Discussion amongst local comrades splits three ways - it's a desperate attempt to discredit Corbyn, it's proof that Corbyn has to go, and can we stop attacking each other and concentrate on fighting next week's election.
Discussion amongst local comrades splits three ways - it's a desperate attempt to discredit Corbyn, it's proof that Corbyn has to go, and can we stop attacking each other and concentrate on fighting next week's election.
If it is an attempt to discredit Corbyn, who by? Sure, a right-wing blogger and some allies in the mainstream media might have kicked it off but no-one forced Livingstone to do the interviews and no-one mentioned Hitler until he did.
Just as I thought Ken Livingstone was the sole Westminster Village Idiot, up pops John Major. /twitter.com/politicshome/status/726000556377034752
The perks of not needing to get elected any more, you can insult half the electorate and not care.
It's another WTF comment - seriously, what are these Tories thinking? Trying to burn their own Party down? One can disagree without resorting to this level of stupidity.
They think that half the REMAIN voters are going to come from the Conservatives. Oh dear. Something that is probably a mathematical impossibility unless turnout is under 50% and REMAIN will be f***d if that happens by the kipper wedge.
If Aunty gets her act together and reports the Marie Rimmer court case, the front page will have Labour politicians expelled for anti-Semitism, jailed for fraud and another for physically assaulting an OAP. - Just saying.
Discussion amongst local comrades splits three ways - it's a desperate attempt to discredit Corbyn, it's proof that Corbyn has to go, and can we stop attacking each other and concentrate on fighting next week's election.
If it is an attempt to discredit Corbyn, who by? Sure, a right-wing blogger and some allies in the mainstream media might have kicked it off but no-one forced Livingstone to do the interviews and no-one mentioned Hitler until he did.
Livingstone blew his own head off. But the hysteria about anti-semitismand the CRISIS and what will Corbyn do to remove these disgusting left wing dinosaurs - that's all from the Bitterite wing of the party. Remember that not only did they need Labour to be trounced next week they also feel uncomfortable with the Hillsborough inquest triumph as Blair was a leading player in keeping it surpressed.
Personally I want us to get on with fighting Tories not each other. Nutters to my left and right disagree by the look of it.
On topic, if I had to guess, I think Ken will be let back in. It'll take a long time but he'll want it, Corbyn will want it and the fellow travellers will want it.
Has Nick 'Momentum' Palmer commented since this has blown up?
He's been conspicuous by his absence. What I don't understand about the Naz Shah case is, why was she even selected in the first place? Did they not do their due diligence on her? Or did they know full well what she believed in and thought "that's what we need to beat George Galloway?"
Postal votes have almost been completed for London as we write. The stench from this has gone from a 1 day wonder to almost a 1 week wonder because of how Corbyn's team handled it and the role of red ken. So yes it will damage Labour at next Thursday's elections, whether that is enough to stop Khan looks doubtful.
The key point about this whole business is not how unpleasant Ken Livingstone is - we all knew that - but the fact that the Labour leadership was prepared not only to tolerate him, but to give him an important role. If you are very, very generous, I suppose you might be able to put that down to an appalling error of judgement on the part of Corbyn and his circle.
But, overall, none of this is surprising. Jeremy Corbyn is Jeremy Corbyn, John McDonnell is John McDonnell, and Seamas Milne is Seamas Milne. None of these gentlemen can be accused of hiding their true beliefs. The script is playing out exactly as predicted.
If Aunty gets her act together and reports the Marie Rimmer court case, the front page will have Labour politicians expelled for anti-Semitism, jailed for fraud and another for physically assaulting an OAP. - Just saying.
Discussion amongst local comrades splits three ways - it's a desperate attempt to discredit Corbyn, it's proof that Corbyn has to go, and can we stop attacking each other and concentrate on fighting next week's election.
If it is an attempt to discredit Corbyn, who by? Sure, a right-wing blogger and some allies in the mainstream media might have kicked it off but no-one forced Livingstone to do the interviews and no-one mentioned Hitler until he did.
Livingstone blew his own head off. But the hysteria about anti-semitismand the CRISIS and what will Corbyn do to remove these disgusting left wing dinosaurs - that's all from the Bitterite wing of the party. Remember that not only did they need Labour to be trounced next week they also feel uncomfortable with the Hillsborough inquest triumph as Blair was a leading player in keeping it surpressed.
Personally I want us to get on with fighting Tories not each other. Nutters to my left and right disagree by the look of it.
The reason why some Labour people would like to see Corbyn, Milne, McDonnell, Livingstone et al a million miles form leadership positions is precisely because of what is happening currently. As members of the hard left, they have spent decades actively involved in a world in which anti-Semitism, misogyny, terrorism, homophobia and various other revolting beliefs go unchallenged and unremarked because those who espouse such views share the hard left's anti-western/anti-UK/anti-US perspective. That is not only wrong in and of itself, it also guarantees that Labour can never achieve power - so consigning the people the party is supposed to care about to the mercies of perennial right wing government.
On topic, if I had to guess, I think Ken will be let back in. It'll take a long time but he'll want it, Corbyn will want it and the fellow travellers will want it.
1) Ken Livingstone's comments can't be ignored, can't be contextualised and can't be quietly forgiven. His remarks are unacceptable and his lack of contrition means that there can be no way back.
2) There are undoubtedly some on the Labour right who see this as an opportunity. They should be careful to do the right thing for the right reasons.
3) Jeremy Corbyn needs to get on top of this wave and surf it, or it will overwhelm him and he will be dragged under in the riptide.
4) This whole row is utterly toxic for Labour's reputation. It makes them look nasty and batty at the same time.
Another Labour MP..This time an MEP..jailed for fraud..Claims he was confused by the expenses rules..,,There seems to be a lot of confusion in The Labour Party right now.
Has Nick 'Momentum' Palmer commented since this has blown up?
He's been conspicuous by his absence. What I don't understand about the Naz Shah case is, why was she even selected in the first place? Did they not do their due diligence on her? Or did they know full well what she believed in and thought "that's what we need to beat George Galloway?"
The latter I suspect. How's her new Hug-A-Jew persona going to go down?
If Aunty gets her act together and reports the Marie Rimmer court case, the front page will have Labour politicians expelled for anti-Semitism, jailed for fraud and another for physically assaulting an OAP. - Just saying.
