to even come close to winning the next election if he forces all socialists out of the party and therefore essentially leaves no one in the party at all.

How is this NOT Stalinism, nicky?

nicky

I thought Seamus Milne was the Stalinist, Ken.

Just where is the Gulag that Starmer is sending Corbyn to ?

We often hear that a sign someone is losing an argument is when they invoke Hitler. I think we should extend that to include Stalin.

Ken Burch

I was never a fan of Seamus Milne and he has nothing to do with this. 

Nobody on the Labour Right has any legitimate grievances against Milne, btw.

What else do you call it but Stalinism when party leader essentially forbids party members to challenge any of his decisions and refuses to allow them to debate no-confidence motions that are always permitted under party rules?
 

There's no way Starmer is working for the good of his party in being this pointlessly rigid and repressive, and there is no way he can go from treating the Left wing and all socialists in the party like this to doing anything significantly different than the Tories if he ever did somehow get into power.

 

nicky

I think you are missing the point, Ken, and by a lot.

Starmer has committed Labour to honouring the findings of the EHR in full. Corbyn challenged that and thereby violated fundamental policy of the party.

The censorship you complain about is in preventing local party associations from passing motions that in essence challenge the EHR findings about antiSemitism which the party is committed to uphold.

This not a broad "Stalinist" suppression of dissent as you have incorrectly characterized it.

By the way, it sounds like you have good reasons to disassociate yourself from Seamus Milne. Corbyn should have demonstrated the same good sense you have WRT Milne.

Ken Burch

nicky wrote:

I think you are missing the point, Ken, and by a lot.

Starmer has committed Labour to honouring the findings of the EHR in full. Corbyn challenged that and thereby violated fundamental policy of the party.

The censorship you complain about is in preventing local party associations from passing motions that in essence challenge the EHR findings about antiSemitism which the party is committed to uphold.

This not a broad "Stalinist" suppression of dissent as you have incorrectly characterized it.

By the way, it sounds like you have good reasons to disassociate yourself from Seamus Milne. Corbyn should have demonstrated the same good sense you have WRT Milne.

That is a lie.  Corbyn never challenged the report and his comments weren't ABOUT the report.  He was talking about the political climate the antisocialist majority of the PLP, the media and the BOD created before the EHRC started its work.

Corbyn called for the report's recommendations to be carried out- which is more than enough.

He was not obligated to respond in a way that would have read as a tacit agreement that his supporters deserved the AS Smear.

To be clear, there has always been AS in the Labour Party.

Everyone agrees on that.

Corbyn did the best he could, with an antiquated disciplinary process, to fight it.  

The ONLY thing that changed when Corbyn became leader is that this push suddenly appeared, out of nowhere, for no valid reason, to equate comments about the Israeli government and its treatment of Palestinians with AS.

People on the left were not guilty of anything other than solidarity with ordinary Palestinians and legitimate outrage about how the IDF are treating them.

There was no widespread incidence of actual bigotry against Jewish people on the left.

If there were confrontations with MPs who happened to be Jewish, those were simply confrontations about the nastiness those particular MPs were throwing at the Left and at Corbyn- they were never about the ethnic/religious/cultural identities of those MPs. Those MPs would have been treated exactly the same way if they'd been Gentiles.  

And let me be clear on my intent-

I don't WANT Corbyn to be party leader again- and for that matter, you know full well he doesn't want to be leader again himself.

It's just about stopping Starmer's bullying of the man and Starmer's totally unjustified attempts to drive all the socialists out of the party, and stopping his incomprehensible fight to expel Momentum, a group which is guilty of nothing of fighting for democratic socialism and whose presence in the party has never done any harm at all.

Evans-Starmer's lackey as general secretary- has no right to forbid CLPs from debating and passing no-confidence motions in himself or Starmer, and he actually has no right to forbid CLP's from taking up and passing motions calling for Corbyn's reinstatement.

Evans doesn't NEED to stop those motions to get the party to adopt the EHRC's recommendations, and nobody is actually trying to stop the party adopting them.

All it has ever been is about the injustice of extending the definition of AS from what it should be, what all of us on the Left had agreed it was- bigotry towards Jews, threats of violence or repression towards that community, actual commission of violence or repression towards Jewish people- and extending it to everything from simple political disagreement with people who happen to be Jewish and most absurdly at all, to criticism of the Israeli government or principled refusal to announce one's support for Zionism when the Zionist movement has already achieved its objective and there's no reason for anyone to demand expressions of support towards that movement or the state it created.

