Jeremy Corbyn's time is up

[Kevbad the Bad]

I think if the right wing media cared about anti-semitism, it would be worth debating it with them. If the right of the labour party cared about anti-semitism, it would be worth arguing definitions with them. They pulled the classic political trick on you: accused you of fucking a pig. Now you feel you have to go around denying it, saying 'I didn't fuck a pig', which leads people to say why is there mud on your flies (look at this minor instance of actual anti-semitism). And then you think you should explain how the mud got there, or deny that the mud exists. And how does that look? When you're accused of fucking a pig in bad faith, move on to the issues that you want to talk about. The more you say 'I didn't fuck a pig' the more people hear about you fucking pigs.

At some point the issue of what actual anti-semitism is and how it can be dealt with does have to be discussed. But it cannot possibly be discussed in this atmosphere. So move on. Come back to it later when it's possible to have a rational discussion. Stop standing there with mud on your flies saying 'I didn't fuck a pig'. It won't build socialism.

I quite see your point. Thing is though, the right wing won't leave it at that and will continue to attack the left on these spurious grounds. Corbyn and co made the mistake initially of agreeing there was a problem. Tactical decision now impossible to rectify.

 

[rummo]

I think if the right wing media cared about anti-semitism, it would be worth debating it with them. If the right of the labour party cared about anti-semitism, it would be worth arguing definitions with them. They don't. They pulled the classic political trick on you: accused you of fucking a pig. Now you feel you have to go around denying it, saying 'I didn't fuck a pig', which leads people to say why is there mud on your flies (look at this minor instance of actual anti-semitism). And then you think you should explain how the mud got there, or deny that the mud exists. And how does that look? When you're accused of fucking a pig in bad faith, move on to the issues that you want to talk about. The more you say 'I didn't fuck a pig' the more people hear about you fucking pigs.

At some point the issue of what actual anti-semitism is and how it can be dealt with does have to be discussed. But it cannot possibly be discussed in this atmosphere. So move on. Come back to it later when it's possible to have a rational discussion. Stop standing there with mud on your flies saying 'I didn't fuck a pig'. It won't build socialism.

 

[rummo]

'At some point the issue of what actual anti-semitism is and how it can be dealt with does have to be discussed. But it cannot possibly be discussed in this atmosphere.'


Which might be a worthwhile approach if you had control of the public discourse, and could dictate who discusses what and when.

But you don't.

Worse than that, your enemies have control of the public discourse.

And they won't let this drop for now and return to discuss the issue at a time of your chosing.

They'll push. You'll retreat. Then they'll push a bit further. So you retreat a bit further. And so on.

They're not interested in the truth, or fairness or justice. All they want is total victory and control. They're vicious and ruthless and unscrupulous.

 

[two sheds]

I think if the right wing media cared about anti-semitism, it would be worth debating it with them. If the right of the labour party cared about anti-semitism, it would be worth arguing definitions with them. They don't. They pulled the classic political trick on you: accused you of fucking a pig. Now you feel you have to go around denying it, saying 'I didn't fuck a pig', which leads people to say why is there mud on your flies (look at this minor instance of actual anti-semitism). And then you think you should explain how the mud got there, or deny that the mud exists. And how does that look? When you're accused of fucking a pig in bad faith, move on to the issues that you want to talk about. The more you say 'I didn't fuck a pig' the more people hear about you fucking pigs.

At some point the issue of what actual anti-semitism is and how it can be dealt with does have to be discussed. But it cannot possibly be discussed in this atmosphere. So move on. Come back to it later when it's possible to have a rational discussion. Stop standing there with mud on your flies saying 'I didn't fuck a pig'. It won't build socialism.

Nope, doesn't work. Accusation is then proved - "see they don't deny it". Come back to it later and it'll be "why are you bringing that up again - you'd have denied it first time round if it wasn't true".

So what would you do if you were accused of fucking a pig? Just pretend there was no accusation? Then you'd look really shifty.

As it is we're already admitting that we've fucked the pig a little bit but the extent is being exaggerated .

 

[Mr Moose]

If you read the report you'll see that it actually has very little to say about the extent of anti semitism in the party, primarily in my view because its prevalence is vanishingly small. But the attack on Corbyn is symbolic of a rightwards lurch in policy, an attempt at stifling discussion and debate and an attack on the left in general. If you are a Labour member who still thinks it is worth staying in the party then Corbyn is the hill to die on, at the moment anyway, cos a lot of party members who may not be Corbynite think he has been unfairly treated and may rally round. Last chance saloon.

