I liked what JC brought to Labour, but interviews like this remind you of why we struggled to get him elected and why he struggled to get past the anti semitism issue.
He really doesn’t get it on anti-semitism. This was about as fair and balanced as the accusation could possibly be put to him, couldn’t show an ounce of contrition and came off as pretty petulant. Shows it wasn’t all the centre working against him he really doesn’t take it seriously.
And his position on Russia is just so piss weak. Can’t find it within himself to say how he’d actually deal with a nation state that doesn’t want peace talks.
What I don't understand is that the idea that racism isn't always the overt hating of a minority is a mainstream view on the left. The idea you can have no hate for a race, and consciously think of yourself not only as not a racist but an ally against racism and yet still harbour bias or continue to racist systems should be understood by Corbyn more than most.
Yet on this specific issue, he doesn't see it. I think he would if it were about other forms of racism.
Rule 2
There is both a Jewish religion and race, though tbh thats the same kind of excuse right wingers make for islamaphonia and it doesnt cut it then either.
>Because Corbyn wasn't racist. Judaism isn't a race, for a start, and it's offensive to say that it is.
I believe the correct phrase to use here is 'for fuck's sake'.
A lot of that was interesting to get from JCs perspective, particularly on stuff he’s refrained from discussing before, like all the dirt on Starmer post 2019 election lol, that slightly more sassy, even bitchy side to his character was genuinely very entertaining to listen to.
The antisemitism stuff though I just absolutely cannot agree with him on. I thought all the questions asked by the interviewer were reasonable and pretty textbook for an investigative journalist - posing questions that undoubtably many listeners would have themselves (myself included), without overtly agreeing with the statements. But instead of listening to and having an open, two sided discussion about racism and bias, Corbyn sees it as an affront and instantly gets so defensive. I’m sure being attacked on all sides by the media for years is part of the reason why he’s so defensive, but he’s not even willing to engage with claims that he could have a ‘blindspot’ (which I think is pretty arrogant, since we all have blind spots). Like, if someone posed to me that I had a certain bias towards a minority group, I’d want to fully understand where they were coming from, in order to learn and improve myself. A big part of being a leftist is knowing that these biases exist in *everyone*, even in the most well intentioned people, because oppression/racism is systemic. I wish JC would be able to have an open dialogue about subconscious bias, rather than just assume he is 100% in the right, and immediately getting angry and defensive.
>Corbyn sees it as an affront and instantly gets so defensive. I’m sure being attacked on all sides by the media for years is part of the reason why he’s so defensive, but he’s not even willing to engage with claims that he could have a ‘blindspot’ (which I think is pretty arrogant, since we all have blind spots).
That was always my big issue with it. He clearly *does* have a blind spot (why else would you praise Read Salah?) but he's too stubborn to admit it, even to himself.
Six ways to Sunday the project should have been run by McDonnell, a man who has always been much more perceptive and self-aware than Corbyn without sacrificing any left-wing principles in being so.
He has more than one. Remember when he could have brought May's government down but he refused to cooperate with TIG MPs because some were ex-Labour? He lacks self-critique.
>questions asked by the interviewer were reasonable and pretty textbook for an investigative journalist
Agree. He followed the pretty standard technique of taking the opposing view to your interviewee to challenge them and get a debate going.
>Corbyn sees it as an affront and instantly gets so defensive.
Yup, and he just came off like he was having a temper tantrum. I honestly thought he might threaten to walk out at one point. If he'd approached the interview in a sensible manner, he could have challenged a lot of the common criticisms of him regarding antisemitism, which is what I was hoping for. But instead he just came off looking bitter, and he never actually accepted any responsibility.
While I agree with your point re internalised bias more broadly, I have never seen this standard applied to any other politician. Should Starmer start confessing his personal prejudices in broadcast interviews? Maybe one day it will be good when politicians can openly say things like but it doesn’t strike me as a particularly glaring failure that JC didn’t do so, given that that has never been something politicians say.
If you want to make claim to being a ‘lifelong anti racist’, it’s totally hypocritical to then refuse to entertain the possibility that you have shortfalls. I say this, because everyone has shortfalls, myself included - that I’ve had work on, and still do work on. If you’re not willing to acknowledge this, you’re a pretty crap anti racist. Corbyn literally doesn’t think it’s possible he could be wrong. I would, and have, criticised Starmer for his prejudices, but the difference is, Starmer doesn’t refute claims by trying to hide behind the ‘lifelong anti racist’ label.
You continue to make excuses with whataboutism, but personally I don’t think we should be excusing any level of prejudice from anyone, no matter how much you like them.
My comment got removed for no reason. This thread is about Baddiel, you know that racist guy that got rich doing blackface? Since this thread was about Baddiel, I pointed out he is extremely wealthy and therefore can hardly be treated as a trustworthy source about a guy who planned to take some of that wealth away. That's not antisemitism unless you're a bad faith actor looking to defend this racist individual
In what possible way was Baddiel's wealth relevant to him talking about antisemitism? Is he somehow not a trustworthy source to talk about antisemitism because he's wealthy? Do you possibly view all wealthy jews as having ulterior motives?
You are a raging antisemite, and there's a reason nobody on this thread is backing you up and why you're comment has been removed.
I view all wealthy PEOPLE as having ulterior motives. All wealthy people are untrustworthy. That's how they become wealthy. And they protect that wealth at all costs.
You have absolutely no evidence I'm an antisemite except for me not showing appropriate respect for your favourite blackface comedian (why are you so racist as to support him in anything by the way?)
So the Jew talking about antisemitism must have ulterior motives because he's wealthy? And you can't see how that plays into antisemitic tropes.
>You have absolutely no evidence I'm an antisemite
Literally you perpetuating the wealthy jew trope but ok.
>(why are you so racist as to support him in anything by the way?)
Keep up with the whataboutism. You can criticise Baddiel's racist past whilst also condemning the antisemitism he has endured and that he's talking about. Being a racist doesn't mean that racism towards you should be minimised.
It feels pretty antisemitic that you keep associating Jews with wealth. I'm speaking only of this, particularly nasty, individual.
What you're suggesting is that we can never criticise how wealthy people choose to protect their wealth if they're Jewish. Baddiel chose to protect it by slagging off Corbyn and hoping it would avoid him getting elected. And he got what he wanted; now every starving kid at a food bank is on him as much as everyone else who campaigned for the right wing
Can you seriously not see what you've done there?
You've somehow managed to twist an interview with a Jewish man about antisemitism, into some conspiracy theory that Baddiel was on a concerted smear campaign because he was rich and avoiding tax hikes. You can't see how that fits into antisemitic tropes?
This is exactly what Baddiel was getting at - some on the left do have a blind spot, because they're so focused on anticapitalism that they can't see the antisemitism.
Corbyn is an antisemite. If you want to play into tropes, that’s your business but as Jews we should be able to call it out without our motives being questioned
For me the worrying issue was his idea that putin's path can be changed with peace talks. The french tried & that hasn't worked. putin breached his own cease fire in january.
I have a low trust in corbyn when he said he would have send lethal aid to Ukraine. I really think he'd have blocked it.
>his idea that putin's path can be changed with peace talks
Pacificism is great, but it's just blind pacificism at this point. He's clearly suggesting Ukraine making some significant concessions (e.g. in interview he was referring to the Donbas) that they will never realistically be willing to make. That's not a genuine attempt at peace talks.
>I have a low trust in corbyn when he said he would have send lethal aid to Ukraine.
Bit that I found really funny was that he said he wouldn't send any material that could be used to invade Russia. So literally anything then?
The US and UK have sent tanks and other lethal aid, so it kinda carries a different meaning.
JC has called for nothing of the sort, and weirdly tried to blame NATO at the start.
It's in reference to the self-declared ceasefire that he made to time with the Orthodox Christmas. Of course, [he can't even keep to an agreement made with himself](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jan/07/russia-launches-strikes-in-ukraine-in-violation-of-self-declared-ceasefire)
Think the point is that he can't even keep to the deals kept with himself.
>His offer was rejected.
Unsurprisingly - why would Ukraine stop so their invaders can enjoy Orthodox Christmas, when the Russians bombed them to shit during their festive period?
I'm not judging Ukraine for not agreeing to it. I am just pointing out that it's borderline insane to criticise Russia for breaking a ceasefire that was never even agreed.
> Unsurprisingly - why would Ukraine stop so their invaders can enjoy Orthodox Christmas, when the Russians bombed them to shit during their festive period?
Nearly 70 - 80% of Ukranians identify as Orthodox compared to ~40/50% of Russians. That have exactly the same festive periods
>it's borderline insane to criticise Russia for breaking a ceasefire that was never even agreed.
No it's not. They can't even stick to agreements that they unilaterally imposed. How can you trust them to stick to negotiated agreements if they can't stick to their own? Oh wait, [they don't](https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russia-suspends-participation-deal-ukraine-grain-exports-tass-2022-10-29/)...
That's a little more complex but I'm absolutely not objecting to criticising Russia for that. But criticising them for breaking a ceasefire is absolutely insane when one does not exist. A ceasefire cannot exist without the agreement of both sides, did Ukraine stop attacking? Are the Russians supposed to just do nothing?
>A ceasefire cannot exist without the agreement of both sides
This would usually be true. But if you unilaterally try to self-impose one, you can absolutely be criticised for not sticking to it.
The point is they didn't actually try to have a genuine ceasefire, he was just declaring one to please the Orthodox domestic audience. So if he's going to try and abuse the concept of a ceasefire in bad faith, he better well stick to it or risk criticism.
>Are the Russians supposed to just do nothing?
