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

[Wainy316]

So he's not having the whip restored then

[blandy]

34 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

the whole discussion has been subsumed in a factional battle for years, and it's only getting worse.

Since Corbyn became leader, yes.

26 minutes ago, Wainy316 said:

So he's not having the whip restored then

It seems not. People will be pro or con, right now. But hopefully in say 12 months time, or 2 years Corbyn will no longer be the subject of discussion and heated debate, and with that I'd expect the anti-semitic drivel to largely disappear, as those of his followers who are anti-semites (whether formally members or not) will disappear from Labour's Twitters, IH and Facehole accounts. At least I hope so.

[bickster]

1 hour ago, HanoiVillan said:

Since the vast majority of those comments appear to have been posted under a person's (presumably real) name, it seems fairly likely that most will not be members of the Labour party (though I'm sure there are some members stupid enough to post something like that under their own names).

Hmmm, that is one big assumption with no basis other than they used their real name. One of the great problems throughout all of this is that a lot of these AS people refuse to accept that they are AS. They think they have right on their side and what they are saying is perfectly acceptable

[HanoiVillan]

30 minutes ago, Wainy316 said:

So he's not having the whip restored then

Here's the justification:

As far as I am aware, the only issue that people have identified with Corbyn's 'actions in response to the report' cited here is that he stressed the scale of antisemitism complaints was small. People can agree with that, or they can disagree, but the issue is that the EHRC reports (quoted in the following tweet) seems to quite explicitly *permit* a Labour member to do so:

It's puzzling, because there is a blanket disciplinary option to suspend or expel members for 'bringing the party into disrepute' which is (necessarily) non-prescriptive about what it involves, and could have been cited. But it hasn't been; all we have heard about is the response to the report, which response seems to be explicitly permitted by the report itself.

[HanoiVillan]

4 minutes ago, bickster said:

Hmmm, that is one big assumption with no basis other than they used their real name. One of the great problems throughout all of this is that a lot of these AS people refuse to accept that they are AS. They think they have right on their side and what they are saying is perfectly acceptable

The basis is that when Margaret Hodge submitted her dossier of 200 anti-semitic comments that she had found, *only* 20 of them were from party members (obvious disclaimer, 20 is still 20 too many). As I say, I'm perfectly prepared to believe that some of them will be from party members, but very much willing to bet they won't all be, and I would personally guess a majority won't be.

[Xann]

Everyday I look at the worst PM and government in living memory, I think that's fine, because we saved the residents of Golders Green friom Joo hater Jez's gas chambers.

You ****ing mugs.

 

[bickster]

2 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

The basis is that when Margaret Hodge submitted her dossier of 200 anti-semitic comments that she had found, *only* 20 of them were from party members (obvious disclaimer, 20 is still 20 too many). As I say, I'm perfectly prepared to believe that some of them will be from party members, but very much willing to bet they won't all be, and I would personally guess a majority won't be.

How many non-party members do you suppose read Labour List?

[HanoiVillan]

7 minutes ago, bickster said:

How many non-party members do you suppose read Labour List?

Probably quite a few? I do, and I am not, never have been, and never will be a member of the Labour party.

[Chindie]

It's quite simple.

They really, really, really hate Corbyn, and they hope that by throwing him to the wolves they can kill off him and retire the tiger used to kill him and his movement.

It doesn't really matter that it goes against the report's findings, or that it nudge nudge, wink wink suggests Corbyn is an anti-semite. Which he isn't (as stated in the report). Which in turn riles up people that care about that kinda thing. Which in turn leads to resentment. Which in turn leads to some turning to prejudice. Which attracts the prejudiced. Which triggers the pushback... And away we go. Round and round.

[blandy]

4 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

all we have heard about is the response to the report, which response seems to be explicitly permitted by the report itself.

Corbyn said a few things which were both ill-judged and ill-timed (to put it mildly). He said he didn't accept all the findings of the report. He said the scale of AS had been exaggerated for political reasons. He made no apology for the flaws in leadership and culture around AS which the report (pdf) identified.

Quote

We have identified serious failings in leadership during the period the investigation looked at, and an inadequate process for handling antisemitism complaints across the Labour Party.

