[The Slim Reaper]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

the labour party need voters, the number of members really doesn't matter that much. If the left leaning members leave and that allows policies that make labour more electable then that is surely a good thing. That's my take anyway

I don't think 2 tory parties is in anyone's interests, even tory voters. Corbyn's policies were extremely popular when polled individually, it was just the propagandistic smearing that people fell for.

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by The Slim Reaper

I don't think 2 tory parties is in anyone's interests, even tory voters. Corbyn's policies were extremely popular when polled individually, it was just the propagandistic smearing that people fell for.

I agree Slim.

I canvassed in December and I have to admit, on the doorsteps we found an anti Corbyn element.
However the most anger was on brexit.

We got a lot of, '' you're policy on brexit is nonsense, it makes no sense''.
Time after time we got that, in words something like that.

Sometimes fairly politely put, other times fird out in quite strong language and even abuse.

However, once even some of them got on about the policies.
They liked the policies.
So I'd like to see the policies largely remain..

The other problem was they didn't believe the policies could be achievable.
There was too much promised and way too many.
However, quantified and qualified more, Labour would be unwise to throw out the policies Corbyn brought to the forefront.

After this pandemic, a new vision will be needed, more compassionate and fairer policies.
Whatever else, Corbyn brought into being policies Labour should have had years, even decades before.

On the doorstep we didn't find anti-Semitism was an issue voters would decide voting on.
However it was felt, an almighty mess had been made by the leader and his advisors on that too.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Oliver_W

If people really stop supporting Labour over this, they weren't Labour voters anyway, they were Corbyn voters.

Even before the suspension he was unlikely to ever be a big player in politics again, so really ... Why does it matter?

That's not true at all.

You have to take into consideration the shift in the party ethos. And the adherence to due process in respect of how to react to the views of MPs including Mr Corbyn.
He was misquoted and the knee jerk reaction was to suspend him, that was the wrong thing to do.

It effectively sent out the message that he is the fall guy and to appease his detractors he had to go. Without acknowledging he made a valid point.

The public understanding was that up to a third of members were antisemitic, the true number as found was 0.3% this is an absolutely massive discrepancy and warranted a mention.

He was clear that 0.3% was too many too, the findings were not downplayed at all, it was never intimated the damage was overestimated or the response to the found failings in the party were. The only overestimate was how widespread the problem was within the party membership, for me that clarification was justified.

It's needed because of posts like this and others where for some reason supporting Corbyn can lead to unfounded accusations of antisemitism.

[Oliver_W]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

That's not true at all.

You have to take into consideration the shift in the party ethos. And the adherence to due process in respect of how to react to the views of MPs including Mr Corbyn.
He was misquoted and the knee jerk reaction was to suspend him, that was the wrong thing to do.

It effectively sent out the message that he is the fall guy and to appease his detractors he had to go. Without acknowledging he made a valid point.

The public understanding was that up to a third of members were antisemitic, the true number as found was 0.3% this is an absolutely massive discrepancy and warranted a mention.

He was clear that 0.3% was too many too, the findings were not downplayed at all, it was never intimated the damage was overestimated or the response to the found failings in the party were. The only overestimate was how widespread the problem was within the party membership, for me that clarification was justified.

It's needed because of posts like this and others where for some reason supporting Corbyn can lead to unfounded accusations of antisemitism.

His first reaction to the report was to say it was overstated, and that he abhors all forms of racism, when the report wasn't about "all forms" of racism. Maybe he should have thrown in an #AllLivesMatter too?

Or maybe he should have apologised that the problem reached the height it did under his watch, and left it at that.

[The Slim Reaper]

Originally Posted by Oliver_W

His first reaction to the report was to say it was overstated, and that he abhors all forms of racism, when the report wasn't about "all forms" of racism. Maybe he should have thrown in an #AllLivesMatter too?

Or maybe he should have apologised that the problem reached the height it did under his watch, and left it at that.

It didn't. The problem actually decreased from the time labour had a Jewish leader in Milliband (2015) through Corbyn's leadership. The EHRC report actually criticised Corbyn for trying to interfere and make sure reports were being dealt with as quickly and thoroughly as possible.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Oliver_W

His first reaction to the report was to say it was overstated, and that he abhors all forms of racism, when the report wasn't about "all forms" of racism. Maybe he should have thrown in an #AllLivesMatter too?

Or maybe he should have apologised that the problem reached the height it did under his watch, and left it at that.

What 'height' ? There is nothing to suggest that it was worse in labour or any worse than it previously had been... unless you know something they don't?

[arista]

[Oliver_W]

Is it against the rules to speculate whose multi that was? Views and prose don't really match anyone current or recent?

[arista]

Originally Posted by Oliver_W

Is it against the rules to speculate whose multi that was? Views and prose don't really match anyone current or recent?

