The Split from Labour.

HugalHugal Shipmate
Seven MPs have decided to leave Labour. Whilst I admire their choice to follow their conscience; their constituents voted for Labour not an independent group. There will be no by-election. Surely there should be do their constituents mean nothing to them. If you are unhappy by all means leave don’t stay were you unhappy. But don’t still be MP as people voted for your party not you:
«134

Comments

  • I agree entirely. But it's not the way the system works - MPs have even changed parties yet remained in their seats.
  • Hugal wrote: »
    But don’t still be MP as people voted for your party not you:

    Nope, people voted for individual politicians. That is the system.
  • I wonder if they will stand candidates in marginal seats? The Tories will lick their lips.
  • HugalHugal Shipmate
    No they voted for a person who represented the party they want to win. That person takes a seat in Parliament. The party with the most seats forms the government. If they no longer represent that party then they do not represent the will of the constituents.
  • I have been known to vote for a person whose party I did not particularly want to win. This person was a superb constituency MP, getting involved in all sorts of things and supporting all sorts of people.

    Some people vote for a person and some for a party.
  • I think that's right. The "person" vs. "party" balance will vary, although I personally think that "party" usually counts for much more.
  • Hugal wrote: »
    No they voted for a person who represented the party they want to win.
    You cannot say that: there will be some, perhaps many, who vote for the person rether than the party - this has been true since elections began and in the case of the last general election it was often stated by voters that they were voting for the person, not the party.
    That person takes a seat in Parliament.
    The candidate with the most votes takes the seat - it may not be the person (or party) you voted for.
    The party with the most seats forms the government.
    Not necessarily. It is perfectly possible that a party may have more seats than any other but has no overall majority and is unable to cobble together a coalition to govern; in which case a coalition government may be formed by a number of parties all with fewer votes than the largest at the polls but which are able to form a workable agreement.
    If they no longer represent that party then they do not represent the will of the constituents.
    It has always been the case that an MP has not been voted for by some of his/her constituents, and sometimes the number of people not voting for the MP has far outweighed the number who did.

    In any case, MPs are not sent to Parliament as delegates of the "winning" party, they are sent to represent the interests of all their constituents, regardless of how those people voted. It could (should?) be argued that we have had many, many instances where MPs following their party line have knowingly acted directly against the interests of their constituents.
  • I vote for individuals not parties and am not tribal in my voting; I have voted for people from 3 different parties in local and general elections in the last 10 years. I have even been a signatory for a local candidate who belonged to one party whilst voting for someone from another party (and she knew this).
  • DoublethinkDoublethink Shipmate
    edited February 2019
    In terms of the brexit situation it makes little difference - their views were well known, and probably on other policy areas too. I think they are making a mistake, and I would question the timing of this - what exactly is it intended to achieve right now ?

    I suppose it means if a general election were called at the last minute, they could stand against a labour party candidate - but that's about it. I think it is its somewhat dishonest to complain about the leadership not going all out to stop Brexit, when delivering Brexit is in the manifesto *they* campaigned on in the last general election - arguably that would have been the time to stand independently on that point of principle.
  • Yes, I'm puzzled as to what it will achieve . Presumably, they are against a Labour govt, so 10 years of Tories here we come. (Not necessarily).
  • O please God, NOOOOOOOOO.....!!!!!!!!!

    Ahem.

    I'm not particularly enamoured of Mr. Corbyn (I belong to another left-wing party, not his), but I do sympathise with him. He needs this sort of ruction like he needs a hole in his head.
  • Well, I said not necessarily as there are so many permutations, e.g., will Farage's party take off, will people vote for the Splinters, will any Tories join them, and so on.
  • Yes, I take your point, but endless years of Tory Misrule are possible, unless some sort of Deus Ex Machina occurrence comes along.....
  • HugalHugal Shipmate
    I stand corrected. I still think there is an argument for a by-election as there has been a big change. Just out of interest can the constituents force a by-election?
  • Under the provisions of the Recall of MPs Act (2015) the constituents of the 7 can force a by-election - see this handy guide!

    However, bearing in mind that Labour has only suspended an MP who has been convicted of a criminal offence I think any party support for a move to force a by-election for the splitters would be dreadful PR and show nothing other than vindictiveness.

