The Chairman Mao resembling, Monarchy hating, threat to Britain, Labour Party thread

[bickster]

Just now, blandy said:

Yeah, though to be completely fair, he may likely  know more than I do. For example individuals may have been in touch with him to express their disagreement with their cases being handled or whatever, but you’re right. He’s on the outside now, same as us.

Yes I was being simplistic, you are correct

[juanpabloangel18]

23 hours ago, bickster said:

We did, Forde wrote a report about it.

In which it was made clear that anti-Semitism was weaponised by Corbyn's political opponents, and that media reports of him blocking investigations into AS (which triggered the EHRC investigation) were 'entirely misleading'. 

17 minutes ago, bickster said:

recent quotes by Forde on the current situation at Labour which he knows about as much as you and I on

Was going to point out how incredibly disingenuous this is but can see you have backtracked.

[bickster]

1 minute ago, juanpabloangel18 said:

In which it was made clear that anti-Semitism was weaponised by Corbyn's political opponents, and that media reports of him blocking investigations into AS (which triggered the EHRC investigation) were 'entirely misleading'. 

See there you go annoying Forde again by being selective in what you pick from the report to weaponize what you perceive to be another side. Which was precisely what he was talking about in his recent quotes. His evidence for factionalism still existing in the Labour Party was people doing exactly what you've just done. 

[Jareth]

I've an idea - folks can go read the Forde report here https://labour.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/The-Forde-Report.pdf - and thereby prevent themselves from misunderstanding the context of what is said within it when presented only as extracts. 

Here's some extracts from  the summary and conclusions for allegation 6 - "A racist, sexist and otherwise discriminatory culture exists in Party workplaces" - the entire section is as damning as these extracts, so please do read it in full. The document is protected so you can't just copy and paste - and I ain't typing the whole thing out. 

"Other themes included concerns that the attention to the surge of cases relating to antisemitism and the importance they appeared to play in the interfactional conflict meant in effect that the party was operating a hierarchy of racism or of discrimination with other forms of racism and discrimination being ignored"

"Many staff felt that specific problems were only dealt with when it was politically expedient and or essential to do so, and that the party's more recent steps to address antisemitism, for example, have not been matched by a commitment to tackle other forms of racism, nor by a full scale effort to get its house in order as an employer. Moreover the persistance of racist attitudes amongst some staff, and the failure to prioritise a suitably robust response to those attitudes, meant that complaints were not treated with the urgency and sensitivity they required. The outrage rightly directed at the scourge of antisemitism should be matched by equally strong measures against all forms of discrimination..."

So Labour had an antisemitism problem, which recently has been declared as sorted. What has it done about its other forms of racism and discrimination? The author of this report hasn't been told - seems like it would be easy to clear up, if anything had actually been done. 

 

[bickster]

12 minutes ago, Jareth said:

[...] and thereby prevent themselves from misunderstanding the context of what is said within it when presented only as extracts. 

Here's some extracts from[...]

LOL

[bickster]

14 minutes ago, Jareth said:

The author of this report hasn't been told - seems like it would be easy to clear up, if anything had actually been done. 

Maybe he hasn't been bothered to read the spreadsheets on the Labour website either

[Jareth]

1 minute ago, bickster said:

LOL

You click on the link - go to the section mentioned - and read the whole section. You can read the whole report too - but I imagine you wouldn't want the whole report reproduced on VT? 

[bickster]

Just now, Jareth said:

You click on the link - go to the section mentioned - and read the whole section. You can read the whole report too - but I imagine you wouldn't want the whole report reproduced on VT? 

My point was the irony of what you posted. Go read the whole thing instead of extracts, here have some extracts anyway

[Jareth]

1 minute ago, bickster said:

My point was the irony of what you posted. Go read the whole thing instead of extracts, here have some extracts anyway

I'd accept that if I hadn't provided a quick link to the report - and the header of the post suggests you read the whole report in order that you avoid being influenced by extracts alone. And not being funny here but isn't it a rule on here that you don't just post links without extracts? At least it used to be? 

[bickster]

4 minutes ago, Jareth said:

I'd accept that if I hadn't provided a quick link to the report - and the header of the post suggests you read the whole report in order that you avoid being influenced by extracts alone. And not being funny here but isn't it a rule on here that you don't just post links without extracts? At least it used to be? 

It used to be de rigueur that you had a sense of humour too 

[bickster]

 

[blandy]

3 hours ago, Jareth said:

...So Labour had an antisemitism problem, which recently has been declared as sorted. What has it done about its other forms of racism and discrimination? The author of this report hasn't been told - seems like it would be easy to clear up, if anything had actually been done. 

