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

[blandy]

52 minutes ago, Xann said:

That's the choice we have.

Not voting empowers Big Uncaring Money and their Mail/Express/Murdoch reading hordes.

Who I vote for makes no difference at all. Safe seat here. Always has been, always will be.

The only effect my actual vote has, is that parties get some money based on the total number of votes cast nationally for them. So me voting for the Green party means they get a few pence.

[StefanAVFC]

Hello

[peterms]

5 hours ago, bickster said:

Numerous complaints have been made, few have been investigated.

That's not true.  The stats were covered here.

Quote

Labour Antisemitism Stats from April 2018

As Jennie Formby told MPs on Monday night, the party under previous general secretary Iain McNicol was not separately classifying complaints of antisemitism. Since April 2018 – just ten days after Formby was appointed to succeed McNicol – the party has kept a specific record.

The total number of complaints in the period since then represents about 0.2% of Labour’s colossal membership:

• 1,106 complaints lodged
• 433 relate to non-Labour members
• 96 members suspended
• 146 written warning
• 211 served notice of investigation
• 220 had insufficient evidence

Of course, a single case is too many, but even if all complaints had been well founded, they would represent a tiny proportion of the membership – and far below levels of antisemitism in the general population.

But not all complaints were justified. Forty percent of complaints did not relate to Labour members, while another twenty percent amounted to no case to answer.

Sixty percent, therefore, of the proportionally tiny but hugely-publicised ‘Labour antisemitism problem’ either had nothing to do with Labour or was a false or flimsy accusation.

Labour Antisemitism cases dealt with by NEC Disputes Panel

• 44 quit the Labour party before their hearing
• 42 were referred for assessment by the NCC (see below)
• 16 were given a formal warning
• 6 were referred for further investigation
• 25 served a reminder of conduct
• 6 exonerated

Antisemitism cases referred to highest panel (NCC)

Of the cases referred to the National Constitutional Committee (NCC), Labour’s highest disciplinary body, after the completion of the investigation into allegations against them:

• 16 received a formal warning from the NEC
• 6 were sanctioned short of expulsion
• 12 have been expelled
• 6 were referred back for further investigation
• 24 are still awaiting the completion of the NCC process

Summaries

Of 1,106 complaints received over the ten months or so since April last year, 961 have been resolved – a rate of about eighteen per week – and 145 remain outstanding, of which 115 have been formally suspended. Twenty-four of those cases have been processed as far as the NCC – and should be dealt with shortly as Labour recently increased the number of NCC members significantly.

Quite rightly, Ms Formby and other staff – and even the party leadership – have no influence over the time the quasi-judicial NCC considers necessary to assess the cases before it.

Eighteen cases resolved per week is a good rate of progress to deal with cases properly.

As Jennie Formby told MPs that only the most recent complaints were still outstanding, the 90 or so cases still pending at a level she can affect will be those most recently received.

Of the cases not dismissed immediately, for lack of evidence or because those involved were not Labour members, approximately:

• one third were cleared
• one third received a formal warning
• a fifth were suspended (some may also appear in other categories)
• one in fourteen quit the party before completion of the disciplinary process
• six out of seven cases have been resolved and only the most recent are pending

(Figures shown do not add up to exactly 100% because of rounding)

 

[Xann]

1 hour ago, blandy said:

Who I vote for makes no difference at all. Safe seat here. Always has been, always will be.

A mould that needs broken.

[Chindie]

1 hour ago, chrisp65 said:

I've said it before, i used to be quite well in with Labour locally for a good few years. Nothing recent, but if all these reports are true, there must have been one hell of a sea change. When I got to sit in smokey rooms and hear the gossip and the dealings, there was not a sniff of anti semitism.

There were people happy to boycott anything coming out of Israel, but there was a clear and obvious divide between people's thoughts on Israel and jewish people living in the UK. I'm doing my best to remember back and there was never anything said about anybody in a negative or positive way regarding being jewish. 

I guess they could have been waiting for me to leave the room before they cracked out the ISIS flags, but I don't think so. The couple of councillors I still keep in touch with are just a million miles removed from this.

Genuine question: is it a new thing? or a London thing? or something picked up and run with by anyone anti Corbyn in any way?

Baffled by it, don't recognise it.

It's a manufactured crisis.

There is evidence of rising anti-semitism in Europe, but it is not uniquely a Labour thing and strangely enough the growth seems to coincide with growing right wing sentiment and unfortunately also seems to have coincided with an increasingly nationalist Israel.

