Jewish group walks away from Labour

[Elwood Blues]

In what universe was Corbyn going to have a good night? This was always going to be damage limitation and hope nobody is watching. I just hope Neil can keep up the pressure and even handed across the weak because the rest of them have just as many holes, I think he will because despite his obvious political leanings he relishes the fight.

No doubt though, Corbyn should have just apologised but for some reason they don't, it must be political strategy 101, ever since Clegg did and people made memes and joke songs out of it barely anybody important has every said the s word.

When Neil scents blood I don't think it matters which party the interviewee is in!

[the other bob wilson]

He could have put this to bed tonight, a slight upsurge in "the polls" leading into this, he failed miserably and he will again get hammered in the press for his refusal, Johnson refused the other night, what a pair of clowns to pick from, it's the UK version of Trump and the Hilderbeast.

Not seen the interview but listened to clips of it on the way home from the game last night and that is exactly how I felt - it seems to me that it would have been very good for his party politically if Corbyn had simply replied "yes I do" the first time Neil asked him if he would apologise before going on to give a more detailed answer. To me it seems such a small step to move from what he did say to what Neil was asking if he would say.

There have been a few posters who have presented a balanced and persuasive defence of Labour in this thread in the face of some of the ludicrous allegations made by the person who started it. They are more clued in to this subject from a Labour point of view than I am, so can I ask them why do you think Corbyn would not apologise last night?

I want Labour to stop a majority Conservative Government being elected and would be a dead cert to vote for them under different circumstances, but this is one of a couple of issues which is making me reluctant to do so - to me, Corbyn made that majority Conservative Government a more realistic proposition last night, why would he want to do that?

[RonnieBird]

He wouldn't want to do it but he got caught and he doesn't know what to say. He won't apologise because he's not sorry

[jon1959]

Not seen the interview but listened to clips of it on the way home from the game last night and that is exactly how I felt - it seems to me that it would have been very good for his party politically if Corbyn had simply replied "yes I do" the first time Neil asked him if he would apologise before going on to give a more detailed answer. To me it seems such a small step to move from what he did say to what Neil was asking if he would say.

There have been a few posters who have presented a balanced and persuasive defence of Labour in this thread in the face of some of the ludicrous allegations made by the person who started it. They are more clued in to this subject from a Labour point of view than I am, so can I ask them why do you think Corbyn would not apologise last night?

I want Labour to stop a majority Conservative Government being elected and would be a dead cert to vote for them under different circumstances, but this is one of a couple of issues which is making me reluctant to do so - to me, Corbyn made that majority Conservative Government a more realistic proposition last night, why would he want to do that?

I haven't seen the interview either Paul - like you just heard a few clips (and seen the press front pages!). I have also seen a number of comments by people close to Corbyn that he should have apologised when Neil first put it to him. I don't know why he responded as he did but I suspect it was a reluctance to give full credence to the Chief Rabbi's attack. A part of the Chief Rabbi's letter to the Times is fair, but most of it is not - as Alf Dubs said so clearly. The experience is that line-drawing hasn't been effective. The more Labour concedes and apologises (when it does it for tactical reasons not because an apology is justified) the more the attacks are ramped up as happened with the IHRA definition and the feeding frenzy gets worse. It would never be 'put to bed'.

I may be wrong but I think Corbyn (and certainly many members of the shadow cabinet and NEC) have apologised in the past for the incidents of anti-semitism uncovered, but have done it in the context of a push back on some of the false or exaggerated claims that are in the media mix and feed the public perception. I have been (and still am) critical of Corbyn for a weak response to the whole situation. He avoids conflict all the time which means he has been weak in defending Labour against unjustified attacks and weak in dealing with the real cases. Some of that is because of internal processes that took time to change, but he could have been more decisive and clear in his public statements at an earlier stage. On that point I agree with the Chief Rabbi.

In my opinion Corbyn would have been slaughtered by most of the press this morning whatever he said in response to Neil on this. He either refuses to agree with the Chief Rabbi in which case he is 'in denial' or he does apologise in response to the Chief Rabbi's letter and Neil's challenge, in which case he implicitly accepts everything in the letter, no matter if he tries to qualify it later.

