UK Politics - It's a bit glitchy

[Heartofice]

The anti semitism thing is something that Corbyn could have easily shut down, but hes just such a principled pig headed guy that he refused to back down on what he believes. As BFC said, hes a really bad politician because sometimes you need to compromise, often you need to lie and not say what you think. He wouldn't do that. 

I don't know if he personally is anti semitic but he certainly buys into a lot of the far left rhetoric around Israel. 

[A wilding]

1 hour ago, karaddin said:

From the outside this looks a lot more like opportunism exploiting the problem of anti-Semitism to get rid of someone than a genuine attempt at addressing the problem, I certainly would be worried that it was just painting a big target on me if I were Jewish (not much of a stretch - similar scenario comes up plenty with trans issues).

Of course the problem with the view from outside is that you don't see all the details or all the nuance. If this is just part of larger measures that genuinely look to be tackling anti-Semitism in the party then that's good, if it's just kicking Corbyn out then I'll remain cynical.

Having caught up, that clearly is not the case here.

Starmer was not going to use the report as an excuse to oust Corbyn. At the initial press conference he ducked questions about him.

But then Corbyn repeatedly and publicly (a statement followed by an interview) rejected the report and refused to accept its findings. He left Starmer with absolutely no choice but to suspend him. Not doing so would have looked completely spineless; would have reopened the whole "Labour is anti-Semitic" question; and would generally have handed the Tories and right wing press a giant stick to beat him with.

[mormont]

1 hour ago, A wilding said:

But then Corbyn repeatedly and publicly (a statement followed by an interview) rejected the report and refused to accept its findings.

That's not quite right in my understanding - Corbyn did accept the findings, sort of, but just could not resist complaining that the extent of anti-Semitism in the party under his leadership was 'exaggerated'. Having made that complaint, and in so doing apparently undermining the report, he refused to retract, and as you say left Starmer with little choice. It was peak Corbyn, in many ways: tetchy, unrepentant, and more concerned with being right than being smart.

[Werthead]

He stated that he did not accept every finding of the report but supported its full implementation immediately:

Quote

“Antisemitism is absolutely abhorrent, wrong and responsible for some of humanity’s greatest crimes. As Leader of the Labour Party I was always determined to eliminate all forms of racism and root out the cancer of antisemitism. I have campaigned in support of Jewish people and communities my entire life and I will continue to do so.

“The EHRC’s report shows that when I became Labour leader in 2015, the Party’s processes for handling complaints were not fit for purpose. Reform was then stalled by an obstructive party bureaucracy. But from 2018, Jennie Formby and a new NEC that supported my leadership made substantial improvements, making it much easier and swifter to remove antisemites. My team acted to speed up, not hinder the process.

“Anyone claiming there is no antisemitism in the Labour Party is wrong. Of course there is, as there is throughout society, and sometimes it is voiced by people who think of themselves as on the left.

“Jewish members of our party and the wider community were right to expect us to deal with it, and I regret that it took longer to deliver that change than it should.

“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.”

 

Quote

"I will strongly contest the political intervention to suspend me. I’ve made absolutely clear that those who deny there has been an antisemitism problem in the Labour Party are wrong.

It’s also undeniable that a false impression has been created of the number of members accused of antisemitism, as polling shows: that is what has been overstated, not the seriousness of the problem.

I will continue to support a zero tolerance policy towards all forms of racism. And I urge all members to stay calm and focused - while this problem is resolved amicably, as I believe it will be - to defeat this awful government, which is further impoverishing the poorest in our society."

 

[Werthead]

This is an interesting move (likely to get overshadowed by the Corbyn stuff, of course). BBC staff in news and current affairs have been informed they could be suspended from their job or given a formal warning if they attend LGBT events such as Pride festivals.

This seems to be in breach of the legal protection of LGBT rights. If someone attends Pride and is suspended for it, they would seem to have excellent grounds to sue the BBC into the middle of next century. All it would take is someone like Jane Hill being called up on it and you'd get a furore to make the pay imbalance story from a couple of years back look tame by comparison.

BLM events would also be suspect, but you could argue that's a political campaign of the moment. But Pride or something like the Notting Hill Carnival are not political events any more (at least not capital-P political events) and arguing they are is opening a can of worms you really do not want to go down.

[dog-days]

Huw Edwards fell into line with the new social media guidance pretty quickly. 

The thing about not attending Pride events seems...so mad as to be far-fetched. But in these times with this government, of course it's happened. There's surely going to be some kind of backlash?

[williamjm]

8 hours ago, Werthead said:

The estimates now are that 100,000 people are being infected a day in the UK, which is not quite at the estimated peak levels but very close. I can't see how Boris can resist calls for a lockdown much longer, with some Conservative MPs now admitting it's likely and the scientific advisor flatly saying it's been their advice for the last month, at least. Almost 30,000 recorded infections yesterday and over 300 deaths for the first time since May make that more likely.

I suspect it won't be quite as strict as the first lockdown with maybe primary schools remaining open and some exceptions, but Boris has screwed the pooch on this one whilst also missing the bus.

It does seem sadly inevitable, the question is more how long Boris will hold out for rather than whether it will happen. I wonder if it'll be similar to the recently-started Welsh lockdown, it'll be interesting to see what effect that has on the Welsh numbers.

I saw some of the quotes from Nicola Sturgeon's introduction of the new Scottish 5-tier system. It didn't sound like she was contemplating an imminent lockdown, pointing out that the increase in new cases has slowed a lot in the last couple of weeks. I wonder if we're going to get into a situation where Wales and England are locked down but Scotland isn't (I'm not sure what's happening in Northern Ireland at the moment).

