2020 Labour Leadership Election

[cp]

The one stumbling block I have to saying there isn't an ethical issue with Corbyn is that I'm still not sure how you can look at that Mural and not see that there was something extremely wrong with it.

The only reasonable defence of Corbyn is that he’s too stupid or ignorant to understand why it was racist. Which may be true, he’s always struck me as dense whenever I’ve been to his rallies, but is just disqualifying in a different way to if he’s a full on bigot.

For what it's worth, Corbyn condemned the mural and disavowed it once it was brought to his attention. The explanation he gave was that he didn't look closely enough at the image of the mural when it was sent to him on Facebook. As excuses go it's perfectly plausible, but also just convenient enough that if you're already disinclined to give him the benefit of the doubt you can let it damn him without giving it much thought.

If that’s true, it just shows how incompetent and unfit he was. He supports a mural that he knows has been taken down for bigotry by Lutfur Rahman - a man not exactly famed as a friend of the Jews - without even looking at it, at the very least it shows he lacks any basic observational ability.

He didn't support the mural. He questioned the reason for it being taken down having supposed that it was solely because it carried a leftist message, which is defensible on free speech grounds, though still kind of obtuse. Guilt by association with Rahman doesn't really apply here, as there's no reason to believe he knew who the artist was any more than there's reason to believe he gave the image itself more than a glancing look. I'm not sure that constitutes a lack of 'basic observational ability'. It seems more likely (or at any rate, just as plausible) a sign that he was a 65 year old man looking at an image on a mobile phone screen.

But, again, to my earlier point, the whole controversy, like pretty much all the altercations about antisemitism involving Corbyn's Labour, was essentially a Rorschach test for a person's preexisting views of Corbyn as a person or his policies.

You misunderstood my point about Rahman. Even Rahman thought it was racist, yet Corbyn despite knowing Rahman had had it removed on the grounds of anti-semitism still supported its inclusion.

 Corbyn did know this, since that was the point of the Facebook post in question. So your defence that he didn’t look at the mural in question means that at least his instinctive reaction to an accusation of anti-semitism is to dismiss it.

Or, it means that he’s an idiot who posts in defence of a mural despite not looking at the mural or learning why it was removed. I’d expect even 12 year olds to at least do one of those things. Either way, not fit for office.

It’s a moot point now anyway. If you want to deny anti-semitism that’s your business, but it’s a settled issue for most people. But I worked for the Labour Party in the last election, and I saw on the doorsteps that the majority of the public thought Corbyn was a racist - and it’s one of the major reasons that he suffered such a brutal and personal repudiation in December.

That presumes a lot about what Corbyn did and didn't know, which frankly I don't think there is any basis for believing one way or another. Unless you're Corbyn. (Are you Corbyn?). I think it's perfectly plausible to think this was a comment Corbyn made in haste as a knee-jerk reaction to the perception of suppression of leftist dissent (not an unreasonable conclusion to jump to). It was a mistake in that situation, and when it was pointed out he repudiated it. What more would you ask for?

To your larger point, I was on the doorstep, too, and I saw nothing like what you claim. Meanwhile, however, I *did* see an astoundingly successful mass cancellation of Corbyn based on tenuous connection to the facts of the matter. To point out the deliberate obfuscation, misdirection, and know-nothing histrionics that propelled - and, evidently, continues to propel - so much of the criticism of Corbyn is not to 'deny anti-semitism', but rather to acknowledge the shameful exploitation of accusations of anti-semitism that were leveled, often disingenuously, by those who should have known better.

Whatever the semantics, it is hard to deny that Corbyn was, at best, apathetic to the antisemitism, which is damming enough for me in of itself. It's not my only moral objection to him though. His response to the Skripal Affair (you know, when the Russian government accidentally killed British citizens on British soil) being 'How dare you say such horrible things about my mate Vladimir!' was frankly sickening. Plus the seemingly never-ending list of awful people he associates with; the IRA, Hamas, anti-semitic terrorists he was happy to leave a wreath at the grave of...

This is pointless now anyway - I need to stop thinking about him and all of this, my stress levels are high enough as they are. Not long before he's gone and (with a bit of luck) I won't hear about him again until his obituary.

Not a chance

[Antonio the Sixth]

I don't often agree with Dawn, but I for one agree that it would be nice to stop recriminating about Labour's past and start looking toward its future. The Corbyn discourse is exhausting.

[Coldstream]

The one stumbling block I have to saying there isn't an ethical issue with Corbyn is that I'm still not sure how you can look at that Mural and not see that there was something extremely wrong with it.

The only reasonable defence of Corbyn is that he’s too stupid or ignorant to understand why it was racist. Which may be true, he’s always struck me as dense whenever I’ve been to his rallies, but is just disqualifying in a different way to if he’s a full on bigot.

For what it's worth, Corbyn condemned the mural and disavowed it once it was brought to his attention. The explanation he gave was that he didn't look closely enough at the image of the mural when it was sent to him on Facebook. As excuses go it's perfectly plausible, but also just convenient enough that if you're already disinclined to give him the benefit of the doubt you can let it damn him without giving it much thought.