    In the case of Luciana Berger in particular, any attempt by the official party machine to force her out is going to be one enormous headache, bearing in mind the antisemitic abuse she has suffered from people in her constituency party about which central party officials have done nothing. The latest attack detailed in this week's Jewish Chronicle shows just what she has had to deal with, while Mr Corbyn and his Wykehamist stooges either repeat non-sequiturs about anti-racism or deny there is any kind of problem.
  • I totally understand then standing by their principles. But at this time - when we need some serious challenge to the government - this is unhelpful*. Both the major parties are torn by divisions, and the country is paying. Get your acts together, or I will come over with a plank and slap you all**.

    *Or fucking stupid if you would rather.

    ** OK, I won't. But I wish I could.
  • DoublethinkDoublethink Shipmate
    edited February 2019
    Here are some actual stats on Antisemitism in the Labour Party

    (Yes I am aware of the newspaper’s reputation but the figures are a matter of public record, and this is the briefest summary I could find.)

    (One of the given reasons for leaving.)
  • Yes, the charge of institutional racism puzzled me, but I suppose it means that the leadership collude with racists, or keep it quiet, turn a blind eye, and so on. What's the evidence for this?
  • I suspect there's been some growing discontent for some time over a range of issues. I keep coming across increasingly disillusioned Labour rank and file these days. It's more widespread than many people think.
  • So, we are to believe the figures produced by Jennie Formby :astonished: And you, @Doublethink, choose to highlight this by linking to an article in The Morning Star. organ of the Communist Party of Great Britain: where to start?

    Well, I think the pithy analysis of David Aaronovitch, published here does the job nicely.

    Of course, I could put you in touch with my great nephew who has experienced first-hand rampant anti-semitism after he turned up at a Labour Party meeting straight from a family funeral having forgotten to remove his kippah.

    While we have people like Mr Corbyn as leader of Labour there is no hope of rooting out anti-semitism - not when he fails to understand what a wreath-laying is, doesn't recognise jewish stereotypes in a mural, and doesn't get that there are jewish Palestinians.
  • I googled, it was the first brief summary that came up - are the figures David Aaronvitch quotes different ?
  • Checks, oic, no actual figures at all.
  • Thank you, TheOrganist, for making plain was has been clear from the start - the primary objective of those shouting about anti-semitism is to get rid of Corbyn. Attacks on his clothing didn't work, attacks on electability didn't work but anti-semitism is the gift that keeps on giving. It's great because if you're accused you either admit it, so you're an anti-semite, or you deny it, in which case you're denying the problem and therefore institutionally anti-semitic. Meanwhile every false allegation makes Jews less safe from actual anti-semites.
  • It's not about numbers, it is about the heaps of abuse that the small numbers of Jewish Labour MPs face - and the apparent inability of the party machine to do anything about it.

    Momentum is essentially acting as a troll factory, jumping all over anyone who is not immediately supportive of Corbyn, and unfortunately some of the most vocal critics have been known to use anti-Semitic slurs.

    And because there is a general attitude of not-rocking-the-boat (particularly with regard to Momentum, which isn't an exact overlap for Labour membership) then "dealing with it" is either really slow or impossible to deliver.

  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    mr cheesy wrote: »
    Hugal wrote: »
    But don’t still be MP as people voted for your party not you:

    Nope, people voted for individual politicians. That is the system.

    Everyone votes for an individual politician - and the party to which that individual belongs is normally the determining factor. This is the same argument that Orfeo uses when people say that they voted for Rudd (etc) to be PM - they don't, but they rely upon the candidate for whom they in fact voted to support Rudd in the post-election party room vote.
  • Gee D wrote: »
    mr cheesy wrote: »
    Hugal wrote: »
    But don’t still be MP as people voted for your party not you:

    Nope, people voted for individual politicians. That is the system.

    Everyone votes for an individual politician - and the party to which that individual belongs is normally the determining factor. This is the same argument that Orfeo uses when people say that they voted for Rudd (etc) to be PM - they don't, but they rely upon the candidate for whom they in fact voted to support Rudd in the post-election party room vote.

    The Westminster system was set up before there were such things as political parties. Individuals stand for geographical constituencies and electors choose from them.

    If people think they are voting for parties, they're just plain wrong.
  • mr cheesy wrote: »
    It's not about numbers, it is about the heaps of abuse that the small numbers of Jewish Labour MPs face - and the apparent inability of the party machine to do anything about it.

