To get the ball rolling I just want to reiterate my hope that Keir Starmer dies soon.
To get the ball rolling I just want to reiterate my hope that Keir Starmer dies soon.
Unlikely, but he may be bereft of true friends as he is ideas.
I was surprised given the competent adults are back in the room, ready and willing to calmly administer the next set of scything neoliberal reforms to the winnowed beleagured mixed economy of the UK, that they would send out a mail on behalf of the Labour Party that read, (sender and subject):
Keir Starmer
Holding Britain Back
i hope his haircut becomes prime minster. common sense will prevail.
(https://i.imgur.com/iMtCp8h.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/iMtCp8h.png)I thought the first line (also often shown in preview UIs) added to it quite nicely:
Christ. That Mitch Ben tweet is one for the desolation thread.
Starmer has avoided being dragged into the 'culture war' cummings is desperate to ignite. He's shown johnson is unfit to govern. He faces a corrupt tory junta with an 80 seat majority. He's been in post for 6 months and has destroyed a 26% poll lead. Just what else do they want?
A fucking inanimate carbon rod could make this government look stupid in this pandemic. Surely we should be asking a little bit more
He's level pegging with one of the worst, most incompetent governments failing to handle a pandemic. A potted plant could've 'destroyed' a lead in that scenario.
I don't think it's available outside the UK is it?
A Life On Our Planet is heart-wrenching. Here's a man in his early 90s who could have retired comfortably half a century ago agitating for change to improve a world that he won't see. Everyone should see it. It's absolutely stonking.
Mitch Benn is pretty deso because something happened with him as he completely dropped off the BBC doing his poor comedy songs on the Now Show to become a full-time horny centrist dad who crack one off over EU Supergirl posing Brussels and hates trade unions for blocking David Milliband's premiershipThe fucker never stops tweeting, either. I was looking for that union one, so I could
He was responsible for several species being wiped off the Earth in his early days.
Weren't we all
Yep, it's grovelling awful shit. We can't lay all of this on Keith either. Who is his Cummings/Milne?
Make sure you vote in Zands' world cup of sensible centrist comedians on twitter. (https://twitter.com/DrRobertZands/status/1313976037731176448)
Make sure you vote in Zands' world cup of sensible centrist comedians on twitter. (https://twitter.com/DrRobertZands/status/1313976037731176448)
I nominated iannucci on that right out the gate.
(https://i.imgur.com/IoSz5g1.png)
Not sure boyle deserves to be in there, even if seeing him dunk on Corbyn about antisemitism then get that prick Baddiel on after.
He's edgy enough to talk about the Queen having herpes or something, but not edgy enough to support Corbyn against fascism. I think he can probably go fuck himself.
I nominated iannucci on that right out the gate.
(https://i.imgur.com/IoSz5g1.png)
Not sure boyle deserves to be in there, even if seeing him dunk on Corbyn about antisemitism then get that prick Baddiel on after.
Baddiel and Schneider in the same group is a tough choice.
lmaofuck me that's amazing. why is that so funny? it's the background. and the names. actual sore sides. it has come to this.
I've thought about it, I must admit.Link here (http://www.mediafire.com/file/y729ex3cox4gh5d/David.Attenborough.A.Life.On.Our.Planet.2020.720p.mp4/file)on mediafire if people want it, hopefully OK for you Buelligan
i actually voted for the genuine best comedian in each group, but judging by Ayesha Hazarika's lead most people are voting for the biggest melt
. Very little has fundamentally changed with humans in the past few thousand years has it, our instincts still rule us.
.
Have youse seen Angela Rayner's tweet about Clare Fox?
"I am absolutely disgusted that @BorisJohnson has stood by and let IRA apologist Claire Fox be elevated to the House of Lords. His failure to block her appointment is an insult to the victims of terrorist atrocities and people in Warrington and the NW.He should be ashamed."
Obviously Claire Fox is a dick, but I'm not sure about this line from Labour at all. She's apologised several times for (implicitly, unless I'm wrong) supporting the Revolutionary Communist Party's position on Northern Ireland. This seems like a transparent attempt to distance themselves from the Corbyn leadership; a transparently unconvincing attempt to turn the old Tory attack on Corbyn back onto the Tories; and a further instance of the conflict in NI and its legacies only being of interest to the British parties when they can use it as a means to take wee digs at one another. It's infuriating, but it also seems like bad triangulation or strategising, a dual tendency which seems to characterise Starmer's time leading the party.
I think part of the problem is that the properties that are required to be a successful politician aren't necessarily the same ones for being a caring, empathic human being. In fact some are mutually exclusive. Just look at Corbyn. He is clearly a caring, compassionate man, and that was part of what stopped him playing the political game to curry favour when he was the leader. He could have blanded out the message in order to get elected but he valued honesty over spin
I think part of the problem is that the properties that are required to be a successful politician aren't necessarily the same ones for being a caring, empathic human being. In fact some are mutually exclusive. Just look at Corbyn. He is clearly a caring, compassionate man, and that was part of what stopped him playing the political game to curry favour when he was the leader. He could have blanded out the message in order to get elected but he valued honesty over spin
This is good.
https://twitter.com/Rachael_Swindon/status/1314618895865647104?s=20
She's a great bunch of lads isn't she?
Sad to see the drubbing she got over a bit of what looked on the face of it quite necessary and justifiable online-panhandling.
This is good.
https://twitter.com/Rachael_Swindon/status/1314618895865647104?s=20
She is. What drubbing?
In fairness, working man Keith is making a stand on the issue of pub closing times. Could we expect a cockney accent next?
He's a useless melt. A gravestone in a suit.
He and his ilk are the biggest danger to Britain at the present time and going forward...
Stuff like this, I think there was a bit of a pile on at one point: https://twitter.com/Rachael_Swindon/status/1264792849905856512
This 'stand' is absurd anyway, half of England are going to end up with full pub closures soon and Sleepy Keith is bollocksing around with moral outrage about an hour, an imminent moot point.
Especially since there's a pretty good compromise idea floating around which is to let pubs stay open late on the condition they only let people in up to 10pm.
And probably schools too. That they haven't done this, combined with the suicidally stupid "Eat out to help out" madness demostrates that the government are only interested in propagating this pandemic in a massive human eugenics experiment.
They're criminals. But their crimes will be paid for by us.
Not a compromise though is it? That's just fiddling about on the periphery of the problem without addressing the core issue. The basic problem is that to curtail the spread of this we need everyone to be as socially responsible as possible and follow the rules, that is not compatible with drinking booze. Closing pubs is the least that should be done.
I agree that a full lockdown is what is really needed but at least the entry only up until 10pm idea has some logic to it.
It's not only the anti-maskers who are being over-simplistic about this.
It's not only the anti-maskers who are being over-simplistic about this.Not an overly hard call on which group to be more sympathetic to though is it
Since this has all polarised tediously like everything fucking else in the world right now, it's become impossible to have a grown-up discussion about acceptable levels of risk. And to risk bringing this back on topic, maybe that's what Keith should be doing instead of supporting the Tories' prioritisation of hospitality over healthcare and education.
Have we done 'Labour friends of concentration camps' yet?
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-peer-concentration-camps-asylum-seekers-immigrants-admiral-lord-west-b966337.html
https://twitter.com/RPCorpIntl/status/1315388579632168960
I think NEC ballots won't be emailed out until next week, so i'll repost this then, but just as a heads-up: the Grassroots Voice candidates are trying to get the most out of the new STV voting system for the NEC by getting people to vote according to which region you live in.
Type in your postcode here (https://futureweneed.com/preference/) and it will recommend an order to select them in.
Here's the Grassroots Voice ballot for Yorkshire and The Humber.
Please fill your ballot in as follows:
Nadia Jama
Laura Pidcock
Ann Henderson
Mish Rahman
Yasmine Dar
Gemma Bolton
I don't think we need to be putting Pidcock 2nd, she's pretty much assured of a place isn't she?
Preference Orders
Please find below a list of the regions we have allocated preference lists to, and the respective orders we recommend for each.
Northern and South West
- Laura Pidcock
- Ann Henderson
- Mish Rahman
- Gemma Bolton
- Nadia Jama
- Yasmine Dar
Scotland, Wales, and East
- Ann Henderson
- Nadia Jama
- Yasmine Dar
- Laura Pidcock
- Gemma Bolton
- Mish Rahman
Yorkshire & the Humber, East Midlands, West London
- Nadia Jama
- Laura Pidcock
- Ann Henderson
- Mish Rahman
- Yasmine Dar
- Gemma Bolton
North West, N Ireland, and International
- Yasmine Dar
- Gemma Bolton
- Laura Pidcock
- Nadia Jama
- Ann Henderson
- Mish Rahman
West Midlands, North & East London
- Mish Rahman
- Yasmine Dar
- Gemma Bolton
- Ann Henderson
- Laura Pidcock
- Nadia Jama
South East, South London
- Gemma Bolton
- Mish Rahman
- Nadia Jama
- Ann Henderson
- Yasmine Dar
- Laura Pidcock
I don't think we need to be putting Pidcock 2nd, she's pretty much assured of a place isn't she?
I don't think we need to be putting Pidcock 2nd, she's pretty much assured of a place isn't she?
What is an acceptable level of risk? serious question
I don't think we need to be putting Pidcock 2nd, she's pretty much assured of a place isn't she?
hardcore indefinite-total-lockdown enthusiasts
Wait, what is the point of the Lib Dems now?
Holy shit even a spineless floppy worm has more spine
(https://i.imgur.com/tT9s6GI.png)
Personally, I think the risks to life (both pupils and staff from covid) are broadly comparable with those of being involved in a car accident on the way to/from school. Since we have decades of experience of managing these risks (e.g., through road safety education, speed limits, crossing wardens etc) people seem to find them acceptably low. (The 1.4m people killed in road accidents worldwide each year might disagree though). If the hardcore indefinite-total-lockdown enthusiasts were being intellectually honest, they would also campaign for a complete ban on motorised transport. They should probably have disposed of their fridge following the Grenfell fire. Gas appliances and pressurised hot water systems should be given the time of day as well. Sex, too, is super-risky, as is childbirth. Dispensing with those would certainly solve all our problems in the fullness of time.
Not if everyone thinks as you do.
Who are those, exactly? Even the most cautious accept that without concerted action internationally, a lockdown is simply delaying the inevitable.
If everyone globally was sensible we could have sorted this in 4-6 weeks in April and May with a UN mandated co-ordinated lockdown, isolating returning essential workers, managing that on an overlapping rota. It wouldn't have killed the virus out completely (civil disobedience, fecklessness, etc) but would have reduced transmission points to a number so low as to allow normal activity to resume in earnest. It looks like the virus was around as far back as September 2019, so it took 7 months until it took off. This time around we would be more vigilant too, and have better treatments and experience of managing it.
Right now, with complex regularly changing restrictions having limited effect, a balance isn't being reached and I have read zero persuasive arguments why we should ease up on restrictions, and very few persuasive arguments in defence of this, I believe, doomed effort to try and make covid, normal economic life and a functioning health service and education sector co-exist.
Even if you accept a level of deaths are tolerable/inevitable (as your argument suggests), there is still the collapse of the health service and education which will happen if the virus is unleashed. Co-ordinated 4-6 week global lockdown now.
Keir-A-Knightly is driven overwhelmingly by fear above any form of conviction. A veritable weathercock.
People are terrible at assessing risk, so what they think about the risk of driving means very little regarding the risk of C19. In fact, their attitude to the risk of climate change suggests we should address the risks one by one rather than by comparing their attitudes towards other risks.
As soon the 2017 election result came in, Corbyn should have done everything possible to get open selection of MPs and full CLP recall through the NEC. Brexit would have acted as cover for some of the rancour that would have come from the PLP.
Look at the state of it, even now there are only 9% of the PLP with the guts to stand against the whip on basic humanitarian issues that should not, cannot be abstained on.
They were too afraid, but the Labour right fucked us over anyway even when we were playing nice. They knew it would happen, they knew they wouldn't go quietly and they knew a Brexit election ran the risk of wiping out Corbynism before it got started.
They get more sympathy as they were so under the cosh, but it, and lots of other strategy by at the top of Labour after 2017 has proven mistaken and costly.
I was really talking about now, but yes, Corbyn should have been tougher on these cunts.
If you were a hardcore gamer that liked gaming on a laptop and wanted to see all the latest games run on the highest settings then i'd say go for it. I could see how it really could make you happy.
But i suspect you are not that gamer Blodwyn. So what exactly is your motivation? Wonky buttons doesn't cut it mate, is it to impress the big boys at work?
bite in the other thread mate
no, you did
Just for Kelvin.
https://twitter.com/labourlewis/status/1315406169284980736?s=20
It genuinely brings me no joy. We sink deeper, is all.
Critics said they had doubts over the argument that the bill would be tempered by the Human Rights Act as the Tories are “reviewing” it, and were worried about sex offences not being specifically prohibited in the bill.
Baroness Chakrabarti was “impressive” when speaking against the leadership position, one source said, and Labour peer John Hendy QC told the meeting: “As a lawyer, I just cannot accept that the state has prior approval to commit crimes.”
Other MPs expressed support for Starmer’s stance, including home affairs committee chair Yvette Cooper, intelligence and security committee (ISC) member Diana Johnson and frontbenchers who were not allowed to speak at the meeting.
Judith Cummins, MP for Bradford South, told LabourList: “Keir demonstrated that he can make really difficult decisions if he were Prime Minister. He was very clear, convincing and really showed his expertise beyond anyone else’s on the call.”
Shadow railways minister and Slough MP Tan Dhesi had planned to vote against the bill, but has said he was persuaded by Starmer tonight to abstain instead. Dhesi said he was “impressed” by the “detailed response” offered.
“I trust his experience, as well as the integrity with which he put the message across,” Dhesi told LabourList, concluding: “I’d rather have things on statute whereby the police or undercover agencies would be held to account by the ISC and lawmakers.”
Ah good, well then I take the opportunity to applaud him, he has done the right thing.
Maybe his phrase "No ifs, no buts" is still reverberating internally.
I assume the feedback from his EDL focus groups came back positive for the idea.
Hold the front page: Starmer has taken a position on something!
He's calling for a 2-3 week circuit break lockdown in England. Puts him on the same side as scientists and divides the Tories. It'll probably have to happen anyway so at least he can look ahead of the curve.
On the same side as the scientists, just 3 weeks later.
TBF the SAGE minutes were only published a day or two ago.
Just got an email from Keith telling me to get on twitter and facebook to tell everyone to pressure the government about a lockdown. Clearly rushing all the kids back to school and "getting the country back to work", as he directly urged the government to do, isn't working out so well.
This "circuit breaker" bollocks is not going to help either; lockdown needs to be maintained until we no longer need one, otherwise it will surge back or at best pave the way for the third wave. These people are truly stupid.
Just got an email from Keith telling me to get on twitter and facebook to tell everyone to pressure the government about a lockdown. Clearly rushing all the kids back to school and "getting the country back to work", as he directly urged the government to do, isn't working out so well.
This "circuit breaker" bollocks is not going to help either; lockdown needs to be maintained until we no longer need one, otherwise it will surge back or at best pave the way for the third wave. These people are truly stupid.
Just nipping out for a massive circuit breaker,back in 10.
He's not even reversed his position on schools, which are clearly the biggest factor in the recent rise. He's suggesting the "break" happens over half term, so he's not even trying to prevent the most obvious opportunity for spread.
Labour has appointed a former aide to Tony Blair, Nita Clarke, to look at the "culture of the party" and help build "election winning organisation"
Clarke was no fan of Corbyn or Brexit, saying it was "morally bankrupt" to back him for PM/imploring JK Rowling to set up new party
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EkT-M4WWsAEJNOA?format=jpg&name=small)
Re: the statement on another Blairite appointment
When they talk about winning in 2024 are they actually serious? Have they seen the size of the swing that will be required? Even if we win 80 seats that won't do it.
Nita Clarke's appointment, more evidence we've been mugged.
'Wait and see' say people being proven wrong with dramatic speed.
It gets worse. Zionist cunt.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EkUGaN_XkAEEF6-?format=png&name=small)
Think this is the most despondent I've felt, politically. Even worse then the last election. Just cunts everywhere. I finished the Owen Jones book about the Corbyn years today and it's one of the most depressing things I've ever read. Even the first half ("Rise"), whilst giving me goose bumps also brought me very close to tears when I knew how such a decent man and that powerful, glorious feeling of hope were utterly fucked over by cunts and shitty circumstances. I hate continually looking back but it's not like there's anything to look forward to.
The only person I previously knew who still responds to Iraq and geopolitics with 'So youd rather bad man was in' was John McTernan.
So Keir Starmer has hired someone on the extreme end of Blairism as his advisor.
She’s another of these who make you wonder why they ever joined the Labour Party to begin with. Unless it genuinely was an attempt to infiltrate and destroy from within? They seem to have no ideals, no opinions beyond how it will play to Sun and Mail readers, as if they’ll ever vote Labour. I always wonder what they would say if you asked them to describe their ideal society? If they could pass any pet policies through with no opposition, what hypothetically, would they be? All I can ever imagine them saying is, “basically the same as now, but forever”. That thing above about how now is not the time to be thinking about nationalising key industries, etc, just sums it up. Things like that are not seen as part of the solution, but needless distractions that could and should only ever be thought of as little bonuses, whilst retaining the status quo. No imagination, or ideology whatsoever. And our glorious leader is bringing people like this in as advisors? We are well and truly fucked, aren’t we?