If that’s true, it just shows how incompetent and unfit he was. He supports a mural that he knows has been taken down for bigotry by Lutfur Rahman - a man not exactly famed as a friend of the Jews - without even looking at it, at the very least it shows he lacks any basic observational ability.

He didn't support the mural. He questioned the reason for it being taken down having supposed that it was solely because it carried a leftist message, which is defensible on free speech grounds, though still kind of obtuse. Guilt by association with Rahman doesn't really apply here, as there's no reason to believe he knew who the artist was any more than there's reason to believe he gave the image itself more than a glancing look. I'm not sure that constitutes a lack of 'basic observational ability'. It seems more likely (or at any rate, just as plausible) a sign that he was a 65 year old man looking at an image on a mobile phone screen.

But, again, to my earlier point, the whole controversy, like pretty much all the altercations about antisemitism involving Corbyn's Labour, was essentially a Rorschach test for a person's preexisting views of Corbyn as a person or his policies.

You misunderstood my point about Rahman. Even Rahman thought it was racist, yet Corbyn despite knowing Rahman had had it removed on the grounds of anti-semitism still supported its inclusion.

 Corbyn did know this, since that was the point of the Facebook post in question. So your defence that he didn’t look at the mural in question means that at least his instinctive reaction to an accusation of anti-semitism is to dismiss it.

Or, it means that he’s an idiot who posts in defence of a mural despite not looking at the mural or learning why it was removed. I’d expect even 12 year olds to at least do one of those things. Either way, not fit for office.

It’s a moot point now anyway. If you want to deny anti-semitism that’s your business, but it’s a settled issue for most people. But I worked for the Labour Party in the last election, and I saw on the doorsteps that the majority of the public thought Corbyn was a racist - and it’s one of the major reasons that he suffered such a brutal and personal repudiation in December.

That presumes a lot about what Corbyn did and didn't know, which frankly I don't think there is any basis for believing one way or another. Unless you're Corbyn. (Are you Corbyn?). I think it's perfectly plausible to think this was a comment Corbyn made in haste as a knee-jerk reaction to the perception of suppression of leftist dissent (not an unreasonable conclusion to jump to). It was a mistake in that situation, and when it was pointed out he repudiated it. What more would you ask for?

To your larger point, I was on the doorstep, too, and I saw nothing like what you claim. Meanwhile, however, I *did* see an astoundingly successful mass cancellation of Corbyn based on tenuous connection to the facts of the matter. To point out the deliberate obfuscation, misdirection, and know-nothing histrionics that propelled - and, evidently, continues to propel - so much of the criticism of Corbyn is not to 'deny anti-semitism', but rather to acknowledge the shameful exploitation of accusations of anti-semitism that were leveled, often disingenuously, by those who should have known better.

Whatever the semantics, it is hard to deny that Corbyn was, at best, apathetic to the antisemitism, which is damming enough for me in of itself. It's not my only moral objection to him though. His response to the Skripal Affair (you know, when the Russian government accidentally killed British citizens on British soil) being 'How dare you say such horrible things about my mate Vladimir!' was frankly sickening. Plus the seemingly never-ending list of awful people he associates with; the IRA, Hamas, anti-semitic terrorists he was happy to leave a wreath at the grave of...

This is pointless now anyway - I need to stop thinking about him and all of this, my stress levels are high enough as they are. Not long before he's gone and (with a bit of luck) I won't hear about him again until his obituary.

Not a chance

If he didn’t know the context and if it was a mistake it’s because he’s stupid. Too stupid to recognise anti-semitism when it’s staring him in the face, too stupid to even consider questioning the context of the mural and too stupid to be involved in frontline politics. If it makes you feel better about your support for him to think he was just stupid then that’s your right. But it’s racism or stupidity, there’s no other explanation.

This mixture of incompetence and malice is why Corbyn was so personally rejected in December (if you deny that the main reason people were opposed to Labour was Corbyn then I have doubts you had enough time on the doorstep) and is why Corbynism is dead - and will likely be buried next Saturday.

[cp]

The one stumbling block I have to saying there isn't an ethical issue with Corbyn is that I'm still not sure how you can look at that Mural and not see that there was something extremely wrong with it.

The only reasonable defence of Corbyn is that he’s too stupid or ignorant to understand why it was racist. Which may be true, he’s always struck me as dense whenever I’ve been to his rallies, but is just disqualifying in a different way to if he’s a full on bigot.

For what it's worth, Corbyn condemned the mural and disavowed it once it was brought to his attention. The explanation he gave was that he didn't look closely enough at the image of the mural when it was sent to him on Facebook. As excuses go it's perfectly plausible, but also just convenient enough that if you're already disinclined to give him the benefit of the doubt you can let it damn him without giving it much thought.

If that’s true, it just shows how incompetent and unfit he was. He supports a mural that he knows has been taken down for bigotry by Lutfur Rahman - a man not exactly famed as a friend of the Jews - without even looking at it, at the very least it shows he lacks any basic observational ability.