@bickster posted the answer to that question the other day - he linked to the Labour website and all the new processes and stuff put in place to deal with racism and discrimination. It includes time limits for dealing, code of conduct, complaints handling and so on. I've made the relevant bit green, from a snipped extract of his post. If you click the links you can see that Cat 1, 133, Cat 2A 116 to 117, and 123 and there's more in Cat 2B, too cover the areas in your question. Or if you can't be bothered, then I can summarise it as: "all complaints whether about AS or other forms of racism and discrimination have to be handled in the same way, in the same timescales and to the same set of standards and procedures". (My summary of Labour's words, in bold italics)

Quote

What action is the Labour Party taking on the Forde Report’s recommendations? 
The Forde Report contained 165 recommendations (see the Q&A section below for further information on these). 

Since receiving the report, the Labour Party, acting through its NEC, have carefully considered each of these recommendations. The NEC has now agreed categorisations – and any resulting action plans – for each of these recommendations. The recommendations are organised into the following categories: 

• Category 1: recommendations that are already complete; 
• Category 2: recommendations that are either in progress or require further analysis; and 
• Category 3: recommendations that due to significant legal, financial or regulatory issues will not be progressed. 

With regards to Category 2 recommendations, the NEC has also agreed that these should be further categorised into:  

• Category 2A: these are recommendations relating to staff wellbeing, induction and conduct, all of which will be assessed by HR (and any other relevant units of the Party) and reported to the General Secretary, with final approval residing with the NEC; 
• Category 2B: these are recommendations relating to tackling discrimination, culture change and a code of conduct (as it relates to members). These will be addressed by an NEC working group...

CATEGORY 1

CATEGORY 2A

CATEGORY 2B

 

[Jareth]

19 minutes ago, blandy said:

@bickster posted the answer to that question the other day - he linked to the Labour website and all the new processes and stuff put in place to deal with racism and discrimination. It includes time limits for dealing, code of conduct, complaints handling and so on. I've made the relevant bit green, from a snipped extract of his post. If you click the links you can see that Cat 1, 133, Cat 2A 116 to 117, and 123 and there's more in Cat 2B, too cover the areas in your question. Or if you can't be bothered, then I can summarise it as: "all complaints whether about AS or other forms of racism and discrimination have to be handled in the same way, in the same timescales and to the same set of standards and procedures". (My summary of Labour's words, in bold italics)

 

Appreciate that - I have also looked through it - I expect Forde read it too before his recent media appearance. They've tasked x2 members of the NEC with the spreadsheet job and there are meetings to be arranged some time in 2023. I can only assume Forde thinks this all a bit pedestrian. I'd be interested in hearing why he has concluded the spreadsheet work is not what he was expecting - the main thrust of what he's said lately is that senior figures have not engaged. Back in the midst of the AS crisis it would be like Corbyn handing the response to the EHRC investigation, to two NEC lackeys - it would be immediately damned and used as an example of a deaf leadership. 

[blandy]

2 minutes ago, Jareth said:

I can only assume Forde thinks this all a bit pedestrian

I agree. I think that's about the extent of it, tbh. Some of the other stuff you've posted (and this isn't a dig or a complaint) just to me doesn't seem supported by the information available to me. I mean you might be right in saying there's now a hierarchy of racism that puts AS higher than other forms, but there's nothing available I've seen to support that, for example. Nor have I seen any evidence of the centre left "faction" somehow being emboldened to be racist as a consequence of any of the steps taken (or at all).

It seems like under Corby there was a problem, indisputably so. That problem wan't addressed effectively. Part of the reason it wasn't addressed effectively was bitter infighting between the to factions (or some of the people in those factions). Both sides were leaking stuff harmful to the other. On top of that right wing media were over-egging the scale of it, too. It was bad enough that the EHRC had to get involved. They found big failings.

Starmer has done stuff. There's a much more effective set of people and processes in place. The EHRC has said "it's all satisfactory now" (I paraphrase). The stuff put and being put in place is publicly available and there's a lot more openness and clarity. There will still be occasions where Labour members say and do racist, AS things, but it looks like it will be a lot fewer and they will be dealt with better.

I'm not a Labour member or supporter., though for decades I paid my Union political fee which goes to Labour, but stopped it during Corbyn's time and haven't re-instated it. I'm not a Corby fan at all, as a leader. He's a good local MP, though. I look at what Starmer's done and admire (if that's the right word) the effectiveness he's shown in getting Labour from where it was (a mess) to being an effective party again. My politics are not the same as his/Labour's current offering. I don't think like several do on here, that he's nearly as right wing as those people say. I don't think he's a "Tory" or remotely close to that. I think he's acting tactically to get a Labour Government, something that is/was an incredibly difficult task from where they were after the last election. Something that a lot of posters were saying was not going to happen ( I was more optimistic, given my analysis of what he was doing and why he was doing it, and the general thing of all long term governments just running out of...everything and then there being a sudden judder in the situation, as happened with Thatcher and with Blair, for example). But Labour still has a lot to do. They've been massively helped by the Tories utter incompetence and ideological drift off to the loony right, and their poll leads are promising for them. If they get in, the Country is going to be in a really difficult place to sort out quickly and more bravery will be needed than Blair/Brown showed when they got in (when things weren't anywhere near as bad as they are now, nationally. We'll see.

