I agree that the situation sucks. It should be possible to explain that there is a big difference between hating Jews and being opposed to their treatment of the Palestinians but you can’t criticise Israel without someone calling you an anti-Semite. You can slag Muslims off all day long though and very few bat an eyelid (still no report on alleged Islamophobia in the Tory party).
1 Like
From an outsiders POV, if the infighting continues Labour will hand the next election to the Tories too. If they can’t unite behind Starmer, perhaps it’s time for the far left and the moderates to split and go their own ways?
I always hoped Labour would be a socialist party. This was possible under Corbyn and the huge increase in membership showed how popular this could be. If the Blairites had shown some unity the Tories would have been ousted.
There will be no socialism under Keith. He can fuck off. Why should the left split the party? Why don’t the centrists fuck off?
5 Likes
I suppose it depends on your definition of socialist? I don’t mind which faction fucks off. If they can’t find a way to work together then they will fail to get elected again and we will stuck with the Tories until he’ll freezes over.
Very much the way I see it. The nationalisation/privatisation debates of the 80s and 90s have played out now, and people can see the results. We’re still paying for everything, just far more money and in most cases for far worse services. British Rail was shit, but it was at least affordable shit. Today’s rail network is equally shit, and eye-wateringly expensive with it. The door is open to a socialist-leaning party, if only we had the option.
In short, Starmer can fuck right off.
1 Like
So Starmer isn’t a socialist?
In my eyes, absolutely not, he’s about as socialist as Blair and Brown were.
3 Likes
If you listened to what he said before being chosen as leader? Yes.
If you listen to him now and watch what he is doing? No.
I’ve got a lot of time for Starmer having met him a couple of times when he was DPP. He actually listen to what we said and took it on board. A first for us as most DPPs just came to meetings and talked at us.
Starmer has a tough job if he is going to get some kind of union between the different factions and make Labour electable. From people I have spoken to so far (who would describe themselves as floating voters) he comes across as someone they could see as PM. He seems to have socialist principles to me and I haven’t heard him back track on any of them so far. I also wouldn’t say he was a Blairite either- but then I am not a dyed in the wool Labour supporter. Whatever you think of Corbyn, he scared the shit out of Middle England. A Tory councillor I know never used to talk about politics in our parish council meetings, but he made an exception when Corbyn was elected leader of the Labour Party. He smiled broadly and said, “they have done us a huge favour. “ Never a truer word. Labour have to find someone who doesn’t scare the floating voters but can still bring in socialist policies. I think Starmer can fulfill that role but if members of his own party are telling him to fuck off, what chance does he have?
2 Likes
If you want a government in this country with left leaning policies then someone like Starmer is what you are going to need to get in
Most people in this country sit right or left of centre
Someone sitting right of centre may decide voting for a left of centre party is palatable whereas they would never go for a hard left party as it is too far away from their comfort zone
Ultimately it comes down to pragmatism - you cant change anything in opposition
1 Like
Some level of democratic control over key industries, up to and including nationalisation. Same rights to people regardless of their wealth or status. Favouring outcomes that benefit the many, not the few. Internationalist in outlook
.
Starmer’s Labour is nowhere near socialist. He and his like are purposeful entries into the Labour Party, designed to give the public nothing more than a choice of tie colour at the next election.
And if you don’t believe that, just look at what this party did to a socialist when one accidentally became leader.
4 Likes
My thoughts too. Corbyn did find an audience but it was nowhere near big enough to get him elected and there were a great many more people turned off by the thought of him becoming PM, even many Labour voters voted Tory instead. It comes to something when you would rather have Johnson than your own man in power.
I don’t think Corbyn gave Starmer much choice did he? Instead of just dissing the report within a few minutes of receiving it, he should have taken time to dissect it properly and respond with a few conciliatory words. Starmer has said he takes the report seriously and will act on it. By letting Corbyn off the hook how would that look?
How did he "diss’ the report? Or is it just that the media is telling you that he ‘dissed the report’?