(https://i.postimg.cc/gJpKJ67R/Undone.jpg)
Len micturates on the moralising foetus. (https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2020/10/len-mccluskey-i-had-high-hopes-owen-jones-s-book-corbynism-i-was-disappointed)
The adults are back in charge!
That's a good point SC. They hide behind the 'you can't do lefty stuff like that, the public won't accept it, we're just being practical and dealing with the hand we've been dealt' argument but really they don't actually want to do anything to change things.
It's a self-fulfilling prophecy, and a convenient excuse to carry on with the same old middle-of-the-road policies, mindset and ideas that simply delay the inevitable for slightly longer than The Tories' breakneck toboggan ride to oblivion.
I'm reading This Land at the moment. I'm finding it useful and insightful - the chapter on Brexit in particular lays out with great clarity the competing factions within Labour, and the complicated impact they had.
Reading it, I don't think Jones is excessively harsh on Corbyn. Corbyn's flaws are picked over, yes (I didn't know he was so prone to going AWOL), but there are many earnest words from his supporters and friends, and there's an undercurrent sense throughout of the battles McCluskey is talking about. Indeed, they are detailed early in the book - from the actions of bad faith MPs to the sabotage of staffers at Labour HQ.
In the chapter on antisemitism, it does feel as though Jones wishes he could reach back in time and clip Corbyn round the ear for making some poor decisions (decisions that people like McDonnell were trying to discourage at the time, to no avail), but the chapter on Brexit is clearly sympathetic toward Corbyn's impossible position. And the former explores Corbyn's personal 'heartbreak' at being branded a racist despite his life of anti-racist campaigning. Len says Jones demonstrates 'no empathy', but it's not true.
Len also praises Stephen Bush's review of the book (https://www.newstatesman.com/culture/books/2020/09/why-corbynism-failed) - but Bush is arguably harsher on Corbyn in his conclusions than Jones.
One ally of Carden suggested there could be more resignations in the days ahead over Labour’s stance on the bill, which has heightened fears on the left of the party that Starmer will not defend civil liberties robustly.
There are some awful lines in it - that one about the Upside Down was terrible - but the jam anecdote more than made up for it.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/oct/15/dan-carden-quits-labour-frontbench-over-failure-to-oppose-mi5-bill (https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/oct/15/dan-carden-quits-labour-frontbench-over-failure-to-oppose-mi5-bill)
Wow. Principles. Remember them?
Duffield should be writing for the daily mail, not being MP for canterbury. anyway, she's got a whole student population who utterly despise her, it wont end well for herI’d say Duffield decided she wasn’t going to seek re-election in 2024 some time last November. She was possibly hoping she’d lose her seat this time around even. The second the election ended she became full on insufferable and has been endlessly doubling down since.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/oct/15/dan-carden-quits-labour-frontbench-over-failure-to-oppose-mi5-bill (https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/oct/15/dan-carden-quits-labour-frontbench-over-failure-to-oppose-mi5-bill)
Wow. Principles. Remember them?
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/oct/15/dan-carden-quits-labour-frontbench-over-failure-to-oppose-mi5-bill (https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/oct/15/dan-carden-quits-labour-frontbench-over-failure-to-oppose-mi5-bill)
Wow. Principles. Remember them?
(https://www.dogsonacid.com/attachments/upload_2020-10-15_15-25-18-png.189289/)
I thought the abstaining 'strategy' was to abstain at this stage but then make amendments - what is the thinking behind abstaining, rather than voting against, if it ends up UNamended?The thinking is, they have no policies of their own, being the beigest of the beige, and are desperately hoping that if they keep their heads down, in a few years they'll either get cushy directorships or the Tories will implode and they'll luck into being the government.
Also abstaining you still get the Tories saying "Labour didn't support our efforts to allow Are Brave Boys to commit Good Crimes while undercover protecting you". Did they learn from the benefits vote farce of 2015? Did they fuck. Fair play to everyone who quit.
Often enormous crises force a new political reality upon those who would not otherwise have accepted the need, ideologically or practically.
We have to fight tooth and nail for NEC representation, otherwise find leftwing but ostensibly cross-party causes to back like the environment, universal basic income, even something like assisted dying (not the DWP kind). The left need a trojan horse/wedge issue they can use. They also need a leader.
Sultana?
Either way, if there is even a hint of a charismatic left leader emerging I reckon the left have a narrow chance of toppling Starmer. Realistically we will probably wait til 2024 and find Starmer has done just enough to stay in the job.
Abstention still results in tory attacks as if they'd voted against. Doesn't seem good morally or tactically.It's never worked as a political strategy. Spineless, worthless fucks, every one of them.
Starmer had wanted Labour MPs to abstain on the bill once their amendments were defeated, arguing that statutory regulation of informants’ conduct would have been necessary if the party had been in power.
So between this and the abstention on the Overseas Ops bill, that's pledges 4, 7, and 10 all gone. However Keir is adding an 11th pledge, i believe we will all be able to apply for co-ownership of a bridge he's selling.
Worse than Miliband.
You could also argue that numbers 1 (Increase income tax for the top 5% of earners), 5 (Common ownership), 6 (Defend migrants’ rights) and 9 (Equality) have gone.
(https://www.dogsonacid.com/attachments/upload_2020-10-15_18-46-37-png.189294/)
It's never worked as a political strategy. Spineless, worthless fucks, every one of them.
Can anyone help out? Around the time of Starmer's leadership ascension there were articles about his connection to something called the Triennial Commission? Now I come to google/bing/ecosia it I appear to have completely fabricated this.
However, as that would be the first such instance in my entire life, I suspect this - or something very similar - is true and I did read a long article from a Labour blogger about them. Was it Triennial something else?
What does that mean
Kier Starmer is a cop.half man, half ham
Made of ham.
Starmer's iota of a sensible point is that due to the conduct of undercover operatives and informants being a legal grey area at the moment which the courts have picked up on, statutory regulation of such activity is necessary.
But his argument is that regardless of the amendments failing "at least it's now codified", despite the fact that the codification removes the grey areas for the worse, not the better.
The zombified Dung-droid Ben Bradshaw, the haematoma. Why do we have to share a political party with these utter ghouls, subdural pisslings from the ravaged Blairite wastelands?You don't.
NEW from @novaramedia
Keir Starmer has launched an unprecedented crackdown on dissenting Labour MPs.
In a significant change from party protocol even those who break a one line whip are now being sent written warnings > https://t.co/qRb3wT9YOO
https://twitter.com/AaronBastani/status/1317067231763795968?s=19
How many mps needed for a leadership challenge? Is it totally unassailable?
Edit: around 40 is it? 35 voted against the bill. There are others, like Sam Tarry and Cat Smith, who abstained but could be sympathetic to a leadership challenge. That has to be the priority now, he's shown his true colours even faster than anyone thought he would.
Waiting for rubber stamp confirmation on that.
Hardly a victory in that cunt cabal.
LEAVE THE LABOUR PARTY. POLITICS IS BEREFT. UK IS BEREFT.
When is your next important meeting with Her Majesty's Plague Table?
Centrists getting a bit baity about this, from the account that did the Spitting Image redubs the other week.
https://twitter.com/TheIDSmiths/status/1317048456221949952
With Starmer pulling ahead of Johnson in the polls, it is clearly essential for the Left to step up their attacks on Starmer. As Johnson would agree.
Lol Labour just legitimately arent even close to left wing anymore.
So, so mental.
Cry some more, melt.
https://twitter.com/DAaronovitch/status/1317194618052726784
I don't remember seeing those Starmer pulling ahead of Johnson polls.
Centrists getting a bit baity about this, from the account that did the Spitting Image redubs the other week.
https://twitter.com/TheIDSmiths/status/1317048456221949952
An interaction I had the other day.
(https://i.imgur.com/ALPNbRT.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/MZg3i3p.png)
I didn't realise I'd been blocked until I looked it out, what a fanny.
We need an absolutely dreadful council election. That needs to provoke a leadership challenge.
"Just what else do they want?"
To hold torturers to account maybe?
Cry some more, melt.If a waste of fucking oxygen like Aaronovitch doesn't like you, you're definitely doing something right.
https://twitter.com/DAaronovitch/status/1317194618052726784
What is the message to the millions of youth voters who voted Corbyn in 2017, and the voters who haven't yet had a chance to cast their vote in a general election?You can organise and vote for an organisation that in any way agrees with your views and is fighting to help you and people like you. Those people put years of effort into the Labour Party, to get Corbyn elected and support him. What did all that effort achieve?
So far, it seems to be: You can get fucked, eat shit, human shit preferably, then crawl into a hole of your choosing to die.
This doesn't seem to be a great way to keep Labour afloat, or even draw attention to enthusiasm within the movement.
We need an absolutely dreadful council election. That needs to provoke a leadership challenge.
You can organise and vote for an organisation that in any way agrees with your views and is fighting to help you and people like you. Those people put years of effort into the Labour Party, to get Corbyn elected and support him. What did all that effort achieve?
If a waste of fucking oxygen like Aaronovitch doesn't like you, you're definitely doing something right.i like how he sat through of all of that but it was the criticism of the times' darling jess that really triggered him.
Cry some more, melt.
https://twitter.com/DAaronovitch/status/1317194618052726784
And she’s another one who didn’t vote against Spycops.
Cry some more, melt.
https://twitter.com/DAaronovitch/status/1317194618052726784
Dealing with politics and reminding myself how utterly fucked and deserving of obliteration most people are is VERY BAD for my fragile mental health so I don't keep up now but is there a reason why should we be bothering with the Labour party at this point?
(https://i.imgur.com/q4hK9yh.png)
The 'yasssss qweeen'ing of Ardern from nobheads like Nandy has done my lid in, Corbyn was asking for less than what Ardern's manifesto promises and they fucking trashed it.
Another reason the adoration of Ardern's win from sensible white liberals is jarring is because it ignores how much Maori's are getting fucked over; poverty and homelessness are increasing for them and NZ is sliding down the rankings in that regard.
Lots of people in the comments pointing that out.
David Hirsh is a lecturer in Sociology at Goldsmiths, University of London, and co-founder of Engage, a campaign against the academic boycott of Israel
Lots of people in the comments pointing that out.
I'm a bit ashamed that I was taught by David Hirsh, although this was before Corbyn came along and exposed how horrible these people's views are. I knew he was big into his Israel, but that topic seemed awfully complex so I never looked into it in any detail.
Because Iannucci is a cunt and deserves a good public shoeing.
Interest rates for state borrowing are so low they can borrow it and let it sit on a shelf and it'll be worth more than the interest over time.
Even Grimesy probably knows the difference between right and write. Though thiscigarpenis does give some insight into Armando's problems with the Left. What a disappointing, pleased-with-himself, cunt.
Well if he's asking it’s because he doesn’t know. I’m not that hot on economics either. Don’t see why Dawn Foster has to be a twat about it.
Yeah, but you're not one of Britain's leading political satirists.
Yeah, but you're not one of Britain's leading political satirists.
"Hello Hugh, I was just wondering whatever happened to Armando Iannucci?"
Yeah, the pertinent point is that his level of ignorance on this explains a lot about his political opinions. He's a fraud. He's not a political satirist, he's a media satirist.
The peak of his own comedic output is probably the Stewart Lee red button bits.
Yeah, but you're not one of Britain's leading political satirists.
"Hello Hugh, I was just wondering whatever happened to Armando Iannucci?"
Berger, I can't even remember anything about her.
As i understand it, governments borrow by issuing bonds. A bond is a kind of IOU that traditionally pays interest to the bearer. While these bonds can be purchased by the governments of other countries they are also bought by private investors, pension funds and any institution that has cash to spare, e.g. charities.
I'd say it's The Armando Iannucci Shows.Is there any other comedy show with such a combination of and massive gulf between really funny, imaginitive and original good bits, and absolutely toe-curling, cringeworthy, ill conceived and badly executed parts just railroaded through? Frasier?
Is there any other comedy show with such a combination of and massive gulf between really funny, imaginitive and original good bits, and absolutely toe-curling, cringeworthy, ill conceived and badly executed parts just railroaded through? Frasier?
eg
Great bits - the men attached to wardrobes, Hugh, the barber, scottish heaven, village sniper
Argh - specific amounts of bad things are good for you, pretending to like football, pie conversations, plane crash simulator
Three of your four "Argh" selections are some of my absolute favourite bits of the show!
Three of your four "Argh" selections are some of my absolute favourite bits of the show! Each to their own, but I find it hard to understand how anyone could not like the plane simulator bit.
"I remember one day someone came in and said the high-altitude bombing of Kosovo had been a limited success... so we all ran out and celebrated, by killing an ostrich."
^ as far as I'm concerned that line is in itself the most succinct and insightful piece of political comedy that Iannucci has ever come up with.
In this case, however, the money is mostly coming from quantitative easing, which means the government is borrowing from the Bank of England, which is creating the money out of nothing, as banks do whenever they lend. The Bank of England is owned by the government, so the government is essentially borrowing money from itself.Weirdly, there's a good explainer about government borrowing for Coronavirus (https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/coronavirus-government-debt-an-explainer/) on the UK Parliament website. The Bank of England is spending £200 billion on government bonds and similar things. If only Armando knew how to Google. The government borrowed £35.9 billion in August (https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/governmentpublicsectorandtaxes/publicsectorfinance/bulletins/publicsectorfinances/august2020), to give an idea of how that relates to total borrowing, so based on that the BoE could fund almost 6 months of borrowing. (Although of course all the money it's creating for Coronovirus could have been used for other purposes, even though it wouldn't have with the Tories or Keith in charge.)
In this case, however, the money is mostly coming from quantitative easing, which means the government is borrowing from the Bank of England, which is creating the money out of nothing, as banks do whenever they lend. The Bank of England is owned by the government, so the government is essentially borrowing money from itself.
Weirdly, there's a good explainer about government borrowing for Coronavirus (https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/coronavirus-government-debt-an-explainer/) on the UK Parliament website. The Bank of England is spending £200 billion on government bonds and similar things. If only Armando knew how to Google. The government borrowed £35.9 billion in August (https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/governmentpublicsectorandtaxes/publicsectorfinance/bulletins/publicsectorfinances/august2020), to give an idea of how that relates to total borrowing, so based on that the BoE could fund almost 6 months of borrowing. (Although of course all the money it's creating for Coronovirus could have been used for other purposes, even though it wouldn't have with the Tories or Keith in charge.)
didn't know whether to put this in here, make a special thread, or pure desolation
Starmer backs national two-minute doorstep silence for Remembrance Sunday
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/politicians-unite-behind-call-two-22866976
Standard jingoism schlock that's so asinine and tokenistic it would be petty to complain about it. So everyone supports it. Blackford supported it too.
Technically the BoE could fund any amount of government borrowing, without limit. The limit on government spending isn't how much money they have, because they can always QE more into existence - it's the effect that spending too much might have on the economy, i.e., excessive inflation. We are currently nowhere near that limit.Indeed, I should have said 6 months on the current program (£200 billion). I've no idea how much more we could create without pushing inflation up, but given inflation is currently (August) 0.5%, which is 1.5% below the Bank of England's target of 2%, there's a lot of scope.
Former Shadow Home Secretary, Diane Abbott, tells
@lewis_goodall (http://'https://twitter.com/lewis_goodall')
she was suspicious of Keir Starmer when they were in the shadow cabinet together
Former Shadow Home Secretary, Diane Abbott, tells
@lewis_goodall
she was suspicious of Keir Starmer when they were in the shadow cabinet together
https://twitter.com/BBCNewsnight/status/1318261069048139777 (https://twitter.com/BBCNewsnight/status/1318261069048139777)
This may upset the 'its just workplace banter' section of the Labour Party.
https://twitter.com/BBCNewsnight/status/1318261069048139777 (https://twitter.com/BBCNewsnight/status/1318261069048139777)
This may upset the 'its just workplace banter' section of the Labour Party.
via jewdas of course, but. fucking hell
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EkuB0X8XgAAwJM1?format=jpg&name=900x900)(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EkuB0X9XEAAB725?format=jpg&name=900x900)
imagine if crobbins had been "hmm, i'd love to have sex with that genocidal madman who was complicit in the murder of millions of Jews"
imagine
To be fair a lot of the Jewish people I agree with are just as unorthodox.
Imagine if a left-wing jew cracked this banger
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EkuB0YHWkAQ28np?format=png&name=900x900)
The thing is … he's a fucking psychopath, isn't he?
I mean, au fond.
She was right to be suspicious of him. There is something desperately wrong with him.
It's not even Jess Phillips level of self-interest. There's something wrong.
Abbott can detect a careerist snake from a mile off.
Unfortunately for Keir, he can't muster that fatuous earnestness Cameron had, his conceit is so close to the surface as to be obvious. Of course, he doesn't have as high a bar to reach, he will win votes just by looking and sounding less of a cunt than Boris Johnson.
Pretty offensive that.mainly because it isnt funny
https://twitter.com/BBCNewsnight/status/1318261069048139777 (https://twitter.com/BBCNewsnight/status/1318261069048139777)
This may upset the 'its just workplace banter' section of the Labour Party.
Abbott can detect a careerist snake from a mile off.
Before ballots drop, I thought it might be helpful if I reminded you which candidates our CLP nominated, at the prior nomination stage.
