Who Is Keir Starmer?
April 5, 2020 8:11 PM Subscribe
Keir Starmer new Labour Party leader in Britain as politics reshaped by coronavirus - "Be in no doubt I understand the scale of the task, the gravity of the position that we're in. We've got a mountain to climb."
Keir Starmer wins Labour leadership by a landslide - "Supporters believe that Sir Keir will be effective in holding the government to account during the current pandemic — and beyond — given his grasp of detail."
No return to 'business as usual'
Keir Starmer wins Labour leadership by a landslide - "Supporters believe that Sir Keir will be effective in holding the government to account during the current pandemic — and beyond — given his grasp of detail."
No return to 'business as usual'
This virus has exposed the fragility of our society. It’s lifted a curtain. Too many will have given too much. Some of us will have lost too much. We know in our hearts, things are going to have to change.also see...
We can see so clearly now who the key workers really are. When we get through this it’ll be because of our NHS staff, our care workers, our ambulance drivers, our emergency services, our cleaners, our porters. It will be because of the hard work and bravery of every key worker as they took on this virus and kept our country going. For too long they’ve been taken for granted and poorly paid. They were last and now they should be first.
- 10 Point Plan - "Based on the moral case for socialism, here is where I stand."
- Keir Starmer: The sensible radical - "The former human rights lawyer aspires to unite not only the troubled Labour Party but the country."
- Keir Starmer Is Not Who You Think He Is - "His whole life has revolved around politics and social justice, shaped by the long nights he spent in hospital as a child with his severely ill mother, the human rights cases he took on as a young barrister fighting against the state and big corporations — and the difficulties now faced by his wife and sister, who work in an overburdened NHS and social care system."
- Virus lays bare the frailty of the social contract - "Radical reforms are required to forge a society that will work for all."
- An intentionally dysfunctional state that has withered away under 40 years of anti-govt ideology - "Having a competent state and bureaucracy and thriving private sector aren't mutually exclusive."
- Peter Frase: Four Futures - "There are therefore four logical combinations of the two oppositions, resource abundance vs. scarcity and egalitarianism vs. hierarchy."
- Is Capitalism a Threat to Democracy? - "The historian Karl Polanyi believed that the cruelty of the free market makes us vulnerable to fascism—a theory that is resonating again today."
Radical reforms — reversing the prevailing policy direction of the last four decades — will need to be put on the table. Governments will have to accept a more active role in the economy. They must see public services as investments rather than liabilities, and look for ways to make labour markets less insecure. Redistribution will again be on the agenda; the privileges of the elderly and wealthy in question. Policies until recently considered eccentric, such as basic income and wealth taxes, will have to be in the mix.
This came as something of a relief after the Corbyn era:
Apology to Jewish community is my ‘value statement’, new Labour leader Keir Starmer says
Here's an abbreviated version of the Panorama investigation on Labour's complaint process.
posted by Joe in Australia at 10:05 PM on April 5, 2020 [4 favorites]
Apology to Jewish community is my ‘value statement’, new Labour leader Keir Starmer says
Labour’s new leader Keir Starmer has described his apology to members of Britain’s Jewish community in his victory speech on Saturday as a “value statement, a matter of principle”.It's a good thing Starmer won so convincingly: if he's going to get in front of the EHRC investigation he's got a lot of work ahead of him. Labour Against Anti-Semitism alone report they lodged 1,500 official complaints about Labour members. Corbyn's office apparently took over the complaints process from the staff originally assigned to it, so many complaints that were allegedly addressed will have to be reopened.
Sir Keir, who made the apology his first act as party leader, won the leadership contest in the first ballot with 56.2 per cent of the vote.
He told the BBC’s Andrew Marr Show on Sunday: “I didn’t do [my apology] to win votes, I did that because it was a value statement, a matter of principle.
“And then I spent yesterday afternoon making a number of calls reaching out to leaders in the Jewish community to demonstrate that I want to rebuild the trust that we have to rebuild.
“It’s going to be a long road, it’s going to take a lot of hard work, but I hope I’ve put in at least the first steps yesterday.”
Here's an abbreviated version of the Panorama investigation on Labour's complaint process.
posted by Joe in Australia at 10:05 PM on April 5, 2020 [4 favorites]
When Plagues Pass, Labor Gets the Upper Hand (Bloomberg) - "In the decades after a pandemic, real wages in Europe (for which there is the best continuous data) invariably increase... These gains are at the expense of capital."
Spanish Government Aims to Roll Out Basic Income 'Soon' - "The Spanish government is working to roll out a universal basic income as soon as possible, as part of a battery of actions aimed at countering the impact of the coronavirus pandemic, according to Economy Minister Nadia Calvino... the government's broader ambition is that basic income becomes an instrument 'that stays forever, that becomes a structural instrument, a permanent instrument', she said."
posted by kliuless at 10:21 PM on April 5, 2020 [7 favorites]
Spanish Government Aims to Roll Out Basic Income 'Soon' - "The Spanish government is working to roll out a universal basic income as soon as possible, as part of a battery of actions aimed at countering the impact of the coronavirus pandemic, according to Economy Minister Nadia Calvino... the government's broader ambition is that basic income becomes an instrument 'that stays forever, that becomes a structural instrument, a permanent instrument', she said."
posted by kliuless at 10:21 PM on April 5, 2020 [7 favorites]
Best of luck to him. It’s going to be a long four and a half years until the next election, and I just hope there is something salvageable to work with when Labour’s time comes again.
posted by inflatablekiwi at 10:43 PM on April 5, 2020 [5 favorites]
posted by inflatablekiwi at 10:43 PM on April 5, 2020 [5 favorites]
"Landslide" has been interestingly trumpeted around this, given that Starmer's landslide 275k was pipped by an even greater 293k Did Not Vote. For context, Corbyn in 2016 picked up 313k vs 146k did not vote.
In the worst cases, we're seeing trash analysis comparing Starmer's raw numbers this year to Corbyn's 121k in 2015 and trumpeting it as a mandate, when as a percentage of party membership the 2015 figure is much higher, mainly due to an increase in party members driven by... guess who.
Anyhow, no problems getting behind the new guy. But it's interesting to see how this is getting reported.
(edit removing reference to a comment which... disappeared?)
posted by ominous_paws at 11:10 PM on April 5, 2020 [12 favorites]
In the worst cases, we're seeing trash analysis comparing Starmer's raw numbers this year to Corbyn's 121k in 2015 and trumpeting it as a mandate, when as a percentage of party membership the 2015 figure is much higher, mainly due to an increase in party members driven by... guess who.
Anyhow, no problems getting behind the new guy. But it's interesting to see how this is getting reported.
(edit removing reference to a comment which... disappeared?)
posted by ominous_paws at 11:10 PM on April 5, 2020 [12 favorites]
Keir "I support Zionism without qualification" Starmer, talk about whiplash.
posted by nicolas léonard sadi carnot at 11:46 PM on April 5, 2020 [5 favorites]
posted by nicolas léonard sadi carnot at 11:46 PM on April 5, 2020 [5 favorites]
Keir Starmer seems decent. A reasonable compromise between ideals, realism, and potentially actually winning an election. Certainly better than the other two who were left in the running by the time of the vote. Really, I wanted Jess Phillips. Sensible, and a Brummie!
posted by Dysk at 12:16 AM on April 6, 2020 [5 favorites]
posted by Dysk at 12:16 AM on April 6, 2020 [5 favorites]
Oh, and it should be mentioned: Starmer seems competent at politicking and handling public image, the media, and people who aren't natural "keep the red flag flying, Labour til I die" types, something Corbyn was not, and something that certainly can't be said for RLB. That alone is a breath of fresh air, something Labour hasn't properly had since... Blair?
posted by Dysk at 12:34 AM on April 6, 2020 [5 favorites]
posted by Dysk at 12:34 AM on April 6, 2020 [5 favorites]
Good luck to Keir, seems a decent man who might be able to bridge the gap between the factions within Labour and his shadow cabinet picks seem balanced and fair so far.
Hope he can resist the call to go into any form of National Unity Government though, the Tories need to own the structural failures in the NHS in handling the current crisis.
posted by brilliantmistake at 1:27 AM on April 6, 2020 [1 favorite]
Hope he can resist the call to go into any form of National Unity Government though, the Tories need to own the structural failures in the NHS in handling the current crisis.
posted by brilliantmistake at 1:27 AM on April 6, 2020 [1 favorite]
Yes, I don't understand the calls for a national unity government. That may make sense during wartime, when there is some fear that an opposition party may mobilise forces against government policy, but that isn't a realistic fear at present. This is the Tories' crisis; let them own it.
posted by Joe in Australia at 1:55 AM on April 6, 2020
posted by Joe in Australia at 1:55 AM on April 6, 2020
Looks electable and competent. I voted for him. Fingers crossed!
posted by alasdair at 2:19 AM on April 6, 2020 [1 favorite]
posted by alasdair at 2:19 AM on April 6, 2020 [1 favorite]
This is the political genius who demanded the Second Brexit Referendum go in the Labour platform, sealing a landslide loss
posted by moorooka at 2:56 AM on April 6, 2020 [3 favorites]
posted by moorooka at 2:56 AM on April 6, 2020 [3 favorites]
Indeed. A national unity government might make sense in a situation where elections could not be held for a period of years. There were no elections in the UK between 1935 and 1945, a situation which could only be accepted as in-line with democratic principles by a government of national unity which also included the opposition.
