Keir Starmer and the Labour Party

[nw1]

To be honest, I'm taking the party out of the decision when the time comes and instead focus on the candidates. The one that demonstrates best their knowledge of both local and national issues, and how they see the solutions being implemented will be most likely to get my 'X' on the voting slip. So it could be any party, I'm no longer concerned whom they represent but how they will drive any change.

But our parliamentary system makes that all but impossible. Essentially, MPs just vote as a herd, a bloc, by party. Look at the way most Tories have supported Brexit and anti-immigration rhetoric, for example, like obedient droids. Very few have stood up against either. So the only meaningful way of voting is to select the party you like the most (or hate the least) out of the Tories and Labour, and vote tactically to maximise their chance of getting in.

 

[Blindtraveler]

My political allegiance is fairly well known, so whilst it will come as no surprise that I wholeheartedly agree with you both, I won’t be voting Tory either.

I’m not entirely comfortable with registering a protest vote at such a critical time, but I don’t feel as though I have a choice.

I am very much a floating voter and will either cast my ballot tactically to either achieve something I want or attempt to squash something that I don't, or I'll vote for a particularly good candidate if it's a parliamentary election. If I still lived in Edinburgh then my decision would be very easy, unless she also announces her departure I would have stuck voting for the sitting candidate in my old seat as not only was she a very good but she also represented a party that as close as possible was fairly dead center

I thought I had my decision made as to who to vote for now I'd moved but as just elsewhere in another thread my MP has announced she's going and it will certainly be very interesting to see what they bring in as a replacement, but suffice just say that party is now going to have to work significantly harder for my vote.



@brad465 is under the impression that I have never voted labour, in which case they would be mistaken, I cast my very first vote for the Labour party back when I was 18 and have also voted for them once or twice in local elections although admittedly at least one of these was a protest vote against somebody else, but it is exactly people like me that the supposedly revitalized Labour party are trying to capture. Floating voters are an important part of anyone's strategy, get them to vote once and keep them there.







@Bantamzen has described commendably accurately the battles that labour are going to have to fight and not just with first time voters, persistent floaters, converters but with died in the wool supporters from traditional voting labor areas as I believe they are. Another significant challenge is somehow getting over the reputational damage that their handling of various local councils not least mine which was a recent acquisition at last year's election has done them

It's also rather telling when you talk to a fully paid up Labour party member who says that if we went to the polling stations tomorrow that they would not vote for said party.

Good luck to them is all I say, but the earlier comment about snatching defeat from the jaws of victory I think will very much apply again

 

[nw1]

I believe and expect Labour to win a large majority, because people are voting - like me - against the Conservatives as much as for Labour. I don't think the current mess is going to affect Labour's position significantly.

Yes, I'd tend to agree. People may think Starmer is less than brilliant but he's no way as bad as the current lot.

Good luck to them is all I say, but the earlier comment about snatching defeat from the jaws of victory I think will very much apply again

Really? Do you honestly think the Tories will win again despite how unpopular they currently are?

Do you not understand how disturbing it would be to have one party in power for 20 years, and possibly a lot longer?

 

[Class15]

I’ve never understood why criticism of Israel’s government is automatically Antisemitic; there are many Israelis who dislike their government, are they now antisemitic? Ali obviously had to be suspended, but McDonald? Did he say anything that bad? The whole Rochdale thing (only axing Ali when they had to) seems to expose Starmer as a coward, which is, to me, what he is.

 

[brad465]

And the left, as a whole, don't. They have a problem with the mistreatment of Palestinians. Big difference.

One room is scarcely representative of the entire Labour Party. And it really is a disgusting and libellous slur to associate the left as a whole (rather than certain members of the left) with anti-Semitism, and to infer that there are few or no anti-Semites on the right.

Remind me of which wing appeared to make anti-Semitic jibes against a former leader of the Labour Party? Was it the left, or the right?

Furthermore the only genuine and actual anti-Semite I've met in my life was a fully paid up Tory, Brexit supporter and was constantly having a go at Sinn Fein. Scarcely good left-wing credentials.