He didn't support the mural. He questioned the reason for it being taken down having supposed that it was solely because it carried a leftist message, which is defensible on free speech grounds, though still kind of obtuse. Guilt by association with Rahman doesn't really apply here, as there's no reason to believe he knew who the artist was any more than there's reason to believe he gave the image itself more than a glancing look. I'm not sure that constitutes a lack of 'basic observational ability'. It seems more likely (or at any rate, just as plausible) a sign that he was a 65 year old man looking at an image on a mobile phone screen.

But, again, to my earlier point, the whole controversy, like pretty much all the altercations about antisemitism involving Corbyn's Labour, was essentially a Rorschach test for a person's preexisting views of Corbyn as a person or his policies.

You misunderstood my point about Rahman. Even Rahman thought it was racist, yet Corbyn despite knowing Rahman had had it removed on the grounds of anti-semitism still supported its inclusion.

 Corbyn did know this, since that was the point of the Facebook post in question. So your defence that he didn’t look at the mural in question means that at least his instinctive reaction to an accusation of anti-semitism is to dismiss it.

Or, it means that he’s an idiot who posts in defence of a mural despite not looking at the mural or learning why it was removed. I’d expect even 12 year olds to at least do one of those things. Either way, not fit for office.

It’s a moot point now anyway. If you want to deny anti-semitism that’s your business, but it’s a settled issue for most people. But I worked for the Labour Party in the last election, and I saw on the doorsteps that the majority of the public thought Corbyn was a racist - and it’s one of the major reasons that he suffered such a brutal and personal repudiation in December.

That presumes a lot about what Corbyn did and didn't know, which frankly I don't think there is any basis for believing one way or another. Unless you're Corbyn. (Are you Corbyn?). I think it's perfectly plausible to think this was a comment Corbyn made in haste as a knee-jerk reaction to the perception of suppression of leftist dissent (not an unreasonable conclusion to jump to). It was a mistake in that situation, and when it was pointed out he repudiated it. What more would you ask for?

To your larger point, I was on the doorstep, too, and I saw nothing like what you claim. Meanwhile, however, I *did* see an astoundingly successful mass cancellation of Corbyn based on tenuous connection to the facts of the matter. To point out the deliberate obfuscation, misdirection, and know-nothing histrionics that propelled - and, evidently, continues to propel - so much of the criticism of Corbyn is not to 'deny anti-semitism', but rather to acknowledge the shameful exploitation of accusations of anti-semitism that were leveled, often disingenuously, by those who should have known better.

Whatever the semantics, it is hard to deny that Corbyn was, at best, apathetic to the antisemitism, which is damming enough for me in of itself. It's not my only moral objection to him though. His response to the Skripal Affair (you know, when the Russian government accidentally killed British citizens on British soil) being 'How dare you say such horrible things about my mate Vladimir!' was frankly sickening. Plus the seemingly never-ending list of awful people he associates with; the IRA, Hamas, anti-semitic terrorists he was happy to leave a wreath at the grave of...

This is pointless now anyway - I need to stop thinking about him and all of this, my stress levels are high enough as they are. Not long before he's gone and (with a bit of luck) I won't hear about him again until his obituary.

Not a chance

If he didn’t know the context and if it was a mistake it’s because he’s stupid. Too stupid to recognise anti-semitism when it’s staring him in the face, too stupid to even consider questioning the context of the mural and too stupid to be involved in frontline politics. If it makes you feel better about your support for him to think he was just stupid then that’s your right. But it’s racism or stupidity, there’s no other explanation.

This mixture of incompetence and malice is why Corbyn was so personally rejected in December (if you deny that the main reason people were opposed to Labour was Corbyn then I have doubts you had enough time on the doorstep) and is why Corbynism is dead - and will likely be buried next Saturday.

My contention is that Corbyn probably didn't notice. That's neither stupidity nor incompetence. It was a mistake, for which he apologized, and for which some people will never be able to forgive him. That is their failing, not his. To call Corbyn racist only reveals the desperation and shallowness of the effort to discredit him.

Corbynism, mercifully, is neither dead nor will likely be so any time soon. The ideas he ran on - state enhancement over corporate prerogatives, wider provision of social services, skepticism toward 'western' alliances - are becoming more mainstream by the hour in the given crisis. As I alluded to earlier, like it or not Corbyn was without a doubt the most inspirational figure Labour has produced in the past 25 years. He brought back a level of integrity and chutzpah to the party that had been absent for decades. None of the current contenders for the leadership really tried to repudiate him or the direction he took the party, and rightly so as it would have doomed them with the preponderance of the membership.

[Coldstream]

If you honestly can’t see why failing to notice something as obvious as a racist mural is a sign of stupidity or incompetence then you and I obviously have very different expectations in our public officials. If you’re trolling, fair play on your commitment to an absurd argument.

[cp]

If you honestly can’t see why failing to notice something as obvious as a racist mural is a sign of stupidity or incompetence then you and I obviously have very different expectations in our public officials. If you’re trolling, fair play on your commitment to an absurd argument.

