What a ridiculously misguided headline. What is this website, Pravda? Exceptionally misjudged the very morning after a personal friend sent footage of an avowedly left-wing crowd chanting "F*** Keir Starmer"! I don't see how it's possible for anyone who sang "Oh Jeremy, Jeremy" a few years ago to even consider voting for the party that's treated him so appallingly. I'm Jewish, for what it's worth, and the most antisemitic attitudes I've encountered come from the Starmerites, cynically manipulating the fears of Jewish people to blacklist their internal opponents. It's absolutely horrific. The only people who seem to want Starmer are disaffected One Nation Tories who think "he's one of us, deep down", those elitist Tories who'd rather lose "honourably" than ever give their constituents the kind of working class conservatism they actually want!
You'd rather have a Tory government again than vote Labour. Uh-huh, figures.
If there's no difference between the two, other than Labour under Starmer are more authoritarian and callous towards their own members, then yes.
There's quite a difference between Starmer Labour and this Brexit/Boris poisoned Tory Party imo.
What a ridiculously misguided headline. What is this website, Pravda? Exceptionally misjudged the very morning after a personal friend sent footage of an avowedly left-wing crowd chanting "F*** Keir Starmer"! I don't see how it's possible for anyone who sang "Oh Jeremy, Jeremy" a few years ago to even consider voting for the party that's treated him so appallingly. I'm Jewish, for what it's worth, and the most antisemitic attitudes I've encountered come from the Starmerites, cynically manipulating the fears of Jewish people to blacklist their internal opponents. It's absolutely horrific. The only people who seem to want Starmer are disaffected One Nation Tories who think "he's one of us, deep down", those elitist Tories who'd rather lose "honourably" than ever give their constituents the kind of working class conservatism they actually want!
You'd rather have a Tory government again than vote Labour. Uh-huh, figures.
If there's no difference between the two, other than Labour under Starmer are more authoritarian and callous towards their own members, then yes.
He happened to be right on Iraq but it was by luck
The stopped clock argument.
If Corbyn disagrees with every war, once or twice in a while he will be proven right.
There are far more PB apologists for Corbyn than I had expected. I believe Corbyn to have his heart in the right place, however he is so mind numbingly blinkered and stupid that he couldn't differentiate between Benjamin Netanyahu and Luciana Berger.
Starmer may be an utter dud, but in this instance he is on the money. Jeremy Corbyn is the personification of a chocolate teapot.
Starmer will never speak for me. Forcing candidates on constituencies is as bad as not allowing them. Unless he is banished from the Labour Party permanently, it is down to the Constituency party to decide.
Er, he has (effectively) been permanently banished from the Labour Party? Isn't that the point?
On topic people who don't vote Labour don't want Corbyn to stand as Labour. SKS agrees with them and in not allowing the Members in Islington N a free choice is an anti democratic fascist
All depends how you put it. What about:
Most people don't want Corbyn to stand as Labour. SKS knows that to win elections you have to have regard to the views of those who voted for you last time and the millions whose votes you wish to attract from other parties. All parties have systems of moderation and appraisal when it comes to who is a suitable candidate to represent the party, including Labour, which is a moderate social democratic party strongly resistant to fascism including the fascism of the holocaust which haunts Europe from the last century and for which cause so many Labour members gave their lives 1939-1945.
Godwin in one. A magnificent effort.
Just trying to keep up the standards. See yesterday's discussion passim on top cliches, of which of course 'passim' was one. Another was.......
I just admire the directness of your 'hole-in-one'.
You got straight from an elderly allotment who makes excellent jam to "the holocaust" in two sentences.
What a ridiculously misguided headline. What is this website, Pravda? Exceptionally misjudged the very morning after a personal friend sent footage of an avowedly left-wing crowd chanting "F*** Keir Starmer"! I don't see how it's possible for anyone who sang "Oh Jeremy, Jeremy" a few years ago to even consider voting for the party that's treated him so appallingly. I'm Jewish, for what it's worth, and the most antisemitic attitudes I've encountered come from the Starmerites, cynically manipulating the fears of Jewish people to blacklist their internal opponents. It's absolutely horrific. The only people who seem to want Starmer are disaffected One Nation Tories who think "he's one of us, deep down", those elitist Tories who'd rather lose "honourably" than ever give their constituents the kind of working class conservatism they actually want!
You'd rather have a Tory government again than vote Labour. Uh-huh, figures.
If there's no difference between the two, other than Labour under Starmer are more authoritarian and callous towards their own members, then yes.
Well you're just another Tory supporter then.
So what? That's democracy! If Starmer was better, maybe I'd be a Starmer supporter. But he's not, he's made Labour unelectable, a lot of people on the left think hed be even worse than the Tories - just as anti-socialist, but with an added layer of authoritarianism.
What a ridiculously misguided headline. What is this website, Pravda? Exceptionally misjudged the very morning after a personal friend sent footage of an avowedly left-wing crowd chanting "F*** Keir Starmer"! I don't see how it's possible for anyone who sang "Oh Jeremy, Jeremy" a few years ago to even consider voting for the party that's treated him so appallingly. I'm Jewish, for what it's worth, and the most antisemitic attitudes I've encountered come from the Starmerites, cynically manipulating the fears of Jewish people to blacklist their internal opponents. It's absolutely horrific. The only people who seem to want Starmer are disaffected One Nation Tories who think "he's one of us, deep down", those elitist Tories who'd rather lose "honourably" than ever give their constituents the kind of working class conservatism they actually want!
You'd rather have a Tory government again than vote Labour. Uh-huh, figures.
If there's no difference between the two, other than Labour under Starmer are more authoritarian and callous towards their own members, then yes.
There's quite a difference between Starmer Labour and this Brexit/Boris poisoned Tory Party imo.
On topic people who don't vote Labour don't want Corbyn to stand as Labour. SKS agrees with them and in not allowing the Members in Islington N a free choice is an anti democratic fascist
All depends how you put it. What about:
Most people don't want Corbyn to stand as Labour. SKS knows that to win elections you have to have regard to the views of those who voted for you last time and the millions whose votes you wish to attract from other parties. All parties have systems of moderation and appraisal when it comes to who is a suitable candidate to represent the party, including Labour, which is a moderate social democratic party strongly resistant to fascism including the fascism of the holocaust which haunts Europe from the last century and for which cause so many Labour members gave their lives 1939-1945.
Godwin in one. A magnificent effort.
Just trying to keep up the standards. See yesterday's discussion passim on top cliches, of which of course 'passim' was one. Another was.......
I just admire the directness of your 'hole-in-one'.
You got straight from an elderly allotment who makes excellent jam to "the holocaust" in two sentences.
On topic people who don't vote Labour don't want Corbyn to stand as Labour. SKS agrees with them and in not allowing the Members in Islington N a free choice is an anti democratic fascist
All depends how you put it. What about:
Most people don't want Corbyn to stand as Labour. SKS knows that to win elections you have to have regard to the views of those who voted for you last time and the millions whose votes you wish to attract from other parties. All parties have systems of moderation and appraisal when it comes to who is a suitable candidate to represent the party, including Labour, which is a moderate social democratic party strongly resistant to fascism including the fascism of the holocaust which haunts Europe from the last century and for which cause so many Labour members gave their lives 1939-1945 and for which reason anti semitism has a particularly despised place in its thinking.
I agree. But Starmer's position stems from a lot more than just Corbyn's failure to accept the report condemning Labour's antisemitism under his leadership.
Corbyn has by his actions made it very clear that he will defy the Labour whip on all manner of votes as he pleases should he ever again get re-elected as a Labour MP. His voting record when an MP, until he became leader, was absolutely lamentable in terms of failure to follow the Labour whip. More recently he has shown absolutely no sign of changing. Take his lamentable stance of appeasement at the start of the Ukraine war for example, leading from the front Putin's useful idiots in the Stop the War coalition, reprising his role at the time of the Salisbury poisonings. A dozen or so of the other usual suspects were rightly threatened by Starmer with immediate loss of the whip should they not withdraw their backing for that stance, and promptly backed down. Corbyn did not, having already lost the whip. He knew what the consequences of his continued defiance would be, it is not as though he wasn't warned and he has brought this on himself. On any tight parliamentary vote, he will never be someone who can be relied upon by a Labour government to vote as the whips require. It is absolutely right that he should continue to have the whip withdrawn and as a consequence be ineligible for selection as a Labour MP.
Corbyn's failure to accept the report condemning Labour's antisemitism under his leadership. Not true he accepted it in full
Ukraine War - Untrue he called for Russia to withdraw and has been Putins strongest critic for years
Lamentable voting record - Rubbish, anti Iraq anti austerity anti PFI He has been spot on
You are just parroting lies about Corbyn from his right wing opponents inside and outside Labour
"I would not be sending materiel [to Ukraine] which would allow the invasion of Russia."
Corbyn is drawing a distinction between material that allows Ukraine to repel Russian troops within the boundaries of Ukraine .... and material that allows Russia itself to be invaded.
If Russia itself is invaded, there is only one outcome.
Nothing rallies a population more than a country being invaded. Experts on Pb.com to the contrary, the invasion of Russia will lead to support for Putin & the Russian Army increasing.
There will be irresistible clamours for use of nuclear weapons.
The invasion of Russia proper would be the end of it all ... and that is what Corbyn is properly cautioning about.
What a ridiculously misguided headline. What is this website, Pravda? Exceptionally misjudged the very morning after a personal friend sent footage of an avowedly left-wing crowd chanting "F*** Keir Starmer"! I don't see how it's possible for anyone who sang "Oh Jeremy, Jeremy" a few years ago to even consider voting for the party that's treated him so appallingly. I'm Jewish, for what it's worth, and the most antisemitic attitudes I've encountered come from the Starmerites, cynically manipulating the fears of Jewish people to blacklist their internal opponents. It's absolutely horrific. The only people who seem to want Starmer are disaffected One Nation Tories who think "he's one of us, deep down", those elitist Tories who'd rather lose "honourably" than ever give their constituents the kind of working class conservatism they actually want!
You'd rather have a Tory government again than vote Labour. Uh-huh, figures.
If there's no difference between the two, other than Labour under Starmer are more authoritarian and callous towards their own members, then yes.
Well you're just another Tory supporter then.
So what? That's democracy! If Starmer was better, maybe I'd be a Starmer supporter. But he's not, he's made Labour unelectable, a lot of people on the left think hed be even worse than the Tories - just as anti-socialist, but with an added layer of authoritarianism.
Jeremy Corbyn - lost two elections, including an utter thrashing.
Labour under Sir Keir - definitely not unelectable.
On topic people who don't vote Labour don't want Corbyn to stand as Labour. SKS agrees with them and in not allowing the Members in Islington N a free choice is an anti democratic fascist
All depends how you put it. What about:
Most people don't want Corbyn to stand as Labour. SKS knows that to win elections you have to have regard to the views of those who voted for you last time and the millions whose votes you wish to attract from other parties. All parties have systems of moderation and appraisal when it comes to who is a suitable candidate to represent the party, including Labour, which is a moderate social democratic party strongly resistant to fascism including the fascism of the holocaust which haunts Europe from the last century and for which cause so many Labour members gave their lives 1939-1945 and for which reason anti semitism has a particularly despised place in its thinking.
I agree. But Starmer's position stems from a lot more than just Corbyn's failure to accept the report condemning Labour's antisemitism under his leadership.
Corbyn has by his actions made it very clear that he will defy the Labour whip on all manner of votes as he pleases should he ever again get re-elected as a Labour MP. His voting record when an MP, until he became leader, was absolutely lamentable in terms of failure to follow the Labour whip. More recently he has shown absolutely no sign of changing. Take his lamentable stance of appeasement at the start of the Ukraine war for example, leading from the front Putin's useful idiots in the Stop the War coalition, reprising his role at the time of the Salisbury poisonings. A dozen or so of the other usual suspects were rightly threatened by Starmer with immediate loss of the whip should they not withdraw their backing for that stance, and promptly backed down. Corbyn did not, having already lost the whip. He knew what the consequences of his continued defiance would be, it is not as though he wasn't warned and he has brought this on himself. On any tight parliamentary vote, he will never be someone who can be relied upon by a Labour government to vote as the whips require. It is absolutely right that he should continue to have the whip withdrawn and as a consequence be ineligible for selection as a Labour MP.
Corbyn's failure to accept the report condemning Labour's antisemitism under his leadership. Not true he accepted it in full
Ukraine War - Untrue he called for Russia to withdraw and has been Putins strongest critic for years
Lamentable voting record - Rubbish, anti Iraq anti austerity anti PFI He has been spot on
You are just parroting lies about Corbyn from his right wing opponents inside and outside Labour
"I would not be sending materiel [to Ukraine] which would allow the invasion of Russia."
Corbyn is drawing a distinction between material that allows Ukraine to repel Russian troops within the boundaries of Ukraine .... and material that allows Russia itself to be invaded.
