-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Jeremy Corbyn suspended from the Labour Party
- Thread starter Yerda
- Start date
Yerda
Veteran Member
I'm pretty gutted about this, the whole antisemitism affair and the aftermath of his leadership. I don't think he deserved to be treated the way he was by the press during or since but you're right, he could've just sucked it up and admitted that he royally screwed it up.
I guess that I hope that this gives some comfort to the Jewish members of the party who have been unhappy about the snails pace in dealing with the issue and I'm praying that the Jewish community and the UK left can start some kind of reconcilliation. Sadly I expect everyone will get their backs up and we'll see a split in the Labour party.
Corbyn's leadership was the first time in my life that a major party had stood for anything approaching the platform that I want. For it to end this way is frankly heartbreaking. My fear is that Starmer is nothing more than an expensive suit with career aspirations and in ten years time he'll be sitting on the board of debt-collection firm or a consultant to a predatory gambling firm.
Altfish
Veteran Member
I agreed with 95% of Corbyn's policies. BUT he was a very poor leader.
He was also un-electable, not media savvy (like it or not that is essential in 2020). My friend was a canvasser for the Labour Party, talking to him in the lead up to the last election, he said the most common comment was along the lines of, "I'm a socialist but I can't support Corbyn"
exchemist
Veteran Member
I don't think Starmer had any choice. He's nailed his colours to the mast by saying he will root out antisemitism from the party, and what does he get but this idiot claiming the report - which was made by an independent body and is damning - is overstating the problem for political reasons. WTF?
exchemist
Veteran Member
Starmer intends Labour to win an election and he is going it about it very professionally, it seems to me. In the end, serious parties have to tailor their approach to what the voters want. As Attlee once observed, "The people's flag is palest pink."
Corbyn was obviously useless from the outset. It is largely his fault that the UK has left the EU and that we have Johnson and Rumpelstiltskin ruling over us now.
Can someone give me a clear cut definition of what real and true actual "Anti-Semitism" would be and include? Like when is it "real" and when is it "not actual" but just used as a way to harm reputations and as a way to name-call?
exchemist
Veteran Member
That point of view is fine, so long as you are prepared to have a series of Conservative governments.
Some on the left do actually prefer that, as it enables them to spend their time pretending they are heroic resistance fighters, against an oppressive "regime", which can be great fun. If, however, you want a chance to put at least some of your ideas into practice in the country, you will have to accommodate your idealism to what people will actually be prepared to vote for. That's the problem with this pesky democracy thingie.
In fact, I suspect the chief reason the Lib Dems still exist is due to people who are not prepared to sully their principles with the messy compromises needed in order to govern. We saw that with their childish and petulant treatment of Nick Clegg, who had led them into government for the first time in half a century - and done rather a good job of it. Now, they are safely back in their outsiders clique, where they can happily eat lentils, wear sandals and weave yoghourt, safe in the knowledge that nobody will ask them to govern again.
exchemist
Veteran Member
As a footnote to all this, The Observer has a damning piece today from Andrew Rawnsley, which I quote below:
Jeremy Corbyn’s favourite role is that of the victim. He took Labour to such a calamitous defeat that its parliamentary representation is crushed to its lowest level since 1935, but he sees himself not as the perpetrator of that disaster but its casualty. He presided over an antisemitism scandal unprecedented in the party’s history, but that also cannot be his fault. He is suspended from the party after refusing to accept the damning findings of the Equality and Human Rights Commission’s investigation into that scandal and someone else is again to blame.
Contrary to the narrative being promoted by Mr Corbyn and those still attached to his cult, the former Labour leader is not a martyr to his convictions. Nor was his suspension the result of a premeditated “political attack” designed to demonstrate for the edification of the media that Keir Starmer is a tough leader. This is not about a struggle over Labour’s policy direction or its philosophical orientation. This is about whether or not the Labour party should be a haven for racists and why it did become a magnet for antisemitic bullies and abusers when Mr Corbyn and his acolytes had charge of the party.
The report by the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) is vindication in full for those who spent more than four years warning that Labour was becoming poisoned by antisemitism. The findings of the independent investigators are also a searing rebuke to the cheerleaders and apologists for Corbynism who tried to deny, ignore, downplay or excuse the malignancy.
