The Chairman Mao resembling, Monarchy hating, threat to Britain, Labour Party thread

[Jareth]

38 minutes ago, bickster said:

Wrong.

Guardian

From the report itself (available in Guardian link with more)

It was absolutely about the Party under Corbyn's leadership, that was it's remit

 

Yep - factions. One faction is still there and not engaging with the accusation of a hierarchy or racism.  And then there are the dog whistle attack ads - can’t blame that on the old guard can you? 

Edited April 9, 2023 by Jareth

[bickster]

18 minutes ago, Jareth said:

the accusation of a hierarchy

What on earth does that mean? Is the Labour Party meant to be anarcho-syndicalist?

18 minutes ago, Jareth said:

and not engaging with the accusation of... racism

From the Labour website Quite clearly it is taking time as these things inevitably do but as for not engaging, that is quite clearly nonsense

Quote

What action is the Labour Party taking on the Forde Report’s recommendations? 
The Forde Report contained 165 recommendations (see the Q&A section below for further information on these). 

Since receiving the report, the Labour Party, acting through its NEC, have carefully considered each of these recommendations. The NEC has now agreed categorisations – and any resulting action plans – for each of these recommendations. The recommendations are organised into the following categories: 

• Category 1: recommendations that are already complete; 
• Category 2: recommendations that are either in progress or require further analysis; and 
• Category 3: recommendations that due to significant legal, financial or regulatory issues will not be progressed. 

With regards to Category 2 recommendations, the NEC has also agreed that these should be further categorised into:  

• Category 2A: these are recommendations relating to staff wellbeing, induction and conduct, all of which will be assessed by HR (and any other relevant units of the Party) and reported to the General Secretary, with final approval residing with the NEC; 
• Category 2B: these are recommendations relating to tackling discrimination, culture change and a code of conduct (as it relates to members). These will be addressed by an NEC working group; and 
• Category 2C: these are certain recommendations that, given their nature, will be considered by the Leader’s Office and the General Secretary’s Office and reported to the NEC in March 2023. 

The category spreadsheets can be found here: 

CATEGORY 1

CATEGORY 2A

CATEGORY 2B

CATEGORY 2C

CATEGORY 3

 

[Jareth]

6 minutes ago, bickster said:

What on earth does that mean? Is the Labour Party meant to be anarcho-syndicalist?

From the Labour website Quite clearly it is taking time as these things inevitably do but as for not engaging, that is quite clearly nonsense

 

Not engaging? Forde said as much last month - the KC appointed by Starmer, who wrote the report - he should know right? As for what it means - you can read the report online. 

[bickster]

3 minutes ago, Jareth said:

Not engaging? Forde said as much last month - the KC appointed by Starmer, who wrote the report - he should know right? As for what it means - you can read the report online. 

So you dispute the evidence? Fair enough, which points in the various spreadsheets are untrue?

[bickster]

38 minutes ago, Jareth said:

Not engaging? Forde said as much last month

Do you have any quotes on that btw? Here's some I found

Quote

[...]"I think part of the reason that factionalism has arisen around this is because there is a perception that different groups are treated differently," Mr Forde said.

He said: "I can still see that the so-called opposing factions are still cherry picking some of the things I've said in support of their faction or view, and nobody's contextualising anything."[...]

[...]Forde said he gets "slightly irritated by zero tolerance as a phrase".

"We've heard it from the Met and we've heard it from various politicians," he said. "But you can't implement zero tolerance, it seems to me, unless you're policing things fairly rigorously and you've got transparent systems in place."[...]

The article ends with this observation:

But in recent weeks, Mr Forde has given media interviews in which he has claimed Labour under Sir Keir's leadership has not engaged with him after he published the report to discuss his recommendations further.

BBC

[Jareth]

7 hours ago, bickster said:

Do you have any quotes on that btw? Here's some I found

BBC

Same article - 

The lawyer echoed his previous comments that complaints made by black and Asian members were not being treated as seriously as those related to anti-Semitism.

"I think part of the reason that factionalism has arisen around this is because there is a perception that different groups are treated differently," Mr Forde said.

 

At the time of the report's release, Sir Keir apologised "to those affected for the culture and attitudes expressed by senior staff in the leaked report".

He said work was under way to change the culture of the party.

Don't get me wrong, but his party dog whistled an attack ad on Sunak - they are all out denying it now but have not withdrawn it. I've accused them of parroting the tories previously and I'm not sure how this is not an example. Meanwhile - 

The Observer cited Labour sources saying Ms Cooper “had nothing to do with it”. Another source claimed Sir Keir was not aware of the posters and would not usually be expected to approve of individual campaign materials, the paper added.

Former Labour home secretary David Blunkett earlier said he had been left “close to despair” by the “deeply offensive” posters, which he said marked a descent into “gutter” politics.