Keir should join the COBRA meetings and continue to receive briefings on privy council terms but there is no need to join the government.
posted by atrazine at 2:59 AM on April 6, 2020 [2 favorites]
Keir should join the COBRA meetings and continue to receive briefings on privy council terms but there is no need to join the government.
posted by atrazine at 2:59 AM on April 6, 2020 [2 favorites]
This is the political genius who demanded the Second Brexit Referendum go in the Labour platform, sealing a landslide loss
If Labour had adopted an actual Remain position - which was Starmer's - I posit would have done a lot better than their vague bollocks position. Going hard for Brexit wouldn't have helped them much either, I don't reckon. The compromise position was a result of a lot of disagreement in Labour leadership and members. The problem wasn't that they didn't go enthusiastically for Brexit. It was that they didn't go enthusiastically for Remain. The compromise position pleased nobody.
I'm glad that it is the proponents of the sensible position that are now in charge, not the hard Corbynite brexiteers. Socialism is international or it isn't socialism at all.
posted by Dysk at 3:05 AM on April 6, 2020 [21 favorites]
If Labour had adopted an actual Remain position - which was Starmer's - I posit would have done a lot better than their vague bollocks position. Going hard for Brexit wouldn't have helped them much either, I don't reckon. The compromise position was a result of a lot of disagreement in Labour leadership and members. The problem wasn't that they didn't go enthusiastically for Brexit. It was that they didn't go enthusiastically for Remain. The compromise position pleased nobody.
I'm glad that it is the proponents of the sensible position that are now in charge, not the hard Corbynite brexiteers. Socialism is international or it isn't socialism at all.
posted by Dysk at 3:05 AM on April 6, 2020 [21 favorites]
Keir started off well with a paywalled op-ed in the Times of all papers, that rancid Islamophobic, transphobic pro-Tory paper just one step above the Sun.
posted by MartinWisse at 4:51 AM on April 6, 2020 [7 favorites]
posted by MartinWisse at 4:51 AM on April 6, 2020 [7 favorites]
Really, I wanted Jess Phillips. Sensible, and a Brummie!
Why?
Dear lord.
The only thing Jess is interested in is Jess, all mouth no trousers, couldn't hack the first softball questions thrown at her in the leadership debates. Why want her?
posted by MartinWisse at 4:52 AM on April 6, 2020 [3 favorites]
Why?
Dear lord.
The only thing Jess is interested in is Jess, all mouth no trousers, couldn't hack the first softball questions thrown at her in the leadership debates. Why want her?
posted by MartinWisse at 4:52 AM on April 6, 2020 [3 favorites]
If Labour had adopted an actual Remain position - which was Starmer's - I posit would have done a lot better than their vague bollocks position.
Compare and contrast Labour's vote in the leave areas in the north in 2017 and 2019 and you'll see you're wrong.
There was never a magical remain vote for Labour and Corbyn's policy of remaining neutral as party leader was the correct one.
Oh, and it should be mentioned: Starmer seems competent at politicking and handling public image, the media, and people who aren't natural "keep the red flag flying, Labour til I die" types
Starmer has been treated with kids gloves by the media because he was a handy tool to attack Corbyn and other lefties with. Now it's the choice between him and the Tories, do not expect that to continue.
Just look at how quickly the LibDems were ignored once an actual election was on the horizon.
Or that the first stories about Starmer refusing to prosecute Jimmy Saville surfaced in the media only yesterday.
The Tory press monstered Ed Milliband; they will monster Starmer too and no matter of media savy will stop that.
posted by MartinWisse at 4:59 AM on April 6, 2020 [10 favorites]
Compare and contrast Labour's vote in the leave areas in the north in 2017 and 2019 and you'll see you're wrong.
There was never a magical remain vote for Labour and Corbyn's policy of remaining neutral as party leader was the correct one.
Oh, and it should be mentioned: Starmer seems competent at politicking and handling public image, the media, and people who aren't natural "keep the red flag flying, Labour til I die" types
Starmer has been treated with kids gloves by the media because he was a handy tool to attack Corbyn and other lefties with. Now it's the choice between him and the Tories, do not expect that to continue.
Just look at how quickly the LibDems were ignored once an actual election was on the horizon.
Or that the first stories about Starmer refusing to prosecute Jimmy Saville surfaced in the media only yesterday.
The Tory press monstered Ed Milliband; they will monster Starmer too and no matter of media savy will stop that.
posted by MartinWisse at 4:59 AM on April 6, 2020 [10 favorites]
Why?
Dear lord.
Policy positions and voting record.
Compare and contrast Labour's vote in the leave areas in the north in 2017 and 2019 and you'll see you're wrong.
Compare and contrast the change in Labour's and the loathed Lib Dem's vote share in the last election though, and it's not at all clear that I am wrong.
The Tory press monstered Ed Milliband; they will monster Starmer too and no matter of media savy will stop that.
They will, but the consequences of that, how effectively it will poison him to voters, that will depend to a large extent on media savvy.
posted by Dysk at 5:30 AM on April 6, 2020 [2 favorites]
Dear lord.
Policy positions and voting record.
Compare and contrast Labour's vote in the leave areas in the north in 2017 and 2019 and you'll see you're wrong.
Compare and contrast the change in Labour's and the loathed Lib Dem's vote share in the last election though, and it's not at all clear that I am wrong.
The Tory press monstered Ed Milliband; they will monster Starmer too and no matter of media savy will stop that.
They will, but the consequences of that, how effectively it will poison him to voters, that will depend to a large extent on media savvy.
posted by Dysk at 5:30 AM on April 6, 2020 [2 favorites]
...and competence at politicking also matters. Corbyn was constantly fighting with his own MPs. I don't see Starmer having as much trouble with that.
posted by Dysk at 5:32 AM on April 6, 2020
posted by Dysk at 5:32 AM on April 6, 2020
Starmer lost to "Did not Vote".
Lots of reports of Labour members failing to receive ballot papers or having issues with voting online (e.g. unable to select Long-Bailey).
posted by Balthamos at 5:34 AM on April 6, 2020 [1 favorite]
Lots of reports of Labour members failing to receive ballot papers or having issues with voting online (e.g. unable to select Long-Bailey).
posted by Balthamos at 5:34 AM on April 6, 2020 [1 favorite]
The irony of the Labour party being lead by someone with the title "Sir" is such a weird juxtaposition.
posted by Your Childhood Pet Rock at 5:48 AM on April 6, 2020 [1 favorite]
posted by Your Childhood Pet Rock at 5:48 AM on April 6, 2020 [1 favorite]
Starmer's record as Director of Public Prosecutions should have been disqualifying. See this thread. I hope he's replaced before the next UK election: we can't afford another Tory MP nor a well-spoken notionally left authoritarian.
posted by imperium at 5:52 AM on April 6, 2020 [3 favorites]
posted by imperium at 5:52 AM on April 6, 2020 [3 favorites]
Corbyn was constantly fighting with his own MPs.
Welll.. yes. but it would be more accurate to say that MPs were constantly fighting Corbyn.
I didn't vote for him, but I'll support the leader, within reason. I'd bet that's true for most of the Labour left in ways that it never was for the Labour right.
posted by Just this guy, y'know at 5:56 AM on April 6, 2020 [2 favorites]
Welll.. yes. but it would be more accurate to say that MPs were constantly fighting Corbyn.
I didn't vote for him, but I'll support the leader, within reason. I'd bet that's true for most of the Labour left in ways that it never was for the Labour right.
posted by Just this guy, y'know at 5:56 AM on April 6, 2020 [2 favorites]
So there's a possibility that Bridget Jones's ex will be Prime Minister? Reality blurs more and more with each passing day..
posted by thatwhichfalls at 6:06 AM on April 6, 2020
posted by thatwhichfalls at 6:06 AM on April 6, 2020
Welll.. yes. but it would be more accurate to say that MPs were constantly fighting Corbyn.
Sure, but the net result is the same. Getting your MPs on side is important if you want to achieve anything, regardless of who you want to blame for that.
posted by Dysk at 6:20 AM on April 6, 2020
Sure, but the net result is the same. Getting your MPs on side is important if you want to achieve anything, regardless of who you want to blame for that.
posted by Dysk at 6:20 AM on April 6, 2020
There was never a magical remain vote for Labour and Corbyn's policy of remaining neutral as party leader was the correct one.
More precisely, there was never a sufficient number of Labour remainers in Labour/Conservative marginals. Most Labour voters also voted remain but many of them were in urban constituencies where Labour already has a massive majority. Increasing that majority even more by adopting a remain position would not have led to any gains in terms of seats.
I think the challenge here is that there was no "correct" position for Labour to take that would not have split the Labour electorate. There is a fault line that is harder for Labour than for any other party to overcome. That is fundamental, a property of what the Labour electorate really believes and there is no magic position that solves it.
Compare them to other parties
The Conservatives tacked far enough on Brexit to completely push out the UKIP / Brexit party mob. Witness Farage's pathetic scrambling for relevance during the general election. This could have cost them a few disaffected pro-business / internationalist voters on the other flank but most of those would either go to the Lib Dems and cost more Labour than Conservative margin or not vote at all in this election (and come back once Brexit was settled). Importantly, most of those people will ultimately vote their economic interests (why they were against Brexit) and will therefore stick with the Conservative party.