1. Gurinder Singh Josan
2. Ann Black
3. Johanna Baxter
4. Luke Akehurst
5. Paula Sherriff
6. Yasmin Dar
7. Gemma Bolton
8. Nadia Jama
9. Laura Pidcock
Election Timetable
Ballot distribution begins – Monday 19 October
Reissue requests open – Monday 26 October
Deadline to request postal reissue – Thursday 5 November
Deadline to request email reissue with the Labour Party – Monday 9 November
Deadline to request email reissue via self-service portal – Thursday 12 November
Close of ballot – Thursday 12 November, noon
I need the biggest melt you have
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EkmIP9OXEAAbk9x?format=jpg&name=900x900)
don't want to say atodaso but it seemed like a wallet inspection at the time.
My CLP (Leeds West) suggested this:
Rachel Reeves making the suggestion of course. She can eat shit trying to get that neocon psoriasis incel cunt Akehurst on the NEC. No way I'm voting for Black or Baxter either.
Sure about that? Several Labour MPs have been promoting various NEC candidates.
Has everyone had their ballot yet? mine hasn't come through to my email..
Had a text from momentum advising who to vote for well in advance though thankfully
| 1. | Now to decide whether to renew membership. |
Reposting that preferences link:
https://futureweneed.com/preference/
I just received mine. Always check spam/junk folders obvs. You can request a reissue from Mon 26 Oct so best to wait till then for it turn up.
Yeah, that's how the last bunch of NEC elections got fucked for the left, because it diluted the vote. Definitely vote for the 6 candidates recommended by Momentum (Blumf's link), for the win (hopefully).
Does anyone think the right of the party are doing this?
Yes seems massively misguided at best and a false flag op at worst.
After the success of the blue-tick centrist brainworms tourney, there's now a worst labour mp tourney.
https://twitter.com/centristhacks/status/1318158501160550400
Have you seen the Rap Sheet with comments about the shittier of the MPs? The Kate Green one is quite good...
"Chaired Owen Smith's 2016 leadership campaign
Personal friends with misogynistic Twitter danger @Falcon_Malteser"
Attended a Shed Seven gig with Therese Coffey and Michael Dugher; attended a Liam Gallagher gig with Matt Hancock, taking selfies each time
Used Mrs Brown's Boys as a metric against which politicians' connections with the public may be judged
Allowed her staff to cheer Labour losses as they came in during the 2019 general election
Publicly endorses Luke Akehurst
Surprised to see Nadia Whittome on there
There's no coming back from those first five words, is there?
And she called Momentum 'melts'. The fucking nerve.
Taking a selfie with Therese Coffey at a Shed Seven gig. Desolation.
Imagine if Corbyn had been caught at a Shed Seven gig. Guardian would've torn him apart!
I genuinely don’t think they would.
To some extent, the leader is irrelevant in this, I would say it’s views on the party as a whole which are driving this
This is what to expect from his supporters
If they run out of evidence to show that loads of people like Keith, they will claim it's because he hasn't reformed the party image enough.
Of course, was it 'peoples views on the party as a whole' when Labour were polling 40% briefly? No, twas all Sir Keith then, England's Lion.
Imagine if Corbyn had been caught at a Shed Seven gig. Guardian would've torn him apart!
I had one claim that if the poor polling is a trend it's because the 'the constant sniping by corbyn loyalists is having an effect'. As if Corbyn supporters have any real platform from which to make their criticisms stick.
I had one claim that if the poor polling is a trend it's because the 'the constant sniping by corbyn loyalists is having an effect'. As if Corbyn supporters have any real platform from which to make their criticisms stick.
What the fuck are they playing at? If it wouldn't split the left vote, why is it important to rank your choices in a particular way?
Although you are expressing nine preferences, you are only casting one vote. So it would only dilute the vote if all nine of the candidates you express a vote for are eliminated. No one really knows the likelihood of this happening.
I followed the momentum recommendations because this tactical voting lark only works if everyone follows the same recipe.
I followed the momentum recommendations because this tactical voting lark only works if everyone follows the same recipe.
Doesn't have to be everyone, just lots.
How many seats are up for grabs? Will the 6 + disabled and youth rep be enough to get a majority?
Six different recipes in the correct proportions. That’s because you’re not casting six votes for who you want to elect, you’re casting one (up to nine prefs yes, but one vote). That’s the principal difference between this and the FPTP model. That the left and right are still putting up slates doesn’t change this, but it makes the result very hard to predict. Other than that a full house for either is unlikely.
Couldn't they come up with some algorithm that tells momentum slate voters which one to put as top priority?
Woman on the news said, "MPs have voted down an attempt to provide children with meals over Christmas." My son said to me, "Mom did you vote it down or up."Think that'd be a wake-up call, personally.
Think that'd be a wake-up call, personally.
( https://twitter.com/jessphillips/status/1319006463470305280 )
Tbh, I’d wonder what my son thought of my values if he had to ask which way I’d voted on this.
6 labour mp's abstained including Clive Lewis.And Ed Davey!
Wait what? Pairing?
i mean to be fair whats even the point of voting when Boris's Brexit Bastard Battalion has a super-majority
Something I know I keep forgetting, and hasn't been mentioned much in here recently as far as I can tell, it's that Keith's main selling point, above his pledges, above his perceived ability to resonate with the electorate and above his claims to put antisemitism to bed was sorting out party unity. At that he has failed miserably and I think it might be important to remind simps of this point where possible.
As far as they are concerned, he has. Or is on the path to do so at least. He is achieving party unity by systematically removing all left wingers from positions of influence. Remember, 'ending factionalism' nearly always means 'by ensuring my faction wins'. Those simps will see a frontbench which all sing from the same hymn sheet, and believe that's what matters. And from a purely PR point of view, they may be right. Unless of course what's being said is totally unpopular in and of itself. Even if we (the left broadly) get a big win at the NECs, there will soon be no public facing representation of the left...left.
Is this a standardised letter or does 'Amber' really care?
Thank you for getting in touch. I am sorry that you would like to end your membership of the Labour Party, and I would like to thank you for all the support you have given previously.
Labour will be campaigning in Parliament and across the country for a society that works for everybody – not just a few at the very top.
The central aim of the Labour Party is to speak up for everyone in fighting for social justice. With you on our side, we are stronger for this fight. Your experience, your passion, and your voice are vital for change – which is why I hope you will rejoin soon.
Our Party is more inclusive and democratic than ever before and every one of our hundreds of thousands of members has something special and unique to contribute. I hope you will consider changing your mind and decide you would like to stay so that you will be able to continue to help shape our Party’s future and hold this Tory Government to account.
If you have been paying your membership by Direct Debit, please get in touch with your bank to ensure this payment has been cancelled.
I can confirm I have processed your request to leave the Labour Party. Thank you again for all that you have done as a member. I hope that I can welcome you back as a member once again in the future.
Is this a standardised letter or does 'Amber' really care?
Thank you for getting in touch. I am sorry that you would like to end your membership of the Labour Party, and I would like to thank you for all the support you have given previously.
Labour will be campaigning in Parliament and across the country for a society that works for everybody – not just a few at the very top.
The central aim of the Labour Party is to speak up for everyone in fighting for social justice. With you on our side, we are stronger for this fight. Your experience, your passion, and your voice are vital for change – which is why I hope you will rejoin soon.
Our Party is more inclusive and democratic than ever before and every one of our hundreds of thousands of members has something special and unique to contribute. I hope you will consider changing your mind and decide you would like to stay so that you will be able to continue to help shape our Party’s future and hold this Tory Government to account.
If you have been paying your membership by Direct Debit, please get in touch with your bank to ensure this payment has been cancelled.
I can confirm I have processed your request to leave the Labour Party. Thank you again for all that you have done as a member. I hope that I can welcome you back as a member once again in the future.
Good man. I am now excepting membership to the Blodwyn Razor Pig Party if you are interested.
They were probably in awe of the bullshitting skills on show.
I didn't say it was to me though. Anyway The Jockice Popular Front is the party of the future.
a society that works for everybody – not just a few at the very top.
To be fair, I’m not sure what position a prospective PM of the United Kingdom should be taking on the dissolution of the United Kingdom.
Remember Labour? (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H-YYroSudUs&ab_channel=Muig)i enjoyed that
He's usually good at taking no position on things.
I know you were. I know who you are old love.
That Schneider fella says you shouldn't.
That Schneider fella says you shouldn't.
Playing to lose: who funded Labour’s 2019 election loss?
From straightforward second referendum groups such as Led by Donkeys to outrageously transparent Tory entities like Working 4 UK, SOLOMON HUGHES documents the range ‘non-party campaigners’ who invested in Corbynism’s failure
MAINSTREAM, the anti-Corbyn group led by former Labour MPs Ian Austin, Ivan Lewis and Mike Gapes, used Tory-led PR firm Public First to run its 2019 election activities.
Figures from the Electoral Commission on spending in the 2019 election released this month show Austin’s Mainstream spent £134,457 on campaigning and advertising in the election. That’s a lot of money for a “campaign” with no grassroots members.
They got a lot of bang for their buck, as even the most artificial public event with Austin got strong media coverage. Austin was rewarded by Boris Johnson for his turncoat campaigning with a place in the Lords.
Much of Mainstream’s election spending went on Facebook and newspaper advertising, but it also relied heavily on the Tory-oriented consultancy Public First, paying the company £23,000 for designing and running its campaign.
Receipts show Mainstream paid Public First for “strategy planning and advice,” “media relations” and “press conference support.”
Public First is run by Rachel Wolf, a former Gove adviser who co-wrote the Conservative Party’s 2019 election manifesto, and Dominic Cummings associate James Frayne.
Public First has also been rewarded with over £1 million worth of government communications contracts since the election.
Mainstream claimed to be “led by a group of people from different political backgrounds — designed to encourage a return to respectable and responsible politics and to banish extremism from British politics once and for all,” but was transparently a pro-Tory campaign, underlined by the involvement of Public First.
The Electoral Commission’s figures show a big increase in activity by “non-party campaigners,” who spent over £4m: a lot of these “campaigns” look shadowy and unaccountable, with a strong emphasis on undermining Corbyn’s Labour from all sides.
Overall spending by these “non-party campaigners” was £4,392,266. That’s greater than any of the past five elections and up 72 per cent on the 2017 election.
For context, the Tories spent around £16.5m on the 2019 election. Labour figures for 2019’s spending haven’t been registered yet, but in the 2017 election it spent £11m. So non-party spending is significant.
Typically, each of these “non-party” group’s spending involved a lot of money paid to Facebook, Google and YouTube for targeted advertising.
Campaigners also paid PR and advertising firms to help draw up their messages and polling firms to gauge their impact.
In that “third party” spend, there are two big wodges of undoubtedly pro-Corbyn money. Momentum spent £500,000, or about 20 per cent of the total, and the Real Change Lab, a short, crowdfunded campaign by Corbyn supporters to fund pro-Labour digital content in the election, spent £120,487.
But after that, many of the “third parties” are either outright unfriendly, or very unhelpful to Labour.
Alongside Mainstream’s £134,457, there was the Campaign Against Corbynism which spent £106,081 during the election.
Founded by Daily Express journalist James Bickerton, this was another “campaign” without a grassroots.
You can’t join it, or find its members busy in some community hall or above a pub; instead it spent money churning out Facebook and Twitter ads and offering comment to friendly media.
Bickerton claimed his campaign was a “cross-party group of activists,” but it was even less successful at mobilising bitter ex-Labour people than Austin’s Mainstream.
Another anti-Corbyn group, Working 4 UK Ltd spent £189,904, largely on Facebook ads, with a few grand for advertising on a pedicab and a boat trip.
Working 4 UK was founded by Suraj Sharma, who said it was “a voice for UK businesses against the impending threat of a far-left, anti-capitalist government led by Jeremy Corbyn.”
It pumped out scaremongering anti-Corbyn ads. Sharma is not just a “high-end residential developer” and “operator of Build to Rent assets,” he is also a Tory councillor, so this was a Tory-led campaign supposedly separate from the Tory Party.
Working 4 UK also used the same advertising firm — Untrodden Path Ltd — as the Campaign Against Corbynism.
Which brings us to the Brexit-related spending in the last election.
Multimillionaire Jeremy Hosking spent £484,248 on his Brexit Express campaign.
Hosking makes his money from running investment firms and is, according to the Sunday Times Rich List, the 351st richest person in Britain, with a net worth of £375m.
He was a Tory donor — giving the party £100,000 in the 2015 election. Hosking also funded the Brexit Party with £243,000 in donations.
However, with Johnson winning the Tory leadership and committing the party in the 2019 election to Get Brexit Done, Hosking’s campaign for Brexit became a campaign for the Tories rather than Nigel Farage’s party.
There were larger sums spent by second referendum campaigners.
Best for Britain — the “people’s vote” campaign led by ex-Labour minister Mark Malloch Brown, spent £422,498 on Facebook advertising.
PV Media Hub, also known as Vote for a Final Say, the breakaway second referendum group set up by Alastair Campbell, spent £156,919.
Gina Miller’s Centrum Campaign Ltd spent £199,581 on its Remain United campaign.
Scientists for EU spent £124,340. Referendum Facts Ltd (aka Infacts) spent £74,798.
Led by Donkeys, the crowdfunded “satirical” anti-Brexit campaigners, spent a very large £458,237.
That’s huge spending on Remain campaigns. Some of it comes from spontaneous, crowdfunded “remainiac” campaigners, like Led by Donkeys.
Some came from more millionaire-funded organisations, like Best for Britain or Campbell’s Vote for a Final Say group.
While all of it was “anti-Johnson” campaigning, it was not helpful for Labour: even though, thanks to a year of pressure by these campaigns, assisted by Labour MPs, Labour was the only national party in the 2019 election backing a second referendum, these groups did not fully support Labour.
Instead they all heavily promoted “tactical voting” websites, which often promoted Lib Dem candidates, even in constituencies where Labour was ahead of the Lib Dems.
They also undermined Labour in a broader way: Labour’s strategy was to support a second referendum, but to try and change the conversation away from Brexit to economic issues — social spending, the NHS, taxing the rich.
This may have been a compromised and muddy plan, but the big spending “remainiac” campaigns pushed the election back onto the second referendum vs Get Brexit Done issue, which Johnson’s Tories realised was the key to them winning the election.
Remember when some journalist scrumming around Corbyn's car got knocked by a door, and how that was all over the front pages as evidence of the thuggery of his entourage?
Starmer involved in collision with cyclist:
https://www.bbc.com/news/amp/uk-54701336
A spokesman for Sir Keir said he stayed at the scene until an ambulance arrived and reported the incident at a police station later that day.
Remember when some journalist scrumming around Corbyn's car got knocked by a door, and how that was all over the front pages as evidence of the thuggery of his entourage?
Media reaction to this is exactly the same.
More background:
https://morningstaronline.co.uk/article/f/playing-to-lose-who-funded-labour-2019-election-loss
Starmer involved in collision with cyclist:
https://www.bbc.com/news/amp/uk-54701336
This doesn't look good for Garmin.
What is the point of slapping a load of "remaniac funding" in on the end, what does it add, what has it got to do with the story? (I know they say because it wasn't good for Labour - are we suggesting people cannot protest Brexit now?) Looks suspiciously like smear by association by the Star there.
I heard starmer was signaling left but moving right.
Thanks for posting that, spared me doing so.
The prize for disrupting and disarming Labour was
- All prominent remainer Tories removed from party or expelled to back benches
- 1 fewer Lib Dem MP from the already very small stock
- May removed and replaced by opportunist Get Brexit Done fathead.
- Overwhelming majority gained by the Tories Brexit at all costs party
- New Labour leader promising to not delay Brexit any longer, so basically a more pro-Brexit leader than Corbyn
- No Deal Brexit now most likely outcome in nearly exactly 2 months time.
What's the phrase.. 'That went well'?
And don't forget the rebarbative extended experience of enduring all those people (including the present leader of the Labour Party) suddenly forgetting they had anything to do with facilitating this complete catastrophe.
And don't forget the rebarbative extended experience of enduring all those people (including the present leader of the Labour Party) suddenly forgetting they had anything to do with facilitating this complete catastrophe.
The Starmer cultists have harassed journalist Jon Stone from Twitter, all for saying you don't really need an SUV in Kentish Town.
So much for a kinder, gentler politics.
where would one go to learn the word rebarbative. I don't fancy I have heard that word in a good 25 years and even then I never knew what it meant.
My mother used it quite frequently. She put up with a great deal.
I've been called rebarbative.
WHAT FUCKER SAID THAT
The Starmer cultists have harassed journalist Jon Stone from Twitter, all for saying you don't really need an SUV in Kentish Town.
So much for a kinder, gentler politics.
Heard some of them try and say it's not technically an suv. I suppose it's really a subcompact luxury crossover, which just means 'European suv, because our roads aren't as big as the ones in America'.
> 100,000 have quit and I urge you to. Anyone who says otherwise is a centrist dinner lady.
What are membership numbers looking like, out of interest?
No, they're not. The centrist dinner ladies want you to leave. Stay in the party.
I read an article in the latest Tribune about hospitality workers getting really organised and unionising during this pandemic. I prefer the term "militant dinner ladies".
And yes, there is a sense the centrists want the left to leave. But groups like the Socialist Campaign Group give me hope that all is not lost.
Why doesn't somebody just ask for the numbers? This isn't Stalinist Russia.
No, they're not. The centrist dinner ladies want you to leave. Stay in the party.
The Starmer cultists have harassed journalist Jon Stone from Twitter, all for saying you don't really need an SUV in Kentish Town.seems he deactivated his account which seems a bit of an overreaction to a group of centrist dads going "well actually I live in Haringey and I have two! Such reverse snobbery!"
So much for a kinder, gentler politics.
RE: membership figures, according to this NEC report (https://labourlist.org/2020/09/the-last-full-meeting-before-labours-new-ruling-body-is-elected-alice-perrys-nec-report/) from September Labour has approx. 560,000 members.
