This Once Great Movement Of Ours

[GALeftist]

Actually, after reading the EHRC's thing, I take back what I said about nefarious Tories it was quite sensible. It seems that, as per usual, the fault lies with the Blairites. Very disappointed in Starmer, and it's hard for me to see how this doesn't badly fracture the party if the course isn't reversed.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Corbyn: So that's it after 37 years? So long? Good luck?
Starmer: I don't recall saying good luck

Starmer is BASED.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

This was literally my first thought:

https://twitter.com/DumbDumbMM/status/1321816357378367490?s=19

[Blair]

To be perfectly clear, I do not think it is the influence of nefarious Jews in the UK. I think it is more likely the influence of nefarious Tories in the EHRC and/or nefarious Blairites in Labour. Once again, though, I'm not an expert on this by a long shot.

The EHCR are a neutral non-governmental organisation who are required to follow the law. They have to follow equality legislation & due process when making these decisions; if they hadn't then lawyers for the Labour Party, including when it was managed by Jeremy Corbyn would have challenged the decision. The Party has rightly never called into question the credibility of the EHRC & I don't think anybody on the left called it into question when they investigated the BNP in 2009.

I also realise this is a stupid hill to die on but this decision has nothing to do with Blairites in the Labour Party... as both this report & Labour's own internal report made clear anti-semitism was a major and real issue within the party including when it was not managed by the Blairites.

There is a specific incident mentioned about political interference that occured when there was not a single Blairite in any part of the top leadership of the party.

This seems like a massive overreaction, though I'll admit I'm not an expert on antisemitism in the UK or the UK in general. With that being said, can someone explain to me why the EHRC has elected not to investigate Islamophobia within the Conservatives? It seems to me that that's objectively at least a large problem, if not larger than the antisemitism within Labour, and it seems that there's a vastly different standard being applied to the parties here.

Because a statutatory investigation is basically the last weapon that they use when investigating allegations of these nature; the natural (and iirc normal course for similar events) is to work with organisations, to encourage them to change their practices & to monitor internal changes.

The chair of the EHRC is on record in 2017 saying that Labour needed to fix its processes for dealing with antisemitism yet it wasn't until 2019 that the formal investigation was launched because frankly the bottom was falling out.

This was also triggered by a legal submission; the EHCR are at their core a government body that is driven by the law & by legislation- the closest US example would be I guess a special prosectutor or Inspector General (but I might be wrong)

The EHRC said about an investigation into the Conservatives that...

We will be monitoring the review and requiring the party to provide regular updates on progress. If we are not satisfied with progress or how the investigation is conducted we will review our decision and do not rule out the use of our legal powers

Islamphobia is abhorrent, a major problem in the Tory Party & the 'acceptable form' of middle class racism (which anti-semitism was for a very long among the british middle classes, and still can be)

But I don't think it does anybody any favours to weigh it up as if it's some sort of race to the bottom.

It should be mentioned again & again that this was started because Jewish Labour Party members felt unsafe in their own party & felt it was a hostile body.

[Blair]

Corbyn had a very ideologically diverse shadow cabinet until they quit to undermine him. And in return, he gets kicked out of the party. Neoliberals are the real purity trolls.

'A good act does not wash out the bad, nor a bad act the good. Each should have its own reward.'

[cp]

The EHCR are a neutral non-governmental organisation who are required to follow the law. They have to follow equality legislation & due process when making these decisions; if they hadn't then lawyers for the Labour Party, including when it was managed by Jeremy Corbyn would have challenged the decision. The Party has rightly never called into question the credibility of the EHRC & I don't think anybody on the left called it into question when they investigated the BNP in 2009.

[snip]

It should be mentioned again & again that this was started because Jewish Labour Party members felt unsafe in their own party & felt it was a hostile body.

Yes to the latter attribute. To believe the former is a view of politics that is childish in the extreme.

It should also be mentioned that the JLP is hardly an impartial arbiter of Corbyn's leadership. Indeed, many Jewish Labour members came to precisely the opposite conclusion and said so openly. However, that is not the story that won out.

[Blair]

The EHCR are a neutral non-governmental organisation who are required to follow the law. They have to follow equality legislation & due process when making these decisions; if they hadn't then lawyers for the Labour Party, including when it was managed by Jeremy Corbyn would have challenged the decision. The Party has rightly never called into question the credibility of the EHRC & I don't think anybody on the left called it into question when they investigated the BNP in 2009.