The Lib Dems had a simple position on Brexit: against. It did them little good, but MPs, leader, members, voters were aligned.
The SNP similarly had an easy time positioning. Scots voters were against Brexit, the SNP members, MSPs, members, leadership, donor base, everyone was against it. That makes it really easy to determine your position as a party.
Labour on the other hand had a very substantial base of votes who really, really cared about Brexit. It was important to them, more important than voting for the Labour party.
That intensity is important. Conservative remainers ultimately decided that though they were against Brexit, their class interests would be better served by voting Conservative. Some Labour leavers felt that Brexit would serve them better, either economically or emotionally than Jeremy Corbyn as PM.
posted by atrazine at 6:45 AM on April 6, 2020 [8 favorites]
More precisely, there was never a sufficient number of Labour remainers in Labour/Conservative marginals. Most Labour voters also voted remain but many of them were in urban constituencies where Labour already has a massive majority. Increasing that majority even more by adopting a remain position would not have led to any gains in terms of seats.
I think the challenge here is that there was no "correct" position for Labour to take that would not have split the Labour electorate. There is a fault line that is harder for Labour than for any other party to overcome. That is fundamental, a property of what the Labour electorate really believes and there is no magic position that solves it.
Compare them to other parties
The Conservatives tacked far enough on Brexit to completely push out the UKIP / Brexit party mob. Witness Farage's pathetic scrambling for relevance during the general election. This could have cost them a few disaffected pro-business / internationalist voters on the other flank but most of those would either go to the Lib Dems and cost more Labour than Conservative margin or not vote at all in this election (and come back once Brexit was settled). Importantly, most of those people will ultimately vote their economic interests (why they were against Brexit) and will therefore stick with the Conservative party.
The Lib Dems had a simple position on Brexit: against. It did them little good, but MPs, leader, members, voters were aligned.
The SNP similarly had an easy time positioning. Scots voters were against Brexit, the SNP members, MSPs, members, leadership, donor base, everyone was against it. That makes it really easy to determine your position as a party.
Labour on the other hand had a very substantial base of votes who really, really cared about Brexit. It was important to them, more important than voting for the Labour party.
That intensity is important. Conservative remainers ultimately decided that though they were against Brexit, their class interests would be better served by voting Conservative. Some Labour leavers felt that Brexit would serve them better, either economically or emotionally than Jeremy Corbyn as PM.
posted by atrazine at 6:45 AM on April 6, 2020 [8 favorites]
Corbyn has always been anti-Europe and as far as I know he has never changed his opinion on anything, ever. Labour might have threaded the needle or dodged the bullet or whatever, but we'll never know because Corbyn wasn't about to acknowledge that Brexit was a bad idea.
posted by Joe in Australia at 6:51 AM on April 6, 2020 [1 favorite]
posted by Joe in Australia at 6:51 AM on April 6, 2020 [1 favorite]
I think the challenge here is that there was no "correct" position for Labour to take that would not have split the Labour electorate.
There was no "correct" answer but there was sure as hell a right one.
At least if Corbyn came out with a full throated remainer position it would have been clear where to go if you were remain. No referendum. Revoke A50 first day. The people were wrong, shit is hitting the fan, we're here to lead the country away from the abyss. Let Farage rise from the dead, let the Tories tear themselves apart over it again, and have them fight the next election fighting against another bolt to UKIP. It not only would have attracted as many young people as possible, but it would have turned the election into a true referendum on Brexit which would have been Labour's best shot vs running Boris vs Jezza. Light hearted mophead vs dyed in the wool socialist who was pals with the IRA in the '80s. Even in normal times you wouldn't want the election to come down to that, no matter that Jezza was an order more magnitude a better person than BoJo.
I think this is the problem for a lot of leaders on the left. They want to carpe diem because they finally have the levers of power but most of the electorate just wants the insanity (and uncertainty) to end. Stop promoting huge sweeping change as part of your manifesto. It just scares the normies and scare them it did. Promise realistic and constant improvements to make people's lives better. End Brexit (referrendum? wowee) but acknowledge the struggle that people have had and find ways to fix it (nowhere in the executive summary), more money for the NHS (at least they had this), more money for public services (and this), no more old people being fucked out of their homes (phew they had this), concentrate new investment in economically underperforming areas (u wot m8?) to give opportunities (at least they had council houses).
Let's check the cliff notes. Nationalise key industries? How the fuck does that help anyone in the short term? It's an ideological distraction and electoral suicide. Why would a euroTory on the fence want to come over to Jezza at least for a cycle to end this omnishambles if he's promising to do something so ridiculously abhorrent to a centre-rightie? Abolish private schools' charitable status? Why would you provoke this? Nobody cares until you own goal and make it a god damned wedge issue. Give EU nationals the right to remain? They can't vote. Why would you bring this in as a wedge issue? Your heartland is hurting because of a perceived problem with this and you put it on the stage front and center? Come on, PLP.
Labour heartland voters didn't want to vote Tory, they probably didn't even want to vote for Brexit, but they've had 40 years of being fucked by the establishment, they wanted to scream, and scream they sure as hell did. Why don't Labour leaders look at that and say "yes, you've been fucked, here's my plan to bring your area back to glory" instead of "BT and British Rail will be ours again muhahahaha".
I realize hindsight is 20/20 and this whole post was Captain Hindsight but I would like to point out in the lead up to the election I was decrying this exact situation. There was nowhere for Remainers to vote for beside Lib Dem or SNP and good luck forming a majority in the chaos with those third parties plus Labour. At least if they went in with a bold plan to end the insanity it would have been going down swinging instead of a limp wristed attempt of a socialist who had already lost an election pleasing nobody.
posted by Your Childhood Pet Rock at 7:07 AM on April 6, 2020 [17 favorites]
There was no "correct" answer but there was sure as hell a right one.
At least if Corbyn came out with a full throated remainer position it would have been clear where to go if you were remain. No referendum. Revoke A50 first day. The people were wrong, shit is hitting the fan, we're here to lead the country away from the abyss. Let Farage rise from the dead, let the Tories tear themselves apart over it again, and have them fight the next election fighting against another bolt to UKIP. It not only would have attracted as many young people as possible, but it would have turned the election into a true referendum on Brexit which would have been Labour's best shot vs running Boris vs Jezza. Light hearted mophead vs dyed in the wool socialist who was pals with the IRA in the '80s. Even in normal times you wouldn't want the election to come down to that, no matter that Jezza was an order more magnitude a better person than BoJo.
I think this is the problem for a lot of leaders on the left. They want to carpe diem because they finally have the levers of power but most of the electorate just wants the insanity (and uncertainty) to end. Stop promoting huge sweeping change as part of your manifesto. It just scares the normies and scare them it did. Promise realistic and constant improvements to make people's lives better. End Brexit (referrendum? wowee) but acknowledge the struggle that people have had and find ways to fix it (nowhere in the executive summary), more money for the NHS (at least they had this), more money for public services (and this), no more old people being fucked out of their homes (phew they had this), concentrate new investment in economically underperforming areas (u wot m8?) to give opportunities (at least they had council houses).
Let's check the cliff notes. Nationalise key industries? How the fuck does that help anyone in the short term? It's an ideological distraction and electoral suicide. Why would a euroTory on the fence want to come over to Jezza at least for a cycle to end this omnishambles if he's promising to do something so ridiculously abhorrent to a centre-rightie? Abolish private schools' charitable status? Why would you provoke this? Nobody cares until you own goal and make it a god damned wedge issue. Give EU nationals the right to remain? They can't vote. Why would you bring this in as a wedge issue? Your heartland is hurting because of a perceived problem with this and you put it on the stage front and center? Come on, PLP.
Labour heartland voters didn't want to vote Tory, they probably didn't even want to vote for Brexit, but they've had 40 years of being fucked by the establishment, they wanted to scream, and scream they sure as hell did. Why don't Labour leaders look at that and say "yes, you've been fucked, here's my plan to bring your area back to glory" instead of "BT and British Rail will be ours again muhahahaha".
I realize hindsight is 20/20 and this whole post was Captain Hindsight but I would like to point out in the lead up to the election I was decrying this exact situation. There was nowhere for Remainers to vote for beside Lib Dem or SNP and good luck forming a majority in the chaos with those third parties plus Labour. At least if they went in with a bold plan to end the insanity it would have been going down swinging instead of a limp wristed attempt of a socialist who had already lost an election pleasing nobody.
posted by Your Childhood Pet Rock at 7:07 AM on April 6, 2020 [17 favorites]
Thanks for this post, I look forward to reading all the linked articles.
We are just at the very beginning of some very hard times, and it's hard to say right now who has what it needs to deal with them. Good riddance to Corbyn, but that was already a given.
posted by mumimor at 7:16 AM on April 6, 2020 [1 favorite]
We are just at the very beginning of some very hard times, and it's hard to say right now who has what it needs to deal with them. Good riddance to Corbyn, but that was already a given.
posted by mumimor at 7:16 AM on April 6, 2020 [1 favorite]
I think people have been a little distracted by other matters in recent weeks.