If you're interested the Jewish Voice For Labour has produced an election briefing note on some of the big issues and events in the anti-semitism crisis. It is swamped by the deluge of attack pieces in the national and community press but maybe some of it will get a hearing.

https://www.jewishvoiceforlabour.org...ent/rebuttals/

[jon1959]

https://www.theguardian.com/politics...g-antisemitism

[RonnieBird]

I haven't seen the interview either Paul - like you just heard a few clips (and seen the press front pages!). I have also seen a number of comments by people close to Corbyn that he should have apologised when Neil first put it to him. I don't know why he responded as he did but I suspect it was a reluctance to give full credence to the Chief Rabbi's attack. A part of the Chief Rabbi's letter to the Times is fair, but most of it is not - as Alf Dubs said so clearly. The experience is that line-drawing hasn't been effective. The more Labour concedes and apologises (when it does it for tactical reasons not because an apology is justified) the more the attacks are ramped up as happened with the IHRA definition and the feeding frenzy gets worse. It would never be 'put to bed'.

I may be wrong but I think Corbyn (and certainly many members of the shadow cabinet and NEC) have apologised in the past for the incidents of anti-semitism uncovered, but have done it in the context of a push back on some of the false or exaggerated claims that are in the media mix and feed the public perception. I have been (and still am) critical of Corbyn for a weak response to the whole situation. He avoids conflict all the time which means he has been weak in defending Labour against unjustified attacks and weak in dealing with the real cases. Some of that is because of internal processes that took time to change, but he could have been more decisive and clear in his public statements at an earlier stage. On that point I agree with the Chief Rabbi.

In my opinion Corbyn would have been slaughtered by most of the press this morning whatever he said in response to Neil on this. He either refuses to agree with the Chief Rabbi in which case he is 'in denial' or he does apologise in response to the Chief Rabbi's letter and Neil's challenge, in which case he implicitly accepts everything in the letter, no matter if he tries to qualify it later.

If you're interested the Jewish Voice For Labour has produced an election briefing note on some of the big issues and events in the anti-semitism crisis. It is swamped by the deluge of attack pieces in the national and community press but maybe some of it will get a hearing.

https://www.jewishvoiceforlabour.org...ent/rebuttals/

No. He's just doing exactly what you're doing, defending the indefensible !

[the other bob wilson]

I haven't seen the interview either Paul - like you just heard a few clips (and seen the press front pages!). I have also seen a number of comments by people close to Corbyn that he should have apologised when Neil first put it to him. I don't know why he responded as he did but I suspect it was a reluctance to give full credence to the Chief Rabbi's attack. A part of the Chief Rabbi's letter to the Times is fair, but most of it is not - as Alf Dubs said so clearly. The experience is that line-drawing hasn't been effective. The more Labour concedes and apologises (when it does it for tactical reasons not because an apology is justified) the more the attacks are ramped up as happened with the IHRA definition and the feeding frenzy gets worse. It would never be 'put to bed'.

I may be wrong but I think Corbyn (and certainly many members of the shadow cabinet and NEC) have apologised in the past for the incidents of anti-semitism uncovered, but have done it in the context of a push back on some of the false or exaggerated claims that are in the media mix and feed the public perception. I have been (and still am) critical of Corbyn for a weak response to the whole situation. He avoids conflict all the time which means he has been weak in defending Labour against unjustified attacks and weak in dealing with the real cases. Some of that is because of internal processes that took time to change, but he could have been more decisive and clear in his public statements at an earlier stage. On that point I agree with the Chief Rabbi.

In my opinion Corbyn would have been slaughtered by most of the press this morning whatever he said in response to Neil on this. He either refuses to agree with the Chief Rabbi in which case he is 'in denial' or he does apologise in response to the Chief Rabbi's letter and Neil's challenge, in which case he implicitly accepts everything in the letter, no matter if he tries to qualify it later.

