posted on 18/11/2020 20:06Difficult to fully flesh out my thoughts in a few lines - arty_fufkin
Without leaving myself open to attack from pretty much any side.
But in a nutshell:
There was clearly an issue with antisemitism.
The leadership failed to adequately deal with it.
It was right to have an independent enquiry.
Starmer was right to accept the findings and act upon it.
Corbyn should have accepted the findings, even if he thought it was somewhat harsh.
Starmer had little choice but to suspend him.
I don't accept Corbyn is an antisemite.
Following his apology and acceptance of the report (gritted teeth not withstanding), allowing him back in but withholding the whip is probably the best compromise pending the due process.
The 2 extreme and fanatical responses from Corbyn die hards and those demanding the ultimate sanctions are utterly depressing.
Labour won't move on from this without an acceptance we've made a mess of this and a willingness to also accept that shouldn't mean defenestration of anyone deemed to have acted ineffectively.
The only winners are the Conservative Party, whose record of bigotry is hilariously overlooked. But we know the press will do this, so can't resort to whataboutery since we know the way of the world.
I joined the Labour Party because of Corbyn and particularly the manifesto of 2017. I'm still broadly supportive of his overall position but the last election demonstrated beyond doubt he is never going to pursuade the majority he is in anyway a viable leader so demands for him to be leader again are utterly insane.
I'm worried we will remain in a civil war while the worst government this country has EVER had somehow drive the country to ruin and get voted in again.
That's probably it.
- <stirs the pot> - Gav 18/11 11:27 (read 613 times, 26 posts in thread)
- Re: <stirs the pot> - Gramsci. 19/11 00:50 (read 567 times)
- Re: <stirs the pot> - Gramsci. 19/11 10:35 (read 600 times)
- which hard left, apologist publication did I lift that from? - Gramsci. 19/11 14:51 (read 616 times)
- Re: <stirs the pot> - Gramsci. 19/11 10:35 (read 600 times)
- for years I thought she was a tory - eaststandman 18/11 12:13 (read 661 times)
- not a chance ... its a subject matter where no debate is allowed ... nt - EmCee 18/11 11:39 (read 645 times)
- Re: not a chance ... its a subject matter where no debate is allowed ... nt - Gramsci. 18/11 19:36 (read 662 times)
- Re: not a chance ... its a subject matter where no debate is allowed ... nt - Nicolae 19/11 08:20 (read 612 times)
- Re: not a chance ... its a subject matter where no debate is allowed ... nt - Gramsci. 19/11 10:10 (read 618 times)
- do you really, really want to know? - Gramsci. 19/11 10:11 (read 630 times)
- go on, treat me to the full text link - Nicolae 19/11 10:30 (read 666 times)
- I thought you'd be familiar with it already - Gramsci. 19/11 10:37 (read 694 times)
- I was watching Chris Williamson on The Canary feed last night - Nicolae 19/11 11:33 (read 690 times)
- Do you agree with the extract I posted up there though? As a libertarian - Gramsci. 19/11 11:36 (read 698 times)
- Why wouldn't I (assuming it is indeed legally correct)? I have no beef with it whatsoever. - Nicolae 19/11 11:59 (read 699 times)
- So if you agree with it, why did you suggest it came from an "apologist publication"? - Gramsci. 19/11 12:00 (read 723 times)
- Well who else would pen it at this precise time, given these precise circumstances, other than a hard left, apologist publication (which it turned out it was) ? - Nicolae 19/11 12:14 (read 743 times)
- How about --------> the EHRC report itself*? - Gramsci. 19/11 12:27 (read 785 times)
- Arf! Wonderful to watch - Robin Ho 19/11 13:31 (read 776 times)
- Re: How about the EHRC report itself*? - Nicolae 19/11 13:27 (read 705 times)
- any chance ROR can show as much outrage at the Tory party forgiving Fabricant and his Anglo -Muslim comments - eaststandman 19/11 13:13 (read 696 times)
- How about --------> the EHRC report itself*? - Gramsci. 19/11 12:27 (read 785 times)
- Well who else would pen it at this precise time, given these precise circumstances, other than a hard left, apologist publication (which it turned out it was) ? - Nicolae 19/11 12:14 (read 743 times)
- So if you agree with it, why did you suggest it came from an "apologist publication"? - Gramsci. 19/11 12:00 (read 723 times)
- Why wouldn't I (assuming it is indeed legally correct)? I have no beef with it whatsoever. - Nicolae 19/11 11:59 (read 699 times)
- Do you agree with the extract I posted up there though? As a libertarian - Gramsci. 19/11 11:36 (read 698 times)
- I was watching Chris Williamson on The Canary feed last night - Nicolae 19/11 11:33 (read 690 times)
- I thought you'd be familiar with it already - Gramsci. 19/11 10:37 (read 694 times)
- go on, treat me to the full text link - Nicolae 19/11 10:30 (read 666 times)
- do you really, really want to know? - Gramsci. 19/11 10:11 (read 630 times)
- Re: not a chance ... its a subject matter where no debate is allowed ... nt - Gramsci. 19/11 10:10 (read 618 times)
- Re: not a chance ... its a subject matter where no debate is allowed ... nt - Nicolae 19/11 08:20 (read 612 times)
- I thought the independent EHRC had opined and that was final. - Nicolae 18/11 13:19 (read 714 times)
- It has and it was - arty_fufkin 18/11 16:19 (read 677 times)
- Re: It has and it was - Nicolae 18/11 18:03 (read 650 times)
- Difficult to fully flesh out my thoughts in a few lines - arty_fufkin 18/11 20:06 (read 627 times)
- Excellent post, probably the best and most honest / heartfelt summary I've read by anyone ./ - Nicolae 18/11 20:10 (read 571 times)
- Difficult to fully flesh out my thoughts in a few lines - arty_fufkin 18/11 20:06 (read 627 times)
- Re: It has and it was - Nicolae 18/11 18:03 (read 650 times)
- It has and it was - arty_fufkin 18/11 16:19 (read 677 times)
- Re: not a chance ... its a subject matter where no debate is allowed ... nt - Gramsci. 18/11 19:36 (read 662 times)
- Re: <stirs the pot> - Gramsci. 19/11 00:50 (read 567 times)