If Russia itself is invaded, there is only one outcome.
Nothing rallies a population more than a country being invaded. Experts on Pb.com to the contrary, the invasion of Russia will lead to support for Putin & the Russian Army increasing.
There will be irresistible clamours for use of nuclear weapons.
The invasion of Russia proper would be the end of it all ... and that is what Corbyn is properly cautioning about.
He may be doing so there, but he's also called for the west to stop supplying arms because it's only prolonging the war:
Now you cannot read that with an open mind as anything other than a tacit endorsement of Russian victory. If the West didn't arm Ukraine, with due respect to the hardihood of the Ukrainians who have withstood a fearful assault with remarkable fortitude there would be none of it left by now.
On topic people who don't vote Labour don't want Corbyn to stand as Labour. SKS agrees with them and in not allowing the Members in Islington N a free choice is an anti democratic fascist
All depends how you put it. What about:
Most people don't want Corbyn to stand as Labour. SKS knows that to win elections you have to have regard to the views of those who voted for you last time and the millions whose votes you wish to attract from other parties. All parties have systems of moderation and appraisal when it comes to who is a suitable candidate to represent the party, including Labour, which is a moderate social democratic party strongly resistant to fascism including the fascism of the holocaust which haunts Europe from the last century and for which cause so many Labour members gave their lives 1939-1945 and for which reason anti semitism has a particularly despised place in its thinking.
I agree. But Starmer's position stems from a lot more than just Corbyn's failure to accept the report condemning Labour's antisemitism under his leadership.
Corbyn has by his actions made it very clear that he will defy the Labour whip on all manner of votes as he pleases should he ever again get re-elected as a Labour MP. His voting record when an MP, until he became leader, was absolutely lamentable in terms of failure to follow the Labour whip. More recently he has shown absolutely no sign of changing. Take his lamentable stance of appeasement at the start of the Ukraine war for example, leading from the front Putin's useful idiots in the Stop the War coalition, reprising his role at the time of the Salisbury poisonings. A dozen or so of the other usual suspects were rightly threatened by Starmer with immediate loss of the whip should they not withdraw their backing for that stance, and promptly backed down. Corbyn did not, having already lost the whip. He knew what the consequences of his continued defiance would be, it is not as though he wasn't warned and he has brought this on himself. On any tight parliamentary vote, he will never be someone who can be relied upon by a Labour government to vote as the whips require. It is absolutely right that he should continue to have the whip withdrawn and as a consequence be ineligible for selection as a Labour MP.
Corbyn's failure to accept the report condemning Labour's antisemitism under his leadership. Not true he accepted it in full
Ukraine War - Untrue he called for Russia to withdraw and has been Putins strongest critic for years
Lamentable voting record - Rubbish, anti Iraq anti austerity anti PFI He has been spot on
You are just parroting lies about Corbyn from his right wing opponents inside and outside Labour
"I would not be sending materiel [to Ukraine] which would allow the invasion of Russia."
Corbyn is drawing a distinction between material that allows Ukraine to repel Russian troops within the boundaries of Ukraine .... and material that allows Russia itself to be invaded.
If Russia itself is invaded, there is only one outcome.
Nothing rallies a population more than a country being invaded. Experts on Pb.com to the contrary, the invasion of Russia will lead to support for Putin & the Russian Army increasing.
There will be irresistible clamours for use of nuclear weapons.
The invasion of Russia proper would be the end of it all ... and that is what Corbyn is properly cautioning about.
Russia proper as defined in Russian law has already been invaded, and Russia's response was to withdraw.
What a ridiculously misguided headline. What is this website, Pravda? Exceptionally misjudged the very morning after a personal friend sent footage of an avowedly left-wing crowd chanting "F*** Keir Starmer"! I don't see how it's possible for anyone who sang "Oh Jeremy, Jeremy" a few years ago to even consider voting for the party that's treated him so appallingly. I'm Jewish, for what it's worth, and the most antisemitic attitudes I've encountered come from the Starmerites, cynically manipulating the fears of Jewish people to blacklist their internal opponents. It's absolutely horrific. The only people who seem to want Starmer are disaffected One Nation Tories who think "he's one of us, deep down", those elitist Tories who'd rather lose "honourably" than ever give their constituents the kind of working class conservatism they actually want!
You'd rather have a Tory government again than vote Labour. Uh-huh, figures.
If there's no difference between the two, other than Labour under Starmer are more authoritarian and callous towards their own members, then yes.
Well you're just another Tory supporter then.
So what? That's democracy! If Starmer was better, maybe I'd be a Starmer supporter. But he's not, he's made Labour unelectable, a lot of people on the left think hed be even worse than the Tories - just as anti-socialist, but with an added layer of authoritarianism.
Um Corbyn made Labour unelectable as demonstrated by thre 2019 election and all polls from July 2019 unwards.
Current polling paints a very different picture - the general public might find Starmer boring but he's preferred to the other option...
What a ridiculously misguided headline. What is this website, Pravda? Exceptionally misjudged the very morning after a personal friend sent footage of an avowedly left-wing crowd chanting "F*** Keir Starmer"! I don't see how it's possible for anyone who sang "Oh Jeremy, Jeremy" a few years ago to even consider voting for the party that's treated him so appallingly. I'm Jewish, for what it's worth, and the most antisemitic attitudes I've encountered come from the Starmerites, cynically manipulating the fears of Jewish people to blacklist their internal opponents. It's absolutely horrific. The only people who seem to want Starmer are disaffected One Nation Tories who think "he's one of us, deep down", those elitist Tories who'd rather lose "honourably" than ever give their constituents the kind of working class conservatism they actually want!
You'd rather have a Tory government again than vote Labour. Uh-huh, figures.
If there's no difference between the two, other than Labour under Starmer are more authoritarian and callous towards their own members, then yes.
There's quite a difference between Starmer Labour and this Brexit/Boris poisoned Tory Party imo.
Bloody splitter!
Are you a member of the
The People's Judean Front The Popular Front For Judea The Real Front For Judea The Really real Front for Judea The Keeping' It Real Front For Judea The I Can't Believe It's Not The Real Front for Judea The Continuity Front For Judea
What a ridiculously misguided headline. What is this website, Pravda? Exceptionally misjudged the very morning after a personal friend sent footage of an avowedly left-wing crowd chanting "F*** Keir Starmer"! I don't see how it's possible for anyone who sang "Oh Jeremy, Jeremy" a few years ago to even consider voting for the party that's treated him so appallingly. I'm Jewish, for what it's worth, and the most antisemitic attitudes I've encountered come from the Starmerites, cynically manipulating the fears of Jewish people to blacklist their internal opponents. It's absolutely horrific. The only people who seem to want Starmer are disaffected One Nation Tories who think "he's one of us, deep down", those elitist Tories who'd rather lose "honourably" than ever give their constituents the kind of working class conservatism they actually want!
You'd rather have a Tory government again than vote Labour. Uh-huh, figures.
If there's no difference between the two, other than Labour under Starmer are more authoritarian and callous towards their own members, then yes.
There's quite a difference between Starmer Labour and this Brexit/Boris poisoned Tory Party imo.
Bloody splitter!
Are you a member of the
The People's Judean Front The Popular Front For Judea The Real Front For Judea The Really real Front for Judea The Keeping' It Real Front For Judea The I Can't Believe It's Not The Real Front for Judea The Continuity Front For Judea
On topic people who don't vote Labour don't want Corbyn to stand as Labour. SKS agrees with them and in not allowing the Members in Islington N a free choice is an anti democratic fascist
All depends how you put it. What about:
Most people don't want Corbyn to stand as Labour. SKS knows that to win elections you have to have regard to the views of those who voted for you last time and the millions whose votes you wish to attract from other parties. All parties have systems of moderation and appraisal when it comes to who is a suitable candidate to represent the party, including Labour, which is a moderate social democratic party strongly resistant to fascism including the fascism of the holocaust which haunts Europe from the last century and for which cause so many Labour members gave their lives 1939-1945 and for which reason anti semitism has a particularly despised place in its thinking.
I agree. But Starmer's position stems from a lot more than just Corbyn's failure to accept the report condemning Labour's antisemitism under his leadership.
Corbyn has by his actions made it very clear that he will defy the Labour whip on all manner of votes as he pleases should he ever again get re-elected as a Labour MP. His voting record when an MP, until he became leader, was absolutely lamentable in terms of failure to follow the Labour whip. More recently he has shown absolutely no sign of changing. Take his lamentable stance of appeasement at the start of the Ukraine war for example, leading from the front Putin's useful idiots in the Stop the War coalition, reprising his role at the time of the Salisbury poisonings. A dozen or so of the other usual suspects were rightly threatened by Starmer with immediate loss of the whip should they not withdraw their backing for that stance, and promptly backed down. Corbyn did not, having already lost the whip. He knew what the consequences of his continued defiance would be, it is not as though he wasn't warned and he has brought this on himself. On any tight parliamentary vote, he will never be someone who can be relied upon by a Labour government to vote as the whips require. It is absolutely right that he should continue to have the whip withdrawn and as a consequence be ineligible for selection as a Labour MP.
Corbyn's failure to accept the report condemning Labour's antisemitism under his leadership. Not true he accepted it in full
Ukraine War - Untrue he called for Russia to withdraw and has been Putins strongest critic for years
Lamentable voting record - Rubbish, anti Iraq anti austerity anti PFI He has been spot on
You are just parroting lies about Corbyn from his right wing opponents inside and outside Labour
No, utter misrepresentations on the first two. Lies from you not me.
And in trying to justify Corbyn's stance by referencing Iraq, a wholly exceptional issue on which half the PLP rebelled, most of whom can't stand him, you miss the point. The point is that he's a serial rebel, not just an occasional one. So if he's not prepared to follow the Labour whip under Starmer, and effectively wants independence of action, then its open to him to stand as an independent isn't it?
As for anti-austerity, unlike you and other Blue Trots at the next election I'll be using my vote to put into government a party committing to ending it.
On topic people who don't vote Labour don't want Corbyn to stand as Labour. SKS agrees with them and in not allowing the Members in Islington N a free choice is an anti democratic fascist
All depends how you put it. What about:
Most people don't want Corbyn to stand as Labour. SKS knows that to win elections you have to have regard to the views of those who voted for you last time and the millions whose votes you wish to attract from other parties. All parties have systems of moderation and appraisal when it comes to who is a suitable candidate to represent the party, including Labour, which is a moderate social democratic party strongly resistant to fascism including the fascism of the holocaust which haunts Europe from the last century and for which cause so many Labour members gave their lives 1939-1945 and for which reason anti semitism has a particularly despised place in its thinking.
I agree. But Starmer's position stems from a lot more than just Corbyn's failure to accept the report condemning Labour's antisemitism under his leadership.
Corbyn has by his actions made it very clear that he will defy the Labour whip on all manner of votes as he pleases should he ever again get re-elected as a Labour MP. His voting record when an MP, until he became leader, was absolutely lamentable in terms of failure to follow the Labour whip. More recently he has shown absolutely no sign of changing. Take his lamentable stance of appeasement at the start of the Ukraine war for example, leading from the front Putin's useful idiots in the Stop the War coalition, reprising his role at the time of the Salisbury poisonings. A dozen or so of the other usual suspects were rightly threatened by Starmer with immediate loss of the whip should they not withdraw their backing for that stance, and promptly backed down. Corbyn did not, having already lost the whip. He knew what the consequences of his continued defiance would be, it is not as though he wasn't warned and he has brought this on himself. On any tight parliamentary vote, he will never be someone who can be relied upon by a Labour government to vote as the whips require. It is absolutely right that he should continue to have the whip withdrawn and as a consequence be ineligible for selection as a Labour MP.
Corbyn's failure to accept the report condemning Labour's antisemitism under his leadership. Not true he accepted it in full
Ukraine War - Untrue he called for Russia to withdraw and has been Putins strongest critic for years
Lamentable voting record - Rubbish, anti Iraq anti austerity anti PFI He has been spot on
You are just parroting lies about Corbyn from his right wing opponents inside and outside Labour
"I would not be sending materiel [to Ukraine] which would allow the invasion of Russia."
Corbyn is drawing a distinction between material that allows Ukraine to repel Russian troops within the boundaries of Ukraine .... and material that allows Russia itself to be invaded.
If Russia itself is invaded, there is only one outcome.
Nothing rallies a population more than a country being invaded. Experts on Pb.com to the contrary, the invasion of Russia will lead to support for Putin & the Russian Army increasing.
There will be irresistible clamours for use of nuclear weapons.
The invasion of Russia proper would be the end of it all ... and that is what Corbyn is properly cautioning about.
Russia proper as defined in Russian law has already been invaded, and Russia's response was to withdraw.
The difference is the reaction of the local population -- which is Russian.
As opposed to, say, Kherson where the population is majority Ukrainian.
