Jump to content
talkfootball365
  • Welcome to talkfootball365!

    The better place to talk football.

UK Politics & Brexit Discussion


football forums

Recommended Posts

  • Subscriber

Corbyn has forced his hand here though. The party need to make a clean break from this whole issue. This EHRC report is carried out by an independent body and Corbyn still takes to Twitter to say the issue was overblown by his enemies inside the party and the media. Labour's line now, regardless of the leadership, needs to be one of zero tolerance towards anti-semitism. Corbyn may well be right that it was exaggerated for political reasons, but if he's right then that's even more reason to take a zero tolerance approach to it. The Labour statement also says he failed to retract his comments which suggests he was given the opportunity to amend the wording. All he had to say is sorry for anyone this offended, I remain committed to fighting racism and discrimination in all forms as a member of the Labour Party. He already lost the election, the only reason he has to defend himself now is egotistical.

This isn't good for Starmer either. For all of the approval this gets him from those centrist potential Labour voters and the Jewish community that were alienated by Corbyn, it causes as much if not greater divisions in his own party. I'm sure he would have preferred not to do this as it's going to be a polarising move, but he had no choice. You can't claim to take a zero tolerance approach then ignore it when a prominent Labour MP is still tweeting in a way that could be interpreted as playing down the existence of the issue.

I find it very hard to believe that Corbyn is an anti-semite himself, or even tolerant of it, but in this case he has chosen to make himself a martyr for the sake of saving face or denying his failure of leadership on this issue, when he had the opportunity to either apologise or keep his mouth shut to allow the party to heal the problems it caused under his leadership.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't agree, if you someone is accusing you of being a racist bigot you have a right to defend yourself. The judgment is there for all to see, people can make their own decisions. Starmer had done this for purely political reasons, he's sending out a message to the right-wing 'this is your party again now'. Corbyn was a poor, stupid leader but suspending him isn't right.

 

Edited by The Artful Dodger
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Subscriber

Corbyn wasn't accused of being a racist bigot by anyone in the party or the report. What he was accused of was being ineffective in dealing with it. He couldn't just admit it, he tried to play it down by saying it was exaggerated for political reasons. What did he have to gain by saying that? Nobody said he himself was racist.

I don't think Starmer wanted to be drawn into this. This morning in his press conference he was asked repeatedly about Jeremy Corbyn and he said that he wasn't named individually and it's more about improving the complaints process. Suspending Corbyn is going to do more damage to him in his efforts to shore up support from across the spectrum of the party than it's going to gain him from centrists on election day in four years time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It boils down to the fact that Labour shouldn't be one party. I maintain that the left of the party is not this intolerant mass that people think it is, in fact it is the centre or right of the party who cannot tolerate the left and always make moves to oust them from it. See the 1930s/1980s and now. 

I'm trying to put in perspective, he's not lost me completely but if Ian Austin rejoins (a man who actively campaigned for the Tories in the last election) then I won't be able to vote Labour. I vote Green in the council elections anyway, they're the only viable alternative to Labour here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I still can't wrap my head around it. 

A finding of an institutional issue arises, and one man is made the subject of the entire conversation. 

On what grounds? That he did not intervene sufficiently in the process. 

What was the basis of the institutional issue? Members intervening in disciplinary processes. 

So one man is blamed for not partaking in the kind of behaviour which created the issue. Meanwhile, the people who did intervene and tamper with the disciplinary process are literally rewarded, with court settlements - cash in hand - by the party. 

I can accept that the party may be doing the politically prudent thing. There's no point being stubborn or naive about this. But I cannot accept that on the leadership level this is being driven out of good faith or out of any sincere concern for Jewish people in Britain. 

The current leadership won its place, fair and square. And it did that with a clear idea, of pandering to the current petty prejudices and hysteria of large parts of the population, and pivoting away from a generational pro-left swell of political engagement. From a political perspective, this is not entirely illogical. 

All I would say is that it better work, because if we have another disaster 5 years down the line, and we are looking at Tory government until 2030, it's going to take a hell of a lot more than a Jeremy Corbyn to get the next generation excited about electoral politics. 

They are not going to be as civil, or as patient. 

Edited by Inverted
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Subscriber

Two polls that came out today had Labour in the lead, one of them by 5 points. That's come off the back of the school meals row. Will be interesting to see next week's polling after the Corbyn incident. YouGov snap polls suggested that a pretty strong majority supported the decision and that most people think Labour are better off without Corbyn, including when it was isolated to Labour voters. On the other hand there was a poll saying that his and Labour's favourability has dropped over the last few days so not sure now to square those results with one another.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Starmer has shot himself in the foot by his naked aggression towards the left of the party, sure they may not be able to deliver a majority but they tend to be the people who knock on doors and get voters out. Don't see that happening now, unless he drastically changes his lane. In seats they need to win they'll be relying on the flat bloated right-wing Labour.

 

Edited by The Artful Dodger
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, RandoEFC said:

Two polls that came out today had Labour in the lead, one of them by 5 points. That's come off the back of the school meals row. Will be interesting to see next week's polling after the Corbyn incident. YouGov snap polls suggested that a pretty strong majority supported the decision and that most people think Labour are better off without Corbyn, including when it was isolated to Labour voters. On the other hand there was a poll saying that his and Labour's favourability has dropped over the last few days so not sure now to square those results with one another.

I liked Corbyn's politics, but not so much as a party leader. I can understand why he'd feel compelled to defend himself (even if the report didn't expressly say he was an anti-semite, just that his leadership was shit at dealing with it) - but I don't think Starmer really had a choice but to suspend him after he tweeted.