Glibly dismissing a huge drop in engagement with no actual data to back this up seems extremely wise!
posted by ominous_paws at 7:48 AM on April 6, 2020 [2 favorites]
Glibly dismissing a huge drop in engagement with no actual data to back this up seems extremely wise!
posted by ominous_paws at 7:48 AM on April 6, 2020 [2 favorites]
Well if the Corbynites/Momentum hadn't badgered MeFi's own Tom Watson out the party then perhaps the new leader of the Labour Party might have been someone a bit more left on the spectrum and to the liking of Corbyn's fans than Starmer.
posted by PenDevil at 7:54 AM on April 6, 2020 [7 favorites]
posted by PenDevil at 7:54 AM on April 6, 2020 [7 favorites]
There was never a magical remain vote for Labour and Corbyn's policy of remaining neutral as party leader was the correct one.
There were never any magical votes available for Labour full stop. Corbyn's idea that they should just cut their engines in the middle of this storm and drift in the waves is exactly the reason they sank to the bottom of the ocean. The case for remain was piss easy to make and anyone with a sense of heart and the will to stand up for what they believe in could've changed the narrative hugely.
Especially as a barrister with a sense of tactics and the ability to quickly master a subject and win an argument.
As for the fact he has a knighthood? Well, he grew up poor and made his way up to where he is. He's fought for what he's got. And the only people who are calling him Sir Keir are the ones who want to slight him for it. He's Keir to everyone else, unless I'm reading the coverage and press releases wrong.
posted by ambrosen at 8:05 AM on April 6, 2020 [14 favorites]
There were never any magical votes available for Labour full stop. Corbyn's idea that they should just cut their engines in the middle of this storm and drift in the waves is exactly the reason they sank to the bottom of the ocean. The case for remain was piss easy to make and anyone with a sense of heart and the will to stand up for what they believe in could've changed the narrative hugely.
Especially as a barrister with a sense of tactics and the ability to quickly master a subject and win an argument.
As for the fact he has a knighthood? Well, he grew up poor and made his way up to where he is. He's fought for what he's got. And the only people who are calling him Sir Keir are the ones who want to slight him for it. He's Keir to everyone else, unless I'm reading the coverage and press releases wrong.
posted by ambrosen at 8:05 AM on April 6, 2020 [14 favorites]
From what I'm reading, this guy sounds a lot like Justin Trudeau: a guy who exudes competence and reasonableness and knows the correct stance to take on progressive issues, and will almost certainly do the right thing if it's easy, but we won't really know where he really stands until we see what he's willing to spend political capital on when he's in charge.
posted by Reyturner at 9:27 AM on April 6, 2020 [1 favorite]
posted by Reyturner at 9:27 AM on April 6, 2020 [1 favorite]
Reyturner, he was one of 5 children, his dad was a toolmaker, his mum was a nurse who had chronic illness.
I don't think he's like Justin Trudeau. He's also nearly 20 years older than him.
posted by ambrosen at 10:45 AM on April 6, 2020 [3 favorites]
I don't think he's like Justin Trudeau. He's also nearly 20 years older than him.
posted by ambrosen at 10:45 AM on April 6, 2020 [3 favorites]
I'm glad there will no longer be such anti-Semitism as...let's see...criticizing Israeli actions in the West Bank.
posted by Ghostride The Whip at 11:23 AM on April 6, 2020 [8 favorites]
posted by Ghostride The Whip at 11:23 AM on April 6, 2020 [8 favorites]
It's not just about how he came up, but who he's beholden too and what his power base is. And anyone who says they understand the "moral case for socialism" but also is liked by centrists and lost to "did not vote" is a pretty decent candidate for a wait-and-see policy, imo.
posted by Reyturner at 11:37 AM on April 6, 2020
posted by Reyturner at 11:37 AM on April 6, 2020
I'm glad there will no longer be such anti-Semitism as...let's see...criticizing Israeli actions in the West Bank.
That's disingenuous. Demanding of a Jewish group that they condemn Israeli atrocities is antisemitic in that it seems to hold them to some extent responsible for Israeli actions, simply by virtue of being Jewish. Why isn't she making those demands of everyone? Why single that organisation out? Because they're Jewish. That's holding them to a different standard to everyone else by virtue of their Jewishness. It's not that she's (implicitly) criticising Israeli actions in the West Bank - it's that she's demanding that of a Jewish group specifically.
It's not hard to understand why, for example, singling out German-Americans to demand they denounce the Nazi Party is problematic, or picking out trans people to demand they denounce Caitlyn Jenner is a weird and off-putting thing to do, an implicit accusation based on their race or gender. Why is it hard to understand here?
posted by Dysk at 12:10 PM on April 6, 2020 [10 favorites]
That's disingenuous. Demanding of a Jewish group that they condemn Israeli atrocities is antisemitic in that it seems to hold them to some extent responsible for Israeli actions, simply by virtue of being Jewish. Why isn't she making those demands of everyone? Why single that organisation out? Because they're Jewish. That's holding them to a different standard to everyone else by virtue of their Jewishness. It's not that she's (implicitly) criticising Israeli actions in the West Bank - it's that she's demanding that of a Jewish group specifically.
It's not hard to understand why, for example, singling out German-Americans to demand they denounce the Nazi Party is problematic, or picking out trans people to demand they denounce Caitlyn Jenner is a weird and off-putting thing to do, an implicit accusation based on their race or gender. Why is it hard to understand here?
posted by Dysk at 12:10 PM on April 6, 2020 [10 favorites]
It's not just about how he came up, but who he's beholden too and what his power base is. And anyone who says they understand the "moral case for socialism" but also is liked by centrists and lost to "did not vote" is a pretty decent candidate for a wait-and-see policy, imo.
Aside from the whole coronavirus distraction, a lot of current members are people who joined specifically to support Corbyn. And Rebecca Long-Bailey, pretty much the Corbyn continuity candidate, was roundly defeated by the guy who lost to did not vote. Pretty sure you wouldn't see the same accusations about her (because the same script - minus the specific talking-point about did not vote - was rampant with respect to Starmer during the campaign, largely from RLB supporters) despite that. Maybe you aren't, but your arguments sure look a lot like the ones being deployed by people looking for any stick to beat anyone who isn't a straight-up acolyte of Corbyn with.
Or, if your concern is Starmer losing to did not vote, you should be even more concerned about the other candidates, who are evidently even less popular with the Labour base (if you genuinely believe that the number of Labour members who didn't vote actually means something).
posted by Dysk at 12:18 PM on April 6, 2020 [5 favorites]
Aside from the whole coronavirus distraction, a lot of current members are people who joined specifically to support Corbyn. And Rebecca Long-Bailey, pretty much the Corbyn continuity candidate, was roundly defeated by the guy who lost to did not vote. Pretty sure you wouldn't see the same accusations about her (because the same script - minus the specific talking-point about did not vote - was rampant with respect to Starmer during the campaign, largely from RLB supporters) despite that. Maybe you aren't, but your arguments sure look a lot like the ones being deployed by people looking for any stick to beat anyone who isn't a straight-up acolyte of Corbyn with.
Or, if your concern is Starmer losing to did not vote, you should be even more concerned about the other candidates, who are evidently even less popular with the Labour base (if you genuinely believe that the number of Labour members who didn't vote actually means something).
posted by Dysk at 12:18 PM on April 6, 2020 [5 favorites]
From what I'm reading, this guy sounds a lot like Justin Trudeau:
It's not just about how he came up, but who he's beholden too and what his power base is.
Sorry, are you an expert, or have you only just heard of him?
I'm sorry I didn't include his full CV, because it's quite impressive. You can look it up for yourself. To me, it's weird to compare him to your Prime Minister, because Trudeau never, for example gave pro bono legal assistance to environmental activists who were defending a high profile libel case against McDonald's.
posted by ambrosen at 2:14 PM on April 6, 2020 [9 favorites]
It's not just about how he came up, but who he's beholden too and what his power base is.
Sorry, are you an expert, or have you only just heard of him?
I'm sorry I didn't include his full CV, because it's quite impressive. You can look it up for yourself. To me, it's weird to compare him to your Prime Minister, because Trudeau never, for example gave pro bono legal assistance to environmental activists who were defending a high profile libel case against McDonald's.
posted by ambrosen at 2:14 PM on April 6, 2020 [9 favorites]
Enjoyed: Ah shit. I don't think I want to do this now.
posted by ominous_paws at 11:12 PM on April 6, 2020 [1 favorite]
posted by ominous_paws at 11:12 PM on April 6, 2020 [1 favorite]
I can't abide Trudeau. But Starmer:
1. decided not to prosecute police over a racist killing
2. decided not to prosecute police over the killing of an innocent bystander
3. conversely decided to prosecute a man for an obvious and harmless joke
4. failed to oppose a Tory assault on the poor
5. protected the security services from torture prosecutions
6. etc etc
I cannot understand why anyone would regard him as an acceptable person to lead a notionally left party.
posted by imperium at 3:40 AM on April 7, 2020 [4 favorites]
1. decided not to prosecute police over a racist killing
2. decided not to prosecute police over the killing of an innocent bystander
3. conversely decided to prosecute a man for an obvious and harmless joke
4. failed to oppose a Tory assault on the poor
5. protected the security services from torture prosecutions
6. etc etc
I cannot understand why anyone would regard him as an acceptable person to lead a notionally left party.
posted by imperium at 3:40 AM on April 7, 2020 [4 favorites]
Labour heartland voters didn't want to vote Tory, they probably didn't even want to vote for Brexit,
Oh, did they not? Jesus maybe I can make a novelty account, "This is why we have a Tory government" and just favourite the most amusing comments on Metafilter.
posted by atrazine at 3:49 AM on April 7, 2020 [3 favorites]
Oh, did they not? Jesus maybe I can make a novelty account, "This is why we have a Tory government" and just favourite the most amusing comments on Metafilter.
posted by atrazine at 3:49 AM on April 7, 2020 [3 favorites]
1. decided not to prosecute police over a racist killing
"In fact, the decision not to prosecute an individual police officer in this case was made by the Crown Prosecution Service in 2006, two years before Keir became the Director of Public Prosecutions."