Again, my contention is that he physically didn't see the image closely enough to make out that level of detail, hence was oblivious to the racist depictions in it. I might be wrong, but there's no more reason to believe your interpretation than mine. That is what's in dispute here, not our respective evaluations of expectations of public officials.

Meanwhile, what isn't in dispute is that once Corbyn was unequivocally made aware of the content of the mural, he repudiated it. Refusing to acknowledge that is, respectfully, much more in the spirit of absurd argumentation and trolling.

[Coldstream]

If you honestly can’t see why failing to notice something as obvious as a racist mural is a sign of stupidity or incompetence then you and I obviously have very different expectations in our public officials. If you’re trolling, fair play on your commitment to an absurd argument.

Again, my contention is that he physically didn't see the image closely enough to make out that level of detail, hence was oblivious to the racist depictions in it. I might be wrong, but there's no more reason to believe your interpretation than mine. That is what's in dispute here, not our respective evaluations of expectations of public officials.

Meanwhile, what isn't in dispute is that once Corbyn was unequivocally made aware of the content of the mural, he repudiated it. Refusing to acknowledge that is, respectfully, much more in the spirit of absurd argumentation and trolling.

Again, if you can’t see that if he did as you “contend” and failed to see the image close enough to discern its contents yet endorsed it anyway - that this is indicative of gross incompetence and stupidity then you clearly have very low standards that you hold public officials to. Most people would expect children to at least look at an image closely before commenting on it.

In case you are honestly, somehow, misunderstanding me I am not saying you’re wrong that he didn’t see the image, I’m saying if he did as you “contend” it makes him an idiot.

If it’s not in dispute as you say, I wouldn’t need to acknowledge it would I? Respectfully, I don’t need to preface something with an acknowledgement of the fact that once he was faced with mass public pressure and a large rebellion from the party - including many of his own supporters - Corbyn certainly claimed he thought the mural was racist.

But, we’re obviously not going to agree/understand each other’s arguments so it’s probs best we just leave it there before the thread gets too derailed.

[cp]

If you honestly can’t see why failing to notice something as obvious as a racist mural is a sign of stupidity or incompetence then you and I obviously have very different expectations in our public officials. If you’re trolling, fair play on your commitment to an absurd argument.

Again, my contention is that he physically didn't see the image closely enough to make out that level of detail, hence was oblivious to the racist depictions in it. I might be wrong, but there's no more reason to believe your interpretation than mine. That is what's in dispute here, not our respective evaluations of expectations of public officials.

Meanwhile, what isn't in dispute is that once Corbyn was unequivocally made aware of the content of the mural, he repudiated it. Refusing to acknowledge that is, respectfully, much more in the spirit of absurd argumentation and trolling.

Again, if you can’t see that if he did as you “contend” and failed to see the image close enough to discern its contents yet endorsed it anyway - that this is indicative of gross incompetence and stupidity then you clearly have very low standards that you hold public officials to. Most people would expect children to at least look at an image closely before commenting on it.

In case you are honestly, somehow, misunderstanding me I am not saying you’re wrong that he didn’t see the image, I’m saying if he did as you “contend” it makes him an idiot.

If it’s not in dispute as you say, I wouldn’t need to acknowledge it would I? Respectfully, I don’t need to preface something with an acknowledgement of the fact that once he was faced with mass public pressure and a large rebellion from the party - including many of his own supporters - Corbyn certainly claimed he thought the mural was racist.

See, this is exactly what I was talking about with the Rorschach Test earlier. Insisting on only attributing to Corbyn the worst of intentions for a perceived infraction is just replicating one's own existing prejudices, and then using the confected outrage as proof post facto of the alleged malicious original intent.

To your point about what standard public figures (read: Corbyn) ought to be held to, I think your 'standard' is preposterous and disingenuous. Dig deeply enough into the thousands of likes, loves, and retweets a person shoots off over the years and I guarantee you they would find something they'd subsequently find unpalatable. That's not a sign of stupidity, negligence, or low ethical standards. It's just par for the course for being a human being. The best any of us can expect is that, when a person is called out on these mistakes, they own up to them and apologize, which is exactly what Corbyn did.

To hold Corbyn to a standard that no one would be able to aspire to, let alone meet, is nothing more than a self-serving attempt to gain the moral high ground. It's the kind of dim middlebrow condescension that Corbyn turned Labour away from (for a while, alas).

[Coldstream]

Bolded part was a joke about how you’re saying his actions are indisputable, when it’s quite easy to dispute Corbyns actions - you’re just choosing not to because you support him. Fair enough, if I followed a leader intensely I’d probably be willing to defend them on anything too.

Perhaps I, and others, do hold Corbyn to unfairly high standards - I think my standards are actually quite low and Corbyn just fails to meet them but perhaps you’re right. But perhaps it’s worth considering that the reason he is held to such standards is because his entire campaign/brand was built on his own purity/infallibility (“right side of history” “straight talking honest politics”) in contrast to the dirty, impure, compromises of the new Labour years. When it became irrefutably clear that he was, in fact, at best a deeply flawed individual with a history of (and I’m being generous to him here) association with bigots and terrorists it’s natural that he was hit hard for the hypocrisy. You probably don’t accept that, but I hope you’ll at least consider it.