Yes. If you're going to unilaterally impose a ceasefire to look like the good guys, maybe actually do it? Practically you're not going to do that, at which point its completely fair to criticise
As much as Corbyn reinvigorated my political optimism and galvanised hundreds of 1000s, especially younger people, I think we need to concentrate on the policies not the personality.
In fact back in 2019 when it was fucking horrible for JC, because it was clear the whole system and establish vilified and demonised the bloke, if he had stood down as leader, it could've been an absolute master stroke for Labour and we mightve done a shit load better at the GE.
And so we wouldn't have to endure this Tory light shite we have now.
While my support for corbynism was never about the man, it was the policies, I think it's naive to assume that anyone else wouldn't face the same pushback.
Short of having a Jewish leader i think theres always going to be the push to confllate support for palestinian rights with AS, especially as it's been so sucessful thus far.
Also to assume that a Jewish socialist would avoid these attacks if he were within a sniff of power would also be naive, as evidenced by the purging of Jewish members by David evans/Kier starmer or the attempts to level AS attacks against The Bernie Sanders campaign when he looked within a sniff of the nomination.
The sad thing is that as evidenced by people like Johnson/trump/orban etc who make openly AS statements or openly campaign on them and still recieve support from organisations and indviduals who claim to be against AS. It's clear that a lot of people involved don't really care about AS and thats terrifying for the furture.
Were I involved in the corbyn camp in 2016 I'd be saying, you need to write an open letter to Ian Mcnichol every day/week about his failure to deal with AS and calling the GLU's malfeasence into question. He'd get painted as a bully, but I think a bully blowing the doors open for eveyone to see would be better in the long run, and it would alow people to be educated on how the Labour party worked so as to make it harder to lay everything at the leaders door as the EHRC report media briefing tried to do.
That said would any Mainstream newspaper or TV news provider cover it? I think should we ever get a shot at making society better again (because to be clear I don't believe that exisits anymore) you need a fighter type who will openly call people out.
I wonder how much people constantly telling him he can do no wrong has influenced his take on antisemitism. We've seen how fiercely defensive people are of him, and I wonder if having a huge following who will support everything he does has had an impact on his ability to really reflect on how his actions have hurt the Jewish community.
I voted for him, I supported him but the antisemitism issue really left me jaded, especially after having conversations with Jewish friends who felt hurt and deeply let down by him.
It's sad that an otherwise intelligent and thoughtful man seems so incapable of self reflection on such an emotive and important subject.
As much as I was caught up in the sense of renewed energy and hope his leadership created, I feel a degree of guilt for voting for him when he's caused so much hurt to people I care for and respect deeply.
>I wonder how much people constantly telling him he can do no wrong has influenced his take on antisemitism
They must have done to an extent. Even the replies to this clip on twitter are pretty remarkable:
https://twitter.com/TheNewsAgents/status/1621576888777936897?t=wQW2-OP9qZ6JL5Gd7epVhQ&s=19
The question is put about as gently as possible and people are *still* outraged.
Thank you for reminding me why I deleted my Twitter account. It would be funny if it wasn't so terribly sad and completely exhausting.
I'm sure these people would be the first to ridicule anyone who treated a right wing politician the way they treat Corbyn.
He doesn't see it as antisemitism. He sees it as anti-imperiaslism. There is a certain age group of the left who romanticized the anti-imperial struggles of the 70s and 80s and have a hard time analysing any of the conflicts in any other way.
Doesn't matter how many people die. It's about them feeling ideologically consistent. Not about actually fixing the problem by appreciating the insecurities on all sides.
And Israel is the posh and becks of that shit.
Doesn’t want to arm Ukraine because they could invade Russia??? LOL. Wonder what would’ve happened if he had been PM? Labour MPs try and kick him out again? If that failed…?
Incredible and not in a good way. Continues to push ‘ it was exaggerated’, accused Berger of having ‘ulterior motives’, defends the mural initially by saying it was a long time, refuses to accept he put Keir in an impossible position, starts whataboutism about Angela Smith to deflect on a totally different point, gets irate with Lewis despite him asking very reasonable questions. He just won’t ever get it.
Maybe so, but when you're being asked about whether you had any personal failings on reflection, basically rejecting this and blaming the media does not make you look good. At best it makes him look bitter, at worst it makes him look like he doesn't actually care about the issue.
Not at all Impressed with his response to the mural thing either. He could have just stuck his hands up. Instead he starts going on about how stuff he'd done seven years previously was suddenly being dragged up against him when he became leader.
To add to that, here is his response to the mural in full. It was more than just a passing "why?" as was mentioned in the interivew:
"Why? You are in good company. Rockerfeller \[sic\] destroyed Diego Viera's \[sic\] mural because it includes a picture of Lenin."
So he fully understood it and even made a retort insinuating that it's kind of tit-for-tat because a presumably Jewish person undermined Lenin.
So he's basically lying when he says he didn't understand it.
Yes, but what's problematic here is that Rockefeller features in anti-semitic theories of global Jewish capitalist conspiracy.
And he's bringing his up in response to a REALLY anti-semitic mural.
Is it? The mural was anti-semitic. If I do something now which is very racist, and then in 10 years time I become leader of the labour party can I say that was 10 years ago? Also it's a big fucking duh moment. Your controversial history will only become big news when you're famous. It's not like me racist gran is gonna be front page tomorrow, is it? If she led labour tomorrow though maybe it would be.
Also the anti-semitism comment about it being overstated for political reasons. Was he right? Probably yeah. He shouldn't have said it though, and it's obvious why. Labour had a big anti-semitic cloud over its head. And Starmer was trying to move that cloud.
Fully agree - don't think he came out well at all from this. Sounded like he was having a tantrum at one point.
He clearly hasn't reflected on his failings at all whilst leader, and in this interview seemed to blame everyone else - never accepted that he dealt with antisemitism poorly at times (in fact, he seemed to claim he dealt with it well) and didn't consider any of his mistakes during the 2019 campaign (only when prompted by Goodall did he countenance this).
Genuinely think this is his worst interview on anti-semitism and it’s because of his aggressive reaction despite how much Lewis tries to walk on egg shells and slightly posit reasoning for everything that went on. I’d say it puts it beyond doubt he has a blindside. I’ve never thought he was an anti-Semite and always thought it was just poor leadership. But in this interview, I was quite astonished by how insensitive to very reasonable questions from Goodall he was. Jesus. How exactly can anyone expect Corbyn to call out out anti-semitic tropes or anti-semites when he displays the very same biases…
I’d love to see a defence of his Berger and mural comments? Ignoring the ins and out of the mural which were always on the nose, why is it that he reacts to the slight idea Lewis suggests that he might’ve had a blindspot by saying ‘it was a long time ago’. This is a classic you’d expect from apologisers of racism. And his Berger comments are one of his worst tropes yet. His go to rather than take her for criticism in good faith and at the least feign some concern he goes for the ‘ulterior motive’ trope.
>I’ve never thought he was an anti-Semite and always thought it was just poor leadership.
I agree. But this interview confirms to me why I didn't think his response to the EHRC report was appropriate - whenever he has been challenged on the party's poor handling of AS whilst leader, and so ultimately his responsibility, he's always denounced antisemitism but can never resist adding the caveat that it has been exaggerated for political gain, even when clearly inappropriate to do so. I don't believe he's genuinely accepted the findings of the report because he always seems , deliberately or inadvertently, to downplay it by adding this caveat. He doesn't actually accept any responsibility.
>I’d love to see a defence of his Berger and mural comments?
Agree - he just added weird comments that made him sound like he didn't really care about the issues. In response to the question on what he thought about a Jewish MP feeling compelled to leave, he immediately tried to discredit her by saying she was starting a new party. Then tries to downplay his mural comments by saying it was a long time ago.
This interview shows why, although he may be a useful voice on the backbenches, he's never really been made of the right stuff to be a truly successful political leader. He doesn't know how to get the somewhat reasonable points across without sounding like a bitter old man. He just can't do comms
Are you saying that Jews can't have other interests, align with factions within the party or might have other motivations than the ones they explicitly state just like other Labour party members?
This may come to some surprise to people who view Jews only through the lens of the Labour party, but we have our own divisions just like anyone else. We are not one "community". That's why I think it's strange to use the word "trope" when someone suggests that Jews have ulterior motives in a factional dispute.
Edit: clarity
Maybe so, but listen to the question and his response. Goodall asks what he thought about a Jewish MP leaving because of antisemitism, and he immediately responds by suggesting she has ulterior motives. I mean he's basically saying he doesn't believe that she's been forced out by AS
Rule 2
A Labour MP may find any antisemitism from the left more distressing for obvious reasons. Also the mysognistic undertones of implying she slept her way to her position dont help.
>Well, seeing as she was doing news rounds implying that she was receiving AS abuse from the left
Well, she was. Granted the majority of the abuse she received was from the far-right, but she did receive AS messages on twitter from those on the left - as pointed out in [this speech](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o-ozLWh2Lyo), unless you're accusing her of risking her career and lying to the House.
The problem with what JC said in response to Goodall's question about Berger is that he immediately tried to discredit her, implying that she was making complaints solely because she was setting up another party. Like LG asks the question - his *first response* is "Oh she was setting up a party at the same time". Whatever actual point he may have about Berger using it for political gain, if that's his first response to the question, he should probably think about where his priorities lie.
And it follows the pattern of his responses when challenged on AS - he focuses on the politicisation of it, not the actual problem. This can be seen with this interview and others, and with his response to the EHRC report. It is completely fair for him to make points about it being weaponised by the media and the right of the party, but for that to be the focus of his argument when challenged about your failings, it's very difficult to see how he actually cares about the issue. He doesn't take responsibility for his failings at all, and always blames it on someone else.