It fails to mention the hijacking and weaponisation of the remain campaign simply to oust Corbyn; that was no "myth". It was not "triangulation" to recognise why the red wall voted to leave (which has far more to do with the effects of Tory austerity and neglect in their areas).
RE: membership figures, according to this NEC report (https://labourlist.org/2020/09/the-last-full-meeting-before-labours-new-ruling-body-is-elected-alice-perrys-nec-report/) from September Labour has approx. 560,000 members.
I found this article interesting, mostly because it says all the same things I've been saying about Brexit and elections, plus it's written by someone on the left: https://labourlist.org/2020/10/its-time-to-bust-the-brexit-betrayal-myth-of-the-labour-left/
it suggests that saboteurs pushed the party from a Brexit position that would have won the election to one that was bound to lose. It does not add up.
It is also clear this change of position was imposed against the leadership's wishes and better judgement, and partly orchestrated by Keir Starmer, a man who apparently knows all about winning.
It's hope that kills you.You must be immortal
Imposed? This line gets put about a lot, but it's overly weighted against Starmer, for obvious reasons. Corbyn was leader of the party, and his team had control of it's decision making. Starmer, among many others, was pushing for a disastrous position, but it was Corbyn's choice and Corbyn's responsibility to get right, and his terrible tactical manoeuvring in that area cost Labour - and the left - incredibly heavily. I despise Starmer and his ilk and admire Corbyn greatly, but I will not excuse Corbyn for making such a grave error of leadership, even if the blame is not entirely his, and must be split between Corbyn's team, the PLP and, lest we forget, the membership. All three are responsible for our current mess, and Corbyn should not get a free pass for something so colossal.
Why not? He gets a free pass on everything else. He's been untouchable right through the piece, why should we pin any blame onto him for this alleged failing when he's walked free of criticism for so long? Take your blame and pin it back on poor harried Keith, the sin donkey.
EHRC report tomorrow. Today's like Christmas Eve for cunts. Bet certain types will be setting their alarm clocks nice and early.
Imposed? This line gets put about a lot, but it's overly weighted against Starmer, for obvious reasons. Corbyn was leader of the party, and his team had control of it's decision making. Starmer, among many others, was pushing for a disastrous position, but it was Corbyn's choice and Corbyn's responsibility to get right, and his terrible tactical manoeuvring in that area cost Labour - and the left - incredibly heavily. I despise Starmer and his ilk and admire Corbyn greatly, but I will not excuse Corbyn for making such a grave error of leadership, even if the blame is not entirely his, and must be split between Corbyn's team, the PLP and, lest we forget, the membership. All three are responsible for our current mess, and Corbyn should not get a free pass for something so colossal.
No, they're not. The centrist dinner ladies want you to leave. Stay in the party.Leave and join an organisation that agrees with you. Labour does not.
EHRC report tomorrow. Today's like Christmas Eve for cunts. Bet certain types will be setting their alarm clocks nice and early.
I don't know why, what can they possibly gain whatever it says?
Every fucking cunt was to blame, myself included to a very small degree, in congratulating Nick Brown for keeping people voting against May's deal. In retrospect we should have backed May's deal—but then that might have fucked the cat completely as well. The SNP/LDs should have voted for a Customs Union. It goes on … McDonnell has more blame than most—which he's accepted fwiw. Corbyn was the only one saying the right things … as usual. But I don't think there was anything he could do, really. What could he have done? Said: we must vote for May's deal??
EHRC report tomorrow. Today's like Christmas Eve for cunts. Bet certain types will be setting their alarm clocks nice and early.
You must be immortal
I don't know why, what can they possibly gain whatever it says?
Asked if the investigation was the most shameful moment in the party’s history, Jonathan Ashworth, the shadow health secretary, agreed that “it probably was, yes”.
Alright.
What should we be learning from the experience of Manchester and Burnham?
He's not the biggest cunt in the world, he's a wanky sad no-mates little cunt that, even when he's behaving publicly like a class traitor, is still uninteresting. Don't waste your time reading his miserable irrelevant words, that's my advice. #dogbotherer
Jonathan Ashworth is an awful fucking cunt and all.
Sorry, did nobody hear what I just said?
IG-FUCKING-NORE IT.
It is SHIT for CUNTS.
I think it is worth talking about, at least for a day, as I suspect there will be a big difference between the content of the report and how it is perceived. The trailers are already using the language of "indirect discrimination" which points to a more complex narrative than the one that the Labour right and their chums in the press want us to believe.
But, no, the forum police have decided. Fuck you, bye.
I think it is worth talking about, at least for a day, as I suspect there will be a big difference between the content of the report and how it is perceived. The trailers are already using the language of "indirect discrimination" which points to a more complex narrative than the one that the Labour right and their chums in the press want us to believe.
But, no, the forum police have decided. Fuck you, bye.
I think we need to look seriously at defunding the forum police.
Sorry, I don't actually expect people to obey me. Carry on.
There is evidence of LOTO staff being directly involved in the decision to investigate the second complaint of antisemitism made against Ken Livingstone. The Labour Party confirmed to us that a decision to ‘go to Disputes’, that is, to the NEC Disputes Panel, which was described as having been made ‘higher up’, was likely to refer to the decision having been made by LOTO and the General Secretary’s Office (GSO). It therefore appears that LOTO staff, and potentially GSO staff, interfered in the decision to investigate the conduct of Ken Livingstone.
Deadly pandemic that the government are largely ignoring, resulting in the projected deaths of thousands, cigs
No-deal Brexit that's going to devastate the industries that remain in business despite massive mishandling of the above, cigs
Government taken over by an executive with plans to insulate itself from legal and parliamentary accountability and cement itself at the head of a one-party state, cigs
Dear Paul Calf,
This morning, the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) published their report into Antisemitism in the Labour Party.
The report, which we would urge you to read in full, can be found here.
We want to thank the EHRC for all of their work in the last year and a half, and the Labour Party staff who have worked tirelessly and constructively with the Commission's investigation.
The report's conclusions are clear and stark. The Commission has found that the Labour Party has breached the Equality Act in terms of unlawful harassment and indirect discrimination towards the Jewish community.
This is a day of shame for the Labour Party. We have failed the Jewish community, our members, our supporters and the British people. That is why, on behalf of the Labour Party, We want to apologise for all of the pain and grief that has been caused to the Jewish community these past few years.
It is also why we want to make this promise that we will act. Never again will Labour fail to tackle the poison of antisemitism or will we lose the trust of the Jewish community.
We accept the Commission's report in full and we will implement all of the recommendations in full, and we have already instructed staff to start taking this work forward.
But, we must go further. We need to change the Labour Party's culture.
It is on all us to make sure that the Labour Party is, once again, an open and welcoming place for people from all backgrounds and all communities.
Under our leadership, zero-tolerance of antisemitism will mean precisely that. There can be no more denials and no more excuses.
We will repair the breach and we will restore trust. We know it will take time and hard work, but we will do it. That is our mission and it is the commitment we made when we were elected.
We will only consider it a success when those members who left our Party because of antisemitism feel safe to return and when we no longer see the words "Labour" and "antisemitism" in the same sentence.
As a party member, I hope we can count on your support in implementing the EHRC's recommendations over coming weeks and months. If at any time you have any questions please send them to enquiries@labour.org.uk.
Keir Starmer
Leader of the Labour Party
...when we no longer see the words "Labour" and "antisemitism" in the same sentence...
Why are you lovely lads even reading it? You don't need to, predictable and expected ugliness from predicable and ugly people.
https://twitter.com/MirrorPolitics/status/1321776852894101504
UPDATED: Keir Starmer says people who claim anti-Semitism allegations are exaggerated belong "nowhere near the Labour Party".
It comes minutes after Jeremy Corbyn said anti-Semitism claims have been "dramatically overstated for political reasons"
Look I just like to be annoyed by things sometimes.
Keith quoted in the graun as saying anyone who reckons this is being overplayed for factional purposes shouldn’t be anywhere near the party. So that’s me out.
Good luck to the lot of you, you’ll need it.
I can't bear to look at the smug streak of piss that is EmKen's Twitter dribble any more.Oh come on she's a comedy genius
Nobody needs a gun at a polling station.
Nobody.
Ever.
VINDICATED. All times I was told by Corbyns Labour Crew I was lying.Holocaust never happened I was aZio shill Rothschild whore, a tax evading paedophile.For leaving @uklabourwhen Livingstone called Hitler a ZIONIST & got away with it. For being told I LIED
One of the replies to that was 'why do you keep asking me to rejoin then?'.
Corbyn suspended.
Are you admitting you massively cocked up yet thugler? Just wondering.
Are you admitting you massively cocked up yet thugler? Just wondering.
Corbyn suspended.
Has anyone quit the Labour Party since Keir took the reins?.
I'm at the end of my tether, honestly. Why should I bother staying on as a member?
There is ALWAYS going be a left wing element to UK politicsnot in labour though. they've just suspended the figure of a huge resurgence of youth membership of the party. it can fuck off as far as im concerned. its just a load of self-interested cunts like the US Dems now
There is ALWAYS going be a left wing element to UK politics
A chance of what exactly?
In reality, Starmer has got very little chance of winning an election because you shouldn't underestimate the number of people who are willing to give the government the benefit of the doubt and say "they're just trying their best in unprecedented circumstances", especially when they believe the alternative is Britain-hating, SJW communism. But in my view that's still better than the "nothing" that I am guessing Labour would have under RLB.
https://twitter.com/siennamarla/status/1321799900003225601
For his statement.
fixed for you
Well, sure, but clearly the thread for reserved, mature debate is elsewhere. Or is making an absolute statement only acceptable when a true-red socialist does it?
Or is making an absolute statement only acceptable when a true-red socialist does it?
You know exactly of what, but you're pretending to be obtuse.
In reality, Starmer has got very little chance of winning an election because you shouldn't underestimate the number of people who are willing to give the government the benefit of the doubt and say "they're just trying their best in unprecedented circumstances", especially when they believe the alternative is Britain-hating, SJW communism. But that's still better than the nothing Labour would have under RLB.
In truth a puffy neoliberal funded by corporate backers isn't a brilliant contrast to the Tories in any context. Not sure why we should all be overjoyed about what Labour could now grow into.
You're like a breath of fresh here mate, and not at all a stale old fart that's been breathed in and out hundreds of times before.
Ever get the feeling you've been cheated?No, because it was very obvious this was going to happen. For those people who spent the last year hysterically telling everyone they had to stay in "the party", then perhaps.
No, because it was very obvious this was going to happen. For those people who spent the last year hysterically telling everyone they had to stay in "the party", then perhaps.
The problem is endemic to the left. You're staring down the barrel of a gun and you all want to do is split hairs until someone actually shoots you in the face.
A detail that seems to have been missed is that interference by LOTO was made in order to get McNicol's NEC to actually do anything. The stalling bunch of cunts.
He's still got that massive crowd funded legal fund hasn't he? Take the cunts to court.
Corbyn suspended.
I'm out.
I'm staying until the NEC results are in, then I may leave whatever. But I just want to make sure my vote isn't invalidated. If the results of the election are exceptionally positive for the left I might be tempted to stay.
Oh yes - good point.
Speaking of this, how long do we have to make our NEC choices? And who are the recommended candidates?
flavour of "left" party, seeing power for at least a decade, probably quite a bit longer
Violence is sadly the only way forward to a better future. Bummer.
The only realistic option is a devastating defeat for Starmer at the next election where it is made plain that centrism has failed to win back voters OR economics events turn so bad that the level of social discord it causes forces both establishment parties to adopt quasi-socialist policies (which are always reverted to in crisis periods).
That therefore raises the question of whether this is just posturing, and Corbyn will return to the fold, or whether they really are going to drive him out of the party, as a show of strength.
I’d guess they allow him back (after getting a few more smears in) to try and retain some left support. He’s better off telling them to go swivel and joining the greens or something. He’s probably bigger than his seat at this point and would win it whichever party he ran for.
Sorry, aren't you the one that people always confuse with another poster?
I'm out.
Me too. Kind of a relief. Feel bad leaving others behind but I just can't stay.
If you are leaving, just cancel your direct debit. Will be 6 months before you are actually lapsed.
I’d guess they allow him back (after getting a few more smears in) to try and retain some left support. He’s better off telling them to go swivel and joining the greens or something. He’s probably bigger than his seat at this point and would win it whichever party he ran for.
Sometimes I feel like it's just too implausible and convenient when people say that centrists in the UK/US would genuinely rather condemn themselves to a permanent minority and to losing elections rather than permit any left-wing push into the party, but then something like this happens. Really no other conceivable explanation.
In the same sense that it's hard to improve and maintain good physical health in a world where we are made to be very sedentary with high fat, low nutrition, addictive foods available on every street corner; how is it possible to improve and maintain a good mental health when society is so fucking warped and there are so many cunts everywhere governing our lives and it's SO unjust and unfair.
How does one keep up a good mental state if you have an ounce of compassion or sense of fairness? It's insane.
Sometimes I feel like it's just too implausible and convenient when people say that centrists in the UK/US would genuinely rather condemn themselves to a permanent minority and to losing elections rather than permit any left-wing push into the party, but then something like this happens. Really no other conceivable explanation.
He's just rewarded the wreckers to the point he'll never, ever be able to go against their will, he won't be able to put them back in their boxes. It no longer matters what his politics are or aren't, labour is now functionally a right-wing party.
These days if you say Palestinians are humans you getarrested and thrown in jailsuspended from the Labour party.
I need more evidence before I accept that Labour is now decisively right-wing.
All lost donations will be dwarfed by the private funding for capitalists that flood into the party (each with strings attached that devastate the chances of the poor).
If you can afford to stay a member at £6 a month I would recommend doing so, only for the following reasons.
- Local Labour aren't all bastards like 90% of the PLP
- Labour does lots of good work locally which is funded through your donations
- Your membership gives you the right to kick back via internal voting on the NEC, a prime example is the elections happening right now, and even be involved in doing good even if it is at a local level
- It is rare to ever have a boss/head of something you're part of who is actually a fundamentally decent person. So when it shifts from that person to a snake (who then suspends the decent person) a reaction of dismay and objection is completely justified and natural, and I fully support that. However, the norm everywhere is that people think their boss is either a cunt or shit, or a shit cunt. We have been spoiled.
I am fortunate enough to not miss £6 a month at the minute and even if it does severely pain me that Labour is being rehewn against what it ought to be, there is nothing else going on, and membership doesn't preclude anyone from working towards developing an alternative.
So I am basically staying. Far more of what I pay in tax to the government is squandered.
I think Starmer is an insipid charmless character whose qualities have been blown up out of proportion by the right, who will fail at his own project even if he is left to it unopposed.
fuck this. shitty news made worse by the fact i found out from a friend in a whatsapp group crowing about it...which I wouldn't care about except this is someone who called me thick for not voting Tory in 2015/17. calling corbyn a "nasty dangerous man" and gleefully saying the party's instantly better now when you consider the party's position right now against a possible no deal brexit and a shithouse response to a pandemic during our tenth year of Tory government is fucking rich.
Just infuriating watching him pretend he never wanted to vote Tory and has Corbyn/Antisemitism as a handy excuse to ease his guilt along with plenty of others who would rather say "it was Labours fault for not providing effective opposition" because it's easier than saying "i swallowed a load of hot bullshit and now we're all fucked"
sorry I know nobody asked, just easier to vent here than having yet another row with him
How has what happened today made Labour a functionally right-wing party? What right-wing policies have been announced to decisively make that shift?
We can all see that Starmer is wrapping himself in the flag/family stuff, decisively punishing/isolating Corbyn and his supporters, appointing ShadCab members from the right of the PLP and accepting the recommendations of the EHRC report to show Labour has changed from before. But in policy terms, Labour under him has been a vacuum - there were the 10 pledges but as far as I can see nothing has been done to enforce or repudiate them. Labour has barely put forward anything substantial.
I think the presentation is different than Corbyn obvs, its priorities are different and it brings back memories of Labour under leaders more to the right of the party, but I need more evidence before I accept that Labour is now decisively right-wing.
Withdraw your financial support and give it to the Trussell Trust if you want to help on a local level, imo. Money is the only language these cunts will understand and Labour was well in the red when it relied on donations.
Not worth discussing? That aged well.
Fucking cunts. I mean, they've already won - can't they just leave it now?
The long-awaited ECHR report on antisemistism in the Labour Party has been released, and it's extremely underwhelming (in comparison to a Tory party that erects statues to notorious antisemites during election campaigns, spreads Nazi-derived antisemitic conspiracies, lets holocaust deniers quietly sneak back into the party once the fuss has died down, and is led by a guy who wrote a novel depicting Jews as a shady cabal who control the media and world finance).
The ECHR report acknowledges that Labour's disciplinary issues got much better once the right-wing relic Ian McNicol was removed as head of the NEC and replaced by Jennie Formby.
Keir Starmer's reaction to this report has been to suspend Jeremy Corbyn from the Labour Party, which is clearly a premeditated action (just like the Anyone But Corbyn coup plotters used the Brexit referendum result as the flimsiest possible excuse to launch their spectacularly failed coup attampt in 2016).
Contrast this rapid decision with Starmer's absolute non-action against the internal wreckers identified in the Labour Leaks report, who deliberately threw the 2017 general election, and lobbed racist abuse and mental health smears all over the place.
They've all been allowed to get off scot free, while one of the leading anti-racists of his generation gets instantly suspended.