    Momentum is essentially acting as a troll factory, jumping all over anyone who is not immediately supportive of Corbyn, and unfortunately some of the most vocal critics have been known to use anti-Semitic slurs.

    And because there is a general attitude of not-rocking-the-boat (particularly with regard to Momentum, which isn't an exact overlap for Labour membership) then "dealing with it" is either really slow or impossible to deliver.

    I accept mps get a lot of abuse on Twitter. I accept there are some anti semites in a party of over half a million members. I do not accept that all the abuse mps get is from party members, or even most of it. Nor do I accept that most labour members are anti-Semitic, what research there is suggests they are slightly less likely to be so than the general public or members of other political parties. There is a disciplinary process it takes time.

    What seems foolish to me is to leave the one party (on this basis) within reach of power most likely *not* to dismantle equality and anti-discrimination legislation at the first opportunity. Whilst meanwhile the Tory government contains people like Jacob Rees Mogg who was on tv defending concentration camps *this week*.

    Momentum has about 40,000 members, who since it changed its structure are required to be labour members to be in Momentum. The Labour Party has over 500,000 members. Jon Landesman who founded it, was raised in an Orthodox Jewish family and as a young man spent time on a Kibbutz. I don’t think anti-semetism is his driving force.
  • mr cheesy wrote: »
    Gee D wrote: »
    mr cheesy wrote: »
    Hugal wrote: »
    But don’t still be MP as people voted for your party not you:

    Nope, people voted for individual politicians. That is the system.

    Everyone votes for an individual politician - and the party to which that individual belongs is normally the determining factor. This is the same argument that Orfeo uses when people say that they voted for Rudd (etc) to be PM - they don't, but they rely upon the candidate for whom they in fact voted to support Rudd in the post-election party room vote.

    The Westminster system was set up before there were such things as political parties. Individuals stand for geographical constituencies and electors choose from them.

    If people think they are voting for parties, they're just plain wrong.

    FWIW, although Len McCluskey is an odious little twerp, I think he did have a point to say that it is somewhat hypocritical on the one hand to call for a second referendum on the grounds that things have changed - but not to call for a by-election when things definitely have changed. I know there is no constitutional need for a by-election but there is no constitutional need for a second referendum either.
  • mr cheesy wrote: »
    It's not about numbers, it is about the heaps of abuse that the small numbers of Jewish Labour MPs face - and the apparent inability of the party machine to do anything about it.

    Momentum is essentially acting as a troll factory, jumping all over anyone who is not immediately supportive of Corbyn, and unfortunately some of the most vocal critics have been known to use anti-Semitic slurs.

    And because there is a general attitude of not-rocking-the-boat (particularly with regard to Momentum, which isn't an exact overlap for Labour membership) then "dealing with it" is either really slow or impossible to deliver.

    I accept mps get a lot of abuse on Twitter. I accept there are some anti semites in a party of over half a million members. I do not accept that all the abuse mps get is from party members, or even most of it. Nor do I accept that most labour members are anti-Semitic, what research there is suggests they are slightly less likely to be so than the general public or members of other political parties. There is a disciplinary process it takes time.

    I have no goose in this fight - not being a Labour member nor ever being a Labour member. And I'd note that I've been called various names for having a generally positive attitude to Palestinians.

    That said, I don't think anyone is suggesting that most Labour members are anti-Semitic. The problem is that when labour members clearly are using anti-Semitic slurs, it takes far too long to do anything and creates the perception that the machinery actually cannot or will not do anything.
    What seems foolish to me is to leave the one party (on this basis) within reach of power most likely *not* to dismantle equality and anti-discrimination legislation at the first opportunity. Whilst meanwhile the Tory government contains people like Jacob Rees Mogg who was on tv defending concentration camps *this week*.

    Ok but I don't think they are suggesting that other parties are better. They've just said that they can't tolerate being in the Labour party any longer.
    Momentum has about 40,000 members, who since it changed its structure are required to be labour members to be in Momentum. The Labour Party has over 500,000 members. Jon Landesman who founded it, was raised in an Orthodox Jewish family and as a young man spent time on a Kibbutz. I don’t think anti-semetism is his driving force.

    I don't think that high profile Jews actually prevent institutional anti-Semitism in Momentum.

