Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Corb Blimey!

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    People still spread the fiction that she was reduced to tears at that meeting due to anti-Semitic abuse. What he said was nothing of the sort, and she was not in tears. Her body language suggests something else to me but that's subjective.

    I wouldn't have had a clue that she was Jewish, either.

    Comment


      Originally posted by Lurgee View Post
      Len McCluskey has decided to go off on one:



      Needed saying, but he'd better have got it word perfect, or it will go nasty real quick.

      Is he calling out Luciana Berger for not belting Neo-Nazis in street brawls?
      It didn't need saying by him. I'm pleased he beat the appalling Kipper Gerald Coyne, but he's made himself look like what Americans call a "surrogate" for Jeremy Corbyn. John McDonnell wouldn't come out and say this now, because he knows that it would be seen as "what Corbyn really thinks". I think, wearing his day job hat, McCluskey ought to be assailing Corbyn over the Single Market. ( I recognise Corbyn has a balancing act, but it's Len's job to force the debate along where it best protects his members' jobs).

      And it didn't need saying with appalling cliches about having "fought anti-Semitism all my life". I've no doubt he's done plenty of legwork against the far right, and credit to him, but the stronger argument being put here (among the disingenuous bollocks) is that there's a strain of left anti-Semitism that some very senior people on the left haven't really got properly in the past. I think this intervention is pretty ill-judged.

      Comment


        I don't know if she was reduced to tears, I've only seen what was on camera. Speculating on what people's body language means isn't just subjective, it's irrelevant, surely.

        Comment


          I've met Wadsworth a couple of times: he seemed Ok, quite full of himself as political activists often are, but not unpleasant. He was a big noise in the Anti-Racist Alliance back in the 90s, which had factional spats with the (SWP-dominated) Anti-Nazi League, which slightly inclined me to his side, back then. Don't know where his politics are at now, mind.

          Comment


            Originally posted by HeavyDracula View Post
            Richards is gone, thankfully...
            Good news, efficient process by all.

            I think she's got to be heading for the exit door from the party on a disrepute charge too. That conspiratorial shit about Jo Cox and the Manchester bombing is disreputable. Lack of evidence?!

            Comment


              Tubby - McClusky's intervention is baffling. Why does he think escalating the confrontation is a good idea?

              Comment


                Originally posted by Lucy Waterman View Post
                I don't know if she was reduced to tears, I've only seen what was on camera. Speculating on what people's body language means isn't just subjective, it's irrelevant, surely.
                She clearly wasn't crying as she left the meeting. That is clear. It's not "irrelevant", isn't most communication non-verbal? The story has been spread that she left in tears. No, she clearly didn't.

                https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bHv3D7g4RH4
                Last edited by MsD; 25-04-2018, 15:32.

                Comment


                  The confrontation was escalated yesterday by the BoD. I suspect it's reached a point where many people think that unless Corbyn issues a blanket endorsement of the occupation and all its crimes, the anti semitism line will never end. (This may be unfair, since as many have said there is clearly significant work to be done - but I think that work is going on, if slowly )

                  Seriously though yesterday's shit from the BoD and that racist arsewipe Arkush has made me feel like Labour have to carry on doing what they're doing on anti semitism, carry on rooting it out carrying on educating people, but no longer let other people use it as a stick to attack them with

                  Comment


                    Originally posted by MsD View Post
                    She clearly wasn't crying as she left the meeting. That is clear. It's not "irrelevant", isn't most communication non-verbal? The story has been spread that she left in tears. No, she clearly didn't.

                    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bHv3D7g4RH4
                    Of course its irrelevant. Whether we think the angle of her head means she wants to bring down the Leader of the Opposition has nothing to do with the merits of the Wadsworth complaint.

                    Comment


                      I agree. I think it's absolutely right that there's been some pushback aand from someone who Labour Mp's at least still need to pay some attention to. Otherwise, as you pointed out, Lucy a man who is probably innocent will have to be found guilty because there will toherwise be "hell to pay". The Demands from the Board of Deputies (who the vast majority of Jews consider an expensive and backward irrelevance) and the "Jewish leadership Foundation" or what ever they're called are untenable. No political party can outsource its disciplinary to a hostile group who have shown no sign whatsoever of acting in good faith.

                      The BBC Today programme has made this the lead item for the past two days, bigger than the Toronto attack, the Windrush scandal, or even the royal baby. And as the Governement is actually deporting Black British citizens, taking away their jobs, their pensions their right to health care and making them homeless, a largely evidence free anti-semitism dominates the airwaves. It's clear that's the inntent of the BoD the press and the right wing of the Labour Party is to keep chucking mud. Whilst the Conservative party remains in coalition in the European Party with open antisemites. (and the Israeli government has shot nearly 40 peaceful demonstrators dead and injured thousands, and few dare speak out about it.

                      Comment


                        a largely evidence free anti-semitism
                        Don't agree with this, and neither does Emily Thornberry for one.