If Ukrainian troops get to the border and then actually invade Rostov on Don, then (i) Putin's position will be secure as the Russians will rally behind him (instead of being rather indifferent to his adventurist war) and (ii) Russia will fire nuclear weapons.
So, 'Ah Jeremy Corbyn' is right.
Anhow, pb,com exists to discuss Jeremy Corbyn's relationship with anti-Semitism in a calm and constructive way, as suggested by @TheScreamingEagles super-balanced header.
And anyone who doesn't join in the collective bullying of Corbyn is a wanker.
On topic people who don't vote Labour don't want Corbyn to stand as Labour. SKS agrees with them and in not allowing the Members in Islington N a free choice is an anti democratic fascist
All depends how you put it. What about:
Most people don't want Corbyn to stand as Labour. SKS knows that to win elections you have to have regard to the views of those who voted for you last time and the millions whose votes you wish to attract from other parties. All parties have systems of moderation and appraisal when it comes to who is a suitable candidate to represent the party, including Labour, which is a moderate social democratic party strongly resistant to fascism including the fascism of the holocaust which haunts Europe from the last century and for which cause so many Labour members gave their lives 1939-1945 and for which reason anti semitism has a particularly despised place in its thinking.
I agree. But Starmer's position stems from a lot more than just Corbyn's failure to accept the report condemning Labour's antisemitism under his leadership.
Corbyn has by his actions made it very clear that he will defy the Labour whip on all manner of votes as he pleases should he ever again get re-elected as a Labour MP. His voting record when an MP, until he became leader, was absolutely lamentable in terms of failure to follow the Labour whip. More recently he has shown absolutely no sign of changing. Take his lamentable stance of appeasement at the start of the Ukraine war for example, leading from the front Putin's useful idiots in the Stop the War coalition, reprising his role at the time of the Salisbury poisonings. A dozen or so of the other usual suspects were rightly threatened by Starmer with immediate loss of the whip should they not withdraw their backing for that stance, and promptly backed down. Corbyn did not, having already lost the whip. He knew what the consequences of his continued defiance would be, it is not as though he wasn't warned and he has brought this on himself. On any tight parliamentary vote, he will never be someone who can be relied upon by a Labour government to vote as the whips require. It is absolutely right that he should continue to have the whip withdrawn and as a consequence be ineligible for selection as a Labour MP.
Corbyn's failure to accept the report condemning Labour's antisemitism under his leadership. Not true he accepted it in full
Ukraine War - Untrue he called for Russia to withdraw and has been Putins strongest critic for years
Lamentable voting record - Rubbish, anti Iraq anti austerity anti PFI He has been spot on
You are just parroting lies about Corbyn from his right wing opponents inside and outside Labour
"I would not be sending materiel [to Ukraine] which would allow the invasion of Russia."
Corbyn is drawing a distinction between material that allows Ukraine to repel Russian troops within the boundaries of Ukraine .... and material that allows Russia itself to be invaded.
If Russia itself is invaded, there is only one outcome.
Nothing rallies a population more than a country being invaded. Experts on Pb.com to the contrary, the invasion of Russia will lead to support for Putin & the Russian Army increasing.
There will be irresistible clamours for use of nuclear weapons.
The invasion of Russia proper would be the end of it all ... and that is what Corbyn is properly cautioning about.
There's no distinction possible though. If equipment shows Ukraine to retake Melitopol, then that Dave equipment could be used to take Belgorod, if the Ukrainians had a death wish.
I trust that Ukraine only want to retake the land within their internationally recognised 1991 borders.
Corbyn's formulation is a cop out that allows him to acquiesce to the acquisition of territory by Russia by armed aggression.
On topic people who don't vote Labour don't want Corbyn to stand as Labour. SKS agrees with them and in not allowing the Members in Islington N a free choice is an anti democratic fascist
All depends how you put it. What about:
Most people don't want Corbyn to stand as Labour. SKS knows that to win elections you have to have regard to the views of those who voted for you last time and the millions whose votes you wish to attract from other parties. All parties have systems of moderation and appraisal when it comes to who is a suitable candidate to represent the party, including Labour, which is a moderate social democratic party strongly resistant to fascism including the fascism of the holocaust which haunts Europe from the last century and for which cause so many Labour members gave their lives 1939-1945 and for which reason anti semitism has a particularly despised place in its thinking.
I agree. But Starmer's position stems from a lot more than just Corbyn's failure to accept the report condemning Labour's antisemitism under his leadership.
Corbyn has by his actions made it very clear that he will defy the Labour whip on all manner of votes as he pleases should he ever again get re-elected as a Labour MP. His voting record when an MP, until he became leader, was absolutely lamentable in terms of failure to follow the Labour whip. More recently he has shown absolutely no sign of changing. Take his lamentable stance of appeasement at the start of the Ukraine war for example, leading from the front Putin's useful idiots in the Stop the War coalition, reprising his role at the time of the Salisbury poisonings. A dozen or so of the other usual suspects were rightly threatened by Starmer with immediate loss of the whip should they not withdraw their backing for that stance, and promptly backed down. Corbyn did not, having already lost the whip. He knew what the consequences of his continued defiance would be, it is not as though he wasn't warned and he has brought this on himself. On any tight parliamentary vote, he will never be someone who can be relied upon by a Labour government to vote as the whips require. It is absolutely right that he should continue to have the whip withdrawn and as a consequence be ineligible for selection as a Labour MP.
Corbyn's failure to accept the report condemning Labour's antisemitism under his leadership. Not true he accepted it in full
Ukraine War - Untrue he called for Russia to withdraw and has been Putins strongest critic for years
Lamentable voting record - Rubbish, anti Iraq anti austerity anti PFI He has been spot on
You are just parroting lies about Corbyn from his right wing opponents inside and outside Labour
"I would not be sending materiel [to Ukraine] which would allow the invasion of Russia."
Corbyn is drawing a distinction between material that allows Ukraine to repel Russian troops within the boundaries of Ukraine .... and material that allows Russia itself to be invaded.
If Russia itself is invaded, there is only one outcome.
Nothing rallies a population more than a country being invaded. Experts on Pb.com to the contrary, the invasion of Russia will lead to support for Putin & the Russian Army increasing.
There will be irresistible clamours for use of nuclear weapons.
The invasion of Russia proper would be the end of it all ... and that is what Corbyn is properly cautioning about.
Russia proper as defined in Russian law has already been invaded, and Russia's response was to withdraw.
The difference is the reaction of the local population -- which is Russian.
As opposed to, say, Kherson where the population is majority Ukrainian.
If Ukrainian troops get to the border and then actually invade Rostov on Don, then (i) Putin's position will be secure as the Russians will rally behind him (instead of being rather indifferent to his adventurist war) and (ii) Russia will fire nuclear weapons.
So, 'Ah Jeremy Corbyn' is right.
Anhow, pb,com exists to discuss Jeremy Corbyn's relationship with anti-Semitism in a calm and constructive way, as suggested by @TheScreamingEagles super-balanced header.
And anyone who doesn't join in the collective bullying of Corbyn is a wanker.
I am super balanced when it comes to Corbyn.
I wrote this piece warning people not to misunderstimate Corbyn back in 2016.
Corbyn isn't a Labour MP right now, and shows no sign of doing anything to become one again. It would be odd for Labour to endorse his candidature at the next election.
From memory, there was a Conservative MP of the 1990's who was in a similar position. The Chief Whip eventually issued him with a letter (cc everyone) pointing out that: a) they didn't have the Conservative whip, and b) in the unimaginable event of them winning re-election, the whip woul not be restored.
The "unimaginable event" was the best bit of the letter.
On topic people who don't vote Labour don't want Corbyn to stand as Labour. SKS agrees with them and in not allowing the Members in Islington N a free choice is an anti democratic fascist
All depends how you put it. What about:
Most people don't want Corbyn to stand as Labour. SKS knows that to win elections you have to have regard to the views of those who voted for you last time and the millions whose votes you wish to attract from other parties. All parties have systems of moderation and appraisal when it comes to who is a suitable candidate to represent the party, including Labour, which is a moderate social democratic party strongly resistant to fascism including the fascism of the holocaust which haunts Europe from the last century and for which cause so many Labour members gave their lives 1939-1945 and for which reason anti semitism has a particularly despised place in its thinking.
I agree. But Starmer's position stems from a lot more than just Corbyn's failure to accept the report condemning Labour's antisemitism under his leadership.
Corbyn has by his actions made it very clear that he will defy the Labour whip on all manner of votes as he pleases should he ever again get re-elected as a Labour MP. His voting record when an MP, until he became leader, was absolutely lamentable in terms of failure to follow the Labour whip. More recently he has shown absolutely no sign of changing. Take his lamentable stance of appeasement at the start of the Ukraine war for example, leading from the front Putin's useful idiots in the Stop the War coalition, reprising his role at the time of the Salisbury poisonings. A dozen or so of the other usual suspects were rightly threatened by Starmer with immediate loss of the whip should they not withdraw their backing for that stance, and promptly backed down. Corbyn did not, having already lost the whip. He knew what the consequences of his continued defiance would be, it is not as though he wasn't warned and he has brought this on himself. On any tight parliamentary vote, he will never be someone who can be relied upon by a Labour government to vote as the whips require. It is absolutely right that he should continue to have the whip withdrawn and as a consequence be ineligible for selection as a Labour MP.
On any tight parliamentary vote, he will never be someone who can be relied upon by a Labour government to vote as the whips require. It is absolutely right that he should continue to have the whip withdrawn and as a consequence be ineligible for selection as a Labour MP
That is how we ended up with the Labour Party voting for war in Iraq.
I'd rather have independent minded MPs voting according to their conscience.
It wasn't just on Iraq though, was it? It was time and time and time again, on just about every issue of disagreement with Blair and Brown. He has defied the Labour whip more times than any Labour MP in history. That's what marks him out from an MP who rebels very occasionally, as most do. Basically he thinks the whipping system doesn't apply to him at all.
Your comment might be appropriate 300 years ago or so, to a time when the party system wasn't really in place. But today it is, and a Labour-led government with only a small working majority would fail if there were a small rump of MPs which time and again failed to obey the whip on key votes. I can of course see why you would want that to happen.
"I can of course see why you would want that to happen."
Do elucidate.
Based on memories of your past posts I really don't have you marked down as someone even slightly supportive of Labour led by Starmer. You are welcome to reference back through your archive in order to correct me, but I can't personally be bothered to do so.
What a ridiculously misguided headline. What is this website, Pravda? Exceptionally misjudged the very morning after a personal friend sent footage of an avowedly left-wing crowd chanting "F*** Keir Starmer"! I don't see how it's possible for anyone who sang "Oh Jeremy, Jeremy" a few years ago to even consider voting for the party that's treated him so appallingly. I'm Jewish, for what it's worth, and the most antisemitic attitudes I've encountered come from the Starmerites, cynically manipulating the fears of Jewish people to blacklist their internal opponents. It's absolutely horrific. The only people who seem to want Starmer are disaffected One Nation Tories who think "he's one of us, deep down", those elitist Tories who'd rather lose "honourably" than ever give their constituents the kind of working class conservatism they actually want!
You'd rather have a Tory government again than vote Labour. Uh-huh, figures.
If there's no difference between the two, other than Labour under Starmer are more authoritarian and callous towards their own members, then yes.
Well you're just another Tory supporter then.
No thats SKS voters, Labour are the Tories with a red rosette
What a ridiculously misguided headline. What is this website, Pravda? Exceptionally misjudged the very morning after a personal friend sent footage of an avowedly left-wing crowd chanting "F*** Keir Starmer"! I don't see how it's possible for anyone who sang "Oh Jeremy, Jeremy" a few years ago to even consider voting for the party that's treated him so appallingly. I'm Jewish, for what it's worth, and the most antisemitic attitudes I've encountered come from the Starmerites, cynically manipulating the fears of Jewish people to blacklist their internal opponents. It's absolutely horrific. The only people who seem to want Starmer are disaffected One Nation Tories who think "he's one of us, deep down", those elitist Tories who'd rather lose "honourably" than ever give their constituents the kind of working class conservatism they actually want!
You'd rather have a Tory government again than vote Labour. Uh-huh, figures.
If there's no difference between the two, other than Labour under Starmer are more authoritarian and callous towards their own members, then yes.
Well you're just another Tory supporter then.
No thats SKS voters, Labour are the Tories with a red rosette
So anyone voting Labour is a Tory and, er, real Labour supporters should vote Tory.
And? Constituency parties pick from a shortlist that they pick which is vetted before the final selection is made (again by constituency members unless it's in the imminent lead up to an election). For multiple reasons Jeremy Corbyn isn't on the shortlist - firstly because he isn't a Labour Party member and so isn't eligible and then because he would be removed within the vetting process before the final vote occurred.