One final thing; a Facebook comment requires considerably more effort than a like or retweet (which I’d agree wouldn’t be damning). I don’t think it’s believable that any reasonable, intelligent, person could make such a massive mistake. Fair enough, you obviously don’t agree. No need to get out all the debate club latin, a random guy on the internet (me) is honestly not worth it! Like I said before, we are on very different pages regarding Corbyn and anonymous commenting isn’t going to get us any closer so let’s get back to the present leadership race.

[cp]

Bolded part was a joke about how you’re saying his actions are indisputable, when it’s quite easy to dispute Corbyns actions - you’re just choosing not to because you support him. Fair enough, if I followed a leader intensely I’d probably be willing to defend them on anything too.

Perhaps I, and others, do hold Corbyn to unfairly high standards - I think my standards are actually quite low and Corbyn just fails to meet them but perhaps you’re right. But perhaps it’s worth considering that the reason he is held to such standards is because his entire campaign/brand was built on his own purity/infallibility (“right side of history” “straight talking honest politics”) in contrast to the dirty, impure, compromises of the new Labour years. When it became irrefutably clear that he was, in fact, at best a deeply flawed individual with a history of (and I’m being generous to him here) association with bigots and terrorists it’s natural that he was hit hard for the hypocrisy. You probably don’t accept that, but I hope you’ll at least consider it.

One final thing; a Facebook comment requires considerably more effort than a like or retweet (which I’d agree wouldn’t be damning). I don’t think it’s believable that any reasonable, intelligent, person could make such a massive mistake. Fair enough, you obviously don’t agree. No need to get out all the debate club latin, a random guy on the internet (me) is honestly not worth it! Like I said before, we are on very different pages regarding Corbyn and anonymous commenting isn’t going to get us any closer so let’s get back to the present leadership race.

The present leadership race is all about the legacy that Corbyn leaves and how it will influence the party going forward. Eliding it and papering over it with 'agree to disagree' platitudes is just trying to stifle debate without having the guts to own up to it.

You're right that Corbyn's persona made him especially vulnerable to accusations of hypocrisy, and so he was hit harder for it than other politicians who espouse no pretense of ethical superiority. However, that just proves my point that the mural controversy was confected outrage, like a great deal (not all!) of the controversies that Corbyn incurred. I think you're splitting hairs over the like/comment aspect, and, again, deliberately making a mountain out of a mole hill because it suits a preexisting desire to see the worst in Corbyn no matter what he does. Same goes with the 'bigots and terrorists' line, which is frankly closer to agitprop than a worthwhile observation.

[Coldstream]

Bolded part was a joke about how you’re saying his actions are indisputable, when it’s quite easy to dispute Corbyns actions - you’re just choosing not to because you support him. Fair enough, if I followed a leader intensely I’d probably be willing to defend them on anything too.

Perhaps I, and others, do hold Corbyn to unfairly high standards - I think my standards are actually quite low and Corbyn just fails to meet them but perhaps you’re right. But perhaps it’s worth considering that the reason he is held to such standards is because his entire campaign/brand was built on his own purity/infallibility (“right side of history” “straight talking honest politics”) in contrast to the dirty, impure, compromises of the new Labour years. When it became irrefutably clear that he was, in fact, at best a deeply flawed individual with a history of (and I’m being generous to him here) association with bigots and terrorists it’s natural that he was hit hard for the hypocrisy. You probably don’t accept that, but I hope you’ll at least consider it.

One final thing; a Facebook comment requires considerably more effort than a like or retweet (which I’d agree wouldn’t be damning). I don’t think it’s believable that any reasonable, intelligent, person could make such a massive mistake. Fair enough, you obviously don’t agree. No need to get out all the debate club latin, a random guy on the internet (me) is honestly not worth it! Like I said before, we are on very different pages regarding Corbyn and anonymous commenting isn’t going to get us any closer so let’s get back to the present leadership race.

The present leadership race is all about the legacy that Corbyn leaves and how it will influence the party going forward. Eliding it and papering over it with 'agree to disagree' platitudes is just trying to stifle debate without having the guts to own up to it.

You're right that Corbyn's persona made him especially vulnerable to accusations of hypocrisy, and so he was hit harder for it than other politicians who espouse no pretense of ethical superiority. However, that just proves my point that the mural controversy was confected outrage, like a great deal (not all!) of the controversies that Corbyn incurred. I think you're splitting hairs over the like/comment aspect, and, again, deliberately making a mountain out of a mole hill because it suits a preexisting desire to see the worst in Corbyn no matter what he does. Same goes with the 'bigots and terrorists' line, which is frankly closer to agitprop than a worthwhile observation.

Dude, calm down, I wasn’t trying to stifle debate. I was trying to say I don’t care enough to keep arguing ‘without having the guts to own up to it’ (also known as trying to be polite). Because you aren’t willing to acknowledge the legitimacy of anything I - or others - have said that goes against your preconceived notion that Corbyn is infallible and we who are critical are all motivated by bad faith. Since you think all I say is bad faith, there’s no point me offering anything else to you. And yes, I’m sure you feel the same way about me - hence why I’m saying there’s no point continuing.