Corbyn is out as leader- Starmer should have left it at that.  He had no reason to start an all-out war against the Left, OR to continue the AS Smear towards the Left, OR to keep trying to drive people out of the party just because they don't agree with his sadistic vendetta against his predecessor.

Starmer needs to move on.  

Why WON'T he move on?

Why won't he admit that the enemy is the Tories, not his own party's activists?

And why do you keep using the petty, childish word "Corbynism" when you know perfectly well that there's no such ideology and that all there is, in its place, is a decent, honest, honorable fight to make sure Labour doesn't abandon socialism again?  That there has never been a personality cult- all there was was sincere and legitimate enthusiasm for someone who was, in his era as leade, one of the few honourable and honest and good people in politics, none of which are illegitimate or unrealistic things to want in a political leader- there was and is simply a battle of ideas.

Why do you refuse to accept that?  Why, instead, do you insist on mocking, trivializing and infantilizing the whole thing, on acting is if there was no possible valid reason to disagree with your views on all of this?

In Starmer's actions, we've seen the harm it does to have a prosecutor as party leader.  

A prosecutor doesn't know how to speak in positive terms- doesn't know how to offer a vision of hope and inclusion and unity.

All a prosecutor knows how to do is to charge people with crimes and punish them for what that prosecutor wants them punished for.

A politician whose career has been about nothing but inflicting punishment cannot be capable of offering a vision of hope and change, or of making life better- because if you are a prosecutor, you cannot imagine life ever being better.

All a prosecutor can do is seek retribution and do harm.  The job itself is inherently reactionary.

Ken Burch

BTW, what's the point of bringing up Milne at all?  All he was was an advisor, and the advice he gave to Corbyn was, invariably, to not fight back against all the attacks he was subjected to.

What have you even GOT to hold a grudge about with Milne?  Objectively, he helped the "let's destroy Corbyn" cause by making sure his boss never challenged the people who were "stab(ing) him in the front!".  If anything, you should be sending him a thank you note.  He was a disaster as advisor, and you never had any cause to imply that I even needed to disassociate myself from the man, especially since I've never even met him and had no personal connection with him at all.

Ken Burch

From Richard Burgon:  

Ken Burch

And, as it turns out, Starmer knew what Corbyn would say in his remarks after the EHRC report was released, AND HAD APPROVED THE REMARKS:

As SKWAWKBOX told you, Starmer’s office knew what Corbyn’s statement was before he made it – and didn’t raise objections – SKWAWKBOX

nicky

Ken,of course the Tories are the enemy, much more than Corbyn.

The enemy of our enemy maybe our friend. But Jeremy Corbyn was the chief enabler of the Tories in the modern era. They owe him their majority and their ability to frustrate everything Labour stands for.

For all his vaunted purity, Corbyn did not achieve a single one of his policies. To the contrary he ensured that theConservatives would be in a position to make sure none of them were implemented.

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

Here's another Novara Media clip (23 min.) about the current disarray in the Labour Party. It includes an interview with Naomi Wimborne-Idrissi, who was suspended from the Party for allowing a motion supportive of Corbyn to be debated in her CLP. This is the sort of person nicky is determined to purge from Labour, but she sees right through the whole farce. As all of us here other than nicky have been saying for years, she feels that the whole anti-semitism kerfuffle was about blocking Corbyn's socialist policies, not what it claimed to be.

Ken Burch

nicky wrote:

Ken,of course the Tories are the enemy, much more than Corbyn.

The enemy of our enemy maybe our friend. But Jeremy Corbyn was the chief enabler of the Tories in the modern era. They owe him their majority and their ability to frustrate everything Labour stands for.

For all his vaunted purity, Corbyn did not achieve a single one of his policies. To the contrary he ensured that theConservatives would be in a position to make sure none of them were implemented.

It's not as simple as saying "it's all Corbyn's fault".

We can't simply assume that Labour would have done better with ANYONE else as leader in 2017 or 2019- for one thing, the 2010 and 2015 results proved, once and for all, that Labour could no longer win with a leader who fought the election as "continuity Blair", and the massive decline in the Labour vote in 2005, while still a nominal Labour victory, proves that Blair himself wouldn't have won any future elections, and strongly suggests, if not outright proves, that Labour would have simply kept losing votes in any future election in which Blair led it and thus would have lost in 2010 even if he had stayed on, as did the massive Labour losses in every round of local elections in the UK after 2004.

