The Labour Party are cockwombles .....

raefil

Shit Fan
Patron
laura Kuensberg:
When the report came out, Mr Corbyn suggested it had all been exaggerated, so got booted out of the Labour Party and told that he could not sit as a Labour MP.


What corbyn actually said.



Is it any wonder that ordinary Joe Bloggs in the street believe what they believe?
 

Regardless

Forum Patron
Patron


What corbyn actually said.



Is it any wonder that ordinary Joe Bloggs in the street believe what they believe?

Laura Kuensberg in bullshitting shocker 🙄

Having re-read the statement, I am more convinced that you’re looking at this through red-rose tinted glasses - but if there is any point in this forum - I hope you can be objective and hear me out. I do come from a generally pro-Corbyn standpoint.

It’s easy to put a red rectangle round a paragraph and shout “gotcha”. And if you look from an academic viewpoint, that paragraph does specifically say that it was his opponents who exaggerated AS claims - not actually any reference to the EHRC report.

But IMO, Jezza did himself no favours by side-stepping a key issue - and then communicating in an unstructured way that you could be forgiven for thinking Corbyn actually WANTED to be misunderstood. This is what I see in the statement.
  • All eyes are on Corbyn for a response to this highly critical and very high profile report - he was leader when all this was ongoing
  • His statement opens clearly saying it’s HIS response, the one we’ve waited for - and I think the vast majority of people would expect a leader to open with an acknowledgement of the antisemitism in the party and/or a statement accepting the Report (if indeed he believed the report was accurate)
  • I can’t overstate that. He simply HAD to give a general acceptance/rejection of the report somewhere in his statement. He doesn’t do that anywhere.
  • Instead he launches in to “motherhood &apple pie general statements of the obvious- and straight into detailed descriptions of party procedural processes
  • Further, he builds the narrative that his team wasn’t to blame, did a good job before saying his only contritional words that he regretted the speed of progress
  • We’re about to go into your red rectangle now - and he has not yet accepted or rejected the report - nor commented on the level of AS referred to in the report (remember the purpose of this statement is to respond to the report)
  • Yeah - that paragraph says what it says. And it would be a fair paragraph if he had already addressed a view on EHRC comments on the level of AS they had reported - because any rational observer would be looking for that. But the only comments in the statement are about exaggeration.

    In my strong opinion, Jezza’s statement is awkwardly structured because he’s trying to find a polite way of saying he is largely blameless and that the whole case that the EHRC reported on was based upon an exaggerated case - and maybe he would be right
  • But also in my strong opinion, that red paragraph was there to give exactly the signal that the whole thing was hyped - whilst carefully framing/wording his message
  • I can’t blame Joe Bloggs for hearing the “spirit” of what Jeremy was saying. I don’t even blame political commentators for the same.
 

raefil

Shit Fan
Patron
+-----------------------------------------------
Having re-read the statement, I am more convinced that you’re looking at this through red-rose tinted glasses - but if there is any point in this forum - I hope you can be objective and hear me out. I do come from a generally pro-Corbyn standpoint.

It’s easy to put a red rectangle round a paragraph and shout “gotcha”. And if you look from an academic viewpoint, that paragraph does specifically say that it was his opponents who exaggerated AS claims - not actually any reference to the EHRC report.

But IMO, Jezza did himself no favours by side-stepping a key issue - and then communicating in an unstructured way that you could be forgiven for thinking Corbyn actually WANTED to be misunderstood. This is what I see in the statement.
  • All eyes are on Corbyn for a response to this highly critical and very high profile report - he was leader when all this was ongoing
  • His statement opens clearly saying it’s HIS response, the one we’ve waited for - and I think the vast majority of people would expect a leader to open with an acknowledgement of the antisemitism in the party and/or a statement accepting the Report (if indeed he believed the report was accurate)
  • I can’t overstate that. He simply HAD to give a general acceptance/rejection of the report somewhere in his statement. He doesn’t do that anywhere.
  • Instead he launches in to “motherhood &apple pie general statements of the obvious- and straight into detailed descriptions of party procedural processes
  • Further, he builds the narrative that his team wasn’t to blame, did a good job before saying his only contritional words that he regretted the speed of progress
  • We’re about to go into your red rectangle now - and he has not yet accepted or rejected the report - nor commented on the level of AS referred to in the report (remember the purpose of this statement is to respond to the report)
  • Yeah - that paragraph says what it says. And it would be a fair paragraph if he had already addressed a view on EHRC comments on the level of AS they had reported - because any rational observer would be looking for that. But the only comments in the statement are about exaggeration.

    In my strong opinion, Jezza’s statement is awkwardly structured because he’s trying to find a polite way of saying he is largely blameless and that the whole case that the EHRC reported on was based upon an exaggerated case - and maybe he would be right
  • But also in my strong opinion, that red paragraph was there to give exactly the signal that the whole thing was hyped - whilst carefully framing/wording his message
  • I can’t blame Joe Bloggs for hearing the “spirit” of what Jeremy was saying. I don’t even blame political commentators for the same.
Good and measured response, in fairness.

Could I suggest that it would be very easy for JC to just say that he's sorry for the rampant anti-semitism that magically just appeared in 2016 and hadnt been there before, and to say how despite being an MP for 40 years that hed only become an anti-semite in the last 5 years.

he'd be bullshitting though wouldn't he?
 

Liberation

Forum Patron
Patron


If the Labour Party could be bullied or persuaded to denounce its Marxist, the media -having tasted Blood- would demand next that it expelled all its Socialist and reunited the remaining Labour Party with the SDP to form a harmless alternative to the Conservatives, which could then be allowed to take office now and then when the Conservatives fell out of favour with the public.