[cp]

Bolded part was a joke about how you’re saying his actions are indisputable, when it’s quite easy to dispute Corbyns actions - you’re just choosing not to because you support him. Fair enough, if I followed a leader intensely I’d probably be willing to defend them on anything too.

Perhaps I, and others, do hold Corbyn to unfairly high standards - I think my standards are actually quite low and Corbyn just fails to meet them but perhaps you’re right. But perhaps it’s worth considering that the reason he is held to such standards is because his entire campaign/brand was built on his own purity/infallibility (“right side of history” “straight talking honest politics”) in contrast to the dirty, impure, compromises of the new Labour years. When it became irrefutably clear that he was, in fact, at best a deeply flawed individual with a history of (and I’m being generous to him here) association with bigots and terrorists it’s natural that he was hit hard for the hypocrisy. You probably don’t accept that, but I hope you’ll at least consider it.

One final thing; a Facebook comment requires considerably more effort than a like or retweet (which I’d agree wouldn’t be damning). I don’t think it’s believable that any reasonable, intelligent, person could make such a massive mistake. Fair enough, you obviously don’t agree. No need to get out all the debate club latin, a random guy on the internet (me) is honestly not worth it! Like I said before, we are on very different pages regarding Corbyn and anonymous commenting isn’t going to get us any closer so let’s get back to the present leadership race.

The present leadership race is all about the legacy that Corbyn leaves and how it will influence the party going forward. Eliding it and papering over it with 'agree to disagree' platitudes is just trying to stifle debate without having the guts to own up to it.

You're right that Corbyn's persona made him especially vulnerable to accusations of hypocrisy, and so he was hit harder for it than other politicians who espouse no pretense of ethical superiority. However, that just proves my point that the mural controversy was confected outrage, like a great deal (not all!) of the controversies that Corbyn incurred. I think you're splitting hairs over the like/comment aspect, and, again, deliberately making a mountain out of a mole hill because it suits a preexisting desire to see the worst in Corbyn no matter what he does. Same goes with the 'bigots and terrorists' line, which is frankly closer to agitprop than a worthwhile observation.

Dude, calm down, I wasn’t trying to stifle debate. I was trying to say I don’t care enough to keep arguing ‘without having the guts to own up to it’ (also known as trying to be polite). Because you aren’t willing to acknowledge the legitimacy of anything I - or others - have said that goes against your preconceived notion that Corbyn is infallible and we who are critical are all motivated by bad faith. Since you think all I say is bad faith, there’s no point me offering anything else to you. And yes, I’m sure you feel the same way about me - hence why I’m saying there’s no point continuing.

I literally just acknowledged you had a legitimate point (Corbyn's vulnerability to hypocrisy) and that Corbyn made a mistake with the mural comment in the first place. What is not a legitimate point is calling Corbyn stupid, incompetent, or racist based off the flimsy evidence that the mural incident provides. It's a weak argument badly made.

I apologize if I overstated my case and implied that you personally were acting in bad faith.

[CumbrianLefty]

The one stumbling block I have to saying there isn't an ethical issue with Corbyn is that I'm still not sure how you can look at that Mural and not see that there was something extremely wrong with it.

The only reasonable defence of Corbyn is that he’s too stupid or ignorant to understand why it was racist. Which may be true, he’s always struck me as dense whenever I’ve been to his rallies, but is just disqualifying in a different way to if he’s a full on bigot.

Corbyn certainly has limitations, but a truly "dense" or "thick" person would surely not have done as well in the election debates (both 2017 and 2019) as he did.

IMO its more an almost total lack of interest in anything outside his "comfort zone", exacerbated by having been on the Labour backbenches for so long.

You must have watched different debates to me, because I don’t think he did well at all - nor do I recall anyone giving him plaudits in the style, say, Clegg got in 2010. The only thing I can remember anyone even noting about his performance was when he said “Epsh-tyne”.

We may have been watching different debates, but the polling evidence (even in 2019 he was only just behind Johnson, if at all, in the head to head debates - when of course the Tories actually smashed it by 12 points come polling day) suggests more watched my debates rather than yours.

And obsessing about how he pronounced Epstein is one of the most obvious signs of unhinged anti-JC crankery. Just saying

[Blair]

Ah it's like old times.

It's worth remembering that the Labour Party is currently under investigation by the Equality & Human Rights Commission- a public body set up by the last Labour Government.

I'm more than happy to document & run through which prove the substantial failings of the Leaders Office, the NEC and yes of Corbyn personally. I'm not going to go back and forth with people who think it wasn't a serious issue or it was some sort of media frame- it wasn't. Here are the top 10 I can remember alone...

1.) The defence & promotion of Chris Williamson- who defended Jackie Walker & Ken Livingstone (see below) Williamson was promoted to the frontbench & defended by Jeremy Corbyn.