[snip]

It should be mentioned again & again that this was started because Jewish Labour Party members felt unsafe in their own party & felt it was a hostile body.

Yes to the latter attribute. To believe the former is a view of politics that is childish in the extreme.

It should also be mentioned that the JLP is hardly an impartial arbiter of Corbyn's leadership. Indeed, many Jewish Labour members came to precisely the opposite conclusion and said so openly. However, that is not the story that won out.

Well thank you. I don't think I have a childish view of politics but I am only 23 so what do I know?

[GALeftist]

To be perfectly clear, I do not think it is the influence of nefarious Jews in the UK. I think it is more likely the influence of nefarious Tories in the EHRC and/or nefarious Blairites in Labour. Once again, though, I'm not an expert on this by a long shot.

The EHCR are a neutral non-governmental organisation who are required to follow the law. They have to follow equality legislation & due process when making these decisions; if they hadn't then lawyers for the Labour Party, including when it was managed by Jeremy Corbyn would have challenged the decision. The Party has rightly never called into question the credibility of the EHRC & I don't think anybody on the left called it into question when they investigated the BNP in 2009.

I also realise this is a stupid hill to die on but this decision has nothing to do with Blairites in the Labour Party... as both this report & Labour's own internal report made clear anti-semitism was a major and real issue within the party including when it was not managed by the Blairites.

There is a specific incident mentioned about political interference that occured when there was not a single Blairite in any part of the top leadership of the party.

This seems like a massive overreaction, though I'll admit I'm not an expert on antisemitism in the UK or the UK in general. With that being said, can someone explain to me why the EHRC has elected not to investigate Islamophobia within the Conservatives? It seems to me that that's objectively at least a large problem, if not larger than the antisemitism within Labour, and it seems that there's a vastly different standard being applied to the parties here.

Because a statutatory investigation is basically the last weapon that they use when investigating allegations of these nature; the natural (and iirc normal course for similar events) is to work with organisations, to encourage them to change their practices & to monitor internal changes.

The chair of the EHRC is on record in 2017 saying that Labour needed to fix its processes for dealing with antisemitism yet it wasn't until 2019 that the formal investigation was launched because frankly the bottom was falling out.

This was also triggered by a legal submission; the EHCR are at their core a government body that is driven by the law & by legislation- the closest US example would be I guess a special prosectutor or Inspector General (but I might be wrong)

The EHRC said about an investigation into the Conservatives that...

We will be monitoring the review and requiring the party to provide regular updates on progress. If we are not satisfied with progress or how the investigation is conducted we will review our decision and do not rule out the use of our legal powers

Islamphobia is abhorrent, a major problem in the Tory Party & the 'acceptable form' of middle class racism (which anti-semitism was for a very long among the british middle classes, and still can be)

But I don't think it does anybody any favours to weigh it up as if it's some sort of race to the bottom.

It should be mentioned again & again that this was started because Jewish Labour Party members felt unsafe in their own party & felt it was a hostile body.

With respect to the EHRC, you are correct, I was wrong to imply that it was subject to that much political pressure; I should have researched more thoroughly before posting. Thanks for the information!

With respect to the "nefarious Blairites," that was in part an (admittedly poor) attempt at humor, so sorry about that. For the record, I do think that antisemitism is a problem within Labour, regardless of how much it was played up by the Tories; in the words of Corbyn, "one antisemite is one too many." Jewish people in Labour, and indeed anyone at all, should absolutely highlight any discrimination in the party. I also don't want to turn it into some sort of racism Olympics where one party or another gets a pass. I guess, then, my point is twofold:

1. Why are Labour and the Conservatives (and left vs right parties in general) held to such drastically different standards when it comes to discrimination? I think the issue here is basically two things. Firstly it's often sort of assumed that the Conservatives will be at least a little racist, where that same assumption is not made for Labour. This assumption, if it is as widespread as I suspect, is particularly galling to me for obvious reasons. Secondly, as you stated, I think in the West there's a general tolerance for Islamophobia which urgently needs to be stamped out. To your point about the EHRC's statement, it seems that many Muslims still express reservations about that internal investigation; Harun Khan, the secretary general of the Muslim Council of Britain, called it "a facade to hide the hundreds of incidences of Islamophobic bigotry we have identified in its ranks." I'm not 100% sure Khan is correct here (though I'll admit that I distrust the party of Boris Johnson on this immensely), but it reflects the general attitude that Islamophobia appears to be of secondary concern to these bodies and the public in general.

