Agreed it has always come across as odd, think it's a pride thing.
That comparison doesn't work though does it?
Keir Starmer Labour Leader
- Thread starter Damien
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
Agreed it has always come across as odd, think it's a pride thing.
That comparison doesn't work though does it?
New Corbyn statement:
There's the 'all forms of racism' thing again.
Not sure how it doesn’t?
Black Lives Matter = all lives matter!
Against antisemitism = against all forms of racism!
There’s zero need to add the latter, it goes without saying, but that isn’t the issue being discussed. He’s done the same when asked to condemn the IRA - “I’m against violence in all forms”.
Unless I’m missing something obvious?
Starmer is a joke. Labour is dead.
He's right. There were antisemites in Labour as there are in the Conservatives but the extent of the problem was overstated by political opponents and a media which never looked half as hard at the governing party.
He's right. There were antisemites in Labour as there are in the Conservatives but the extent of the problem was overstated by political opponents and a media which never looked half as hard at the governing party.
Last edited:
Yes, it's a rhetorical device which we all use instinctively to diminish the importance of the specific thing that makes us uncomfortable by referencing the general and trivially true case. You see it with football managers when they are asked about such and such player making a mistake - 'not about individuals... we didn't defend well enough as a team etc'
It's a red flag that someone is trying to diminish the significance of a real issue. No one has claimed Corbyn/Labour has a general racism problem - the claim is that they have a specific antisemitism problem.
I suppose, if you're being generous, then the argument is that Corbyn has engaged with anti-racist work, so his proclamation to being against all forms of racism is not entirely hollow.
But I agree that it has the same effect of delegitimising the importance of the issue that is actually being discussed.
It's dog whistlely in the extreme and if Corbyn does genuinely care about anti-semitism he'd be well advised to drop it.
Case in point from the Guardian's live blog just now:
They probably don't realise they're doing it.
It's a fecking stretch to say that being against all forms of racism is the same as the people who are saying all lives matter in direct response to BLM.
They don't say "Black lives matter AND all lives matter" they either say "what about white lives?" or say "Black Lives Matter" is racist and it should be "All Lives Matter" instead.
I think it's actually offensive to conflate the two but it's fecking peak centrism.
It's being said in direct response to the Equalities and Human Rights Council finding that the Labour Party has an antisemitism problem and has illegally discriminated against and harassed jews, for goodness sake!
Black lives matter. "All lives matter."
Antisemitism matters. "All racism matters."
Especially because he says "against all forms of racism" in response to what is a politically motivated question which tries to put him on the defensive over his support for Palestine or the IRA. They try to narrow the scope and get him stuck on whether or not he's an antisemite, which is a false position, and he responds by broadening the scope. It's completely logical. Only people who don't understand politics will be at a loss to understand this.
They know he isn't an antisemite. That's not what they want. They want him to deny being one and to do it constantly. That was always the goal.
The people who want to split should spilt. I don't know if Stamer wanted to do it but imo Corbyn left him will little alternative.
feck this bullshit. If Corbyn really cares about antisemitism he better shut up about other forms of racism. Because that's what we want really isn't it.
This is going to make meetings easier. My CLP has one tonight.
Where you based now Frosty? Still in London?
When the extreme left wingers leave they can form a independent group in parliament and call themselves SIG and then stand in local elections and get 3% and then join the socialist workers party which they were always really part of.
Starmer wins votes for standing up to the extremist nutters and we get a competent electable opposition party back.
You can dream can't you.
Starmer wins votes for standing up to the extremist nutters and we get a competent electable opposition party back.
You can dream can't you.
Well for one thing All Lives Matter is used by a non persecuted group to diminish any claims for focus on injustices faced by a particular group.
In comparison all forms of racism are an injustice and do deserve equal attention.
Baddiel is just taking a deliberate dig as always, whilst using an anti-racism phrase to equate the left with the rights intolerance.
Comparing All Lives Matter - which is about creating denying racism against black people, to "all other forms of racism being equally important as anti-semitism" is inherently a racist thing to say because you're implying with that equivalence that certain types of racism are not as bad or as important as anti-semitism - that they are red herrings.
It's a false equivalence because he clearly says he abhors the specific kind of racism at hand, before going on to say he abhors all racism.
If the All Lives Matter crowd were saying 'Yes, Black Lives Matter and we are also opposed to police killing people of other oppressed groups', they'd be marching with BLM, not against them.
This shows a lack of understanding of Black Lives Matter (and by proxy ALM and why it's used in the first place)
On top of that, it weaponises anti-blackness in response to antisemitism (which has been running commentary throughout this entire episode, this idea that "This would never happen to black people!" [even though: 1: yes it would and currently is 2: there are Labour MPs who were racist towards black MPs such as Abbot & Butler, and Starmer has chosen not to take such a hardline stance on that issue] it's beyond disingenuous while also being offensive)
Lastly, what's the need for comparison?
In a few months Labour will have solved anti-semitism in their party, which is the last serious form of racism that exists in this country, apart from all the horrible anti-whiteness going on. Why is no one paying attention to the plight of working class white boys? That horrible marxist BLM doesn't count here because our police are lovely and there are no structural issues, it's all the parents fault. Now we can stop listening to a bunch of anti-racism campaigners who as it turned out were the real racists all along. Isn't Brexit terrible?
I think the comparison you're making here is at surface level valid but bears up to no scrutiny whatsoever.
No, it's far simpler.
If Corbyn cares about anti-Semitism he can answer questions about anti semitism specifically when asked specific questions about anti-Semitism. Should that be difficult?
Hove - spent the best part of four years defending a wildly popular local MP from constant attempts to deselect him.
And we had some of the worst anti-Semitism amongst members, including one who said the sarin gas attack in Syria was staged by Israel at Pinewood Studios, and another who said all local Labour members should march on local synagogues to protest members being suspended for anti-Semitism.
He did. Him saying he's against anti-semitism and all other forms of racism doesn't detract from that and it's not an excuse to start pushing racist dog whistles yourself.
How is that a racist dog whistle ffs? Have a word.
You're drawing an equivalence between all lives matter and fighting all forms of racism, which certain types will absolutely pick up on and exploit.
Although I don't agree with the all lives matter analogy, I think I understand the point the person is trying to make. Antisemitism is what is being discussed. Why not focus of that for the moment?
On a wider note, it is desperately sad how the media and some in the labour party have completely bastardised the Isreal-Palestine issue and it is very intentional. You can't even mention Palestine without being labelled antisemitic.
On a wider note, it is desperately sad how the media and some in the labour party have completely bastardised the Isreal-Palestine issue and it is very intentional. You can't even mention Palestine without being labelled antisemitic.
Funny how those attacking Corbyn for apparently downplaying anti-semitisim will suddenly jump on downplaying the claims of others.
fecking hell.
What happened to those members?
Corbyn knew fine well what would happen with that statement of his. He wanted it. For somebody that parades himself as some sort of physical moral compass he’s incredibly eager to create division within the party and give the new leadership decisions to make.
It’s indefensible, really. An easier fix had he simply acknowledged the report and reaffirmed his commitment to combating racism of all forms.
It’s indefensible, really. An easier fix had he simply acknowledged the report and reaffirmed his commitment to combating racism of all forms.
The EHRC report actually says it's fine to discuss and it doesn't qualify as anti-semitism. The issue is and Iain Austin expressed it today, any such discussion instantly raises accusations about being obsessed with Israel. The boycott campaign soon ended because of the same thing.
Then again it also says members and expecially MPs who have additional protections are fine to discuss the perceived scale of anti-semtism in the party. I guess they didn't read that bit.
Yeah, I was surprised to see it pop up in the news that Stephen Kinnock of all people had been reprimanded by Nandy and Starmer for making a speech critical of Israel in the commons.
https://www.thejc.com/news/uk/steph...ael-proceeds-of-crime-commons-speech-1.507903
The first was eventually suspended after the story was leaked, then defended by a Labour MP, and she left the Party before any measures were taken.
The latter was only suspended after the story was leaked to a bunch of media outlets - Jenny Formby sat on it for 10 days doing nothing. I believe they were eventually expelled within a few days of Starmer taking over.
Why would Starmer taking over have sped it up so quickly? Or just coincidence?
From what I know, and have been told, Starmer basically gave an instruction to clear the backlog of anti-Semitism suspensions as quickly as possible.
Under the current rulebook, passed by conference, if I was to openly post something anti-Semtiic on social media, I would be auto-suspended and the investigation would be fast tracked: https://labour.org.uk/wp-content/up...atistics-Report-No-Place-For-Antisemitism.pdf
However, if for example it could be proven that I campaigned for another political party, or supported ideas incompatible with the Labour Party, I could be expelled without a hearing.
There was a trawl of suspended members social media history, and the Party used what they found (previous membership of the SWP, openly supporting the Greens etc) as a way of getting rid of people without appeals and reducing the backlog.
Previously, under Corbyn, head office was relaxed about people joining Labour who may have been members of TUSC or the SWP very recently. Their attitude was that if MPs can cross the floor and change affiliation, it is only fair that members can do the same.
For what it's worth, someone I know who works for LOTO told me the same, before and after Starmer was elected. That they effectively knew there were a number of clear-cut cases that still hadn't been processed, and that he pushed extra resource to go through these as quickly as possible (as in, day one priority) after winning the leadership.