The problem can't truthfully be described as 'vanishingly small'. I get where this comes from. Probably the numbers of Labour members or supporters who actually dislike Jewish people is pretty low. Labour members were never about to organise a pogrom. But the response of a proportion of members and supporters to criticisms of those few racist individuals and more especially of Corbyn's dubious previous associations and choices was to double down and attack those who raised the concerns. The justification for the attacks on Berger, Smeeth etc was that they were 'obviously plotting'. The problem is, whether that is right or wrong, it's very hard to accuse victims of racism of such a thing without colluding in the abuse. You certainly need to deal with the racism first. It may not have been the intention of hundreds of individuals screaming at them on social media to be racist. But then that's what right wing people who shout hysterically at Sadiq Khan say. Racist? Not at all. I simply disagree with Sadiq's transport policies and I have every right to call him a 'cunt' in a twitter thread full of comments about his religion as I do so.

It's deeply frurstrating that there are sides of the story that have failed to get a proper airing, like the conduct of those dealing with complaints before 2018. But frankly you are delusional if you think this is moment that Corbyn can win that argument and be vindicated. His only hope of redemption from his part in this is to acknowledge that his response had been lacking (and you know it was lacking, because had his supporters been abusing black people on social media in exactly the same way it would have probably looked much clearer to all concerned). It's up to him how he does that, by reaching out to those enemies of his that got abused, by going on a 'personal journey' for TV, or by eating kangaroo bollocks on IACGMOOH. Anyway he does it has to be by humanising himself and building bridges. Fighting within the Party or going to court - I meanwhat possible good outcome is there for him when he never called those haters off? Starmer is largely irrelevant to this. As much as he may well be trying to defeat the left he won't need to make much effort if people keep picking at this sore. Get behind learning from the EHRC and win the fight for better policies down the line.

 

[rummo]

'Probably the numbers of Labour members or supporters who actually dislike Jewish people is pretty low.'

###

So if someone says a Corbyn government would pose an existential threat to British Jews, do you assume that they are acting in good faith, and how do you respond to them?

 

[Brainaddict]

Nope, doesn't work. Accusation is then proved - "see they don't deny it". Come back to it later and it'll be "why are you bringing that up again - you'd have denied it first time round if it wasn't true".

So what would you do if you were accused of fucking a pig? Just pretend there was no accusation? Then you'd look really shifty.

As it is we're already admitting that we've fucked the pig a little bit but the extent is being exaggerated .

Why are you being accused of pig-fucking when there's only evidence of pig frottage? Because your policies are more popular than theirs. Condemn the frottage, then talk about your policies. I'm not even in the Labour Party but I'm doing my best to help you here. We're about to go into the biggest recession of our lifetimes. You can spend that time defending Corbyn against accusations of anti-semitism if you wish but what do you think you'll get from it? Suddenly the media will give you a badge saying 'cleared of anti-semitism'?

 

[two sheds]

Course not but if you can show that their accusations are overblown then you have a chance of reaching people who will look at the evidence. If you ignore them then they only hear the one side of the argument so they'll believe it. And it's not just Corbyn that's attacked it's the whole of the labour left by association.

I'm really happy to move on - lets finish with the accusations and defences and start with this post from Serge, then.

A proper critique of Corbyn, Corbynism, left Labourism, parliamentarism as a way of achieving socialism in any meaningful sense, and finally, looking at the merits of non-reformist anti-parliamentary and pro-revolutionary alternatives?

 

[Shechemite]

Even the fashion industry has an opinion There are all the reasons Jeremy Corbyn is antisemitic, despite his claims to contrary

 

[FridgeMagnet]

Even the fashion industry has an opinion There are all the reasons Jeremy Corbyn is antisemitic, despite his claims to contrary

counterpoint: that is a fucking awful, embarrassing article

Who would have thought the fashion industry could have vapid centrists in it though. Blows the mind.

 

[Gramsci]

Even the fashion industry has an opinion There are all the reasons Jeremy Corbyn is antisemitic, despite his claims to contrary

I dont think this is opinion of the fashion industry.

Its opinion of Paul Richards founder of the Progress magazine. Progress -the Blairite side of the Labour party.

Paul Richards | Biteback Publishing

www.bitebackpublishing.com

 

[Shechemite]

Paul Richards founder of the Progress magazine.

Paul Richards | Biteback Publishing

www.bitebackpublishing.com

Ah. Cheeky fucker

 

[ska invita]

Interesting to see the depths the Labour party machine are willing to sink in their propaganda war

 

[two sheds]

Can we please stop responding to these allegations of antisemitism it just makes us look defensive and like we don't care about actual antisemitism in the party






sorry

 

[killer b]

Interesting to see the depths the Labour party machine are willing to sink in their propaganda war

I'm not sure the Labour Party machine are responsible for that tbf - he's a jobbing writer (quite a shit one), not party staff. He probably just pitched the article at Glamour on the off-chance.