2. Why was Corbyn suspended? This seems dumb to be both from an electoral and moral perspective. Electorally, Corbyn has a sizeable base, and I guarantee that such a public scorning of him is certain to alienate that base. Morally, this is a horrible way to close the book on bigotry within the party. Labour, like any organization, will need to continue grappling with these issues for the foreseeable future; one needs look no farther than Rosie Duffield to see evidence of this. This move sends the exact wrong message, which is that purging Corbyn and people like him will heal the party moving forward, negating any continuing responsibility or vigilance Labour needs to have. This is obviously unprovable, but I would be shocked if ideological concerns from Labour's centrist wing did not at least inform Corbyn's suspension.

EDIT: I also forgot to mention that, from what I was able to read of the report, it doesn't even seem like Corbyn himself was personally culpable, so it also seems that his suspension was unwarranted from that perspective.

[cp]

The EHCR are a neutral non-governmental organisation who are required to follow the law. They have to follow equality legislation & due process when making these decisions; if they hadn't then lawyers for the Labour Party, including when it was managed by Jeremy Corbyn would have challenged the decision. The Party has rightly never called into question the credibility of the EHRC & I don't think anybody on the left called it into question when they investigated the BNP in 2009.

[snip]

It should be mentioned again & again that this was started because Jewish Labour Party members felt unsafe in their own party & felt it was a hostile body.

Yes to the latter attribute. To believe the former is a view of politics that is childish in the extreme.

It should also be mentioned that the JLP is hardly an impartial arbiter of Corbyn's leadership. Indeed, many Jewish Labour members came to precisely the opposite conclusion and said so openly. However, that is not the story that won out.

Well thank you. I don't think I have a childish view of politics but I am only 23 so what do I know?

If it's anything like what I knew about politics at 23, you've got a hell of a lot to learn

Edit: Something that opened my eyes on this front is the work by Bachrach and Baratz. If you have access to JSTOR or other academic sources they are quite articulate about how settling the agenda for debate can be more determinative of political outcomes than ideas, events, or personalities

[Never Made it to Graceland]

It should be mentioned again & again that this was started because Jewish Labour Party members felt unsafe in their own party & felt it was a hostile body.

There were a lot of Jews inside and outside of the Labour Party who went to bat for Corbyn. It didn't matter because the narrative has already been written.

Seriously, maybe I feel more comfortable disputing this because of my Judaism, but I've pored over this and I can't find any evidence at all to indicate there was ever a rampant problem with anti-Semitism in the Labour Party under Corbyn. Some unfortunate choice of words, maybe, but it's fairly apparent Corbyn is absolutely correct: this is a political snowjob. This is becoming a fairly common tactic of the global far-right: project their own anti-Semitism on the opponent and use it to take them down. We're seeing in the US with a few people in the House of Representatives being accused of it because they want to hold Israel to account for the ongoing settlements.

[cp]

[snip]

With respect to the EHRC, you are correct, I was wrong to imply that it was subject to that much political pressure; I should have researched more thoroughly before posting. Thanks for the information!

With respect to the "nefarious Blairites," that was in part an (admittedly poor) attempt at humor, so sorry about that. For the record, I do think that antisemitism is a problem within Labour, regardless of how much it was played up by the Tories; in the words of Corbyn, "one antisemite is one too many." Jewish people in Labour, and indeed anyone at all, should absolutely highlight any discrimination in the party. I also don't want to turn it into some sort of racism Olympics where one party or another gets a pass. I guess, then, my point is twofold:

1. Why are Labour and the Conservatives (and left vs right parties in general) held to such drastically different standards when it comes to discrimination? I think the issue here is basically two things. Firstly it's often sort of assumed that the Conservatives will be at least a little racist, where that same assumption is not made for Labour. This assumption, if it is as widespread as I suspect, is particularly galling to me for obvious reasons. Secondly, as you stated, I think in the West there's a general tolerance for Islamophobia which urgently needs to be stamped out. To your point about the EHRC's statement, it seems that many Muslims still express reservations about that internal investigation; Harun Khan, the secretary general of the Muslim Council of Britain, called it "a facade to hide the hundreds of incidences of Islamophobic bigotry we have identified in its ranks." I'm not 100% sure Khan is correct here (though I'll admit that I distrust the party of Boris Johnson on this immensely), but it reflects the general attitude that Islamophobia appears to be of secondary concern to these bodies and the public in general.

