Jewish group walks away from Labour

[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?

[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/

[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.