While there have been some improvements in how the Labour Party deals with antisemitism complaints,25 our analysis points to a culture within the Party which, at best, did not do enough to prevent antisemitism and, at worst, could be seen to accept it.

And he did all that the moment the report came out.

So a combination of refusal to accept all the reports findings, refusal to apologise for his part in the failings and a statement along the lines of it's mostly all dramatically cooked up by enemies in politics and media, and that it was this dramatic exaggeration that hurt jewish people (not the anti-semitism) that led to his suspension, and rightly so. Apparently the disciplinary process issued him with a formal warning, though that's not reliably confirmed.

In human terms, the worst thing for me is the absolute absence of any apology or acknowledgement of responsibility - he just cannot take criticism. Sanctimonious, holier than thou denial of any criticism, deflecting it always as real or imagined "enemies" is a major character flaw he has.

The report identifying serious failings in leadership, when he was the leader, surely demanded apology and contrition, but there was none. It's all always a plot, Jeremy the victim.

[blandy]

11 minutes ago, Xann said:

Everyday I look at the worst PM and government in living memory, I think that's fine, because we saved the residents of Golders Green friom Joo hater Jez's gas chambers.

You ****ing mugs.

 

Mug I may be, but I'd point out that Corbyn was the enabler - the woeful state of the opposition is what allowed Britain Trump to get his hands on the PM job with an 80 seat majority.

[Xann]

Just now, blandy said:

Mug I may be, but I'd point out that Corbyn was the enabler - the woeful state of the opposition is what allowed Britain Trump to get his hands on the PM job with an 80 seat majority.

[Xann]

Woeful state of critical thinking more like.

[Chindie]

I dunno. When every media voice is lining up to rubbish, deride and disparage the leadership at every turn for a few years, it's evidently the leadership's fault when they fail to convince the voting public.

[ml1dch]

 

 

[blandy]

1 minute ago, Xann said:

Woeful state of critical thinking more like.

Voters voted Tory much more than they voted Labour. Voters chose Tory over Labour. Yes there are more media cheerleaders for Tory, but Labour cannot be absolved of any responsibility, the Leader can't be. Labour has to win the confidence of enough voters, not just hope that the tories implode and hand it to them. Corbyn failed to do that.

There are people as angry at that as there people as angry that Saint Jeremy is being picked on by the nasty everyone and everything and it's so not fair.

[Xann]

What's not fair is the kids picking up the mess.

[HanoiVillan]

6 minutes ago, blandy said:

Corbyn said a few things which were both ill-judged and ill-timed (to put it mildly). He said he didn't accept all the findings of the report. He said the scale of AS had been exaggerated for political reasons. He made no apology for the flaws in leadership and culture around AS which the report (pdf) identified.

And he did all that the moment the report came out.

I assume he made a statement 'the moment the report came out' because he had the world's media chasing him around as usual, and I'm equally sure that if he had taken 48 or 72 hours to respond then people would have been livid about that instead.

I am not particularly interested in defending every word of his statement, but I think it was overall pretty banal - 'politician releases self-exculpatory statement that accepts report's recommendations while defending their own conduct' is pretty much what every politician ever has done in the aftermath of a report.

20 minutes ago, blandy said:

his suspension, and rightly so.

You may be one of the few people happy about it, because as far as I can see the left of the party are angry he was suspended, and the right are fuming that he has been re-admitted. The people suggesting this has been a big win for the Labour party seem very thin on the ground, one way or the other.

The actual impact of suspending him was to drag out the conversation and negative headlines for two more weeks; the inevitable impact of readmitting him to the party but not to the parliamentary party will be to prolong that for *yet more* weeks. I would have thought Starmer would fancy talking about something else, but seemingly not.

[Demitri_C]

20 minutes ago, Xann said:

He only gets one vote. What about the rest of the population?

Edited November 18, 2020 by Demitri_C

[Wainy316]

2 minutes ago, Demitri_C said:

He only gets one vote. What about the rest of the population?

He's Australian, pretty sure he doesn't get a vote at all, although that's besides the point.

Edited November 18, 2020 by Wainy316