In recent weeks Starmer has already driven anyone of conscience out of his shadow cabinet by whipping Labour MPs to abstain on two vile pieces of Tory legislation (to create legal impunity for war criminals overseas, and to give spy cops in Britain impunity for crimes such as rape, torture, faking evidence, and even murder).
Now he's seeking to drive socialists away from the Labour Party altogether, by throwing Corbyn to the wolves, with impending disciplinary action obviously lined up against anyone remaining in the Labour Party who dares defend him.
This is clearly going to cause a massive wave of resignations from the Labour Party, but Starmer doesn't give a damn about that because he's already been sucking up to billionaires and corporate fat cats to make up the £millions in lost membership fees.
He's figured that the loss of feet on the ground at the next election will be offset by more favourable coverage in the right-wing propaganda rags, but that's hyper-optimistic given the absolute hounding the corporate hack pack subjected Gordon Brown and Ed Miliband to.
Having posed as the "unity candidate" to win the leadership election, he's now intent on pursuing the ultra-divisive strategy of driving the left away from Labour, and sucking up to 'soft Tories' with his pathetic policies of non-opposition and systematic abstention.
Starmer doesn't care that Ed Miliband tried exactly the same thing in 2015 with "austerity-lite" and repeated abstention on vile Tory legislation like Theresa May's unlawfully racist 'Hostile Environment', draconian state snooping powers, and Iain Duncan Smith's bizarre and brazenly unlawful retroactive forced unpaid labour rules.
He doesn't care that this pathetic Tory-lite strategy failed so spectacularly last time it was tried, to the extent that Labour ended up with only 30% of the vote in an election they would have absolutely walked if they'd bothered actually opposing Tory austerity ruination, instead of cravenly imitating it.
Starmer clearly wants to try this kind of failed Tory-lite strategy again, and deliberately driving away millions of ordinary working people, trade unionists, progressives, socialists, and traditional Labour voters is a key part of what he's attempting (after having already driven away huge numbers of Red Wall voters in 2019 with his atrocious policy of insisting on a "sore loser" EU referendum).
Anyone who thinks Labour can win without socialists and progressive policies needs to have a little look at what's happened to once-mighty socialist parties like PASOK in Greece, PvdA in the Netherlands, and PS in France.
I said from the beginning of Starmer's leadership that I'd give him a fair chance, and judge him on his actions.
It's fair to say that his actions have proven to be far worse, more inept, more divisive, and more downright dishonest than my absolute worst expectations during the leadership contest.
fuck this. shitty news made worse by the fact i found out from a friend in a whatsapp group crowing about it...which I wouldn't care about except this is someone who called me thick for not voting Tory in 2015/17. calling corbyn a "nasty dangerous man" and gleefully saying the party's instantly better now when you consider the party's position right now against a possible no deal brexit and a shithouse response to a pandemic during our tenth year of Tory government is fucking rich.
Just infuriating watching him pretend he never wanted to vote Tory and has Corbyn/Antisemitism as a handy excuse to ease his guilt along with plenty of others who would rather say "it was Labours fault for not providing effective opposition" because it's easier than saying "i swallowed a load of hot bullshit and now we're all fucked"
sorry I know nobody asked, just easier to vent here than having yet another row with him
I admit that i had 2 poor choices, that’s all. Very much doubt rlb would have been a resounding success, nor do i understand how this would have changed the report or how the reaction to it was going to go regardless.
fuck this. shitty news made worse by the fact i found out from a friend in a whatsapp groupWhat's their housing status?
What's their housing status?
Just how much support would left wing defectors attract? Let's say all the Socialist Campaign Group MPs resigned and called by-elections. How many would win their seats? A few? Corbyn, Abbott and McDonnell maybe. Would Burgon and Long Bailey defeat an official Labour candidate? I doubt it. History suggests any defection would be counterproductive but I don't know, maybe it's the only outcome. Labour may think winning enough votes in the centre would offset those lost to the left, who would attract low(ish) support in FPTP anyway.
Corbyn leaving increases the chance of a new left party. No left wing party can win starting from scratch. No flavour of Labour party can scrape a minority government without that uneasy alliance.
https://twitter.com/siennamarla/status/1321799900003225601
For his statement.
If you were thinking of going Green, here's a prominent member of the party strongly implying that anyone leaving Labour over this is an anti-semite:
(https://i.imgur.com/ZoSZSvi.png)
(https://twitter.com/sianberry/status/1321825660030095361?s=20)
The great thing about this is when we finally get our feet on their necks, we won't feel in the least bit torn.
And that's what we have to do. Do whatever it takes for the dear old cause. And never, ever, give up.
The Greens are a party that loves to fail. They don't want to be in a position of influence. I don't know what the future is for the left in this country, but it is not the Green party.
Even if they had Momentum and backing from at least one very significant union? I wonder. They may not win initially but they will break the impasse that has meant socialism is permanently blocked and they will win in the end.
Fuck joining the Greens.
Keith has just rewarded the right wing of the party and of the press for their wrecking. It worked so well this time, do you think they won't try again on him if he attempted to do anything they didn't approve of?
Agreed. And I've seen plenty of claims that Kieth didn't speak out sufficiently while serving under Corbyn.
This has given the Conservatives a new line of attack too:
(https://i.postimg.cc/3xYmthyk/corbyn-s-man.jpg)
Migrating to the Greens would almost certainly result in factional disputes down the line that exactly mirror what's happening with Labour now. They chose a non-alignment pact (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Leax63ullPE) over the environment. I don't think they'd be happy housing migrating social democrat scallies. A new party would pretty much be the best option, and I guess they'd have to bring up another PR vote referendum every time anyone talks to them about how the weather is and is their dog feeling better.
BYE BYE LABOUR YOU FUCKING WASTEMEN.
THATCHER WAS BETTER THAN YOU LOT.
Meanwhile you can add young voters (can you imagine them singing 'Kier Starmer' or the name of any other politician in a nightclub?) and the begrudging votes of left-wingers to the list of people Labour's going to probably fail to win back, alongside pretty much all of Scotland and working class Northerns.
He's only really looking 'electable' in a photographic sense at this point.
How does one keep up a good mental state if you have an ounce of compassion or sense of fairness?
He wins either way. He's not in the politics game to change lives, parma-opposition will make him rich beyond his wildest dreams. The cunt.
I am calling tonight for Mr. Keir Starmer to stand down as leader of Her Majesties Opposition and hand back the reins to the Soft Socialist Left who will navigate Britain steadily through these uncertain times.
Agreed.
Steady on old pig - with you up to and including WASTEMEN (WASTEPEOPLE).
Trump's going to win isn't he?
Should I kill everyone I care about now or wait a few days?
Meanwhile you can add young voters (can you imagine them singing 'Kier Starmer' or the name of any other politician in a nightclub?) and the begrudging votes of left-wingers to the list of people Labour's going to probably fail to win back, alongside pretty much all of Scotland and working class Northerns.
He's only really looking 'electable' in a photographic sense at this point.
Margaret Hodge is 76. Good.
This is who has won. These people are fucking imbeciles and yet they have everything
https://mobile.twitter.com/HadleyFreeman/status/1321838826797600768?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Etweet
A new party would pretty much be the best option
It would do better than Change UK, but I reckon Keir Starmer assumes, correctly, the left don't have the balls and also aren't that stupid. It is likely old stagers on the left, Abbott, McDonnell etc would guard against it too.
We are between a rock and a hard place and he knows it.
Despite certain electoral doom it would be great if the new party was branded 'True Labour' or similar (Real Labour? Too many ira comparisons maybe) and had about maybe 5 headline policies, one of which was advertising open selection of MPs, and was focused around a youth movement.
Even if they had Momentum and backing from at least one very significant union? I wonder. They may not win initially but they will break the impasse that has meant socialism is permanently blocked and they will win in the end.
Younglings are gonna vote Labour off as the Imposter every time now that they've vent-killed Corbs.
(https://i.imgur.com/ptrdEEK.jpg)
What?
This is who has won. These people are fucking imbeciles and yet they have everything
https://mobile.twitter.com/HadleyFreeman/status/1321838826797600768?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Etweet
Deleted now. What was it plz?
Basically: Isn't it spiffing news about Corbyn? Maybe Trump will lose too and Brexit will be reversed, and we can all go back to living in our cosy little dreamland.
I can't work out how to post tweets as images sorry.1. Screenshot.
[img]https://i.imgur.com/PZcuCzY.png[/img]
Left Labour's REAL best chance is me and AOC getting hitched, giving her British citizenship, and her taking over the party. Anyone know what kind of movies she likes?
My favorite movies: Romper Stomper (1992), American History X (1998), Along Came Polly (2004)
Lisa Nandy on Radio 4: “Antisemitism is a particular kind of racism, that punches up instead of punching down.”
Well, um, er...
https://twitter.com/bencooper/status/1321873862238285824
you fucking what
you fucking whatYeah I though that was what she said but couldn’t be sure. Fucking mentalists. These people are complete fucking jellyheads.
you fucking what
Finished, Buellers! :)Your first paragraph talks about the difficulty of fighting the established electoral parties; your second says we should ignore Westminster-style politics. I think you answered your own question.
I'm all for a new party if it's going to be seriously pursued by a co-ordinated and unified left, with the view to long (very long) term success, not victory in the short or medium term. Because even with Momentum, unions, people power, the fact is that no party starting from scratch and competing for seats against established parties like The Lib Dems, Labour and The Greens could possibly win a general election (or even more than a few seats) for decades and decades - the vote would simply be too split. It also guarantees that The Tories will stay in power for all that time, which may be the price of meaningful change, but is undoubtedly the consequence of splitting the non-Tory vote even further.
Frankly, and as I've said before, the best chance the left have is another fluke opportunity like Corbyn within Labour, which may not happen for many years, but will probably happen before a new party could even win a seat starting from scratch. And imo, even that's probably the wrong way to approach change in 2020. I truly believe the left would be best served by largely eschewing Westminster politics and instead co-ordinating their efforts, movements, protests, into applying pressure to agreed, carefully chosen targets on a scale that cannot be ignored. Push for change through a massive, co-ordinated movement as an alternative to, or at least in conjunction with, our frustrated political ambitions.
Well, um, er...
https://twitter.com/bencooper/status/1321873862238285824
If Nandy really said that, she should be expelled from the party for that.
If Nandy really said that, she should be expelled from the party for that.
If Nandy really said that, she should be expelled from the party for that.
Have you had a necessary moment of clarity regarding the current state of the Labour Party yet trenter? Otherwise I fear nothing will get you there
Why?
This is part of the problem a arms race regarding what can and can't be said. I heard her say it and she was saying it in the context of the perception of rich jewish people.
None of this is antisemitic, what Corbyn said isn't antisemitic, this twisting and political use of racism is what has cause this fucking shitshow in the first place.
Because most antisemintism in the UK doesn't take place against people more powerful than the antisemites. The Jewish school that has to have high fences and barbed wire or the Jewish couple attacked in the street aren't victims of "punching up". I also don't believe that people are attacking Jewish people because they think they are rich. Then again I haven't listened to the program and should probably do that first. Even with context, describing it as "punching up" seems very dangerous at best.
Notwithstanding all of the chicanery, malice and weaponising of anti-semitism for factional gain undertaken by the right wing of the Labour Party, it is a fucking disgrace that through improper interference in the complaints process, Labour has discriminated against Jews. It's unforgivable. No political party is exempt from the Equalities Act. We can debate who is ultimately to blame, but all the people running the party had to do was make sure the complaints process was legally compliant for fuck's sake. It's not that hard. But they failed to do that. If there are people who think there's nothing to learn from that, welcome to your lifetime of losing.
No it doesn't. It means, and in the context she said it, that part of AS is assuming Jewish people are rich. Extrapolating that she means poor jewish people don't get abuse is wrong, and sophistry.
This is not complicated. We don't want to make claims of AS anymore detached from reality.
The rich elite protected Jews are the ones who have had the loudest voice in this. I have not heard any of the working class Jews given a voice.
regardless of whether that is true or not makes no difference.
Does to me
Because most antisemintism in the UK doesn't take place against people more powerful than the antisemites. The Jewish school that has to have high fences and barbed wire or the Jewish couple attacked in the street aren't victims of "punching up". I also don't believe that people are attacking Jewish people because they think they are rich. Then again I haven't listened to the program and should probably do that first. Even with context, describing it as "punching up" seems very dangerous at best.
You're aware, I presume, that Corbyn and Formby's NEC were successfully reforming the process from 2018 onwards? He just had to go through the democratic process of getting the previous NEC voted out first, because they were obstructing it, for their own political reasons. Yes?
So the lesson seems to be, don't allow your NEC to become full of absolute stinkers.
I had that same vape! It's a Vapor Genie and I got it for smoking DMT but used it for weed too. It smashed, as all glass is wont to do, and I instead got the Vapor Genie Aluminium Bat, which is much cheaper and more durable. I've lost it a bunch of times and it's not heartbreaking, unlike the glass one in the picture that was like £100.
Take a look at The Greens in Aus and NZ, sure, not FPTP but by being consistent and booting out most of the nutters, have a significant vote share.
Your Greens could be stacked to easily outvote the anti Halal and TERF nutters, but it would need a leader to organise it. Same for a new party. Who is that person though
Exactly for any new party we need a new leader, Corbyn merely has to (and should only) endorse.
Most anti-semitism stems from the perception that jews control hollywood/the media/the economy/the world, does it not?
If Nandy really said that, she should be expelled from the party for that.
most "antisemitism" claims come from people who are powerful and rich and use their Jewish status in order not to be held to account for their cuntery
and David Baddiel.
not that antisemitism isnt a problem today. but it was not endemic in the Labour Party under Corbyn. it's just bullshit.
I know things had started to be done, but I can't see how that's good enough. It's a bit like Matt Hancock, always telling us what he's going to do, because he can't tell us about anything useful he's actually done. And if it really was just Corbyn and Formby vs the NEC, then why was the message from Corbyn that it was all getting sorted and he had a grip on it, rather than "I'm trying to get it sorted but there are these individuals in the way"?
Also, the EHRC highlighted that one of the reasons they've broken the law (the law against racist discrimination) is that they disproportionately decided not to investigate concerns raised about anti-Semitism as opposed to other forms of the discrimination. I can't see how the NEC was stopping them from doing a proper job there. They just needed to have a proper process. If it takes years for a party to ensure they don't have a racist complaints process, then I don't think they deserve to win.
that is your issue then.
Most anti-semitism stems from the perception that jews control hollywood/the media/the economy/the world, does it not?
It's hugely pessimistic to believe a new party couldn't win seats within 10 years, with the amount of youth support Corbyn has, that Bernie Sanders has, that left wing politics in general has. Look at the rest of the world for how quick things can move, like in Greece.
Your first paragraph talks about the difficulty of fighting the established electoral parties; your second says we should ignore Westminster-style politics. I think you answered your own question.
Also, what have we gained by not splitting the anti-Tory vote, up to this point?
Remove the word control and replace with "are part of", and Most with "Some"
Nah, I think most antisemitism claims come from people who are genuine victims of antisemitism, like the people who had their family members gravestones smashed in my local synagogue.
You are right, back in the 80s, the National Front were are real and terrible scourge of the Jewish communities. Remnants of these far-right groups still practice such racism, less openly and in less numbers but those complaints reflect that.
Firstly, political parties try not to air their dirty laundry in public. I honestly don't understand why you'd even suggest that as a sensible course of action. This is not to say that I agree with his every decision, you understand?
The report seems to be rather concerned with not mentioning how shit the process was before Corbyn, and seems to be much more interested in using the comparison between AS and sexism as its yardstick, which seems a bit rum to me, because that wasn't as far as I'm aware on anybody's radar. Prior to 2018, anything he tried to do back then, to gee the NEC into getting its arse in gear, is being described now as 'abnormal interference'. Can't win, can he?
And I can't really stress this enough - he was succeeding in his reform of the process.
I have a fair bit of sympathy for him - he became leader more or less by accident, and if you were planning a left takeover of the Labour Party he really wouldn't be your first choice because he's nowhere near ruthless enough. But if after four years the broken complaints process is still not fixed then that's a failure.
Grassroots Voice https://futureweneed.com/preference/
Berger on O'Brien...the worst thing I've ever seen.
King Masochist.
I don't see the point of this unless it's petty revenge.
They shouldn't call by-elections for a start. They are Corbyn supporters who ran under the 2019 manifesto and won on that basis. CHUK didn't call a by election, why should they?
Of course they probably would call one anyway, because the left never learn to be as cut throat as the right, which is why we usually lose.
If they left this many years away from a general election, they have enough time to win support. The youth support might be slow to pick up on it, but it would come eventually. Most of the 18-25s who overwhelmingly supported Labour in 2017 and 2019 supported Corbyn and the manifestos, not the Labour brand. They wouldn't be winning a 2024 election by a long shot, but it would shaft Starmer. Longer term who knows? It's not like there aren't recent examples of new left wing parties winning lots of support in a relatively short span of time elsewhere in the world. Allowing Labour to turn itself as irrelevant as the LDs is what's required first, despite that facilitating another likely Tory win. Otherwise we never get off the roundabout.
For now I'm staying in Labour to have some small influence while there's no one else to support. If a new party starts then I'd jump ship in a heart beat.
Not the most pressing issue to be fair.
[ferris bangs on about his family whatsapp thread]
In the scheme of things maybe not, but surely a system that can't effectively get racists out of the party is a suicide bomb waiting to go off. You'd think they would have seen that coming, dealt with it swiftly then got on with other things like averting climate disaster.
