Should Corbyn remain as Labour leader?

[Numero Veinticinco]

1 minute ago, AngryOfTuebrook said:

It's all about what you have posted here, in the last couple of pages. You can't honestly deny what's right in front of you.

 

Anyway, which recommendations were ignored?

I’m not denying what’s right in front of me, I’m saying look what I’ve actually written. Not headlines, which have nothing to do with me, I’m not the Tory party or the right of the Labour Party. I said a thing, which was that I’m glad Starmer has fixed what was broken under Corbyn. That’s not even mentioning antisemitism, it’s not lies that are repeated, it’s just verifiably true. It was broken, it was picked up by the report, and it has been fixed by Starmer. The rest is waffle. 
 

As for recommendations that have been ignored, I’m referring to this from page 6 of the EHRC report:

 

The issue of antisemitism within the Labour Party has been the subject of much scrutiny, most formally with three investigations in 2016, conducted by Baroness Chakrabarti, Baroness Royall and the Home Affairs Select Committee (HASC). Since then, the Party has failed to implement the recommendations made in these reports fully, or to take effective measures to stop antisemitic conduct from taking place. It is regrettable that many of the concerns we raise here were first raised in these reports over four years ago.

[Creator Supreme]

Whilst it's good to see him standing up for himself and fighting his corner at last, I think this is a mistake.

 

IMHO it would be better for all involved if the members in his local CLP have a quiet word with him and advise him to step aside. By saying he'll stand for Labour when there's a chance the NEC could leave him off the list he's opening himself up to a massive egg on face moment, not to mention leaving himself open to the usual wankers who'll accuse him of everything from trying to derail labour's election bid to running the trains into Birkenau (hello Rachel you twat!).

 

He should either stand as an independent and tell Labour to stick their party membership up their arse, or preferably keep his Labour membership and gracefully step aside.

[Gnasher]

7 minutes ago, Arniepie said:

this is getting messy

Yep. He's not going quietly.

[Gnasher]

Yet another Alexie example here. I'd like to drop this cunt.

 

 

 

 

[Creator Supreme]

6 minutes ago, Gnasher said:

Yet another Alexie example here. I'd like to drop this cunt.

 

 

 

 

That's the kind of shit a manager at my old company came out with a few years back. She took it back quickly when some of the least bolshy and political people I've ever worked with told her they would be working their notice in that case.

 

It was one of my favourite climbdowns as she was and I presume still is a nasty stuck up right wing glaswegian bitch! She'd fit right in with Keirs Labour.

 

A pox on you Carolyn if you're reading this, you fucking gobshite!

[Numero Veinticinco]

4 minutes ago, Creator Supreme said:

Whilst it's good to see him standing up for himself and fighting his corner at last, I think this is a mistake.

 

IMHO it would be better for all involved if the members in his local CLP have a quiet word with him and advise him to step aside. By saying he'll stand for Labour when there's a chance the NEC could leave him off the list he's opening himself up to a massive egg on face moment, not to mention leaving himself open to the usual wankers who'll accuse him of everything from trying to derail labour's election bid to running the trains into Birkenau (hello Rachel you twat!).

 

He should either stand as an independent and tell Labour to stick their party membership up their arse, or preferably keep his Labour membership and gracefully step aside.

Far be it from this block of cheese to respond, but long listing by NEC and then short listing by NEC, CLP and/or a regional body only happens when there’s a defection and l/or retirement. So Corbyn might be within his rights to stand there. Though with him not being in the PLP, I’m not sure if that’s even in the rules, such is the weirdness of the situation. Obviously if he stands against Labour he will have his membership automatically revoked. I guess that’d be seen as defection. 
 

What a mess. For me, he has been an MP there for 40 years. He deserves to carry on. On the other hand, I can see why, from a strategic perspective, they don’t want him near the party anymore.

[Arniepie]

11 minutes ago, Creator Supreme said:

Whilst it's good to see him standing up for himself and fighting his corner at last, I think this is a mistake.

 

IMHO it would be better for all involved if the members in his local CLP have a quiet word with him and advise him to step aside. By saying he'll stand for Labour when there's a chance the NEC could leave him off the list he's opening himself up to a massive egg on face moment, not to mention leaving himself open to the usual wankers who'll accuse him of everything from trying to derail labour's election bid to running the trains into Birkenau (hello Rachel you twat!).

 

He should either stand as an independent and tell Labour to stick their party membership up their arse, or preferably keep his Labour membership and gracefully step aside.

yep

if his constituents want him then stand as an independent.

why stand for a party when the leadership doesnt want you? 

[Gnasher]

13 hours ago, Numero Veinticinco said:

Great news that the EHRC recognise the massive improvements made under Starmer, fixing what was so badly broken under Corbyn. A some what credible organisation. 

 

 

[Arniepie]

27 minutes ago, Gnasher said:

 

 

thats fucking disturbing

[Arniepie]

Labour must be a broad church. Starmer’s purge of the left puts his future government in peril | Neal Lawson | The Guardian

[AngryOfTuebrook]

50 minutes ago, Numero Veinticinco said:

I’m not denying what’s right in front of me, I’m saying look what I’ve actually written. Not headlines, which have nothing to do with me, I’m not the Tory party or the right of the Labour Party. I said a thing, which was that I’m glad Starmer has fixed what was broken under Corbyn. That’s not even mentioning antisemitism, it’s not lies that are repeated, it’s just verifiably true. It was broken, it was picked up by the report, and it has been fixed by Starmer. The rest is waffle. 
 

