This Once Great Movement Of Ours

[CumbrianLefty]

Looking like THAT REPORT is (finally) on the brink of being made public.

The entirely predictable s***show on social media is already ensuing.

[Blair]

I will most certainly read it when it comes out; I'm actually interested in it as a public document by a group which isn't involded in the forever wars.

Obviously some people will use it as a blunt tool.

I think or at least hope that the vast majority of the PLP & the Party agrees at the very least that it was an issue where the party fundamentally failed Jewish members. I think (?) it has been briefed that the EHCR will not be naming names in the sense of saying 'X is to blame' which is good.

There were always two fundamental issues for me; the internal party mechanisms and their abject failure on this isuse & the external public reaction of the then Leadership & its outriders over the issue- it was always the second issue where I felt the majority of discussion has been.

[Blair]

Looking like THAT REPORT is (finally) on the brink of being made public.

The entirely predictable s***show on social media is already ensuing.

I deleted my rather flippant reference to the other story today from Labourland but I'm luckily off twitter so can no longer follow the predictable outburst but I can just see that we're going to get people selectively clipping parts of it & hoping to find some 'smoking gun' in what I guess will be quite a long report.

I just don't get what beef people have with the EHCR over this or the willingless to fight the last battle in regards to this; even from a practical internal position (which is a pretty heartless way to look at this) the last leadership issue proved that Labour members want this issue put to bed; of course it's probably more so the bad publicity & £££ it cost that was an issue for most members but the sense I got was that people just wanted the party to fix it & move on.

[Silent Hunter]

Apparently out Thursday.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I think (?) it has been briefed that the EHCR will not be naming names in the sense of saying 'X is to blame' which is good.

It generally doesn't, or, to be more specific, it prefers not to. It's purpose is to clean up institutions rather than to function as some sort of Racism Tribunal, and this means that it leans towards careful, guarded language designed to encourage frictionless compliance rather than fire and/or brimstone. It was, pretty clearly, gearing up to use its institutional powers to dismiss certain people from their posts, but events have transpired in such a way that they have already gone: the EHRC will have been as relieved by this as anyone as it's not a thing they like to do.

[CumbrianLefty]

Blast from the past Ed Balls being harangued by some clueless BBC "journalist" this morning about whether Corbyn should be chucked out of the party after the report is published (which does appear to be rather presuming what will actually be in it, no?)

Not a great fan of his, but to his credit he simply said "I think Starmer will want to move on".

Sensible man.

[Blair]

Corbyn's statement is a bit more tone deaf than I thought it would be. The extract at the end was a bit yikes...

'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''

https://www.facebook.com/JeremyCorbynMP/posts/10158939532253872

[Blair]

The questions at Starmers press conference does show that the media enjoy treating this as another 'does Keir Starmer want to punish Jeremy Corbyn' when frankly there's much bigger issues at stake when one of the biggest parties in the country is found in breach of the Equality Act.

 

Blast from the past Ed Balls being harangued by some clueless BBC "journalist" this morning about whether Corbyn should be chucked out of the party after the report is published (which does appear to be rather presuming what will actually be in it, no?)

Not a great fan of his, but to his credit he simply said "I think Starmer will want to move on".

Sensible man.

[cp]

Corbyn's statement is a bit more tone deaf than I thought it would be. The extract at the end was a bit yikes...

'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''

https://www.facebook.com/JeremyCorbynMP/posts/10158939532253872

Tone deaf to the ears of the mob braying for his head, I suppose, but it's an honest and valid assessment of the way antisemitism was dealt with. Saying otherwise is myopic spin. Especially as the rest of the statement is lockstep in line with the approach adopted by Starmer.

The questions at Starmers press conference does show that the media enjoy treating this as another 'does Keir Starmer want to punish Jeremy Corbyn' when frankly there's much bigger issues at stake when one of the biggest parties in the country is found in breach of the Equality Act.

Case in point.

I caught the end of the Q&A and thought Starmer acquitted himself well. He's got a thankless task on this file (at best; Kobiashi Maru is closer to the truth) but he avoided saying anything that would seem like dissembling on the one hand or capitulating to hysteria on the other.

[CumbrianLefty]

A lot that is not good in the report, but not much that wasn't already at least suspected.

Agree that Starmer has acquitted himself well.

[cp]

A lot that is not good in the report, but not much that wasn't already at least suspected.

Agree that Starmer has acquitted himself well.

It's upsetting reading, without a doubt. Even worse is the spin from the unreconstructed Corbynites harping on the finding that there was no institutional antisemitism. I get that it was a painful epithet to get hurled at you, but there's no way to draw attention to that finding without seeming like you're bragging about reaching the lowest possible bar.

[CumbrianLefty]

Well, the ultra-factionalists on *both* sides are behaving about as well as might be expected.

Which was entirely and depressingly predictable.

[Blair]

Corbyn's statement is a bit more tone deaf than I thought it would be. The extract at the end was a bit yikes...

'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''

https://www.facebook.com/JeremyCorbynMP/posts/10158939532253872

Tone deaf to the ears of the mob braying for his head, I suppose, but it's an honest and valid assessment of the way antisemitism was dealt with. Saying otherwise is myopic spin. Especially as the rest of the statement is lockstep in line with the approach adopted by Starmer.

The questions at Starmers press conference does show that the media enjoy treating this as another 'does Keir Starmer want to punish Jeremy Corbyn' when frankly there's much bigger issues at stake when one of the biggest parties in the country is found in breach of the Equality Act.

Case in point.