2. Why was Corbyn suspended? This seems dumb to be both from an electoral and moral perspective. Electorally, Corbyn has a sizeable base, and I guarantee that such a public scorning of him is certain to alienate that base. Morally, this is a horrible way to close the book on bigotry within the party. Labour, like any organization, will need to continue grappling with these issues for the foreseeable future; one needs look no farther than Rosie Duffield to see evidence of this. This move sends the exact wrong message, which is that purging Corbyn and people like him will heal the party moving forward, negating any continuing responsibility or vigilance Labour needs to have. This is obviously unprovable, but I would be shocked if ideological concerns from Labour's centrist wing did not at least inform Corbyn's suspension.

EDIT: I also forgot to mention that, from what I was able to read of the report, it doesn't even seem like Corbyn himself was personally culpable, so it also seems that his suspension was unwarranted from that perspective.

On point 1, I suppose we could get into a deep political philosophy/sociology debate about how group dynamics effect public perception, but in a way it's kind of irrelevant. As far a political praxis goes, it makes no difference why there is a double standard. A cynic might observe that it is those with the greatest social/economic capital - i.e. Tories - who have their biases deferred to, whereas those with less power in society have to struggle just to have their views/biases accepted as legitimate at all.

To point 2, I agree Corbyn's suspension is unwise, reactionary, factional, and sneering. That said, it's also quite clearly in keeping with the line established by Starmer and his team. I think that line is hypocritical, self-serving, intellectually cowardly, and politically weak, but it has the virtue of being consistent.

On the edit, much as I'm loathe to endorse any of the Corbyn bashing that is so de rigeur, the fact that he wasn't personally implicated is more a function of the circumspect way the EHRC operates, its limited remit, and the plausible deniability that every sophisticated hierarchy operates by. Corbyn was in charge and could have done more. Today he knew what he was doing and could have couched his (eminently reasonable) objections.

P.S. Re: Rosie Duffied. F*** TERFS.

[Blair]

It should be mentioned again & again that this was started because Jewish Labour Party members felt unsafe in their own party & felt it was a hostile body.

There were a lot of Jews inside and outside of the Labour Party who went to bat for Corbyn. It didn't matter because the narrative has already been written.

Seriously, maybe I feel more comfortable disputing this because of my Judaism, but I've pored over this and I can't find any evidence at all to indicate there was ever a rampant problem with anti-Semitism in the Labour Party under Corbyn. Some unfortunate choice of words, maybe, but it's fairly apparent Corbyn is absolutely correct: this is a political snowjob. This is becoming a fairly common tactic of the global far-right: project their own anti-Semitism on the opponent and use it to take them down. We're seeing in the US with a few people in the House of Representatives being accused of it because they want to hold Israel to account for the ongoing settlements.

I didn't mean to imply that every Jewish Labour member agreed on this; merely that as I said that a sizeable number of Jewish Labour members, including those holding elected office who felt the need to go through their affliate body & get legal advice after that felt they were being unfairly discriminated against.

As today's ruling says the party was breaching the law in three areas (behaviour of party agents, political interference in the disputes process & failure to provide training)

The party committed unlawfuly acts of discrimination in doing so. The Corbyn suspension has clouded this but I haven't actually seen anybody in the party claim that the EHCR have got the point of the law incorrect?

On the bolded points; I'm not sure if by 'rampant' you mean did the cases increase? There's been a rather unhelpful fixatation with the numbers with these cases when the issue was never the actual quantity but rather how the party responded to allegations & dealt with these.

I'm not really sure where to start in terms of the evidence; reading the EHCR report gives a rather removed view of it but I think it extends well beyond some 'unfournate choice of words' when the majority of this isn't what someone said or did but rather how the party reacted to what was said. Numerous figures within Labour including Jeremy Corbyn himself have said that it was a major problem & one that the party was too slow to deal with.