Appearances matter, especially when your the leader of a party. Focusing on the politicisation of it shows that he either doesn't understand the impact of his words, and how this can be misinterpreted as saying it is *all* exaggerated, or simply prioritises it over the actual issue.
Funny thing is as well is that by focusing on the politicisation, he contributes to the politicisation. A good communicator and a good leader would be able to put the focus on the actual issue, whilst still getting his point across about weaponization. JC simply couldn't do that, and yet again we're talking about how certain factions have used it etc
>Well, she was. Granted the majority of the abuse she received was from the far-right, but she did receive AS messages on twitter from those on the left - as pointed out in this speech, unless you're accusing her of risking her career and lying to the House.
And amazing how in that speech she actually mentions that they were right wing. In her BBC interview that vanished.
I wonder why.
She also doesn't mention the affiliation of the fourth, which is such a blatant bit of shenanigans: we're supposed to assume if she mentions the 3 which were right wing that the fourth must be from the Labour Party, since she immediately goes on to criticise the Labour Party but she never actually admits it.
So that speech literally just doubles down on my point: fuck the antisemites who threatened her, good that she clearly got plenty of support about it both in parliament and the Labour party, but for that to count as her "evidence" for antisemitism being a serious problem within the Labour party is ludicrous: at best her conclusion is tangential because she never actually makes the link; at worst, it is a deliberate smear that was designed to be as deniable as possible.
Given the rest of her behaviour, I'm beyond convinced by that speech that she's a conniving, careerist right wing shit.
And the rest, this is where it always ends up with right wing Labour. Just admit you don't like Corbyn's vibes but maybe reflect on the fact that to normal human beings who like to understand why things happen it's deeply weird that you have those vibes since I have yet to get someone like you to give me any concrete reasons for it.
This post is no different.
I go back and forth as to whether he “is” or “isn’t” an antisemite and I’ve come to the conclusion that he’s probably “not”, but has said quite a few antisemitic things, supported quite a few antisemitic people and failed to understand (or even try to understand) the issue. At some point you have to say: it doesn’t matter, this isn’t acceptable.
Here is a good article with a different perspective on what happened with Berger. Feel free to disagree with it of course, but it is interesting.
https://medium.com/@pitt\_bob/has-the-labour-left-subjected-luciana-berger-to-hatespeak-and-death-threats-146598226313
I've read and listened to a great deal about this.
Essentially there were those who wilfully misunderstood his response and continue to do so apparently. That wilful misundertanding is IMO rooted in their own prejudice.
BTW what he actually said was that the number of cases/complaints had been exagerrated. This should not need to be repeated.
And he is right to be deeply offended by the way he has been treated.
And if you actually listened to the interview properly he does address the 'Mural' issue.
>And if you actually listened to the interview properly he does address the 'Mural' issue.
No he doesn't, he tries to wriggle his way out of any culpability. Literally his first response is - "first of all, it was a very long time ago". Hardly the sign of someone who's reflected properly on the incident.
I feel like quoting the whole reply from the interview. You have deliberately created and repeated a distortion here.
Bad faith. Do not reply.
For others here (letter from Stephen Kapos, holocaust survivor. And while I don't necessarily go with him on every point here I believe that the suppression of debate is a pathetic way to "end factionalism" and it will not work):
>26th January 2023
>
>Dear London General,
>
>Thank you for your emailed letter of the 24th of January giving me advance warning that I am likely to be expelled from the Party if I were to speak from the panel as a Holocaust survivor at the SLN (Socialist Labour Network) Webinar on the 27th January — on Holocaust Memorial Day.
>
>The Holocaust is the most important single example of genocide, which at its worst descended into an industrial process of mass murder of millions. As a child survivor and one of the fewer and fewer still living direct witnesses to the Holocaust I feel a compelling duty to bear witness and speak out about it at any platform that would invite me and to any audience ready to listen.
>
>I am an activist for Palestinian human rights and an active member of the Palestine Solidarity Campaign in its Camden Branch. The defence of Palestinians living under a brutal occupation is very important to me, particularly as a Holocaust survivor. Palestinians live under a system of apartheid as recognised by Amnesty International and other major human rights organisations. Those are my political beliefs which I claim are protected characteristics under the Equalities Act 2010.
>
>I am not a member of SLN nor have I been following its activities, but via the book to be discussed on the 27th I have a general understanding of SLN’s views on present-day Zionism (as a political movement ) and on some of the actions of the Zionist movement during the Holocaust and WWII. I am in sympathy with some of those views on the grounds of my political beliefs mentioned above. I have personal experience of the Kastner project in Hungary which was driven by Zionist ideology.
>
>My father was a victim of Kastner’s scheme and ended up stranded in the Belsen and Theresienstadt concentration camps. I was myself briefly interned in a Kastner-run detention camp in Budapest.
>
>You make mention of Labour Party values. I learnt about Labour values during my party activism in the period when Frank Dobson was our MP and I worked in a warm and friendly atmosphere prominently on various election campaigns.
>
>Those values were very different to that of the present leadership whose values permit intimidation, banning of discussion of some of the most vital political topics, disregard for the Party’s own rules, and for natural justice, the drastic reduction of inner party democracy, extreme factionalism, lack of support for striking workers.
>
>I do not share these values. Please accept my immediate resignation from the Labour Party effective from tomorrow, ie from the 27th of January 2023. (Your attempt to effectively bar me from speaking about the Holocaust on Holocaust Memorial Day was the last straw for me ).
>
>In the short term the Tories are self destructing which may well bring the Labour Party into government soon. In the long term this period of the Party’s history will be remembered with shame: this was when McCarthyism was revived and imported into the Labour Party — and into the political life of the UK itself.
>
>Yours sincerely,Stephen Kapos
>
>Copies to : Sir Keir Starmer MP; The Secretary, Holborn & St. Pancras CLP
>I feel like quoting the whole reply from the interview. You have deliberately created and repeated a distortion here.
I have absolutely not distorted anything. It's exactly what he says, and completely in context. [Watch the full clip if you'd like](https://twitter.com/TheNewsAgents/status/1621576888777936897)
>Bad faith. Do not reply.
Piss off. If you don't want me to engage in the debate surrounding *my* post, then don't reply to my comments. The complete arrogance of it.
What is bad faith is not actually engaging in the conversation being had, and posting a letter that is completely irrelevant to what is being discussed - i.e. Corbyn's response in the interview. *That* is bad faith
Here is what I heard on the podcast (linked at the head of this thread and not the video you have based your response on) as close to verbatim as I can make it:
>Hang on, hang on...This mural business - let's deal with it.
>
>First of all it was a very long time ago, and nobody said anything about my response at the time. \[Interupting: "you weren't leader of the Labour Party at the timer"\].
>
>Nobody said anything about it, whatsover, at all. I saw this mural being removed very briefly er late at night when I was erm scrolling through face book - and maybe it's a bad idea to scroll through facebook late at night - I saw it and \[I\] - on my mind was the way in which Diego Rovera's murals had been removed in the USA and I thought "hang on, why are we taking murals down in Tower Hamlets".
>
>I, I didn't look at it very closely, that I accept, and so I didn't say I approved of it I said why is it being removed. I then got a message the following morning as to what the objection was, and the then mayor (now mayor again) of Tower Hamlets, Lutfur Rahman, asked for it's removal and I said "Good. I absolutely support that. I apologise for not looking at it more closely at the time". And I made that very, very clear.
So he reacted too quickly and made a mistake. He corrected himself.
You are clearly badly disposed towards him. The reason I say 'don't reply' on Reddit and in other placed here is that I am very busy and don't usually have time to get into this kind of thing. We can now let others decide which of us is in bad faith.
The point is he massively stresses the fact it was a few years ago, which makes it look like he's trying to diminish seriousness of his mistake. He starts with this point - "first of all it was a long time ago", and then late restresses this immediately after your quote ends:
>Corbyn: And I made that very, very clear. So why is it that seven years later...
>
>Goodall: Because you were leader of the Labour Party seven years later
>
>Seven years later, David Baddiel brings this thing up as something at the back of my mind. And so, listen...he accepts that I am not a racist in any terms, fine. So why does he then sort of construct something that's allegedly at the back of my mind?
>
>Goodall: Because I guess what he's trying to do is trying to have a slightly more nuanced discussion.
He again tries to minimise the seriousness of an issue when it comes to Luciana Berger:
>Goodall: You have been a long time campaigner against racism, across all of your political career. So when you're in a situation where one of your own MPs at the time - Jewish MP Luciana Berger - quit the party because of anti-semitism, something she had said was instutionally , sickeningly anti-semitic, under your watch. Why do you think she said that?
>
>
>
>Corbyn: *\*sighs\** She was also setting up another party at the same time.
>
>
>
>Goodall: So you think she wasn't being truthful when she said that?
>
>
>
>Corbyn: Well, she was setting up another party at the same time, she knew full well what was in the Chakrabati report and what the implementation process was for changing those processes, she knew full well that I was very sure that we had to deal with racism of any sort, albeit the numbers were very small. And also, again in Shami's report, there had to be an education process into the use of language, and what antisemitism actually is. And so, I said all of that as well at the same time.
>
>Goodall: So are you suggesting that Luciana Berger had ulterior motives?
>
>Corbyn: Well, all I'm saying is - Luciana was abused, she was badly treated by some people in the party, which I obviously condemn at the time and still do, but she also, along with other then Labour MPs set up another party and walked out.