You usually find that the long term impact of a story is in inverse relationship to the amount of hyperactive comments raised on here and I expect this is no different .
Another Labour MP..This time an MEP..jailed for fraud..Claims he was confused by the expenses rules..,,There seems to be a lot of confusion in The Labour Party right now.
If Livingstone gets back in then it merely confirms that Labour is happy to have a very vocal Anti Semite at the top of the party..and they will suffer for it..
Discussion amongst local comrades splits three ways - it's a desperate attempt to discredit Corbyn, it's proof that Corbyn has to go, and can we stop attacking each other and concentrate on fighting next week's election.
If it is an attempt to discredit Corbyn, who by? Sure, a right-wing blogger and some allies in the mainstream media might have kicked it off but no-one forced Livingstone to do the interviews and no-one mentioned Hitler until he did.
Livingstone blew his own head off. But the hysteria about anti-semitismand the CRISIS and what will Corbyn do to remove these disgusting left wing dinosaurs - that's all from the Bitterite wing of the party. Remember that not only did they need Labour to be trounced next week they also feel uncomfortable with the Hillsborough inquest triumph as Blair was a leading player in keeping it surpressed.
Personally I want us to get on with fighting Tories not each other. Nutters to my left and right disagree by the look of it.
The reason why some Labour people would like to see Corbyn, Milne, McDonnell, Livingstone et al a million miles form leadership positions is precisely because of what is happening currently. As members of the hard left, they have spent decades actively involved in a world in which anti-Semitism, misogyny, terrorism, homophobia and various other revolting beliefs go unchallenged and unremarked because those who espouse such views share the hard left's anti-western/anti-UK/anti-US perspective. That is not only wrong in and of itself, it also guarantees that Labour can never achieve power - so consigning the people the party is supposed to care about to the mercies of perennial right wing government.
Another Labour MP..This time an MEP..jailed for fraud..Claims he was confused by the expenses rules..,,There seems to be a lot of confusion in The Labour Party right now.
He didn't agree with the expenses he claimed.
Remember what Nick P said - no-one goes into politics for the money
Has Nick 'Momentum' Palmer commented since this has blown up?
He's been conspicuous by his absence. What I don't understand about the Naz Shah case is, why was she even selected in the first place? Did they not do their due diligence on her? Or did they know full well what she believed in and thought "that's what we need to beat George Galloway?"
I'm not sure that political parties have the resource to trawl through every candidate's social media history. Black marks are more often flagged up to the parties rather than uncovered by them.
The key point about this whole business is not how unpleasant Ken Livingstone is - we all knew that - but the fact that the Labour leadership was prepared not only to tolerate him, but to give him an important role. If you are very, very generous, I suppose you might be able to put that down to an appalling error of judgement on the part of Corbyn and his circle.
But, overall, none of this is surprising. Jeremy Corbyn is Jeremy Corbyn, John McDonnell is John McDonnell, and Seamas Milne is Seamas Milne. None of these gentlemen can be accused of hiding their true beliefs. The script is playing out exactly as predicted.
Absolutely spot on. This what Labour members voted for - an unelectable, morally-bankrupt Labour party.
I'm having some non-political problems at the moment, so haven't had much time to comment this week, but I agree with Don, and I also agree with Lansman that it's time Livingstone definitively retired from politics - he used to have considerable strengths and was in my opinion a goo Mayor, but he's drifted into a commentator lazily saying whatever comes into his head.
Has Nick 'Momentum' Palmer commented since this has blown up?
He's been conspicuous by his absence. What I don't understand about the Naz Shah case is, why was she even selected in the first place? Did they not do their due diligence on her? Or did they know full well what she believed in and thought "that's what we need to beat George Galloway?"
I'm not sure that political parties have the resource to trawl through every candidate's social media history. Black marks are more often flagged up to the parties rather than uncovered by them.
Bollocks...it is totally standard now for companies to do so when you apply for a job. Sure something could be hidden etc, but most of the stuff like Khan speech writer and Shah weren't posts on some obscure forum under an anonymous handle which is later revealed to be them (e.g. Louise Mensch), it was on their personal twitter and facebook accounts.
Livingstone blew his own head off. But the hysteria about anti-semitismand the CRISIS and what will Corbyn do to remove these disgusting left wing dinosaurs - that's all from the Bitterite wing of the party. Remember that not only did they need Labour to be trounced next week they also feel uncomfortable with the Hillsborough inquest triumph as Blair was a leading player in keeping it surpressed.
The Crisis developed because of the amateurish handling. If Corbyn had sacked, not suspended, not thought about, not argued the toss with Milne about, but straight up SACKED Ken the second he stood up in the TV studio, and then publically, unequivocally and clearly distanced himself from his comments, it would have had a tenth of the impact it did.
The damage was done by the weaseling around trying not to suspend him, and still is being done by trying not to sack him, it gives the perception that Corbyn is sympathetic to what he said, if he isn't, he should have said so clearly and distinctly, with no soft soap.
MDC..Where does Ken think he would be accepted..Gaza City may welcome him..but he is not Muslim..The Yanks would just laugh at him..OZ has its own nutters to deal with..NZ..NO CHANCE
But, overall, none of this is surprising. Jeremy Corbyn is Jeremy Corbyn, John McDonnell is John McDonnell, and Seamas Milne is Seamas Milne. None of these gentlemen can be accused of hiding their true beliefs. The script is playing out exactly as predicted.
And they (Milne) wanted John Mann MP disciplined - but the Whips blocked it.
The 'discipline John Mann' petition has put on about 1,500 signatures in the last hour:
Ken is wrong historically (and has misunderstood the book he is basing his defence upon)- while the Zionists may have worked with the Nazis, Hitler was never a supporter of Zionism....
Agree with Mr Brind - Shah said something stupid, (as we all do) apologised and clearly wants to make amends.
Ken is trying to equate Israel with the Nazis and is a nasty piece of work
MDC..Where does Ken think he would be accepted..Gaza City may welcome him..but he is not Muslim..The Yanks would just laugh at him..OZ has its own nutters to deal with..NZ..NO CHANCE
MDC..Where does Ken think he would be accepted..Gaza City may welcome him..but he is not Muslim..The Yanks would just laugh at him..OZ has its own nutters to deal with..NZ..NO CHANCE
There would be a certain irony in Livingstone wondering the wilderness for 40 years.