Here is his response:
"My statement following the publication of the EHRC report:
“Antisemitism is absolutely abhorrent, wrong and responsible for some of humanity’s greatest crimes. As Leader of the Labour Party I was always determined to eliminate all forms of racism and root out the cancer of antisemitism. I have campaigned in support of Jewish people and communities my entire life and I will continue to do so.
“The EHRC’s report shows that when I became Labour leader in 2015, the Party’s processes for handling complaints were not fit for purpose. Reform was then stalled by an obstructive party bureaucracy. But from 2018, Jennie Formby and a new NEC that supported my leadership made substantial improvements, making it much easier and swifter to remove antisemites. My team acted to speed up, not hinder the process.
“Anyone claiming there is no antisemitism in the Labour Party is wrong. Of course there is, as there is throughout society, and sometimes it is voiced by people who think of themselves as on the left.
“Jewish members of our party and the wider community were right to expect us to deal with it, and I regret that it took longer to deliver that change than it should.
“One antisemite is one too many, but the scale of the problem was also dramatically overstated for political reasons by our opponents inside and outside the party, as well as by much of the media. That combination hurt Jewish people and must never be repeated.
“My sincere hope is that relations with Jewish communities can be rebuilt and those fears overcome. While I do not accept all of its findings, I trust its recommendations will be swiftly implemented to help move on from this period.”
And his clarification after being dumped by Starmer:
"Last month, I was suspended from the Labour Party, after 54 years’ membership and four and a half years as party leader.
On the day I was suspended I gave a broadcast interview to clarify what I had said in response to the EHRC report, and I also made a statement to the party to clear up any confusion about what I had meant, as follows:
“The publication of the EHRC report should have been a moment for the Labour Party to come together in a determination to address the shortcomings of the past and work as one to root out antisemitism in our own ranks and wider society. We must never tolerate antisemitism or belittle concerns about it. And that was not my intention in anything I said this week. I regret the pain this issue has caused the Jewish community and would wish to do nothing that would exacerbate or prolong it. To be clear, concerns about antisemitism are neither “exaggerated” nor “overstated”. The point I wished to make was that the vast majority of Labour Party members were and remain committed anti-racists deeply opposed to antisemitism. I fully support Keir Starmer’s decision to accept all the EHRC recommendations in full and, in accordance with my own lifelong convictions, will do what I can to help the Party move on, united against antisemitism which has been responsible for so many of history’s greatest crimes against humanity.”
I’m grateful to the many thousands of Labour party members, trade unionists, and supporters in Britain and around the world, who have offered their solidarity.
I hope this matter is resolved as quickly as possible, so that the party can work together to root out antisemitism and unite to oppose and defeat this deeply damaging Conservative government."
I would suggest that it is Starmer who has acted in haste. He hoofed Corbyn out of the party then had to backtrack. Cue the outraged Board of Deputies and the removal of the whip. Someone is coming out of this looking like a right cunt and it’s not Corbyn.
5 Likes
I think there was a question of timing
If he was prudent, he would have said “I will read the report in detail and give my response in due course”
What he chose to do was give an immediate statement in which he referred to antisemitism being overstated for political gain and that he didnt agree with all the findings of the report. What he doesnt do is accept any measure of responsibility that it was happening on his watch
After that everything else in that statement just became noise
That was all the ammo that his detractors needed
I see Starmer playing the “Let’s make Labour Electable Again” game. He disappoints in a lot of ways but he’s playing to an end game where we can rid the country of the Rabid Right. If that’s what it takes so be it , is anyone else being presented as a winning alternative?
3 Likes
I was referring to his immediate comments which inferred that the report was exaggerated. Was it Starmer or the NEC who suspended Corbyn?
Which comments? Do you think the level of anti-semitism within labour has been exaggerated? That it has been disproportionately focussed upon?
Has starmer read this part of the EHRC report?
1 Like
I just can’t see Labour winning an election with Starmer at the helm.
1 Like
Me either, there are too many who dislike him and most of his views