If you're interested the Jewish Voice For Labour has produced an election briefing note on some of the big issues and events in the anti-semitism crisis. It is swamped by the deluge of attack pieces in the national and community press but maybe some of it will get a hearing.

https://www.jewishvoiceforlabour.org...ent/rebuttals/

Thanks Jon, I read the document and it does give alternative viewpoints that you just don't get to see in the current reporting of this issue. I also think you may be right about Corbyn getting slaughtered whatever he said. However, and I'm probably showing my naivety here, I've always held the morals and values I learned as a child as being very important in life and I believe that, as much as he could do in the current position, Corbyn would have been holding the moral high ground if he had apologised when asked (especially as he has done it before it seems).

Yes, it would not have stopped the rabid right elements of the national press from attacking him, but, in this age of social media, I think there could have been a groundswell of support from "ordinary folk" who had witnessed the very novel sight of a leading politician admitting that they had got something wrong - also, I still believe that tactically that would have been better for him than sticking to the line that he did.

[Dorcus]

Thanks Jon, I read the document and it does give alternative viewpoints that you just don't get to see in the current reporting of this issue. I also think you may be right about Corbyn getting slaughtered whatever he said. However, and I'm probably showing my naivety here, I've always held the morals and values I learned as a child as being very important in life and I believe that, as much as he could do in the current position, Corbyn would have been holding the moral high ground if he had apologised when asked (especially as he has done it before it seems).

Yes, it would not have stopped the rabid right elements of the national press from attacking him, but, in this age of social media, I think there could have been a groundswell of support from "ordinary folk" who had witnessed the very novel sight of a leading politician admitting that they had got something wrong - also, I still believe that tactically that would have been better for him than sticking to the line that he did.

I've thought quite a bit about both the Rabbi's statement and the Andrew Neil interview with Corbyn.

Firstly, I appreciate not everyone might agree with this but I think the Rabbi went far beyond what is acceptable in his condemnation of Corbyn. It's ok for him to declare that British Jews in general have reservations and even anxieties about the party and the leadership and it's ok for him to make that known to the general public in his capacity as spiritual leader of British Jewry. However I though it a step too far when he intervened politically and recommended people not to vote for Labour. Apart from the myriad dangers of a Tory majority, on the question of racism/religious prejudice is he not in effect saying vote for any other party but Labour which he knows all too well given our political system will guarantee a Tory majority. He must be aware of the rampant and institutional Islamophobia in the Tory party so is he in effect saying, naively perhaps, do not vote Labour, end up with a Tory government and us Jews will be safe while all the persecution is passed on to the Muslims? I'm sure he didn't mean to infer this but in his clumsy and biased way I think that is a message that is forming.

I understand your dilemma in regard your voting intentions but one thing I am absolutely rock solid sure about is that Corbyn does not have a racist bone in his body. Andrew Neil is a tough cookie and his interview yesterday was typically challenging. On the face of it a Corbyn apology was set up to be the right thing to do. Jon59 appears to have a lot more knowledge and experience than I do on the internal machinations of the Labour party but I put forward two possible reasons Corbyn did not apologize on air.

1. There is an impending EHRC investigation and he didn't want to prejudice anything because some things might be submissive at this stage.

2. More broadly, there is a problem with some aspects of the anti-Semitic definition with direct relevance to the Labour Party and Socialists on general. At the heart of it all is that Labour is a party which always takes the side of the underdog ( just like it did in embracing British Jewry on their hour of need) and Zionism on its practical application of creating second class citizens of the Palestine people and the stealthy land grab will always be anathema to Labour values. More and more the Jews want to stretch the envelope by trying to make any criticism of Israeli policy and Zionism an attack on their race and religion and slowly increasing the definitions of anti- seminism to close down criticism altogether. If Corbyn apologized I think his view we could be entering dangerous territory where legitimate criticism of Zionism could be off limits and in which case the Palestine people would be abandoned to the wolves.

[Dorcus]

Bloody Corrective Text: apart from bthe other typos "submissive" should read "subjudice'

[SLUDGE FACTORY]

Racism is rife in the Tory party and as you say the rabbi failed to condemn the blatent attacks on Muslims by conservative party members

The rabbi was totally out of order and totally Tory , hopefully the thousands of moderate left leaning Jewish people won't be swayed by this nonsense

Can you imagine the outcry is the Muslim council called on all Muslims to vote labour as the Tory party was inherently islamaphobic ?