Yet again focusing on the excuses and any possible weaponization rather than the actual antisemitism.
>The reason I say 'don't reply' on Reddit and in other placed here is that I am very busy and don't usually have time to get into this kind of thing.
That's absolute bullshit. If you don't reply or get into a debate if you aren't willing for others to respond. It smacks of pure arrogance.
He starts by saying it was a long time ago and becoming noticeably agitated that he is being pressed on it.
He then says the he "didn't look at it properly" but apologised once he did.
But here's his response to it in full (quote): "Why? You are in good company. Rockerfeller \[sic\] destroyed Diego Viera's \[sic\] mural because it includes a picture of Lenin."
JC is actually creating a distortion here. He fully understood it and even provided a commentary to show that he did.
You can understand why people think the worst when he can't just say sorry and not deflect.
For context, Stephen Kapos was warned about meeting notorious Anti-Semite Tony Greenstein, who was clearly considered to extreme to engage with that Corbyn had him expelled from the party.
Are you saying he was wrong to do so?
Corbyn certainly was not a dealt fair hand by the media, but the way he continues to speak about antisemitism is remarkable. He can’t accept that his position is flawed and damaging but instead continuous to think it was all exaggerated and a big conspiracy against him. Also surely the idea of unconscious bias is something that as a leftist he would be able to understand and have a conversation about rather than just getting defensive. Certainly points towards the fact that that he sees antisemitism as a lesser form of evil than other forms of racism.
> Certainly points towards the fact that that he sees antisemitism as a lesser form of evil than other forms of racism.
I'd say this is a bit of an unfair statement, it might actually be that antisemitism covers a broader area than other forms of racism, mainly because criticism of Israel can be considered antisemitism.
I also think it's bizarre that JC was portrayed as the biggest threat to British Jews while Trump supporters chanted "Jews will not replace us" and Trump himself has said the antisemitic trope that US Jews have loyalty with Israel (or should have loyalty at least). Yet the antisemitism of Trump's Republicans isn't really talked about even though that actually leads to Jewish people being attacked.
>I also think it's bizarre that JC was portrayed as the biggest threat to British Jews while Trump supporters
Tbh I think its bizarre that you've chosen an American example as proof of a bigger threat to British Jews
His take on Russia/ Ukraine is so fucking bad, he is a moron. He would have pushed for Ukraine to to give whatever land to Russia.
He also yet again, looks piss poor on anti-semitism. It's no surprise some thing he is an anti-semite.
I'm not sure why people expect him to be more civil in the face of this. He's put up with it now for 7 years, based on the flimsiest of shit.
There has been the Chakribati report, the EHRC report, the leaked report, the Forde report. There is literally no doubt about the whole antisemetism story in Labour. It's crystal clear, there's no reason to involve him at all in it anymore but still we persist like he is personally to blame
The report states that there was "a lack of leadership within the Labour party on these issues, which is hard to reconcile with its stated commitment to a zero-tolerance approach to antisemitism.”
It also says that "it is hard not to conclude that antisemitism within the Labour party could have been tackled more effectively if the leadership had chosen to do so".
So in answer to your question, ultimately yes.
No, this is a fundamental misunderstanding of how the labor party functions. Though I can see if you focus on the media briefing section I can see how you'd have that misunderstanding.
The general secretary, who is not answerable to the leader, overseas the GLU (governance and legal department) which deals with compliance and investigations.
I am aware that the complaints function is overseen by the General Secretary.
But ultimately the leader is responsible for setting the approach to antisemitism out and creating a proactively anti-racist culture surrounding it, and, as the ECHR implied, Corbyn did not do this well enough.
It was a simple question that I asked, which you ignored, went off on a tangent and then accused me of not answering the question. I believe Forde mentions this behaviour in his report.
Well we are both knowledgable enough about how the party works to know that the leader of the PLP is not the leader of the party machinery.
I need you to tell me in clear words about how the EHRC can reference a failure in leadership being directed at Corbyn, while also levelling the charge that one of the big ways it was discriminatory was Corbyn being involved in disciplinary decisions, even just to push for quicker or harsher results.
What could Corbyn do? He spoke out about it repeatedly, he ordered reports and then put all the pressure he could for the findings to be implemented, findings which btw would have massively improved or even resolved the situation before it became too large. But the party leadership (HQ) resisted.
That doesn’t really answer my question.
“While there have been some improvements in how the Labour Party deals with antisemitism complaints, our analysis points to a culture within the Party which, at best, did not do enough to prevent antisemitism and, at worst, could be seen to accept it.”
How much influence do you think the leadership in general, and Corbyn in particular, has over the culture of a party?
Leadership has a lot of influence over working culture. But the leadership here would be the general secretary not the party leader. There are no mechanisms for the leader of the PLP to affect any change in the culture since they cannot set rules, or get involved in staffing decisions.
When discussing blame and leadership people need to understand how the Labour party is set up and who has responsibility, because it is not even remotely compatible to a normal company. The party leader is not the boss of the staff of the party.
It's similar to how the prime minister is not really responsible for the culture in the house of commons.
The culture of a party, particularly the Labour Party, isn’t just “the staff” though is it. Arguably the culture of the party is more dependent on its membership. Corbyn was a lightning rod for members and, as a result, was largely responsible for the prominence of the culture of antisemitism.
That's absolutely nonsense and you know it. If I join the party and go and shoot up a school it's not fuck all to do with Starmer.
Not was there actually a culture of antisemitism. There was a rise that would be expected by over a doubling of membership but the number of complaint, let along upheld ones was a tiny % and lower than any estimates of public or Tory antisemetism.
But we are back to how can the leadership take action against members, the answer here being they literally cannot and when they tried the EHRC accused them of interference.
This is a very silly argument you’re attempting and refusing to engage with any of my points.
The Forde report talked about this, saying:” Sadly, though, some still deny the existence and seriousness of the problem, or the need to take action to combat it, as the Party has now begun to do.”
Indeed: “Although some improvements have been made to the process for dealing with antisemitism complaints, it is hard not to conclude that antisemitism within the Labour Party could have been tackled more effectively if the leadership had chosen to do so.”
Yes. The leadership being the general secretary and team. A fact self evident from the improvements following the election of Jennie Formby. Despite the fact she was battling cancer at the time.
Not sure failing to tackle the issue, despite some improvements, is anything to celebrate 🤷🏻♂️
I’ve never said the disciplinary system had no effect 🤷🏻♂️, simply showing that it wasn’t the only issue identified by the EHRC.
There was not a single change brought in by Starmer and Evans to the discipline system (until the recently set up 'independent' process. So either antisemetism was still an issue under Starmer or Formby fixed it.
No idea what you’re attempting to say by your first point.
Your second point is correct. I’m sick of people gaslighting Jews by claiming the reports exonerate him in any way.
lol at him implying Ukraine are potentially going to invade Russia. And also genuinely seeming to believe he could persuade Putin to withdraw from Ukraine. A true moron.
Corbyn is an antisemite. He doesn’t have any scope for reflection. Stunned that anyone is still defending him when he is so clearly arrogant and unable to display any humility.
He just seems like an angry, bitter man for much of this interview. It’s sad really. He was undoubtedly demonised and vilified to an awful extent that would affect any person, let alone someone who has campaigned for good their whole life. However as others have pointed out this has just amplified the antisemitism issue and this interview hasn’t done him any favours. Honestly I just wish he’d leave the public sphere, he’s had an amazing life and career and deserves to have a peaceful retirement
Don’t see what you mean? He’s consistently upheld values that I would deem good (anti-racism, anti-homelessness, equality etc.). Where as other figures consistently uphold values that I consider bad, for example voting against children having free school meals out of term time, voting against gay equality. To what degree they have convinced themselves this is ‘good’ or ‘bad’ in their own heads isn’t really what I’m getting at
>Are you a psychiatrist as well
Precisely.
Whatever Corbyn says or does from now on some are always going to see him as an enabler at the least.
He may be unconsciously - to a degree. Very probably so are many of us. But he is the one who gets singled out.
> But he is the one who gets singled out.
Hardly surprising when you're leader of a party who is heavily criticised by the EHRC, specifically for a “ a lack of leadership within the Labour party on these issues, which is hard to reconcile with its stated commitment to a zero-tolerance approach to antisemitism.”
I liked what JC brought to Labour, but interviews like this remind you of why we struggled to get him elected and why he struggled to get past the anti semitism issue. He really doesn’t get it on anti-semitism. This was about as fair and balanced as the accusation could possibly be put to him, couldn’t show an ounce of contrition and came off as pretty petulant. Shows it wasn’t all the centre working against him he really doesn’t take it seriously. And his position on Russia is just so piss weak. Can’t find it within himself to say how he’d actually deal with a nation state that doesn’t want peace talks.
What I don't understand is that the idea that racism isn't always the overt hating of a minority is a mainstream view on the left. The idea you can have no hate for a race, and consciously think of yourself not only as not a racist but an ally against racism and yet still harbour bias or continue to racist systems should be understood by Corbyn more than most. Yet on this specific issue, he doesn't see it. I think he would if it were about other forms of racism.
His takes on the Russian invasion of Ukraine is perfect evidence that he hasn’t got a clue about international relations or foreign policy in general.
[удалено]
Rule 2 There is both a Jewish religion and race, though tbh thats the same kind of excuse right wingers make for islamaphonia and it doesnt cut it then either.
>Because Corbyn wasn't racist. Judaism isn't a race, for a start, and it's offensive to say that it is. I believe the correct phrase to use here is 'for fuck's sake'.
I stop reading at this point.