Other highlights (courtesy of @legalclaret) include blaming Starmer for a decision in 2009 not to prosecute the police officers who killed Jean Charles de Menezes. This decision was actually taken in 2006. By a different Director of Public Prosecutions (Sir Ken Macdonald).
2. decided not to prosecute police over the killing of an innocent bystander
"The DPP, Keir Starmer, says the decision was taken because there was no prospect of conviction since experts could not agree on how he died [...] Keir Starmer will decide if the policeman who pushed the 47-year-old to the ground at London's G20 protests should be charged with manslaughter [...] The DPP said there was now a "realistic prospect" of convicting PC Harwood as he announces the officer is to face a manslaughter charge [...] PC Harwood appears at City of Westminster Magistrates' Court charged with manslaughter and is bailed until 17 October."
So he opposed the charge when he felt there was no reasonable prospect of conviction. After some of the conflicting evidence was cast into doubt (by a pathologist being disgraced and struck from the record) and more evidence came to light in an inquiry, he did bring a prosecution for manslaughter. Perhaps optimistically, as he wasn't convicted.
3. conversely decided to prosecute a man for an obvious and harmless joke
From your own link: "A CPS spokesperson denied Starmer was a decision-maker in the case and insisted he did not overrule his subordinates. The spokesperson said that conceding the appeal had been a consideration at one stage but this was not possible because only the high court could overturn a crown court finding."
4. failed to oppose a Tory assault on the poor
From your own link: "Labour’s leadership recommended an abstention against the bill as a whole" There were also 183 other Labour MPs (including the vast majority of leadership and deputy leadership candidates for this contest) who didn't vote against, what with the whip and all.
5. protected the security services from torture prosecutions
From your own link: "But the CPS "concluded that there is insufficient evidence to prove to the standard required in a criminal court" that any spies provided information when they "knew or ought to have known that there was a real or serious risk that Mr Mohamed would be exposed to ill-treatment amounting to torture".
"Against that background, it is not possible to bring criminal charges against an identifiable individual," the statement said."
And also: "His allegations, and those of one other making similar claims, are "so serious that it is in the public interest for them to be investigated now rather than at the conclusion of the Detainee Inquiry", a joint statement by Mr Starmer and Assistant Commissioner Lynne Owens said."
This is a case of a legal opinion on the weight of evidence and the likelihood of being able to bring a conviction, not an endorsement of the security services or their conduct.
6. etc etc
Yes, this is a very good point that cannot be easily rebutted with facts. :eyeroll:
posted by Dysk at 5:54 AM on April 7, 2020 [13 favorites]
"In fact, the decision not to prosecute an individual police officer in this case was made by the Crown Prosecution Service in 2006, two years before Keir became the Director of Public Prosecutions."
Other highlights (courtesy of @legalclaret) include blaming Starmer for a decision in 2009 not to prosecute the police officers who killed Jean Charles de Menezes. This decision was actually taken in 2006. By a different Director of Public Prosecutions (Sir Ken Macdonald).
2. decided not to prosecute police over the killing of an innocent bystander
"The DPP, Keir Starmer, says the decision was taken because there was no prospect of conviction since experts could not agree on how he died [...] Keir Starmer will decide if the policeman who pushed the 47-year-old to the ground at London's G20 protests should be charged with manslaughter [...] The DPP said there was now a "realistic prospect" of convicting PC Harwood as he announces the officer is to face a manslaughter charge [...] PC Harwood appears at City of Westminster Magistrates' Court charged with manslaughter and is bailed until 17 October."
So he opposed the charge when he felt there was no reasonable prospect of conviction. After some of the conflicting evidence was cast into doubt (by a pathologist being disgraced and struck from the record) and more evidence came to light in an inquiry, he did bring a prosecution for manslaughter. Perhaps optimistically, as he wasn't convicted.
3. conversely decided to prosecute a man for an obvious and harmless joke
From your own link: "A CPS spokesperson denied Starmer was a decision-maker in the case and insisted he did not overrule his subordinates. The spokesperson said that conceding the appeal had been a consideration at one stage but this was not possible because only the high court could overturn a crown court finding."
4. failed to oppose a Tory assault on the poor
From your own link: "Labour’s leadership recommended an abstention against the bill as a whole" There were also 183 other Labour MPs (including the vast majority of leadership and deputy leadership candidates for this contest) who didn't vote against, what with the whip and all.
5. protected the security services from torture prosecutions
From your own link: "But the CPS "concluded that there is insufficient evidence to prove to the standard required in a criminal court" that any spies provided information when they "knew or ought to have known that there was a real or serious risk that Mr Mohamed would be exposed to ill-treatment amounting to torture".
"Against that background, it is not possible to bring criminal charges against an identifiable individual," the statement said."
And also: "His allegations, and those of one other making similar claims, are "so serious that it is in the public interest for them to be investigated now rather than at the conclusion of the Detainee Inquiry", a joint statement by Mr Starmer and Assistant Commissioner Lynne Owens said."
This is a case of a legal opinion on the weight of evidence and the likelihood of being able to bring a conviction, not an endorsement of the security services or their conduct.
6. etc etc
Yes, this is a very good point that cannot be easily rebutted with facts. :eyeroll:
posted by Dysk at 5:54 AM on April 7, 2020 [13 favorites]
Starmer losing to 'Did Not Vote' in a three-way election is a reversion to the norm rather than an indicator of unpopularity.
For comparison, the last time any party actually beat 'Did Not Vote' in a general election was Blair's landslide win in 1997 (which was unquestionably a landslide), and even then it was very close - he got 43.2% of the vote on a 71.3% turnout, giving him the support of 30.8% of the electorate as opposed to the 28.7% who did not vote. Corbyn's level of support in the 2015 / 2016 leadership elections was exceptional (and reflective of the membership boost, Momentum, etc.), not a standard by which every election winner since Blair should be judged and found wanting.
I cannot understand why anyone would regard him as an acceptable person to lead a notionally left party.
Setting aside the not especially informed criticisms of Starmer's record (thank you Dysk)... it's because 'left' is a description that can apply to a range of political views, including but not limited to those deemed acceptable by Corbyn enthusiasts. We tried focusing on purity rather than competence, and look where it got us. Little wonder that the bulk of voters opted for something different.
posted by inire at 6:49 AM on April 7, 2020 [6 favorites]
For comparison, the last time any party actually beat 'Did Not Vote' in a general election was Blair's landslide win in 1997 (which was unquestionably a landslide), and even then it was very close - he got 43.2% of the vote on a 71.3% turnout, giving him the support of 30.8% of the electorate as opposed to the 28.7% who did not vote. Corbyn's level of support in the 2015 / 2016 leadership elections was exceptional (and reflective of the membership boost, Momentum, etc.), not a standard by which every election winner since Blair should be judged and found wanting.
I cannot understand why anyone would regard him as an acceptable person to lead a notionally left party.
Setting aside the not especially informed criticisms of Starmer's record (thank you Dysk)... it's because 'left' is a description that can apply to a range of political views, including but not limited to those deemed acceptable by Corbyn enthusiasts. We tried focusing on purity rather than competence, and look where it got us. Little wonder that the bulk of voters opted for something different.
posted by inire at 6:49 AM on April 7, 2020 [6 favorites]
I'm glad there will no longer be such anti-Semitism as...let's see...criticizing Israeli actions in the West Bank.
Personally I'm glad there will be less of such anti-Semitism as - well, take your pick of the smorgasbord of online and offline incidents from the party leadership on down to student / constituency party level - and that it won't be repeatedly ignored, tolerated or excused to such a degree as to prompt an EHRC investigation. But perhaps that's because I am insufficiently left-wing. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
posted by inire at 7:16 AM on April 7, 2020 [3 favorites]
Personally I'm glad there will be less of such anti-Semitism as - well, take your pick of the smorgasbord of online and offline incidents from the party leadership on down to student / constituency party level - and that it won't be repeatedly ignored, tolerated or excused to such a degree as to prompt an EHRC investigation. But perhaps that's because I am insufficiently left-wing. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
posted by inire at 7:16 AM on April 7, 2020 [3 favorites]
At least if Corbyn came out with a full throated remainer position it would have been clear where to go if you were remain.
It was always clear the only party capable of stopping a hard Brexit was Labour, but continuity remain prefered to do humourous billboard campaigns and throw tantrums rather than acknowledge this.
posted by MartinWisse at 8:11 AM on April 7, 2020
It was always clear the only party capable of stopping a hard Brexit was Labour, but continuity remain prefered to do humourous billboard campaigns and throw tantrums rather than acknowledge this.
posted by MartinWisse at 8:11 AM on April 7, 2020
It was always clear the only party capable of stopping a hard Brexit was Labour, but continuity remain prefered to do humourous billboard campaigns and throw tantrums rather than acknowledge this.
