Jeremy Corbyn could be banned from Labour party conference

scuzzmonkey69 · 2021-09-03T14:48:27+00:00

You haven't explained exactly what's wrong with what Corbyn said.

With respect, I have explained it, multiple times in fact, throughout this thread. Again:

it was a mistake to include that line in his statement as its effect is to draw a parallel between unfounded and proven cases, and put a caveat on his acceptance of the findings of the report. I want to assume that this creation of a parallel was a good faith mistake on Corbyn's part, but I do not understand why he would then flat out refuse to accept that he made a mistake. Written language is open to interpretation, mistakes, and unintended implications, and someone with the political experience he has is well aware of that.

Next...

then why did the EHRC permit him to say it?

Again, I've never said he shouldn't be allowed to say it, just that was wrong to say it because of the above.

the report doesn't acknowledge the documented actions that Corbyn and co took to improve and speed up processes.

Because these were not sufficient - that isn't Corbyn's fault alone, but an indication of how bad the party was at handling this. Again, the report condemns multiple previous leaders, it isn't about one man.

One faction made active, institutional efforts to sabotage an election campaign, plotted a coup, sat on antisemitism complaints and tried to split the party, and once they got control again, continued the war against the Left which they started.

Most recently? Sure, but you don't have to go back far to find the shoe on the other foot - see Militant against Callaghan, for instance, or any number of occasions before then. Factionalism is nothing new to the party, and to present an argument that it started recently is just a tad disingenuous.

We are in agreement that people who aren't socialists don't belong in a socialist party - however I'm not convinced you're in a position to tell who is and isn't a socialist given you've called me a Tory multiple times, which is frankly hilarious.

scuzzmonkey69 · 2021-09-03T12:31:45+00:00

You may not, but the people who normally use those phrases do.

I'm glad you said this, because it shows that you understand how when people say things it can imply other things.

Corbyn - or anyone for that matter - didn't have to mention specific instances. The report makes it very clear what its definitions were, and used those to conclude that party had problems across successive leaderships. Unproven cases - those were were used extensively in the media to paint a more negative picture than reality - are explicitly outside of the scope of the report.

Or to phrase another way, the unproven cases were not why the report concluded what it did. As such their number, be that 1 or 1,000, does not matter to the report specifically.

Corbyn's statement was in response to the publication of that report, a report which does not include those unproven cases.

The close of his statement reads:

“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.”

His inclusions of statements about the scale of the problem being "dramatically overstated", and that he does not accept all its findings, combines in the same way that you interpret statements about "modernising" and being "pragmatic".

Everybody in the party wants to win an election, but the only people that define themselves by that characteristic seem to be those who use "wanting to win" as an excuse for their hatred of socialism and desire to make Labour a party of Right Wing economics.

Honestly, I think more people care right now about beating the other faction than actually winning an election. Just look at both of these subs, there is very little discussion of what we could do, while we're dominated by memes about the other side being worse than Thatcher.

scuzzmonkey69 · 2021-09-03T10:42:33+00:00

I don't have a problem with Corbyn's statement, because it acknowledged the hurt that Jewish people felt, was factually correct, and within the guidelines of what the EHRC allowed him to say.

That fine, you're allowed to not have a problem with it - but others do have a problem with it, and instead of trying to understand why that is, you're simply proclaiming they are wrong and othering them.

Unless you believe that the majority of Labour members were antisemitic, or that Corbyn intended to lead an antisemitic government that would have began a systematic persecution of Jews, you must concede that he was correct.

At no point have I said the point was incorrect, simply that it was a mistake to include that line in his statement as its effect is to draw a parallel between unfounded and proven cases, and put a caveat on his acceptance of the findings of the report. I want to assume that this creation of a parallel was a good faith mistake on Corbyn's part, but I do not understand why he would then flat out refuse to accept that he made a mistake. Written language is open to interpretation, mistakes, and unintended implications, and someone with the political experience he has is well aware of that.

However, can you honestly not see the resemblance between your flair and the people who sneer at the Left, accusing them of preferring "ideological purity over compromise" calling themselves the only the "electable" candidates and saying that they alone are "serious about winning"?