It argues that there was some support for the activities of German Zionist Jews within Nazi circles, but this took the form of a definite policy in 1935 (page 192-194) [and not 1932], when Heydrich of the SS published "The Visible Enemy". The only point was that Zionist groups in Germany might encourage more emigration of jews from Germany (and the SS were worried that rates of emigration were starting to drop as the Germany economy picked up). Note though that this was a SS policy, and not necessarily the view of the whole regime or indeed Hitler himself.
Has Nick 'Momentum' Palmer commented since this has blown up?
He's been conspicuous by his absence. What I don't understand about the Naz Shah case is, why was she even selected in the first place? Did they not do their due diligence on her? Or did they know full well what she believed in and thought "that's what we need to beat George Galloway?"
I'm not sure that political parties have the resource to trawl through every candidate's social media history. Black marks are more often flagged up to the parties rather than uncovered by them.
Bollocks...it is totally standard now for companies to do so when you apply for a job. Sure something could be hidden etc, but most of the stuff like Khan speech writer and Shah weren't posts on some obscure forum under an anonymous handle which is later revealed to be them (e.g. Louise Mensch), it was on their personal twitter and facebook accounts.
MDC..Where does Ken think he would be accepted..Gaza City may welcome him..but he is not Muslim..The Yanks would just laugh at him..OZ has its own nutters to deal with..NZ..NO CHANCE
North Korea.
I might bump into him there. After all, near-perfect ex-PM Major wants us Leavers to go there.
MDC..Where does Ken think he would be accepted..Gaza City may welcome him..but he is not Muslim..The Yanks would just laugh at him..OZ has its own nutters to deal with..NZ..NO CHANCE
1) Ken Livingstone's comments can't be ignored, can't be contextualised and can't be quietly forgiven. His remarks are unacceptable and his lack of contrition means that there can be no way back.
2) There are undoubtedly some on the Labour right who see this as an opportunity. They should be careful to do the right thing for the right reasons.
3) Jeremy Corbyn needs to get on top of this wave and surf it, or it will overwhelm him and he will be dragged under in the riptide.
4) This whole row is utterly toxic for Labour's reputation. It makes them look nasty and batty at the same time.
Agree with all of that. What should desperately worry sensible lefties is the number of Labour "supporters" on social media, the Guardian website, even here, now furiously claiming all this is a rightwing stitch up (either the Blairite right or the Guido right), that Ken was "historically accurate" (!!), that he's the victim of a witch hunt, etc. These people won't back down.
Difficult to foresee anything for Labour but a brutal civil war, from now on.
The simmering tensions have bubbled over. Sleeves are being rolled. Fists pumped. The cosh is fetched from the back of the drawer.
Yup - I keep seeing Corbynites defending Ken on Twitter, and FFS in the Times post moderation. Most readers just look at the weasly justifications and think WTF are you thinking?
This has been a most revealing episode for the Left. Frankly, it's a great deal uglier than I ever thought.
Livingstone blew his own head off. But the hysteria about anti-semitismand the CRISIS and what will Corbyn do to remove these disgusting left wing dinosaurs - that's all from the Bitterite wing of the party. Remember that not only did they need Labour to be trounced next week they also feel uncomfortable with the Hillsborough inquest triumph as Blair was a leading player in keeping it surpressed.
The Crisis developed because of the amateurish handling. If Corbyn had sacked, not suspended, not thought about, not argued the toss with Milne about, but straight up SACKED Ken the second he stood up in the TV studio, and then publically, unequivocally and clearly distanced himself from his comments, it would have had a tenth of the impact it did.
The damage was done by the weaseling around trying not to suspend him, and still is being done by trying not to sack him, it gives the perception that Corbyn is sympathetic to what he said, if he isn't, he should have said so clearly and distinctly, with no soft soap.
A Labour leader does not have the powers to sack even a mosquito. He is a servant of the Party and it should be as such.
PB seems to be obsessed with certain parochial mayoral elections.
When do we get to cover the main event? The police and crime commissioners election is buzzing up and down the country. It's on a knife edge. Will I get off my arse and vote or stay at home for the first time ever?
I'd vote, personally. I know it's a pointless, overly political post whose sole benefit - you can kick them out if they do a poor job - is not even true (since most areas will vote for whatever party they always vote for - we can hope independents manage to hold on this time), but even so, it is a vote.
MDC..Where does Ken think he would be accepted..Gaza City may welcome him..but he is not Muslim..The Yanks would just laugh at him..OZ has its own nutters to deal with..NZ..NO CHANCE
London ?
Well quite.
And now we come down to the nitty gritty. Ken has calculated that opinions he has held for decades are now mainstream enough to go public with.
And judging by the response of some on twitter, he could be right.
1) Ken Livingstone's comments can't be ignored, can't be contextualised and can't be quietly forgiven. His remarks are unacceptable and his lack of contrition means that there can be no way back.
2) There are undoubtedly some on the Labour right who see this as an opportunity. They should be careful to do the right thing for the right reasons.
3) Jeremy Corbyn needs to get on top of this wave and surf it, or it will overwhelm him and he will be dragged under in the riptide.
4) This whole row is utterly toxic for Labour's reputation. It makes them look nasty and batty at the same time.
Agree with all of that. What should desperately worry sensible lefties is the number of Labour "supporters" on social media, the Guardian website, even here, now furiously claiming all this is a rightwing stitch up (either the Blairite right or the Guido right), that Ken was "historically accurate" (!!), that he's the victim of a witch hunt, etc. These people won't back down.
Difficult to foresee anything for Labour but a brutal civil war, from now on.
The simmering tensions have bubbled over. Sleeves are being rolled. Fists pumped. The cosh is fetched from the back of the drawer.
Nice to see Gabi Hinsliff's eminently sensible article in the Guardian being met with photographs of dead children being sent to her by Corbynistas..
These hard-left types on social media just don't want to hear it. They don't want hear anything sensible or open-minded or something that bridges the gap between Labour right and Labour left. They just want anybody who doesn't subscribe to their world view to fuck off and die.