 

[ska invita]

I'm not sure the Labour Party machine are responsible for that tbf - he's a jobbing writer (quite a shit one), not party staff. He probably just pitched the article at Glamour on the off-chance.

I don't see a distinction either way. Hes clearly part of it

 

[killer b]

'clearly part of' what? The Labour Party want this to go away, they aren't sending out writers to stir it up in the fashion press.

 

[FridgeMagnet]

The Labour Party want this to go away

In the sense of wanting to entirely clobber Corbyn as personally being an anti-semite so much that it can't be recovered from?

I don't think this is somehow sponsored by Keith though, it's just one of the boys doing his thing.

 

[Mr Moose]

Jeremy Corbyn is a bizarre choice for a magazine called ‘Glamour’. Seems likely someone associated with the magazine simply hates him.

Next week, ‘Botox or not?’ by Ken Clarke.

 

[killer b]

Jeremy Corbyn is a bizarre choice for a magazine called ‘Glamour’. Seems likely someone associated with the magazine simply hates him.

Next week, ‘Botox or not?’ by Ken Clarke.

they have an entire politics section - fairly bland liberal centrist articles from the ones I've looked through. hardly teen vogue

Politics

Everything Glamour UK knows about Politics, including the latest news, features and images.

www.glamourmagazine.co.uk

 

[killer b]

It's not a bizarre idea to have politics in a fashion magazine is it? No-one would think it weird if it was Esquire or suchlike.

 

[Mr Moose]

they have an entire politics section - fairly bland liberal centrist articles from the ones I've looked through. hardly teen vogue

Politics

Everything Glamour UK knows about Politics, including the latest news, features and images.

www.glamourmagazine.co.uk

I shouldn’t judge a magazine by its cover. I thank you for your research.

 

[SpookyFrank]

So what would you do if you were accused of fucking a pig? Just pretend there was no accusation? Then you'd look really shifty.

I mean that is pretty much what Cameron did when he was accused of actually fucking a pig, and he got away with it. Johnson is on record and in print spouting racist and anti-semitic drviel and he gets away with. Perhaps being a staunch ally of capital provides some kind of magic forcefield against media scrutiny for some reason.

 

[killer b]

Johnson's racist writing is hardly a journalistic secret - it's been widely publicised across the media for the whole of his political life.

 

[two sheds]

that's clearly what corbyn needs to do - start talking about bumboys and piccaninnies with watermelon smiles with jews controlling the media and being able to fiddle elections. Then he'll be seen as anti-racist

 

[DaveCinzano]

Teen Vogue.

Kim Kelly is rather a good writer

Kim Kelly

Kim Kelly is a freelance journalist and organizer based in Philadelphia. Her work on labor, class, politics, and culture has appeared in the New Republic, the Washington Post, the Baffler, and Esquire, among other publications, and she is the author of FIGHT LIKE HELL, a forthcoming book of...

www.teenvogue.com

 

[two sheds]

Kim Kelly is rather a good writer

Kim Kelly

Kim Kelly is a freelance journalist and organizer based in Philadelphia. Her work on labor, class, politics, and culture has appeared in the New Republic, the Washington Post, the Baffler, and Esquire, among other publications, and she is the author of FIGHT LIKE HELL, a forthcoming book of...

www.teenvogue.com

I was hoping to learn what blusher corbyn wears but ..

you're right, interesting article titles there

 

[bimble]

'Exceptionalism' really is a fucking arse of an expectation and the worse kind of emotionally immature and intellectually dishonest manipulation.

Good morning. Still nobody has a clue what group of people were being described here ?

(yes i think I will keep doing this, not to annoy Rutita, its the total ignoring of it by everyone else that's the point.)

 

[killer b]

I'm interested, just a bit out of puff on it all tbh

 

[Mr Moose]

'Probably the numbers of Labour members or supporters who actually dislike Jewish people is pretty low.'

###

So if someone says a Corbyn government would pose an existential threat to British Jews, do you assume that they are acting in good faith, and how do you respond to them?

It doesn’t matter if those individuals are acting in good faith or not. The concern about Labour member/supporter behaviour was corroding support and confidence in the Leader. You simply have to try everything to demonstrate it’s not true. Saying repeatedly that Jeremy is the greatest anti-racist of all time doesn’t really cut it and that was often the best defence put forward.