What would your take be on the likely effect on the results of the coming election? (And anyone else for that matter).

While I think it's unlikely, I hope all this will not cause the Tories to win yet again. As I said above that would be very disturbing to me.

I am very much a floating voter and will either cast my ballot tactically to either achieve something I want or attempt to squash something that I don't, or I'll vote for a particularly good candidate if it's a parliamentary election. If I still lived in Edinburgh then my decision would be very easy, unless she also announces her departure I would have stuck voting for the sitting candidate in my old seat as not only was she a very good but she also represented a party that as close as possible was fairly dead center

I thought I had my decision made as to who to vote for now I'd moved but as just elsewhere in another thread my MP has announced she's going and it will certainly be very interesting to see what they bring in as a replacement, but suffice just say that party is now going to have to work significantly harder for my vote.
@Bantamzen has described commendably accurately the battles that labour are going to have to fight and not just with first time voters, persistent floaters, converters but with died in the wool supporters from traditional voting labor areas as I believe they are. Another significant challenge is somehow getting over the reputational damage that their handling of various local councils not least mine which was a recent acquisition at last year's election has done them

It's also rather telling when you talk to a fully paid up Labour party member who says that if we went to the polling stations tomorrow that they would not vote for said party.

Good luck to them is all I say, but the earlier comment about snatching defeat from the jaws of victory I think will very much apply again

Councils, fringe and local party groups of any given party tend to be where the most insane/extreme party members can be found and they are definitely not representative of the wider party. They do matter when certain members are being selected for higher office (in this case a Parliamentary candidate), but otherwise the party leadership has no control of what goes on at the lowest levels (or if they do they don't have time to micromanage them all). Also while there is a lot of autonomy in councils, they still need central government funding to an extent, so what would be good to see is how many have gone bankrupt under different Governments (I've tried finding data on this but no luck).

@brad465 is under the impression that I have never voted labour, in which case they would be mistaken, I cast my very first vote for the Labour party back when I was 18 and have also voted for them once or twice in local elections although admittedly at least one of these was a protest vote against somebody else, but it is exactly people like me that the supposedly revitalized Labour party are trying to capture. Floating voters are an important part of anyone's strategy, get them to vote once and keep them there.

Okay I'll admit to misjudging your overall stance, but I did add in that post that location also matters. If you are a floating voter, but in a very safe seat where the number of floating voters will not change the result, then you will more likely than not be ignored. Much of Kent (apart from Canterbury) is blue and safe, so I wouldn't be surprised if large parts of the county are not being targeted by Labour (On a side note Tunbridge Wells will be a Lib Dem target, and their local candidate Dr Mike Martin is very good in many ways so I hope they win there), although boundary changes may lead to one or two being targets that were not under the current arrangement.

 

[Gloster]

What concerns me is that there will be a large number of pro-Palestinian one-issue candidates who will stand in seats to challenge Labour candidates, not necessarily those who have been pro-Israel, i.e. doing a Galloway. They will skim off enough votes in some of these seats to prevent Labour taking them and if the election is closer than currently expected, which wouldn’t surprise me, this could prevent Labour gaining a majority. Which would be, at least to a small extent, counter-productive for the aims of the fringe candidates, or at least their stated ones.

 

[ainsworth74]

As I've alluded to above, its the quality of the candidates moving forward that will drive change inside the Houses. I fear that these days we (as in the voting public) often don't really vote on the issues anymore, but focus on party & personality. Which is why various idiots have risen to the top, they've been louder than everyone else even if their substance is questionable, if existent at all. We need to get our candidates / MPs working harder on the ground again, and vote for people who can actually do the work asked of them.

Which requires reform within the political parties themselves. They set their own rules around candidate selection after all and are able to prioritise what they want. The other issue is that I believe for both Labour and the Tories the final decision on candidates is made by the local associations of members which, considering the collapse in party membership, means a more and more extreme electorate will be making the final choice that then goes to the public in the General Election. The candidates that get put in front of the membership are, themselves, of course whittled down by the Party machinery.