For another thing, even if a second referendum could have been forced in the minority parliament-we all know the votes would never have been there for a second referendum, but even if there had been- that would STILL have meant that the NEXT election, whenever it happened and under whichever leader who might have led Labour at that time- Brexit would still have been the dominant issue and Labour would still have lost dozens of seats in the red wall without gaining any anywhere else.  Therefore, it would have done Labour no good to put the fight to stop Brexit above everything.

If there were really any indications that Labour would have run a much stronger race with anybody other than Corbyn leading it, some polling agency somewhere in the UK would have relased polls supporting that argument.  Funny thing...nobody ever did.  How do I know this?  If anybody had, you would have plastered those polls all over any of these threads.

Why can't you accept that it wasn't reasonable to expect Corbyn to stand down as leader without getting any guarantees that the policies associated with him-policies still popular with the public, btw- would not be erased ands replaced by neo-Blairism, and without any guarantee that the huge numbers of people brought to the party because they admired what he stood and spoke out for would not be expelled en mass?

And what use would it be to elect Labour if it went back to where it was on the issues before 2015- back to policies that were Tory on all but a few trivial side issues?  

Would there be any difference between a Labour government- even if such a government could be elected, which it could not be, because nobody wanted Labour to reduce itself to this- that did what Harriet Harman wanted and joined in on judging and blaming people on benefits simply for being poor? Not only would no one but Rupert Murdoch have celebrated a "Labour victory" like that- nobody would have noticed.

And while Labour didn't win with Corbyn as leader in 2019 or 2017-you can't seriously argue that that fact somehow justifies Starmer's obsession with perpetuating the AS Smear for what, it is now clear, is the sole purpose of forcing him out of the party, out of politics, and out of public life.  

You don't perpetuate a relentless assault over someone else's character and basic decency in response to election results.

And there is no large group of voters who would vote Labour at the next welcome, but ONLY if Corbyn and everyone with any connection to him are made into pariahs.

Corbyn's supporters don't deserve that. 

He doesn't deserve that.

Corbyn is never going to be leader again.  

He doesn't even WANT to be leader again.

You can't seriously argue that Starmer is justified in punishing Labour members simply for opposing his insistence on anathemization of Corbyn, and it's childish of you simply to refuse to tolerate anyone saying anything positive about the man.

He's not leader anymore.

It should have been left at that.

It's not reasonable to expect everybody in the Labour Party to leave Starmer's vilification of Corbyn unchallenged.

And his policies weren't wrong- even you have admitted that, because you've never said which of them you've agreed to.  Not once.

 

 

Michael Foot, who led Labour to a far worse showing in 1983 than it experienced in 2019- Foot's Labour only took 27% of the vote and just barely avoided finishing behind the Liberal-SDP Alliance in the popular vote- was never expected to take a lifetime vow of silence on the issues, was never threatened with expulsion by his successors, and was never put under pressure to resign his seat in parliament.

Even if the 2019 showing were ALL Corbyn's fault-we both know it wasn't- that does't justify Starmer's insistence on refusing to let the AS Smear end.

If there is an issue with AS in the party- and it's enough to say there was the same level with actual AS in the party under Corbyn as there had been under any previous Labou leader; the only reason there was any perceived increase was that somebody suddenly decided that-and I know you don't like hearing this, but this is what it was truly all about- was that it was suddenly decided that principled refusal to support Zionism- a nationalist movement that achieved its goal of a state decades ago and which therefore has no further reason to DEMAND support from anyone- or, in practice, ANY public and legitimate criticism of what the Israeli government does to ordinary Palestinians is now to be considered antisemitism.

This absurdly rigid definition of AS- a definition no one in the UK had insisted on prior to Corbyn's election as Labour leader- is the only reason there is a perception that AS had increased under Labour- that and no other reason.

For example, it's not AS simply to get into a shouting match with a right-wing antisocialist MP who simply happens to identify as Jewish over their opinions about Corbyn. 

If you take the definition of AS to that extreme, you end up arguing that it is AS simply to disagree with anyone who is Jewish about anything- which would mean, as you'd have to admit, that it's AS to expel Jewish members of the Labour Party simply for refusing to go along with the vilification of Labour's previous leader.

 

MegB

At the request of this thread's author I'm closing it. He feels it's unproductive and I agree. nicky, your unhealthy obsession with Corbyn-bashing is not just annoying, it's disruptive to any legitimate debate. Consider this a warning. 

Pages

Topic locked