You've slyly moved the goal posts here. Any brexit is a bad brexit.
posted by Dysk at 8:14 AM on April 7, 2020
You've slyly moved the goal posts here. Any brexit is a bad brexit.
posted by Dysk at 8:14 AM on April 7, 2020
You responded to someone talking about a remain position by saying Labour was how to stop a hard brexit. That is moving the goalposts, and slyly - by trying to equate a soft brexit with remain. Soft brexit is not a remain position.
Any brexit is a bad brexit is the position of sense - you necessarily give up something by leaving, influence if nothing else. But there's no need to rehash this debate, or indeed mock each other with bizarre mocking capitalisation or insults.
posted by Dysk at 8:23 AM on April 7, 2020 [1 favorite]
Any brexit is a bad brexit is the position of sense - you necessarily give up something by leaving, influence if nothing else. But there's no need to rehash this debate, or indeed mock each other with bizarre mocking capitalisation or insults.
posted by Dysk at 8:23 AM on April 7, 2020 [1 favorite]
It's abundantly clear that Corbyn's laziness and lacklustre understanding of what the EU is and why it has value is the significant contributory factor to the idiotic Brexit that we (more or less, let's see if anything happens during the remainder of the transition period) have.
And what you call "Continuity remain" (odd to allude to The Troubles if you're not being deliberately inflammatory) and I call #FBPE are also pretty lacking in political nous, but then that's been a big problem in Westminster politics for a good decade or so.
posted by ambrosen at 8:29 AM on April 7, 2020 [2 favorites]
And what you call "Continuity remain" (odd to allude to The Troubles if you're not being deliberately inflammatory) and I call #FBPE are also pretty lacking in political nous, but then that's been a big problem in Westminster politics for a good decade or so.
posted by ambrosen at 8:29 AM on April 7, 2020 [2 favorites]
Mod note: One deleted; MartinWisse, if you want to be in this discussion, act like it.
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 8:30 AM on April 7, 2020
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 8:30 AM on April 7, 2020
And what you call "Continuity remain" (odd to allude to The Troubles if you're not being deliberately inflammatory)
To be fair, the phrase "Continuity Corbyn" has been widely used throughout the leadership election (including by its subject, Long-Bailey, and across the spectrum of English press), so I would hesitate to suggest that it's deliberately inflammatory phrasing, albeit it's perhaps not in the best taste.
posted by inire at 9:31 AM on April 7, 2020
To be fair, the phrase "Continuity Corbyn" has been widely used throughout the leadership election (including by its subject, Long-Bailey, and across the spectrum of English press), so I would hesitate to suggest that it's deliberately inflammatory phrasing, albeit it's perhaps not in the best taste.
posted by inire at 9:31 AM on April 7, 2020
Turns out there probably wasn’t a big anti-Semitism problem, the Labour Right just really hated Jeremy Corbyn. https://news.sky.com/story/labour-antisemitism-investigation-will-not-be-sent-to-equality-commission-11972071
posted by Ghostride The Whip at 2:37 PM on April 11, 2020 [3 favorites]
posted by Ghostride The Whip at 2:37 PM on April 11, 2020 [3 favorites]
Thanks for that, Ghostride the Whip. Wow, there is evidence of some really foul conversations in there.
posted by paduasoy at 10:01 PM on April 11, 2020
posted by paduasoy at 10:01 PM on April 11, 2020
Yeah, the unpublished report has been sent to a number of left-wing journalists
Starmer will do nothing (half the names showing up in the transcripts are his campaign team) and "centrists" will desperately try to draw a line under the whole thing like Boris Johnson thanking Luis from Portugal for saving his life while ploughing on with Brexit.
posted by fullerine at 1:09 PM on April 12, 2020 [3 favorites]
Starmer will do nothing (half the names showing up in the transcripts are his campaign team) and "centrists" will desperately try to draw a line under the whole thing like Boris Johnson thanking Luis from Portugal for saving his life while ploughing on with Brexit.
posted by fullerine at 1:09 PM on April 12, 2020 [3 favorites]
Some of the stuff in that link, fullerine - well, I wish it were unbelievable. And Operation Cake? Madness.
posted by paduasoy at 1:39 PM on April 12, 2020 [1 favorite]
posted by paduasoy at 1:39 PM on April 12, 2020 [1 favorite]
Turns out there probably wasn’t a big anti-Semitism problem
From your linked article:
From your linked article:
Following what the report describes as a "systematic review" of all complaints received between November 2016 to February 2018, it claims investigations were initiated into only 34 of the more than 300 complaints received in relation to antisemitism.posted by No Robots at 1:53 PM on April 12, 2020 [2 favorites]
"At least half of these warranted action, many of them in relation to very extreme forms of antisemitism, but were ignored. Almost all of these complaints were forwarded from one inbox to another, and many of them were identified as Labour members and sent to the Head of Disputes, Sam Matthews, for action", the report claims.
Sam Matthews ran Starmer's leadership campaign by the way.
My initial comment was a lot longer but I'm so fucking annoyed at the right wing fuckery that has befallen the socialist movements on both sides of the Atlantic that I struggle to articulate it without using what Malcolm Tucker referred to as violent sexual imagery.
One of the most horrifying aspects of the report is the right wing of the Labour party deliberately mismanaging investigations into antisemitism in order to "save them up" to attack Corbyn. You had Labour Party investigators half-arsing investigations, being sacked and then complaining about the "rise of antisemitisim" in the Labour Party which they had fucking contributed to. They did not give a flying fuck about the effect on Jewish people they just wanted Corbyn to lose and this was something that worked.
So they will now claim this report is just Corbyn allies (Trots as they called them) trying to absolve themselves of blame.
You will also have the left saying there is no antisemitism in the Labour Party. The problem is there is always a risk of antisemitism in any Pro-Palestinian movement simply because evil racists are evil and using criticism of the actions of the Israeli government as a vehicle for antisemitism is not something they have moral qualms about (What with them being bigoted fuckstains).
Bigotry is vile and is always to be guarded against even if it comes from "your side". Racism, homophobia, misogyny, transphobia is to be called out, stamped out and fought regardless of where it is coming from. TERFs don't get a pass on Transphobia just because they dress their hatred up in fake support for women or gay rights. Knowing that some people amplifying the claims of antisemitism on the left were doing it to attack socialism is frustrating but it doesn't fucking matter you should be fighting against bigotry and oppression wherever it is. They will lie and cheat because that's what they do. We will fight them because that's what we do. If you want to close your eyes to bigotry in order to win elections then you're no better than the melts.
I hope some see that complaints about "weaponised accusations" were not to deflect from the problem but it was because we knew this was going on. Just as I hope that this isn't used as an excuse to claim they were all made up because that's not true either.
posted by fullerine at 2:50 PM on April 12, 2020 [3 favorites]
My initial comment was a lot longer but I'm so fucking annoyed at the right wing fuckery that has befallen the socialist movements on both sides of the Atlantic that I struggle to articulate it without using what Malcolm Tucker referred to as violent sexual imagery.
One of the most horrifying aspects of the report is the right wing of the Labour party deliberately mismanaging investigations into antisemitism in order to "save them up" to attack Corbyn. You had Labour Party investigators half-arsing investigations, being sacked and then complaining about the "rise of antisemitisim" in the Labour Party which they had fucking contributed to. They did not give a flying fuck about the effect on Jewish people they just wanted Corbyn to lose and this was something that worked.
So they will now claim this report is just Corbyn allies (Trots as they called them) trying to absolve themselves of blame.
You will also have the left saying there is no antisemitism in the Labour Party. The problem is there is always a risk of antisemitism in any Pro-Palestinian movement simply because evil racists are evil and using criticism of the actions of the Israeli government as a vehicle for antisemitism is not something they have moral qualms about (What with them being bigoted fuckstains).
Bigotry is vile and is always to be guarded against even if it comes from "your side". Racism, homophobia, misogyny, transphobia is to be called out, stamped out and fought regardless of where it is coming from. TERFs don't get a pass on Transphobia just because they dress their hatred up in fake support for women or gay rights. Knowing that some people amplifying the claims of antisemitism on the left were doing it to attack socialism is frustrating but it doesn't fucking matter you should be fighting against bigotry and oppression wherever it is. They will lie and cheat because that's what they do. We will fight them because that's what we do. If you want to close your eyes to bigotry in order to win elections then you're no better than the melts.
I hope some see that complaints about "weaponised accusations" were not to deflect from the problem but it was because we knew this was going on. Just as I hope that this isn't used as an excuse to claim they were all made up because that's not true either.
posted by fullerine at 2:50 PM on April 12, 2020 [3 favorites]
Turns out there probably wasn’t a big anti-Semitism problem, the Labour Right just really hated Jeremy Corbyn.
Take a step outside your bubble and ask yourself how you'd react to someone saying that about other political parties or other marginalised groups. Hey guys, the Republicans aren't racist, it's a false perception created by an internal struggle against that man of peace, Donald Trump.