As for recommendations that have been ignored, I’m referring to this from page 6 of the EHRC report:

 

The issue of antisemitism within the Labour Party has been the subject of much scrutiny, most formally with three investigations in 2016, conducted by Baroness Chakrabarti, Baroness Royall and the Home Affairs Select Committee (HASC). Since then, the Party has failed to implement the recommendations made in these reports fully, or to take effective measures to stop antisemitic conduct from taking place. It is regrettable that many of the concerns we raise here were first raised in these reports over four years ago.

I think I'm right in saying that these things are within the gift of the General Secretary and the NEC; if so, giving Corbyn blame and Starmer credit isn't appropriate.

[Gnasher]

11 minutes ago, Arniepie said:

thats fucking disturbing

 

Numeros fucking disturbing.

[Strontium]

2 hours ago, Carvalho Diablo said:

Rarely can I be arsed to venture into the cess pits which are the political threads on the forum, but I've yet to hear anything which Corbyn has said which was anti-Semitic.

 

I don't think that was ever the issue, was it? It was the associating with people who had.

[Numero Veinticinco]

17 minutes ago, AngryOfTuebrook said:

I think I'm right in saying that these things are within the gift of the General Secretary and the NEC; if so, giving Corbyn blame and Starmer credit isn't appropriate.

Under Corbyn. Under Starmer. From the report: 

 

The Labour Party must now produce an action plan to address our findings and recommendations. The new leadership under Sir Keir Starmer has already publicly committed to implementing our recommendations in full. It must now put this into practice. The recommendations are clear, fair and achievable. They will help the Labour Party to make positive change in its policies, processes and culture, to benefit all of its members, and to rebuild trust among the Jewish community and the wider public. This must be done in a proactive and timely way. It must not be the case that these recommendations have to be made again in yet another report in the future.

That’s exactly what has been done. It’s why special measures (and it’s worth noting that Labour are only the second party ever to be put under special measures, the first being BNP) are being lifted. So I stick with what I said. 

[Numero Veinticinco]

2 minutes ago, Strontium said:

 

I don't think that was ever the issue, was it? It was the associating with people who had.

The big issue was the way the party was mismanaged, in my opinion. It was clearly badly set up for a long time and the measures that were put in place were inadequate. 

[Numero Veinticinco]

10 minutes ago, Gnasher said:

 

Numeros fucking disturbing.

Your obsession is a bit weird, to be honest. 

[Carvalho Diablo]

19 minutes ago, Strontium said:

 

I don't think that was ever the issue, was it? It was the associating with people who had.

You know what Stronts? You're the only person who's ever taken the time to answer the question.

 

Appreciate that mate.

[Arniepie]

29 minutes ago, Strontium said:

 

I don't think that was ever the issue, was it? It was the associating with people who had.

OF Course it was

 

Jeremy Corbyn under fire for foreword in 'anti-Semitic' book | CNN

 

Jeremy Corbyn's Cynical Anti-Semitism | Council on Foreign Relations (cfr.org)

[Bjornebye]

Hugh Grant referenced Shakespeare in Love Actually the anti-semitic twat 

[Gnasher]

This removal of accusations of racism within the Labour party is going well.

 

 

I thought they'd fixed it now.

 

[A Red]

Get a fucking grip labour. If you can't sort yourselves out how the fuck can you expect people to believe you can sort the country out?

[AngryOfTuebrook]

59 minutes ago, Numero Veinticinco said:

Under Corbyn. Under Starmer. From the report: 

 

The Labour Party must now produce an action plan to address our findings and recommendations. The new leadership under Sir Keir Starmer has already publicly committed to implementing our recommendations in full. It must now put this into practice. The recommendations are clear, fair and achievable. They will help the Labour Party to make positive change in its policies, processes and culture, to benefit all of its members, and to rebuild trust among the Jewish community and the wider public. This must be done in a proactive and timely way. It must not be the case that these recommendations have to be made again in yet another report in the future.

That’s exactly what has been done. It’s why special measures (and it’s worth noting that Labour are only the second party ever to be put under special measures, the first being BNP) are being lifted. So I stick with what I said. 

That's doesn't address the issue of what the Leader is able to do (bearing in mind that the EHRC Report found against the previous Leader for having overstepped his purview in trying to speed up the response to anti-Semitism complaints).

[AngryOfTuebrook]

1 hour ago, Numero Veinticinco said:

It was clearly badly set up for a long time 

There's something we can agree on.

 

The prevailing narrative is that Labour was a bed of roses until 2015, then it became institutionally anti-Semitic, but now Starmer has purged the Lefties, it's a lovely welcoming place for Jews again. Every step of that narrative is demonstrably false; worse, promoting that narrative does nothing to tackle anti-Semitism.

[Arniepie]

7 minutes ago, AngryOfTuebrook said:

There's something we can agree on.

 

The prevailing narrative is that Labour was a bed of roses until 2015, then it became institutionally anti-Semitic, but now Starmer has purged the Lefties, it's a lovely welcoming place for Jews again. Every step of that narrative is demonstrably false; worse, promoting that narrative does nothing to tackle anti-Semitism.

what I do find odd is that anti semitism become "newsworthy" after the 2017 election.

incidentally how many tories did they expel after the damaging islamaphobia report?   

[A Red]

Speaking as a non Jewish person, one who selfishly votes for what suits him best at the time, I don't really give a fuck about whether the labour party is better on antisemitism now. I'm not overly arsed about Palestine, I don't fear fascists taking over the country and I don't really need lecturing on racism.

 

Please Labour, stop banging on about this stuff, tell me how my life will be better and make it easy for me to vote for you.

 

I think this is Starmers aim if only he is allowed.