Corbyn is their leader. THEIRS. Not Gabi Hinsliff's or New Labour's or the New Statesman's. He is theirs and the Labour party is now theirs.
All sensible ex Labour types who supported the party during those halcyon days when the party sought votes from Middle England can piss off forever. And if they don't, they'll be piled on by foul-mouthed, aggressive bullies on Twitter until they do.
1) Ken Livingstone's comments can't be ignored, can't be contextualised and can't be quietly forgiven. His remarks are unacceptable and his lack of contrition means that there can be no way back.
2) There are undoubtedly some on the Labour right who see this as an opportunity. They should be careful to do the right thing for the right reasons.
3) Jeremy Corbyn needs to get on top of this wave and surf it, or it will overwhelm him and he will be dragged under in the riptide.
4) This whole row is utterly toxic for Labour's reputation. It makes them look nasty and batty at the same time.
Agree with all of that. What should desperately worry sensible lefties is the number of Labour "supporters" on social media, the Guardian website, even here, now furiously claiming all this is a rightwing stitch up (either the Blairite right or the Guido right), that Ken was "historically accurate" (!!), that he's the victim of a witch hunt, etc. These people won't back down.
Difficult to foresee anything for Labour but a brutal civil war, from now on.
The simmering tensions have bubbled over. Sleeves are being rolled. Fists pumped. The cosh is fetched from the back of the drawer.
Yup - I keep seeing Corbynites defending Ken on Twitter, and FFS in the Times post moderation. Most readers just look at the weasly justifications and think WTF are you thinking?
This has been a most revealing episode for the Left. Frankly, it's a great deal uglier than I ever thought.
Its not revealing enough to lose Kahn the election though, right? Whether he agrees with Ken or not.
1) Ken Livingstone's comments can't be ignored, can't be contextualised and can't be quietly forgiven. His remarks are unacceptable and his lack of contrition means that there can be no way back.
2) There are undoubtedly some on the Labour right who see this as an opportunity. They should be careful to do the right thing for the right reasons.
3) Jeremy Corbyn needs to get on top of this wave and surf it, or it will overwhelm him and he will be dragged under in the riptide.
4) This whole row is utterly toxic for Labour's reputation. It makes them look nasty and batty at the same time.
Agree with all of that. What should desperately worry sensible lefties is the number of Labour "supporters" on social media, the Guardian website, even here, now furiously claiming all this is a rightwing stitch up (either the Blairite right or the Guido right), that Ken was "historically accurate" (!!), that he's the victim of a witch hunt, etc. These people won't back down.
Difficult to foresee anything for Labour but a brutal civil war, from now on.
The simmering tensions have bubbled over. Sleeves are being rolled. Fists pumped. The cosh is fetched from the back of the drawer.
Yup - I keep seeing Corbynites defending Ken on Twitter, and FFS in the Times post moderation. Most readers just look at the weasly justifications and think WTF are you thinking?
This has been a most revealing episode for the Left. Frankly, it's a great deal uglier than I ever thought.
I wonder if there would have been the same weasly justifications if the same had been said about blacks or Muslims being transported to another country as "problem solved" etc.
1) Ken Livingstone's comments can't be ignored, can't be contextualised and can't be quietly forgiven. His remarks are unacceptable and his lack of contrition means that there can be no way back.
2) There are undoubtedly some on the Labour right who see this as an opportunity. They should be careful to do the right thing for the right reasons.
3) Jeremy Corbyn needs to get on top of this wave and surf it, or it will overwhelm him and he will be dragged under in the riptide.
4) This whole row is utterly toxic for Labour's reputation. It makes them look nasty and batty at the same time.
Agree with all of that. What should desperately worry sensible lefties is the number of Labour "supporters" on social media, the Guardian website, even here, now furiously claiming all this is a rightwing stitch up (either the Blairite right or the Guido right), that Ken was "historically accurate" (!!), that he's the victim of a witch hunt, etc. These people won't back down.
Difficult to foresee anything for Labour but a brutal civil war, from now on.
The simmering tensions have bubbled over. Sleeves are being rolled. Fists pumped. The cosh is fetched from the back of the drawer.
Yup - I keep seeing Corbynites defending Ken on Twitter, and FFS in the Times post moderation. Most readers just look at the weasly justifications and think WTF are you thinking?
This has been a most revealing episode for the Left. Frankly, it's a great deal uglier than I ever thought.
Its not revealing enough to lose Kahn the election though, right? Whether he agrees with Ken or not.
1) Ken Livingstone's comments can't be ignored, can't be contextualised and can't be quietly forgiven. His remarks are unacceptable and his lack of contrition means that there can be no way back.
2) There are undoubtedly some on the Labour right who see this as an opportunity. They should be careful to do the right thing for the right reasons.
3) Jeremy Corbyn needs to get on top of this wave and surf it, or it will overwhelm him and he will be dragged under in the riptide.
4) This whole row is utterly toxic for Labour's reputation. It makes them look nasty and batty at the same time.
Agree with all of that. What should desperately worry sensible lefties is the number of Labour "supporters" on social media, the Guardian website, even here, now furiously claiming all this is a rightwing stitch up (either the Blairite right or the Guido right), that Ken was "historically accurate" (!!), that he's the victim of a witch hunt, etc. These people won't back down.
Difficult to foresee anything for Labour but a brutal civil war, from now on.
The simmering tensions have bubbled over. Sleeves are being rolled. Fists pumped. The cosh is fetched from the back of the drawer.
Nice to see Gabi Hinsliff's eminently sensible article in the Guardian being met with photographs of dead children being sent to her by Corbynistas..
These hard-left types on social media just don't want to hear it. They don't want hear anything sensible or open-minded or something that bridges the gap between Labour right and Labour left. They just want anybody who doesn't subscribe to their world view to fuck off and die.
Corbyn is their leader. THEIRS. Not Gabi Hinsliff's or New Labour's or the New Statesman's. He is theirs and the Labour party is now theirs.
All sensible ex Labour types who supported the party during those halcyon days when the party sought votes from Middle England can piss off forever. And if they don't, they'll be piled on by foul-mouthed, aggressive bullies on Twitter until they do.
She should just f##k off and join the Tories...or some such bollocks.
Discussion amongst local comrades splits three ways - it's a desperate attempt to discredit Corbyn, it's proof that Corbyn has to go, and can we stop attacking each other and concentrate on fighting next week's election.