    If it isn't actually a group which tolerates anti-Semitism, then it really must be incredibly ineffective and chaotic in terms of leadership - given that it doesn't appear to be able to do anything significant about it.



  • Thank you, TheOrganist, for making plain was has been clear from the start - the primary objective of those shouting about anti-semitism is to get rid of Corbyn. Attacks on his clothing didn't work, attacks on electability didn't work but anti-semitism is the gift that keeps on giving. It's great because if you're accused you either admit it, so you're an anti-semite, or you deny it, in which case you're denying the problem and therefore institutionally anti-semitic. Meanwhile every false allegation makes Jews less safe from actual anti-semites.

    And Luciana Berger didn't have a police escort at the Labour conference, the officers just followed her because they wanted her autograph.
  • And your data on anti-semitism in momentum is what ?
  • Current figures for labour complaints of anti-semetism are a fraction of 1% what would you consider an achievable percentage ?
  • Under the provisions of the Recall of MPs Act (2015) the constituents of the 7 can force a by-election - see this handy guide!

    However, bearing in mind that Labour has only suspended an MP who has been convicted of a criminal offence I think any party support for a move to force a by-election for the splitters would be dreadful PR and show nothing other than vindictiveness.

    As per that link, a recall petition can only be triggered if an MP is jailed or corrupt, and it is triggered by the Speaker. There is no mechanism that I know of by which a party can trigger a by-election.
  • Current figures for labour complaints of anti-semetism are a fraction of 1% what would you consider an achievable percentage ?

    Did you read the part where I said the numbers don't matter?

    You seem to be suggesting that with a large number of people like in Momentum then shit happens, deal with it.

    Whereas some people actually believe it might be nice if Momentum grew some backbone and did something more significant about it before anyone needs to complain.

  • Some thoughts on antisemitism and Labour.
    (Slightly long read, sorry...)

    The point made above about how easy a charge it is to lay is also important: it has become the equivalent of when did you stop beating your wife?

    AFZ
  • Ricardus wrote: »
    Thank you, TheOrganist, for making plain was has been clear from the start - the primary objective of those shouting about anti-semitism is to get rid of Corbyn. Attacks on his clothing didn't work, attacks on electability didn't work but anti-semitism is the gift that keeps on giving. It's great because if you're accused you either admit it, so you're an anti-semite, or you deny it, in which case you're denying the problem and therefore institutionally anti-semitic. Meanwhile every false allegation makes Jews less safe from actual anti-semites.

    And Luciana Berger didn't have a police escort at the Labour conference, the officers just followed her because they wanted her autograph.

    Well no, she didn't have an escort at conference. She had an escort outside of conference and there is nothing to suggest anyone in the party was responsible for her feeling the need to have one. Besides, Berger smearing her opponents as anti-semites is nothing new. She's been at it since NUS. She certainly gets genuine anti-semitic abuse too, which makes her behaviour all the more troubling.
  • Ricardus wrote: »
    Thank you, TheOrganist, for making plain was has been clear from the start - the primary objective of those shouting about anti-semitism is to get rid of Corbyn. Attacks on his clothing didn't work, attacks on electability didn't work but anti-semitism is the gift that keeps on giving. It's great because if you're accused you either admit it, so you're an anti-semite, or you deny it, in which case you're denying the problem and therefore institutionally anti-semitic. Meanwhile every false allegation makes Jews less safe from actual anti-semites.

    And Luciana Berger didn't have a police escort at the Labour conference, the officers just followed her because they wanted her autograph.

    Well no, she didn't have an escort at conference. She had an escort outside of conference and there is nothing to suggest anyone in the party was responsible for her feeling the need to have one. Besides, Berger smearing her opponents as anti-semites is nothing new. She's been at it since NUS. She certainly gets genuine anti-semitic abuse too, which makes her behaviour all the more troubling.

    Of course one could turn that around - if one is constantly subject to anti-Semitic abuse then it becomes quite difficult to tell the difference between someone being anti-Semitic and someone else being generally offensive, someone else being a troll and someone else picking a political fight in a vociferous way. I'm sure it makes life quite hard to navigate.

    Which for me is why anything that sounds even vaguely anti-Semitic should be off the table. Calling someone a something something Zionist might actually be accurate - but it is fairly easy to mistake for an anti-Semitic slur even if it isn't.
  • mr cheesy wrote: »
    Current figures for labour complaints of anti-semetism are a fraction of 1% what would you consider an achievable percentage ?