The EHRC finds Labour guilty of harassment and discrimination and confirms that Mr Corbyn’s office interfered in the handling of antisemitism cases to such an extent that it was “unlawful”. The investigators “uncovered serious failings” in the way complaints were dealt with and says “a significant number” were not investigated at all. As for the man presiding over this, the EHRC observes that “a lack of leadership within the Labour party on these issues… is hard to reconcile with its stated commitment to a zero-tolerance approach to antisemitism”. Put more bluntly: he said one thing while doing another.
From Labour’s perspective, the only redeeming feature of such a devastating report was that it created an opportunity for the party to draw a definitive line under a shameful period of its history. Mr Starmer sought to seize that opportunity by reiterating his commitment to expunge antisemitism while pledging unequivocal implementation of all the EHCR’s recommendations. He declared – and rightly so – that antisemitism was the responsibility not just of those who practised it, but also those who dismissed legitimate complaints as fake, smears or generated by ulterior motives. He could not have been clearer: “If, after all the pain, all the grief, and all the evidence in this report, there are still those who think there’s no problem with antisemitism in the Labour party, that it’s all exaggerated, or a factional attack, then, frankly, you are part of the problem too and you should be nowhere near the Labour party either.” His intention to deliver this unambiguous warning had been communicated to Mr Corbyn prior to the report’s publication, so it cannot be said that the former leader was ambushed. He had plenty of time to consider what he would say. I’m told that Mr Starmer had gained the impression from their conversation the night before that his predecessor would respond in a non-inflammatory way.
It was Mr Corbyn’s decision to make what should have been a turning point for the better for Labour into another argument about himself. To some extent, it was always going to be about him. Antisemitism was never a big problem in the Labour party under any previous leader and only became a hugely divisive and damaging issue under him. The EHRC report puts it starkly: “Our analysis points to a culture within the party which, at best, did not do enough to prevent antisemitism and, at worst, could be seen to accept it.” The independent investigators clearly do not believe Mr Corbyn’s assertions that he was “always determined to eliminate all forms of racism and root out the cancer of antisemitism”. The report says: “It is not hard to conclude that antisemitism within the Labour party could have been tackled more effectively if the leadership had chosen to do so.” Since it was beyond their remit to peer into Mr Corbyn’s soul, the investigators don’t come to conclusions about why he didn’t choose to tackle it more effectively. The most generous explanation offered by some of his associates is that he has “a blindspot for antisemitism”. Much more severe verdicts are available.
Mr Corbyn’s vanity simply will not allow him to accept responsibility. Many things have been said about his character over the years, but one thing has not been said enough: he is a narcissist. He cannot deal with criticism because it challenges his self-conceited estimation of his own purity. He can never be the transgressor, he must always be the sufferer. So his response to the EHRC report was to weakly express “regret” that Labour took too long to address the issue while trying to shift culpability on to “an obstructive party bureaucracy” and adding the self-exculpating, responsibility-denying, victimhood-claiming assertion that the antisemitism on his watch had been “dramatically overstated for political reasons by our opponents inside and outside the party, as well as by much of the media”. Despite a statutory investigation finding otherwise, he stuck to his dog-eared denialist script that the antisemitism scandal was an exaggeration fabricated by his enemies.
After this direct violation of the “zero-tolerance” policy, Mr Starmer did not instantly treat it as an opportunity to demonstrate his “new leadership” by making an example of his predecessor. Mr Corbyn was first given a chance to avoid being suspended by retracting the statement. He instead went on TV to repeat it. There was no real choice then but to suspend his membership pending investigation, with the automatic consequence of also losing the party whip. For those asking under which rule, it is for “bringing the party into disrepute”. That appears rather appropriate.
Some have interpreted this – for the most part, admiringly – as Mr Starmer demonstrating robust leadership. Favourable parallels have been drawn with Neil Kinnock’s expulsion of the far-left entryists of the Militant Tendency. The simple truth is that this was not so much brave as inescapable. If the party’s general secretary had not suspended Mr Corbyn, the credibility of the “zero-tolerance” pledge would have been cracked, Mr Starmer’s attempts to rebuild the trust of the Jewish community would have been undermined and the huge task of restoring the party’s reputation with the electorate would have been set back.
Some are talking about a “civil war” in Labour, but one man’s obtuse refusal to take responsibility for what he did is a terrible reason for anyone to start one. What’s most interesting is not that some of the hard left are calling for a great fight, but that many of Mr Corbyn’s ideological companions do not appear to think him worth such a battle. Threats that Labour MPs in the Socialist Campaign Group would resign the whip have yet to come to anything. John McDonnell and other senior figures from the Corbynite project have protested the suspension while being very clear that they do not endorse what he said about the EHRC report. At least some of the hard left have the nous to grasp that trying to excuse the antisemitism scandal is a wretched hill to perish on.