On topic people who don't vote Labour don't want Corbyn to stand as Labour. SKS agrees with them and in not allowing the Members in Islington N a free choice is an anti democratic fascist
All depends how you put it. What about:
Most people don't want Corbyn to stand as Labour. SKS knows that to win elections you have to have regard to the views of those who voted for you last time and the millions whose votes you wish to attract from other parties. All parties have systems of moderation and appraisal when it comes to who is a suitable candidate to represent the party, including Labour, which is a moderate social democratic party strongly resistant to fascism including the fascism of the holocaust which haunts Europe from the last century and for which cause so many Labour members gave their lives 1939-1945 and for which reason anti semitism has a particularly despised place in its thinking.
I agree. But Starmer's position stems from a lot more than just Corbyn's failure to accept the report condemning Labour's antisemitism under his leadership.
Corbyn has by his actions made it very clear that he will defy the Labour whip on all manner of votes as he pleases should he ever again get re-elected as a Labour MP. His voting record when an MP, until he became leader, was absolutely lamentable in terms of failure to follow the Labour whip. More recently he has shown absolutely no sign of changing. Take his lamentable stance of appeasement at the start of the Ukraine war for example, leading from the front Putin's useful idiots in the Stop the War coalition, reprising his role at the time of the Salisbury poisonings. A dozen or so of the other usual suspects were rightly threatened by Starmer with immediate loss of the whip should they not withdraw their backing for that stance, and promptly backed down. Corbyn did not, having already lost the whip. He knew what the consequences of his continued defiance would be, it is not as though he wasn't warned and he has brought this on himself. On any tight parliamentary vote, he will never be someone who can be relied upon by a Labour government to vote as the whips require. It is absolutely right that he should continue to have the whip withdrawn and as a consequence be ineligible for selection as a Labour MP.
Corbyn's failure to accept the report condemning Labour's antisemitism under his leadership. Not true he accepted it in full
Ukraine War - Untrue he called for Russia to withdraw and has been Putins strongest critic for years
Lamentable voting record - Rubbish, anti Iraq anti austerity anti PFI He has been spot on
You are just parroting lies about Corbyn from his right wing opponents inside and outside Labour
As for anti-austerity, unlike you and other Blue Trots at the next election I'll be using my vote to put into government a party committing to ending it.
On topic people who don't vote Labour don't want Corbyn to stand as Labour. SKS agrees with them and in not allowing the Members in Islington N a free choice is an anti democratic fascist
All depends how you put it. What about:
Most people don't want Corbyn to stand as Labour. SKS knows that to win elections you have to have regard to the views of those who voted for you last time and the millions whose votes you wish to attract from other parties. All parties have systems of moderation and appraisal when it comes to who is a suitable candidate to represent the party, including Labour, which is a moderate social democratic party strongly resistant to fascism including the fascism of the holocaust which haunts Europe from the last century and for which cause so many Labour members gave their lives 1939-1945 and for which reason anti semitism has a particularly despised place in its thinking.
I agree. But Starmer's position stems from a lot more than just Corbyn's failure to accept the report condemning Labour's antisemitism under his leadership.
Corbyn has by his actions made it very clear that he will defy the Labour whip on all manner of votes as he pleases should he ever again get re-elected as a Labour MP. His voting record when an MP, until he became leader, was absolutely lamentable in terms of failure to follow the Labour whip. More recently he has shown absolutely no sign of changing. Take his lamentable stance of appeasement at the start of the Ukraine war for example, leading from the front Putin's useful idiots in the Stop the War coalition, reprising his role at the time of the Salisbury poisonings. A dozen or so of the other usual suspects were rightly threatened by Starmer with immediate loss of the whip should they not withdraw their backing for that stance, and promptly backed down. Corbyn did not, having already lost the whip. He knew what the consequences of his continued defiance would be, it is not as though he wasn't warned and he has brought this on himself. On any tight parliamentary vote, he will never be someone who can be relied upon by a Labour government to vote as the whips require. It is absolutely right that he should continue to have the whip withdrawn and as a consequence be ineligible for selection as a Labour MP.
On any tight parliamentary vote, he will never be someone who can be relied upon by a Labour government to vote as the whips require. It is absolutely right that he should continue to have the whip withdrawn and as a consequence be ineligible for selection as a Labour MP
That is how we ended up with the Labour Party voting for war in Iraq.
I'd rather have independent minded MPs voting according to their conscience.
It wasn't just on Iraq though, was it? It was time and time and time again, on just about every issue of disagreement with Blair and Brown. He has defied the Labour whip more times than any Labour MP in history. That's what marks him out from an MP who rebels very occasionally, as most do. Basically he thinks the whipping system doesn't apply to him at all.
Your comment might be appropriate 300 years ago or so, to a time when the party system wasn't really in place. But today it is, and a Labour-led government with only a small working majority would fail if there were a small rump of MPs which time and again failed to obey the whip on key votes. I can of course see why you would want that to happen.
"I can of course see why you would want that to happen."
Do elucidate.
Based on memories of your past posts I really don't have you marked down as someone even slightly supportive of Labour led by Starmer. You are welcome to reference back through your archive in order to correct me, but I can't personally be bothered to do so.
I am interested in policies and ideas and outcomes.
So I am not interested in Starmer per se . He is not (I think) particularly interesting.
My recollection of your past posts is you are a Brexiteer.
But, if you were a Labour MP, I would support your right to follow your conscience if there was a whipped vote on the EC.
What a ridiculously misguided headline. What is this website, Pravda? Exceptionally misjudged the very morning after a personal friend sent footage of an avowedly left-wing crowd chanting "F*** Keir Starmer"! I don't see how it's possible for anyone who sang "Oh Jeremy, Jeremy" a few years ago to even consider voting for the party that's treated him so appallingly. I'm Jewish, for what it's worth, and the most antisemitic attitudes I've encountered come from the Starmerites, cynically manipulating the fears of Jewish people to blacklist their internal opponents. It's absolutely horrific. The only people who seem to want Starmer are disaffected One Nation Tories who think "he's one of us, deep down", those elitist Tories who'd rather lose "honourably" than ever give their constituents the kind of working class conservatism they actually want!
You'd rather have a Tory government again than vote Labour. Uh-huh, figures.
If there's no difference between the two, other than Labour under Starmer are more authoritarian and callous towards their own members, then yes.
Well you're just another Tory supporter then.
No thats SKS voters, Labour are the Tories with a red rosette
So anyone voting Labour is a Tory and, er, real Labour supporters should vote Tory.
On topic people who don't vote Labour don't want Corbyn to stand as Labour. SKS agrees with them and in not allowing the Members in Islington N a free choice is an anti democratic fascist
All depends how you put it. What about:
Most people don't want Corbyn to stand as Labour. SKS knows that to win elections you have to have regard to the views of those who voted for you last time and the millions whose votes you wish to attract from other parties. All parties have systems of moderation and appraisal when it comes to who is a suitable candidate to represent the party, including Labour, which is a moderate social democratic party strongly resistant to fascism including the fascism of the holocaust which haunts Europe from the last century and for which cause so many Labour members gave their lives 1939-1945 and for which reason anti semitism has a particularly despised place in its thinking.
I agree. But Starmer's position stems from a lot more than just Corbyn's failure to accept the report condemning Labour's antisemitism under his leadership.
Corbyn has by his actions made it very clear that he will defy the Labour whip on all manner of votes as he pleases should he ever again get re-elected as a Labour MP. His voting record when an MP, until he became leader, was absolutely lamentable in terms of failure to follow the Labour whip. More recently he has shown absolutely no sign of changing. Take his lamentable stance of appeasement at the start of the Ukraine war for example, leading from the front Putin's useful idiots in the Stop the War coalition, reprising his role at the time of the Salisbury poisonings. A dozen or so of the other usual suspects were rightly threatened by Starmer with immediate loss of the whip should they not withdraw their backing for that stance, and promptly backed down. Corbyn did not, having already lost the whip. He knew what the consequences of his continued defiance would be, it is not as though he wasn't warned and he has brought this on himself. On any tight parliamentary vote, he will never be someone who can be relied upon by a Labour government to vote as the whips require. It is absolutely right that he should continue to have the whip withdrawn and as a consequence be ineligible for selection as a Labour MP.
On any tight parliamentary vote, he will never be someone who can be relied upon by a Labour government to vote as the whips require. It is absolutely right that he should continue to have the whip withdrawn and as a consequence be ineligible for selection as a Labour MP
That is how we ended up with the Labour Party voting for war in Iraq.
I'd rather have independent minded MPs voting according to their conscience.
It wasn't just on Iraq though, was it? It was time and time and time again, on just about every issue of disagreement with Blair and Brown. He has defied the Labour whip more times than any Labour MP in history. That's what marks him out from an MP who rebels very occasionally, as most do. Basically he thinks the whipping system doesn't apply to him at all.
Your comment might be appropriate 300 years ago or so, to a time when the party system wasn't really in place. But today it is, and a Labour-led government with only a small working majority would fail if there were a small rump of MPs which time and again failed to obey the whip on key votes. I can of course see why you would want that to happen.
"I can of course see why you would want that to happen."
Do elucidate.
Based on memories of your past posts I really don't have you marked down as someone even slightly supportive of Labour led by Starmer. You are welcome to reference back through your archive in order to correct me, but I can't personally be bothered to do so.
The overlapping venn diagram depicting the fan clubs of both Andrew RT Davies and Jeremy Corbyn is inhabited solely by @YBarddCwsc
And? Constituency parties pick from a shortlist that they pick which is vetted before the final selection is made (again by constituency members unless it's in the imminent lead up to an election). For multiple reasons Jeremy Corbyn isn't on the shortlist - firstly because he isn't a Labour Party member and so isn't eligible and then because he would be removed within the vetting process before the final vote occurred.
On topic people who don't vote Labour don't want Corbyn to stand as Labour. SKS agrees with them and in not allowing the Members in Islington N a free choice is an anti democratic fascist
All depends how you put it. What about:
Most people don't want Corbyn to stand as Labour. SKS knows that to win elections you have to have regard to the views of those who voted for you last time and the millions whose votes you wish to attract from other parties. All parties have systems of moderation and appraisal when it comes to who is a suitable candidate to represent the party, including Labour, which is a moderate social democratic party strongly resistant to fascism including the fascism of the holocaust which haunts Europe from the last century and for which cause so many Labour members gave their lives 1939-1945 and for which reason anti semitism has a particularly despised place in its thinking.
I agree. But Starmer's position stems from a lot more than just Corbyn's failure to accept the report condemning Labour's antisemitism under his leadership.
Corbyn has by his actions made it very clear that he will defy the Labour whip on all manner of votes as he pleases should he ever again get re-elected as a Labour MP. His voting record when an MP, until he became leader, was absolutely lamentable in terms of failure to follow the Labour whip. More recently he has shown absolutely no sign of changing. Take his lamentable stance of appeasement at the start of the Ukraine war for example, leading from the front Putin's useful idiots in the Stop the War coalition, reprising his role at the time of the Salisbury poisonings. A dozen or so of the other usual suspects were rightly threatened by Starmer with immediate loss of the whip should they not withdraw their backing for that stance, and promptly backed down. Corbyn did not, having already lost the whip. He knew what the consequences of his continued defiance would be, it is not as though he wasn't warned and he has brought this on himself. On any tight parliamentary vote, he will never be someone who can be relied upon by a Labour government to vote as the whips require. It is absolutely right that he should continue to have the whip withdrawn and as a consequence be ineligible for selection as a Labour MP.
On any tight parliamentary vote, he will never be someone who can be relied upon by a Labour government to vote as the whips require. It is absolutely right that he should continue to have the whip withdrawn and as a consequence be ineligible for selection as a Labour MP
That is how we ended up with the Labour Party voting for war in Iraq.
I'd rather have independent minded MPs voting according to their conscience.
It wasn't just on Iraq though, was it? It was time and time and time again, on just about every issue of disagreement with Blair and Brown. He has defied the Labour whip more times than any Labour MP in history. That's what marks him out from an MP who rebels very occasionally, as most do. Basically he thinks the whipping system doesn't apply to him at all.
Your comment might be appropriate 300 years ago or so, to a time when the party system wasn't really in place. But today it is, and a Labour-led government with only a small working majority would fail if there were a small rump of MPs which time and again failed to obey the whip on key votes. I can of course see why you would want that to happen.
"I can of course see why you would want that to happen."
Do elucidate.
Based on memories of your past posts I really don't have you marked down as someone even slightly supportive of Labour led by Starmer. You are welcome to reference back through your archive in order to correct me, but I can't personally be bothered to do so.
The overlapping venn diagram depicting the fan clubs of both Andrew RT Davies and Jeremy Corbyn is inhabited solely by @YBarddCwsc
I am not a fan of Andrew RT Davies. In "ivories, apes and peacocks", RT plays the role of ape.
Sigh.
In a moment @rcs1000 will appear and accuse me of anti-vax.