The focus on Labour is ridiculous, and appears to be quite literally a fairly pernicious smear. Undoubtedly there is anti-semitism in Labour, there will be anti-semitism in pretty much any major organisation in the world as stands, a damning indictment of society, but the idea Labour has a particular issue with anti-semitism is nonsense (and should perhaps account for why whenever Jewish people contend that is ridiculous, as many to their credit have, they get derided as the 'wrong type' of Jews (?!) or 'self-hating Jews', and get ignored or drowned out). The numbers revealed of complaints by Labour show the issue to be tiny compared to the size of the party, nearing a rounding error. Of course it should be nil, but it's not a crisis. The Home Affairs committee report into anti-semitism, which criticised Labour in it's handling of anti-semitism, ultimately concluded that there was no evidence of Labour being uniquely more prevalent in it than any other party.

Corbyn himself has ridiculously been cast as an anti-semite, directly or nudge nudge style, despite the fact that looking at his history shows him to be a ludicrously bad anti-semite if he does hate Jewish people, given his long record of supporting Jewish groups, paying tribute to Jewish figures, and so on. The biggest mark against him is his own stupidity in who he's did stood with against Israel. Which makes him an idiot, and a bad politician, but not an anti-semite.

There's plenty to attack Corbyn's Labour party for, making out that it is institutionally racist is bankrupt.

[PompeyVillan]

1 hour ago, StefanAVFC said:

Hello

Finally a bit of clever politics from Labour. 

[dAVe80]

4 hours ago, blandy said:

Maybe it does, though I'm not sure he reads VT, Dave!

Was it not Netanyahu who was posting, pretending to be Jenny Jones?

[dAVe80]

1 hour ago, StefanAVFC said:

Hello

Stacks up with what agreed at conference. No sign of a general election, so a second vote was next on the table. 

[tonyh29]

18 minutes ago, dAVe80 said:

Stacks up with what agreed at conference. No sign of a general election, so a second vote was next on the table. 

Obviously I didn’t watch their conference but explain how this works as it seems to have been . I’ll try and be PM by forcing a vote of no confidence , become PM and put my exit deal to the EU ... to , shit that didn’t work so I’ll try and become PM by backing a second referendum , even though I don’t want one and want to leave 

i know the oppositions job is to get elected but surely nobody is going to buy into this ... are they ? 

[magnkarl]

1 hour ago, Chindie said:

It's a manufactured crisis.

There is evidence of rising anti-semitism in Europe, but it is not uniquely a Labour thing and strangely enough the growth seems to coincide with growing right wing sentiment and unfortunately also seems to have coincided with an increasingly nationalist Israel.

The focus on Labour is ridiculous, and appears to be quite literally a fairly pernicious smear. Undoubtedly there is anti-semitism in Labour, there will be anti-semitism in pretty much any major organisation in the world as stands, a damning indictment of society, but the idea Labour has a particular issue with anti-semitism is nonsense (and should perhaps account for why whenever Jewish people contend that is ridiculous, as many to their credit have, they get derided as the 'wrong type' of Jews (?!) or 'self-hating Jews', and get ignored or drowned out). The numbers revealed of complaints by Labour show the issue to be tiny compared to the size of the party, nearing a rounding error. Of course it should be nil, but it's not a crisis. The Home Affairs committee report into anti-semitism, which criticised Labour in it's handling of anti-semitism, ultimately concluded that there was no evidence of Labour being uniquely more prevalent in it than any other party.

The fact that it keeps happening in Labour shows that it's a problem not being dealt with in a way that is stamping it out. It keeps happening even at the top of the party which shows that there's a leniency in dealing with it. "My boss did it so I can do it.."

Corbyn himself has ridiculously been cast as an anti-semite, directly or nudge nudge style, despite the fact that looking at his history shows him to be a ludicrously bad anti-semite if he does hate Jewish people, given his long record of supporting Jewish groups, paying tribute to Jewish figures, and so on. The biggest mark against him is his own stupidity in who he's did stood with against Israel. Which makes him an idiot, and a bad politician, but not an anti-semite.

There's plenty to attack Corbyn's Labour party for, making out that it is institutionally racist is bankrupt.

The crisis isn't that there's antisemitism in Europe or in Labour, albeit this is a sign of horrible issues in society. The crisis is Labour's way of dealing with people like Livingstone, Shah, Hatton (letting him in again), Liverpool CLP members, and so on who seems to think it's okay to publicly behave like racists towards Jews because they hate Israel.. If people aren't allowed to complain about this without Labour launching a full white-wash of the problem there will always be a place for people to behave like this in Labour. Corbyn's silence and inactivity is what this is all about for the community it effects - no one gives two hoots that he says he's a big "anti-racist" when he's so deafeningly silent on this.

There's two sides to this argument - just because there's also antisemitism in wider society doesn't in any way justify why it should be in Labour.

Edited February 25, 2019 by magnkarl

[bickster]

34 minutes ago, dAVe80 said:

Stacks up with what agreed at conference. No sign of a general election, so a second vote was next on the table. 