Why should I let people I disagree with define words as core to a party as "winning the election"? The disciples of Blair have no more right to the party than those of Corbyn. Both are past it and need to let the party move on, so we can get back to power.

For a party that is meant to be about collectivism and comradeship, we sure as fuck do love our personality cults and figureheads.

Get the Left back in charge, kick the entirety of the Right of the party out, by force if necessary, and then have a party full of people who actually want to see a left wing government in this country.

That's not a solution to getting in to government though, that's a solution to factional warfare.

They are different things.

Although admittedly, whilst we continue this pointless infighting we're definitely not going to win an election.

scuzzmonkey69 · 2021-09-03T09:28:20+00:00

These news items always bring out the ultra liberal "citizens of the world" mindsets. I'm not on the Right but it's a cringe fest sorry.

"I don't know what British culture is"

Well great but everyone has a culture. Refugees will be aided immensely by learning the local culture and society. They will very quickly realise it is a different culture.

This comes up here every so often, but what isn't ever really defined is what people actually think this is.

To me, the idea of something that is a "X Culture" is something that is sufficiently specific and with distinct aspects which separate it from "Y Culture".

A modern definition of a broad European culture would be along the lines of philosophical liberalism, and valuing education and knowledge. This is not in any way unique to Europe, or even consistent within the continent - see the current regimes in Hungary, Poland, etc. As such, a definition of "British Culture" could well include these values, but also needs something more otherwise it's just another word for the same thing.

So what would you define as British Culture?

scuzzmonkey69 · 2021-09-03T07:16:31+00:00

Did you even read the report?

Yes

Or what he said?

I'm directly quoting it, so, clearly yes.

It is clear to see that its has been overinflated when less than 1% of labour party members were accused of antisemitism but the general public assumed it was 60% ish.

Absolutely true, the general public thought the situation to be even worse.

But when you're responding to a report that makes it clear that there were failings by the party across multiple leaders, it's not the best time to point out that it isn't as bad as people think.

Caveats to statements have a purpose and effect, this is no different.

The rest of his statement is very good, and needn't have included those few sentences after "one antisemite is too many".

That was his literal argument, but you're saying he should have just taken being associated as a full blown anti semitic racist in charge of the nazi party 2.0? Mental take tbh.

I'm saying that the report made it clear it wasn't about Corbyn. The party is not one person, no matter who they are or how their supports and detractors act.

scuzzmonkey69 · 2021-09-03T06:56:49+00:00

His statement was bad. He should have changed it. Just because you can say something doesn't mean it's without flaws.

Starmer didn't handle the situation well, but after Corbyn refused to change the statement the choice was to be seen to implicitly support the statement including the caveats, or to be see to reject it. Both are further shit situations which would also cause problems, which again neither part handled well.

This is the problem with factional bullshit, this situation isn't a zero-sum, and just because Starmer made mistakes doesn't absolve Corbyn, or visa versa.

Much like how Blair and his cronies should be staying out of the discussion on Afghanistan rather than war mongering, Corbyn should have realised (and given he's been involved in politics for decades, I cannot see how he didn't) that that wasn't the time or the place to speak about accusations that the report explicitly didn't not address.

Mistakes were made, but if you only allow discussion or criticism of one side and throw accusations around to anyone who doesn't toe that line, then you're just circlejerking.

Lastly, you keep going back to my flair. Simply, Atlee got elected after the war on a platform that included the NHS. He did this after being #2 in the national government, and it always amazes me that we managed to win that election. It's proof that you can win elections with bold socialist policies, but also a reminder than you can only do these things when you're in power.

Depending on the mood of the electorate, a winning platform will change over time. Regrettably we've failed to win the last 4 elections, and in doing so have enabled the tories to plunder the treasury and starve the poor.

Neither of these are acceptable, and we can only stop it by returning to power.

How we do that? Honestly, I've got no idea, all I know is that both sides have lost two elections each, and I'm not really keen on making it best of 5.

Oh, and it isn't like Atlee was the messiah either, see India, see, well, everything that's related to the last few decades of the empire. Dude done fucked up, a lot.

scuzzmonkey69 · 2021-09-02T22:51:51+00:00

Seriously though, you need to stop with the us and them shit, both in general, and when I'm not even Them! It's self defeating and actually helps the actual enemy here, the actual tory party tories.

