Should Corbyn remain as Labour leader?

[Gnasher]

Mention his name and he shill appear.

[Bjornebye]

Shit politician, amazing human being. 

[Gnasher]

Fucking hell the knives are out for the jam man on twitter this morning..he best spend his morning on the allotment.

 

As for Liz Kendall, until last night I didn't realise she was still involved in British politics.

 

 

I thought after getting hammered in her leadership bid against Corbyn she did a bit of media work then slipped quietly out of politics altogether.

 

I'd have guessed on her taking a job from someone like Atos as a mid ranking benefit sanctions officer in Leicester or something.

 

Oh well, shame.

 

[AngryOfTuebrook]

26 minutes ago, Gnasher said:

As for Liz Kendall, until last night I didn't realise she was still involved in British politics.

 

I thought after getting hammered in her leadership bid against Corbyn she did a bit of media work then slipped quietly out of politics altogether.

 

Same here. If you'd asked me I would have guessed that she'd fucked off to Nando's with all the other cunts.

[AngryOfTuebrook]

1 hour ago, Numero Veinticinco said:

Yes, he didn’t accept findings from the report. There were findings in the report that he didn’t accept, so to say he accepted the report is clearly untrue. There’s absolutely no way you can say what he said in the interviews after and the written statement and try to pull of that he accepted that report. The report is a whole document, if you don’t accept pretty fundamental parts of the report (or, actually, any part) then you don’t accept what that report says. 

That's where we disagree, in principle. If a report has, say, 20 findings and you accept 18 of them, I think it's still true to say you accept the report (albeit with qualifications).

 

Tomaytoes/Tomahtoes.

[Babb'sBurstNad]

1 hour ago, Jack the Sipper said:

 

Imagine a similar situation happening anywhere else across the political spectrum, even under Starmer's Labour, and ask yourself what the reaction would have been from those who think Corbyn played this right.

 

 

 

Yep, said as much at the time. It was exactly the kind of appointment that would've rightly been latched on to had it been a Tory. Naive or corrupt, either way it wasn't a smart decision.

[Bjornebye]

2 hours ago, Jack the Sipper said:

 

As good as. She referred to 'an occasionally toxic atmosphere', but otherwise, as you were. It certainly bore no resemblance to the ECHR report into anti-Semitism in Labour, which Corbyn weirdly claimed last night that he accepted. In any case, the point is that Corbyn thought it a good and wise move to reward her immediately following her conclusions.

 

Imagine a similar situation happening anywhere else across the political spectrum, even under Starmer's Labour, and ask yourself what the reaction would have been from those who think Corbyn played this right.

 

 

 

Who thinks Corbyn played it right? He should be dragging the cunts through the courts. 

[Arniepie]

2 hours ago, Jack the Sipper said:

 

As good as. She referred to 'an occasionally toxic atmosphere', but otherwise, as you were. It certainly bore no resemblance to the ECHR report into anti-Semitism in Labour, which Corbyn weirdly claimed last night that he accepted. In any case, the point is that Corbyn thought it a good and wise move to reward her immediately following her conclusions.

 

Imagine a similar situation happening anywhere else across the political spectrum, even under Starmer's Labour, and ask yourself what the reaction would have been from those who think Corbyn played this right.

 

 

The bottom line is that he has been portrayed as a massive racist when there is literally no evidence to back this up,in fact quite the contrary.There are genuinley people out there who compare him to hitler,thanks to what they have read in the media.

without indulging in whatabouterry thje difference in column inches in this,compared to the islamaphobia report into the tories,tells you all you need to know about "balance"in this country.    

[Gnasher]

Open laptop in morning, see Jeremy Corbyn trending..

 

 

f

 

For any youngsters on here, that's Boris Karloff on the set of Frankenstein 1931, not me...Well

[Arniepie]

10 hours ago, Numero Veinticinco said:

Alas, he never came close to actually winning one. 
 

I think he would have acted much more quickly and decisively than Johnson did. That would have lessened the impact on if the virus dramatically.  He certainly wouldn’t have waddled around in a blasé fashion saying stupid shit like ‘it won’t stop me shaking hands with people’ as if it was some dirty foreigner you could stare down like a British bulldog. Say what you want about Corbyn, but he’s not a feckless, uncaring idiot. I also suspect he’d not of splashed billions to his business mates on PPE just for the japes. Mostly because he hasn’t got business mates, he has co-op partners at the allotment but I doubt they dabble in PPE.