And a part of me does think the party are better off without him, politically, at least - because he's sort of tainted goods in UK politics. His party leadership was pretty disastrous for Labour and it's hard to say he's not tainted goods in UK politics. He's hated by the media (and has been for a long time).

But anecdotally, a lot of my friends from back home who were Labour voters last election and big Corbyn supporters had already dropped their support for Labour and gone in with the Greens... that doesn't really mean much, tbh, but that does say something about how some longtime Labour voters on the left side of the party feel (just not enough to draw any real conclusions about how labour voters feel).

But I feel like the polls you've quoted, particularly that most people in Labour feel better off without Corbyn sort of is an indication of why Labour did so poorly in the last election. It's something like 40% of the party think they're better off without him... that's fairly telling imo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Subscriber
4 minutes ago, The Artful Dodger said:

The issue is, without Corbyn do you get a regression to Blair type Labour? If so, then there's no point in having a Labour party at all.

The thing with Tory Tory England is though that a Corbynite Labour will simply never get elected. Labour have a huge job on their hands remaining electable already with SNP's stranglehold on Scotland. A Blairite Labour isn't ideal, I don't think Starmer is going that far to the centre, but if it's a choice between that and a lifetime of Conservative role there's only one choice.

For the time being, I still believe that Starmer's purge of "the left" of the party is more about detoxifying the party's public image than it is about actually eradicating left wing views.

The party has a long way to go though. I watched the debate about school meals last week and even though I agreed with basically everything they were saying, far too many of the "Corbyn" intake of MPs are very good at passion and representing the interests of their constituents, but they can come across as a bit screechy. Everything is "disgraceful". Labour needs more statesmanship. Activism is an essential part of the Labour party but you need to actually convince enough of the electorate to give you the power to actually put it into action.

Angela Rayner (even though she too got in trouble for her scum comment that night) is an example of a leftie in the party who is actually capable of speaking to people with opposing views. Labour needs more like her, and to put them front and centre more often when the election gets closer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, The Artful Dodger said:

The issue is, without Corbyn do you get a regression to Blair type Labour? If so, then there's no point in having a Labour party at all.

I think this is likely, unfortunately. The problem with Labour is there's a big divide between those on the left and the moderates - and a divided party is always weaker.

I don't think there's a bridge that can be built that moderates would be willing to cross to go more to the left for the sake of party unity. I do think there are more on the left that would cross a bridge over to supporting to something a bit more moderate so that Tories wouldn't win.

So I think the party is likely to shift more to the right, be more appealing to centrists, and they're confident that more on the left will stick with them in a partisan contest than will fuck off to green (or elsewhere). As repugnant as I may find that, I think it's the political reality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It just seems to me that the right-wing of Labour cannot tolerate the left, but everyone accuses the left of being intolerant. During in the Blair years, which are as right-wing as Labour has ever been, stalwart left wing MPs like Corbyn, McDonnel and Skinner stayed in the party, despite disagreeing with a lot of what went on, they fought for Labour. When the left get in, loads of MPs leave and then some actively campaign for the Tories (words cannot describe how much I detest Ian Austin). The narrative is the wrong way round.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, The Artful Dodger said:

It just seems to me that the right-wing of Labour cannot tolerate the left, but everyone accuses the left of being intolerant. During in the Blair years, which are as right-wing as Labour has ever been, stalwart left wing MPs like Corbyn, McDonnel and Skinner stayed in the party, despite disagreeing with a lot of what went on, they fought for Labour. When the left get in, loads of MPs leave and then some actively campaign for the Tories (words cannot describe how much I detest Ian Austin). The narrative is the wrong way round.

Yep, that's exactly how I see it as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Subscriber
4 hours ago, LFCMike said:

Angela Rayner has been a huge disappointment hasn't she

 

I don't think that's too controversial. Corbyn had nothing to gain by sticking his head back above the parapet. All he did was cause drama for the party and force Starmer into a position where he either had to aggravate the left of the party or aggravate the Jewish community and the voters Labour are trying to win back. It doesn't mean the scale of the problem wasn't exaggerated, we all know it was, the right wing media in our country are shameless when it comes to weaponising racism against their political rivals when it suits them whilst promoting other types of bigotry in the next breath, but there's a time to keep your mouth shut and just after presiding over one of the most crushing defeats in one of the most important elections in modern day British politics is one of those times.

Anyway, if anyone still thought Farage genuinely cared about Brexit instead of just using it as a way to try and stay relevant, think again.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, LFCMike said:

Angela Rayner has been a huge disappointment hasn't she

 

Dissidents are purged from the party, their former colleagues are pushed to denounce them, and there reigns a pervasive atmosphere of dread about speaking simple, observable facts.

For all the hysteria of Corbynism being Stalinism - it has taken a return to "sensible" politics for a an actual Stalinist mentality to creep into a party which was previously rife with dissent and debate at all levels.  

There's a valuable lesson to be learned from Biden and Starmer. The centre might be ideologically at sea but their cunning and ruthlessness are not gone. They know that the left cares more about beating the right wing than they do. They can count on the left falling into line when the going gets tough, even when they themselves do not reciprocate. 

So the next time the left ever gets within an inch of power in any developed country, they will have to be twice as ruthless if they want to make the final step into office.

It turns out there are people who would rather sink the ship than let someone else steer it, and if you want to survive you need to throw them overboard at the first opportunity. 

Edited by Inverted
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

football forum
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...