I don't think this is linked to either the US or the far right; seeing as the original complaint was triggered by Jewish Labour Party Members. I don't know about the link with the settlements; there's a completely diferent attitude & approach to anti-semitism within UK & US politics due to various historical reasons.

For the record I'm not one of those who thinks that 2015 was year zero for anti-semitism; the party has long struggled to deal with this issue & has had a major blindspot on it.

[Blair]

With respect to the EHRC, you are correct, I was wrong to imply that it was subject to that much political pressure; I should have researched more thoroughly before posting. Thanks for the information!

1. Why are Labour and the Conservatives (and left vs right parties in general) held to such drastically different standards when it comes to discrimination? I think the issue here is basically two things. Firstly it's often sort of assumed that the Conservatives will be at least a little racist, where that same assumption is not made for Labour. This assumption, if it is as widespread as I suspect, is particularly galling to me for obvious reasons. Secondly, as you stated, I think in the West there's a general tolerance for Islamophobia which urgently needs to be stamped out. To your point about the EHRC's statement, it seems that many Muslims still express reservations about that internal investigation; Harun Khan, the secretary general of the Muslim Council of Britain, called it "a facade to hide the hundreds of incidences of Islamophobic bigotry we have identified in its ranks." I'm not 100% sure Khan is correct here (though I'll admit that I distrust the party of Boris Johnson on this immensely), but it reflects the general attitude that Islamophobia appears to be of secondary concern to these bodies and the public in general.

2. Why was Corbyn suspended? This seems dumb to be both from an electoral and moral perspective. Electorally, Corbyn has a sizeable base, and I guarantee that such a public scorning of him is certain to alienate that base. Morally, this is a horrible way to close the book on bigotry within the party. Labour, like any organization, will need to continue grappling with these issues for the foreseeable future; one needs look no farther than Rosie Duffield to see evidence of this. This move sends the exact wrong message, which is that purging Corbyn and people like him will heal the party moving forward, negating any continuing responsibility or vigilance Labour needs to have. This is obviously unprovable, but I would be shocked if ideological concerns from Labour's centrist wing did not at least inform Corbyn's suspension.

EDIT: I also forgot to mention that, from what I was able to read of the report, it doesn't even seem like Corbyn himself was personally culpable, so it also seems that his suspension was unwarranted from that perspective.

1.) I think there's two different issues here. Firstly there's how the EHRC & other public bodies hold organisations to account when they're presented with evidence of their actions (or lack of) . A lot of people expected the EHCR to call the party institionally anti-semeitic or to name names but they didn't do so because as others have said that's not within their remit or aim as an organisation.

I assume that they've not been presented with evidence or a legal case which they judge to meet the threshold that was met with AS. But there's a whole other story for how this case was built up & presented to the EHCR. I'm a bit tired to go through tonight but this was a very long & detailed effort by people within the party who did a lot of the legwork both in providing the legal & material aspect but also ensuring it was being reguarly covered (both in the traditional Jewish community newspapers and other newspapers)

If you'are asking about the public; the general assumption I have is that what hurt Labour was the ongoing nature of it & the fact that it created a cloud over the leadership; whether that was people thinking Corbyn was incompetent or antisemitic it was probably more so the former. I did see some evidence that people who would be classed as more middle class & politically engaged where likely to bring it up as a factor for not voting Labour then people who weren't.

I feel it's too complex an issue (british anti-semitism v British islamophobia) to discuss the differences in public attitudes & how it shapes politics in the UK but if I said that you'd be more likely to win a general election on an outwardly hostile islamophobic platform than an outwardly anti-semitic one I think that would broadly sum up how I see the publics attitudes.

2.) The defence from the leadership I suppose would be that even if it's dumb from an electoral viewpoint they had to do it; political considerations of that sort should thereotically not come into it if you're committed to having an independent process.

The devil will be in the detail; which I assume lawyers will be writing & exchanging- this will no doubt be leaked or made public. My current hunch is that this was not planned aka it was related to his comment on the EHCR rather than the EHCR as a whole.

I did say this morning that his post was tone deaf; it was. He didn't have to say it & even if he believed it he should have moved on. But frankly it reveals that he does honestly believe it; it's actually quite hard to get a politician to lie/give up on an issue of what they see as morals (it's similar to how Tim Farrons advisors could never get him to say that Gay sex wasn't a sin; he honestly believed it was)

It will certainly be politically toxic again in the party; I think Corbyn's base is much more so internally based and the damage will either be the lack of engagement Starmer gets with the left or the impact that the left taking it's members & money home will have on the party.