Thus British Capitalism, it is argued, will be made safe forever, and socialism would be squeezed of the National agenda.

But if such a strategy were to succeed… it would in fact profoundly endanger British society. For it would open up the danger of a swing to the far-right, as we have seen in Europe over the last 50 years.” -Tony Benn

“The Right Wing of the Labour Party would rather see it fall into perpetual decline rather than abide by its democratic decisions” -Nye Bevan


Smart bloke wasn't he ? I hope his shadow of a son has read that.
 

raefil

Shit Fan
Patron
Smart bloke wasn't he ? I hope his shadow of a son has read that.
I watched the video i posted of tony Benns life, last night. It was an absorbing hour and a halfs viewing. One thing that did become clear was that he doted on his family. I suspect Hilary was a little sheltered and possibly a slapped arse.
 

Liberation

Forum Patron
Patron
+-----------------------------------------------

Good and measured response, in fairness.

Could I suggest that it would be very easy for JC to just say that he's sorry for the rampant anti-semitism that magically just appeared in 2016 and hadnt been there before, and to say how despite being an MP for 40 years that hed only become an anti-semite in the last 5 years.

he'd be bullshitting though wouldn't he?


All things considered I can't believe how reasonable Corbyn is being about all this.
 

Winkytinky

GTTO
Patron
@Regardless we'll have to agree to disagree on this subject.

Anyway it's being reported that Corbyns solicitors have written to the LP so let's see what happens, I really do think Starmer is going to regret the path he's chosen to take.
 

Winkytinky

GTTO
Patron
Absolute shite show this is, Corbyns suspension from the whip could be for 3 months and NEC members are quite rightly angry at Starmer and Evans political interference.

 

raefil

Shit Fan
Patron
Absolute shite show this is, Corbyns suspension from the whip could be for 3 months and NEC members are quite rightly angry at Starmer and Evans political interference.

"Oh what a tangled web we weave."

when those leadership contenders signed the 10 pledges demanded by the Board of Deputies there was only one way this was going to end.
 

Winkytinky

GTTO
Patron
Dear David

On Tuesday 17th November a Disputes Panel of the NEC sat to consider current discipline cases one of which was the complaint against Jeremy Corbyn MP. The Panel after many hours of consideration and deliberation, including advice and guidance on process from the Head of Disputes in GLU and an independent Barrister provided by the party, established that there had been no breach of Labour Party rules. As such the Panel determined that Jeremy Corbyn’s suspension should be lifted.

As with all other cases considered by the Dispute Panels, as soon as the panel’s decisions have been ratified as per the agreed process, Jeremy Corbyn’s suspension was required to be immediately lifted. Any consequence of the suspension, namely the suspension of the whip, was of course to immediately fall away as a consequence of the NEC panel decision.

The decision of the Leader the following day to withhold the whip from Jeremy Corbyn MP is an act of deliberate political interference in the handling of a complaint. It defies the decision of the NEC panel, is a matter of double jeopardy that flies in the face of natural justice, it undermines the Rule Book and it is precisely the type of action found to be unlawful indirect discrimination by the EHRC report.

We would remind the leadership that the political interference criticised by the EHRC included interference intended to speed up the disciplinary process.

The Leader of the party in addition made commentary that the Jewish community have no faith in the process of the Dispute’s panel. Although intended to be a damning comment on the Dispute’s process generally it is of course a direct criticism of the decision reached by the Dispute’s Panel on Tuesday. This criticism has been joined by other MPs, no doubt following the lead of the Leader.

Neither the Party nor the Leader have made clear that the Disputes Panel in question received legal advice on the day and as is the norm that includes a recommendation from the GLU staff, in particular the Head of Legal appointed by the Leader as to the sanction that should be awarded.

This is an unacceptable attack on the lay volunteers elected to uphold the Rule Book, it is direct political interference and it is unacceptable.

We understand that the Party will now face legal action as a result of the decision of the Leader to undermine the disciplinary processes. This will inevitably mean that members of the panel are asked to give evidence in a Court of law. It is unconscionable, given that the Leader is Queens Counsel and must have read and digested the EHRC report, that members of the NEC should be placed in this position by his actions.

As members of the NEC with responsibility to uphold the Rule Book we require confirmation that the General Secretary will now write to the Leader of the Party to admonish him for interfering in the NEC processes, for levelling public criticism intended to undermine confidence in the dispute process and for taking a decision that is directly contradictory to the NEC Panel decision. The General Secretary must demand that the Leader upholds the decision of the Dispute’s panel and immediately reinstates the whip to Jeremy Corbyn MP.

Signed

Howard Beckett
Jayne Taylor
Ian Murray
Andi Fox
Mick Whelan
Andy Kerr
Pauline McCarthy
Ellen Morrison
Lara McNeill
Mish Rahman
Laura Pidcock
Yasmine Dar
Nadia Jama
Gemma Bolton
 

sedgwick__7

Advisor to the Owner
Similar to the era of Brexit and parliamentary chaos under Theresa May, this week yet again has been an example of Labour missing an open goal due to constant internal squabbling. They‘ll never get elected whilst this continues to happen.
 

Strongbow

Forum Patron
Patron
All's Corbyn needs to do is accept that antisemitism was going on in his party and more importantly on his watch and apologise for it and all will be good again.

He can get back to sitting on the favourite fence (y) and then the knicker wetting on here can end ;)
 
Top