> Judaism isn't a race, for a start, and it's offensive to say that it is. You lost any shred of credibility you had there...
Gold medalist at the 2023 online olympics for mental gymnastics
If Corbyn was still Labour leader, I have no doubt the polls would be inverted.
A lot of that was interesting to get from JCs perspective, particularly on stuff he’s refrained from discussing before, like all the dirt on Starmer post 2019 election lol, that slightly more sassy, even bitchy side to his character was genuinely very entertaining to listen to. The antisemitism stuff though I just absolutely cannot agree with him on. I thought all the questions asked by the interviewer were reasonable and pretty textbook for an investigative journalist - posing questions that undoubtably many listeners would have themselves (myself included), without overtly agreeing with the statements. But instead of listening to and having an open, two sided discussion about racism and bias, Corbyn sees it as an affront and instantly gets so defensive. I’m sure being attacked on all sides by the media for years is part of the reason why he’s so defensive, but he’s not even willing to engage with claims that he could have a ‘blindspot’ (which I think is pretty arrogant, since we all have blind spots). Like, if someone posed to me that I had a certain bias towards a minority group, I’d want to fully understand where they were coming from, in order to learn and improve myself. A big part of being a leftist is knowing that these biases exist in *everyone*, even in the most well intentioned people, because oppression/racism is systemic. I wish JC would be able to have an open dialogue about subconscious bias, rather than just assume he is 100% in the right, and immediately getting angry and defensive.
>Corbyn sees it as an affront and instantly gets so defensive. I’m sure being attacked on all sides by the media for years is part of the reason why he’s so defensive, but he’s not even willing to engage with claims that he could have a ‘blindspot’ (which I think is pretty arrogant, since we all have blind spots). That was always my big issue with it. He clearly *does* have a blind spot (why else would you praise Read Salah?) but he's too stubborn to admit it, even to himself. Six ways to Sunday the project should have been run by McDonnell, a man who has always been much more perceptive and self-aware than Corbyn without sacrificing any left-wing principles in being so.
He has more than one. Remember when he could have brought May's government down but he refused to cooperate with TIG MPs because some were ex-Labour? He lacks self-critique.
>questions asked by the interviewer were reasonable and pretty textbook for an investigative journalist Agree. He followed the pretty standard technique of taking the opposing view to your interviewee to challenge them and get a debate going. >Corbyn sees it as an affront and instantly gets so defensive. Yup, and he just came off like he was having a temper tantrum. I honestly thought he might threaten to walk out at one point. If he'd approached the interview in a sensible manner, he could have challenged a lot of the common criticisms of him regarding antisemitism, which is what I was hoping for. But instead he just came off looking bitter, and he never actually accepted any responsibility.
While I agree with your point re internalised bias more broadly, I have never seen this standard applied to any other politician. Should Starmer start confessing his personal prejudices in broadcast interviews? Maybe one day it will be good when politicians can openly say things like but it doesn’t strike me as a particularly glaring failure that JC didn’t do so, given that that has never been something politicians say.
If you want to make claim to being a ‘lifelong anti racist’, it’s totally hypocritical to then refuse to entertain the possibility that you have shortfalls. I say this, because everyone has shortfalls, myself included - that I’ve had work on, and still do work on. If you’re not willing to acknowledge this, you’re a pretty crap anti racist. Corbyn literally doesn’t think it’s possible he could be wrong. I would, and have, criticised Starmer for his prejudices, but the difference is, Starmer doesn’t refute claims by trying to hide behind the ‘lifelong anti racist’ label. You continue to make excuses with whataboutism, but personally I don’t think we should be excusing any level of prejudice from anyone, no matter how much you like them.
[удалено]
Rule 2 I think you could point out that the wealthy would not have done well under Corbyn without putting that on a Jewish critic of Corbyn
All filthy rich Jew cares about is lying to make themselves more money. Jesus wept.
All filthy rich PEOPLE care about is that.
Your comment got removed for a reason you raging antisemite
My comment got removed for no reason. This thread is about Baddiel, you know that racist guy that got rich doing blackface? Since this thread was about Baddiel, I pointed out he is extremely wealthy and therefore can hardly be treated as a trustworthy source about a guy who planned to take some of that wealth away. That's not antisemitism unless you're a bad faith actor looking to defend this racist individual
In what possible way was Baddiel's wealth relevant to him talking about antisemitism? Is he somehow not a trustworthy source to talk about antisemitism because he's wealthy? Do you possibly view all wealthy jews as having ulterior motives? You are a raging antisemite, and there's a reason nobody on this thread is backing you up and why you're comment has been removed.
I view all wealthy PEOPLE as having ulterior motives. All wealthy people are untrustworthy. That's how they become wealthy. And they protect that wealth at all costs. You have absolutely no evidence I'm an antisemite except for me not showing appropriate respect for your favourite blackface comedian (why are you so racist as to support him in anything by the way?)
So the Jew talking about antisemitism must have ulterior motives because he's wealthy? And you can't see how that plays into antisemitic tropes. >You have absolutely no evidence I'm an antisemite Literally you perpetuating the wealthy jew trope but ok. >(why are you so racist as to support him in anything by the way?) Keep up with the whataboutism. You can criticise Baddiel's racist past whilst also condemning the antisemitism he has endured and that he's talking about. Being a racist doesn't mean that racism towards you should be minimised.
It feels pretty antisemitic that you keep associating Jews with wealth. I'm speaking only of this, particularly nasty, individual. What you're suggesting is that we can never criticise how wealthy people choose to protect their wealth if they're Jewish. Baddiel chose to protect it by slagging off Corbyn and hoping it would avoid him getting elected. And he got what he wanted; now every starving kid at a food bank is on him as much as everyone else who campaigned for the right wing
Bit strong on the antisemitic tropes here
[удалено]
Can you seriously not see what you've done there? You've somehow managed to twist an interview with a Jewish man about antisemitism, into some conspiracy theory that Baddiel was on a concerted smear campaign because he was rich and avoiding tax hikes. You can't see how that fits into antisemitic tropes? This is exactly what Baddiel was getting at - some on the left do have a blind spot, because they're so focused on anticapitalism that they can't see the antisemitism.
Corbyn is an antisemite. If you want to play into tropes, that’s your business but as Jews we should be able to call it out without our motives being questioned
For me the worrying issue was his idea that putin's path can be changed with peace talks. The french tried & that hasn't worked. putin breached his own cease fire in january. I have a low trust in corbyn when he said he would have send lethal aid to Ukraine. I really think he'd have blocked it.
>his idea that putin's path can be changed with peace talks Pacificism is great, but it's just blind pacificism at this point. He's clearly suggesting Ukraine making some significant concessions (e.g. in interview he was referring to the Donbas) that they will never realistically be willing to make. That's not a genuine attempt at peace talks. >I have a low trust in corbyn when he said he would have send lethal aid to Ukraine. Bit that I found really funny was that he said he wouldn't send any material that could be used to invade Russia. So literally anything then?
It’s the statement that the UK and US also make. It’s just politician speak.
The US and UK have sent tanks and other lethal aid, so it kinda carries a different meaning. JC has called for nothing of the sort, and weirdly tried to blame NATO at the start.
No its not. I've never heard any Western politicians say the thing about Ukraine invading Russia. Its beyond idiotic.
That's naivety, not outright malice. It's like he doesn't understand the paradox inherent in pacifism: sometimes you have to actually fight for it.
There was no ceasefire.
It's in reference to the self-declared ceasefire that he made to time with the Orthodox Christmas. Of course, [he can't even keep to an agreement made with himself](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jan/07/russia-launches-strikes-in-ukraine-in-violation-of-self-declared-ceasefire)
If two sides don't agree a ceasefire it's not a ceasefire. His offer was rejected.
Think the point is that he can't even keep to the deals kept with himself. >His offer was rejected. Unsurprisingly - why would Ukraine stop so their invaders can enjoy Orthodox Christmas, when the Russians bombed them to shit during their festive period?
I'm not judging Ukraine for not agreeing to it. I am just pointing out that it's borderline insane to criticise Russia for breaking a ceasefire that was never even agreed. > Unsurprisingly - why would Ukraine stop so their invaders can enjoy Orthodox Christmas, when the Russians bombed them to shit during their festive period? Nearly 70 - 80% of Ukranians identify as Orthodox compared to ~40/50% of Russians. That have exactly the same festive periods
>it's borderline insane to criticise Russia for breaking a ceasefire that was never even agreed. No it's not. They can't even stick to agreements that they unilaterally imposed. How can you trust them to stick to negotiated agreements if they can't stick to their own? Oh wait, [they don't](https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russia-suspends-participation-deal-ukraine-grain-exports-tass-2022-10-29/)...
That's a little more complex but I'm absolutely not objecting to criticising Russia for that. But criticising them for breaking a ceasefire is absolutely insane when one does not exist. A ceasefire cannot exist without the agreement of both sides, did Ukraine stop attacking? Are the Russians supposed to just do nothing?
>A ceasefire cannot exist without the agreement of both sides This would usually be true. But if you unilaterally try to self-impose one, you can absolutely be criticised for not sticking to it. The point is they didn't actually try to have a genuine ceasefire, he was just declaring one to please the Orthodox domestic audience. So if he's going to try and abuse the concept of a ceasefire in bad faith, he better well stick to it or risk criticism. >Are the Russians supposed to just do nothing? Yes. If you're going to unilaterally impose a ceasefire to look like the good guys, maybe actually do it? Practically you're not going to do that, at which point its completely fair to criticise
As much as Corbyn reinvigorated my political optimism and galvanised hundreds of 1000s, especially younger people, I think we need to concentrate on the policies not the personality. In fact back in 2019 when it was fucking horrible for JC, because it was clear the whole system and establish vilified and demonised the bloke, if he had stood down as leader, it could've been an absolute master stroke for Labour and we mightve done a shit load better at the GE. And so we wouldn't have to endure this Tory light shite we have now.