And of course it's another 6 months of reading about NEC sub committee meetings... so those such as myself who thought the Forde inquiry (the report into the leaked leaking of a report in response to the EHCR) would be the end of it are wrong... there's a reason it's called the Forever Wars by some!

[Pulaski]

Whether Corbyn’s right or wrong, suspending him is a massive overreaction from a party that’s literally accepted ex-BNP councillors into its fold - still, I’m sure that fact has nothing to do with antisemitism in the party. BNP guys are notoriously big friends of the Jews.

[cp]

1.) I think there's two different issues here. Firstly there's how the EHRC & other public bodies hold organisations to account when they're presented with evidence of their actions (or lack of) . A lot of people expected the EHCR to call the party institionally anti-semeitic or to name names but they didn't do so because as others have said that's not within their remit or aim as an organisation.

I assume that they've not been presented with evidence or a legal case which they judge to meet the threshold that was met with AS. But there's a whole other story for how this case was built up & presented to the EHCR. I'm a bit tired to go through tonight but this was a very long & detailed effort by people within the party who did a lot of the legwork both in providing the legal & material aspect but also ensuring it was being reguarly covered (both in the traditional Jewish community newspapers and other newspapers)

If you'are asking about the public; the general assumption I have is that what hurt Labour was the ongoing nature of it & the fact that it created a cloud over the leadership; whether that was people thinking Corbyn was incompetent or antisemitic it was probably more so the former. I did see some evidence that people who would be classed as more middle class & politically engaged where likely to bring it up as a factor for not voting Labour then people who weren't.

I feel it's too complex an issue (british anti-semitism v British islamophobia) to discuss the differences in public attitudes & how it shapes politics in the UK but if I said that you'd be more likely to win a general election on an outwardly hostile islamophobic platform than an outwardly anti-semitic one I think that would broadly sum up how I see the publics attitudes.

I think this is why so many observers who are not prejudicially hostile to Corbyn or socialism in general find the AS issue generated around him to be somewhat contrived. If you mount a sustained effort to unearth prejudice in an organization that is within a country wherein that prejudice is endemic, *of course* you're going to find evidence of it. If you then coordinate a sustained campaign to ensure said evidence is disseminated widely and consistently to a population that is preternaturally more receptive to denouncing that strain of prejudice - even while equally deep and widespread strains of bigotry are also endemic, and would be just as well documented if one cared to look closely enough - then *of course* you're going to manufacture the impression of indifference, incompetence, or tone deafness on the part of the putative culprits.

To be clear, I'm not trying to say the criticisms of Labour's disciplinary procedures surrounding antisemitism were spurious or unjustified, or that dismissing the cases that were raised as factionally motivated was defensible (even if that might have been true in a few cases). But anyone arguing the sustained effort of promulgating the view of Labour as 'institutionally antisemitic' was devoid of ideological considerations doesn't have a leg to stand on.

I did say this morning that his post was tone deaf; it was. He didn't have to say it & even if he believed it he should have moved on. But frankly it reveals that he does honestly believe it; it's actually quite hard to get a politician to lie/give up on an issue of what they see as morals (it's similar to how Tim Farrons advisors could never get him to say that Gay sex wasn't a sin; he honestly believed it was)

I don't think this isn't the best comparison for you to make. Farron is very much correct about gay sex being a sin*. That should have absolutely no impact upon public policy, to be sure, and it's not politically apt, but if you're trying to compare apples to apples, the logical conclusion would be that you also contend Corbyn is correct in believing AS was overblown.

*Edit: An *awesome* sin, to be clear

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

So this gets you kicked out of the party when enabling Bush's Iraq war doesn't.

My statement following the publication of the EHRC report:
“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.”

[Filuwaúrdjan]

[The Free North]

This seems like a massive overreaction, though I'll admit I'm not an expert on antisemitism in the UK or the UK in general. With that being said, can someone explain to me why the EHRC has elected not to investigate Islamophobia within the Conservatives? It seems to me that that's objectively at least a large problem, if not larger than the antisemitism within Labour, and it seems that there's a vastly different standard being applied to the parties here.