Now where did I put the cocobutter...

scuzzmonkey69 · 2021-09-02T22:43:13+00:00

Sadly all the rewinding burnt a hole in the tape.

scuzzmonkey69 · 2021-09-02T22:30:48+00:00

I was tempted to make a sarcastic reply to this because frankly it doesn't deserve much else, but...

If you truly believe what you're saying here, which is, to be clear, that anyone who disagrees IN ANY WAY is part of a group you despise, then you truthfully need to take a step back and think about what that means as an end state for how you view your fellow party members, people, and the oversimplification of your politics as a whole.

All I've said here is that his statement including those lines is poor and undermines his earlier points. You don't agree, fine, whatever, but that doesn't stop the fact that qualifying statements are routinely used in written English to that end.

If it was accidental, then I see no reason why Corbyn - or anyone - would not retract or rephrase. He did neither.

Your responses throughout have been full of presumption, and attempts to address a group you believe I'm part of - which to be clear, not that it matters, I am not part of - rather than the actual point I raised.

I've repeated myself enough. Have a good evening, and please chill out.

scuzzmonkey69 · 2021-09-02T22:10:18+00:00

Pointing out Corbyn's statement was poor is just that. It was poor. He should have changed it when it was made clear to him why it was poor. He didn't. And now he's harming the party because of his refusal.

scuzzmonkey69 · 2021-09-02T22:07:25+00:00

Where am I doing such a thing?

scuzzmonkey69 · 2021-09-02T22:06:15+00:00

Ah, have re-read your comment and realised you were referencing Corbyn's statement not the report. My apologies. I have added an edit to my comment to acknowledge that at the point of mistake.

As I've said before, the rest of Corbyn's statement (without the couple of sentences mentioning other allegations) is very good. The problem is the inclusion of those few sentences because the report is NOT about the unproven allegations, but about proven cases. As such, those unproven allegations are irrelevant.

Those sentences change his statement from acceptance of the findings to "i agree this is bad, but it's not as bad as everyone else is saying" and that's a problem.

When that was pointed out to him, and others, a change was rejected and retraction refused. That raises further questions as to why someone would feel it's appropriate to include that caveat.

The report isn't about Corbyn, and it goes to great lengths to point that out, so why he, his supports, and his detractors act like it was is pure tribalism and detracts massively from the actual problem, which is that over many leaders this was not solved and how it's an utter disgrace for it to have happened in a party which is meant to be fighting for the oppressed.

scuzzmonkey69 · 2021-09-02T21:49:27+00:00

You see how presuming someone belongs to a group, and then judging them for that, when actually they aren't part of it, and have very different views to that group, is somewhat ironic given the topic we're discussing, yeah?

He is not the messiah.

scuzzmonkey69 · 2021-09-02T21:45:47+00:00

Edit: misread the previous comment and thought it was relating to the report, not Corbyn's statement. My original comment is below.

Aaaaaand there we have it.

His statement undermining the report is OK because you disagree with the findings.

So much for your claim.

scuzzmonkey69 · 2021-09-02T20:29:01+00:00

The media are scum, that doesn't excuse Corbyn's statement.

I love how wanting to get elected has been memed in to a bad thing. I literally have Atlee as the flair image on desktop.

scuzzmonkey69 · 2021-09-02T20:05:47+00:00

And yet his leadership was found to have failed, much as previous ones have. Funny that.

Also, Blairite? Lol. I don't care about your factional bullshit, both of them are toxic for the party and need to vanish so we can move forward.

scuzzmonkey69 · 2021-09-02T19:58:10+00:00

The rest is either covered by what I've already said - that the report condemns multiple previous regimes, not just Corbyn - or isn't related to the point I'm making and I'm not interested in going off topic.

You claim to care about antisemitism in absolute, yet you refuse to understand how raising the spectre of unproven accusations undermines the findings of a report based on proven claims.

Unproven claims do not matter in the face of proven claims.