 

The media would have of course got at everything he did, but it would have also been handled much better. Ups and downs. 

remember when he actually came out and said all we need is some bulldog spirit?

I agree completely but Corbyn would have been utterly crucified whatever decision he would have made. I certainly think the lock downs would have been implemented sooner but probably longer.  

[Gnasher]

I'm starting to think he's a bit controversial.

[Numero Veinticinco]

20 minutes ago, Arniepie said:

remember when he actually came out and said all we need is some bulldog spirit?

I agree completely but Corbyn would have been utterly crucified whatever decision he would have made. I certainly think the lock downs would have been implemented sooner but probably longer.  

Yeah, the authoritarian side of it might have been an issue, but I guess we will never know.

[AngryOfTuebrook]

30 minutes ago, Gnasher said:

Open laptop in morning, see Jeremy Corbyn trending..

 

 

f

 

For any youngsters on here, that's Boris Karloff on the set of Frankenstein 1931, not me...Well

What a great picture.

[Nelly-Szoboszlai]

Yes, Corbyn should’ve just nodded along in submissive agreement when polls were being published which suggested that one third of the Labour Party were under suspicion of antisemitism and when radio talk show hosts were accusing him of wanting to re-open Auschwitz. 
 

How dare he! 

[Arniepie]

whats the point of digging at all up again?

the corbyn fans get a lot of stick for going on about it but there is fault here on both sides

[Numero Veinticinco]

3 minutes ago, Nelly-Matip said:

Yes, Corbyn should’ve just nodded along in submissive agreement when polls were being published which suggested that one third of the Labour Party were under suspicion of antisemitism and when radio talk show hosts were accusing him of wanting to re-open Auschwitz. 
 

How dare he! 

Hasn’t said poll been found not to actually show that? 

Link:

 

After his suspension, Jeremy Corbyn suggested that his statement meant only that the public had an exaggerated view of the extent of Labour antisemitism: “The numbers have been exaggerated […] the public perception in an opinion poll last year was that one third of all Labour party members were somehow or other under suspicion of antisemitism. The reality is, it was 0.3 per cent of party members had a case against them which had to be put through the process.”

These claims have now been adopted by his supporters.

The facts, however, are very different. The Corbynites themselves argued that until Jennie Formby became General Secretary in 2018, the party did not have the ability to analyse the level and content of disciplinary cases. Their claim has always been that they alone took antisemitism seriously and introduced robust new procedures. They still make that claim. But throughout the crisis, In 2019, Ms Formby told Labour MPs “there was no consistent and comprehensive system for recording and processing cases of antisemitism” before she took over. And that is what Labour told the EHRC.

How then can Mr Corbyn provide a figure for the number of members investigated for antisemitism while he was leader?

As for the poll, which the former Labour leader says found that people thought a third of Labour members could be antisemitc — it says no such thing. Conducted by Survation in 2019, it asked two questions, starting with: “Have you seen or heard anything about accusations of antisemitism (hostility to or prejudice against Jewish people) made against members of the Labour Party?”

Thirty per cent said they had not, with 9 per cent saying, “Don’t know”.

The poll only asked its second question of those who said they had heard about Labour antisemitism: “From what you have seen or heard, what percentage of Labour Party members do you think have had complaints of antisemitism made against them?” Twenty-nine per cent replied “don’t know”. And the most popular answer of those who did suggest a figure was “0-9%” - within the range Mr Corbyn himself suggested was correct.

[Nelly-Szoboszlai]

3 minutes ago, Numero Veinticinco said:

Hasn’t said poll been found not to actually show that? 

Link:

 

After his suspension, Jeremy Corbyn suggested that his statement meant only that the public had an exaggerated view of the extent of Labour antisemitism: “The numbers have been exaggerated […] the public perception in an opinion poll last year was that one third of all Labour party members were somehow or other under suspicion of antisemitism. The reality is, it was 0.3 per cent of party members had a case against them which had to be put through the process.”

These claims have now been adopted by his supporters.

The facts, however, are very different. The Corbynites themselves argued that until Jennie Formby became General Secretary in 2018, the party did not have the ability to analyse the level and content of disciplinary cases. Their claim has always been that they alone took antisemitism seriously and introduced robust new procedures. They still make that claim. But throughout the crisis, In 2019, Ms Formby told Labour MPs “there was no consistent and comprehensive system for recording and processing cases of antisemitism” before she took over. And that is what Labour told the EHRC.