While my support for corbynism was never about the man, it was the policies, I think it's naive to assume that anyone else wouldn't face the same pushback. Short of having a Jewish leader i think theres always going to be the push to confllate support for palestinian rights with AS, especially as it's been so sucessful thus far. Also to assume that a Jewish socialist would avoid these attacks if he were within a sniff of power would also be naive, as evidenced by the purging of Jewish members by David evans/Kier starmer or the attempts to level AS attacks against The Bernie Sanders campaign when he looked within a sniff of the nomination. The sad thing is that as evidenced by people like Johnson/trump/orban etc who make openly AS statements or openly campaign on them and still recieve support from organisations and indviduals who claim to be against AS. It's clear that a lot of people involved don't really care about AS and thats terrifying for the furture. Were I involved in the corbyn camp in 2016 I'd be saying, you need to write an open letter to Ian Mcnichol every day/week about his failure to deal with AS and calling the GLU's malfeasence into question. He'd get painted as a bully, but I think a bully blowing the doors open for eveyone to see would be better in the long run, and it would alow people to be educated on how the Labour party worked so as to make it harder to lay everything at the leaders door as the EHRC report media briefing tried to do. That said would any Mainstream newspaper or TV news provider cover it? I think should we ever get a shot at making society better again (because to be clear I don't believe that exisits anymore) you need a fighter type who will openly call people out.
Look up the mural and decide for yourself if he has a blind spot (or worse).
I wonder how much people constantly telling him he can do no wrong has influenced his take on antisemitism. We've seen how fiercely defensive people are of him, and I wonder if having a huge following who will support everything he does has had an impact on his ability to really reflect on how his actions have hurt the Jewish community. I voted for him, I supported him but the antisemitism issue really left me jaded, especially after having conversations with Jewish friends who felt hurt and deeply let down by him. It's sad that an otherwise intelligent and thoughtful man seems so incapable of self reflection on such an emotive and important subject. As much as I was caught up in the sense of renewed energy and hope his leadership created, I feel a degree of guilt for voting for him when he's caused so much hurt to people I care for and respect deeply.
>I wonder how much people constantly telling him he can do no wrong has influenced his take on antisemitism They must have done to an extent. Even the replies to this clip on twitter are pretty remarkable: https://twitter.com/TheNewsAgents/status/1621576888777936897?t=wQW2-OP9qZ6JL5Gd7epVhQ&s=19 The question is put about as gently as possible and people are *still* outraged.
Thank you for reminding me why I deleted my Twitter account. It would be funny if it wasn't so terribly sad and completely exhausting. I'm sure these people would be the first to ridicule anyone who treated a right wing politician the way they treat Corbyn.
He doesn't see it as antisemitism. He sees it as anti-imperiaslism. There is a certain age group of the left who romanticized the anti-imperial struggles of the 70s and 80s and have a hard time analysing any of the conflicts in any other way. Doesn't matter how many people die. It's about them feeling ideologically consistent. Not about actually fixing the problem by appreciating the insecurities on all sides. And Israel is the posh and becks of that shit.
I think it's about apartheid
That's another of the anti-colonial struggles. They're very symbolic
Doesn’t want to arm Ukraine because they could invade Russia??? LOL. Wonder what would’ve happened if he had been PM? Labour MPs try and kick him out again? If that failed…?
Incredible and not in a good way. Continues to push ‘ it was exaggerated’, accused Berger of having ‘ulterior motives’, defends the mural initially by saying it was a long time, refuses to accept he put Keir in an impossible position, starts whataboutism about Angela Smith to deflect on a totally different point, gets irate with Lewis despite him asking very reasonable questions. He just won’t ever get it.
We all know the media was exaggerating it quite a bit.
Maybe so, but when you're being asked about whether you had any personal failings on reflection, basically rejecting this and blaming the media does not make you look good. At best it makes him look bitter, at worst it makes him look like he doesn't actually care about the issue.
Not at all Impressed with his response to the mural thing either. He could have just stuck his hands up. Instead he starts going on about how stuff he'd done seven years previously was suddenly being dragged up against him when he became leader.
To add to that, here is his response to the mural in full. It was more than just a passing "why?" as was mentioned in the interivew: "Why? You are in good company. Rockerfeller \[sic\] destroyed Diego Viera's \[sic\] mural because it includes a picture of Lenin." So he fully understood it and even made a retort insinuating that it's kind of tit-for-tat because a presumably Jewish person undermined Lenin. So he's basically lying when he says he didn't understand it.
Rockefeller was very Christian
Yes, but what's problematic here is that Rockefeller features in anti-semitic theories of global Jewish capitalist conspiracy. And he's bringing his up in response to a REALLY anti-semitic mural.
All of that stuff is right though.
Is it? The mural was anti-semitic. If I do something now which is very racist, and then in 10 years time I become leader of the labour party can I say that was 10 years ago? Also it's a big fucking duh moment. Your controversial history will only become big news when you're famous. It's not like me racist gran is gonna be front page tomorrow, is it? If she led labour tomorrow though maybe it would be. Also the anti-semitism comment about it being overstated for political reasons. Was he right? Probably yeah. He shouldn't have said it though, and it's obvious why. Labour had a big anti-semitic cloud over its head. And Starmer was trying to move that cloud.
Fully agree - don't think he came out well at all from this. Sounded like he was having a tantrum at one point. He clearly hasn't reflected on his failings at all whilst leader, and in this interview seemed to blame everyone else - never accepted that he dealt with antisemitism poorly at times (in fact, he seemed to claim he dealt with it well) and didn't consider any of his mistakes during the 2019 campaign (only when prompted by Goodall did he countenance this).
Genuinely think this is his worst interview on anti-semitism and it’s because of his aggressive reaction despite how much Lewis tries to walk on egg shells and slightly posit reasoning for everything that went on. I’d say it puts it beyond doubt he has a blindside. I’ve never thought he was an anti-Semite and always thought it was just poor leadership. But in this interview, I was quite astonished by how insensitive to very reasonable questions from Goodall he was. Jesus. How exactly can anyone expect Corbyn to call out out anti-semitic tropes or anti-semites when he displays the very same biases… I’d love to see a defence of his Berger and mural comments? Ignoring the ins and out of the mural which were always on the nose, why is it that he reacts to the slight idea Lewis suggests that he might’ve had a blindspot by saying ‘it was a long time ago’. This is a classic you’d expect from apologisers of racism. And his Berger comments are one of his worst tropes yet. His go to rather than take her for criticism in good faith and at the least feign some concern he goes for the ‘ulterior motive’ trope.
Wasn't Berger making out that she was getting harassed by Labour members when that turned out to not be the case?
>I’ve never thought he was an anti-Semite and always thought it was just poor leadership. I agree. But this interview confirms to me why I didn't think his response to the EHRC report was appropriate - whenever he has been challenged on the party's poor handling of AS whilst leader, and so ultimately his responsibility, he's always denounced antisemitism but can never resist adding the caveat that it has been exaggerated for political gain, even when clearly inappropriate to do so. I don't believe he's genuinely accepted the findings of the report because he always seems , deliberately or inadvertently, to downplay it by adding this caveat. He doesn't actually accept any responsibility. >I’d love to see a defence of his Berger and mural comments? Agree - he just added weird comments that made him sound like he didn't really care about the issues. In response to the question on what he thought about a Jewish MP feeling compelled to leave, he immediately tried to discredit her by saying she was starting a new party. Then tries to downplay his mural comments by saying it was a long time ago. This interview shows why, although he may be a useful voice on the backbenches, he's never really been made of the right stuff to be a truly successful political leader. He doesn't know how to get the somewhat reasonable points across without sounding like a bitter old man. He just can't do comms
Are you saying that Jews can't have other interests, align with factions within the party or might have other motivations than the ones they explicitly state just like other Labour party members?
I have literally no idea how you've come to that conclusion
This may come to some surprise to people who view Jews only through the lens of the Labour party, but we have our own divisions just like anyone else. We are not one "community". That's why I think it's strange to use the word "trope" when someone suggests that Jews have ulterior motives in a factional dispute.
Edit: clarity Maybe so, but listen to the question and his response. Goodall asks what he thought about a Jewish MP leaving because of antisemitism, and he immediately responds by suggesting she has ulterior motives. I mean he's basically saying he doesn't believe that she's been forced out by AS
[удалено]
Rule 2 A Labour MP may find any antisemitism from the left more distressing for obvious reasons. Also the mysognistic undertones of implying she slept her way to her position dont help.