This internal process is the main reason why we have the candidates we have, I think in particular because the candidates have to focus so much on appealing to the party base which is often considerably further to the right/left than the average voter is. I do wonder if open primaries is the way to go for the final candidates. It doesn't need to be a big event in the way that it is in the US.

I would suggest that the qualification would simply be that you're a registered voter in the constituency in question where the candidate is being selected and the party has to provide reasonable notice that a primary vote is taking place and if you wish to take part you must notify your intention to do so. The Tories have actually done this a few times in the 2010s. Can't help but feel having the final choice of candidate being via an open primary would help improve the quality of candidate overall.

But in any event whilst you can blame the wider electorate for the deterioration in the quality of MP I can't help but feel that that's akin to locking the stable door after the horse has bolted. We are getting what's given to us the by the party machinery, I would question the process that that machinery follows before I would question the electorate themselves.

I’ve never understood why criticism of Israel’s government is automatically Antisemitic; there are many Israelis who dislike their government, are they now antisemitic? Ali obviously had to be suspended, but McDonald? Did he say anything that bad?

It is, of course, complex.

The issue is that whilst there is no reason you cannot criticise the Government of Israel for their actions now and in the past, for many who are antisemitic they use criticism of Israel as a fig leaf (and often code) for criticism of Jews more generally. They may say "How awful Israel's behaviour is, they must be stopped" but what they're actually saying is "How awful the Jews are, they must be stopped". This is not all people who criticise Israel but it is some and it can be hard to work out who is who. But then equally you have the opposite as well. Those who will jump on any criticism of Israel as being antisemitic and use that as a fig leaf to distract from their Zionism and staunchly pro-Israel views.

This is, of course, quite a messy situation to end up in when you have attacks coming from both angles of any criticism, justified or unjustified, of Israeli policy which makes it extremely hard to actually make reasonable comments on the policies and actions of the Israeli state.

Meanwhile the Labour party is struggling with legitimate past criticism of antisemitism when it was under the control of the Corbynite faction and so now is almost swinging to far the other way in its response to that previous problem. The right wing press sense a weakness here (and they're not wrong) so will happily punch at that bruise, the Daily Mail for instance today is poking away at the antisemitism line and we've seen members on this Forum poking away at it which makes them even more sensitive to the issue whilst also facing an internal party discipline issue if they are seen to be too pro-Israel.

But we're probably in danger of wandering off-topic into the wider Israel/Palestine issue which is better suited to this thread.

 

[DustyBin]

We have to be honest: the Corbyinist crankism of the last two elections has failed to deliver victory. Instead it delivered Johnson and this clown show. We need a sensible, boring, middle of the road strategy to win an election and get into power. No complacency, no risk, no hostage to fortune and no scaring the horses!

Which on the face of it is what's on offer, and I actually agree it's no bad thing. Scratch the surface however....

As above: A Reform shaped protest vote will only deliver a Reform shaped "Conservative" party.

I wouldn't necessarily vote for Reform, although it is of course the obvious choice for a disillusioned conservative.

To be honest, I'm taking the party out of the decision when the time comes and instead focus on the candidates. The one that demonstrates best their knowledge of both local and national issues, and how they see the solutions being implemented will be most likely to get my 'X' on the voting slip. So it could be any party, I'm no longer concerned whom they represent but how they will drive any change.

I don't think that's a bad way of approaching it under the circumstances, however....

But our parliamentary system makes that all but impossible. Essentially, MPs just vote as a herd, a bloc, by party. Look at the way most Tories have supported Brexit and anti-immigration rhetoric, for example, like obedient droids. Very few have stood up against either. So the only meaningful way of voting is to select the party you like the most (or hate the least) out of the Tories and Labour, and vote tactically to maximise their chance of getting in.