What a ridiculously misguided headline. What is this website, Pravda? Exceptionally misjudged the very morning after a personal friend sent footage of an avowedly left-wing crowd chanting "F*** Keir Starmer"! I don't see how it's possible for anyone who sang "Oh Jeremy, Jeremy" a few years ago to even consider voting for the party that's treated him so appallingly. I'm Jewish, for what it's worth, and the most antisemitic attitudes I've encountered come from the Starmerites, cynically manipulating the fears of Jewish people to blacklist their internal opponents. It's absolutely horrific. The only people who seem to want Starmer are disaffected One Nation Tories who think "he's one of us, deep down", those elitist Tories who'd rather lose "honourably" than ever give their constituents the kind of working class conservatism they actually want!
You'd rather have a Tory government again than vote Labour. Uh-huh, figures.
If there's no difference between the two, other than Labour under Starmer are more authoritarian and callous towards their own members, then yes.
Well you're just another Tory supporter then.
No thats SKS voters, Labour are the Tories with a red rosette
So anyone voting Labour is a Tory and, er, real Labour supporters should vote Tory.
Right, got it.
No True Scotchman…
If you’re all good I may give you Scotland thread this evening.
And? Constituency parties pick from a shortlist that they pick which is vetted before the final selection is made (again by constituency members unless it's in the imminent lead up to an election). For multiple reasons Jeremy Corbyn isn't on the shortlist - firstly because he isn't a Labour Party member and so isn't eligible and then because he would be removed within the vetting process before the final vote occurred.
OT (sorry): I wenrt to see Mogwai in Bath last night. They dedicated one song to 'the people who threw that statue in the harbour'*.
There is of course a very predictable response on here to things like this (somewhere in the response will be the word 'wokerati', possibly in capital letters) but I'm more interested in the debate about the role of statues in learning history.
At the time, on one side, many people argued that we should learn from statues and to remove them was to try to erase history. On the other side many argued that statues were a poor way to learn history.
I always felt that tearing that statue down (whatever it's other merits or otherwise) was making history. And to me, the fact that a Glaswegian band who are famously taciturn on stage bother to dedicate a song to an act of public destruction that happened a few years ago suggests to me that history has been made. History as spectacle, if you will. Which I find a lot more interesting than history as a lump of marble or metal that most people wander past without noticing and a few people feel thoroughly excluded by.
Anyone care to disagree?
*Yes, they did get the wrong city. But, then, nothing interesting ever happens in Bath, so you can't really blame them.
And? Constituency parties pick from a shortlist that they pick which is vetted before the final selection is made (again by constituency members unless it's in the imminent lead up to an election). For multiple reasons Jeremy Corbyn isn't on the shortlist - firstly because he isn't a Labour Party member and so isn't eligible and then because he would be removed within the vetting process before the final vote occurred.
He is a Labour Party member. Wiki says:
Corbyn was suspended from Labour Party membership in October 2020 after stating antisemitism in the party had been overstated for political reasons. The membership suspension was lifted a month later after Corbyn was issued with a formal warning by a party disciplinary panel, but the Labour leadership declined to restore the whip, denying readmission to the parliamentary party pending an apology and retraction of his comments.
The mood is incredibly pessimistic in Sweden regarding the NATO membership application. The Establishment is slowly, slowly, slowly beginning to accept the likelihood that Sweden is quite simply not going to be able to attain full membership.
Finland: probably. Sweden: highly unlikely.
They are devastated. The consolation prize of being de facto nearly full members is just not jingling their bells.
Combined with the lowest growth rate in the entire European Union and the mood is uncharacteristically grim.
And? Constituency parties pick from a shortlist that they pick which is vetted before the final selection is made (again by constituency members unless it's in the imminent lead up to an election). For multiple reasons Jeremy Corbyn isn't on the shortlist - firstly because he isn't a Labour Party member and so isn't eligible and then because he would be removed within the vetting process before the final vote occurred.
The mood is incredibly pessimistic in Sweden regarding the NATO membership application. The Establishment is slowly, slowly, slowly beginning to accept the likelihood that Sweden is quite simply not going to be able to attain full membership.
Finland: probably. Sweden: highly unlikely.
They are devastated. The consolation prize of being de facto nearly full members is just not jingling their bells.
Combined with the lowest growth rate in the entire European Union and the mood is uncharacteristically grim.
And? Constituency parties pick from a shortlist that they pick which is vetted before the final selection is made (again by constituency members unless it's in the imminent lead up to an election). For multiple reasons Jeremy Corbyn isn't on the shortlist - firstly because he isn't a Labour Party member and so isn't eligible and then because he would be removed within the vetting process before the final vote occurred.
Corbyn is a Labour party member still, just not got the parliamentary whip at present.
Corbyn is a Curates egg as far as I am concerned, with some very good parts and some very bad ones. In particular his witting or unwitting support of anti-semitism in the party on his watch as leader. He stubbornly refuses to apologise for getting anything wrong.
On the other hand he seems a caring fellow and I imagine charming company, if off the subject of Israel.
Certainly he represents a significant strand of politics and one that deserves to be heard in the Commons, as indeed is true of Farage. These views should be heard and debated, they are nothing to fear. Democracy is stronger when diverse views are heard. We shouldn't cancel such views, we should rebut them.
OT (sorry): I wenrt to see Mogwai in Bath last night. They dedicated one song to 'the people who threw that statue in the harbour'*.
There is of course a very predictable response on here to things like this (somewhere in the response will be the word 'wokerati', possibly in capital letters) but I'm more interested in the debate about the role of statues in learning history.
At the time, on one side, many people argued that we should learn from statues and to remove them was to try to erase history. On the other side many argued that statues were a poor way to learn history.
I always felt that tearing that statue down (whatever it's other merits or otherwise) was making history. And to me, the fact that a Glaswegian band who are famously taciturn on stage bother to dedicate a song to an act of public destruction that happened a few years ago suggests to me that history has been made. History as spectacle, if you will. Which I find a lot more interesting than history as a lump of marble or metal that most people wander past without noticing and a few people feel thoroughly excluded by.
Anyone care to disagree?
*Yes, they did get the wrong city. But, then, nothing interesting ever happens in Bath, so you can't really blame them.
TBF they got the river right ...
The arguments about statues can be illuminating. As they were in the Bristol case, which highlighted the continuing importance of the ancient mercantile corporations.
There's a very interesting book by Christopher Whatley about the arguments people had about *erecting* statues to Robert Burns, never mind demolishing them.
What a ridiculously misguided headline. What is this website, Pravda? Exceptionally misjudged the very morning after a personal friend sent footage of an avowedly left-wing crowd chanting "F*** Keir Starmer"! I don't see how it's possible for anyone who sang "Oh Jeremy, Jeremy" a few years ago to even consider voting for the party that's treated him so appallingly. I'm Jewish, for what it's worth, and the most antisemitic attitudes I've encountered come from the Starmerites, cynically manipulating the fears of Jewish people to blacklist their internal opponents. It's absolutely horrific. The only people who seem to want Starmer are disaffected One Nation Tories who think "he's one of us, deep down", those elitist Tories who'd rather lose "honourably" than ever give their constituents the kind of working class conservatism they actually want!
You'd rather have a Tory government again than vote Labour. Uh-huh, figures.
If there's no difference between the two, other than Labour under Starmer are more authoritarian and callous towards their own members, then yes.
Well you're just another Tory supporter then.
No thats SKS voters, Labour are the Tories with a red rosette
So anyone voting Labour is a Tory and, er, real Labour supporters should vote Tory.
Right, got it.
No True Scotchman…
If you’re all good I may give you Scotland thread this evening.
Why a further Sindyref is the pineapple on the Scottish pizza?
The mood is incredibly pessimistic in Sweden regarding the NATO membership application. The Establishment is slowly, slowly, slowly beginning to accept the likelihood that Sweden is quite simply not going to be able to attain full membership.
Finland: probably. Sweden: highly unlikely.
They are devastated. The consolation prize of being de facto nearly full members is just not jingling their bells.
Combined with the lowest growth rate in the entire European Union and the mood is uncharacteristically grim.
Good to see you back - hope you've been OK.
Didn’t know I’d been away! The wife will be delighted to hear it 😄 But thank you.
I was in this poll and said that Corbyn should stand for Labour at the GE. It isn't that I support Corbynism, more that I don't like purges or the bloody court politics behind them. If Blair and Miliband had space for Corbyn on the backbenches, then so should Starmer.
If everyone apart from the blandest of SPADS is kicked out from parliament then it ceases to be representative, and if that means that misogynists, homophobes or racists get elected then so be it.
Misogynists, homophobes and racists should of course be able to stand (and get elected). It doesn't follow that a party leadership should knowingly permit them to stand for that party.
To look at it from another angle - where my natural sympathies lie with the booted out - I thought that Johnson was a bit of a, well, johnson, for kicking the more pro-EU Conservatives out of the parliamentary party, but it was absolutely within his/the party's rights to do so.
But that is the point. No-one is saying SKS does not have the right to do this.
They are saying it is not sensible for the long term good of the party.
And your example illustrates this perfectly.
It was not sensible for Boris to kick those people out.
It was not sensible for SKS to kick out a radical left wing anti-semite?
I don't get it. Why is that?
Corbyn is not personally an antisemite (some of his supporters are).
And now look what has happened.
@Leon has spoken approvingly of SKS as a strong leader.
Next step, ... , an approving statement from Donald Trump bidding "good riddance" to Corbyn and looking forward to working with SKS when they are both elected in 2024.
Yes. I don't mind Donald Trump cosying up so much ... but Leon? That's a real concern.
The far right are on constant look out for coat tails to grasp. If they get them all mucky so much the better.
Indeed. Although I have this tiny hint of a suspicion that our Leon was trolling there and come polling day will not be favouring the Labour Party - even one knee deep in flags - with his cross.
We will do anything for a landslide majority ... but we won't do that.
Probably not Leon but perhaps one of his creations.
Time for a mild progressive with unconvincing back story to decide that they should give Starmer and Labour a chance, if they’re north of the border even better.
Ah that one. Yes, I remember your puzzle - which I did in fact manage to solve.
But are you sure? I don't really pick it up, I must say. Absence of 'tells' there for me.
Cons have kicked out the moderates and (most?) Cons supporters on here are furious.
Lab have kicked out the radicals and (most?) Lab supporters on here are furious.
Personally I think kicking out Magic Grandpa is a little bit mean spirited but I wouldn't say I'm furious about it.
What is it about his anti-Semitic enabling that you miss.
None of it. That's why I'm not furious about him being kicked out. Since I don't believe he is personally anti semitic and because he has devoted his entire life to the Labour Party I think kicking him out is a bit mean spirited.
A former SNP MP who was jailed for embezzling £25,000 from pro-independence groups did not receive a fair trial because she was the focus of “nasty” remarks on social media, her lawyer has claimed.
Natalie McGarry, 41, was sentenced to two years imprisonment following a trial at Glasgow sheriff court last May. She was released in December pending an appeal.
McGarry, who represented Glasgow East between 2015 and 2017, was found guilty by a jury of embezzling almost £20,000 when she was treasurer of Women for Independence and of taking £5,000 from the Glasgow regional association of the SNP.
However, on Thursday her lawyer, Gordon Jackson KC, told the court of criminal appeal that messages that appeared on Twitter had undermined a fair hearing.
The advocate, a former Labour MSP who previously represented Alex Salmond, told a panel of judges that McGarry’s reputation had been besmirched by defamatory online remarks.
Cons have kicked out the moderates and (most?) Cons supporters on here are furious.
Lab have kicked out the radicals and (most?) Lab supporters on here are furious.
Personally I think kicking out Magic Grandpa is a little bit mean spirited but I wouldn't say I'm furious about it.
What is it about his anti-Semitic enabling that you miss.
None of it. That's why I'm not furious about him being kicked out. Since I don't believe he is personally anti semitic and because he has devoted his entire life to the Labour Party I think kicking him out is a bit mean spirited.
Seems that none of the Lab supporters on here think that Corbyn is anti-semitic.
A former SNP MP who was jailed for embezzling £25,000 from pro-independence groups did not receive a fair trial because she was the focus of “nasty” remarks on social media, her lawyer has claimed.
Natalie McGarry, 41, was sentenced to two years imprisonment following a trial at Glasgow sheriff court last May. She was released in December pending an appeal.
McGarry, who represented Glasgow East between 2015 and 2017, was found guilty by a jury of embezzling almost £20,000 when she was treasurer of Women for Independence and of taking £5,000 from the Glasgow regional association of the SNP.
However, on Thursday her lawyer, Gordon Jackson KC, told the court of criminal appeal that messages that appeared on Twitter had undermined a fair hearing.
The advocate, a former Labour MSP who previously represented Alex Salmond, told a panel of judges that McGarry’s reputation had been besmirched by defamatory online remarks.
Big news on the NI protocol tonight as Rishi Sunak heads to Belfast. Shape of the deal has been on PM’s desk and so we are now very much in final stages.
Cons have kicked out the moderates and (most?) Cons supporters on here are furious.
Lab have kicked out the radicals and (most?) Lab supporters on here are furious.