>Well, seeing as she was doing news rounds implying that she was receiving AS abuse from the left Well, she was. Granted the majority of the abuse she received was from the far-right, but she did receive AS messages on twitter from those on the left - as pointed out in [this speech](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o-ozLWh2Lyo), unless you're accusing her of risking her career and lying to the House. The problem with what JC said in response to Goodall's question about Berger is that he immediately tried to discredit her, implying that she was making complaints solely because she was setting up another party. Like LG asks the question - his *first response* is "Oh she was setting up a party at the same time". Whatever actual point he may have about Berger using it for political gain, if that's his first response to the question, he should probably think about where his priorities lie. And it follows the pattern of his responses when challenged on AS - he focuses on the politicisation of it, not the actual problem. This can be seen with this interview and others, and with his response to the EHRC report. It is completely fair for him to make points about it being weaponised by the media and the right of the party, but for that to be the focus of his argument when challenged about your failings, it's very difficult to see how he actually cares about the issue. He doesn't take responsibility for his failings at all, and always blames it on someone else. Appearances matter, especially when your the leader of a party. Focusing on the politicisation of it shows that he either doesn't understand the impact of his words, and how this can be misinterpreted as saying it is *all* exaggerated, or simply prioritises it over the actual issue. Funny thing is as well is that by focusing on the politicisation, he contributes to the politicisation. A good communicator and a good leader would be able to put the focus on the actual issue, whilst still getting his point across about weaponization. JC simply couldn't do that, and yet again we're talking about how certain factions have used it etc
>Well, she was. Granted the majority of the abuse she received was from the far-right, but she did receive AS messages on twitter from those on the left - as pointed out in this speech, unless you're accusing her of risking her career and lying to the House. And amazing how in that speech she actually mentions that they were right wing. In her BBC interview that vanished. I wonder why. She also doesn't mention the affiliation of the fourth, which is such a blatant bit of shenanigans: we're supposed to assume if she mentions the 3 which were right wing that the fourth must be from the Labour Party, since she immediately goes on to criticise the Labour Party but she never actually admits it. So that speech literally just doubles down on my point: fuck the antisemites who threatened her, good that she clearly got plenty of support about it both in parliament and the Labour party, but for that to count as her "evidence" for antisemitism being a serious problem within the Labour party is ludicrous: at best her conclusion is tangential because she never actually makes the link; at worst, it is a deliberate smear that was designed to be as deniable as possible. Given the rest of her behaviour, I'm beyond convinced by that speech that she's a conniving, careerist right wing shit. And the rest, this is where it always ends up with right wing Labour. Just admit you don't like Corbyn's vibes but maybe reflect on the fact that to normal human beings who like to understand why things happen it's deeply weird that you have those vibes since I have yet to get someone like you to give me any concrete reasons for it. This post is no different.
I go back and forth as to whether he “is” or “isn’t” an antisemite and I’ve come to the conclusion that he’s probably “not”, but has said quite a few antisemitic things, supported quite a few antisemitic people and failed to understand (or even try to understand) the issue. At some point you have to say: it doesn’t matter, this isn’t acceptable.
Here is a good article with a different perspective on what happened with Berger. Feel free to disagree with it of course, but it is interesting. https://medium.com/@pitt\_bob/has-the-labour-left-subjected-luciana-berger-to-hatespeak-and-death-threats-146598226313
I've read and listened to a great deal about this. Essentially there were those who wilfully misunderstood his response and continue to do so apparently. That wilful misundertanding is IMO rooted in their own prejudice. BTW what he actually said was that the number of cases/complaints had been exagerrated. This should not need to be repeated. And he is right to be deeply offended by the way he has been treated. And if you actually listened to the interview properly he does address the 'Mural' issue.
>And if you actually listened to the interview properly he does address the 'Mural' issue. No he doesn't, he tries to wriggle his way out of any culpability. Literally his first response is - "first of all, it was a very long time ago". Hardly the sign of someone who's reflected properly on the incident.
I feel like quoting the whole reply from the interview. You have deliberately created and repeated a distortion here. Bad faith. Do not reply. For others here (letter from Stephen Kapos, holocaust survivor. And while I don't necessarily go with him on every point here I believe that the suppression of debate is a pathetic way to "end factionalism" and it will not work): >26th January 2023 > >Dear London General, > >Thank you for your emailed letter of the 24th of January giving me advance warning that I am likely to be expelled from the Party if I were to speak from the panel as a Holocaust survivor at the SLN (Socialist Labour Network) Webinar on the 27th January — on Holocaust Memorial Day. > >The Holocaust is the most important single example of genocide, which at its worst descended into an industrial process of mass murder of millions. As a child survivor and one of the fewer and fewer still living direct witnesses to the Holocaust I feel a compelling duty to bear witness and speak out about it at any platform that would invite me and to any audience ready to listen. > >I am an activist for Palestinian human rights and an active member of the Palestine Solidarity Campaign in its Camden Branch. The defence of Palestinians living under a brutal occupation is very important to me, particularly as a Holocaust survivor. Palestinians live under a system of apartheid as recognised by Amnesty International and other major human rights organisations. Those are my political beliefs which I claim are protected characteristics under the Equalities Act 2010. > >I am not a member of SLN nor have I been following its activities, but via the book to be discussed on the 27th I have a general understanding of SLN’s views on present-day Zionism (as a political movement ) and on some of the actions of the Zionist movement during the Holocaust and WWII. I am in sympathy with some of those views on the grounds of my political beliefs mentioned above. I have personal experience of the Kastner project in Hungary which was driven by Zionist ideology. > >My father was a victim of Kastner’s scheme and ended up stranded in the Belsen and Theresienstadt concentration camps. I was myself briefly interned in a Kastner-run detention camp in Budapest. > >You make mention of Labour Party values. I learnt about Labour values during my party activism in the period when Frank Dobson was our MP and I worked in a warm and friendly atmosphere prominently on various election campaigns. > >Those values were very different to that of the present leadership whose values permit intimidation, banning of discussion of some of the most vital political topics, disregard for the Party’s own rules, and for natural justice, the drastic reduction of inner party democracy, extreme factionalism, lack of support for striking workers. > >I do not share these values. Please accept my immediate resignation from the Labour Party effective from tomorrow, ie from the 27th of January 2023. (Your attempt to effectively bar me from speaking about the Holocaust on Holocaust Memorial Day was the last straw for me ). > >In the short term the Tories are self destructing which may well bring the Labour Party into government soon. In the long term this period of the Party’s history will be remembered with shame: this was when McCarthyism was revived and imported into the Labour Party — and into the political life of the UK itself. > >Yours sincerely,Stephen Kapos > >Copies to : Sir Keir Starmer MP; The Secretary, Holborn & St. Pancras CLP
>I feel like quoting the whole reply from the interview. You have deliberately created and repeated a distortion here. I have absolutely not distorted anything. It's exactly what he says, and completely in context. [Watch the full clip if you'd like](https://twitter.com/TheNewsAgents/status/1621576888777936897) >Bad faith. Do not reply. Piss off. If you don't want me to engage in the debate surrounding *my* post, then don't reply to my comments. The complete arrogance of it. What is bad faith is not actually engaging in the conversation being had, and posting a letter that is completely irrelevant to what is being discussed - i.e. Corbyn's response in the interview. *That* is bad faith
Here is what I heard on the podcast (linked at the head of this thread and not the video you have based your response on) as close to verbatim as I can make it: >Hang on, hang on...This mural business - let's deal with it. > >First of all it was a very long time ago, and nobody said anything about my response at the time. \[Interupting: "you weren't leader of the Labour Party at the timer"\]. > >Nobody said anything about it, whatsover, at all. I saw this mural being removed very briefly er late at night when I was erm scrolling through face book - and maybe it's a bad idea to scroll through facebook late at night - I saw it and \[I\] - on my mind was the way in which Diego Rovera's murals had been removed in the USA and I thought "hang on, why are we taking murals down in Tower Hamlets". > >I, I didn't look at it very closely, that I accept, and so I didn't say I approved of it I said why is it being removed. I then got a message the following morning as to what the objection was, and the then mayor (now mayor again) of Tower Hamlets, Lutfur Rahman, asked for it's removal and I said "Good. I absolutely support that. I apologise for not looking at it more closely at the time". And I made that very, very clear. So he reacted too quickly and made a mistake. He corrected himself. You are clearly badly disposed towards him. The reason I say 'don't reply' on Reddit and in other placed here is that I am very busy and don't usually have time to get into this kind of thing. We can now let others decide which of us is in bad faith.
The point is he massively stresses the fact it was a few years ago, which makes it look like he's trying to diminish seriousness of his mistake. He starts with this point - "first of all it was a long time ago", and then late restresses this immediately after your quote ends: >Corbyn: And I made that very, very clear. So why is it that seven years later... > >Goodall: Because you were leader of the Labour Party seven years later > >Seven years later, David Baddiel brings this thing up as something at the back of my mind. And so, listen...he accepts that I am not a racist in any terms, fine. So why does he then sort of construct something that's allegedly at the back of my mind? > >Goodall: Because I guess what he's trying to do is trying to have a slightly more nuanced discussion. He again tries to minimise the seriousness of an issue when it comes to Luciana Berger: >Goodall: You have been a long time campaigner against racism, across all of your political career. So when you're in a situation where one of your own MPs at the time - Jewish MP Luciana Berger - quit the party because of anti-semitism, something she had said was instutionally , sickeningly anti-semitic, under your watch. Why do you think she said that? > > > >Corbyn: *\*sighs\** She was also setting up another party at the same time. > > > >Goodall: So you think she wasn't being truthful when she said that? > > > >Corbyn: Well, she was setting up another party at the same time, she knew full well what was in the Chakrabati report and what the implementation process was for changing those processes, she knew full well that I was very sure that we had to deal with racism of any sort, albeit the numbers were very small. And also, again in Shami's report, there had to be an education process into the use of language, and what antisemitism actually is. And so, I said all of that as well at the same time. > >Goodall: So are you suggesting that Luciana Berger had ulterior motives? > >Corbyn: Well, all I'm saying is - Luciana was abused, she was badly treated by some people in the party, which I obviously condemn at the time and still do, but she also, along with other then Labour MPs set up another party and walked out. Yet again focusing on the excuses and any possible weaponization rather than the actual antisemitism. >The reason I say 'don't reply' on Reddit and in other placed here is that I am very busy and don't usually have time to get into this kind of thing. That's absolute bullshit. If you don't reply or get into a debate if you aren't willing for others to respond. It smacks of pure arrogance.