2.) The defence of Ken Livingstone after his comments about Hitler in 2016 & the refusal of the NEC to suspend him fully from the party at the time. Smarter heads prevailed eventually...

3.) The defence of Jackie Walker who was put on Momentum's steering committee & allowed in the party after accusing Jews of financing the slave trade & saying 'the Jewish Holocaust does not allow Zionists to do what they want'. Luckily wisdom prevailed eventually & she was sacked.

4.) The inclusion of Ken Loach in numerous labour party events in the 2019 election despite his refusal to condemn holocaust denial and his response that 'I think history is for all of us to discuss' when asked specifically about the Holocaust.

5.) Corbyn's own comments about 'Zionists' not understanding 'English Irony'.

6.) The collection of rather questionable people on the NEC (Shawcroft & Pete Willsman spring to mind) who have claimed that antisemitism is some-sort of establishment plot designed to smear Jeremy and it's all a myth.

7.) The refusal to suspend candidates in the 2019 election who had a documented history of anti-Semitic comments- including one who made grossly anti-Semitic comments only 5 years ago. They are now an MP.

8.) The rewarding with safe seats for NEC members who defended Marc Wadsworth (a member expelled for antisemitism) & claimed he was targeted by the 'mainstream media, working together with big business working together with the political elite' subtle right.

9.) The refusal & long summer refusal to adopt the IHRA definition of antisemitism. Despite months of idiots claiming it was evil & would end pro-Palestinian campaigning it was eventually adopted.

10.) The endless documented cases of Cllrs & local CLP members making disgusting posts; including among many things claiming that Jews were responsible for 9/11, the Syrian gas attacks- on top of that it this often included activists sending antisemitic abuse to Jewish MPs.

And of course the sad reality is that a lot of people on the left from John McDonnell, Jon Lansman & even Long-Bailey realised the absolute sh**tshow it had caused, the constant failings, the letting off of mates & the electoral damage it caused for the party.

The funny thing is that the line coming from those who have defended it has changed- first it didn't exist, then it was merely a problem with a few members, then it was exaggerated & then by 2019 John McDonnell and others admitted that the party was too slow and had not done enough. 

I mean god it's cynical but surely looking at the council results in 2018 & the results in those North London Marginals should wake you up to the absolute misery we caused not only for the Jewish community but also for the progressive movement within the Jewish Community.

And before someone posts it please please please don't claim this is a way of stopping Jeremy's pro-Palestinian or anti-austerity views- there's plenty of MPs who've spend years campaigning on these issues & doing the hard who who've done so without ignoring, abetting or supporting this cancer.

[CumbrianLefty]

Soz

[Blair]

Very interesting article in the Sunday Times- there politics team is still one of the best sourced for Labour.

Nothing hugely surprising; Milne (the toxic director of communications) is leaving & reports Starmer is going to rid of Jennie Formby- the General Secretary & effective CEO of the Labour Party (who controls party staffing, budgets & has a seat on the NEC)

My favourite rumour about Formby was that she was demoted whilst at UNITE because her views on Palestinian/Israel were too extreme for UNITE. Quite an achievement.

Sacking her is harder to do- iirc the General Secretary can only be removed by the NEC (where starmer lacks a clear majority) and you'd need to wait for the EHCR report to find evidence to justify a sacking.

Of course there's a chance that Formby decides not to stay & just quits; the last GS Ian McNicol quit after 10 years when Corbyn and co were at the height of their power.

https://twitter.com/Gabriel_Pogrund/status/1244182535241977856

[DaWN]

Dewey Defeats Truman

[Blair]

Dewey Defeats Truman

I'm impressed as you're the only person I know who still thinks Starmer isn't going to win.

[DaWN]

Dewey Defeats Truman

I'm impressed as you're the only person I know who still thinks Starmer isn't going to win.

Well here's the thing. A lot of the late waverers who I thought would deliver it for RLB up until a few weeks ago I now think have a strong chance of breaking for Starmer because of Corona (and how that would create a natural desire for a safe pair of hands etc.) so unlike back then I think he has a chance and would not be surprised if he won.

It's the proclamations that he's already won and he might as well start Shadow Cabinet meetings now that I object to. The fat lady most certainly has not sung yet.

[EastAnglianLefty]

Most people vote in the first week after the ballots drop, which is long before Coronavirus became the only political issue, so that's an even less convincing argument than your initial insistence that RLB was a dead cert.

[CumbrianLefty]

That piece in the ST rehashing the "Reeves for SC" thing, I see

I mean, she's probably to the right of Sunak now.......

[Former President tack50]

Ah it's like old times.

It's worth remembering that the Labour Party is currently under investigation by the Equality & Human Rights Commission- a public body set up by the last Labour Government.

I'm more than happy to document & run through which prove the substantial failings of the Leaders Office, the NEC and yes of Corbyn personally. I'm not going to go back and forth with people who think it wasn't a serious issue or it was some sort of media frame- it wasn't. Here are the top 10 I can remember alone...

I mean god it's cynical but surely looking at the council results in 2018 & the results in those North London Marginals should wake you up to the absolute misery we caused not only for the Jewish community but also for the progressive movement within the Jewish Community.