Those who can’t see this now have the story of betrayal that they have been yearning for. Poor old St Jeremy, they cry, victim of the brutal Keir Starmer, martyred for the satisfaction of the anti-Corbyn media. Spare your tears. The victim of this hideous chapter in Labour’s history is not Jeremy Corbyn. The victims are those who were scared and scarred by the vile antisemitism that occurred when he was in charge. The victims are all those who needed an electable challenger to the Tories, not the toxic and sectarian party that Labour became under Mr Corbyn. The victims are the many millions of people who depend on having a Labour party capable of commanding the confidence of the public so that it can effectively represent those it exists to champion. Jeremy Corbyn is no martyr. He is a victim only of his own arrogantly self-pitying, self-denying delusions.
•Andrew Rawnsley is Chief Political Commentator of the Observer
Jeremy Corbyn’s favourite role is that of the victim. He took Labour to such a calamitous defeat that its parliamentary representation is crushed to its lowest level since 1935, but he sees himself not as the perpetrator of that disaster but its casualty. He presided over an antisemitism scandal unprecedented in the party’s history, but that also cannot be his fault. He is suspended from the party after refusing to accept the damning findings of the Equality and Human Rights Commission’s investigation into that scandal and someone else is again to blame.
Contrary to the narrative being promoted by Mr Corbyn and those still attached to his cult, the former Labour leader is not a martyr to his convictions. Nor was his suspension the result of a premeditated “political attack” designed to demonstrate for the edification of the media that Keir Starmer is a tough leader. This is not about a struggle over Labour’s policy direction or its philosophical orientation. This is about whether or not the Labour party should be a haven for racists and why it did become a magnet for antisemitic bullies and abusers when Mr Corbyn and his acolytes had charge of the party.
The report by the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) is vindication in full for those who spent more than four years warning that Labour was becoming poisoned by antisemitism. The findings of the independent investigators are also a searing rebuke to the cheerleaders and apologists for Corbynism who tried to deny, ignore, downplay or excuse the malignancy.
The EHRC finds Labour guilty of harassment and discrimination and confirms that Mr Corbyn’s office interfered in the handling of antisemitism cases to such an extent that it was “unlawful”. The investigators “uncovered serious failings” in the way complaints were dealt with and says “a significant number” were not investigated at all. As for the man presiding over this, the EHRC observes that “a lack of leadership within the Labour party on these issues… is hard to reconcile with its stated commitment to a zero-tolerance approach to antisemitism”. Put more bluntly: he said one thing while doing another.
From Labour’s perspective, the only redeeming feature of such a devastating report was that it created an opportunity for the party to draw a definitive line under a shameful period of its history. Mr Starmer sought to seize that opportunity by reiterating his commitment to expunge antisemitism while pledging unequivocal implementation of all the EHCR’s recommendations. He declared – and rightly so – that antisemitism was the responsibility not just of those who practised it, but also those who dismissed legitimate complaints as fake, smears or generated by ulterior motives. He could not have been clearer: “If, after all the pain, all the grief, and all the evidence in this report, there are still those who think there’s no problem with antisemitism in the Labour party, that it’s all exaggerated, or a factional attack, then, frankly, you are part of the problem too and you should be nowhere near the Labour party either.” His intention to deliver this unambiguous warning had been communicated to Mr Corbyn prior to the report’s publication, so it cannot be said that the former leader was ambushed. He had plenty of time to consider what he would say. I’m told that Mr Starmer had gained the impression from their conversation the night before that his predecessor would respond in a non-inflammatory way.
It was Mr Corbyn’s decision to make what should have been a turning point for the better for Labour into another argument about himself. To some extent, it was always going to be about him. Antisemitism was never a big problem in the Labour party under any previous leader and only became a hugely divisive and damaging issue under him. The EHRC report puts it starkly: “Our analysis points to a culture within the party which, at best, did not do enough to prevent antisemitism and, at worst, could be seen to accept it.” The independent investigators clearly do not believe Mr Corbyn’s assertions that he was “always determined to eliminate all forms of racism and root out the cancer of antisemitism”. The report says: “It is not hard to conclude that antisemitism within the Labour party could have been tackled more effectively if the leadership had chosen to do so.” Since it was beyond their remit to peer into Mr Corbyn’s soul, the investigators don’t come to conclusions about why he didn’t choose to tackle it more effectively. The most generous explanation offered by some of his associates is that he has “a blindspot for antisemitism”. Much more severe verdicts are available.