@nw1 makes a valid point here in that realistically it's practically impossible to drive change under the current system. That said, there are individuals who've campaigned hard on a particular issue and achieved results, so I don't think it's a total waste of time if presented with such a candidate. For me personally, voting tactically for one of the main parties feels rather "grubby" when I hold them both in equal contempt!

But in any event whilst you can blame the wider electorate for the deterioration in the quality of MP I can't help but feel that that's akin to locking the stable door after the horse has bolted. We are getting what's given to us the by the party machinery, I would question the process that that machinery follows before I would question the electorate themselves.

This is a very good point.

 

[edwin_m]

To be honest, I'm taking the party out of the decision when the time comes and instead focus on the candidates. The one that demonstrates best their knowledge of both local and national issues, and how they see the solutions being implemented will be most likely to get my 'X' on the voting slip. So it could be any party, I'm no longer concerned whom they represent but how they will drive any change.

I have some sympathy for that view. A related issue is that the main parties each have to accommodate a range of viewpoints and factions in order to be big enough to be electable under FPTP, so two candidates with the same badge might actually have very different views and therefore appeal more or less to a particular voter. It is of course sometimes quite hard to find that out, as most candidates largely tow the same party line and we don't have the level of local journalism that might tease out something more interesting.

But our parliamentary system makes that all but impossible. Essentially, MPs just vote as a herd, a bloc, by party. Look at the way most Tories have supported Brexit and anti-immigration rhetoric, for example, like obedient droids. Very few have stood up against either. So the only meaningful way of voting is to select the party you like the most (or hate the least) out of the Tories and Labour, and vote tactically to maximise their chance of getting in.

I agree with that too, and for this election the dominant factor for me is to replace the current government with something less bad. I've got to the point where any Tory candidate is by definition broadly supporting a set of policies I profoundly disagree with, and this makes them ineligible for my vote. I might have voted for one of the Brexit rebels, who could have been more of a thorn in the side of a Tory government than some extra random person on the Labour benches, but that choice is no longer available.

 

[DarloRich]

Which on the face of it is what's on offer, and I actually agree it's no bad thing. Scratch the surface however....

the time will come shortly where the substance will have to be declared. I have no problem with it being opaque at present. It stops the Conservative party and thier media chums attacking policy ideas or stealing them!

I wouldn't necessarily vote for Reform, although it is of course the obvious choice for a disillusioned conservative.

I am not sure it is. If you are the kind of populist, nationalist, brexity, faragist crank I agree. If you are an old school or one nation Tory less so. The Conservative Party does not exist. The lunatics have taken over the asylum.

Also: Lawrence Fox. Really?

Just vote Labour. Much better all round

 

[Blindtraveler]

Councils, fringe and local party groups of any given party tend to be where the most insane/extreme party members can be found and they are definitely not representative of the wider party. They do matter when certain members are being selected for higher office (in this case a Parliamentary candidate), but otherwise the party leadership has no control of what goes on at the lowest levels (or if they do they don't have time to micromanage them all). Also while there is a lot of autonomy in councils, they still need central government funding to an extent, so what would be good to see is how many have gone bankrupt under different Governments (I've tried finding data on this but no luck).


Okay I'll admit to misjudging your overall stance, but I did add in that post that location also matters. If you are a floating voter, but in a very safe seat where the number of floating voters will not change the result, then you will more likely than not be ignored. Much of Kent (apart from Canterbury) is blue and safe, so I wouldn't be surprised if large parts of the county are not being targeted by Labour (On a side note Tunbridge Wells will be a Lib Dem target, and their local candidate Dr Mike Martin is very good in many ways so I hope they win there), although boundary changes may lead to one or two being targets that were not under the current arrangement.