Personally I think kicking out Magic Grandpa is a little bit mean spirited but I wouldn't say I'm furious about it.
What is it about his anti-Semitic enabling that you miss.
None of it. That's why I'm not furious about him being kicked out. Since I don't believe he is personally anti semitic and because he has devoted his entire life to the Labour Party I think kicking him out is a bit mean spirited.
Seems that none of the Lab supporters on here think that Corbyn is anti-semitic.
Makes you wonder what all the fuss was about.
No mystery about it at all. It was just a smear campaign to discredit a popular politician on the left.
Cons have kicked out the moderates and (most?) Cons supporters on here are furious.
Lab have kicked out the radicals and (most?) Lab supporters on here are furious.
Personally I think kicking out Magic Grandpa is a little bit mean spirited but I wouldn't say I'm furious about it.
What is it about his anti-Semitic enabling that you miss.
None of it. That's why I'm not furious about him being kicked out. Since I don't believe he is personally anti semitic and because he has devoted his entire life to the Labour Party I think kicking him out is a bit mean spirited.
Seems that none of the Lab supporters on here think that Corbyn is anti-semitic.
Makes you wonder what all the fuss was about.
He allowed antisemitism to gain a foothold in the party. But I don't think he was personally antisemitic. So he definitely deserves criticism and should never have been leader, but perhaps doesn't deserve to be thrown out of a party he has devoted his whole life to, although I'm not going to get too upset about it. It's not that hard to grasp is it?
This settles it; I would actually prefer the dismal decline manager to win the next GE than Starmer - the stench of entitlement and 'it's in the bag lads' emanating from Starmer is reaching us all the way from Kiev.
Cons have kicked out the moderates and (most?) Cons supporters on here are furious.
Lab have kicked out the radicals and (most?) Lab supporters on here are furious.
Personally I think kicking out Magic Grandpa is a little bit mean spirited but I wouldn't say I'm furious about it.
What is it about his anti-Semitic enabling that you miss.
None of it. That's why I'm not furious about him being kicked out. Since I don't believe he is personally anti semitic and because he has devoted his entire life to the Labour Party I think kicking him out is a bit mean spirited.
Seems that none of the Lab supporters on here think that Corbyn is anti-semitic.
Makes you wonder what all the fuss was about.
He allowed antisemitism to gain a foothold in the party. But I don't think he was personally antisemitic. So he definitely deserves criticism and should never have been leader, but perhaps doesn't deserve to be thrown out of a party he has devoted his whole life to, although I'm not going to get too upset about it. It's not that hard to grasp is it?
I love it.
"He allowed antisemitism to gain a foothold in the party...but..."
Why on earth do you think that under his leadership antisemitism gained a foothold in the party?!
Why antisemitism? Why not anti-zoroastrianism?
I appreciate that he sullied the brand and made it embarrassing to support Labour but you are cleverer than to try to engage in these mental gymnastics.
Cons have kicked out the moderates and (most?) Cons supporters on here are furious.
Lab have kicked out the radicals and (most?) Lab supporters on here are furious.
Personally I think kicking out Magic Grandpa is a little bit mean spirited but I wouldn't say I'm furious about it.
What is it about his anti-Semitic enabling that you miss.
None of it. That's why I'm not furious about him being kicked out. Since I don't believe he is personally anti semitic and because he has devoted his entire life to the Labour Party I think kicking him out is a bit mean spirited.
Seems that none of the Lab supporters on here think that Corbyn is anti-semitic.
Makes you wonder what all the fuss was about.
He allowed antisemitism to gain a foothold in the party. But I don't think he was personally antisemitic. So he definitely deserves criticism and should never have been leader, but perhaps doesn't deserve to be thrown out of a party he has devoted his whole life to, although I'm not going to get too upset about it. It's not that hard to grasp is it?
My God - if all the Tories that had connived at xenophobia and Islamophobia were thrown out of the party there would be no one left in the Cabinet!
Cons have kicked out the moderates and (most?) Cons supporters on here are furious.
Lab have kicked out the radicals and (most?) Lab supporters on here are furious.
Personally I think kicking out Magic Grandpa is a little bit mean spirited but I wouldn't say I'm furious about it.
What is it about his anti-Semitic enabling that you miss.
None of it. That's why I'm not furious about him being kicked out. Since I don't believe he is personally anti semitic and because he has devoted his entire life to the Labour Party I think kicking him out is a bit mean spirited.
Seems that none of the Lab supporters on here think that Corbyn is anti-semitic.
Makes you wonder what all the fuss was about.
He allowed antisemitism to gain a foothold in the party. But I don't think he was personally antisemitic. So he definitely deserves criticism and should never have been leader, but perhaps doesn't deserve to be thrown out of a party he has devoted his whole life to, although I'm not going to get too upset about it. It's not that hard to grasp is it?
My God - if all the Tories that had connived at xenophobia and Islamophobia were thrown out of the party there would be no one left in the Cabinet!
This settles it; I would actually prefer the dismal decline manager to win the next GE than Starmer - the stench of entitlement and 'it's in the bag lads' emanating from Starmer is reaching us all the way from Kiev.
Shocked, I am, that Toryguy1983 would prefer the Tories to win the next GE. Stunning news.
Cons have kicked out the moderates and (most?) Cons supporters on here are furious.
Lab have kicked out the radicals and (most?) Lab supporters on here are furious.
Personally I think kicking out Magic Grandpa is a little bit mean spirited but I wouldn't say I'm furious about it.
What is it about his anti-Semitic enabling that you miss.
None of it. That's why I'm not furious about him being kicked out. Since I don't believe he is personally anti semitic and because he has devoted his entire life to the Labour Party I think kicking him out is a bit mean spirited.
Seems that none of the Lab supporters on here think that Corbyn is anti-semitic.
Makes you wonder what all the fuss was about.
He allowed antisemitism to gain a foothold in the party. But I don't think he was personally antisemitic. So he definitely deserves criticism and should never have been leader, but perhaps doesn't deserve to be thrown out of a party he has devoted his whole life to, although I'm not going to get too upset about it. It's not that hard to grasp is it?
This is about where I am.
It is also an inconvenient truth that the Labour party staffers who plotted against Corbyn (remember the toxic whatsapp groups story) deliberately worsened the situation by (afaicr) leaving those who had suffered anti-semitical abuse to stew without any redress. They should surely have also been removed from the Party. But hey, I wouldn't vote for the shower anyway.
I was in this poll and said that Corbyn should stand for Labour at the GE. It isn't that I support Corbynism, more that I don't like purges or the bloody court politics behind them. If Blair and Miliband had space for Corbyn on the backbenches, then so should Starmer.
If everyone apart from the blandest of SPADS is kicked out from parliament then it ceases to be representative, and if that means that misogynists, homophobes or racists get elected then so be it.
Misogynists, homophobes and racists should of course be able to stand (and get elected). It doesn't follow that a party leadership should knowingly permit them to stand for that party.
To look at it from another angle - where my natural sympathies lie with the booted out - I thought that Johnson was a bit of a, well, johnson, for kicking the more pro-EU Conservatives out of the parliamentary party, but it was absolutely within his/the party's rights to do so.
But that is the point. No-one is saying SKS does not have the right to do this.
They are saying it is not sensible for the long term good of the party.
And your example illustrates this perfectly.
It was not sensible for Boris to kick those people out.
It was not sensible for SKS to kick out a radical left wing anti-semite?
I don't get it. Why is that?
Corbyn is not personally an antisemite (some of his supporters are).
And now look what has happened.
@Leon has spoken approvingly of SKS as a strong leader.
Next step, ... , an approving statement from Donald Trump bidding "good riddance" to Corbyn and looking forward to working with SKS when they are both elected in 2024.
Yes. I don't mind Donald Trump cosying up so much ... but Leon? That's a real concern.
The far right are on constant look out for coat tails to grasp. If they get them all mucky so much the better.
Indeed. Although I have this tiny hint of a suspicion that our Leon was trolling there and come polling day will not be favouring the Labour Party - even one knee deep in flags - with his cross.
We will do anything for a landslide majority ... but we won't do that.
Probably not Leon but perhaps one of his creations.
Time for a mild progressive with unconvincing back story to decide that they should give Starmer and Labour a chance, if they’re north of the border even better.
Ah that one. Yes, I remember your puzzle - which I did in fact manage to solve.
But are you sure? I don't really pick it up, I must say. Absence of 'tells' there for me.
Cons have kicked out the moderates and (most?) Cons supporters on here are furious.
Lab have kicked out the radicals and (most?) Lab supporters on here are furious.
Personally I think kicking out Magic Grandpa is a little bit mean spirited but I wouldn't say I'm furious about it.
What is it about his anti-Semitic enabling that you miss.
None of it. That's why I'm not furious about him being kicked out. Since I don't believe he is personally anti semitic and because he has devoted his entire life to the Labour Party I think kicking him out is a bit mean spirited.
Seems that none of the Lab supporters on here think that Corbyn is anti-semitic.
Makes you wonder what all the fuss was about.
He allowed antisemitism to gain a foothold in the party. But I don't think he was personally antisemitic. So he definitely deserves criticism and should never have been leader, but perhaps doesn't deserve to be thrown out of a party he has devoted his whole life to, although I'm not going to get too upset about it. It's not that hard to grasp is it?
This is about where I am.
It is also an inconvenient truth that the Labour party staffers who plotted against Corbyn (remember the toxic whatsapp groups story) deliberately worsened the situation by (afaicr) leaving those who had suffered anti-semitical abuse to stew without any redress. They should surely have also been removed from the Party. But hey, I wouldn't vote for the shower anyway.
Really? I thought Labour had your vote in the bag.
Cons have kicked out the moderates and (most?) Cons supporters on here are furious.
Lab have kicked out the radicals and (most?) Lab supporters on here are furious.
Personally I think kicking out Magic Grandpa is a little bit mean spirited but I wouldn't say I'm furious about it.
What is it about his anti-Semitic enabling that you miss.
None of it. That's why I'm not furious about him being kicked out. Since I don't believe he is personally anti semitic and because he has devoted his entire life to the Labour Party I think kicking him out is a bit mean spirited.
Seems that none of the Lab supporters on here think that Corbyn is anti-semitic.
Makes you wonder what all the fuss was about.
He allowed antisemitism to gain a foothold in the party. But I don't think he was personally antisemitic. So he definitely deserves criticism and should never have been leader, but perhaps doesn't deserve to be thrown out of a party he has devoted his whole life to, although I'm not going to get too upset about it. It's not that hard to grasp is it?
I love it.
"He allowed antisemitism to gain a foothold in the party...but..."
Why on earth do you think that under his leadership antisemitism gained a foothold in the party?!
Why antisemitism? Why not anti-zoroastrianism?
I appreciate that he sullied the brand and made it embarrassing to support Labour but you are cleverer than to try to engage in these mental gymnastics.
In response to your first question, I'm not an expert, nor anywhere near a Labour party member, but I do think OLB's position is about right. I think antisemitism gained a foothold because the Israel-Palestine conflict is one of the most enduring touchstone issues for many in Labour, particularly those further to the left, and I think it is genuinely tricky to take a considered approach on this particular topic from a place of left-wing solidarity, without that easily slipping into antisemitism.
In other words, I think antisemitism will be an enduring challenge for Labour for as long as Israel/Palestine is at the heart of what many activists care about. Just as Islamophobia will be an enduuring challenge for Tories for as long as radical Islamic terrorism is a thing. I have no idea if Corbyn was personally antisemitic, but I do think he lacked the leadership qualities to keep this particular can of worms screwed shut.
This settles it; I would actually prefer the dismal decline manager to win the next GE than Starmer - the stench of entitlement and 'it's in the bag lads' emanating from Starmer is reaching us all the way from Kiev.
Alert the media! Luckyguy1983 would prefer a Tory victory at the next GE! The weathervane has shifted. It’s all over.
Cons have kicked out the moderates and (most?) Cons supporters on here are furious.
Lab have kicked out the radicals and (most?) Lab supporters on here are furious.
Personally I think kicking out Magic Grandpa is a little bit mean spirited but I wouldn't say I'm furious about it.
What is it about his anti-Semitic enabling that you miss.
None of it. That's why I'm not furious about him being kicked out. Since I don't believe he is personally anti semitic and because he has devoted his entire life to the Labour Party I think kicking him out is a bit mean spirited.
Seems that none of the Lab supporters on here think that Corbyn is anti-semitic.
Makes you wonder what all the fuss was about.
He allowed antisemitism to gain a foothold in the party. But I don't think he was personally antisemitic. So he definitely deserves criticism and should never have been leader, but perhaps doesn't deserve to be thrown out of a party he has devoted his whole life to, although I'm not going to get too upset about it. It's not that hard to grasp is it?
I love it.
"He allowed antisemitism to gain a foothold in the party...but..."
Why on earth do you think that under his leadership antisemitism gained a foothold in the party?!