                        “I’m fed up with meeting people on the street as well. People feel it’s fine to come up and talk to you in the most appalling terms, quite frankly. I spoke to somebody last weekend and I was really shocked to suddenly see the way the conversation turned and she thought she was supportive of Labour and she thought she was supporting of me and I had to make it clear that actually that was not acceptable.”

                        Comment


                          I'm not saying that there isn't anti- semitism- ( i've been on the receiving end of it enough in various ways) but that remark by Emily Thornberry - whilst troubling has nothing to do with anti-semitism in the Labour party. Indeed the more people are told that Labour is a party of anti-semites, the more likely it is that actual anti-semites will show sympathy for Labour. Nobody wants their votes. _ and I guess most of them still vote Tory or UKIP, but that isn't something that Jeremy Corbyn, can do about. Except to say, repeatedly all the things that he has been saying, repeatedly.

                          I'd also add that the toleration and even encouragement by Netanyahu of open antisemites (like say Steve Bannon) and open antisemitism (from Orban and Fidesz) is making for a very toxic mixture that I find extremely troubling.
                          Last edited by Nefertiti2; 25-04-2018, 16:12.

                          Comment


                            I read McCluskey's full article rather than the headline stuff (which was, I think disgracefully, trailed as 'McCluskey says MP's are smearing Corbyn over anti-semitism' by George Eaton and others. Which rather distorted his point, which was about attacks that were wider than anti-semitism. A small point maybe, but this sort of hysteric reporting does absolutely nobody any good. This issue needs calm reporting.), thought it was OK. He's right that the sort of co-ordinated attacks by members of his own party are unprecedented, and it is the case that Austin & others won't desist, unless their CLP can exercise some sort of power* at local level. Umunna wrote an entirely unnecessary article for the Indy the other day, saying - again - about 'we need to deal with AS' without a) acknowledging that we are, and b) that we didn't in the very recent past.

                            * One of my criticisms of Corbyn over the years is that he's been too ready to go for consensus, and has tried for the big tent - hence his prevarication on mandatory selection. Personally, I don't have a problem with it, can't see what's wrong with local members having a say; otherwise, what's the potential sanction for MP's if they go consistently against the party line, and attack the Leader personally (before anyone says 'but Corbyn when he was a backbencher...', it should have been the case for him too)?; if the MP can convince the members of their reasoning, and that they're still supportable, then everyone's a winner. I think.

                            Comment


                              There are, unfortunately, a lot of MPs who interpret all questioning of their activities by members as "bullying", and are prepared to present it as such to a pliant lobby, who then report it unquestioningly as fact.

                              Comment


                                Originally posted by johnr View Post
                                He's right that the sort of co-ordinated attacks by members of his own party are unprecedented
                                That's deeply ahistorical. Unprecedented since 2010, maybe. Why does he think Tony Blair stepped down when he did? Why did Brown spend so much of his premiership managing backbenchers and PPSs?

                                * One of my criticisms of Corbyn over the years is that he's been too ready to go for consensus, and has tried for the big tent - hence his prevarication on mandatory selection. Personally, I don't have a problem with it, can't see what's wrong with local members having a say; otherwise, what's the potential sanction for MP's if they go consistently against the party line, and attack the Leader personally (before anyone says 'but Corbyn when he was a backbencher...', it should have been the case for him too)?; if the MP can convince the members of their reasoning, and that they're still supportable, then everyone's a winner. I think.
                                The problem for your lot is that the resulting conflict handicaps you from winning a GE, and means that anyone you can't reselect has a position where they can say "my CLP has in endorsing me given a platform where I can ignore the leadership entirely." Mandatory reselection means you need a bigger majority, while making any majority harder to achieve.

                                There is a minor risk that mandatory reselection would finally prompt the PLP would resign en masse and organise as a blackleg official opposition - it'd make them look like a sore loser's convention, but it wouldn't help Corbyn to look like an impressive national leader.

                                I'm not all that opposed to the idea any more, btw. I think it would be enormously risky for the Corbyn project. And those two sentences are not unrelated.
                                Last edited by Lucy Waterman; 25-04-2018, 22:58.

                                Comment


                                  Don't agree with this, and neither does Emily Thornberry for one.

                                  Emily Thornberry just endorsed the idea of the 'hostile environment', and specifically landlords checking potential tenants' immigration status, an obviously blatantly racist policy. She can't be regarded as any kind of expert.

                                  Comment


                                    I don't take her seriously, others do.

                                    Comment


                                      I'm not all that opposed to the idea any more, btw. I think it would be enormously risky for the Corbyn project.
                                      I think Corbyn himself agrees with that perspective, as do many others on the left. Essentially, that it's right in principle but not worth the hassle at the moment (though the danger is that the "not worth the hassle" argument could conceivably always be made on some grounds or other)

                                      Comment


                                        Originally posted by Lucy Waterman View Post
                                        That's deeply ahistorical. Unprecedented since 2010, maybe. Why does he think Tony Blair stepped down when he did? Why did Brown spend so much of his premiership managing backbenchers and PPSs?