That Council failure rate data wood indeed be very interesting along with who was in central government at the time. After you kindly pointed them out the other day I've been reading up on the various Kent boundary changes and think this could be a very interesting election, as whilst large parts of the area are indeed as you say true blue and safe tumbbridge Wells could indeed cause an upset having read about the candidate, areas that border London are likely to rebell against anyone who supports ulez and Thanet where I have relatives is unhappy both with it's sitting candidate and the party they represent so an upset could easily be on the cards there also

@nw1 yes I agree with you that having one party in power for such a prolonged period is at best not great and at worst potentially very dangerous, c my comments on the matter in the various SNP and Scottish political threads both current and past, all written with first-hand experience as until a year ago I lived in Scotland and was governed by a party that is to my way of thinking anyway definitely passed it sell by date and was always a bit of a one trick pony even when new and fresh and exciting. All that being said I don't necessarily think we need change just for changes sake and for me personally my preferred outcome would be some kind of coalition where in an ideal world we could cherry pick the best of the various parties policies and see what we can do with them. I don't however support a whole sale change to any kind of pr system as having been in favor of these when I was younger, I've now seen that they not only cause confusion for voters but don't necessarily deliver the outcome that people think they might and in some cases can deliver something that is quite frankly as dangerous as your predictions of continued true blue rule could be

 

[DustyBin]

the time will come shortly where the substance will have to be declared. I have no problem with it being opaque at present. It stops the Conservative party and thier media chums attacking policy ideas or stealing them!

Fair enough, we shall see!

I am not sure it is. If you are the kind of populist, nationalist, brexity, faragist crank I agree. If you are an old school or one nation Tory less so. The Conservative Party does not exist. The lunatics have taken over the asylum.

Also: Lawrence Fox. Really?

I agree to an extent. I can't say that I'm positively enthusiastic about Reform, and yes Fox is rather-off putting, but the party will resonate with many reasonably right-wing (C)conservatives (which is how I'd describe myself).

The frustrating thing is that we actually have a pretty right-wing Tory government, but they're getting it all wrong. They're using culture war nonsense to distract from their complete inability to deal with the issues that really matter to people such as myself, and seemingly millions of others who won't be voting for them at the next GE!

Just vote Labour. Much better all round

Whilst not as unthinkable as it once was(!), I really don't think I could. Not on "tribal" grounds actually, but on the basis that least-worst doesn't equal good!

 

[DarloRich]

The frustrating thing is that we actually have a pretty right-wing Tory government, but they're getting it all wrong. They're using culture war nonsense to distract from their complete inability to deal with the issues that really matter to people such as myself, and seemingly millions of others who won't be voting for them at the next GE!

I agree with this 100%

I agree to an extent. I can't say that I'm positively enthusiastic about Reform, and yes Fox is rather-off putting, but the party will resonate with many reasonably right-wing (C)conservatives (which is how I'd describe myself).

Noted. I am not trying to antagonistic in the following statement.

I know many old school, patrician Tories and many more centre right Tories and they cant bring themselves to vote for Reform. They think they are bonkers and simply a vehicle for a Faragist take over post election. These people don't really have a home.

I wont complain if they split the Tory vote and help Labour get in but I think ( as with Labour under Corbyn) there will be a lurch to the fringe post election. Braverman as leader? Someone worse? Even Farage?

 

[urbophile]

And the left, as a whole, don't. They have a problem with the mistreatment of Palestinians. Big difference.

One room is scarcely representative of the entire Labour Party. And it really is a disgusting and libellous slur to associate the left as a whole (rather than certain members of the left) with anti-Semitism, and to infer that there are few or no anti-Semites on the right.

Remind me of which wing appeared to make anti-Semitic jibes against a former leader of the Labour Party? Was it the left, or the right?

Furthermore the only genuine and actual anti-Semite I've met in my life was a fully paid up Tory, Brexit supporter and was constantly having a go at Sinn Fein. Scarcely good left-wing credentials.

Hear hear! There are anti-semites everywhere, but few of them amongst the Labour left. Many of the latter are Jewish themselves after all. There are many people who feel strongly on behalf of the Palestinian people, and are critical of the state of Israel, especially its current leadership. Being anti-Israel does not equate to being anti-Semitic any more than being anti-Trump means being anti-white.

the Daily Mail for instance today is poking away at the antisemitism line

Ironic, since it's the paper that supported Hitler.