Well, in Corbyn's first election we nearly won government, but generally speaking, fuck all. That doesn't mean that splitting the vote to start a new party (which I'm assuming is your argument?) would stand a better chance of succeeding than my suggested alternatives. It wouldn't; it would stand a slimmer chance. And maybe that's worth the risk, but be under no illusions about the chance of success. It would just be nice to fight for our own beliefs, rather than for compromised ones. That's the case for a new party, not a better chance of winning.Syriza was founded as a political party three years before it took power for the first time. Literal translation of Syriza's name - "Coalition of the Radical Left - Progressive Alliance".
| 1. | I wonder if sabotaging election chances counts as disreputable. Not sure where those various Labour saboteurs are at the moment, I'd be interested in seeing a recap. |
https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1321895242803662848
At the very least, that YouGov refers to a group of UK citizens as "ALL BRITONS" is fucking odd
Syriza was founded as a political party three years before it took power for the first time. Literal translation of Syriza's name - "Coalition of the Radical Left - Progressive Alliance".
As you've admitted yourself, not splitting the vote has achieved absolutely nothing. Just another generation of people burned out and viewing all politics as a mug's game where the decent get trampled and nothing ever changes. I don't want that. I want to fight alongside people who I largely agree with, rather than argue with people I hate and who hate me, to win the tiniest fraction of a concession which will just be cast aside whenever it's convenient to do so.
What does continuing to be in the Labour Party in 2020 achieve?
https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1321895242803662848I'll have you know, the interview was conducted in P-Celtic, and those nasty Gaelic speakers didn't have a clue what it was all about.
At the very least, that YouGov refers to a group of UK citizens as "ALL BRITONS" is fucking odd
I think I'm right in saying that the EHRC report itself defends what Corbyn has done today - i.e. discussing/questioning/opining on the scale of antisemitism in the party.
Article 10 will protect Labour Party members who, for example, make legitimate criticisms of the Israeli government, or express their opinions on internal Party matters, such as the scale of antisemitism within the Party, based on their own experience and within the law. It does not protect criticism of Israel that is antisemitic.
Suggesting that complaints of antisemitism are fake or smears. Labour Party agents denied antisemitism in the Party and made comments dismissing complaints as ‘smears’ and ‘fake’. This conduct may target Jewish members as deliberately making up antisemitism complaints to undermine the Labour Party, and ignores legitimate and genuine complaints of antisemitism in the Party. These comments went beyond simply describing the agents’ own personal experience of antisemitism in the Party.
Local Rossendale Borough councillor, Pam Bromley, posted on Facebook: ‘Had Jeremy Corbyn and the Labour Party pulled up the drawbridge and nipped the bogus AS [antisemitism] accusations in the bud in the first place we would not be where we are now and the fifth column in the LP [Labour Party] would not have managed to get such a foothold ... the Lobby has miscalculated ... The witch hunt has created brand new fightback networks ... The Lobby will then melt back into its own cesspit.’
The EHRC report, from what I've read, is measured and thorough (even if there were a couple of instances where I differed with the assessment of inappropriate intervention).
Jeremy Corbyn's suspension is oil on the fire. It is grotesquely unfair, and a mockery of antiracism.
https://www.channel4.com/news/former-labour-party-mp-luciana-berger-alleges-jeremy-corbyn-made-a-number-of-different-antisemitic-comments (https://www.channel4.com/news/former-labour-party-mp-luciana-berger-alleges-jeremy-corbyn-made-a-number-of-different-antisemitic-comments)she was never popular in her constituency but Merseyside is the safest of safe labour seats. I don't actually hate her at all like the rest of the CHUK-TINGERs tbh. she has always been in Labour Friends of Israel and also resigned from the front bench in June 2016 against corbyn but I don't know, she always seems pressured into it. i was sympathetic when the antisemitism first broke but in retrospect it was all bullshit from a party point of view
What's her deal? When she's pressed she makes a very vague quick notion of corbyn having made 'antisemitic statements' then goes off to something else
Should Jeremy Crobbins be put in the stocks so the decent people of Britain can throw rotting vegetables at him?
YES 77%
NO 23%
I think I'm right in saying that the EHRC report itself defends what Corbyn has done today - i.e. discussing/questioning/opining on the scale of antisemitism in the party.
To justify the suspension, they might have to vaguely say he was 'bringing the party into disrepute'.[1]
I'll be listening to Tysky in full tomorrow, but Bastani (https://twitter.com/SaulStaniforth/status/1321912614524461056) reckons Starmer will be expelling Corbyn, as to reinstate him would look weak now that he's taken the step of suspending him.
1. I wonder if sabotaging election chances counts as disreputable. Not sure where those various Labour saboteurs are at the moment, I'd be interested in seeing a recap.
Notwithstanding all of the chicanery, malice and weaponising of anti-semitism for factional gain undertaken by the right wing of the Labour Party, it is a fucking disgrace that through improper interference in the complaints process, Labour has discriminated against Jews.
Also, the EHRC highlighted that one of the reasons they've broken the law (the law against racist discrimination) is that they disproportionately decided not to investigate concerns raised about anti-Semitism as opposed to other forms of the discrimination.
Jennie Formby suggests that these systemic issues affected complaints of all kinds, not just antisemitism complaints. If correct, this means that an even wider pool of members was treated very poorly by their political party.
Our investigation focused on the handling of antisemitism complaints. Some of the problems we have identified may also apply to other types of complaint. If that is the case, we would expect the Labour Party to address our concerns for all types of complaint.
It's unforgivable. No political party is exempt from the Equalities Act. We can debate who is ultimately to blame, but all the people running the party had to do was make sure the complaints process was legally compliant for fuck's sake. It's not that hard. But they failed to do that. If there are people who think there's nothing to learn from that, welcome to your lifetime of losing.
she was never popular in her constituency but Merseyside is the safest of safe labour seats. I don't actually hate her at all like the rest of the CHUK-TINGERs tbh. she has always been in Labour Friends of Israel and also resigned from the front bench in June 2016 against corbyn but I don't know, she always seems pressured into it. i was sympathetic when the antisemitism first broke but in retrospect it was all bullshit from a party point of view
did the obvious thing of standing at finchley/golders green for the lib dems but still lost
she works at a PR firm now so not as audacious as the shit the rest of the backstabbers went on to do (gambling lobby etc)
Have we ever been told what Corbyn's antisemitic comments were? By anyone?epschteen
Have we ever been told what Corbyn's antisemitic comments were? By anyone?
welcome to your lifetime of losing.
Local Rossendale Borough councillor, Pam Bromley, posted on Facebook: ‘Had Jeremy Corbyn and the Labour Party pulled up the drawbridge and nipped the bogus AS [antisemitism] accusations in the bud in the first place we would not be where we are now and the fifth column in the LP [Labour Party] would not have managed to get such a foothold ... the Lobby has miscalculated ... The witch hunt has created brand new fightback networks ... The Lobby will then melt back into its own cesspit.’
The report judged that this comment constituted 'unlawful harrassment'. Interested to know what others think.
Some time back I got hammered for posting an anti-Rothschild meme. However here they are again. We must remember that the Rothschilds are a powerful financial family (like the Medicis) and represent capitalism and big business – even if the Nazis DID use the activities of the Rothschilds in their anti semitic [sic] propaganda. We must not obscure the truth with the need to be tactful
I think I'm right in saying that the EHRC report itself defends what Corbyn has done today - i.e. discussing/questioning/opining on the scale of antisemitism in the party.
To justify the suspension, they might have to vaguely say he was 'bringing the party into disrepute'.[1]
I'll be listening to Tysky in full tomorrow, but Bastani (https://twitter.com/SaulStaniforth/status/1321912614524461056) reckons Starmer will be expelling Corbyn, as to reinstate him would look weak now that he's taken the step of suspending him.
1. I wonder if sabotaging election chances counts as disreputable. Not sure where those various Labour saboteurs are at the moment, I'd be interested in seeing a recap.
Tomorrow I shall join the Labour Party so I can leave it in disgust.
epschteen
kin hell
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Elh4L0HXgAE4BTz?format=jpg&name=large)
In the scheme of things maybe not, but surely a system that can't effectively get racists out of the party is a suicide bomb waiting to go off. You'd think they would have seen that coming, dealt with it swiftly then got on with other things like averting climate disaster.
Have we ever been told what Corbyn's antisemitic comments were? By anyone?
Lord Mann, antisemitism tsar
I don't think it's unlawful harassment in itself - the "fifth column" i took as a reference to the neoliberals, not jews
Fucking hell. Just watched JOB interrupt and bully a caller from Jewish Voice for Labour who tried to explain that the leaked reports from a few months ago showed there was attempt by others to interfere with anti-semitism complaints. JOB ain't interested in that of course. Why do I do this to myself? He and his show are just toxic.Just turn the radio off or put your fingers in your ears. Ignoring things just makes them go away don't you know!
Has JOB ever actually appeared in a debate where he doesn't have control over the whole setup? Would love to see that.
Fucking hell. Just watched JOB interrupt and bully a caller from Jewish Voice for Labour who tried to explain that the leaked reports from a few months ago showed there was attempt by others to interfere with anti-semitism complaints. JOB ain't interested in that of course. Why do I do this to myself? He and his show are just toxic.i've never seen JoBby do anything outside his LBC studio. except his shit books and twitter.
Has JOB ever actually appeared in a debate where he doesn't have control over the whole setup? Would love to see that.
Baddiel is far more comfortable with the punching down version of racism, the kind he enjoyed partaking in.
If they've got you dissecting evidence they've already won. The notion that Jeremy F. Corbyn is anti-Semitic or prejudiced against anyone is just so laughably ridiculous to require no additional inquiry.
Fucking hell. Just watched JOB interrupt and bully a caller from Jewish Voice for Labour who tried to explain that the leaked reports from a few months ago showed there was attempt by others to interfere with anti-semitism complaints. JOB ain't interested in that of course. Why do I do this to myself? He and his show are just toxic.
Has JOB ever actually appeared in a debate where he doesn't have control over the whole setup? Would love to see that.
Is criticising the Rothschilds usually an antisemitic thing for example?
It looks like they've fucked up the suspension.
(https://i.imgur.com/e3VtUWn.png)
So I’ll post this, in reference to the guardian’s shameful coverage and call it a day.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=bLqKXrlD1TU
Good luck to you all. I’m happy to walk anyone through avenues to move to Canada if you want to PM me. All the best; and don’t let the bastards grind you down.
Is it really worth him continuing to fight this battle though?
Don't know why I subjected myself to it, but the Newsnight coverage of this was truly appalling. At least had this guy on though to call them out on their shit https://twitter.com/BarnabyRaine/status/1321972804347187200
Unsurprisingly he was the only member of the panel Kirsty Wark kept trying to shut down when he didn't stick to the script the episode was running with.
I get the frustration, but after the decade we've had it seems foolhardy to attempt to predict one year in to the future, let alone fifteen.
i've never seen JoBby do anything outside his LBC studio. except his shit books and twitter.
also big fucking imbecile Baddiel here to apologise on behalf of Lisa Nandy's accidental antisemitism
https://twitter.com/Baddiel/status/1321906946736312322
Don't know why I subjected myself to it, but the Newsnight coverage of this was truly appalling. At least had this guy on though to call them out on their shit https://twitter.com/BarnabyRaine/status/1321972804347187200
Unsurprisingly he was the only member of the panel Kirsty Wark kept trying to shut down when he didn't stick to the script the episode was running with.
This looks to us like a new problem, but of course it isn't. Propaganda is as old as information. Manipulation is a political discipline, and was well examined by the Ancient Greeks.
I suppose that what I'm doing is seeking comfort, because people I love are going to be ruined by this.
Sure, there is always hope. Often it comes out of the darkness as well.
I've been saying this for the last 10 years. There is an over focus on collecting "data" and an under focus on the the obvious psychological manipulation through both new and current media.
Kolinsky's work was the basis for CA ad manipulation techniques, this is psychology, it works by psychologically profiling people and then psychologically manipulating them into responses.
To understand this you need to understand how brains work and how they interact with digital information.
Btw I just took it as IL being compassionate and saying something nice because I said I was feeling downbeat.
I was trying! I think we're all feeling pretty shit at the mo. I'm very grateful that I have this place of likeminded people.
There is major darkness coming in the form of lethal climate change. This is not a cheery proposition - the climatologists have been warning us for decades, and the things that are happening now are proving their dire warnings to be overly-optimistic. If you think this year was bad, it's likely just a taster.
It will be a crisis of huge proportions, and crises also present opportunities - the bigger the crisis, the greater the opportunity for real change. We should plan ahead and think about what our responses to that will be. It's hard to see how capitalism can survive the twin threats of climate change and automation, but we need something else ready to go to avoid falling into barbarism.
Jeremy Corbyn is the biggest global threat to Jews
Corbyn wants to re-open Auschwitz
Corbyn is an existential threat to Jews
New Labour were hardly blameless. CCTV, ID cards, detention without charge...
I remember saying repeatedly "Yes, but what if a malicious actor gets into power and sees all these levers of control waiting for them to operate?"
Trenter - You still seem to be under the misapprehension that Starmer is actually wanting to be any way left wing but is just going about it the wrong way - he is just a right wing Trojan horse and always has been.
but is not really a sophisticated or nuanced take of the situation.
Detention without charge is of course a terrible legal corruption.
Not being able or willing to process overwhelming evidence that happens to be counter to ones inclinations or prevailing views does not entitle anyone to clamber atop this shetland pony.
Doing so while adopting what is a faith based position of nuance, not an evidence based position of nuance is not an act of sophistication.
The duck test is a form of abductive reasoning. This is its usual expression: If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a fucking duck.
If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a fucking duck.
Director of public prosecutions doing whatever the establishment tells him shocker
This is so great.
https://twitter.com/redbethmond/status/1321960647358296064?s=20
Well, we'll never know, will we? But Starmer was always clearly shit for cunts and you wouldn't listen. I've lost any respect I had for you. Pathetic.
You say that like it's not real.
No civilised human can brush that aside.
Best case now is Starmer is challenged and we throw our support behind a better candidate. The membership (if they stay) still have to ability to take action when they get the chance.
A bit like the chicken coup, who is the actual candidate to beat Starmer? Who can reignite the successful youth movement, come across as sincere and manage to negotiate the minefield of trickier questions that Corbyn wasn't asked in 2015 (most of the discourse was held entirely on his strengths)?
Looking at the socialist grouping there are key weaknesses with virtually every potential candidate whether compromised politically or hobbled presentationally.
My feeling is the candidate would need to be somewhat of a rabble rouser but still adept enough to be so in a kindly way and not put their foot in it. If only he existed😢
No i didn't.
Right now i'm not a civilised person because you just made a massive assumption about me saying it wasn't real. An assumption based in me saying it happened and was corrupt, in the context of me and Paul Calf talking about the use of digital propaganda techniques.
Lets talk about extraordinary rendition if you like! It's real, it's disgusting, i've spent years going on about it too any cunt that starts getting dreamy eyed about the "Other Brother"
It just wasn't the focus of what we were talking about ffs.
Not being able or willing to process overwhelming evidence that happens to be counter to ones inclinations or prevailing views does not entitle anyone to clamber atop this shetland pony.
Doing so while adopting what is a faith based position of nuance, not an evidence based position of nuance is not an act of sophistication. It is an act of someone allowing their intellect to obfuscate the truth. Which is a reasonably common occurrence in intelligent people.
The duck test is a form of abductive reasoning. This is its usual expression: If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a fucking duck.
This is so great.
https://twitter.com/redbethmond/status/1321960647358296064?s=20
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Elii3BEWoAMAzRu?format=jpg&name=medium)
I must say. The garun showing keith as an effeminate jewish princess holding the head of the precursor of the saviour is not what i expected. Especially in the wake of two religiously motivated beheadings in France
I thought theyd dumped steve bell?
A bit like the chicken coup, who is the actual candidate to beat Starmer? Who can reignite the successful youth movement, come across as sincere and manage to negotiate the minefield of trickier questions that Corbyn wasn't asked in 2015 (most of the discourse was held entirely on his strengths)?
Looking at the socialist grouping there are key weaknesses with virtually every potential candidate whether compromised politically or hobbled presentationally.
My feeling is the candidate would need to be somewhat of a rabble rouser but still adept enough to be so in a kindly way and not put their foot in it. If only he existed😢
Dial it down, that's my advice.
A bit like the chicken coup, who is the actual candidate to beat Starmer? Who can reignite the successful youth movement, come across as sincere and manage to negotiate the minefield of trickier questions that Corbyn wasn't asked in 2015 (most of the discourse was held entirely on his strengths)?
Looking at the socialist grouping there are key weaknesses with virtually every potential candidate whether compromised politically or hobbled presentationally.
My feeling is the candidate would need to be somewhat of a rabble rouser but still adept enough to be so in a kindly way and not put their foot in it. If only he existed😢
Marvelous stuff. More needed.imagine getting offended because of the religious imagery in a cartoon.
Whilst you're doing that good work, have a bit of a think about what you're achieving right now and what's motivating it.
Theory: Labour used to get its best MPs and activists from the trade unions, people who had learned a lot about organising, winning and ruthlessness through industrial action. Since the Tories made industrial action so difficult, Labour has struggled to find a source of effective left wingers.
Absolutely. Now, we need to decide whether it's best to remain in the Party and fight or to leave and start something fresh. Being angry with Starmer because he's a grifting two-face is a waste of energy. We must use our energy to win.
Anything else allows more right wing people to have more influence over the only route to power we have.
Supporters of Corbyn will be called anti-semitic.
Challengers to the leadership will be called anti-semitic.