I caught the end of the Q&A and thought Starmer acquitted himself well. He's got a thankless task on this file (at best; Kobiashi Maru is closer to the truth) but he avoided saying anything that would seem like dissembling on the one hand or capitulating to hysteria on the other.

I mean I'm not someone who has ever thought he should personally be suspended or who thinks it would be remotely a good idea

[CumbrianLefty]

The point is even if Corbyn was right to say that bit, *it wasn't the time to say it*.

(as already said, tone deaf)

It just took attention away from the rest of his statement, which as noted is pretty reasonable.

[Statilius the Epicurean]

Corbyn has the whip removed

[Hnv1]

Corbyn has the whip removed

Party split incoming?

[CumbrianLefty]

Corbyn has the whip removed

What reason(s) have been given?

[Lord Halifax]

Corbyn has the whip removed

Nice to know he'll no longer be Starmer's whipping boy.

[Blair]

Corbyn has the whip removed

What reason(s) have been given?

Failure to withdraw his comments from this morning.

[Blair]

Corbyn has the whip removed

Party split incoming?

This is I feel not an issue that a lot of people in the party will want to fight over; aka an internal party investigation on anti-semitism. I expect the Socialist Campaign Group will put out a statement & but the lesson from the last parliament is that resigning the whip & splitting just lets the leaders office or one of the major unions fill your seat with someone else.

[EastAnglianLefty]

It's a shock, but in retrospect it probably shouldn't have been.

I'm reasonably sure Starmer's team will have asked Corbyn what response he was planning to make to the EHRC report and will not have been pleased with a couple of lines in there (and if they didn't ask, Corbyn's team should have assumed it was a case of giving him enough rope anyway.) We know that if Starmer tells you to apologise and you argue, he will take action.

We haven't learned very much new, except that you really shouldn't try to out-bluff Starmer.

[Statilius the Epicurean]

It's a shock, but in retrospect it probably shouldn't have been.

I'm reasonably sure Starmer's team will have asked Corbyn what response he was planning to make to the EHRC report and will not have been pleased with a couple of lines in there (and if they didn't ask, Corbyn's team should have assumed it was a case of giving him enough rope anyway.) We know that if Starmer tells you to apologise and you argue, he will take action.

We haven't learned very much new, except that you really shouldn't try to out-bluff Starmer.

Redux of the RLB stuff really. Left only has themselves to blame.

[Hnv1]

Corbyn has the whip removed

Party split incoming?

This is I feel not an issue that a lot of people in the party will want to fight over; aka an internal party investigation on anti-semitism. I expect the Socialist Campaign Group will put out a statement & but the lesson from the last parliament is that resigning the whip & splitting just lets the leaders office or one of the major unions fill your seat with someone else.

The Corbyn faction surely can’t soldier on here. And there’s enough MPs to desert the PLP

[Blair]

The reporting of this is making it seem like Corbyn has been suspended because of the report, not because of his comments.

I think a lot of weak journalism/reporting will make it appear like that he's been suspended because of the report... which is actually easier for the average voter to understand.

Corbyn's statement is a bit more tone deaf than I thought it would be. The extract at the end was a bit yikes...

'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''

https://www.facebook.com/JeremyCorbynMP/posts/10158939532253872

Tone deaf to the ears of the mob braying for his head, I suppose, but it's an honest and valid assessment of the way antisemitism was dealt with. Saying otherwise is myopic spin. Especially as the rest of the statement is lockstep in line with the approach adopted by Starmer.

The questions at Starmers press conference does show that the media enjoy treating this as another 'does Keir Starmer want to punish Jeremy Corbyn' when frankly there's much bigger issues at stake when one of the biggest parties in the country is found in breach of the Equality Act.

Case in point.

I caught the end of the Q&A and thought Starmer acquitted himself well. He's got a thankless task on this file (at best; Kobiashi Maru is closer to the truth) but he avoided saying anything that would seem like dissembling on the one hand or capitulating to hysteria on the other.

I mean I'm not someone who has ever thought he should personally be suspended or who thinks it would be remotely a good idea

My gut feeling remains that this will go badly; although fwiw I thought the same with RLB when she was sacked.

It is a political decision whether to suspend the whip; this is not a decision that can be made by an outside body (it could be reccomended) nor is it one where a simple HR process can be made. I could as an MP make comments that would not offically breach the parties equalities policy but I could make comments that were judged to damage the party.

Although Starmer did say this morning that if you don't accept the scale of anti-semitism then you should not be in the party.

[morgieb]

Corbyn has the whip removed

Party split incoming?

This is I feel not an issue that a lot of people in the party will want to fight over; aka an internal party investigation on anti-semitism. I expect the Socialist Campaign Group will put out a statement & but the lesson from the last parliament is that resigning the whip & splitting just lets the leaders office or one of the major unions fill your seat with someone else.

The Corbyn faction surely can’t soldier on here. And there’s enough MPs to desert the PLP

Except there were probably even more MP's willing to desert the PLP over Corbyn's leadership, and that didn't go anywhere because most Labour people were smart enough to understand that it was better to remain in the tent than start a fringe party and have zero influence. RLB/Burgon got like what, 20-25% of membership vote? And Labour members are more left wing as a whole than Labour voters. Optically it would be a terrible look to try and challenge Starmer over it too - either the challenge fails and the Left looks silly, or a challenge succeeds and there's a split the other way and the UK have 20 years of unchecked Tory rule.

This is still a very brave decision though. I hope Starmer knows what he's doing. And personally I do sincerely hope Corbyn gets let back in in due course.