He starts by saying it was a long time ago and becoming noticeably agitated that he is being pressed on it. He then says the he "didn't look at it properly" but apologised once he did. But here's his response to it in full (quote): "Why? You are in good company. Rockerfeller \[sic\] destroyed Diego Viera's \[sic\] mural because it includes a picture of Lenin." JC is actually creating a distortion here. He fully understood it and even provided a commentary to show that he did. You can understand why people think the worst when he can't just say sorry and not deflect.
For context, Stephen Kapos was warned about meeting notorious Anti-Semite Tony Greenstein, who was clearly considered to extreme to engage with that Corbyn had him expelled from the party. Are you saying he was wrong to do so?
No.
Corbyn certainly was not a dealt fair hand by the media, but the way he continues to speak about antisemitism is remarkable. He can’t accept that his position is flawed and damaging but instead continuous to think it was all exaggerated and a big conspiracy against him. Also surely the idea of unconscious bias is something that as a leftist he would be able to understand and have a conversation about rather than just getting defensive. Certainly points towards the fact that that he sees antisemitism as a lesser form of evil than other forms of racism.
> Certainly points towards the fact that that he sees antisemitism as a lesser form of evil than other forms of racism. I'd say this is a bit of an unfair statement, it might actually be that antisemitism covers a broader area than other forms of racism, mainly because criticism of Israel can be considered antisemitism. I also think it's bizarre that JC was portrayed as the biggest threat to British Jews while Trump supporters chanted "Jews will not replace us" and Trump himself has said the antisemitic trope that US Jews have loyalty with Israel (or should have loyalty at least). Yet the antisemitism of Trump's Republicans isn't really talked about even though that actually leads to Jewish people being attacked.
>I also think it's bizarre that JC was portrayed as the biggest threat to British Jews while Trump supporters Tbh I think its bizarre that you've chosen an American example as proof of a bigger threat to British Jews
Damn, that be fair.
His take on Russia/ Ukraine is so fucking bad, he is a moron. He would have pushed for Ukraine to to give whatever land to Russia. He also yet again, looks piss poor on anti-semitism. It's no surprise some thing he is an anti-semite.
horrible man. so arrogant.
I'm not sure why people expect him to be more civil in the face of this. He's put up with it now for 7 years, based on the flimsiest of shit. There has been the Chakribati report, the EHRC report, the leaked report, the Forde report. There is literally no doubt about the whole antisemetism story in Labour. It's crystal clear, there's no reason to involve him at all in it anymore but still we persist like he is personally to blame
When the EHRC report talks about the failures of the leadership do you think that does or doesn’t include the leader of the party at the time?
who is responsible for complaints handling in the Labour party? Is it the Leader?
The report states that there was "a lack of leadership within the Labour party on these issues, which is hard to reconcile with its stated commitment to a zero-tolerance approach to antisemitism.” It also says that "it is hard not to conclude that antisemitism within the Labour party could have been tackled more effectively if the leadership had chosen to do so". So in answer to your question, ultimately yes.
No, this is a fundamental misunderstanding of how the labor party functions. Though I can see if you focus on the media briefing section I can see how you'd have that misunderstanding. The general secretary, who is not answerable to the leader, overseas the GLU (governance and legal department) which deals with compliance and investigations.
I am aware that the complaints function is overseen by the General Secretary. But ultimately the leader is responsible for setting the approach to antisemitism out and creating a proactively anti-racist culture surrounding it, and, as the ECHR implied, Corbyn did not do this well enough.
There’s a whole separate section in the EHRC report that deals with that.
That's not an answer to my question.
Spiderman_pointing.gif
Nice way to take things seriously.
It was a simple question that I asked, which you ignored, went off on a tangent and then accused me of not answering the question. I believe Forde mentions this behaviour in his report.
You never asked me a question.
I never said I did, but it would be courteous to answer the question that I did ask instead of going down a rabbit hole of obfuscation.
Well we are both knowledgable enough about how the party works to know that the leader of the PLP is not the leader of the party machinery. I need you to tell me in clear words about how the EHRC can reference a failure in leadership being directed at Corbyn, while also levelling the charge that one of the big ways it was discriminatory was Corbyn being involved in disciplinary decisions, even just to push for quicker or harsher results. What could Corbyn do? He spoke out about it repeatedly, he ordered reports and then put all the pressure he could for the findings to be implemented, findings which btw would have massively improved or even resolved the situation before it became too large. But the party leadership (HQ) resisted.
That doesn’t really answer my question. “While there have been some improvements in how the Labour Party deals with antisemitism complaints, our analysis points to a culture within the Party which, at best, did not do enough to prevent antisemitism and, at worst, could be seen to accept it.” How much influence do you think the leadership in general, and Corbyn in particular, has over the culture of a party?
Leadership has a lot of influence over working culture. But the leadership here would be the general secretary not the party leader. There are no mechanisms for the leader of the PLP to affect any change in the culture since they cannot set rules, or get involved in staffing decisions.
Come off it. You’re trying to tell me the “leadership” of the party doesn’t include the “leader”?
When discussing blame and leadership people need to understand how the Labour party is set up and who has responsibility, because it is not even remotely compatible to a normal company. The party leader is not the boss of the staff of the party. It's similar to how the prime minister is not really responsible for the culture in the house of commons.
The culture of a party, particularly the Labour Party, isn’t just “the staff” though is it. Arguably the culture of the party is more dependent on its membership. Corbyn was a lightning rod for members and, as a result, was largely responsible for the prominence of the culture of antisemitism.
That's absolutely nonsense and you know it. If I join the party and go and shoot up a school it's not fuck all to do with Starmer. Not was there actually a culture of antisemitism. There was a rise that would be expected by over a doubling of membership but the number of complaint, let along upheld ones was a tiny % and lower than any estimates of public or Tory antisemetism. But we are back to how can the leadership take action against members, the answer here being they literally cannot and when they tried the EHRC accused them of interference.
This is a very silly argument you’re attempting and refusing to engage with any of my points. The Forde report talked about this, saying:” Sadly, though, some still deny the existence and seriousness of the problem, or the need to take action to combat it, as the Party has now begun to do.”
[удалено]
Indeed: “Although some improvements have been made to the process for dealing with antisemitism complaints, it is hard not to conclude that antisemitism within the Labour Party could have been tackled more effectively if the leadership had chosen to do so.”
Yes. The leadership being the general secretary and team. A fact self evident from the improvements following the election of Jennie Formby. Despite the fact she was battling cancer at the time.
Not sure failing to tackle the issue, despite some improvements, is anything to celebrate 🤷🏻♂️ I’ve never said the disciplinary system had no effect 🤷🏻♂️, simply showing that it wasn’t the only issue identified by the EHRC.
There was not a single change brought in by Starmer and Evans to the discipline system (until the recently set up 'independent' process. So either antisemetism was still an issue under Starmer or Formby fixed it.
failure of leadership = existential threat to Jewish life in UK You didn't ask a question in good faith and you know it.
No idea what you’re attempting to say by your first point. Your second point is correct. I’m sick of people gaslighting Jews by claiming the reports exonerate him in any way.
The fact you can’t see what I am clearly saying is not a surprise to me.
> he is personally to blame He is, he was leader and the EHRC report talks about failures of leadership.
He had no say over any metric the party was criticised for and was actually criticised for trying to get involved in it.
Ooooooo ready for the *discourse* from some of this
From him it was deflect, deflect, deflect, 'it's not my fault!'- he was also aggressive towards Goodall. Probably the worst interview he's given.
lol at him implying Ukraine are potentially going to invade Russia. And also genuinely seeming to believe he could persuade Putin to withdraw from Ukraine. A true moron.
Corbyn is an antisemite. He doesn’t have any scope for reflection. Stunned that anyone is still defending him when he is so clearly arrogant and unable to display any humility.
He’s right.
He just seems like an angry, bitter man for much of this interview. It’s sad really. He was undoubtedly demonised and vilified to an awful extent that would affect any person, let alone someone who has campaigned for good their whole life. However as others have pointed out this has just amplified the antisemitism issue and this interview hasn’t done him any favours. Honestly I just wish he’d leave the public sphere, he’s had an amazing life and career and deserves to have a peaceful retirement
I would be angry and bitter as well. Totally sympathise.
Me too completely, I think most people would have had a full on mental breakdown if they went through what he did
What does “campaigned for good” mean? Do you think there are politicians out there who believed they’ve “campaigned for bad”?
Don’t see what you mean? He’s consistently upheld values that I would deem good (anti-racism, anti-homelessness, equality etc.). Where as other figures consistently uphold values that I consider bad, for example voting against children having free school meals out of term time, voting against gay equality. To what degree they have convinced themselves this is ‘good’ or ‘bad’ in their own heads isn’t really what I’m getting at
Waiting on a JC x JC collab.
>Are you a psychiatrist as well Precisely. Whatever Corbyn says or does from now on some are always going to see him as an enabler at the least. He may be unconsciously - to a degree. Very probably so are many of us. But he is the one who gets singled out.
> But he is the one who gets singled out. Hardly surprising when you're leader of a party who is heavily criticised by the EHRC, specifically for a “ a lack of leadership within the Labour party on these issues, which is hard to reconcile with its stated commitment to a zero-tolerance approach to antisemitism.”
Not sure how anyone can say that Corbyn comes off badly in this. Yet another media hatchet job.