If it is an attempt to discredit Corbyn, who by? Sure, a right-wing blogger and some allies in the mainstream media might have kicked it off but no-one forced Livingstone to do the interviews and no-one mentioned Hitler until he did.
Livingstone blew his own head off. But the hysteria about anti-semitismand the CRISIS and what will Corbyn do to remove these disgusting left wing dinosaurs - that's all from the Bitterite wing of the party. Remember that not only did they need Labour to be trounced next week they also feel uncomfortable with the Hillsborough inquest triumph as Blair was a leading player in keeping it surpressed.
Personally I want us to get on with fighting Tories not each other. Nutters to my left and right disagree by the look of it.
The reason why some Labour people would like to see Corbyn, Milne, McDonnell, Livingstone et al a million miles form leadership positions is precisely because of what is happening currently. As members of the hard left, they have spent decades actively involved in a world in which anti-Semitism, misogyny, terrorism, homophobia and various other revolting beliefs go unchallenged and unremarked because those who espouse such views share the hard left's anti-western/anti-UK/anti-US perspective. That is not only wrong in and of itself, it also guarantees that Labour can never achieve power - so consigning the people the party is supposed to care about to the mercies of perennial right wing government.
Great post. Well said.
Yes.
It may have been mentioned during the election - which is why the "its all a stitch-up arguing" is ever so counter productive.
The editor of the Jewish Chronicle appeared on a phone-in this morning and was asked if criticism of Israel was anti semitic. He said it wasn't. He was then asked if suggesting that the State of Israel had no legitimacy was anti Semitic and he said that wasn't either-many learned Rabbis held that view. He was then asked if that was the case 'what was the connection between anti Zionism and anti Semitism'? He replied 'it was when criticism of Israel moved onto Jewish world domination which it usually does'.
The left has always been against racism and prejudice. This is what attracted many of us to left wing politics in the first place. Usually South Africa and apartheid which led on to the ANL and so on. At any fascist or National front demonstration it was always the left who turned out to confront them. Racism homophobia and all other prejudices against minorities have always been faced down by the left.
By contrast the right has by definition been the home of the homophobic and the racist. Read Guido or the Daily Mail and it spews from every orifice. Littlejohn claimed he was the first one to draw anyone's attention to Labour's anti Semitism. The hater of all haters Richard Littlejohn. If that wasn't bizarre enough apparently the real credit belonged to Guido!
Can these people and their fellow travellers really judge anti Semitism or any other racism in the Labour Party? What do they know about anti Semitism? We've all heard people use the word 'Paki' and seen the endemic racism which poses as 'anti-Islamsism' You don't have to leave this site. Who apart from the very youngest hasn't heard someone tell an Asian 'To go home'. Has anyone heard of a Jew being told to go home or that they're after world domination?
So what's it all about? Everyone knows a Jew. Most probably don't even know they're Jews. They look like everyone else they're well integrated and often professional. More often than not reasonably well off so no petty crime to worry about so what's not to feel comfortable with?
And that's really it. It's a free hit. Virtue signalling at it's worst. The first time the 'right' could pretend to be on the right side of racism. How grotesque
And, incredibly, they seem determined to have this massive internal squabble over which of Hitler's early policies Labour supports, in full view of the public, on social media
@euanmccolm: the corbynista view: "thanks to the power of social media, we elected jez. also, ignore things on social media, they're meaningless."
It argues that there was some support for the activities of German Zionist Jews within Nazi circles, but this took the form of a definite policy in 1935 (page 192-194) [and not 1932], when Heydrich of the SS published "The Visible Enemy". The only point was that Zionist groups in Germany might encourage more emigration of jews from Germany (and the SS were worried that rates of emigration were starting to drop as the Germany economy picked up). Note though that this was a SS policy, and not necessarily the view of the whole regime or indeed Hitler himself.
You can read it on Google Books.
Even the book Ken is pleading in his defence does not support his 'Hitler was a Zionist' theory.....some Nazis saw Zionists as 'useful idiots' in helping getting round trade bans, and seeing themselves as 'Jews' rather than 'Germans' - unlike the vast majority of German Jews - but Hitler's views on Jews was well established....
But, overall, none of this is surprising. Jeremy Corbyn is Jeremy Corbyn, John McDonnell is John McDonnell, and Seamas Milne is Seamas Milne. None of these gentlemen can be accused of hiding their true beliefs. The script is playing out exactly as predicted.
And they (Milne) wanted John Mann MP disciplined - but the Whips blocked it.
The 'discipline John Mann' petition has put on about 1,500 signatures in the last hour:
Ken is wrong historically (and has misunderstood the book he is basing his defence upon)- while the Zionists may have worked with the Nazis, Hitler was never a supporter of Zionism....
Agree with Mr Brind - Shah said something stupid, (as we all do) apologised and clearly wants to make amends.
Ken is trying to equate Israel with the Nazis and is a nasty piece of work
1) Ken Livingstone's comments can't be ignored, can't be contextualised and can't be quietly forgiven. His remarks are unacceptable and his lack of contrition means that there can be no way back.
2) There are undoubtedly some on the Labour right who see this as an opportunity. They should be careful to do the right thing for the right reasons.
3) Jeremy Corbyn needs to get on top of this wave and surf it, or it will overwhelm him and he will be dragged under in the riptide.
4) This whole row is utterly toxic for Labour's reputation. It makes them look nasty and batty at the same time.
Agree with all of that. What should desperately worry sensible lefties is the number of Labour "supporters" on social media, the Guardian website, even here, now furiously claiming all this is a rightwing stitch up (either the Blairite right or the Guido right), that Ken was "historically accurate" (!!), that he's the victim of a witch hunt, etc. These people won't back down.
Difficult to foresee anything for Labour but a brutal civil war, from now on.
The simmering tensions have bubbled over. Sleeves are being rolled. Fists pumped. The cosh is fetched from the back of the drawer.
Yup - I keep seeing Corbynites defending Ken on Twitter, and FFS in the Times post moderation. Most readers just look at the weasly justifications and think WTF are you thinking?
This has been a most revealing episode for the Left. Frankly, it's a great deal uglier than I ever thought.