Leaving the Labour party will be an admission of anti-semitism.
Socialism will deliberately be equated with anti-semitism.
I'd say starting a new party and then electing a leader (if you really can't live without one) would be the better option.
really hate this kind of talk, basically a pavlovian reflex against anything new.
Not being able or willing to process overwhelming evidence that happens to be counter to ones inclinations or prevailing views does not entitle anyone to clamber atop this shetland pony.
Doing so while adopting what is a faith based position of nuance, not an evidence based position of nuance is not an act of sophistication. It is an act of someone allowing their intellect to obfuscate the truth. Which is a reasonably common occurrence in intelligent people.
The duck test is a form of abductive reasoning. This is its usual expression: If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a fucking duck.
How long will this new way take? 10 years? 20? How long would it take to get to even lib dem level success?
If we get behind electoral reform, we can happily split the Labour party, until then it's handing the keys to the tories for even longer. It's also pretending that a new left party would somehow avoid the media monstering that Corbyn got, or even be covered at all with any level of respect whatsoever.
Just to comment further on the media monstering that thugler mentioned. IMO, the reason so many of those punches landed was because our own side were throwing them. This will always be a problem until either those people are gone from the Party or we are.
Just to comment further on the media monstering that thugler mentioned. IMO, the reason so many of those punches landed was because our own side were throwing them. This will always be a problem until either those people are gone from the Party or we are.
It's also pretending that a new left party would somehow avoid the media monstering that Corbyn got
I was pondering why the Tories haven't found themselves in the same situation with Islamophobia, and I think it's because apart from Syeda Warsi and maybe one or two others, they're all Islamophobes and happy to work with Islamophobes (i.e. racists) and so there's not going to be any whistleblowing.
It takes an incredible level of restraint and care but we can counter this. If Corbyn was more specific with his statement, something like ‘instances like such and such were clear examples of exagerration for political ends by the media’ would be a start. I don’t think anyone is pretending there won’t be unreal scrutiny and attempts to twist words, but it’s not impossible to overcome. Not every left wing Labour mp has been destroyed in this way.
You can’t just point to this issue and say ‘it’s impossible’. It’s something we need to find the right way to combat and not just ignore. Endlessly fighting the battle in the same way just allows the media narrative to continue in perpetuity.
I was pondering why the Tories haven't found themselves in the same situation with Islamophobia, and I think it's because apart from Syeda Warsi and maybe one or two others, they're all Islamophobes and happy to work with Islamophobes (i.e. racists) and so there's not going to be any whistleblowing.
How long will this new way take? 10 years? 20? How long would it take to get to even lib dem level success?
If we get behind electoral reform, we can happily split the Labour party, until then it's handing the keys to the tories for even longer. It's also pretending that a new left party would somehow avoid the media monstering that Corbyn got, or even be covered at all with any level of respect whatsoever.
Is this a solvable problem within our current democratic system?
No. And another error that Corbyn made was not putting proportional representation into his manifesto.
I agree but as I said earlier in the thread, I'm not sure Corbyn would have been Corbyn if he'd been prepared to purge (though I wanted a purge). That is something to think about. Remaining in the Labour Party, socialists hoping to change the world will always know, through the Corbyn Experience, that they can only achieve their aims if their leader is a bit of a cunt.
We wouldn't have to make this compromise with a new party.
Highly doubt that shit matters to the average cunt on the street. It's pure media spin.
No. And another error that Corbyn made was not putting proportional representation into his manifesto.
This was simple game theory, if they won they want all the power, because of course they struggled with the winning bit.
The Board of Deputies seems to acknowledge there's Islamophobia in the Conservative Party, but says "there may be a difference in scale"...
https://twitter.com/jrschlosberg/status/1322106019317751809
I've no idea what they comment "its pure media spin" there had always been a healthy interest in PR in the Labour Party. I'm not aware of any media spin that put this as a criticism of Corbyn, that is my own belief.
The Board of Deputies seems to acknowledge there's Islamophobia in the Conservative Party, but says "there may be a difference in scale"...
https://twitter.com/jrschlosberg/status/1322106019317751809
I think I fancy Ash Sarkar more than anyone else on the planet.
One option would have been to go into the last GE in the following manner: one anti-Tory candidate (Green, Labour, Lib-Dem) in each seat, on the agreement that once in a temporary government, PR and upper house reform pushed through, then another GE called on PR lines. Then the two Labour parties (left and right) could have split and you'd have some left representation in parliament. It was very clear that Corbyn's circle didn't want that though. Of course it might have just let the fash in.
Oh, Andrew!adonis has always been a dickhead, went single-issue nutter during brexit, but he's just gone mad now hasnt he? hes like a fucking cartoon
https://mobile.twitter.com/Andrew_Adonis/status/1321805888349474820
How long will this new way take? 10 years? 20? How long would it take to get to even lib dem level success?
If we get behind electoral reform, we can happily split the Labour party, until then it's handing the keys to the tories for even longer. It's also pretending that a new left party would somehow avoid the media monstering that Corbyn got, or even be covered at all with any level of respect whatsoever.
I just mean that Corbyn could have cured cancer and he'd still have been utterly fucked of any chance by the media.
That's pretty sinister isn't it?
Display left wing beliefs and have left wing heroes? You are officially under investigation.
That's pretty sinister isn't it?
Display left wing beliefs and have left wing heroes? You are officially under investigation.
I'm sorry, I can't understand what you're saying.
This is a public forum and the things that I write are not exclusively written for you but also for other people that do not spend all their time acting like petty teenagers.
Hope you can understand that.
That's pretty sinister isn't it?
Display left wing beliefs and have left wing heroes? You are officially under investigation.
| 1. | Sunday Telegraph's Simon Heffer, 2019. |
I do understand that. As it is a public forum, I hope you understand that it's perfectly reasonable for individuals to tell you that they can't understand what you mean.
I couldn't understand it either.
I think she's unbalanced.I just peeped at her TL; she is full-on basking in the glory whilst calling now for the heads of Bastani, Jones and Sarkar. The woman is fucking insane.
I think Trenter was just offering an example of how one possible way respond to TAOberman.
eg in the example given - call her stalinist
and a commentary about bearing in mind who you're addressing and why - ie it's not her, it's her audience your trying to get to
That's pretty sinister isn't it?
Display left wing beliefs and have left wing heroes? You are officially under investigation.
I like that they started with a cover of I Am Sitting in a Room by Alvin Lucier.
Of course.
So what do people do? They have circumvent that problem and unify around a reasonable rejection of it. However within minutes someone will have given her what she wants, an insult of somekind she can then show to her followers as more evidence she is right. This is how it works. Social media should be a tool for masses, the left needs to have a dedicated policy of how to interact on it. It isn't interested. The right is.
In the aftermath of Corbyn's suspension from the Labour party, both the party's and Keir Starmer's net favourability ratings take a hit
Labour party
21-22 Oct: -11
29-30 Oct: -23
Keir Starmer
21-22 Oct: +5
29-30 Oct: -2
I'm really hoping they don't force Corbyn to do an apology and then do an RLB on him. I have a nasty feeling this is their plan.
Paul Holmes rocking it on the Stand With Corbyn stream right now.
You know what? If the Tories get the most seats, but fail to get a working majority in 2024, I reckon Starmer would be up for doing a Clegg to be deputy PM.
Make a complaint
Gnomic
This issue is highlighting how distressingly fractured UK anti-racist organisations are. Hope Not Hate are encouraging supporters to join the Jewish Labour Movement, Stand Up to Racism and Black Lives Matter have nothing at all about the EHRC report on their sites. Jewish Voice for Labour's response is the best I've seen - they are waiting before giving a fully considered response, and they are as much anti-Islamophobia as they are anti-Jewish racism. As someone who has set up ANL and UAF branches in the past, I am finding the lack of a united front against all forms of racism in equal measure upsetting.It's almost as if people with petty personal grievances and personality cults who run organizations have more power than the people they claim to represent, and yet these people are happy not to require actual democratic decisions in these places.
Why is anti-semitism elevated above all other hate crime? I understand the more serious cases, but saying e.g. "oooh, you are good with money" is akin to saying to a black man "oooh you have a big penis". Horrible, stereotyping, but in 95% of the cases it should elicit scorn. Only one of those examples will get you kicked out of the Labour Party.
Why is anti-semitism elevated above all other hate crime? I understand the more serious cases, but saying e.g. "oooh, you are good with money" is akin to saying to a black man "oooh you have a big penis". Horrible, stereotyping, but in 95% of the cases it should elicit scorn. Only one of those examples will get you kicked out of the Labour Party.
That's pretty sinister isn't it?
Display left wing beliefs and have left wing heroes? You are officially under investigation.
Adam ShillsDumb bastard doesn't have two legs to stand on
Dumb bastard doesn't have two legs to stand on
I already have a little book like that.
The role of lad culture comedians (or alternative comedians of the 90s as they like to think of themselves) and their descendants, in propping up and amplifying the Neo-liberal agenda would be a fascinating topic for a book.
Aaron Bastani did very well and was even allowed to factually correct two points made on SKY NEWS: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H8yljRCgbtM&t=2s
Unfortunately he didn't get a chance to reply to the journalist's claim that Corbyn followers didn't want the Party to unite when he was the Leader. His face when she claims that says it all though.
Unfortunately he didn't get a chance to reply to the journalist's claim that Corbyn followers didn't want the Party to unite when he was the Leader. His face when she claims that says it all though.
at most the report says Corbyn didn't do enough to combat antisemitism reports within the party. however now it's carte blanche for tories to say "Jeremy Corbyn is an antisemite". incredible really
| 1. | what's more worrying is the precarious future of the Labour left, the only progressive political force in the UK with a feasible proximity to state power |
Aaron Bastani did very well and was even allowed to factually correct two points made on SKY NEWS: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H8yljRCgbtM&t=2s
Unfortunately he didn't get a chance to reply to the journalist's claim that Corbyn followers didn't want the Party to unite when he was the Leader. His face when she claims that says it all though.
at most the report says Corbyn didn't do enough to combat antisemitism reports within the party. however now it's carte blanche for tories to say "Jeremy Corbyn is an antisemite". incredible really
*Aaron lucidly outlines why Starmer's actions actually contravene the lessons of the report*
'But don't you think Starmer needed to do this to show that the party is taking onboard the lessons of the report?'
Aaron Bastani did very well and was even allowed to factually correct two points made on SKY NEWS: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H8yljRCgbtM&t=2s
Unfortunately he didn't get a chance to reply to the journalist's claim that Corbyn followers didn't want the Party to unite when he was the Leader. His face when she claims that says it all though.
Showing off her Flanders & Swann album
Aaron Bastani did very well and was even allowed to factually correct two points made on SKY NEWS: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H8yljRCgbtM&t=2s
Unfortunately he didn't get a chance to reply to the journalist's claim that Corbyn followers didn't want the Party to unite when he was the Leader. His face when she claims that says it all though.
Apologies if this has been posted and I've missed it. I used to like this woman. (and it has an embedded video so no idea if there's another way of posting it).yeah disingenuous as pigshit. sorry pigshit.
https://twitter.com/alexnunns/status/1322648643107803138
(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn%3AANd9GcRI9ow-QRni80IDAdghyynZPS01f1hVwEdHbA&usqp=CAU)
£200.00 a pop
Blodwyn hates all jews confirmed.
Apologies if this has been posted and I've missed it. I used to like this woman. (and it has an embedded video so no idea if there's another way of posting it).
https://twitter.com/alexnunns/status/1322648643107803138
yeah disingenuous as pigshit. sorry pigshit.
i don't think her heart's in politics anymore, at least not high end. cant blame her there. what a fucking shame this all is.
while you have fucks like this who are jerking off over a report that has essentially mild criticism in it. this is who they're placating. absolute fucking idiots
https://twitter.com/alexrubner/status/1322601050545803272
That Rachel Cunliff is a right twerp isn't she. Finger in ears as she's called up on her lies. Awful cunt.
Who the fuck are any of those blue ticks in that thread?
Can't believe i was among those who initially thought Rayner might make a good leader after Corbyn. Like Ashworth, a weathervane with a face drawn on. Difference being that from 2015-2019 Rayner genuinely sounded like she was passionate and gutsy, rather than Ashworth who came across as someone dutifully sticking by the members.i'd say that from her deprived background and precarious present she has she feels she can't afford to be contrarian atm. i notice that a lot, that people with essentially progressive beliefs become weathervane because they need to look after their kids.
Can you imagine Burgon as deputy leader coming out with this shite.
who i vote treasurer and "West of England Metro Mayor". answer me immediately
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ElkkRYGWoAEogrj?format=jpg&name=small) (https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ElkkRYHXgAAYE57?format=jpg&name=small)
Alastair Pringle, the EHRC's executive director, makes this extraordinary comment (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/oct/30/labour-antisemitism-jeremy-corbyn-equality-watchdog) to Jonathan Freedland about antisemitism in Labour: "‘Was it 3% or 30% or 0.3%’ misses the point, really."
No, it really doesn't – not if you don't want to end up weaponising antisemitism
The duck test is a form of abducktive reasoning. This is its usual expression: If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a fucking duck.
I'll never forget hearing a privately educated, son of wealth, sit back, after a fine dinner and excellent wine, discussing ambition, choice of career path and so on, and say he was thinking of going into politics. He was the most venal arrogant compassion-free person you can imagine. Someone asked, in huge surprise, because the man believes in nothing except self-advancement, who for? He smirked and replied, why, the Labour Party of course.
I'm kind of hoping Raynor's comment turns into a story so Keith has to sack everyone and expose the purge for what it is.
Speaking of Twitter, here's a tweet (https://twitter.com/Jonathan_K_Cook/status/1322489872955904001):QuoteAlastair Pringle, the EHRC's executive director, makes this extraordinary comment to Jonathan Freedland about antisemitism in Labour: "‘Was it 3% or 30% or 0.3%’ misses the point, really."
No, it really doesn't – not if you don't want to end up weaponising antisemitism
I think she was being an arsehole... Trying to please everybody pleases nobody.
Arsehole behaviour, sadly.
I do empathise with Nadia's stated position. She's a good egg in the party, and the more of those in secure positions at this turbulent time, the better. Her initial response for the Jewish communities was dignified (and it's the sort of thing that day should have been about).
As to what she actually thinks about the Jez matter, it's not entirely clear. I understand why she might think Corbyn 'was wrong to make' his statement on that particular day - bad timing, for example - but she also notes that 'I cannot agree with his statement'.
We all know where the controversy has come from - the 'scale was exaggerated' line. So I'll presume that's what she's talking about.
But does that mean she doesn't believe the scale of antisemitism was ever overstated? Does she not think exaggeration was taking place when Corbyn was described as 'an existential threat' who wanted to 're-open Auschwitz', and 'the biggest global threat to Jews'?
Unfortunately, it's near-impossible to answer these straightforward questions and expect a good faith reception from fellow MPs or pundits.
It should, of course, be possible to accept the report in full, accept that antisemitism exists within the party, that Corbyn made mistakes, and that the complaints system was shoddy - whilst at the same time daring to note that the threat of antisemitism was seized upon and cruelly weaponised by bad faith actors. They are not mutually exclusive things to believe.
In the meantime 60% of tory membership are openly islamaphobic with no repurcussions whatsoever.I wouldn't say no repercussions; they keep winning elections, for example.
Starmer has logic'd himself into a corner. If somebody now suggests that Starmer is himself an antisemite for having 'supported Corbyn 100%', does Starmer have to accept that?
I mean, he can no longer defend himself by saying that the allegation is an exaggeration or an overstatement.
The statement should have given specific examples and not just said ‘it’s been exagerrated’. That was bound to be jumped on and used as a cudgel to beat him with, this is why she hasn’t felt able to just say she agrees with the statement. When dealing with something this sensitive and raw it’s more powerful to use undeniable examples of which there are plenty. He mentioned the 0.3% thing, that was just cases as well, if you get down to legitimate ones within the membership it would be even smaller, plus the insane politically motivated headlines. In the meantime 60% of tory membership are openly islamaphobic with no repurcussions whatsoever.
Somebody's already doing that, just check out the dank memes coming out of Conservative HQ at the moment.
| 1. | strategically mistimed, perhaps, but you can understand a lifelong anti-racist campaigner wanting to devote a couple of sentences to defending himself. Within those 45 words, he also makes the point that the weaponisation of antisemitism ultimately hurts Jewish people, which barely anyone in the mainstream media seems to acknowledge. Barnaby Raine (https://twitter.com/BarnabyRaine/status/1322129786500796417) made the point passionately on Newsnight. |
Starmer has logic'd himself into a corner. If somebody now suggests that Starmer is himself an antisemite for having 'supported Corbyn 100%', does Starmer have to accept that?
I mean, he can no longer defend himself by saying that the allegation might be disingenuous, or that it contains exaggeration or overstatement.
Corbyn's statement on the EHRC report was 276 words long. Only 45 of those words are about the 'scale of antisemitism in the party',[1]
1. strategically mistimed, perhaps, but you can understand a lifelong anti-racist campaigner wanting to devote a couple of sentences to defending himself.
It didn't matter what he said unless it was begging for forgiveness and announcing his suicide.
It didn't matter what he said unless it was begging for forgiveness and announcing his suicide.
People keep saying that they think he shouldn't have brought up the massive elephant. Why? Because it would be easier to let it lie? But would it? Is it correct to allow a giant coordinated deception to rest unchallenged and drift into becoming truth? I don't think it is, even if it means they leave you alone for a bit.