 

[DarloRich]

And the left, as a whole, don't. They have a problem with the mistreatment of Palestinians. Big difference

Is there? Many on the left don't grasp how smoothly and easily thier "problem with the mistreatment of Palestinians" drifts towards anti Semitism. Anyone involved in left politics has seen it. What worries me is many don't even see - look at Corbyn!

and to infer that there are few or no anti-Semites on the right.

I am not interested in whataboutery. We must sort our own house out. They can deal with theirs.

 

[urbophile]

Is there? Many on the left don't grasp how smoothly and easily thier "problem with the mistreatment of Palestinians" drifts towards anti Semitism. Anyone involved in left politics has seen it. What worries me is many don't even see - look at Corbyn!

Of course an anti-semite can disguise their prejudice by claiming to be against the Israeli government and not Jews in general. But the knee-jerk reaction of Starmer's Labour Party, as well as the media in general, tends to conflate all criticism of Israel with anti-semitism. This is dangerous because the genuine concerns and needs of the Palestinian population are treated as less important than maintaining a blanket ban on criticism of Israel in case the few actual anti-semites slip through the net. It must be near impossible to have a rational debate about Palestine in Labour Party circles today. People are treated as guilty until proved innocent (and precious little effort is put into proving their innocence).

 

[DustyBin]

Noted. I am not trying to antagonistic in the following statement.

I know many old school, patrician Tories and many more centre right Tories and they cant bring themselves to vote for Reform. They think they are bonkers and simply a vehicle for a Faragist take over post election. These people don't really have a home.

I wont complain if they split the Tory vote and help Labour get in but I think ( as with Labour under Corbyn) there will be a lurch to the fringe post election. Braverman as leader? Someone worse? Even Farage?

That's not unreasonable to be fair.

For what it's worth, Farage doesn't scare me in the way say Braverman does. He's spent his entire career campaigning for the same thing(s), often swimming against the tide, so is at least consistent. (I have to give Corbyn some respect for the same reason, albeit reluctantly!). That's not to say I'd want him to take over the Conservative party however, and I accept that he's the devil incarnate to many.... The likes of Braverman though are political nobody's, which makes them far less predictable and potentially dangerous in my opinion.

 

[DarloRich]

But the knee-jerk reaction of Starmer's Labour Party, as well as the media in general, tends to conflate all criticism of Israel with anti-semitism.

it simply doesn't.

Saying Israeli should not indiscriminately bomb Palestinian civilians isn't anti Semitic. Saying Israel should respect the rights of Palestinians and thier nation isn't anti Semitic. Saying Israel is behaving abhorrently towards Palestinians isn't anti-sematic. Associating that bombing with Israel being an apartheid state or acting like the Nazis might be. Celebrating Hamas and thier activities and chanting about "from the river to the sea Palestine shall be free" might be. Dressing that up in "anti Zionism" might not be anti-Semitic in itself but can be used as a code by those who are. By the same token saying the state of Israeli should exist and should have a right to defend itself doesn't make you a Zionist apologist or such nonsense.

We have to honest and say that sections of the left generally ( and not just in this country) do have a problem with Israel - it is based on several foundations: anti imperialism, anti westernism, anti Zionism, support of the under dog, social justice etc etc but it is there. Many of them think Jews cant be victims because they are believed to have power or status or to be in control and must therefore be the oppressors.

It must be near impossible to have a rational debate about Palestine in Labour Party circles today.

It isn't any more difficult than other "controversial" issues. Labour does have to be very sensitive to this after Corbyn. His inability and /or unwillingness to even consider let alone acknowledge this problem led to the creation of a vast issue.

For what it's worth, Farage doesn't scare me in the way say Braverman does.

Farage has to get elected first! He has failed 8 times and I suspect he likes being a media personality rather than a politician because it means he doesn't have to face scrutiny. he has more power over the Tory party from without then he could ever exercise within.