I wonder if there would have been the same weasly justifications if the same had been said about blacks or Muslims being transported to another country as "problem solved" etc.
John Major has suggested that Brexiters be transported to North Korea. He merits expulsion from the Tory Party.
The editor of the Jewish Chronicle appeared on a phone-in this morning and was asked if criticism of Israel was anti semitic. He said it wasn't. He was then asked if suggesting that the State of Israel had no legitimacy was anti Semitic and he said that wasn't either-many learned Rabbis held that view. He was then asked if that was the case 'what was the connection between anti Zionism and anti Semitism'? He replied 'it was when criticism of Israel moved onto Jewish world domination which it usually does'.
The left has always been against racism and prejudice. This is what attracted many of us to left wing politics in the first place. Usually South Africa and apartheid which led on to the ANL and so on. At any fascist or National front demonstration it was always the left who turned out to confront them. Racism homophobia and all other prejudices against minorities have always been faced down by the left.
By contrast the right has by definition been the home of the homophobic and the racist. Read Guido or the Daily Mail and it spews from every orifice. Littlejohn claimed he was the first one to draw anyone's attention to Labour's anti Semitism. The hater of all haters Richard Littlejohn. If that wasn't bizarre enough apparently the real credit belonged to Guido!
Can these people and their fellow travellers really judge anti Semitism or any other racism in the Labour Party? What do they know about anti Semitism? We've all heard people use the word 'Paki' and seen the endemic racism which poses as 'anti-Islamsism' You don't have to leave this site. Who apart from the very youngest hasn't heard someone tell an Asian 'To go home'. Has anyone heard of a Jew being told to go home or that they're after world domination?
So what's it all about? Everyone knows a Jew. Most probably don't even know they're Jews. They look like everyone else they're well integrated and often professional. More often than not reasonably well off so no petty crime to worry about so what's not to feel comfortable with?
And that's really it. It's a free hit. Virtue signalling at it's worst. The first time the 'right' could pretend to be on the right side of racism. How sad
Some of the left are very much in favour of racism and prejudice.
John Major's intervention should help shore up the Tory vote a little for Remain as well as the moderate middle. The Tory right and Kippers will dismiss him but they are voting Leave anyway
1) Ken Livingstone's comments can't be ignored, can't be contextualised and can't be quietly forgiven. His remarks are unacceptable and his lack of contrition means that there can be no way back.
2) There are undoubtedly some on the Labour right who see this as an opportunity. They should be careful to do the right thing for the right reasons.
3) Jeremy Corbyn needs to get on top of this wave and surf it, or it will overwhelm him and he will be dragged under in the riptide.
4) This whole row is utterly toxic for Labour's reputation. It makes them look nasty and batty at the same time.
Agree with all of that. What should desperately worry sensible lefties is the number of Labour "supporters" on social media, the Guardian website, even here, now furiously claiming all this is a rightwing stitch up (either the Blairite right or the Guido right), that Ken was "historically accurate" (!!), that he's the victim of a witch hunt, etc. These people won't back down.
Difficult to foresee anything for Labour but a brutal civil war, from now on.
The simmering tensions have bubbled over. Sleeves are being rolled. Fists pumped. The cosh is fetched from the back of the drawer.
Yup - I keep seeing Corbynites defending Ken on Twitter, and FFS in the Times post moderation. Most readers just look at the weasly justifications and think WTF are you thinking?
This has been a most revealing episode for the Left. Frankly, it's a great deal uglier than I ever thought.
I wonder if there would have been the same weasly justifications if the same had been said about blacks or Muslims being transported to another country as "problem solved" etc.
John Major suggested that Brexiters should be transported to North Korea. He merits expulsion from the Tory Party.
No, he can't be. He did not propose that they should be sent to the USA.
It argues that there was some support for the activities of German Zionist Jews within Nazi circles, but this took the form of a definite policy in 1935 (page 192-194) [and not 1932], when Heydrich of the SS published "The Visible Enemy". The only point was that Zionist groups in Germany might encourage more emigration of jews from Germany (and the SS were worried that rates of emigration were starting to drop as the Germany economy picked up). Note though that this was a SS policy, and not necessarily the view of the whole regime or indeed Hitler himself.
You can read it on Google Books.
TBH, 90% of the population hear someone explaining Hitler vs Jews vs Zionism [what's that] just thinks WTF.
It argues that there was some support for the activities of German Zionist Jews within Nazi circles, but this took the form of a definite policy in 1935 (page 192-194) [and not 1932], when Heydrich of the SS published "The Visible Enemy". The only point was that Zionist groups in Germany might encourage more emigration of jews from Germany (and the SS were worried that rates of emigration were starting to drop as the Germany economy picked up). Note though that this was a SS policy, and not necessarily the view of the whole regime or indeed Hitler himself.
You can read it on Google Books.
Even the book Ken is pleading in his defence does not support his 'Hitler was a Zionist' theory.....some Nazis saw Zionists as 'useful idiots' in helping getting round trade bans, and seeing themselves as 'Jews' rather than 'Germans' - unlike the vast majority of German Jews - but Hitler's views on Jews was well established....
I see. It is OK if it was only a SS policy. That does not mean the Nazis. Something was indeed fishy...
And, incredibly, they seem determined to have this massive internal squabble over which of Hitler's early policies Labour supports, in full view of the public, on social media
Yes, if only Hitler has stuck to what he wrote in Mein Kampf, there'd apparently have been no problem.
It argues that there was some support for the activities of German Zionist Jews within Nazi circles, but this took the form of a definite policy in 1935 (page 192-194) [and not 1932], when Heydrich of the SS published "The Visible Enemy". The only point was that Zionist groups in Germany might encourage more emigration of jews from Germany (and the SS were worried that rates of emigration were starting to drop as the Germany economy picked up). Note though that this was a SS policy, and not necessarily the view of the whole regime or indeed Hitler himself.
You can read it on Google Books.
Even the book Ken is pleading in his defence does not support his 'Hitler was a Zionist' theory.....some Nazis saw Zionists as 'useful idiots' in helping getting round trade bans, and seeing themselves as 'Jews' rather than 'Germans' - unlike the vast majority of German Jews - but Hitler's views on Jews was well established....
I see. It is OK if it was only a SS policy. That does not mean the Nazis. Something was indeed fishy...