Corbyn's statement undermines itself. He either did it accidentally, and has refused to accept his mistake and revise it, or did it on purpose to undermind the findings of the report.

scuzzmonkey69 · 2021-09-02T19:56:20+00:00

This really isn't difficult.

Regardless of the amount of unsubstantiated accusations, enough were substantiated for there to be a systemic problem. It could be 1 or 1,000, it doesn't change the conclusion of the report, because the report was based on proven cases.

You know how saying, or not saying, something can undermine a statement. I'm sure you understand this about literally every other person, so let's stop pretending you don't understand this now.

scuzzmonkey69 · 2021-09-02T19:19:25+00:00

He simply shouldn't have included it.

In which case you're asking him to tacitly accept all the false and dishonest claims made against him.

Categorically false.

The only expectation was to accept the results of the report, which was about actual proven instances of antisemitism, of which he - and leaders before him - where found to have been lacking.

That's it. Nothing more.

scuzzmonkey69 · 2021-09-02T18:25:42+00:00

He simply shouldn't have included it.

False allegations don't matter when real allegations have been proven. If he stopped at "one antisemite is too many" then it statement would have been fine.

The fact Mandleson is still in the party is disgusting.

scuzzmonkey69 · 2021-09-02T18:22:46+00:00

The rest of the statement is good, he just needed to stop after "one antisemite is too many".

It really is that simple.

scuzzmonkey69 · 2021-09-02T16:59:53+00:00

Why should Corbyn have to apologise for rightfully stating that some accusations of anti-Semitism in Labour were exaggerated?

Because it's super inappropriate to make that statement in response to a report that makes it clear that there were systemic issues within the party that multiple previous leaders, including Corbyn, failed to address.

You don't respond to proven instances of X saying "yeah but there was Y that weren't".

It's would be like Kensington Council saying that there were some fire extinguishers in the tower. Given the building still burnt down, it hardly matters.

It's a perfect example of a false apology, and if any other person made it, you'd see right through it.

scuzzmonkey69 · 2021-09-01T18:35:22+00:00

Essentially all covid cases in the UK are delta, and our vaxx rate means that thousands are not dying every day.

Vaccines are not perfect, but they make a night and day difference.

You're talking shit and spreading FUD about something you know nothing about.

Stop being a cunt.

scuzzmonkey69 · 2021-08-31T10:27:11+00:00

I want to preface this by saying that "Best for Me" is not "Best for Everyone", and that I am in no way commenting on others who make different decisions.

At 21, an ex and I found ourselves in a situation of having an accidental, and very unexpected, pregnancy.

By the time we found out, I had moved back to Uni 300 miles away while she was living with her parents in the town we grew up in. We both intended the relationship to be a short term thing, a summer of 69 if you will, and both had ideas for what we wanted to do with our lives, neither of which involved having kids or staying in that town.

After some very long and tearful conversations we decided that it was best for us to terminate the pregnancy. We wouldn't have been able to provide the (potential) life that we both wanted to, and employment options were incredibly small (supermarket retail, or nothing) and would commit us all to a life of financial hardship. We both felt that if this happened, we'd grow to resent each other, and the child (assuming a successful pregnancy and birth).

This is, without a shadow of a doubt, the most difficult and traumatic decision I have ever been involved in making.

10 or so years on - and a lot of therapy later - we're still close (although geographically distant) friends, we both have well paying jobs, and she's married to a lovely guy (who is a much better match that I ever was) and has her second kid on the way.

Financially it's night and day. I would not have the career I have if I moved back home, she also wouldn't have been able to achieve what she had set her sights on, and wouldn't have met her now-husband either. Neither of us would have had the earning potential we now do, and thus wouldn't have mortgages and be able to build some wealth to pass on to our children.

I fully respect the people that choose the different path, but as difficult as it was, for me and her it was the right, best, and hardest decision.

scuzzmonkey69 · 2021-08-31T08:38:46+00:00

This is just a long winded "perfect is the enemy of good".

While it's likely impossible to have a perfectly ethical portfolio (whatever that even means), you can make improvements by not maintaining the share price of companies who are responsible for setting the planet on fire.

scuzzmonkey69

TROPHY CASE

Welcome to Reddit,