Braverman and others seem in thrall to the Tufton Street mob and desperate to import USA "wedge" style issues to the UK

Hear hear! There are anti-semites everywhere, but few of them amongst the Labour left. Many of the latter are Jewish themselves after all. There are many people who feel strongly on behalf of the Palestinian people, and are critical of the state of Israel, especially its current leadership. Being anti-Israel does not equate to being anti-Semitic

Putting aside the right wing whataboutery for a moment - there is a section of the left very much against Israel. Within that group are anti Semites who don't recognise themselves as such. Corbyn didn't do anything to challenge them hence the very firm line Starmer is taking. He has to in order to show that Labour are a serious party and not a student clown show as per Corbyn!

 

[edwin_m]

Farage has to get elected first! He has failed 8 times and I suspect he likes being a media personality rather than a politician because it means he doesn't have to face scrutiny. he has more power over the Tory party from without then he could ever exercise within.

Some Tory factions will be happy to accept him and find (or generate) a by-election where he can stand for one of the few rosette-on-a-donkey Tory seats that will remain. The main thing keeping him out might be the future leader and others wishing that position not wanting to create another rival.

 

[urbophile]

Putting aside the right wing whataboutery for a moment - there is a section of the left very much against Israel. Within that group are anti Semites who don't recognise themselves as such. Corbyn didn't do anything to challenge them hence the very firm line Starmer is taking. He has to in order to show that Labour are a serious party and not a student clown show as per Corbyn!

I fully admit to not being as clued up or aware as I might be about these issues. And like Corbyn (who certainly isn't himself anti-semitic) I might have a cloth ear for anti-semitism especially as if it is disguised as you suggest it often us.

But equally I think that Starmer, and the Labour right, have been using accusations of anti-semitism not to purge the party of anti-semites but of left-wing socialists. Many Jewish members on the left have been expelled on (spurious?) charges of antisemitism. Right-wingers whose statements tend that way (Azhar Ali, the suspended Rochdale candidate, for example) have had much gentler treatment (Starmer attempted to defend him at first).

 

[Busaholic]

I fully admit to not being as clued up or aware as I might be about these issues. And like Corbyn (who certainly isn't himself anti-semitic) I might have a cloth ear for anti-semitism especially as if it is disguised as you suggest it often us.

But equally I think that Starmer, and the Labour right, have been using accusations of anti-semitism not to purge the party of anti-semites but of left-wing socialists. Many Jewish members on the left have been expelled on (spurious?) charges of antisemitism. Right-wingers whose statements tend that way (Azhar Ali, the suspended Rochdale candidate, for example) have had much gentler treatment (Starmer attempted to defend him at first).

Corbyn may continue to deny he's anti-semitic, and I think he probably believes that, but he's been 'proven' to be so. Like you, though, he might just be cloth-eared on the subject. Tom Bower's biography of him a few years ago has a theory of why this may be, and given that he and his brother Piers seem to share the same characteristic of never changing their minds or admitting they are ever plain wrong I'm going with the Starmer position being the right one. J.Corbyn's intellect has never appeared to be above average anyway, to say the least, and he's been used as a puppet by John McDonnell and (particularly) Len McCluskey, both much brighter than him. This reached an apogee with Piers Morgan's TV interview with McCluskey and Corbyn last Autumn, in which the latter refused to acknowledge that Hamas was a terrorist organisation unlike the more savvy former union organiser who got visibly frustrated with his stubborn pal.

 

[jfollows]

Some Tory factions will be happy to accept him and find (or generate) a by-election where he can stand for one of the few rosette-on-a-donkey Tory seats that will remain. The main thing keeping him out might be the future leader and others wishing that position not wanting to create another rival.

I wish Esther McVey good health then, I don’t think you’re wrong, and there are plentry of donkey-voting Tories in Tatton ….. better the devil you’ve become accustomed to.

 

[najaB]

Classic anti-Jewish rhetoric from both gentlemen, which Labour has only acted on once it’s become public.

I don't see how it's anti-Jewish to question the actions and motivations of the Israeli government?

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

I don't see how it's anti-Jewish to question the actions and motivations of the Israeli government?