The Nazis were persecuting Jews ferociously. Zionist organisations were looking to get them out of Germany, and were trying to reach an agreement with the German government to achieve this.
That doesn't make the Nazis Zionists, or Zionists supporters of Nazism.
Just as I thought Ken Livingstone was the sole Westminster Village Idiot, up pops John Major. /twitter.com/politicshome/status/726000556377034752
The perks of not needing to get elected any more, you can insult half the electorate and not care.
It's another WTF comment - seriously, what are these Tories thinking? Trying to burn their own Party down? One can disagree without resorting to this level of stupidity.
They think that half the REMAIN voters are going to come from the Conservatives. Oh dear. Something that is probably a mathematical impossibility unless turnout is under 50% and REMAIN will be f***d if that happens by the kipper wedge.
Remain do seem to be getting more and more rattled --> incoherent the longer the polls stay deadlocked. Final couple of weeks of June should be fun!
1) Ken Livingstone's comments can't be ignored, can't be contextualised and can't be quietly forgiven. His remarks are unacceptable and his lack of contrition means that there can be no way back.
2) There are undoubtedly some on the Labour right who see this as an opportunity. They should be careful to do the right thing for the right reasons.
3) Jeremy Corbyn needs to get on top of this wave and surf it, or it will overwhelm him and he will be dragged under in the riptide.
4) This whole row is utterly toxic for Labour's reputation. It makes them look nasty and batty at the same time.
Agree with all of that. What should desperately worry sensible lefties is the number of Labour "supporters" on social media, the Guardian website, even here, now furiously claiming all this is a rightwing stitch up (either the Blairite right or the Guido right), that Ken was "historically accurate" (!!), that he's the victim of a witch hunt, etc. These people won't back down.
Difficult to foresee anything for Labour but a brutal civil war, from now on.
The simmering tensions have bubbled over. Sleeves are being rolled. Fists pumped. The cosh is fetched from the back of the drawer.
Yup - I keep seeing Corbynites defending Ken on Twitter, and FFS in the Times post moderation. Most readers just look at the weasly justifications and think WTF are you thinking?
This has been a most revealing episode for the Left. Frankly, it's a great deal uglier than I ever thought.
And, incredibly, they seem determined to have this massive internal squabble over which of Hitler's early policies Labour supports, in full view of the public, on social media
To be fair, his industrial policies were quite progressive. If only he didn't go mad... Maybe if we hadn't provoked him by declaring war it would have turned out differently.
And, incredibly, they seem determined to have this massive internal squabble over which of Hitler's early policies Labour supports, in full view of the public, on social media
Yes, if only Hitler has stuck to what he wrote in Mein Kampf, there'd apparently have been no problem.
Frankly, it beggars belief that there are people on the Left who refuse to move on from this clusterfuck.
And, incredibly, they seem determined to have this massive internal squabble over which of Hitler's early policies Labour supports, in full view of the public, on social media
Yes, if only Hitler has stuck to what he wrote in Mein Kampf, there'd apparently have been no problem.
It is the sort of stuff you expect members of the BNP to be spouting not the Labour Party...
1) Ken Livingstone's comments can't be ignored, can't be contextualised and can't be quietly forgiven. His remarks are unacceptable and his lack of contrition means that there can be no way back.
2) There are undoubtedly some on the Labour right who see this as an opportunity. They should be careful to do the right thing for the right reasons.
3) Jeremy Corbyn needs to get on top of this wave and surf it, or it will overwhelm him and he will be dragged under in the riptide.
4) This whole row is utterly toxic for Labour's reputation. It makes them look nasty and batty at the same time.
Agree with all of that. What should desperately worry sensible lefties is the number of Labour "supporters" on social media, the Guardian website, even here, now furiously claiming all this is a rightwing stitch up (either the Blairite right or the Guido right), that Ken was "historically accurate" (!!), that he's the victim of a witch hunt, etc. These people won't back down.
Difficult to foresee anything for Labour but a brutal civil war, from now on.
The simmering tensions have bubbled over. Sleeves are being rolled. Fists pumped. The cosh is fetched from the back of the drawer.
Yup - I keep seeing Corbynites defending Ken on Twitter, and FFS in the Times post moderation. Most readers just look at the weasly justifications and think WTF are you thinking?
This has been a most revealing episode for the Left. Frankly, it's a great deal uglier than I ever thought.
And, incredibly, they seem determined to have this massive internal squabble over which of Hitler's early policies Labour supports, in full view of the public, on social media
Naz Shah's "apology" is a fine example of Taqiyah as are Khan's attempt to distance himself from Ken. The idea that Khan will be a unifying person in London is complete bullshit taken from the Labour propaganda sheet, Don. He wants to impose racial quotas in the workplace, in what way is that a unifying policy.
Pull the other one and lets hear from Henry G Manson for a real insight into Labour, not this propaganda.
Has Nick 'Momentum' Palmer commented since this has blown up?
He's been conspicuous by his absence. What I don't understand about the Naz Shah case is, why was she even selected in the first place? Did they not do their due diligence on her? Or did they know full well what she believed in and thought "that's what we need to beat George Galloway?"
I'm not sure that political parties have the resource to trawl through every candidate's social media history. Black marks are more often flagged up to the parties rather than uncovered by them.
Bollocks...it is totally standard now for companies to do so when you apply for a job. Sure something could be hidden etc, but most of the stuff like Khan speech writer and Shah weren't posts on some obscure forum under an anonymous handle which is later revealed to be them (e.g. Louise Mensch), it was on their personal twitter and facebook accounts.
Well quite.
Says the lady with nearly 10,000 pbc posts and more than 100k tweets to her name. If you stood for parliament, would you expect someone to trawl through them all?
Livingstone blew his own head off. But the hysteria about anti-semitismand the CRISIS and what will Corbyn do to remove these disgusting left wing dinosaurs - that's all from the Bitterite wing of the party. Remember that not only did they need Labour to be trounced next week they also feel uncomfortable with the Hillsborough inquest triumph as Blair was a leading player in keeping it surpressed.
The Crisis developed because of the amateurish handling. If Corbyn had sacked, not suspended, not thought about, not argued the toss with Milne about, but straight up SACKED Ken the second he stood up in the TV studio, and then publically, unequivocally and clearly distanced himself from his comments, it would have had a tenth of the impact it did.