Between Jewish and Mulisms, only one of the two have an influence over institutions.
Between Corbyn and Johnson, only one of the two doesn't adhere to the "liberal" "consensus".

The insinuation here leads you down a very dark path....

[Never Made it to Graceland]

Between this and Glenn Greenwald rage-quitting The Intercept, today's shaping up to be a pretty good day

You should keep the Republican avatar, it obviously suits you.

[Blair]

Whether Corbyn’s right or wrong, suspending him is a massive overreaction from a party that’s literally accepted ex-BNP councillors into its fold - still, I’m sure that fact has nothing to do with antisemitism in the party. BNP guys are notoriously big friends of the Jews.

A point which actually shows imo that this is a long running problem which the party has failed on.

[Blair]

From the briefing overnight to the Times it appears that even Corbyns 'allies' in Parliament think that his statement was rather unwise.

FWIW the Times might be a centre right paper but they have been the newspaper to go to for most within Labour; one of their political reporters is an ex new statesman journalist.

The below isn't news to anyone who's been followling this closely but still...

Privately, Mr McDonnell is understood to have blamed Karie Murphy and Seumas Milne, both of whom he attempted to sideline in the dying days of Mr Corbyn’s leadership, for the ultimately misguided strategy of publicly questioning the EHRC’s findings. One source on the Labour left said: “There is a lot of unease that the people who messed up this when Jeremy was leader have been allowed to mess it up again.”

The below was actually what I thought yesterday.

There is very little desire from the left for a long drawn out argument about the specifics of this; which is why there's been an active effort to make this about 'unity' 'moving forward' etc; the argument is pretty much ''well Jeremy shouldn't have said it like that but you shouldn't suspend him because it will crash the party''

Though Mr Corbyn’s supporters in the Commons are frequently parodied as Labour’s house demagogues, they had little appetite for a fight with the party’s leadership that his dismissal of the report inevitably started. Aware of the destructive potential that any criticism of the EHRC by left-wingers would have, Richard Burgon, the heir apparent to the leadership of Labour’s Corbynites, had urged his fellow MPs in the Socialist Campaign Group to refrain from public comment on its findings.

That careful strategy was shattered by Mr Corbyn’s first incendiary intervention yesterday morning, to the dismay of both Mr Burgon and John McDonnell, the former shadow chancellor.

[Alcibiades]

Whether Corbyn’s right or wrong, suspending him is a massive overreaction from a party that’s literally accepted ex-BNP councillors into its fold - still, I’m sure that fact has nothing to do with antisemitism in the party. BNP guys are notoriously big friends of the Jews.

I actually looked up the councillor in question; she showed far more humility and contrition than Corbyn would ever be capable of doing.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2004/jun/14/localgovernment.politics

[ZuWo]

This seems like a massive overreaction, though I'll admit I'm not an expert on antisemitism in the UK or the UK in general. With that being said, can someone explain to me why the EHRC has elected not to investigate Islamophobia within the Conservatives? It seems to me that that's objectively at least a large problem, if not larger than the antisemitism within Labour, and it seems that there's a vastly different standard being applied to the parties here.

Between Jewish and Mulisms, only one of the two have an influence over institutions.

Have all of these men and women converted to Judaism over night or something?

[Blair]

And my final point for the morning is that this is a reminder that the Socialist Campaign Group (the 20-30 MPs on the furthest left point of the Parliamentary Party) are extremely weak & have very little power.

Even with the boost they are given by the 2019 intake & the re-emergence of the small unions they still lack a great deal of power & the last 5 years have made it easy to forget that they were sealed in a tomb (to quote Peter Mandelson) for the vast majority of 1994-2015. They have to their credit been punching above their weight since April.

When the roles were reversed & Corbyn had complete control over the party his opponents still had a huge base in the PLP (I'd say about 120 MPs were in the core group hostile group by the end), a base in the shadow cabinet (Ashworth & Starmer), most of the whips office, the GMB union & of course the huge press ecosphere which there was for them to vent from.

[EastAnglianLefty]

Regarding Islamophobia, several sentences in the report are not terrible subtle shots across the bows of CCHQ. The EHRC move slowly, but when they do move you do not want to be in their way.

Regarding Corbyn's personal culpability, I suggest you re-read the report, and specifically the section on who counts as an 'agent' of the party.