Mr Corbyn’s vanity simply will not allow him to accept responsibility. Many things have been said about his character over the years, but one thing has not been said enough: he is a narcissist. He cannot deal with criticism because it challenges his self-conceited estimation of his own purity. He can never be the transgressor, he must always be the sufferer. So his response to the EHRC report was to weakly express “regret” that Labour took too long to address the issue while trying to shift culpability on to “an obstructive party bureaucracy” and adding the self-exculpating, responsibility-denying, victimhood-claiming assertion that the antisemitism on his watch had been “dramatically overstated for political reasons by our opponents inside and outside the party, as well as by much of the media”. Despite a statutory investigation finding otherwise, he stuck to his dog-eared denialist script that the antisemitism scandal was an exaggeration fabricated by his enemies.
After this direct violation of the “zero-tolerance” policy, Mr Starmer did not instantly treat it as an opportunity to demonstrate his “new leadership” by making an example of his predecessor. Mr Corbyn was first given a chance to avoid being suspended by retracting the statement. He instead went on TV to repeat it. There was no real choice then but to suspend his membership pending investigation, with the automatic consequence of also losing the party whip. For those asking under which rule, it is for “bringing the party into disrepute”. That appears rather appropriate.
Some have interpreted this – for the most part, admiringly – as Mr Starmer demonstrating robust leadership. Favourable parallels have been drawn with Neil Kinnock’s expulsion of the far-left entryists of the Militant Tendency. The simple truth is that this was not so much brave as inescapable. If the party’s general secretary had not suspended Mr Corbyn, the credibility of the “zero-tolerance” pledge would have been cracked, Mr Starmer’s attempts to rebuild the trust of the Jewish community would have been undermined and the huge task of restoring the party’s reputation with the electorate would have been set back.
Some are talking about a “civil war” in Labour, but one man’s obtuse refusal to take responsibility for what he did is a terrible reason for anyone to start one. What’s most interesting is not that some of the hard left are calling for a great fight, but that many of Mr Corbyn’s ideological companions do not appear to think him worth such a battle. Threats that Labour MPs in the Socialist Campaign Group would resign the whip have yet to come to anything. John McDonnell and other senior figures from the Corbynite project have protested the suspension while being very clear that they do not endorse what he said about the EHRC report. At least some of the hard left have the nous to grasp that trying to excuse the antisemitism scandal is a wretched hill to perish on.
Those who can’t see this now have the story of betrayal that they have been yearning for. Poor old St Jeremy, they cry, victim of the brutal Keir Starmer, martyred for the satisfaction of the anti-Corbyn media. Spare your tears. The victim of this hideous chapter in Labour’s history is not Jeremy Corbyn. The victims are those who were scared and scarred by the vile antisemitism that occurred when he was in charge. The victims are all those who needed an electable challenger to the Tories, not the toxic and sectarian party that Labour became under Mr Corbyn. The victims are the many millions of people who depend on having a Labour party capable of commanding the confidence of the public so that it can effectively represent those it exists to champion. Jeremy Corbyn is no martyr. He is a victim only of his own arrogantly self-pitying, self-denying delusions.
•Andrew Rawnsley is Chief Political Commentator of the Observer
All that blather and not a single documented case of anti Semitism, what are they hiding, obviously it would not appear so anti Semitic if we actually heard what the charges were for.
exchemist
Veteran Member
I'm sure the report will become available in detail at some point.
But you do realise, I hope, that this report has been made by an independent body, the Equality and Human Rights Commission: Home Page | Equality and Human Rights Commission , that was actually set up by a previous Labour government.
So if you think its finding are false, I assume you are accusing this body of political dirty tricks, for some reason. Is that right?
Tambourine
Well-Known Member
I'm glad that there are no antisemites in the British Labour party any more, now that Corbyn has been dealt with.
It would have been terrible if he had been made a scapegoat for a problem that had been going on in the party long before he had been elected to its leadership.
It would have been terrible if he had been made a scapegoat for a problem that had been going on in the party long before he had been elected to its leadership.