The damage was done by the weaseling around trying not to suspend him, and still is being done by trying not to sack him, it gives the perception that Corbyn is sympathetic to what he said, if he isn't, he should have said so clearly and distinctly, with no soft soap.
A Labour leader does not have the powers to sack even a mosquito. He is a servant of the Party and it should be as such.
He might regard much of his front bench as mosquitos but he certainly has the power to sack (or swat) them.
Undefined discussion subject.
Comments
If Aunty gets her act together and reports the Marie Rimmer court case, the front page will have Labour politicians expelled for anti-Semitism, jailed for fraud and another for physically assaulting an OAP. - Just saying.
Personally I want us to get on with fighting Tories not each other. Nutters to my left and right disagree by the look of it.
@michaelsavage: I'm not sure consistency is the issue here... https://t.co/oZrhCSXHXu
But, overall, none of this is surprising. Jeremy Corbyn is Jeremy Corbyn, John McDonnell is John McDonnell, and Seamas Milne is Seamas Milne. None of these gentlemen can be accused of hiding their true beliefs. The script is playing out exactly as predicted.
1) Ken Livingstone's comments can't be ignored, can't be contextualised and can't be quietly forgiven. His remarks are unacceptable and his lack of contrition means that there can be no way back.
2) There are undoubtedly some on the Labour right who see this as an opportunity. They should be careful to do the right thing for the right reasons.
3) Jeremy Corbyn needs to get on top of this wave and surf it, or it will overwhelm him and he will be dragged under in the riptide.
4) This whole row is utterly toxic for Labour's reputation. It makes them look nasty and batty at the same time.
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/ken-livingstone-boost-to-vote-leave-brexit-campaign-eu-referendum_uk_570ff562e4b0f22f021962a2
The damage was done by the weaseling around trying not to suspend him, and still is being done by trying not to sack him, it gives the perception that Corbyn is sympathetic to what he said, if he isn't, he should have said so clearly and distinctly, with no soft soap.
The 'discipline John Mann' petition has put on about 1,500 signatures in the last hour:
https://www.change.org/p/jeremy-corbyn-mp-disciplinary-procedure-for-john-mann-mp
Ken is wrong historically (and has misunderstood the book he is basing his defence upon)- while the Zionists may have worked with the Nazis, Hitler was never a supporter of Zionism....
Agree with Mr Brind - Shah said something stupid, (as we all do) apologised and clearly wants to make amends.
Ken is trying to equate Israel with the Nazis and is a nasty piece of work
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04/29/latvia-fights-against-the-great-eu-exodus/
This academic book maybe of interest: http://www.press.uillinois.edu/books/catalog/52ykk7ny9780252061479.html
It argues that there was some support for the activities of German Zionist Jews within Nazi circles, but this took the form of a definite policy in 1935 (page 192-194) [and not 1932], when Heydrich of the SS published "The Visible Enemy". The only point was that Zionist groups in Germany might encourage more emigration of jews from Germany (and the SS were worried that rates of emigration were starting to drop as the Germany economy picked up). Note though that this was a SS policy, and not necessarily the view of the whole regime or indeed Hitler himself.
You can read it on Google Books.
Is he re-making Journey to the Centre of the Earth?
http://www.miningglobal.com/public/uploads/large/large_3d557989_d51e_6615_2677_d69c0f7de3a5.jpg
This has been a most revealing episode for the Left. Frankly, it's a great deal uglier than I ever thought.
I may spoil my ballot, though.
And now we come down to the nitty gritty. Ken has calculated that opinions he has held for decades are now mainstream enough to go public with.
And judging by the response of some on twitter, he could be right.
@daily_politics Labour journo blaming far right elements LOL. Just imagine Nixon blaming "those darn democrats at the Post."
These hard-left types on social media just don't want to hear it. They don't want hear anything sensible or open-minded or something that bridges the gap between Labour right and Labour left. They just want anybody who doesn't subscribe to their world view to fuck off and die.
Corbyn is their leader. THEIRS. Not Gabi Hinsliff's or New Labour's or the New Statesman's. He is theirs and the Labour party is now theirs.
All sensible ex Labour types who supported the party during those halcyon days when the party sought votes from Middle England can piss off forever. And if they don't, they'll be piled on by foul-mouthed, aggressive bullies on Twitter until they do.
https://www.change.org/p/jeremy-corbyn-mp-disciplinary-procedure-for-john-mann-mp/c
It may have been mentioned during the election - which is why the "its all a stitch-up arguing" is ever so counter productive.
The left has always been against racism and prejudice. This is what attracted many of us to left wing politics in the first place. Usually South Africa and apartheid which led on to the ANL and so on. At any fascist or National front demonstration it was always the left who turned out to confront them. Racism homophobia and all other prejudices against minorities have always been faced down by the left.
By contrast the right has by definition been the home of the homophobic and the racist. Read Guido or the Daily Mail and it spews from every orifice. Littlejohn claimed he was the first one to draw anyone's attention to Labour's anti Semitism. The hater of all haters Richard Littlejohn. If that wasn't bizarre enough apparently the real credit belonged to Guido!
Can these people and their fellow travellers really judge anti Semitism or any other racism in the Labour Party? What do they know about anti Semitism? We've all heard people use the word 'Paki' and seen the endemic racism which poses as 'anti-Islamsism' You don't have to leave this site. Who apart from the very youngest hasn't heard someone tell an Asian 'To go home'. Has anyone heard of a Jew being told to go home or that they're after world domination?
So what's it all about? Everyone knows a Jew. Most probably don't even know they're Jews. They look like everyone else they're well integrated and often professional. More often than not reasonably well off so no petty crime to worry about so what's not to feel comfortable with?
And that's really it. It's a free hit. Virtue signalling at it's worst. The first time the 'right' could pretend to be on the right side of racism. How grotesque
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/uk/george-osborne-vows-to-cut-business-rates-to-boost-local-press-34670497.html
It's worse than touching the third rail.
That doesn't make the Nazis Zionists, or Zionists supporters of Nazism.
13 on board and not much chance of survivors apparently.
A bit like fornicating to keep your virgnity intact.
Pull the other one and lets hear from Henry G Manson for a real insight into Labour, not this propaganda.