How then can Mr Corbyn provide a figure for the number of members investigated for antisemitism while he was leader?

As for the poll, which the former Labour leader says found that people thought a third of Labour members could be antisemitc — it says no such thing. Conducted by Survation in 2019, it asked two questions, starting with: “Have you seen or heard anything about accusations of antisemitism (hostility to or prejudice against Jewish people) made against members of the Labour Party?”

Thirty per cent said they had not, with 9 per cent saying, “Don’t know”.

The poll only asked its second question of those who said they had heard about Labour antisemitism: “From what you have seen or heard, what percentage of Labour Party members do you think have had complaints of antisemitism made against them?” Twenty-nine per cent replied “don’t know”. And the most popular answer of those who did suggest a figure was “0-9%” - within the range Mr Corbyn himself suggested was correct.

Update: Professor Philo told FactCheck that his qualitative research alongside the poll supported the idea that the public had overestimated the extent of antisemitism in the Labour Party and added: “The point about interviewees not being given data on Labour membership figures is not relevant. To do so would make it a deliberative poll in which subjects are given information with which they can qualify their views. We were investigating the impacts of media reports saying that Labour was ‘riddled’ with antisemitism and that the Party was ‘wholly infected’.”

[Bjornebye]

Jeremy Corbyn isn’t an anti-Semite or a racist endeavour. Anyone who thinks he is is a cunt. 

[Gnasher]

23 minutes ago, AngryOfTuebrook said:

What a great picture.

 

I'd had a bit of a late night.

[Numero Veinticinco]

25 minutes ago, Nelly-Matip said:

Update: Professor Philo told FactCheck that his qualitative research alongside the poll supported the idea that the public had overestimated the extent of antisemitism in the Labour Party and added: “The point about interviewees not being given data on Labour membership figures is not relevant. To do so would make it a deliberative poll in which subjects are given information with which they can qualify their views. We were investigating the impacts of media reports saying that Labour was ‘riddled’ with antisemitism and that the Party was ‘wholly infected’.”

Interesting that they turn to a professor of geography for his ‘qualitative’ research…. but anyway here’s the bit underneath what you posted. 
 

FactCheck verdict

Jeremy Corbyn said: “the public perception in an opinion poll last year was that a third of all Labour party members were somehow or other under suspicion of antisemitism. The reality is, it was 0.3 per cent of party members had a case against them.”

It’s not clear that Mr Corbyn can reliably claim to know what proportion of Labour members have been the subject of an antisemitism case – at least, not for the duration of his time as leader.

Labour told the EHRC that “it was not able to confirm the number of complaints made, or action taken on antisemitism complaints, until 2018 when it started to record this data”. The party has previously said that there was no “consistent or comprehensive system” in place for recording antisemitism cases before then, which means we can’t say what happened in the first two-and-a-half years of his tenure.

The poll Mr Corbyn refers to does have some strengths (a large sample that is demographically representative).

However, it also revealed that a third of the public hadn’t heard anything about antisemitism in the Labour party, and that a third of those who had couldn’t say how many Labour members had been accused (“don’t know” was the single most popular answer).

Some academic statisticians FactCheck spoke to raised concerns that the way the question was asked might make its results unreliable. As with any single poll, we shouldn’t place too much weight on its findings.

 

It should be said, I think it was likely overstated in terms of number or cases, it was definitely overstated overall. That’s not really the point, which is that his claim that he accepted the EHCR… he clearly did not. It’s just a lie. It doesn’t really matter, he’s not an antisemite but he’s not some great, infallible hero of a man either. Just a bloke caught up at a higher level than he could manage. 

[Babb'sBurstNad]

30 minutes ago, Bjornebye said:

Jeremy Corbyn isn’t an anti-Semite or a racist endeavour. Anyone who thinks he is is a cunt. 

 

Exactly.

 

He looks nothing like Morse.

[Gnasher]

10 minutes ago, Numero Veinticinco said:

Interesting that they turn to a professor of geography for his ‘qualitative’ research…. but anyway here’s the bit underneath what you posted. 
 

FactCheck verdict

Jeremy Corbyn said: “the public perception in an opinion poll last year was that a third of all Labour party members were somehow or other under suspicion of antisemitism. The reality is, it was 0.3 per cent of party members had a case against them.”

