ml1dch Posted July 22, 2020 Share Posted July 22, 2020 Rumours that Corbyn might have the Labour whip removed as a result of some of the recommendations in the EHRC report. Can't imagine his supporters would take that too well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chindie Posted July 22, 2020 VT Supporter Share Posted July 22, 2020 I imagine they'll be desperate to have him be the sacrificial lamb to appease the gods. Also, a what point do you use the word purge when it comes to these things? As it's fairly clear the new regime is very, very keen to sweep out as much as they can anyone in the predecessors good favour. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HanoiVillan Posted July 22, 2020 Share Posted July 22, 2020 I mean we could do all sorts of stuff about 'stalinism' and 'broad churches' and whatever, but I doubt very much that anybody is going to be having the whip withdrawn. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chindie Posted July 22, 2020 VT Supporter Share Posted July 22, 2020 (edited) Quote Labour Party members have a right to accountability and transparency of decisions taken in their name, and an effective commitment from the party to combat antisemitism and racism in all their forms. The Party’s decision to apologise today and make substantial payments to former staff who sued the party in relation to last year’s Panorama programme is a political decision, not a legal one. Our legal advice was that the party had a strong defence, and the evidence in the leaked Labour report that is now the subject of an NEC inquiry led by Martin Forde QC strengthened concerns about the role played by some of those who took part in the programme. The decision to settle these claims in this way is disappointing, and risks giving credibility to misleading and inaccurate allegations about action taken to tackle antisemitism in the Labour Party in recent years. ... Satan himself responds to Labour anti-Semitism payout in case they had strong defence case in Edited July 22, 2020 by Chindie Amended as per below Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ml1dch Posted July 22, 2020 Share Posted July 22, 2020 1 minute ago, Chindie said: Satan himself responds to Labour paying out in anti-Semitism case they were likely to win What suggests they were likely to win it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chindie Posted July 22, 2020 VT Supporter Share Posted July 22, 2020 6 minutes ago, ml1dch said: What suggests they were likely to win it? Sorry, should have said strong defence in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted July 22, 2020 Moderator Share Posted July 22, 2020 2 minutes ago, ml1dch said: What suggests they were likely to win it? Some Lawyers, (who would no doubt have been heftily paid to represent Labour in a case) said Labour had a "strong defence". How much would it cost to defend the case? what would damages be put at? As a non Lawyer, it looks like the BBC reporter would very much be likely to win his case against Labour and at worst the party whistleblowers would have a 50 50 chance.That's before you get into the politics and the "look" of what fighting the case would do. ANd the damage from dragging up all the anti-semitism again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ml1dch Posted July 22, 2020 Share Posted July 22, 2020 4 minutes ago, blandy said: Some Lawyers, (who would no doubt have been heftily paid to represent Labour in a case) said Labour had a "strong defence". Well quite. "Lawyer who gets paid a lot of money to fight a case says that a case is worth fighting" isn't really evidence that they might win it in my book. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chindie Posted July 22, 2020 VT Supporter Share Posted July 22, 2020 I think you have to assume good faith in the expert advice there, otherwise you basically are throwing out any interested parties opinions. Besides which the point would rather seem to be the party would tacitly admit guilt which they may not have than fight a case they could win. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisp65 Posted July 22, 2020 Share Posted July 22, 2020 I read that as anti-satanism. I thought, is nothing sacred anymore? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted July 22, 2020 Moderator Share Posted July 22, 2020 1 hour ago, chrisp65 said: I read that as anti-satanism. I thought, is nothing sacred anymore? Labour's caught on the horns of a dilemma, for sure. They have to hope that none of the mud styx. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jareth Posted July 23, 2020 Share Posted July 23, 2020 Starmer had to do what he has done - he simply has to be seen as the opposite of what he replaced, it is understandable. We won't know the legal basis or rights or wrongs of the argument because it was settled out of court. Again no problem, Labour must move on. Labour is repositioning to be what it was, because we have a very Conservative country and without Scotland it will always be so. But if Labour are going to be a more sufferable version of the Torys, then no ta. Give me the Torys - they do it better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OutByEaster? Posted July 23, 2020 Moderator Share Posted July 23, 2020 15 minutes ago, Jareth said: But if Labour are going to be a more sufferable version of the Torys, then no ta. Give me the Torys - they do it better. There used to be a bit of a case for that argument, but the current Conservative party have swung so far to the extremes of their nature that a Labour party that does what the Conservatives used to will most likely find a lot of votes. It's not what I'd like, but even a more normal conservative party (albeit lead by a man in a red tie) is a lot better than what we've got. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jareth Posted July 23, 2020 Share Posted July 23, 2020 1 minute ago, OutByEaster? said: There used to be a bit of a case for that argument, but the current Conservative party have swung so far to the extremes of their nature that a Labour party that does what the Conservatives used to will most likely find a lot of votes. It's not what I'd like, but even a more normal conservative party (albeit lead by a man in a red tie) is a lot better than what we've got. TBF - Cameron was deemed the epitome of a normal Conservative party - it then turns out he was responsible for quite a lot of future pain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisp65 Posted July 23, 2020 Share Posted July 23, 2020 2 minutes ago, Jareth said: TBF - Cameron was deemed the epitome of a normal Conservative party - it then turns out he was responsible for quite a lot of future pain. The two halves of that sentence are not incompatible. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jareth Posted July 23, 2020 Share Posted July 23, 2020 May I just also point out that Jon Ware who produced the panorama documentary is suing Corbyn on the back of Jon's surprise settlement with Labour. Having worked in documentary I know that this guy did a tabloid job, his contributors were not credible and there is counter archive to say so. I have given my monthly Labour subs to Corbyn's defence fund instead. It's probably the start of a funded movement - there is mass money out there to support a movement who don't have to reconcile the views of towns Vs cities. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jareth Posted July 24, 2020 Share Posted July 24, 2020 I know I'm harping on, but the GoFundMe page for Corbyn's legal fees is now £116k - and going up by £3k an hour. They asked for £20k. I don't think politics is an easy game, but I do think Starmer has miscalculated badly - all of those people who gave money to Labour the last 5 years, have seen that cash spent on paying off people who caused trouble and worked against Labour getting in (whatever the rights or wrongs). Whatever anyone's opinion - that cash has well and truly stopped flowing into Labour - yet is still out there and gettable - for the right cause. That cannot be ignored. Where else is Labour getting its money other than influential donors? (and we know where that leads). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisp65 Posted July 24, 2020 Share Posted July 24, 2020 I won’t pretend to be anywhere near understanding the rights and wrong of anti semitism reviews under Corbyn or the different approach under Starmer and the chance for one side or the other to score internal points in a war for the soul of the Labour Party. But two things do strike me. Firstly, it’s always been an accusation that Labour are happiest with an internal ideological struggle, rather than any genuine attempt to get in to power and carry out some policy for the benefit of their voters. They don’t appear to be doing much to disprove that accusation. Secondly, to fold your legal claim, apologise and pay up once you’ve actually entered the Court and started the case, strikes me as a piss poor thing to do. You haven’t decided that 10 minutes earlier, that’s a strategy, a plan. Doesn’t look very good, looks very staged. Get everyone to court then capitulate and apologise with everyone stood outside the door in front of the cameras. Part of the reason some people are voting tory, is labour. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted July 24, 2020 Moderator Share Posted July 24, 2020 2 hours ago, Jareth said: I know I'm harping on, but the GoFundMe page for Corbyn's legal fees is now £116k - and going up by £3k an hour. They asked for £20k. I don't think politics is an easy game, but I do think Starmer has miscalculated badly - all of those people who gave money to Labour the last 5 years, have seen that cash spent on paying off people who caused trouble and worked against Labour getting in (whatever the rights or wrongs). Whatever anyone's opinion - that cash has well and truly stopped flowing into Labour - yet is still out there and gettable - for the right cause. That cannot be ignored. Where else is Labour getting its money other than influential donors? (and we know where that leads). Which goes to prove those people were never about getting Labour elected to keep the Tories out of power and do some good things for poorer people, it was always about a particular left wing agenda and only that, so the accusation that certain people were working against Labour works both ways. The radical agenda was clearly rejected by the electorate and now the party is moving towards the centre again, the left wing no longer wish to fund it. Thats fine, they should leave Labour and join one of the myriad of trotskyite parties that still exist outside of Labour or form yet another one. At least we'd get towards some slightly more honest politics. There's a reason that won't happen though and ironically it's that most capitalist of entities, branding. The fight within Labour has always been about the brand, otherwise the other side (whichever that may be) would have split away. Anyone that claims it isn't about the brand is deluded. I could have written this post 40 years ago and every word of it would have been the same. There's the centre ground Labour Party and there's the entryist Ultra left / communist / "proper socialist" / whatever you want to call them wing and they have always fought about the brand. If only they'd split up, we might just get Labour elected, the way it is now and has been since the '60s is not going to get Labour elected often In some respects, Labour is actually responsible for the years of Tory rule 3 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jareth Posted July 24, 2020 Share Posted July 24, 2020 2 hours ago, bickster said: Which goes to prove those people were never about getting Labour elected to keep the Tories out of power and do some good things for poorer people, it was always about a particular left wing agenda and only that, so the accusation that certain people were working against Labour works both ways. The radical agenda was clearly rejected by the electorate and now the party is moving towards the centre again, the left wing no longer wish to fund it. Thats fine, they should leave Labour and join one of the myriad of trotskyite parties that still exist outside of Labour or form yet another one. At least we'd get towards some slightly more honest politics. 'Slightly more honest politics' - I can actually see that on a Labour flyer in the not too distant future, inspirational stuff. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts