You had more patience than me to stick it out through all that bullshit then. Good man!
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.
No, the equivalence being drawn is responding in generalities to specifics as a means to delegitimise the topic at hand. People who espouse all lives matter are doing so because they wish to delegitimise black lives matter movement; there is a similar feeling that Corbyn's response to 'all forms of racism' when the matter at hand is specifically anti-semitism is an attempt to do the same thing.
It's easy to see why jewish people may feel like it's serving to evade the main point — his party's failure to tackle this specific form of discrimination — and point towards a general disinterest to opposing the specific form of racism that is actually at stake here, especially when Corbyn's track record on anti-semitism is unideal. Whatever we personally think about the issue, there are plenty of Jews who think that Corbyn is an antisemite.
That doesn't mean that there aren't other forms of racism which need to be tackled, nor that Corbyn invoking them is hollow, or that he is invoking them as disingenuously as ALM wankers, but that the general response to the specific question has the effect of making Corbyn seem uninterested or unconcerned on focussing on this particular form of racism and discrimination.
Ah, that's pretty smart.
If putting anti semitism alongside other forms of racism delegitimises it to you then that suggests a hierarchy of racism in your mind.
That's a completely disingenuous reading and you know it.
Who was the first case you mention out of interest?
The irony of that claim
Especially after writing 'Whatever we personally think about the issue, there are plenty who'
"However, tackling antisemitism isn’t just about procedures. It is also about making sure that the Labour Party has a culture that clearly reflects its zero tolerance of antisemitism and indeed of all forms of discrimination."
Do you think it's appropriate for the EHRC to tack on the final words in the above or is that also detracting from the issue of anti-semitism? Might it be perhaps that the solution, rules, procedures have to be equal to all types of discrimination so when you speak about one you speak generally?
I suggest you re read your last post again then.
Nah, sorry, I'm not having it.
You're not comparing Jeremy Corbyn, a man who's spent decades campaigning against racism, to a bunch of gammons who aren't happy black people are asking to be treated like humans.
Campaigning against racism, laying wreaths, liking murals, getting found to have presided over unlawful discrimination and harassment of jews by the EHRC. Top bloke.
Am I mad or does that tweet actually read like a parody. Or is that just the point we've reached.
"“Breaking: Sarin gas was filmed by the BBC at Pinewood on the orders of Mrs May and the Israeli lobby.”
I wondered that so looked at her twitter account just now. Yeah, not a parody I'm afraid.
feck me, some people.
The irony of that claim
Especially after writing 'Whatever we personally think about the issue, there are plenty who'
"However, tackling antisemitism isn’t just about procedures. It is also about making sure that the Labour Party has a culture that clearly reflects its zero tolerance of antisemitism and indeed of all forms of discrimination."
Do you think it's appropriate for the EHRC to tack on the final words in the above or is that also detracting from the issue of discrimination? Might it be perhaps that the solution, rules, procedures have to be equal to all types of discrimination so when you speak about one you speak generally?
Of course, but that's a conflation of the argument I am making.
My issue is with responding to direct issues of, in this instance, anti-semitism with general claims about anti-racism work in a culture of a party who has been rapped over the knuckles for not taking the issue seriously enough.
As today's report has made clear the repeated assurances that 'all forms of racism' are taken seriously has not sufficiently been extended to antisemitism and more needs to be done. It does not undermine other anti-racist work, as seems I think to be the argument, to reassure a specific group that you have been specifically asked about because of specific instances of racism against then that you are specifically opposed to racism against them. In fact, surely taking issues of specific discrimination seriously on their own merits seems to me to be the way you build a zero tolerance approach?
"All lives matter" = my life matters.
"All racism matters" = all racism matters.
And what a fine day it was to choose to remind jews that it is in fact all racism that matters.
That's quite a claim there.
Is there any assurance that Labours procedures would have been adequate for a significant increase of other forms of discrimination as you're suggesting? I can't recall reading such a thing but if there was I'm certain they'd have found the party to be institutionally anti-semitic which they explicitly did not.
Many of todays findings would have applied equally to any form of racism or discrimination. The benefit isn't exclusive.
There's never a bad day to mention fighting all forms of racism in solidarity with fighting anti-semitism.
I'm not sure I'm arguing that is, am I? Just why Corbyn's response has not gone down well with people who felt let down by his leadership on the issue.
Corbyn doesn't have to be personally antisemitic, although he does seem to have a strange blind spot about it. I mean, that mural - c'mon.
Labour now has the political cover to go after the Tories on this, that they might have otherwise found difficult. I sincerely hope they do.
That's how i read this passage:
"As today's report has made clear the repeated assurances that 'all forms of racism' are taken seriously has not sufficiently been extended to antisemitism and more needs to be done."
I don't even buy the argument if you're just talking about perception because plenty of groups have expressed concern recently about hierarchies.
Labour need to sort out the complaints procedures and take it more seriously that was the findings of the EHRC report. It might have been raised by one specific group given the entryism of the hard left but it's an effort needed for all.
Anywhere this debate has run it's course for me. I think you just want to 'win' rather than reflect so feel free to consider yourself to have won
"They" don't know any such thing. You can make the case that anyone who is so often adjacent to anti semites, is comfortable with some sort of a hierarchy of racism.
That's how i read this passage:
"As today's report has made clear the repeated assurances that 'all forms of racism' are taken seriously has not sufficiently been extended to antisemitism and more needs to be done."
I don't even buy the argument if you're just talking about perception because plenty of groups have expressed concern recently about hierarchies.
Labour need to sort out the complaints procedures and take it more seriously that was the findings of the EHRC report. It might have been raised by one specific group given the entryism of the hard left but it's an effort needed for all.
Anywhere this debate has run it's course for me. I think you just want to 'win' rather than reflect so feel free to consider yourself to have won
I'm just confused why you think that was at issue in the debate?
But anyway, I think we both essentially want the same thing, both in terms of how Labour ultimately responds to the report, and with the general direction of the party, and, probably, where Starmer is falling short. Corbyn's response to it is ultimately a storm in a tea cup, and if you don't agree then fine.
Former membership of the SWP prevents you joining the Labour party? Is it all political parties or just a select group?
Yep, completely serious. She was elected to an office in the CLP on the basis of standing up in 2016 and saying she supported Jeremy Corbyn. Zero vetting took place.
I'll give Untied his due, he is at least out here defending the view that was so prevalent on the Corbyn thread, unlike the rest of those cultists, so marks for consistency even if he's still learned absolutely nothing.
Rule 2.1.4. of the Labour Party rule book is the important bit:
"A member of the Party who joins and/or supports a political organisation other than an official Labour group or other unit of the Party, or supports any candidate who stands against an official Labour candidate, or publicly declares their intent to stand against a Labour candidate, shall automatically be ineligible to be or remain a Party member..."
As a membership organisation the Labour Party can (broadly speaking) interpret its own rules, and this section is interpreted very broadly.
It is what justified the expulsion of Alastair Campbell for voting Lib Dem, and applies to any and all other parties (I used the SWP as I know of cases where people were expelled for that reason).
Sure. It was the "former" part that surprised (and concerned) me.
It'd need Tories to go after Tories and the media to follow it up. I'd be surprised if it happened, unless those that decide want a change of leadership.
Also, I'm honestly not sure that a perception of Islamophobia hurts the election credentials of the Conservatives.
Very good point.
I for one agree with what Starmer had done. He has to show the country that he is prepared to make a clean break with the disastrous Corbyn era.
And if others don't agree, then I don't really care. I want this shambolic government out and Labour back in power.
It's only a good point if it is either plausible or practical. Is taking on the Tories on Islamophobia (or, indeed, antisemitism) a viable election strategy.
I'm sure you don't care. The slow death of the left as a political force in Britain, of which this is but the latest chapter, brings me no joy.
The timing of gutting Corbyn from the Labour party is terrible. Conservatives have been taking beating after beating over starving school children.
But gutting Corbyn form the Labour party is absolutely necessary
But gutting Corbyn form the Labour party is absolutely necessary
The timing is surely strategically perfect for Starmer given the distance from the election and Labour's current tactics?
Of course this is not the time to take the Tories on Islamophobia. But the time will come.
What I care about is getting rid of this incompetent government. That won't happen in the short term. But the most important thing for Labour is winning back the trust of the electorate. And once the EHRC report was issued, Starmer had to accept it in total.
That it does.