Up thread someone snarks about how the Labour Party will no longer be doing "antisemitic" things like "criticizing Israeli actions in the West Bank." As Dysk pointed out, the antisemitism in that lay in demanding that the Board of Deputies apologise for it. It was one of a list of ten demands made by "Rachael Swindon" - there seems to be some doubt as to who is behind it - an Internet figure who also keeps banging on about "Rothschilds" and other conspiracy theories involving Jews.
The report that has you so incredibly relieved is just the parting shot of the old brigade to exonerate themselves before the EHRC report comes down. It's self-serving lies, because the rot comes from the top, from Corbyn himself. He's hung around cranks and antisemites all his life, he has defended and encouraged them, and he and his cronies are the ones responsible.
posted by Joe in Australia at 3:27 PM on April 12, 2020 [1 favorite]
Take a step outside your bubble and ask yourself how you'd react to someone saying that about other political parties or other marginalised groups. Hey guys, the Republicans aren't racist, it's a false perception created by an internal struggle against that man of peace, Donald Trump.
Up thread someone snarks about how the Labour Party will no longer be doing "antisemitic" things like "criticizing Israeli actions in the West Bank." As Dysk pointed out, the antisemitism in that lay in demanding that the Board of Deputies apologise for it. It was one of a list of ten demands made by "Rachael Swindon" - there seems to be some doubt as to who is behind it - an Internet figure who also keeps banging on about "Rothschilds" and other conspiracy theories involving Jews.
The report that has you so incredibly relieved is just the parting shot of the old brigade to exonerate themselves before the EHRC report comes down. It's self-serving lies, because the rot comes from the top, from Corbyn himself. He's hung around cranks and antisemites all his life, he has defended and encouraged them, and he and his cronies are the ones responsible.
posted by Joe in Australia at 3:27 PM on April 12, 2020 [1 favorite]
the rot comes from the top, from Corbyn himself.
If you had read 1 sentence of this you would know that it absolutely doesn't. You would know that Corbyn and his associates were the ones FIXING the problem.
The right of the party used the jewish community as a political football. They did nothing about anti-semitism, stoked it even and then used it as an ideological attack.
posted by Just this guy, y'know at 5:04 AM on April 13, 2020 [1 favorite]
If you had read 1 sentence of this you would know that it absolutely doesn't. You would know that Corbyn and his associates were the ones FIXING the problem.
The right of the party used the jewish community as a political football. They did nothing about anti-semitism, stoked it even and then used it as an ideological attack.
posted by Just this guy, y'know at 5:04 AM on April 13, 2020 [1 favorite]
Corbyn and his associates were the ones FIXING the problem.
The best, the kindest thing you might say about Corbyn is that he is so utterly thick that he didn't realise that Freedom for Humanity was antisemitic, that Imperialism: A Study was antisemitic, that Dei Yassin Remembered was antisemitic, etc. If he's that thick, though, he would have been utterly useless at "fixing the problem", no?
In any event, British Jews were pretty much united in their assessment of Corbyn. The chief rabbi addressed it. All three Jewish newspapers shared a common editorial about it. A poll showed that eighty-five percent of British Jews believe Corbyn is an antisemite. Nearly forty percent of them said that they were contemplating emigrating if he became PM. You cannot meaningfully call yourself an anti-racist if you refuse to listen to such a huge preponderance of a marginalised community telling you something.
The right of the party used the jewish community as a political football. They did nothing about anti-semitism [...].
I am astonished that anyone could say that it was "the right of the party" that was responsible for this shambles. Corbyn was the Party Leader, head of the Shadow Cabinet and appointed the whips. His mates held all the key positions and together with them he controlled the NEC and most CLPs. We do in fact know what happened to MPs who spoke out about antisemitism in the Labour Party: they were purged. They were deselected. Or they resigned, sometimes in tears.
The right of the party [...] used it as an ideological attack.
And so they should. I wish they had done more, earlier, and louder. Maybe the Labour Party wouldn't have lost so many of its Jewish members, maybe political discourse in the UK wouldn't have been further poisoned, maybe we wouldn't be facing perhaps a decade of Boffo Boris Johnson making funny faces at us from No. 10.
posted by Joe in Australia at 5:53 AM on April 13, 2020 [1 favorite]
The best, the kindest thing you might say about Corbyn is that he is so utterly thick that he didn't realise that Freedom for Humanity was antisemitic, that Imperialism: A Study was antisemitic, that Dei Yassin Remembered was antisemitic, etc. If he's that thick, though, he would have been utterly useless at "fixing the problem", no?
In any event, British Jews were pretty much united in their assessment of Corbyn. The chief rabbi addressed it. All three Jewish newspapers shared a common editorial about it. A poll showed that eighty-five percent of British Jews believe Corbyn is an antisemite. Nearly forty percent of them said that they were contemplating emigrating if he became PM. You cannot meaningfully call yourself an anti-racist if you refuse to listen to such a huge preponderance of a marginalised community telling you something.
The right of the party used the jewish community as a political football. They did nothing about anti-semitism [...].
I am astonished that anyone could say that it was "the right of the party" that was responsible for this shambles. Corbyn was the Party Leader, head of the Shadow Cabinet and appointed the whips. His mates held all the key positions and together with them he controlled the NEC and most CLPs. We do in fact know what happened to MPs who spoke out about antisemitism in the Labour Party: they were purged. They were deselected. Or they resigned, sometimes in tears.
The right of the party [...] used it as an ideological attack.
And so they should. I wish they had done more, earlier, and louder. Maybe the Labour Party wouldn't have lost so many of its Jewish members, maybe political discourse in the UK wouldn't have been further poisoned, maybe we wouldn't be facing perhaps a decade of Boffo Boris Johnson making funny faces at us from No. 10.
posted by Joe in Australia at 5:53 AM on April 13, 2020 [1 favorite]
you are flat out provably wrong.
In the past you have claimed that Ken Livingston not being expelled was proof of anti semitism.
Do you stick by that?
Because it was done by Tom Watson to embarrass corbyn.
That is tangibly using anti semitism to attack ideological opponents.
They delayed investigating cases of anti-semitism in the party, delayed expelling members who were anti semitic
and then pointed at the backlog they caused and blamed corbyn.
Their actions hurt and pain to british jews to damage corbyn.
That, to me, is indefensible.
And that's what you're defending.
And as a final aside they were actively fighting for labour to lose the election and they succeeded.
So the blame for Johson in downing street is on them. Not on Corbyn.
posted by Just this guy, y'know at 6:15 AM on April 13, 2020 [1 favorite]
In the past you have claimed that Ken Livingston not being expelled was proof of anti semitism.
Do you stick by that?
Because it was done by Tom Watson to embarrass corbyn.
That is tangibly using anti semitism to attack ideological opponents.
They delayed investigating cases of anti-semitism in the party, delayed expelling members who were anti semitic
and then pointed at the backlog they caused and blamed corbyn.
Their actions hurt and pain to british jews to damage corbyn.
That, to me, is indefensible.
And that's what you're defending.
And as a final aside they were actively fighting for labour to lose the election and they succeeded.
So the blame for Johson in downing street is on them. Not on Corbyn.
posted by Just this guy, y'know at 6:15 AM on April 13, 2020 [1 favorite]
Joe, between your relentless haranguing of both the british and american left - where on earth do you find time for Australian politics?
posted by ominous_paws at 9:25 AM on April 13, 2020 [6 favorites]
posted by ominous_paws at 9:25 AM on April 13, 2020 [6 favorites]
The Novara Media article refers to the 2017 election. After that Corbyn and his team were able to replace virtually all the party SMT and proceed to... lose the next general election by a much larger margin. I don't think anyone has ever doubted that there were people in the party who didn't want Corbyn to win, I don't doubt there's people working for the party who would be horrified if Starmer wins the next election and both for the same reason - if Corbyn/Starmer wins then the Left/Right of the party has won the argument for a generation.
Corbyn's team has now produced an internal report "showing" that: surprise, surprise, none of it was their fault. There was never any anti-Semitism, certainly not by them. Everything was the fault of political enemies within the party.
Who knows? Some of it may even be true. We'll see what the EHRC finds.
Let me tell you this though: If I went around on Metafilter claiming that there was no racism against black people or Asians in the police and based that on an internal police report, I would not be taken seriously. The comments might well even be deleted because of the shit storm they would trigger.
posted by atrazine at 10:45 AM on April 13, 2020 [3 favorites]
Corbyn's team has now produced an internal report "showing" that: surprise, surprise, none of it was their fault. There was never any anti-Semitism, certainly not by them. Everything was the fault of political enemies within the party.
Who knows? Some of it may even be true. We'll see what the EHRC finds.
Let me tell you this though: If I went around on Metafilter claiming that there was no racism against black people or Asians in the police and based that on an internal police report, I would not be taken seriously. The comments might well even be deleted because of the shit storm they would trigger.
posted by atrazine at 10:45 AM on April 13, 2020 [3 favorites]
There was never any anti-Semitism, certainly not by them.
It doesn't say that.
posted by Just this guy, y'know at 10:50 AM on April 13, 2020
It doesn't say that.
posted by Just this guy, y'know at 10:50 AM on April 13, 2020
In the past you have claimed that Ken Livingston not being expelled was proof of anti semitism.
Do you stick by that?
Because it was done by Tom Watson to embarrass corbyn.
That is tangibly using anti semitism to attack ideological opponents.