Corbyn's weathered more monstering than any person I've ever had knowledge of, he's never stepped back, even when they're breaking his fingers. It's a big part of why we love him. Why we trust him.
People keep saying that they think he shouldn't have brought up the massive elephant. Why? Because it would be easier to let it lie? But would it? Is it correct to allow a giant coordinated deception to rest unchallenged and drift into becoming truth? I don't think it is, even if it means they leave you alone for a bit.
Agreed. I also don't understand the 'bad timing' charge. Commenting on the report after the release of the report seems like pretty reasonable timing. Was he supposed to wait six months then drag it all up again?
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.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/nov/01/mr-corbyns-self-pity-betrays-the-victims-of-antisemitism-scandal
There's loads more which makes me think Andrew Rawnsley doesn't like JC very much.
[quote][/quote]You're not kidding. I lie awake at night thinking about this and I'm a total nihilist.
Imagine accidentally becoming the leader of a huge movement in the manner he did - flash forward five years and you're crucified over something you've fought against your whole life. Not only that but many of your closest colleagues and friends have joined the mob.
I don't know how he does it.
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.
I do wish you'd use theCode: [Select][quote]
tags DM. I always get a few lines in thinking 'He's really trying to wind us up this time' before I realise it's a quote.
He only does it to annoy, because he knows it teases.
And watch this film for DoubleDown News by the late and lovely David Graeber - The Weaponisation of Antisemitism (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a-oOg2J0aYc).
We express our solidarity with Jeremy Corbyn at a time when he is wrongly suspended from his party. Jeremy is a political leader and social activist who defends the cause of justice in the world.
Did you link it or something very like it quite recently? I had a bit of a search but gave up in the end (and thought it worth linking anyway).
EtA, please do try to find the time to watch the Daniel Finn one I linked above, anyone who hasn't, it really is a good, calm, clear explanation of the current situation and how we got here. Very worthwhile.
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.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/nov/01/mr-corbyns-self-pity-betrays-the-victims-of-antisemitism-scandal
There's loads more which makes me think Andrew Rawnsley doesn't like JC very much.
Daniel Finn, features editor at Jacobin, on the Michael Brooks Show, talking about Why Was Corbyn Suspended From The Labour Party? (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tgBK6mbtQh0) Well worth watching.
I do wish you'd use theCode: [Select][quote]
tags DM. I always get a few lines in thinking 'He's really trying to wind us up this time' before I realise it's a quote.
Anyway, Rawnsley's really trying to wind us up this time.
Second assertion: ‘Labour’s decision means a break from the Macpherson standard, which held that a minority was best placed to define prejudice against it’—Freedland tweet 5 Julyhttps://www.opendemocracy.net/en/opendemocracyuk/why-turning-to-jewish-exceptionalism-to-fight-antisemitism-is-failing-project/
The second ‘killer’ assertion about the NEC code is also based on an accusation of Labour’s alleged rejectionism: this time its denying of the validity of a supposedly standard understanding of who has the last word in determining the nature of prejudice against any minority group.
What critics claim is that the NEC has rejected the alleged universally accepted Macpherson definition of racism, the notion of the absolute right of a minority to define for itself what constitutes prejudice against it. ‘It is for Jews to determine for themselves what antisemitism is’, stated BoD president Marie van der Zyl and JLC chair Jonathan Goldstein on 5 July. But critics go further. In Nick Cohen’s words, it’s ‘the party’s decision to make Jews the only ethnic minority Labour denies the right to define the racism they face’
In a letter sent to Jennie Formby on 10 July, the professional heads of the Community Security Trust (CST), the BoD and the JLC state: ‘It is for the Jewish community to decide what does and what does not constitute racism towards us, just as any other groups has the right to do.’ ‘This attempt at defining prejudice on behalf of the Jewish community in the face of our clear advice constitutes a significant departure from established anti-racist [principles] that will worry all minorities’.
This apparent iron rule, as Freedland indicates in his tweet, is derived from the report of the Inquiry into the conduct of the police in investigating the killing of the black teenager Stephen Lawrence, conducted under the chairmanship of Sir William Macpherson and published on 24 February 1999. It is claimed that the Macpherson report produced a definition of racism that conferred the right on any minority to be the sole arbiters of what constitutes the racism they experience. Thus, it’s for Jews alone to define what is antisemitism.
The problem with this claim is that Macpherson produced no such definition. And yet it continues to be made indignantly and insistently by Jewish groups no matter how often it is clearly proven to be a misreading of the 1999 report. And even as I write, there is news that the Jewish Labour Movement is presenting to the party on 17 July legal advice claiming that Labour may have breached the equalities act by ignoring the so-called Macpherson principle in its new NEC code of conduct on antisemitism.
As I explained in a piece for openDemocracy in June 2011, in connection with accusations levelled at the time against the Universities and Colleges Union that by rejecting the EUMC working definition of antisemitism they were denying Jews the Macpherson-conferred right to define it for themselves, the only definition of racism Macpherson produced was of institutional racism. However, he did also define a racist incident, describing it as ‘any incident which is perceived to be racist by the victim or any other person’. But this was a specific instruction to the police that the victim’s perception of the motive for an attack is what the police must record as the motive for the attack. The intention of providing this definition was to change police culture prevailing at the time, which systematically failed to take heed of the experience of victims. But there is nothing in the report suggesting a move from a specific and very important rule about recording the victim’s perception of what occurred to a general rule that only the victim can define the racism they experience.
That this elision is highly problematic was in fact recognised by the CST. Its Antisemitic Discourse Report 2009 states:
The Stephen Lawrence Inquiry definition of a racist incident has significantly influenced societal interpretations of what does and does not constitute racism, with the victim’s perception assuming paramount importance. CST, however, ultimately defines incidents against Jews as being antisemitic only where it can be objectively shown to be the case [emphasis added], and this may not always match the victim’s perception as called for by the Lawrence Inquiry. CST takes a similar approach to the highly complex issue of antisemitic discourse, and notes the multiplicity of opinions within and beyond the Jewish community concerning this often controversial subject.
This is of course perfectly logical, because if an incident results in a prosecution being brought against the alleged perpetrator, judges and juries listen to the evidence and make objective judgements as required by the law of the land. They do not say: ‘Well, if the victim says the attacker was motivated by antisemitism, that’s all the evidence needed to convict.’
Professor David Feldman, director of the highly respected Pears Institute for the Study of Antisemitism, Birkbeck University of London, in a 22-page sub-report for the Parliamentary Committee Against Antisemitism published in 2015, concurred: ‘Macpherson’s report has been misinterpreted and misapplied . . . In short a definition [of antisemitism] which takes Jews’ feelings and perceptions as its starting point and which looks to the Macpherson report for authority is built on weak foundations.’ Feldman continues:
More fundamentally, if we rest our definitions of racism on the perceptions of minority groups then we open the way to conceptual and political chaos. For if the identification of racism becomes a matter of subjective judgment only, then we have no authority other than the perception of a minority or victim group with which to counter the contrary subjective opinions of perpetrators who deny they are racists. Without an anti-racist principle which can be applied generally we are left in a chaotic situation in which one subjective point of view faces another.
Note the measured tone of the CST’s statement in 2009 and the intemperate, accusatory, intolerant and angry tone of CST missives and blog posts about the current controversies concerning the Labour party, a tone echoed also in BoD and JLC statements.
This alliance — of members and trade unions — must now stand up and insist that the attempt to erase the past five years, expressed most clearly in the suspension of Jeremy Corbyn from the party, is halted. Between them, they have funded the party machine. They have built it, too, from door to door, often in miserable conditions, giving of their own time and effort with little appreciation. They must now throw a spanner in its works.
In the context of a government that is driving millions toward penury, and many toward death, by its handling of the pandemic, and against the backdrop of a political arena that is increasingly shaped by individuals who are unashamed in their aspirations to demolish the meager remnants of equality and democracy that have survived recent decades, the Labour leadership has decided to wage war against the Left. That cannot be allowed to stand.
If it is, it guarantees that the coming years will see little if any meaningful opposition to the march toward the right socially, culturally, and economically. Labour’s members and supporters, instead of being active in fighting for their values, will be told simply to wait for an election that takes place years down the road, in God knows what kind of wasteland the Tory government has left behind.
Be in no doubt: if Jeremy Corbyn is driven out of the Labour Party, it will be socialism that is expelled from British politics for the foreseeable future. We must build the strongest possible alliance to ensure that this suspension is overturned.
Great analysis of the EHRC report here: https://davemiddletons.blogspot.com/2020/10/labour-reported.html
Though one slight disagreement I have is his characterisation of the so-called Macpherson principle or standard, which he describes (sardonically) as stating: "if you say you have two heads, then you do indeed have two heads and nobody has the right to tell you otherwise." The claim that "a minority was best placed to define prejudice against it" and should be "allowed to define the racism they face" (which effectively means any accusation of racism has to be accepted as true), made by Jonathan Freedland (https://twitter.com/Freedland/status/1014947936046854146) and other witch-hunters, is based on a misreading of the Macpherson report, and is not a "principle" that Macpherson came up with. Antony Lerman explains:
https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/opendemocracyuk/why-turning-to-jewish-exceptionalism-to-fight-antisemitism-is-failing-project/
The statement should have given specific examples and not just said ‘it’s been exagerrated’. That was bound to be jumped on and used as a cudgel to beat him with, this is why she hasn’t felt able to just say she agrees with the statement. When dealing with something this sensitive and raw it’s more powerful to use undeniable examples of which there are plenty. He mentioned the 0.3% thing, that was just cases as well, if you get down to legitimate ones within the membership it would be even smaller, plus the insane politically motivated headlines. In the meantime 60% of tory membership are openly islamaphobic with no repurcussions whatsoever.
Daniel Finn, features editor at Jacobin, on the Michael Brooks Show, talking about Why Was Corbyn Suspended From The Labour Party? (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tgBK6mbtQh0) Well worth watching.
And something to mull from lovely Ronan Burtenshaw at Jacobin -
Do not give up, dear comrades, there are many many of us and we must stand firm together.
https://www.jacobinmag.com/2020/10/jeremy-corbyn-labour-party-suspension-starmer
Well, of course, the unsaid truth is if Starmer reinstates him, he'll have to explain why. Personally I don't think he can, I think he's shot himself up the anus because, if he refuses to reinstate, he'll have to explain why he's banned him (and why he backed him in the past). Either way, I believe his killed himself very forensically.
Oh, put a sock in it. You just can't admit you were wrong, can you? Your boy has royally fucked us.
duplicitous and weak.
I think he's going to get his.
I already said that i agreed with his statement, just that it could have been improved and worded better.
It wouldn't have made any difference, you idiot. Your boy wanted to get rid. He was obviously untrustworthy right from the outset but you wouldn't have it. And you're still making excuses for him.
You're assuming that Starmer wants to be PM or cares about Labour winning the next election, or any other. Starmer is there to do a job, and it is not to win elections. It's to make the party safe for corporate kleptocracy.
Why is this just a given? It seems very defeatist to me.
Thanks for the Daniel Finn vid - just working my way through it before work.
I disagree with his initial assessment i.e. that Starmer had set this up to suspend Corbyn, Corbyn saw that this was going to happen so moved to dominate the story with his comment. I don't think this is the case, or rather I think other assessments are more likely and therefore just brazenly saying as if it is defacto true is (possibly at this stage - I may well go on to be proved wrong) over gaming things.
It (the EHRC Report) doesn't recommend action against Corbyn or indeed against any named individual, it's not really about individuals. The recommendations it makes are about policy and procedures and, whether that's valid or not, it certainly doesn't furnish any basis for Corbyn to be disciplined or suspended or expelled. Starmer went ahead with this anyway, which makes it hard not to believe that this was a pre-planned move. And perhaps, precisely because the report didn't measure up to the hype, it didn't supply the basis for a disciplinary action against Corbyn, he had to go for broke by pushing through this completely unjustified measure. Unjustified and unjustifiable. Because then, that's what would dominate the headlines. And, indeed, that's what we've seen, it has drowned out any kind of sober reckoning or analysis of the contents of the report itself. All everyone is talking about is the fact that Jeremy Corbyn has been suspended.
Starmer already is as right wing as it gets in the labour party, trenter - he was just pretending not to be to get elected (it appears he was sadly right in assessing the number of gullible members out there). Not sure why you can't get your head around that.
Heheh, have to ask, how much worse and who?
I'd accept that we don't fully know yet. He doesn't seem to want to announce policy positions on anything at the moment. I could be wrong but i doubt it.
He was at least partly elected due to his pledge to carry over policies from the 2017/ 2019 manifestos. Judging from his actions and statements (or lack of), he's already binned around half of them. The remaining ones, IMO, just haven't been tested yet. We'll have a weak lemon squash version of the 2019 manifesto, too scared of upsetting vested interests to propose anything genuinely transformative. Do you genuinely believe otherwise?
My position is the same as before, he will have to keep the major stuff from the last manifesto or he won't make it to the election at all.
My position is the same as before, he will have to keep the major stuff from the last manifesto or he won't make it to the election at all.
Do you actually believe this? He's currently ridding the party of everyone who cares about any of that stuff.
Mate, it's not a sign of weakness to say "I accept that I got it wrong and this gilded prick is a threat to the existence of the Labour Party"
If there is a split, the Labour Party will cease to exist as an electoral force. That's what I mean when I say that it's a existential threat.
Surely if Corbyn et al were going to spit from Labour they would've done it under Blair rather than waiting until now?
I don't see the need for a split when the NEC (hopefully) and membership are still plenty left wing, we've not been completely driven out and
I think the right wingness of Starmer in the context of the party as a whole is a little overblown (admittedly not fully known at this point).
He's addressing the CBI. Reckon he's gonna go in hard on workers' rights and collective bargaining.
'The last thing I want to do is to refight the battle over Brexit. That argument is over.'
| 1. | and it's 'accidentally' cut Jeremy's head off on the way down. |
'The last thing I want to do is to refight the battle over Brexit. That argument is over.'
Just working my way through your comments - Finn actually says
So you're not really correct in your characterisation of Finn's initial assessment. He's actually saying that it was Starmer, not Corbyn who engineered the drowning out of the contents of the report by forcing the story onto Corbyn's suspension.
The recommendations it makes are about policy and procedures and, whether that's valid or not, it certainly doesn't furnish any basis for Corbyn to be disciplined or suspended or expelled. Starmer went ahead with this anyway, which makes it hard not to believe that this was a pre-planned move. And perhaps, precisely because the report didn't measure up to the hype, it didn't supply the basis for a disciplinary action against Corbyn, he had to go for broke by pushing through this completely unjustified measure. Unjustified and unjustifiable. Because then, that's what would dominate the headlines.
IMO, he did this because he and his advisors had sight of the report in advance (we know this), knew it would not damn Corbyn and worse still, if people started to read it and discuss it (especially in the light of the McNicol/Oldknow Whatsapp revelations), they would understand that a great deal of responsibility for failings that took place lay at the door of Starmer's own friends. Some of whom he's recently paid off using party funds.
I find it hard to admit that I got it wrong when I said it was a poor set of choices from the get go and that I didn't see us winning the next election.
I find it hard to admit that I got it wrong when I said it was a poor set of choices from the get go and that I didn't see us winning the next election.
Finn makes a big mistake a little bit later here in that he says the report implies that any dismissal or claims of exaggeration of AS are in themselves AS, which it specifically doesn't say, it says dismissing all claims of AS as exaggeration or politically motivated is in itself AS.
Trenter, I'm simply reporting what the fellow actually said - which you entirely misrepresented.
I'm not inviting you to conjecture over his use of the word perhaps or the extremely well known and usual phrase makes it hard not to believe and whether their use means that he's engaging clever psyops to pull one over on everyone.
I'm not saying Finn is unreliable or trying to pull the wool over peoples eyes, these are devices of language that are employed intentionally, unintentionally or more often than not carelessly in the pursuit of a greater point (Bastani is great for the last one).
FWIW, your mentioning of it and then withdrawing your implication is also a device used by people spinning falsehoods.
You go down that insane and obvious, little road if you like, I won't even bother to trawl through everything you or anyone else has ever uttered to find instances. I don't know why it's so imperative to you, piercing this windmill, but fill your bizarrely oriented boots and spur on your poor old nag.
As far as discussion of the report goes, I'm not arguing the press would start discussing any aspect that didn't suit their false narrative. I'm suggesting that ordinary people in places like this would. And they would. If Corbyn hadn't been assassinated, don't you think we'd all be sat round, right now, discussing the allegation that Corbyn interfered in disciplinary cases and the fact that his interference was, in fact, to encourage those carrying them out to get on with it expeditiously and to press for greater penalties?
While that's true, our opponents are pointing to this:
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ElvCirAXIAAV2aY?format=png)
I don't know if that is selective editing, or if it can be assumed to mean what it looks like it means.
Is that from the EHRC report?
There is a lot of interpretation in that it does not specifically say any or all which is my point. It doesn't really matter anyway because as the lawyer on Novara pointed out any definition of harassment needs to be testable in court and the EHRCs version isn't. Just same way that (what sadly a lot of lefties were agreeing with and are now finding out it can cut both ways) racism is "decided" by the victim.
It isn't. The Macpherson report says alleged racism should be investigated, despite people in power (in this case the police) or other perceiving there being no crime, if the victim perceives themselves to have been racially discriminated. It does not say the victim gets to decide if it was actually racist or not. Otherwise why both with the whole legal system.
Blair didn't suspend (and let's face it, expel) Corbyn.
Also, at the time Corbyn and McDonnell didn't represent a long-lost dream of fairness and equality within the party. That adm