    Did you read the part where I said the numbers don't matter?

    You seem to be suggesting that with a large number of people like in Momentum then shit happens, deal with it.

    Whereas some people actually believe it might be nice if Momentum grew some backbone and did something more significant about it before anyone needs to complain.

    No my point is twofold; one a small percentage of a large number will be a high absolute number - and therefore processing will take time, and secondly that no human system will be perfect and most systems with a less than 1% fuck up rate would be considered to be operating with a high rate of success.

    I am asking you what you would consider a realistic standard would be.

    Systematic / instutional bias tends to imply a higher than normal rate of prejudice - I don’t think that has been evidenced for either Labour or Momentum.

  • Ricardus wrote: »
    Thank you, TheOrganist, for making plain was has been clear from the start - the primary objective of those shouting about anti-semitism is to get rid of Corbyn. Attacks on his clothing didn't work, attacks on electability didn't work but anti-semitism is the gift that keeps on giving. It's great because if you're accused you either admit it, so you're an anti-semite, or you deny it, in which case you're denying the problem and therefore institutionally anti-semitic. Meanwhile every false allegation makes Jews less safe from actual anti-semites.

    And Luciana Berger didn't have a police escort at the Labour conference, the officers just followed her because they wanted her autograph.

    Well no, she didn't have an escort at conference. She had an escort outside of conference and there is nothing to suggest anyone in the party was responsible for her feeling the need to have one.

    Of course. It was a total coincidence that the party conference happened to take place at the same time as she experienced these feelings.

    And wasn't it nice of Merseyside Police to provide officers purely in response to her feelings!
  • Some thoughts on antisemitism and Labour.
    (Slightly long read, sorry...)

    The point made above about how easy a charge it is to lay is also important: it has become the equivalent of when did you stop beating your wife?

    AFZ

    That was the criticism made of the Macpherson Report, wasn't it?

    What winds me up about this issue is that the people who are most gung-ho about how accusations of anti-Semitism are all politically inspired lies are the very same people who would be most concerned about listening to the voices of minority groups when they describe the discrimination they face.

    I think if a bunch of black left-wing MPs in the Blair years had complained about racial discrimination, and Alistair Campbell had said they were just Old Labour dinosaurs who couldn't cope with the fact that Blair won elections, then Momentumites would rightly be horrified at that response even if those MPs' complaints proved to be of little substance.
  • mr cheesymr cheesy Shipmate
    edited February 2019
    mr cheesy wrote: »
    Current figures for labour complaints of anti-semetism are a fraction of 1% what would you consider an achievable percentage ?

    Did you read the part where I said the numbers don't matter?

    You seem to be suggesting that with a large number of people like in Momentum then shit happens, deal with it.

    Whereas some people actually believe it might be nice if Momentum grew some backbone and did something more significant about it before anyone needs to complain.

    No my point is twofold; one a small percentage of a large number will be a high absolute number - and therefore processing will take time, and secondly that no human system will be perfect and most systems with a less than 1% fuck up rate would be considered to be operating with a high rate of success.

    I am asking you what you would consider a realistic standard would be.

    Systematic / instutional bias tends to imply a higher than normal rate of prejudice - I don’t think that has been evidenced for either Labour or Momentum.

    Well y'know you can believe whatever you like. I think it is fairly clear that Momentum has "gone after" opponents and that this has included an easily seen element of anti-Semitism.

    I'm not sure it really makes a whole lot of difference what the levels of comparable anti-Semitism in the Tory party, the Lib-dems or the National Trust are - because Jewish members of those groups don't tend to experience a trolling effort like Momentum.

    Added to that, it seems like it has been a stated objective of Momentum to deselect - or generally force out - sitting MPs that are not supportive of their agenda. So it seems more-than-slightly ironic when some of the MPs that gave been in the crossfires of these efforts finally jump and are then described as being the problem.

    Momentum forced them out - own it.
  • mr cheesy wrote: »
    mr cheesy wrote: »
    Current figures for labour complaints of anti-semetism are a fraction of 1% what would you consider an achievable percentage ?

    Did you read the part where I said the numbers don't matter?

    You seem to be suggesting that with a large number of people like in Momentum then shit happens, deal with it.

    Whereas some people actually believe it might be nice if Momentum grew some backbone and did something more significant about it before anyone needs to complain.

    No my point is twofold; one a small percentage of a large number will be a high absolute number - and therefore processing will take time, and secondly that no human system will be perfect and most systems with a less than 1% fuck up rate would be considered to be operating with a high rate of success.

    I am asking you what you would consider a realistic standard would be.

    Systematic / instutional bias tends to imply a higher than normal rate of prejudice - I don’t think that has been evidenced for either Labour or Momentum.

    Well y'know you can believe whatever you like. I think it is fairly clear that Momentum has "gone after" opponents and that this has included an easily seen element of anti-Semitism.

    I'm not sure it really makes a whole lot of difference what the levels of comparable anti-Semitism in the Tory party, the Lib-dems or the National Trust are - because Jewish members of those groups don't tend to experience a trolling effort like Momentum.

    Added to that, it seems like it has been a stated objective of Momentum to deselect - or generally force out - sitting MPs that are not supportive of their agenda. So it seems more-than-slightly ironic when some of the MPs that gave been in the crossfires of these efforts finally jump and are then described as being the problem.

    Momentum forced them out - own it.

    You say all this as if it's accepted fact. Momentum has done none of the things you claim.
  • mr cheesy wrote: »
    mr cheesy wrote: »
    Current figures for labour complaints of anti-semetism are a fraction of 1% what would you consider an achievable percentage ?

    Did you read the part where I said the numbers don't matter?

    You seem to be suggesting that with a large number of people like in Momentum then shit happens, deal with it.

    Whereas some people actually believe it might be nice if Momentum grew some backbone and did something more significant about it before anyone needs to complain.

    No my point is twofold; one a small percentage of a large number will be a high absolute number - and therefore processing will take time, and secondly that no human system will be perfect and most systems with a less than 1% fuck up rate would be considered to be operating with a high rate of success.

    I am asking you what you would consider a realistic standard would be.

    Systematic / instutional bias tends to imply a higher than normal rate of prejudice - I don’t think that has been evidenced for either Labour or Momentum.

    Well y'know you can believe whatever you like. I think it is fairly clear that Momentum has "gone after" opponents and that this has included an easily seen element of anti-Semitism.

    I'm not sure it really makes a whole lot of difference what the levels of comparable anti-Semitism in the Tory party, the Lib-dems or the National Trust are - because Jewish members of those groups don't tend to experience a trolling effort like Momentum.

    Added to that, it seems like it has been a stated objective of Momentum to deselect - or generally force out - sitting MPs that are not supportive of their agenda. So it seems more-than-slightly ironic when some of the MPs that gave been in the crossfires of these efforts finally jump and are then described as being the problem.

    Momentum forced them out - own it.

    You say all this as if it's accepted fact. Momentum has done none of the things you claim.

    Oh ok. So they don't go around in packs trolling anyone who disagrees with them. Got it.
  • mr cheesy wrote: »
    mr cheesy wrote: »
    mr cheesy wrote: »
    Current figures for labour complaints of anti-semetism are a fraction of 1% what would you consider an achievable percentage ?

    Did you read the part where I said the numbers don't matter?

    You seem to be suggesting that with a large number of people like in Momentum then shit happens, deal with it.

    Whereas some people actually believe it might be nice if Momentum grew some backbone and did something more significant about it before anyone needs to complain.

    No my point is twofold; one a small percentage of a large number will be a high absolute number - and therefore processing will take time, and secondly that no human system will be perfect and most systems with a less than 1% fuck up rate would be considered to be operating with a high rate of success.

    I am asking you what you would consider a realistic standard would be.

    Systematic / instutional bias tends to imply a higher than normal rate of prejudice - I don’t think that has been evidenced for either Labour or Momentum.

    Well y'know you can believe whatever you like. I think it is fairly clear that Momentum has "gone after" opponents and that this has included an easily seen element of anti-Semitism.

    I'm not sure it really makes a whole lot of difference what the levels of comparable anti-Semitism in the Tory party, the Lib-dems or the National Trust are - because Jewish members of those groups don't tend to experience a trolling effort like Momentum.