[Jareth]

33 minutes ago, blandy said:

I agree. I think that's about the extent of it, tbh. Some of the other stuff you've posted (and this isn't a dig or a complaint) just to me doesn't seem supported by the information available to me. I mean you might be right in saying there's now a hierarchy of racism that puts AS higher than other forms, but there's nothing available I've seen to support that, for example. Nor have I seen any evidence of the centre left "faction" somehow being emboldened to be racist as a consequence of any of the steps taken (or at all).

It seems like under Corby there was a problem, indisputably so. That problem wan't addressed effectively. Part of the reason it wasn't addressed effectively was bitter infighting between the to factions (or some of the people in those factions). Both sides were leaking stuff harmful to the other. On top of that right wing media were over-egging the scale of it, too. It was bad enough that the EHRC had to get involved. They found big failings.

Starmer has done stuff. There's a much more effective set of people and processes in place. The EHRC has said "it's all satisfactory now" (I paraphrase). The stuff put and being put in place is publicly available and there's a lot more openness and clarity. There will still be occasions where Labour members say and do racist, AS things, but it looks like it will be a lot fewer and they will be dealt with better.

I'm not a Labour member or supporter., though for decades I paid my Union political fee which goes to Labour, but stopped it during Corbyn's time and haven't re-instated it. I'm not a Corby fan at all, as a leader. He's a good local MP, though. I look at what Starmer's done and admire (if that's the right word) the effectiveness he's shown in getting Labour from where it was (a mess) to being an effective party again. My politics are not the same as his/Labour's current offering. I don't think like several do on here, that he's nearly as right wing as those people say. I don't think he's a "Tory" or remotely close to that. I think he's acting tactically to get a Labour Government, something that is/was an incredibly difficult task from where they were after the last election. Something that a lot of posters were saying was not going to happen ( I was more optimistic, given my analysis of what he was doing and why he was doing it, and the general thing of all long term governments just running out of...everything and then there being a sudden judder in the situation, as happened with Thatcher and with Blair, for example). But Labour still has a lot to do. They've been massively helped by the Tories utter incompetence and ideological drift off to the loony right, and their poll leads are promising for them. If they get in, the Country is going to be in a really difficult place to sort out quickly and more bravery will be needed than Blair/Brown showed when they got in (when things weren't anywhere near as bad as they are now, nationally. We'll see.

I know others didn't agree but the Sunak ad was glaringly dog whistle, described by many in Labour and other main parties as gutter politics. This should be as condemned as AS has been - yet it's not treated the same, Starmer even doubled down on it having spent a few days apparantly not being aware of it. I'd say that shows a hierarchy of racism still present.

Labour are still pursuing those they think leaked the Labour Leaks document - spending millions - and it's looking increasingly vindictive. Had that not come out we would not have had a Forde report, it would have been buried by Starmer - the issues raised clearly not as important to him as AS. Those named in the Labour Leaks for being racist and sexist would have been senior staff now. So no wonder Forde might think those at a senior level are not engaging and that a hierarchy of racism persists under Starmer. 

Agree on Starmer having the right experience to head a large organisation - perhaps the speed at which the Forde response is going is a good thing, as it shows they are thorough, but Labour are clearly preventing any outside person from controlling it - even its author. It's in the hands of x2 NEC members loyal to the leader. Not sure how independent this is going to turn out but we shall see. 

I'm also not a Labour member but was when voting Starmer in as leader. It's a very different party to what he offered, some will say for the good, I still see the factional stuff, one dominant and the other now able to be thrown out by the NEC under the reason 'not gonna win us an election' - democracy in Labour has gone backwards. Still don't want the tories to get in though - fortunately I don't need to vote for either of them as in my locale it's always Labour. 

[Amsterdam_Neil_D]

Lab 45 %

Con 29 %

Politico GE Poll https://www.politico.eu/europe-poll-of-polls/united-kingdom/
April 9th

[markavfc40]

20 minutes ago, Amsterdam_Neil_D said:

Lab 45 %

Con 29 %

Politico GE Poll https://www.politico.eu/europe-poll-of-polls/united-kingdom/
April 9th

Closest its been since last September.

[Demitri_C]

Worst possible result would be a hung parliament 

Thats theast thing we need. I still expect a comfortable labour win

[bickster]

1 hour ago, Demitri_C said:

Worst possible result would be a hung parliament 

Says who? personally I think that would be a good result

As I see it, it's the only way to get electoral reform on the agenda. Massive majorities for either Labour or Tory will not bring about electoral reform

 

[ml1dch]

8 minutes ago, bickster said:

Says who? personally I think that would be a good result

As I see it, it's the only way to get electoral reform on the agenda. Massive majorities for either Labour or Tory will not bring about electoral reform

 

And considering another option is "Tory majority", it's hard to see how a hung Parliament can be described as the worst possible result.