And before someone posts it please please please don't claim this is a way of stopping Jeremy's pro-Palestinian or anti-austerity views- there's plenty of MPs who've spend years campaigning on these issues & doing the hard who who've done so without ignoring, abetting or supporting this cancer.

Honestly this is all fine and good, but I have a question on how it relates to the 2019 election results.

As we all know, Labour did not lose the 2019 election in North London (or anywhere in London for that matter). It lost the election because it lost in their former strongholds of Northern England.

I can imagine a ton of reasons for why Labour lost votes there, from Brexit to immigration. However, why would Corbyn's antisemitism be one of them? Does Northern England care that much about it?

Granted, I don't think it helps at all and it most definitely hurts Labour; but I don't think it lost them the election. Corbyn could have won (or forced a hung parliament) in a universe where he still lost those North London marginals but kept his Northern England strongholds.

[Blair]

That piece in the ST rehashing the "Reeves for SC" thing, I see

I mean, she's probably to the right of Sunak now.......

The thing about Reeves is that she is extremely skilled & qualified for the job- but much like Ed Balls I worry about the message it sends to the PLP & the Party and whether she'd just spend 5 years being a brake on Starmer.

The thing is though with Covid we need someone who is experienced, extremely media savvy and is on top of the brief- and when I look through the PLP there's less than 5 people who could get it- Miliband, Reeves, Cooper and Long-Bailey.

I mean ideally give either Reeves or Dodds Shadow Chancellor & the other gets BEIS

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I can imagine a ton of reasons for why Labour lost votes there, from Brexit to immigration. However, why would Corbyn's antisemitism be one of them? Does Northern England care that much about it?

One particular problem for Labour at the 2019 GE was normally reliable supporters either not turning out at all or casting ballots for minor parties of all hues and shades. If you talk to the sort of people concerned, you would find a widespread feeling that 'Labour is not Labour'; and this slow-boiling scandal was a factor in that, though, sure, not the only one. It confused and worried a lot of people of this type.

[Blair]

Honestly this is all fine and good, but I have a question on how it relates to the 2019 election results.

As we all know, Labour did not lose the 2019 election in North London (or anywhere in London for that matter). It lost the election because it lost in their former strongholds of Northern England.

I can imagine a ton of reasons for why Labour lost votes there, from Brexit to immigration. However, why would Corbyn's antisemitism be one of them? Does Northern England care that much about it?

Granted, I don't think it helps at all and it most definitely hurts Labour; but I don't think it lost them the election. Corbyn could have won (or forced a hung parliament) in a universe where he still lost those North London marginals but kept his Northern England strongholds.

In response to the bolded we lost badly because we lost ultra safe Labour seats; but the assumption was that Labour would only deny a majority to Bojo if it could limit the loses in existing Labour seats whilst also winning in Wimbledon, Putney, Chingford and Chipping Barnet. (All 5 of which are remain but quite strongish tory seats) Equally we lost seats like Kensington, Ipswich and others which surely had voters switched by this.

There were always going to be seats lost in the 2019 election even on a good day for labour; but onto the question you actually asked...

The antisemitism issue had three major electoral cut through: one of emotion, one of competence & one of timing.

The emotional was mainly from highly informed voters who likely would have always voted Labour/Liberal/Green etc; people who were most likely Jewish or with close friends or family- but who saw it as a basic question of morals- and Labour had failed it. In a crude assumption I'd say these people would live in urban seats but I'm sure you could find them in a good amount of the 60 seats we lost.

The second was competence; antisemitism was used as an example of the unsuitability of Corbyn to be Prime Minister. It's why TIG left & it's why Ian Austin and 15 other ex-Labour MPs ran ads in regional newspapers saying don't trust Corbyn. The simple refrain was 'why the hell can't he just sort it out'- this whole saga went on for over a year. There were lots of voters who wouldn't explicitly say that AS was the main reason; but it created a picture of JC as an incompetent and weak leader- and if anyone wants to understand why Labour lost in 2019 look at the dire leadership ratings.

And finally timing: the irony was that the Chief Rabbis intervention came on the day that Labour launched our faith & equality manifesto- and led to the rather hilarious scene of Corbyn hiding in a room for a few hours whilst the assembled guests stood on stage.

Gallows humour aside it was unprecedented for a religious leader to make an announcement like that in a general election; it dominated the news for that day (see above for why that matters) and led to pretty ugly attempts by some to claim this was all the part of a plot. I remember saying that every Labour PPC should shut up & say 'we've failed the Jewish community, we have not done enough, we were wrong & we will fix this'. Luckily some members of the Frontbench got this.

And of course (as I almost forgot because I didn't watch it then) it was brought up during JC's awful Andrew Neil Interview and god I just watched it again- the refusal to apologise, the refusal to specifically mention anti-Jewish racism & the weird pivot to community police funding (this was never about the fact that Labour weren't going to fund or support it). I don't know the viewing figures but again; it was a set piece election event where the issue came up to the extent it didn't in 2017.