                                        The problem for your lot is that the resulting conflict handicaps you from winning a GE, and means that anyone you can't reselect has a position where they can say "my CLP has in endorsing me given a platform where I can ignore the leadership entirely." Mandatory reselection means you need a bigger majority, while making any majority harder to achieve.

                                        There is a minor risk that mandatory reselection would finally prompt the PLP would resign en masse and organise as a blackleg official opposition - it'd make them look like a sore loser's convention, but it wouldn't help Corbyn to look like an impressive national leader.

                                        I'm not all that opposed to the idea any more, btw. I think it would be enormously risky for the Corbyn project. And those two sentences are not unrelated.
                                        I'd agree with a lot of that, though - and this may just be because I wasn't as involved at the time - I don't remember the sheer level of vitriol (e.g. Austin shouting Corbyn down on Chilcot, Woodcock on Syria the other week) being as prevalent during Blair/Brown. I also think that maybe social media allows things to be more open than they were.

                                        Comment


                                          If Austin shows at the Dudley count I will pass on good wishes. 4 of the 6 contested seats in his manor are UKIP btw

                                          Overall prediction LAB 38 (+3) CON 32 (+4) UKIP 1 (-7) IND 1

                                          Comment


                                            Originally posted by johnr View Post
                                            I'd agree with a lot of that, though - and this may just be because I wasn't as involved at the time - I don't remember the sheer level of vitriol (e.g. Austin shouting Corbyn down on Chilcot, Woodcock on Syria the other week) being as prevalent during Blair/Brown. I also think that maybe social media allows things to be more open than they were.
                                            The social media thing is a good point - imagine how the Iraq War debate might have played out in the age of Twitter.

                                            I'm not sure I agree with you about conduct in the Chamber - you talked about organised campaigning against the leader, whereas that seems to me to be individual men losing their cool. Organised campaigning to me would be more like the vote of no confidence in Corbyn, the Straw/Harman revolver meeting, Blair's round robin letter, the Bennite non-coup of 1988 - and so on into the mists of history.

                                            But even the leader being attacked in the Chamber is nothing new. We tend to dial up our outrage at statements that we don't agree with and dial it down for those we do.

                                            Comment


                                              Marc Wadsworth and Ken Livingstone have some interesting previous. From 1994.

                                              Comment


                                                Ah, Socialist Action will always be with us …

                                                Comment


                                                  Originally posted by Lucy Waterman View Post
                                                  The social media thing is a good point - imagine how the Iraq War debate might have played out in the age of Twitter.

                                                  I'm not sure I agree with you about conduct in the Chamber - you talked about organised campaigning against the leader, whereas that seems to me to be individual men losing their cool. Organised campaigning to me would be more like the vote of no confidence in Corbyn, the Straw/Harman revolver meeting, Blair's round robin letter, the Bennite non-coup of 1988 - and so on into the mists of history.

                                                  But even the leader being attacked in the Chamber is nothing new. We tend to dial up our outrage at statements that we don't agree with and dial it down for those we do.
                                                  I think the difference is that those coups were the exception. For the cluster of hard-core Corbyn opponents it is the rule.

                                                  Comment


                                                    Originally posted by johnr View Post
                                                    I read McCluskey's full article rather than the headline stuff (which was, I think disgracefully, trailed as 'McCluskey says MP's are smearing Corbyn over anti-semitism' by George Eaton and others. Which rather distorted his point, which was about attacks that were wider than anti-semitism. A small point maybe, but this sort of hysteric reporting does absolutely nobody any good. This issue needs calm reporting.), thought it was OK. He's right that the sort of co-ordinated attacks by members of his own party are unprecedented, and it is the case that Austin & others won't desist, unless their CLP can exercise some sort of power* at local level. Umunna wrote an entirely unnecessary article for the Indy the other day, saying - again - about 'we need to deal with AS' without a) acknowledging that we are, and b) that we didn't in the very recent past.

                                                    * One of my criticisms of Corbyn over the years is that he's been too ready to go for consensus, and has tried for the big tent - hence his prevarication on mandatory selection. Personally, I don't have a problem with it, can't see what's wrong with local members having a say; otherwise, what's the potential sanction for MP's if they go consistently against the party line, and attack the Leader personally (before anyone says 'but Corbyn when he was a backbencher...', it should have been the case for him too)?; if the MP can convince the members of their reasoning, and that they're still supportable, then everyone's a winner. I think.
                                                    I almost hate keep coming back to this, but...so Neil Coyle MP tweeted - and apparently went on C4 - that in the article McCluskey denied that AS exists in Labour. Despite McCluskey's first few paragraphs specifically saying that it does. I might've given Coyle the benefit of the doubt - maybe he hadn't read the article, and was knee-jerking - but he hasn't retracted it despite 100s of people calling him out.

                                                    What is that about?

                                                    Comment

                                                    Working...
                                                    X