Read on Twitter
Conundrum:
@jeremycorbyn was the "leader" of the Labour Party during two election humiliations.
In that time, the behaviour of the organisation under his control was so utterly bigoted, it led to an unprecedented investigation by an independent body, which Labour installed.
@jeremycorbyn was the "leader" of the Labour Party during two election humiliations.
In that time, the behaviour of the organisation under his control was so utterly bigoted, it led to an unprecedented investigation by an independent body, which Labour installed.
Since the conclusion of that investigation, it was held that the Labour Party, under his control, were guilty of unlawful discrimination.
His supporters claim that he is innocent of antisemitism - because the report did not specifically name him as being culpable.
Interesting.
His supporters claim that he is innocent of antisemitism - because the report did not specifically name him as being culpable.
Interesting.
Let us, for a moment, disregard (difficult as it may be) his calling Hamas and Hezbollah - terrorist groups whose only stated aim is to rid Israel of its entire Jewish population - "friends". Also, his by now infamous remarks concerning irony and that mural.
I know... but let's.
I know... but let's.
So here is the question: if, as the far-left claim, Jeremy Corbyn was entirely unaware of and had no involvement in the behaviour of an organisation supposedly under his ultimate control... which by extension, can only mean that he was not, in fact in control at all...
If he was unable to control his own organisation... how on earth could anyone credibly argue that he would be able to lead the country and take ownership for, other responsibilities, a cabinet tasked with steering the country through extremely challenging times?
Whether the far-left accept it, or retain the fantasy that they "won the argument", the electorate voted emphatically and determined that he was not, in fact, able to take that responsiblity.
So either he was unable to control the vile antisemitsm... or he knew about it.
So either he was unable to control the vile antisemitsm... or he knew about it.
If he was unable to control it, why didn't he resign, as a matter of conscience, in an effort to make the most honourable protest imaginable, in sacrificing his own career to avoid by association accuastions of bigotry?
This he most certainly did not.
This he most certainly did not.
The @EHRC report details the sheer extent of the problem which engulfed the Labour Party - indeed, they did not (with notable exceptions) consider it a problem at all; rather, ignoring it at best, or indulging in it at worst.
So it seems beyond credibility that their "leader" remained throughout unaware of the scale of the issue.
He was, with increasing regularity, accused openly of antisemitism or at best, facilitating and propogating antisemitic ideation and tropes.
He was, with increasing regularity, accused openly of antisemitism or at best, facilitating and propogating antisemitic ideation and tropes.
Not once did he make any discernible effort to curtail the nefarious activity of his "outriders", who regularly lead vicious attacks on Jews; including gaslighting, Holocaust denial, amplified various tropes within the IHRA definition of antisemitism which he was loathe to adopt.
All the while, protests continued, suggesting he does not "have a racist bone in his body", that he has "been an anti-racist all his life", that his humiliating defeats were a consipiracy - lead by... and then a variety of euphemisms for Jewish people.
The misogyny was as bad.
The misogyny was as bad.
So here it is: did he know and have control, or not?
By definition, he was either an utter failure as a "leader" or quite simply knew about what was happening all along, but supported it.
He can't have been ignorant of it, but he chose not to sue on any occasion he was accused.
By definition, he was either an utter failure as a "leader" or quite simply knew about what was happening all along, but supported it.
He can't have been ignorant of it, but he chose not to sue on any occasion he was accused.
Supporters suggest that he did not sue because "it was beneath him", or he was simply "busy trying to improve the country".
Interesting.
A siginificant feature of Labour conferences was the waving of the Palestinian flag. What of his protests against China? Syria? West Papau?
Interesting.
A siginificant feature of Labour conferences was the waving of the Palestinian flag. What of his protests against China? Syria? West Papau?
Oddly the "anti-racist's anti-racist" appeared amazingly quiet on these issues; comparative to his apparent obsession with Israel.
Andrew Neil exposed this unequivocally, in an interview prior to the Labour Party's biggest humiliation since 1935.
Andrew Neil exposed this unequivocally, in an interview prior to the Labour Party's biggest humiliation since 1935.
In conclusion, it seems to me that althought the @EHRC report did not name him specifically, it is by no means exoneration.
If you accept a leader must have insight into all aspects of their organisation, you must also accept his knoweldge of this - or failure of leadership.
If you accept a leader must have insight into all aspects of their organisation, you must also accept his knoweldge of this - or failure of leadership.
Either way, on this basis, he was not fit to lead the Labour Party.
His suspension has concluded one of the most shameful episodes in the political history of this country.
Now, if @Keir_Starmer is in fact serious about leadership, he must act without ambiguity.
His suspension has concluded one of the most shameful episodes in the political history of this country.
Now, if @Keir_Starmer is in fact serious about leadership, he must act without ambiguity.
Keir Starmer MUST expel all of those who have gone on record in attacking Jews - either directly or by means of a breach of ANY aspect of IHRA definition.
He must denounce the activities of Jeremy Corbyn's assorted "outriders".
He must ensure an apology is more than words.
He must denounce the activities of Jeremy Corbyn's assorted "outriders".
He must ensure an apology is more than words.
Then - and only then - can he hope to gain respect in his stated aim to lead the Labour Party into a position of credible opposition.
I sincerely hope that this happens, for the good of our country and democracy, since any democracy needs strong opposition.
It is long overdue.
I sincerely hope that this happens, for the good of our country and democracy, since any democracy needs strong opposition.
It is long overdue.
This government has effectively not been accountable since Jeremy Corbyn - "the absolute boy" - became "leader" of the opposition.
He leaves the Labour Party in utter disarray and the political landscape more polarised than it has been in a generation.
Over to you, Mr. Starmer.
He leaves the Labour Party in utter disarray and the political landscape more polarised than it has been in a generation.
Over to you, Mr. Starmer.
If not now... when?
/ End
/ End