Its not and majority of Labour party know it but Starmer has become obsessed that his whole credibility revolves around this anti-Semite messaging cutting through.

 

[Blindtraveler]

Its not and majority of Labour party know it but Starmer has become obsessed that his whole credibility revolves around this anti-Semite messaging cutting through.

Which could quite easily become his undoing. We've learned from previous electoral campaigns that getting bogged down with a list of petty obsessions or indeed just one or two of them can be counterproductive, anti-semitism, getting seemingly ever increasing amounts of cash out of non Dom and petty point scoring could be the undoing of Starmer in exactly the same way as a conservative manifesto that talks about nothing more than stopping the boats could send them crashing to the bottom,

 

[sor]

Can't help but feel having the final choice of candidate being via an open primary would help improve the quality of candidate overall.

The Tories experimented with this, and it produced MPs like Sarah Wollaston (who initially supported brexit but changed her mind ahead of the referendum). Someone who not only came from outside the Oxbridge PPE bubble, but who is willing to think independently. You can see why they didn't do it again!

I do agree though. People like to go on about MPs pay and how it compares to roles in London, but aside from being a bad comparison (most MPs don't live in London and as such have that cost of living covered by expenses), the real problem is how candidates are selected. No one is going to put their career on hold for years to do lots of no-hope elections around the country and hope the party rewards them with a winnable seat. Open primaries cuts through all that nonsense.

 

[DarloRich]

I don't see how it's anti-Jewish to question the actions and motivations of the Israeli government?

It isnt - the problem is that some on the left spill over into anti sematic criticism very quickly and very easily.

Its not and majority of Labour party know it but Starmer has become obsessed that his whole credibility revolves around this anti-Semite messaging cutting through.

this doesn't seem correct. Starmer has had to take a hard line on this because he should and because clown Corbyn wouldn't. The credibility of Starmer as leader revolves around making the Labour party electable. This is just a part of that

Which could quite easily become his undoing. We've learned from previous electoral campaigns that getting bogged down with a list of petty obsessions or indeed just one or two of them can be counterproductive, anti-semitism, getting seemingly ever increasing amounts of cash out of non Dom and petty point scoring could be the undoing of Starmer in exactly the same way as a conservative manifesto that talks about nothing more than stopping the boats could send them crashing to the bottom,

This doesn't seem to reflect the reality of the situation. A problem that Corbyn wouldn't or couldn't tackle now HAS to be dealt with to help make Labour electable.

 

[ainsworth74]

Front page of the Mail today is about the rise of hatred of Jews (as someone else noted, ironic considering their views in the 1930s but at least they've changed their mind I suppose!), double page spread on pages 6 and 7 about Keir Starmer and Labour's response to the Azar Ali revelations.

As I said, the right wing media will continue to poke away at that bruise and Starmer will continue to do everything to counter that attack line.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

It isnt - the problem is that some on the left spill over into anti sematic criticism very quickly and very easily.

this doesn't seem correct. Starmer has had to take a hard line on this because he should and because clown Corbyn wouldn't. The credibility of Starmer as leader revolves around making the Labour party electable. This is just a part of that

A lot of younger people side with Palestinians plight over Israeli action but aren't Hamas supporters yet they being labelled ant sematic because they are negative around Israel. This isn't right and treads all over the free speech that Starmer ascribes to and it isn't healthy nor necessary as he has expunged the Corbyn fraternity very effectively.

 

[nw1]

Front page of the Mail today is about the rise of hatred of Jews (as someone else noted, ironic considering their views in the 1930s but at least they've changed their mind I suppose!), double page spread on pages 6 and 7 about Keir Starmer and Labour's response to the Azar Ali revelations.

As I said, the right wing media will continue to poke away at that bruise and Starmer will continue to do everything to counter that attack line.

One point of comfort from the POV of Labour is that if it is just the right wing press focusing on these incidents to the exclusion of all else (while ignoring similar comments by right-wingers), they are preaching to the converted. No prospective Labour voter is presumably going to buy the Mail anyway.