That's a rather generous interpretation in my view. If what you say is the case this should have been done roughly 8 weeks ago.

When even Barry the Gardener is going slightly off script with regards to the MPs leaving the Party and Tom Watson is saying Labour should be following its own policy, which is what it wasn't doing even earlier today, something went on behind the scenes this weekend. I suspect this move has more to do with stopping more MPs leaving the party than it has to do with a genuine desire to follow party policy. Like I said, if this was a desire to follow party policy they'd have done it weeks ago.

[dAVe80]

26 minutes ago, tonyh29 said:

Obviously I didn’t watch their conference but explain how this works as it seems to have been . I’ll try and be PM by forcing a vote of no confidence , become PM and put my exit deal to the EU ... to , shit that didn’t work so I’ll try and become PM by backing a second referendum , even though I don’t want one and want to leave 

i know the oppositions job is to get elected but surely nobody is going to buy into this ... are they ? 

Well this isn't really about what Corbyn wanted, it was the position agreed by the membership (well the delegates mandated by their CLPs). It was a put together from a mix of motions from CLPs and Trade Unions, at a meeting chaired by Keir Starmer. It's what most Labour front benchers have been saying in most interviews since.

Edited February 25, 2019 by dAVe80

[dAVe80]

12 minutes ago, bickster said:

That's a rather generous interpretation in my view. If what you say is the case this should have been done roughly 8 weeks ago.

When even Barry the Gardener is going slightly off script with regards to the MPs leaving the Party and Tom Watson is saying Labour should be following its own policy, which is what it wasn't doing even earlier today, something went on behind the scenes this weekend. I suspect this move has more to do with stopping more MPs leaving the party than it has to do with a genuine desire to follow party policy. Like I said, if this was a desire to follow party policy they'd have done it weeks ago.

See what I replied to Tony, but if I'm being honest, the fact this will take away a massive trump card from Chukka's mob had me roaring before. Silver linings and all that. 

Edited February 25, 2019 by dAVe80

[HanoiVillan]

This is the policy that was agreed at conference. It's not a new policy, just a new announcement of existing policy. It might be moderately amusing to see how the Tiggers vote, whether they end up voting for the second-ref amendment and lose half of their reason for resigning, or choose to come up with some tortured argument why they have to vote against it, but since the motion will be soundly defeated by (my prediction) well over two dozen Labour rebels, and maybe more than that, it's just a footnote in the history of Brexit anyway. 

[bickster]

20 minutes ago, dAVe80 said:

Well this isn't really about what Corbyn wanted, it was the position agreed by the membership (well the delegates mandated by their CLPs). It was a put together from a mix of motions from CLPs and Trade Unions, at a meeting chaired by Keir Starmer. It's what most Labour front benchers have been saying in most interviews since.

Words and actions as we all know are entirely different beasts. I agree, its what front benchers have been saying (and it was policy as agreed by conference), it's not however what the Labour Party have been doing

[bickster]

We'll never know obviously but one suspects that this wouldn't have happened without the resignations, the unicorn hunt would still be on.

[peterms]

4 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

It's not a new policy, just a new announcement of existing policy. 

Slightly more than simply restating existing policy.   As far as I can see, it's announcing that in their judgement we have now reached the point where the prospect of May trying to engineer a bad choice is so likely that they should now put into operation what the policy agreed at conference set out as the fallback.  Before now, it would have been a restatement, but putting forward or backing motions calling for a second referendum makes the policy operational.

[HanoiVillan]

4 minutes ago, peterms said:

Slightly more than simply restating existing policy.   As far as I can see, it's announcing that in their judgement we have now reached the point where the prospect of May trying to engineer a bad choice is so likely that they should now put into operation what the policy agreed at conference set out as the fallback.  Before now, it would have been a restatement, but putting forward or backing motions calling for a second referendum makes the policy operational.

Not trying to be difficult, but aren't we basically agreeing here? They said they were going to do a thing, in a particular situation; now we're in that situation, and instead of repeating verbally that they're going to do the thing, they're going to actually do the thing. 

[peterms]

2 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

Not trying to be difficult, but aren't we basically agreeing here? They said they were going to do a thing, in a particular situation; now we're in that situation, and instead of repeating verbally that they're going to do the thing, they're going to actually do the thing. 

Ok, I took you to mean it wasn't very significant, and I think it is a big moment, but I may have misread your meaning.

[HanoiVillan]

3 minutes ago, peterms said:

Ok, I took you to mean it wasn't very significant, and I think it is a big moment, but I may have misread your meaning.

No worries, I probably didn't make myself very clear. I don't think it's unimportant, just not very surprising. It might not matter legislatively, but I would agree that the symbolism is important.