Why antisemitism? Why not anti-zoroastrianism?
I appreciate that he sullied the brand and made it embarrassing to support Labour but you are cleverer than to try to engage in these mental gymnastics.
In response to your first question, I'm not an expert, nor anywhere near a Labour party member, but I do think OLB's position is about right. I think antisemitism gained a foothold because the Israel-Palestine conflict is one of the most enduring touchstone issues for many in Labour, particularly those further to the left, and I think it is genuinely tricky to take a considered approach on this particular topic from a place of left-wing solidarity, without that easily slipping into antisemitism.
In other words, I think antisemitism will be an enduring challenge for Labour for as long as Israel/Palestine is at the heart of what many activists care about. Just as Islamophobia will be an enduuring challenge for Tories for as long as radical Islamic terrorism is a thing. I have no idea if Corbyn was personally antisemitic, but I do think he lacked the leadership qualities to keep this particular can of worms screwed shut.
I don't disagree at all that it is all about Israel/Palestine.
But why do you suppose that under Jeremy Corbyn anti-semitism gained a foothold in the Labour Party.
Israel/Palestine has been an issue for the left for decades. Why did people suddenly feel empowered to vent anti-semitic (as opposed to continued anti-Israel) sentiment under Corbyn?
Cons have kicked out the moderates and (most?) Cons supporters on here are furious.
Lab have kicked out the radicals and (most?) Lab supporters on here are furious.
Personally I think kicking out Magic Grandpa is a little bit mean spirited but I wouldn't say I'm furious about it.
What is it about his anti-Semitic enabling that you miss.
None of it. That's why I'm not furious about him being kicked out. Since I don't believe he is personally anti semitic and because he has devoted his entire life to the Labour Party I think kicking him out is a bit mean spirited.
Seems that none of the Lab supporters on here think that Corbyn is anti-semitic.
Makes you wonder what all the fuss was about.
He allowed antisemitism to gain a foothold in the party. But I don't think he was personally antisemitic. So he definitely deserves criticism and should never have been leader, but perhaps doesn't deserve to be thrown out of a party he has devoted his whole life to, although I'm not going to get too upset about it. It's not that hard to grasp is it?
I love it.
"He allowed antisemitism to gain a foothold in the party...but..."
Why on earth do you think that under his leadership antisemitism gained a foothold in the party?!
Why antisemitism? Why not anti-zoroastrianism?
I appreciate that he sullied the brand and made it embarrassing to support Labour but you are cleverer than to try to engage in these mental gymnastics.
In response to your first question, I'm not an expert, nor anywhere near a Labour party member, but I do think OLB's position is about right. I think antisemitism gained a foothold because the Israel-Palestine conflict is one of the most enduring touchstone issues for many in Labour, particularly those further to the left, and I think it is genuinely tricky to take a considered approach on this particular topic from a place of left-wing solidarity, without that easily slipping into antisemitism.
In other words, I think antisemitism will be an enduring challenge for Labour for as long as Israel/Palestine is at the heart of what many activists care about. Just as Islamophobia will be an enduuring challenge for Tories for as long as radical Islamic terrorism is a thing. I have no idea if Corbyn was personally antisemitic, but I do think he lacked the leadership qualities to keep this particular can of worms screwed shut.
I think this is a fair summary.
The puzzling thing to me is why the Israel-Palestine conflict is still such a touchstone for the old left. Given the huge array of issues this country and the world faces, the focus on that one issue remains mystifying to me.
This settles it; I would actually prefer the dismal decline manager to win the next GE than Starmer - the stench of entitlement and 'it's in the bag lads' emanating from Starmer is reaching us all the way from Kiev.
Shocked, I am, that Toryguy1983 would prefer the Tories to win the next GE. Stunning news.
It has nothing to do with liking the Tories. Starmer, like Sunak, is a meaningless administrator who prefers stitch ups at Davos to punch ups at Westminster.
Cons have kicked out the moderates and (most?) Cons supporters on here are furious.
Lab have kicked out the radicals and (most?) Lab supporters on here are furious.
Personally I think kicking out Magic Grandpa is a little bit mean spirited but I wouldn't say I'm furious about it.
What is it about his anti-Semitic enabling that you miss.
"Anti-Semitic enabling" = Toryspeak for criticism of Israel.
It is racist to criticise Israel if criticism is discriminated according to race.
Try to express that thought in comprehensible English.
Racism is to discriminate according to race. It is racist to criticise if that criticism is discriminated according to race.
It is racist to criticise Israel if the same criticisms can be levelled at everyone else in the area, but no criticism is made. That is: If the problem is segregation, the solution is not the Islamic middle-east. If the problem is targeting civilians, the solution is not Hamas. If the problem is firing missiles, the solution is not the west nor the middle east. Etc.
There are other racist elements too, for example the comparisons to Apartheid that are often made, which is cultural appropriation of the suffering of black south africans, for example, who were never denied the vote by other black south africans who were given governance powers and then refused to call any more elections, as Hamas have done.
The truth is the focus on Israel usually comes down to self-hatred being deflected onto the Other.
Cons have kicked out the moderates and (most?) Cons supporters on here are furious.
Lab have kicked out the radicals and (most?) Lab supporters on here are furious.
Personally I think kicking out Magic Grandpa is a little bit mean spirited but I wouldn't say I'm furious about it.
What is it about his anti-Semitic enabling that you miss.
None of it. That's why I'm not furious about him being kicked out. Since I don't believe he is personally anti semitic and because he has devoted his entire life to the Labour Party I think kicking him out is a bit mean spirited.
Seems that none of the Lab supporters on here think that Corbyn is anti-semitic.
Makes you wonder what all the fuss was about.
He allowed antisemitism to gain a foothold in the party. But I don't think he was personally antisemitic. So he definitely deserves criticism and should never have been leader, but perhaps doesn't deserve to be thrown out of a party he has devoted his whole life to, although I'm not going to get too upset about it. It's not that hard to grasp is it?
I find it quite easy to accept that Corbyn (a holy rather than a malevolent fool) turned a blind eye to antisemites posing as anti Zionists on the left while simultaneously believing that the Israeli government expends very substantial resources in portraying any criticism of the state of Israel as antisemitism. The real tell is from those fixating on one or other of those assessments.
I have to say it’s disappointing if not surprising that Starmer has rolled over to get his tummy tickled over any future relationship between a Labour government and Israel without any precondition or criticism of the combover despot Netanyahu. Couldn’t Starmer frighten at least one horse for the look of the thing, a little pony even?
This settles it; I would actually prefer the dismal decline manager to win the next GE than Starmer - the stench of entitlement and 'it's in the bag lads' emanating from Starmer is reaching us all the way from Kiev.
Shocked, I am, that Toryguy1983 would prefer the Tories to win the next GE. Stunning news.
It has nothing to do with liking the Tories. Starmer, like Sunak, is a meaningless administrator who prefers stitch ups at Davos to punch ups at Westminster.
Cons have kicked out the moderates and (most?) Cons supporters on here are furious.
Lab have kicked out the radicals and (most?) Lab supporters on here are furious.
Personally I think kicking out Magic Grandpa is a little bit mean spirited but I wouldn't say I'm furious about it.
What is it about his anti-Semitic enabling that you miss.
None of it. That's why I'm not furious about him being kicked out. Since I don't believe he is personally anti semitic and because he has devoted his entire life to the Labour Party I think kicking him out is a bit mean spirited.
Seems that none of the Lab supporters on here think that Corbyn is anti-semitic.
Makes you wonder what all the fuss was about.
He allowed antisemitism to gain a foothold in the party. But I don't think he was personally antisemitic. So he definitely deserves criticism and should never have been leader, but perhaps doesn't deserve to be thrown out of a party he has devoted his whole life to, although I'm not going to get too upset about it. It's not that hard to grasp is it?
I love it.
"He allowed antisemitism to gain a foothold in the party...but..."
Why on earth do you think that under his leadership antisemitism gained a foothold in the party?!
Why antisemitism? Why not anti-zoroastrianism?
I appreciate that he sullied the brand and made it embarrassing to support Labour but you are cleverer than to try to engage in these mental gymnastics.
In response to your first question, I'm not an expert, nor anywhere near a Labour party member, but I do think OLB's position is about right. I think antisemitism gained a foothold because the Israel-Palestine conflict is one of the most enduring touchstone issues for many in Labour, particularly those further to the left, and I think it is genuinely tricky to take a considered approach on this particular topic from a place of left-wing solidarity, without that easily slipping into antisemitism.
In other words, I think antisemitism will be an enduring challenge for Labour for as long as Israel/Palestine is at the heart of what many activists care about. Just as Islamophobia will be an enduuring challenge for Tories for as long as radical Islamic terrorism is a thing. I have no idea if Corbyn was personally antisemitic, but I do think he lacked the leadership qualities to keep this particular can of worms screwed shut.
I don't disagree at all that it is all about Israel/Palestine.
But why do you suppose that under Jeremy Corbyn anti-semitism gained a foothold in the Labour Party.
Israel/Palestine has been an issue for the left for decades. Why did people suddenly feel empowered to vent anti-semitic (as opposed to continued anti-Israel) sentiment under Corbyn?
Because he was more left-wing and internationalist than leaders, at least since Blair. He has been banging the drum for Palestine for years, and was perhaps less cautious of opening the can of worms than other leaders.
ETA: and also probably less good at leading, message discipline etc. so didn't react as quickly as he should have done when things went downhill.
On topic people who don't vote Labour don't want Corbyn to stand as Labour. SKS agrees with them and in not allowing the Members in Islington N a free choice is an anti democratic fascist
All depends how you put it. What about:
Most people don't want Corbyn to stand as Labour. SKS knows that to win elections you have to have regard to the views of those who voted for you last time and the millions whose votes you wish to attract from other parties. All parties have systems of moderation and appraisal when it comes to who is a suitable candidate to represent the party, including Labour, which is a moderate social democratic party strongly resistant to fascism including the fascism of the holocaust which haunts Europe from the last century and for which cause so many Labour members gave their lives 1939-1945 and for which reason anti semitism has a particularly despised place in its thinking.
I agree. But Starmer's position stems from a lot more than just Corbyn's failure to accept the report condemning Labour's antisemitism under his leadership.
Corbyn has by his actions made it very clear that he will defy the Labour whip on all manner of votes as he pleases should he ever again get re-elected as a Labour MP. His voting record when an MP, until he became leader, was absolutely lamentable in terms of failure to follow the Labour whip. More recently he has shown absolutely no sign of changing. Take his lamentable stance of appeasement at the start of the Ukraine war for example, leading from the front Putin's useful idiots in the Stop the War coalition, reprising his role at the time of the Salisbury poisonings. A dozen or so of the other usual suspects were rightly threatened by Starmer with immediate loss of the whip should they not withdraw their backing for that stance, and promptly backed down. Corbyn did not, having already lost the whip. He knew what the consequences of his continued defiance would be, it is not as though he wasn't warned and he has brought this on himself. On any tight parliamentary vote, he will never be someone who can be relied upon by a Labour government to vote as the whips require. It is absolutely right that he should continue to have the whip withdrawn and as a consequence be ineligible for selection as a Labour MP.
On any tight parliamentary vote, he will never be someone who can be relied upon by a Labour government to vote as the whips require. It is absolutely right that he should continue to have the whip withdrawn and as a consequence be ineligible for selection as a Labour MP
That is how we ended up with the Labour Party voting for war in Iraq.
I'd rather have independent minded MPs voting according to their conscience.
It wasn't just on Iraq though, was it? It was time and time and time again, on just about every issue of disagreement with Blair and Brown. He has defied the Labour whip more times than any Labour MP in history. That's what marks him out from an MP who rebels very occasionally, as most do. Basically he thinks the whipping system doesn't apply to him at all.
Your comment might be appropriate 300 years ago or so, to a time when the party system wasn't really in place. But today it is, and a Labour-led government with only a small working majority would fail if there were a small rump of MPs which time and again failed to obey the whip on key votes. I can of course see why you would want that to happen.
"I can of course see why you would want that to happen."
Do elucidate.
Based on memories of your past posts I really don't have you marked down as someone even slightly supportive of Labour led by Starmer. You are welcome to reference back through your archive in order to correct me, but I can't personally be bothered to do so.
The overlapping venn diagram depicting the fan clubs of both Andrew RT Davies and Jeremy Corbyn is inhabited solely by @YBarddCwsc
I am not a fan of Andrew RT Davies. In "ivories, apes and peacocks", RT plays the role of ape.
Sigh.
In a moment @rcs1000 will appear and accuse me of anti-vax.
You must be a fan of RT to compare him to an ape.
Unless you were thinking of a exceptionally stupid, socially inept and badly behaved ape, of course.
Cons have kicked out the moderates and (most?) Cons supporters on here are furious.
Lab have kicked out the radicals and (most?) Lab supporters on here are furious.
Personally I think kicking out Magic Grandpa is a little bit mean spirited but I wouldn't say I'm furious about it.