[Werthead]

1 hour ago, williamjm said:

It does seem sadly inevitable, the question is more how long Boris will hold out for rather than whether it will happen. I wonder if it'll be similar to the recently-started Welsh lockdown, it'll be interesting to see what effect that has on the Welsh numbers.

I saw some of the quotes from Nicola Sturgeon's introduction of the new Scottish 5-tier system. It didn't sound like she was contemplating an imminent lockdown, pointing out that the increase in new cases has slowed a lot in the last couple of weeks. I wonder if we're going to get into a situation where Wales and England are locked down but Scotland isn't (I'm not sure what's happening in Northern Ireland at the moment).

There have been a few areas in the north which seemed to be heading towards Tier 3 but the cases seemed to slow dramatically so they've kept them in Tier 2.

That seems to be supporting what a lot of people (including the WHO) are saying: you don't need lockdowns, you just need sensible measures, clear messaging and people willing to follow the rules. Where that is happening, the situation seems to be easing. Where it isn't, it's getting worse.

[karaddin]

Do parties expel ex leaders more readily than Australia and run a tighter ship? Because that still seems mild to me in comparison to the shit our parties have put up with from their ex leaders in the last 11 years without doing it lol. That might very well be a good idea though, ours have let them do way too much, actively undermining the party and leadership for multiple years in multiple cases while in government.

[williamjm]

10 minutes ago, karaddin said:

Do parties expel ex leaders more readily than Australia and run a tighter ship? Because that still seems mild to me in comparison to the shit our parties have put up with from their ex leaders in the last 11 years without doing it lol. That might very well be a good idea though, ours have let them do way too much, actively undermining the party and leadership for multiple years in multiple cases while in government.

I can't think of another example in recent history of a former leader being suspended.

[ants]

11 hours ago, A wilding said:

Well the whole thing is such a mess it is perhaps pointless to try to pick on a single point.

But the bottom line is that Serco is being paid, by the taxpayer, to provide experienced clinicians to do this work. Instead they are giving it to minimum wage recruits whose sole training, according to the article, consists of (and from my indirect anecdotal experience of outsourcing companies this is all too plausible):

I'm not arguing that the private company isn't ripping the government off and not providing what they should, or that the training is up to scratch.  I was just saying some of the requirements listed of requirements for someone performing contract tracing weren't (IMO) reasonable. 

[ants]

So, what is the status of the Brexit talks? 

[The Anti-Targ]

3 minutes ago, ants said:

So, what is the status of the Brexit talks? 

Poop. Is my read out. Colleagues trying to hold FTA talks with the UK at the moment. They are getting a resigned / pessimistic vibe from the UK negotiators re Brexit. Though because talks are all online there aren't lunch breaks that allow for casual conversations to be had on topics not directly related to the FTA. So nothing concrete as such.

[ants]

Resigned/pessimistic it will be a bad deal for the UK, or resigned/pessimistic that there won't be a deal? 

[Maltaran]

8 hours ago, williamjm said:

I can't think of another example in recent history of a former leader being suspended.

Salmond?

[Mosi Mynn]

14 hours ago, A wilding said:

Having caught up, that clearly is not the case here.

Starmer was not going to use the report as an excuse to oust Corbyn. At the initial press conference he ducked questions about him.

But then Corbyn repeatedly and publicly (a statement followed by an interview) rejected the report and refused to accept its findings. He left Starmer with absolutely no choice but to suspend him. Not doing so would have looked completely spineless; would have reopened the whole "Labour is anti-Semitic" question; and would generally have handed the Tories and right wing press a giant stick to beat him with.

Starmer explicitly said that he could and would not tolerate any denial or minimising of anti-Semitism - so yeah, Corbyn literally gave the leadership no choice.

As you say, Starmer went out of his way not to accuse or blame Corbyn during his initial statement.

This is all on Corbyn.

[Which Tyler]

11 hours ago, Werthead said:

you don't need lockdowns, you just need sensible measures, clear messaging and people willing to follow the rules. 

We're doomed.

 

It's also worth noting that the 3rd factor is a direct measure of the first 2

 

 

 

My read is that this is all on Corbyn being an ideologue and reasonably narcissistic. He couldn't bring himself to be politic.

The report doesn't seem to have been all that damning to him personally, and gave him a reasonable amount of credit (I'm told by neutrals who've read it - I personally can't be arsed). Starmer refused to condemn him, and generally avoided criticism. Starmer has already gone on record saying that he won't tolerate any down-playing of anti-semitism, and has already reinforced that message with RLB.

 

Corbyn could have accepted the findings of the report. He could have highlighted the positives that it said about him and his leadership. He could have said that we're dealing with an institutionalised problem, and are moving in the right direction, but it's not job done.

But no, he couldn't bring himself to feel slighted, and he'd rather fall on his sword than do so. He forced Starmer's hand.

 

I really hope this doesn't split the party - if there's ever been a time when we needed a strong opposition, this is it (and the last 5 years TBH, but no point crying over spilt milk).

I am very confident that the tories will find another 30 ways to shat the bed, and remove the media spotlight from Corbyn within the next week. I am not remotely confident that it actually will remove the media spotlight.

[Hereward]

10 hours ago, williamjm said:

I can't think of another example in recent history of a former leader being suspended.

Not recent, but Ramsay MacDonald was expelled from the Labour Party. 

[Derfel Cadarn]

Not happy with losing two general elections, Corbyn seems intent on trying to steer Labour to a third defeat

[williamjm]

4 hours ago, Maltaran said:

Salmond?

If I remember correctly he pre-empted that by resigning before they suspended him.