    Added to that, it seems like it has been a stated objective of Momentum to deselect - or generally force out - sitting MPs that are not supportive of their agenda. So it seems more-than-slightly ironic when some of the MPs that gave been in the crossfires of these efforts finally jump and are then described as being the problem.

    Momentum forced them out - own it.

    You say all this as if it's accepted fact. Momentum has done none of the things you claim.

    Oh ok. So they don't go around in packs trolling anyone who disagrees with them. Got it.

    If you think they do, prove it.
  • mr cheesy wrote: »
    mr cheesy wrote: »
    mr cheesy wrote: »
    Current figures for labour complaints of anti-semetism are a fraction of 1% what would you consider an achievable percentage ?

    Did you read the part where I said the numbers don't matter?

    You seem to be suggesting that with a large number of people like in Momentum then shit happens, deal with it.

    Whereas some people actually believe it might be nice if Momentum grew some backbone and did something more significant about it before anyone needs to complain.

    No my point is twofold; one a small percentage of a large number will be a high absolute number - and therefore processing will take time, and secondly that no human system will be perfect and most systems with a less than 1% fuck up rate would be considered to be operating with a high rate of success.

    I am asking you what you would consider a realistic standard would be.

    Systematic / instutional bias tends to imply a higher than normal rate of prejudice - I don’t think that has been evidenced for either Labour or Momentum.

    Well y'know you can believe whatever you like. I think it is fairly clear that Momentum has "gone after" opponents and that this has included an easily seen element of anti-Semitism.

    I'm not sure it really makes a whole lot of difference what the levels of comparable anti-Semitism in the Tory party, the Lib-dems or the National Trust are - because Jewish members of those groups don't tend to experience a trolling effort like Momentum.

    Added to that, it seems like it has been a stated objective of Momentum to deselect - or generally force out - sitting MPs that are not supportive of their agenda. So it seems more-than-slightly ironic when some of the MPs that gave been in the crossfires of these efforts finally jump and are then described as being the problem.

    Momentum forced them out - own it.

    You say all this as if it's accepted fact. Momentum has done none of the things you claim.

    Oh ok. So they don't go around in packs trolling anyone who disagrees with them. Got it.

    If you think they do, prove it.

    No it's ok, I have eyes thanks.
  • Link ?
  • Ricardus wrote: »
    Some thoughts on antisemitism and Labour.
    (Slightly long read, sorry...)

    The point made above about how easy a charge it is to lay is also important: it has become the equivalent of when did you stop beating your wife?

    AFZ

    That was the criticism made of the Macpherson Report, wasn't it?

    What winds me up about this issue is that the people who are most gung-ho about how accusations of anti-Semitism are all politically inspired lies are the very same people who would be most concerned about listening to the voices of minority groups when they describe the discrimination they face.

    I think if a bunch of black left-wing MPs in the Blair years had complained about racial discrimination, and Alistair Campbell had said they were just Old Labour dinosaurs who couldn't cope with the fact that Blair won elections, then Momentumites would rightly be horrified at that response even if those MPs' complaints proved to be of little substance.

    It's a fair point. But then I'm not convinced that any serious person is 'gun-ho' about antisemitism. But it does seem to be an incredibly powerful attack on the party.

    As I said in my long blog post last year, it is more complex than that.

    AFZ
  • The OP seems like a failure in logic to me. If one "admires" their conscience for anything, it would be for truly having the courage to stand down and fight a by-election, rather than split from the party which enabled their election. The idea that people only vote for individuals is pretty naive - you don't see the power of the party machine and the whips which precede the candidate you think you know and love even being pre-selected.
  • HugalHugal Shipmate
    Dark knight. I think there is a difference between people’s concepts and election rules. As I understand it now. In a general election what you actually vote for is a person to represent your constituency in Parliament. People may not view it that way but that is the case. If they move you have voted for them not the party.
    AFAIAC there should be a by-election as the circumstances of our he vote has changed.
  • Hugal wrote: »
    Dark knight. I think there is a difference between people’s concepts and election rules. As I understand it now. In a general election what you actually vote for is a person to represent your constituency in Parliament. People may not view it that way but that is the case. If they move you have voted for them not the party.
    AFAIAC there should be a by-election as the circumstances of our he vote has changed.

    It has happened so many times in the past that it is surprising that anyone is surprised.

    I doubt they will have to wait long for an election anyway, so standing down would be essentially pointless.
This discussion has been closed.