What is it about his anti-Semitic enabling that you miss.
None of it. That's why I'm not furious about him being kicked out. Since I don't believe he is personally anti semitic and because he has devoted his entire life to the Labour Party I think kicking him out is a bit mean spirited.
Seems that none of the Lab supporters on here think that Corbyn is anti-semitic.
Makes you wonder what all the fuss was about.
He allowed antisemitism to gain a foothold in the party. But I don't think he was personally antisemitic. So he definitely deserves criticism and should never have been leader, but perhaps doesn't deserve to be thrown out of a party he has devoted his whole life to, although I'm not going to get too upset about it. It's not that hard to grasp is it?
I love it.
"He allowed antisemitism to gain a foothold in the party...but..."
Why on earth do you think that under his leadership antisemitism gained a foothold in the party?!
Why antisemitism? Why not anti-zoroastrianism?
I appreciate that he sullied the brand and made it embarrassing to support Labour but you are cleverer than to try to engage in these mental gymnastics.
In response to your first question, I'm not an expert, nor anywhere near a Labour party member, but I do think OLB's position is about right. I think antisemitism gained a foothold because the Israel-Palestine conflict is one of the most enduring touchstone issues for many in Labour, particularly those further to the left, and I think it is genuinely tricky to take a considered approach on this particular topic from a place of left-wing solidarity, without that easily slipping into antisemitism.
In other words, I think antisemitism will be an enduring challenge for Labour for as long as Israel/Palestine is at the heart of what many activists care about. Just as Islamophobia will be an enduuring challenge for Tories for as long as radical Islamic terrorism is a thing. I have no idea if Corbyn was personally antisemitic, but I do think he lacked the leadership qualities to keep this particular can of worms screwed shut.
I don't disagree at all that it is all about Israel/Palestine.
But why do you suppose that under Jeremy Corbyn anti-semitism gained a foothold in the Labour Party.
Israel/Palestine has been an issue for the left for decades. Why did people suddenly feel empowered to vent anti-semitic (as opposed to continued anti-Israel) sentiment under Corbyn?
Because he struck a fashionable posture on Israel/Palestine and the truly antisemitic elements in the Party took that as a green light?
Comments
Corbyn’s going to be pissed.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/feb/16/keir-starmer-visits-kyiv-labour-backing-ukraine?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
If Corbyn disagrees with every war, once or twice in a while he will be proven right.
There are far more PB apologists for Corbyn than I had expected. I believe Corbyn to have his heart in the right place, however he is so mind numbingly blinkered and stupid that he couldn't differentiate between Benjamin Netanyahu and Luciana Berger.
Starmer may be an utter dud, but in this instance he is on the money. Jeremy Corbyn is the personification of a chocolate teapot.
If Russia itself is invaded, there is only one outcome.
Nothing rallies a population more than a country being invaded. Experts on Pb.com to the contrary, the invasion of Russia will lead to support for Putin & the Russian Army increasing.
There will be irresistible clamours for use of nuclear weapons.
The invasion of Russia proper would be the end of it all ... and that is what Corbyn is properly cautioning about.
Labour under Sir Keir - definitely not unelectable.
Today: the 7th largest law firm on Earth announced a 3,500-lawyer deal with Harvey, an OpenAI-backed AI Lawyer startup:
https://mobile.twitter.com/ai__pub/status/1626024440705449984
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/aug/02/jeremy-corbyn-urges-west-to-stop-arming-ukraine
Now you cannot read that with an open mind as anything other than a tacit endorsement of Russian victory. If the West didn't arm Ukraine, with due respect to the hardihood of the Ukrainians who have withstood a fearful assault with remarkable fortitude there would be none of it left by now.
Current polling paints a very different picture - the general public might find Starmer boring but he's preferred to the other option...
The People's Judean Front
The Popular Front For Judea
The Real Front For Judea
The Really real Front for Judea
The Keeping' It Real Front For Judea
The I Can't Believe It's Not The Real Front for Judea
The Continuity Front For Judea
?
And in trying to justify Corbyn's stance by referencing Iraq, a wholly exceptional issue on which half the PLP rebelled, most of whom can't stand him, you miss the point. The point is that he's a serial rebel, not just an occasional one. So if he's not prepared to follow the Labour whip under Starmer, and effectively wants independence of action, then its open to him to stand as an independent isn't it?
As for anti-austerity, unlike you and other Blue Trots at the next election I'll be using my vote to put into government a party committing to ending it.
As opposed to, say, Kherson where the population is majority Ukrainian.
If Ukrainian troops get to the border and then actually invade Rostov on Don, then (i) Putin's position will be secure as the Russians will rally behind him (instead of being rather indifferent to his adventurist war) and (ii) Russia will fire nuclear weapons.
So, 'Ah Jeremy Corbyn' is right.
Anhow, pb,com exists to discuss Jeremy Corbyn's relationship with anti-Semitism in a calm and constructive way, as suggested by @TheScreamingEagles super-balanced header.
And anyone who doesn't join in the collective bullying of Corbyn is a wanker.
I trust that Ukraine only want to retake the land within their internationally recognised 1991 borders.
Corbyn's formulation is a cop out that allows him to acquiesce to the acquisition of territory by Russia by armed aggression.
I wrote this piece warning people not to misunderstimate Corbyn back in 2016.
https://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2016/08/30/in-praise-of-jeremy-corbyn/
From memory, there was a Conservative MP of the 1990's who was in a similar position. The Chief Whip eventually issued him with a letter (cc everyone) pointing out that:
a) they didn't have the Conservative whip, and
b) in the unimaginable event of them winning re-election, the whip woul not be restored.
The "unimaginable event" was the best bit of the letter.
https://twitter.com/stepneybarry/status/1626181826057322496/photo/1
Right, got it.
So I am not interested in Starmer per se . He is not (I think) particularly interesting.
My recollection of your past posts is you are a Brexiteer.
But, if you were a Labour MP, I would support your right to follow your conscience if there was a whipped vote on the EC.
He is a Labour Party Member
Check your facts before posting bullshit
Sigh.
In a moment @rcs1000 will appear and accuse me of anti-vax.
There is of course a very predictable response on here to things like this (somewhere in the response will be the word 'wokerati', possibly in capital letters) but I'm more interested in the debate about the role of statues in learning history.
At the time, on one side, many people argued that we should learn from statues and to remove them was to try to erase history. On the other side many argued that statues were a poor way to learn history.
I always felt that tearing that statue down (whatever it's other merits or otherwise) was making history. And to me, the fact that a Glaswegian band who are famously taciturn on stage bother to dedicate a song to an act of public destruction that happened a few years ago suggests to me that history has been made. History as spectacle, if you will. Which I find a lot more interesting than history as a lump of marble or metal that most people wander past without noticing and a few people feel thoroughly excluded by.
Anyone care to disagree?
*Yes, they did get the wrong city. But, then, nothing interesting ever happens in Bath, so you can't really blame them.
"Please stop trashing Starmer even though a couple of days ago he told people like you to fuck off!"
Fortunately for me I fucked off in June 2021
Corbyn was suspended from Labour Party membership in October 2020 after stating antisemitism in the party had been overstated for political reasons. The membership suspension was lifted a month later after Corbyn was issued with a formal warning by a party disciplinary panel, but the Labour leadership declined to restore the whip, denying readmission to the parliamentary party pending an apology and retraction of his comments.
Finland: probably.
Sweden: highly unlikely.
They are devastated. The consolation prize of being de facto nearly full members is just not jingling their bells.
Combined with the lowest growth rate in the entire European Union and the mood is uncharacteristically grim.
No more PB lies allowed to go unchallenged about Corbyn whilst I am on
which isnt very often these days
Blue Joan starting now so i am off
Corbyn is a Curates egg as far as I am concerned, with some very good parts and some very bad ones. In particular his witting or unwitting support of anti-semitism in the party on his watch as leader. He stubbornly refuses to apologise for getting anything wrong.
On the other hand he seems a caring fellow and I imagine charming company, if off the subject of Israel.
Certainly he represents a significant strand of politics and one that deserves to be heard in the Commons, as indeed is true of Farage. These views should be heard and debated, they are nothing to fear. Democracy is stronger when diverse views are heard. We shouldn't cancel such views, we should rebut them.
Cons have kicked out the moderates and (most?) Cons supporters on here are furious.
Lab have kicked out the radicals and (most?) Lab supporters on here are furious.
The arguments about statues can be illuminating. As they were in the Bristol case, which highlighted the continuing importance of the ancient mercantile corporations.
There's a very interesting book by Christopher Whatley about the arguments people had about *erecting* statues to Robert Burns, never mind demolishing them.
Natalie McGarry, 41, was sentenced to two years imprisonment following a trial at Glasgow sheriff court last May. She was released in December pending an appeal.
McGarry, who represented Glasgow East between 2015 and 2017, was found guilty by a jury of embezzling almost £20,000 when she was treasurer of Women for Independence and of taking £5,000 from the Glasgow regional association of the SNP.
However, on Thursday her lawyer, Gordon Jackson KC, told the court of criminal appeal that messages that appeared on Twitter had undermined a fair hearing.
The advocate, a former Labour MSP who previously represented Alex Salmond, told a panel of judges that McGarry’s reputation had been besmirched by defamatory online remarks.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/natalie-mcgarry-contests-conviction-over-tsunami-of-tweets-0qlbgrc8q
Makes you wonder what all the fuss was about.
https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/alex-salmonds-lawyer-gordon-jackson-28490511
https://twitter.com/jessicaelgot/status/1626283460393373697
Sounds like James Cleverly is also heading to Brussels.
Negotiation team said to have been brought home a while ago - all eyes now on the DUP 👀
https://twitter.com/breeallegretti/status/1626286665806274560
"He allowed antisemitism to gain a foothold in the party...but..."
Why on earth do you think that under his leadership antisemitism gained a foothold in the party?!
Why antisemitism? Why not anti-zoroastrianism?
I appreciate that he sullied the brand and made it embarrassing to support Labour but you are cleverer than to try to engage in these mental gymnastics.
But plenty feel more comfortable telling themselves that he only "allowed anti-semitism to gain a foothold in the Labour Party."
Which as euphemisms go is right up there.
It is also an inconvenient truth that the Labour party staffers who plotted against Corbyn (remember the toxic whatsapp groups story) deliberately worsened the situation by (afaicr) leaving those who had suffered anti-semitical abuse to stew without any redress. They should surely have also been removed from the Party. But hey, I wouldn't vote for the shower anyway.
Under Beckett, Blair, Brown, Harman, Miliband, and Harman (again) anti-semitism didn't gain a foothold within the Labour Party.
And yet under Jeremy Corbyn anti-semitism did gain a foothold within the Labour Party.
Poor guy just wrong place, wrong time.
In other words, I think antisemitism will be an enduring challenge for Labour for as long as Israel/Palestine is at the heart of what many activists care about. Just as Islamophobia will be an enduuring challenge for Tories for as long as radical Islamic terrorism is a thing. I have no idea if Corbyn was personally antisemitic, but I do think he lacked the leadership qualities to keep this particular can of worms screwed shut.
I seem to miss the poll discussions these days. Or is that because there isn't any as they all seem to be saying the same thing?
But why do you suppose that under Jeremy Corbyn anti-semitism gained a foothold in the Labour Party.
Israel/Palestine has been an issue for the left for decades. Why did people suddenly feel empowered to vent anti-semitic (as opposed to continued anti-Israel) sentiment under Corbyn?
Shameful antisemitism or just bants?
The puzzling thing to me is why the Israel-Palestine conflict is still such a touchstone for the old left. Given the huge array of issues this country and the world faces, the focus on that one issue remains mystifying to me.
https://youtu.be/7qI0xQSn8Y0
It just so happens he's also grotesquely entitled about the outcome of the next election, which makes me marginally more sympathetic to the underdog.
It is racist to criticise Israel if the same criticisms can be levelled at everyone else in the area, but no criticism is made. That is: If the problem is segregation, the solution is not the Islamic middle-east. If the problem is targeting civilians, the solution is not Hamas. If the problem is firing missiles, the solution is not the west nor the middle east. Etc.
There are other racist elements too, for example the comparisons to Apartheid that are often made, which is cultural appropriation of the suffering of black south africans, for example, who were never denied the vote by other black south africans who were given governance powers and then refused to call any more elections, as Hamas have done.
The truth is the focus on Israel usually comes down to self-hatred being deflected onto the Other.
I have to say it’s disappointing if not surprising that Starmer has rolled over to get his tummy tickled over any future relationship between a Labour government and Israel without any precondition or criticism of the combover despot Netanyahu. Couldn’t Starmer frighten at least one horse for the look of the thing, a little pony even?
ETA: and also probably less good at leading, message discipline etc. so didn't react as quickly as he should have done when things went downhill.
Unless you were thinking of a exceptionally stupid, socially inept and badly behaved ape, of course.