It’s not clear that Mr Corbyn can reliably claim to know what proportion of Labour members have been the subject of an antisemitism case – at least, not for the duration of his time as leader.

Labour told the EHRC that “it was not able to confirm the number of complaints made, or action taken on antisemitism complaints, until 2018 when it started to record this data”. The party has previously said that there was no “consistent or comprehensive system” in place for recording antisemitism cases before then, which means we can’t say what happened in the first two-and-a-half years of his tenure.

The poll Mr Corbyn refers to does have some strengths (a large sample that is demographically representative).

However, it also revealed that a third of the public hadn’t heard anything about antisemitism in the Labour party, and that a third of those who had couldn’t say how many Labour members had been accused (“don’t know” was the single most popular answer).

Some academic statisticians FactCheck spoke to raised concerns that the way the question was asked might make its results unreliable. As with any single poll, we shouldn’t place too much weight on its findings.

 

It should be said, I think it was likely overstated in terms of number or cases, it was definitely overstated overall. That’s not really the point, which is that his claim that he accepted the EHCR… he clearly did not. It’s just a lie. It doesn’t really matter, he’s not an antisemite but he’s not some great, infallible hero of a man either. Just a bloke caught up at a higher level than he could manage. 

 

[Nelly-Szoboszlai]

 

11 minutes ago, Numero Veinticinco said:

Interesting that they turn to a professor of geography for his ‘qualitative’ research…. but anyway here’s the bit underneath what you posted. 
 

FactCheck verdict

Jeremy Corbyn said: “the public perception in an opinion poll last year was that a third of all Labour party members were somehow or other under suspicion of antisemitism. The reality is, it was 0.3 per cent of party members had a case against them.”

It’s not clear that Mr Corbyn can reliably claim to know what proportion of Labour members have been the subject of an antisemitism case – at least, not for the duration of his time as leader.

Labour told the EHRC that “it was not able to confirm the number of complaints made, or action taken on antisemitism complaints, until 2018 when it started to record this data”. The party has previously said that there was no “consistent or comprehensive system” in place for recording antisemitism cases before then, which means we can’t say what happened in the first two-and-a-half years of his tenure.

The poll Mr Corbyn refers to does have some strengths (a large sample that is demographically representative).

However, it also revealed that a third of the public hadn’t heard anything about antisemitism in the Labour party, and that a third of those who had couldn’t say how many Labour members had been accused (“don’t know” was the single most popular answer).

Some academic statisticians FactCheck spoke to raised concerns that the way the question was asked might make its results unreliable. As with any single poll, we shouldn’t place too much weight on its findings.

 

It should be said, I think it was likely overstated in terms of number or cases, it was definitely overstated overall. That’s not really the point, which is that his claim that he accepted the EHCR… he clearly did not. It’s just a lie. It doesn’t really matter, he’s not an antisemite but he’s not some great, infallible hero of a man either. Just a bloke caught up at a higher level than he could manage. 

 

It looks like the Labour Party has an ongoing issue with liars being promoted to the upper echelons of the party. 

[Numero Veinticinco]

20 minutes ago, Nelly-Matip said:

 

 

It looks like the Labour Party has an ongoing issue with liars being promoted to the upper echelons of the party. 

Much of this Starmer is a liar stuff is fabricated or just bad faith. No doubt he has it in him, he’s a politician after all. Those he surrounds himself with are far less honest, I’d certainly agree there. The pledges stuff just doesn’t stand up to the most basic scrutiny though. What I find interesting is those who’ll bend over backwards to make Starmer out to be a liar, then not a pip when Corbyn does it. It’s almost as if lying isn’t the issue, it’s which team you’re on. With Starmer, I’ll be judging him on what’s in the manifesto and what’s implemented. The rest is hot air.

[Gnasher]

30 minutes ago, Nelly-Matip said:

 

 

It looks like the Labour Party has an ongoing issue with liars being promoted to the upper echelons of the party. 

 

Oh fuck you've gone and done it now, you've committed the sin of mildly criticising the main man, the guru, the political figurehead who's going to come from the mountain to save us. People have had their voice box slashed for less blasphemous talk. 

 

Id tread carefully for the leader of the Starmernistas is every bit as fanatical as the fella below. In fact his worship is not a touch on NVs.