Brillo
or The Truth

has gone

[The Slim Reaper]

https://www.redpepper.org.uk/being-j...-labour-party/

Being Jewish in North Islington Labour Party

Calling for Jeremy Corbyn's reinstatement, Lynne Segal looks back on her experience of 40 years as a party member in his constituency

It is with the heaviest of hearts that I have to write, yet again, about being a Jewish member of the Labour Party in Jeremy Corbyn’s constituency. So let me tell you at once that it has been terrible, almost unbearable. We have had to watch a wholly false, but soon unstoppable, invention of charges of antisemitism against our MP, with our own views as Jewish members completely ignored.

Right now, along with the many other Jewish activists I know in Islington North, I am simply devastated that this process has climaxed in the suspension of our cherished MP, and former leader. It’s so hard to accept that I must repeat again what every Jewish member I know in Islington North has frequently confirmed and it is we who actually know and regularly meet with Jeremy Corbyn – unlike most of critics. What we can confirm is that as Jews in North Islington we have always felt more than safe, more than welcome, unfailingly supported, in everything we do in the borough, and the Party. As it happens, we often feel this all the more strongly as Jews, knowing that *– unlike Corbyn – so many who choose to speak in our name completely disrespect our commitment to antisemitism and racism of all kinds in struggles for a better world, including the vital struggle for Palestinian rights.

Personally, I have known Jeremy Corbyn since helping to get him selected, then elected, almost 40 years ago. However, battles to discredit Corbyn as antisemitic began some three decades later, after, and only after, his quite unexpected victory as leader of the party; indeed, from the very day of his victory. Methods first used by Corbyn’s opponents were the routine ways of attacking the radical Left, as ‘unrealistic’, ‘unpatriotic’, and so on. However, after his relative success in the elections of 2017, these easily verifiable systematic attempts were hugely amplified in order to undermine his leadership. Indeed, they moved into orchestrated denunciations that he was presiding over a party that was ‘institutionally anti-Semitic’. It is obviously much harder to refute an accusation that easily triggers panic and paranoia, placing those trying to assess the situation in the line of fire, even when Jewish.

Until very recently, the real prevalence of antisemitism in any political party remained unaddressed. It was only in the last few years, under Corbyn, that continuing investigations into antisemitism began in the LP. Tragically, this served as much to confuse as enlighten people, in ways too numerous to list here, but clearly tied in with Corbyn’s support for Palestinian rights, and the later introduction of the IHRA definition of antisemitism making it difficult to distinguish legitimate criticisms of the Israeli state from what might be declared antisemitic.

So, let me provide a few pertinent facts. Over the years, Corbyn has had mutually supportive relations with the practising Jewish community in Islington, attending Shabbat dinners with the orthodox Chabad Rabbi, Mendy Korer, and attending numerous other official Jewish events in North London. Against some local resistance, Corbyn promoted the installation of a plaque on a demolished synagogue site in 2015 to celebrate Jewish life in the borough. Unlike most of his critics in Westminster, Corbyn unfailingly turned up to vote for motions addressing anti-Semitism in Parliament, just as he worked tirelessly against racism on every front.

This is precisely why few people are more supportive of Corbyn’s overall political project than those Jews in the LP who remain on the Left, and there are still many of us. Finally, though it is so hard to unearth, buried under mountains of misinformation, comparing two YouGov polls on antisemitism in 2015 and 2017, reveals that antisemitism had significantly declined within the LP under Corbyn.

So, let’s be clear: there is antisemitism in the Labour Party, as the recent report found; there was also some interference in the speed with which complaints were handled (though details of the nature of this interference remain ambiguous). At the same time, it is obvious that Corbyn faced an unrelentingly hostile campaign of disinformation, as compellingly confirmed by media research led by Justin Schlosberg and Laura Laker. Corbyn accepted the evidence provided by the EHRC, and said it should be acted upon. And though others may feel his timing was poor, in my view it is understandable that Corbyn should attempt to reassure Jews that the extent of antisemitism in LP had been grossly exaggerated in the media and by others not as a way to opposing antisemitism, but rather as a way of attacking him.

We should all be able to agree that any such practice undermines the importance of the very struggle it claims to support, as when the media, in line with Corbyn’s critics, promoted the false belief that 34 per cent of the LP had been accused of antisemitism, when in reality it was 0.3 per cent (exaggerated by a factor of 100).

Finally, if Starmer wants to follow the suggestions of the EHRC he will reinstate Corbyn forthwith. This is because that document explicitly protects freedom of expression, with enhanced protection under Article 10 to protect LP members who ‘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’.

[The Slim Reaper]

The danger of weaponising anti semitism.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-i...-idUSKBN16M2IN

Israel imposes 'apartheid regime' on Palestinians: U.N. report

[The Slim Reaper]