The Sun and Daily Mail would have a field day

[RonnieBird]

Well I expect that if BoJo refused to aplogise for any islamophobia which happened and insisted that it had never happened, they would say that. It's not comparable because any other party from the Greens to Cornish Nationalists would deal with racism if and when it occurred in that party.
A lot of labour people want Corbyn to do that and labour mp's have resigned over it, but he won't !

That's the problem

[life on mars]

Well I expect that if BoJo refused to aplogise for any islamophobia which happened and insisted that it had never happened, they would say that. It's not comparable because any other party from the Greens to Cornish Nationalists would deal with racism if and when it occurred in that party.
A lot of labour people want Corbyn to do that and labour mp's have resigned over it, but he won't !

That's the problem

And to add to your comments and reasoning one should consider the list below , and this is not right wing media driven inicdents :

13 MP'S have left the party.

Some have had to have protection and been insulted.

Panorama actually interviewed staff workers.

The ex deputy leader admitted it has antisemitism issues.

Mcdonald states he recognises the issue.

Head Rabbi who never speaks raises fears.

Human Rights Commission investigates.

Met Police invesigates.

130 plus party activists investigation's.

Party suspensions.

Real social media antisemtism ouorings from Labour party workers , MP's , councillors, and activists.

The real truth is about the issue being allowed to fester on the current leader watch , and one should strip away ones political leaning and think hard , and ask the reason why, they have had 3 years to fix this .

[RonnieBird]

Very well put

[jon1959]

The 'wrong type of Jews' denouncing the Chief Rabbi's letter:

https://www.thecanary.co/opinion/201...nstream-media/

And Jenny Formby's response to the Chief Rabbi's letter in Jewish News:

https://jewishnews.timesofisrael.com...why-hes-wrong/

[RonnieBird]

You won't give it up Jon. Of course you can find contrary opinions in anything, but the case seems proven in the minds of a vast majority of people so I don't know what you can achieve by refusing to accept it.

[David Vincent]

This portrayal of the least racist mainstream British politician as the great racist will either go down in the history of black propaganda as a fantastic achievement or it will backfire and some people will begin to ask themselves if these lies are accepted as truth then what other lies have we been told.

[Dorcus]

This portrayal of the least racist mainstream British politician as the great racist will either go down in the history of black propaganda as a fantastic achievement or it will backfire and some people will begin to ask themselves if these lies are accepted as truth then what other lies have we been told.

Good post David and so true

[RonnieBird]

This portrayal of the least racist mainstream British politician as the great racist will either go down in the history of black propaganda as a fantastic achievement or it will backfire and some people will begin to ask themselves if these lies are accepted as truth then what other lies have we been told.

Does any of that matter ?
The point in the real world is that the damage has been done and that's his fault entirely because he refused to apologise and minimised investigations. We can argue for 100 years whether he's an anti Semite or a victim, but the fact of the matter is that he's a crap politician because he couldn't handle the situation.
Your last bit there interests me - do you generally believe what politicians and government tell you then ?
Trust me, you've been told lots and lots and lots of lies

[trampie09]

This portrayal of the least racist mainstream British politician as the great racist will either go down in the history of black propaganda as a fantastic achievement or it will backfire and some people will begin to ask themselves if these lies are accepted as truth then what other lies have we been told.

Good post.

[RonnieBird]

Here's another least racist ever labour candidate

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-a9221446.html

[trampie09]

https://twitter.com/CorbynistaTeen/s...28790969098240
Miriam Margolyes speaks.

[RonnieBird]

She's a contraversial and eccentric person you know , but obviously you can find " Uncle Tom " characters to vindicate labour

[trampie09]

Is she the wrong type of Jew then Ronnie ?, is Bercow the wrong kind ?, is Chomsky the wrong kind also ?

[life on mars]

Is she the wrong type of Jew then Ronnie ?, is Bercow the wrong kind ?, is Chomsky the wrong kind also ?

Is the Rabbi the right one or you calling him out , why are Labour supporters in such denial ,its okay to see fault from within one, family ,belief and surroundings , in fact its healthy and makes you a better person ?

[life on mars]

https://twitter.com/CorbynistaTeen/s...28790969098240
Miriam Margolyes speaks.

I saw a documentary with Miriam and I did wonder about her sanity .