General British politics discussion thread

quokula

Joe_ Public wrote: »

The Livingston case is one of the main ones dealt with in the report. Basically, the leaders office made recommendations to have the disciplinary process against Livingston speeded up as it had already dragged on 2 years. The report is critical of this attempt by the leaders office to interfere in the process.

Yeah it's amazing how diametrically opposite reality is to what is being portrayed in the UK and being used as justification for removing progressive social democrats from the Labour party.

Hardly surprising in Brexit Britain though. They deserve the government they have, amongst highest covid death rates per capita in the world, billions in handouts to sham PPE firms, starving children at Christmas, impending Brexit disaster from January. It could have been so very different but it is what it is. Glad I'm not living there anymore.

breezy1985

spook_cook wrote: »

Well of course you're not actually serious and are not asking in good faith. If you're looking for reading material, the ol'd EHRC report seems pretty good?

Do you think they're in cohoots with the Tories/Labour-right/corporations etc?

It used to be that the faithful rallied how he was a danger to the norm so they had to silence him. Well as a failure of a politician, a nobody, why would he force Keir to do this by not accepting it? The guy's a laugh and you're worse still supporting him.

So no you don't have any reasons why he is an anti semite then.

Tom Mann Centuria

When one of the commissioners for the EHRC is a Tory fundraiser and donated to those lovely people, are the findings any great shock?

Joe_ Public

quokula wrote: »

Yeah it's amazing how diametrically opposite reality is to what is being portrayed in the UK and being used as justification for removing progressive social democrats from the Labour party.

Hardly surprising in Brexit Britain though. They deserve the government they have, amongst highest covid death rates per capita in the world, billions in handouts to sham PPE firms, starving children at Christmas, impending Brexit disaster from January. It could have been so very different but it is what it is. Glad I'm not living there anymore.

I was a bit surprised at some of the news reports today describing Corbyns suspension as "shocking" and "extraordinary". It was hardly that unforseen, was it? I think it's already fairly obvious - what with upsetting the BLM movement, talking tough on the statue topplers, whipping his mps to not oppose bills sanctioning torture etc etc - that Starmer is fixed on pushing the party further to the right and fighting the Tories on the centre-right ground. Likely hoping the progressive vote he loses as a consequence won't hurt too much and maybe some will stick with him simply out of lack of appealing alternatives. Wouldn't much appeal to me tbh, but i think that's where they are anyway. All about becoming "electable". End justifies means and all that.

fiveleavesleft

Joe_ Public wrote: »

The question with Livingstone case is why it wasn't dealt with sooner and what went on with the partys disciplinary proceedings.

That was an amazing part of the initial report. They boasted of how little work they were doing as cases piled up. They spent two years coming in to work just to play their little made up game "bash the Trots". Corbyn then stepped in whilst they went off to that trashy BBC programme saying "he just won't do anything about it"

Now it's Corbyn being bashed for being too heavy handed, to eager to deal with the issue!:D

Podge_irl

Rjd2 wrote: »

On Labour as they have lost 4 elections in a row they obviously feel any sort of victory will do. I agree a return to Blairism is not what the UK needs but I don't think that Keir will go down that road. He's much more left wing then some of his detractors think.

It doesn't matter what the UK "needs". It matters what the UK electorate wants.

The Corbynite strategy of reimaging Blair's govt as little distinguished from Thatcherite politics was a deserved dismal failure.

AllForIt

Couldn't have written a more fitting ending for Corybn.

I'm minded of all those comments about how we was unfairly attacked since becoming leader and here he is all but chucked out his own party and his political career at an end. Not so long ago he was telling Johnson he wasn't going anywhere. Pffff. One can't even feel sorry for him with his stereotypically deary short-tempered socialist personality.

There is clearly no place for hard left socialists like him anymore and quite frankly they are wasting their time being in politics at all. I agree with the poster who said he should have split the party because that would be the end of them altogether if that happened.

Podge_irl

AllForIt wrote: »

There is clearly no place for hard left socialists like him anymore and quite frankly they are wasting their time being in politics at all. I agree with the poster who said he should have split the party because that would be the end of them altogether if that happened.

All he needed to do was accept the EHRC and not both do the one thing Starmer asked people not to do (cast it as a partisan issue) and refuse to back down when given a chance.

If it really is a plan to oust him for his political view, then he is spectacularly naïve and devoid of political nous to fall for it.

Podge_irl

Podge_irl wrote: »

All he needed to do was accept the EHRC and not both do the one thing Starmer asked people not to do (cast it as a partisan issue) and refuse to back down when given a chance.

If it really is a plan to oust him for his political view, then he is spectacularly naïve and devoid of political nous to fall for it.

It’s a fairly straight forward issue for Labour now. The EHRC gave a fairly damning report on antisemetism within the party and the only way forward for them is to accept the report and act on its findings.

For a former leader to try and dismiss it is stupid beyond belief. Starmer had no choice but to take drastic steps.

It’s the EHRC ffs. you may question one or two of their findings but to write off the whole thing as exaggerated is arrogance in the extreme.

Joe_ Public

Aegir wrote: »

It’s a fairly straight forward issue for Labour now. The EHRC gave a fairly damning report on antisemetism within the party and the only way forward for them is to accept the report and act on its findings.

For a former leader to try and dismiss it is stupid beyond belief. Starmer had no choice but to take drastic steps.

It’s the EHRC ffs. you may question one or two of their findings but to write off the whole thing as exaggerated is arrogance in the extreme.

I didnt get all the coverage today, could you direct me to where Corbyn wrote off "the whole thing as exaggerated" please? I missed that bit.

paddythere

I think what Starmer done today stunk of class politics. At its core, it was about showing middle class voters that the Labour Party is once again a safe pair of hands for British capital.

Joe_ Public

Joe_ Public wrote: »

I didnt get all the coverage today, could you direct me to where Corbyn wrote off "the whole thing as exaggerated" please? I missed that bit.

its why he has been suspended.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-54730425

Labour has suspended Jeremy Corbyn from the party over his reaction to a highly critical report on anti-Semitism.

The human rights watchdog found Labour responsible for "unlawful" harassment and discrimination during Mr Corbyn's years as leader.

But he later said the scale of anti-Semitism within Labour had been "dramatically overstated" by opponents.

A Labour spokesman said Mr Corbyn was being suspended "for a failure to retract" his words.

Mr Corbyn reacted by calling the move "political" and promised to "strongly contest" it.

The suspension will remain in place while the party carries out an investigation into his remarks.

Joe_ Public

Aegir wrote: »

its why he has been suspended.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-54730425

I know why they say they suspended him, i was asking where Corbyn supposedly wrote the whole thing off. Anyway, he didn't so we'll leave that there.

In the offending part of the statement, Corbyn referred to the "scale" of the problem being dramatically overstated by his opponents (note that comment is not explicitly directed at the report itself). Interestingly, what he says appears to be covered by the report which i think might present an issue for those who took the decision against him, which may also have broken party procedural rules.

https://twitter.com/BeckettUnite/status/1321836754576515073?s=20

The lengths people go to in order to defend Corbyn is quite breath taking.

blackwhite

breezy1985 wrote: »

Can you give me some of your reasons as to why he is an anti semite. Things he actually done?

Writing the foreword for a book that promotes antisemetic tropes and conspiracies wasn’t exactly his wisest move to be fair

fiveleavesleft

blackwhite wrote: »

Writing the foreword for a book that promotes antisemetic tropes and conspiracies wasn’t exactly his wisest move to be fair

When Blair & Brown praised that book no one cared. Wasn't even an issue.

blackwhite

fiveleavesleft wrote: »

When Blair & Brown praised that book no one cared. Wasn't even an issue.

They didn’t write the foreword.

They didn’t go public with support for anti-Semitic murals being painted on walls either.

Corbyn was far too lenient with misdemeanours from anyone he saw as ideologically pure. He was willing to turn a blind eye to antisemitism if the perpetrator was hard-left.

fiveleavesleft

blackwhite wrote: »

They didn’t write the foreword.

They didn’t go public with support for anti-Semitic murals being painted on walls either.

Corbyn was far too lenient with misdemeanours from anyone he saw as ideologically pure. He was willing to turn a blind eye to antisemitism if the perpetrator was hard-left.

Well they did go public when they began using anti-Semitic tropes & stereotypes when they campaigned against Michael Howard.

On the bolded bit. The report says that is wrong. There were no blind eyes turned. He personally demanded Livingstone was kicked out.

blackwhite

fiveleavesleft wrote: »

Well they did go public when they began using anti-Semitic tropes & stereotypes when they campaigned against Michael Howard.

On the bolded bit. The report says that is wrong. There were no blind eyes turned. He personally demanded Livingstone was kicked out.

And his office interfered in 23 out of 70 investigations - including demanding that complaints against Corbyn himself be dismissed out of hand.

But hey - you agree with his politics so of course you couldn’t possibly admit that he has any faults :rolleyes:

fiveleavesleft

blackwhite wrote: »

And his office interfered in 23 out of 70 investigations - including demanding that complaints against Corbyn himself be dismissed out of hand.

But hey - you agree with his politics so of course you couldn’t possibly admit that he has any faults :rolleyes:

Ah dunno I think Corbyn was a disaster bit I just think this whole Anti-Semitism thing is a smear.

fiveleavesleft

fiveleavesleft wrote: »

Ah dunno I think Corbyn was a disaster bit I just think this whole Anti-Semitism thing is a smear.

I don’t believe there are any accusations of Corbyn being anti Semitic, only that his handling of the whole thing was very poor.

There is obviously a case to be answered though, otherwise the EHRC would not have been so critical.

fiveleavesleft

Aegir wrote: »

I don’t believe there are any accusations of Corbyn being anti Semitic, only that his handling of the whole thing was very poor.

There is obviously a case to be answered though, otherwise the EHRC would not have been so critical.

Yeah it's such a pity he didn't get a handle on it earlier. He needed to smash the GLU from the get go. Its amazing the turnaround when he got control of it in the spring of 2018.

PommieBast

fiveleavesleft wrote: »

Ah dunno I think Corbyn was a disaster bit I just think this whole Anti-Semitism thing is a smear.

I'm certainly no fan of Corbyn but I decided not to pay any attention to the claims of antisemitism unless a comparable amount of attention was paid to Conservative party islamaphobia.

quokula

Aegir wrote: »

The lengths people go to in order to defend Corbyn is quite breath taking.

The lengths people go to to paint him as something that anyone with the slightest bit of sense can see that he's not is quite breathtaking.

The guy's spent his entire life fighting racism and the establishment in Britain have painted him as a racist while putting a government in power that's pretty much built on racism and xenophobia.

quokula

blackwhite wrote: »

Writing the foreword for a book that promotes antisemetic tropes and conspiracies wasn’t exactly his wisest move to be fair

This is typical of the redefining of reality that's gone on in the UK media and amongst the establishment of the two major parties.

This book was uncontroversially praised by many people and has been well respected for many decades. Corbyn wrote the foreword in 2011 and that was also completely uncontroversial. It only became controversial when one of the right wing papers, who'd obviously been going through everything he ever did with a fine tooth comb looking for dirt they can create, found the book, wrote up an article about how antisemitic it was, and the rest of the UK media fell in line and followed.

It does contain one (and only one) sentence that features an antisemitic trope, which is completely aside from and irrelevant to the thrust of the book. The trope is there because the book is over a century old and many such tropes were commonplace then. It's like saying someone is homophobic because they quote Churchill. I studied the Merchant of Venice in school and that's full of egregious antisemitism yet nobody is cast as an anti-semite for quoting Shakespeare.

It's worth checking the wikipedia summary of the book from before the UK media linked it to Corbyn here which just talks about what the book is actually about and doesn't mention anti-semitism at all, since the book was never remotely about antisemitism, and then compare it to the wikipedia summary after the media linked it to Corbyn and antisemitism here which has a huge section about antisemitism, which when you read it is actually about other things the author said during his lifetime over a century ago, that aren't actually in the book at all.

And I know wikipedia isn't the greatest of sources, but the fact you can go back through the history allows you to really see the revisionism in action that occurred in order to bend reality to what the right wing rags wanted people to believe.

breezy1985

Aegir wrote: »

The lengths people go to in order to defend Corbyn is quite breath taking.

What I find breathtaking was during his whole time in charge no one I met who thought he was useless or a traitor or whatever could point to a single policy of his that they had a problem with.

All they had was regurgitated nonsense about the IRA or similar were completely unable to attack the mans policy

Fr Tod Umptious

I don't know if it's been covered already but Corbyn is on the front of every paper in the UK

And in every picture (probably the same one) he is wearing his face covering under his nose.

For Christ sake man if you are wearing a face covering wear it properly.

That's my opinion of this man cemented right there.

devnull

As someone who has lived in the UK in the past and never voted Tory, I myself would never have been able to vote for Jeremy Corbyn. As a centrist, both a full left wing Labour party and a full right wing Tory party were unelectable.
I'm afraid tCorbyn is stuck in the past and has very questionable friends and despite the fact he is often claimed by his supporters as being the most principled man in politics, he is not much different from your average politician in these things.

I came across him and his team on a train journey and what they thought was an empty carriage when they were discussing tactics, spin and what to say to put people off the scent of various things. They were also drinking a beverage from a place that JC and the Labour party was previously criticising heavily on twitter about how they treat their staff and not paying tax. Noticeably once I answered a phone call and they realised someone else was, in fact, in the carriage, all discussion stopped at least until I got off.

The point being, that the often quoted defence that Corbyn doesn't plot and doesn't spin is simply not true. He is a politician and all politicians do it. The idea that he is some kind of white knight, who is the most innocent politician of all time is simply not true. That being said, he's not an evil man like some portray him out to be and I honestly do think he has some good principles. But he was a poor leader and has set the Labour party back years.

If Labour are to ever get in power they need to have a clean break with Corbynism. The UK cannot afford any more years of the racist, xenophobic and out of touch Tory party. They have already done so much damage that it's goign to take a very long time to clear up. If Labour don't win the next election, then even more of that damage could be permanent.

breezy1985

breezy1985 wrote: »

What I find breathtaking was during his whole time in charge no one I met who thought he was useless or a traitor or whatever could point to a single policy of his that they had a problem with.

All they had was regurgitated nonsense about the IRA or similar were completely unable to attack the mans policy

Call me fickle, but I'd say the policy of effectively turning a blind eye to anti-Semitism and bullying and harassment of whistle blowers in his own party is a pretty big criticism.

breezy1985

devnull wrote: »

As someone who has lived in the UK in the past and never voted Tory, I myself would never have been able to vote for Jeremy Corbyn. As a centrist, both a full left wing Labour party and a full right wing Tory party were unelectable.
I'm afraid tCorbyn is stuck in the past and has very questionable friends and despite the fact he is often claimed by his supporters as being the most principled man in politics, he is not much different from your average politician in these things.

I came across him and his team on a train journey and what they thought was an empty carriage when they were discussing tactics, spin and what to say to put people off the scent of various things. They were also drinking a beverage from a place that JC was criticising heavily on twitter a short while before about how they treat their staff and not paying tax. Noticeably once I answered a phone call and they realised someone else was, in fact, in the carriage, all discussion stopped at least until I got off.

The point being, that the often quoted defence that Corbyn doesn't plot and doesn't spin is simply not true. He is a politician and all politicians do it. The idea that he is some kind of white knight, who is the most innocent politician of all time is simply not true. That being said, he's not an evil man like some portray him out to be and I honestly do think he has some good principles. But he was a poor leader and has set the Labour party back years.

If Labour are to ever get in power they need to have a clean break with Corbynism. The UK cannot afford any more years of the racist, xenophobic and out of touch Tory party. They have already done so much damage that it's goign to take a very long time to clear up. If Labour don't win the next election, then even more of that damage could be permanent.

What were they discussing?

What was the beverage?