Actual quote from the report on the Livingston thing:
"Got a crazy tale for you...Apparently Karie has been telling Shadow Cabinet members that I have orchestrated the Ken situation so that KL made provocative comments and then Tom got his people on the panel to make a soft decision, all inorder to embarrass JC and createa crisis"
So. It looks like a quote from someone, about something that Karie Murphy was claiming at the time about the Ken Livingstone thing.
posted by atrazine at 10:55 AM on April 13, 2020 [1 favorite]
Do you stick by that?
Because it was done by Tom Watson to embarrass corbyn.
That is tangibly using anti semitism to attack ideological opponents.
Actual quote from the report on the Livingston thing:
"Got a crazy tale for you...Apparently Karie has been telling Shadow Cabinet members that I have orchestrated the Ken situation so that KL made provocative comments and then Tom got his people on the panel to make a soft decision, all inorder to embarrass JC and createa crisis"
So. It looks like a quote from someone, about something that Karie Murphy was claiming at the time about the Ken Livingstone thing.
posted by atrazine at 10:55 AM on April 13, 2020 [1 favorite]
The report is out there for anyone who wants to read it.
From the conclusion.
This document tells an unhappy story. It is important to state that the fundamental issue it highlights is the existence of antisemitic ideas within our society, and the ways in which these have manifested within the Labour Party and on the left of British politics. It cannot be repeated too often that antisemitism has no place in society, nor in any democratic political organisation, least of all one committed to anti-racism and equality for all.
This report addresses one important aspect of that broader problem, but it should not obscure the bigger picture – that the eradication of this hateful ideology which has caused so much death and misery requires political leadership and education from all parties, including ours.
We have shown here that, when antisemitism first began to emerge as a problem that needed to be addressed urgently in the Labour Party, our structures were not equipped to deal with it. The system for handling complaints and investigating them, and for taking disciplinary action against offenders, were dysfunctional. This was far too slow to change. The processes were ill-equipped for dealing with even a small number of complaints, relating not just to antisemitism but to all types of misconduct or prejudice, let alone the increase in complaints that resulted from party membership rising to unprecedented levels.
The research undertaken has also revealed two further specific problems.
The first is that, while political disagreement is normal in any democratic political party, an abnormal intensity of factional opposition to the Party leader during this time inhibited the proper functioning of the Labour Party bureaucracy, including the Governance and Legal Unit. This had an impact on the handling of complaints and disciplinary investigations, amongst many other areas of work.
The second is that Party management was for several years unequal to the task of effectively supervising existing procedures and transitioning to more robust and efficient systems. Whilst an opposition to antisemitism and to members who exhibit antisemitic conduct was evident, rigorous and far-reaching reforms neccessary to bring the Party’s procedures up to standard were not undertaken early enough.
We believe this report demonstrates an unprecedented level of openness, honesty and transparency in confronting our own past shortcomings. Our overriding objective regardless of anything else is to eradicate the virus of antisemitism from our Party and make our Party a safe and welcoming home for Jewish members.
Never Again.
posted by fullerine at 11:43 AM on April 13, 2020 [2 favorites]
From the conclusion.
This document tells an unhappy story. It is important to state that the fundamental issue it highlights is the existence of antisemitic ideas within our society, and the ways in which these have manifested within the Labour Party and on the left of British politics. It cannot be repeated too often that antisemitism has no place in society, nor in any democratic political organisation, least of all one committed to anti-racism and equality for all.
This report addresses one important aspect of that broader problem, but it should not obscure the bigger picture – that the eradication of this hateful ideology which has caused so much death and misery requires political leadership and education from all parties, including ours.
We have shown here that, when antisemitism first began to emerge as a problem that needed to be addressed urgently in the Labour Party, our structures were not equipped to deal with it. The system for handling complaints and investigating them, and for taking disciplinary action against offenders, were dysfunctional. This was far too slow to change. The processes were ill-equipped for dealing with even a small number of complaints, relating not just to antisemitism but to all types of misconduct or prejudice, let alone the increase in complaints that resulted from party membership rising to unprecedented levels.
The research undertaken has also revealed two further specific problems.
The first is that, while political disagreement is normal in any democratic political party, an abnormal intensity of factional opposition to the Party leader during this time inhibited the proper functioning of the Labour Party bureaucracy, including the Governance and Legal Unit. This had an impact on the handling of complaints and disciplinary investigations, amongst many other areas of work.
The second is that Party management was for several years unequal to the task of effectively supervising existing procedures and transitioning to more robust and efficient systems. Whilst an opposition to antisemitism and to members who exhibit antisemitic conduct was evident, rigorous and far-reaching reforms neccessary to bring the Party’s procedures up to standard were not undertaken early enough.
We believe this report demonstrates an unprecedented level of openness, honesty and transparency in confronting our own past shortcomings. Our overriding objective regardless of anything else is to eradicate the virus of antisemitism from our Party and make our Party a safe and welcoming home for Jewish members.
Never Again.
posted by fullerine at 11:43 AM on April 13, 2020 [2 favorites]
The report is out there for anyone who wants to read it.
The unredacted report has now been reposted on neo-Nazi and other antisemitic websites. It contains the names of whistleblowers and people who submitted complaints, some of whom are minors. The Information Commissioner's Office is reportedly looking into this apparent data breach and I understand that some of the people named are now suing the Labour Party and whoever distributed it. There was no need to include their names in the report - frankly, there was no need for the report itself - and releasing it with their names unredacted was very possibly illegal and threatens their safety.
From the part of the report posted here: We believe this report demonstrates an unprecedented level of openness, honesty and transparency in confronting our own past shortcomings.
Well, they would say that. I haven't read the unredacted report and don't plan to, but I see a lot of people who are so very anxious to find their prejudices within it that they've lost the ability to read. E.g., the people above who think the report says that Tom Watson (somehow!) got the Labour Party to not expel Ken Livingstone, or that it "turns out there probably wasn’t a big anti-Semitism problem, the Labour Right just really hated Jeremy Corbyn". So to the extent that the report prepared in good faith, it has fallen at the first hurdle.
posted by Joe in Australia at 9:00 PM on April 13, 2020
The unredacted report has now been reposted on neo-Nazi and other antisemitic websites. It contains the names of whistleblowers and people who submitted complaints, some of whom are minors. The Information Commissioner's Office is reportedly looking into this apparent data breach and I understand that some of the people named are now suing the Labour Party and whoever distributed it. There was no need to include their names in the report - frankly, there was no need for the report itself - and releasing it with their names unredacted was very possibly illegal and threatens their safety.
From the part of the report posted here: We believe this report demonstrates an unprecedented level of openness, honesty and transparency in confronting our own past shortcomings.
Well, they would say that. I haven't read the unredacted report and don't plan to, but I see a lot of people who are so very anxious to find their prejudices within it that they've lost the ability to read. E.g., the people above who think the report says that Tom Watson (somehow!) got the Labour Party to not expel Ken Livingstone, or that it "turns out there probably wasn’t a big anti-Semitism problem, the Labour Right just really hated Jeremy Corbyn". So to the extent that the report prepared in good faith, it has fallen at the first hurdle.
posted by Joe in Australia at 9:00 PM on April 13, 2020
Joe, between your relentless haranguing of both the british and american left
That is what they call a "tone" criticism, and I feel honoured to be put in the same category as "hysterical" feminists or "angry" advocates of racial justice. That being said:
(a) I don't think antisemites count as part of "the left", particularly ones who literally attend meetings with neo-Nazis or make claims about Jews being grubby financiers who control the world;
b) Relentless haranguing, really? I can't even recall the last time I criticised the American left.
posted by Joe in Australia at 9:07 PM on April 13, 2020 [1 favorite]
That is what they call a "tone" criticism, and I feel honoured to be put in the same category as "hysterical" feminists or "angry" advocates of racial justice. That being said:
(a) I don't think antisemites count as part of "the left", particularly ones who literally attend meetings with neo-Nazis or make claims about Jews being grubby financiers who control the world;
b) Relentless haranguing, really? I can't even recall the last time I criticised the American left.
posted by Joe in Australia at 9:07 PM on April 13, 2020 [1 favorite]
I haven't read the unredacted report and don't plan to
Of course not.
Much easier to just make up your mind evidence free isn't it.
Which you're welcome to do of course. But you probably shouldn't be part of this conversation if you don't even care enough to read it.
posted by Just this guy, y'know at 4:47 AM on April 14, 2020
Of course not.
Much easier to just make up your mind evidence free isn't it.
Which you're welcome to do of course. But you probably shouldn't be part of this conversation if you don't even care enough to read it.
posted by Just this guy, y'know at 4:47 AM on April 14, 2020
There's a new post on the 2017 election report.
So I guess we can focus this story on why the fuck he's focusing on the end of lockdown rather than focusing on improving the efficacy of lockdown (with testing, PPE, etc).
posted by ambrosen at 2:07 AM on April 15, 2020 [2 favorites]
So I guess we can focus this story on why the fuck he's focusing on the end of lockdown rather than focusing on improving the efficacy of lockdown (with testing, PPE, etc).
posted by ambrosen at 2:07 AM on April 15, 2020 [2 favorites]
« Older His landscape has folded the last time | 'don't you come near me, "cap" stubbs!' Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
Amen, brother.
posted by No Robots at 9:23 PM on April 5, 2020 [4 favorites]