In a column for Saturday’s Daily Mail, he wrote: “Once you resort to personal abuse, you create the risk that Britain’s public discourse will degenerate even further – to the levels that we have seen recently in the US.”

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-rishi-sunak-attack-ad-b2316599.html

It will be withdrawn eventually, it is intended as a stunt to shock people, it is intended to placehold Labour as reliably right wing as the Tories. You've not disagreed with its dog whistle intentions or have I missed that? 

 

[Jareth]

Hey come vote for your man now being heralded by the Daily Heil - no problem here is there - it's all fine cos Starmer will change this country. - when he gets in....

Sir Keir Starmer has said he will make 'absolutely zero apologies' for his party's adverts attacking Rishi Sunak.

Labour provoked Tory fury with posters which claimed the Prime Minister does not think child sex abusers or thieves should go to prison.

Critics, including hardliners in his own party, described it as gutter politics. But the Opposition leader is standing by his party's stance, writing in the Mail tomorrow that he backs 'every word Labour has said' on crime, 'no matter how squeamish it might make some feel'.

His comments, in an exclusive article, sparked a fresh backlash last night. In his article Sir Keir says: 'I make absolutely zero apologies for being blunt about this. I stand by every word Labour has said on the subject. When 4,500 child abusers avoid prison, people don't want more excuses from politicians – they want answers.'

Sir Keir also says the Tories are 'insulated' from the effects of crime, adding: 'Rishi Sunak and successive Tory governments have let criminals get away with it because they don't get it.

'They have never lived in those neighbourhoods... they have never walked in those shoes. I have. I know exactly who suffers when government goes soft on crime: not those insulated from its effects, but ordinary, decent people.'

His decision to back the posters is set to provoke fresh anger among senior figures in the party. It emerged yesterday that Shadow Home Secretary Yvette Cooper, who is in charge of Labour's crime policy, was not informed about the campaign.

But her intervention triggered a briefing war, with an insider telling the Mail on Sunday: 'If Yvette disagrees so strongly with pointing out the Tories' dismal record on crime, she knows where the door is. She still has delusions of being leader but leaders don't stab people in the back.'

Yeah get rid of Cooper what a radical she is. Starmer is a Tory.  Cooper, Eyvette frickin Cooper - is being briefed against - because she has the audacity to challenge the power of the current leadership. There is something so very rotten at the heart of Labour and I will gamble it's the same people who made Corbyn an antisemite. Rotten party to the core. 

Edited April 10, 2023 by Jareth

[bickster]

6 hours ago, Jareth said:

Same article - 

The lawyer echoed his previous comments that complaints made by black and Asian members were not being treated as seriously as those related to anti-Semitism.

"I think part of the reason that factionalism has arisen around this is because there is a perception that different groups are treated differently," Mr Forde said.

Yeah that doesn’t say what you claimed, I actually posted it too but added the rest of the quote which puts it in the correct context

[Jareth]

2 hours ago, bickster said:

Yeah that doesn’t say what you claimed, I actually posted it too but added the rest of the quote which puts it in the correct context

How on earth are you asking anyone to contextualise that quote? Or do you just disagree with what it says? Again - 

The lawyer echoed his previous comments that complaints made by black and Asian members were not being treated as seriously as those related to anti-Semitism.

[blandy]

9 hours ago, Jareth said:

Cooper, Eyvette frickin Cooper - is being briefed against

Is she?  Where? And by who?

[blandy]

1 hour ago, Jareth said:

How on earth are you asking anyone to contextualise that quote? Or do you just disagree with what it says? Again - 

The lawyer echoed his previous comments that complaints made by black and Asian members were not being treated as seriously as those related to anti-Semitism.

Can you help me here, too, please. As I’ve read this thread I’ve found out that He was commissioned to do a report. The report made lots of observations and comments. Labour, as a result implemented a whole ton of changes and processes and guidelines and so on and the report authors job was finished. He is no longer involved. He has said he is no longer involved. As a now non involved person, he has then commented that rooting out anti-semitism is, in his opinion, being given higher priority than other complaints (of, we assume, racism).  I’m not sure how he’d know that, as he’s no longer involved (I bet he’d like to be, on £big per hour), but let’s assume he is correct. If it is, then why would that be?  Is it because Labour, having had a significant problem with AS, is still focused on driving it out as top priority? Or is it because Labour is fearful of media coverage around AS. Or is it because Labour doesn’t take racism as seriously as it should? Or is it because their system of dealt with complaints is flawed in some way? Or something else, or is he wrong?

Without evidence in front of us it’s hard to know what’s noise and what’s real

[bickster]

3 hours ago, Jareth said:

How on earth are you asking anyone to contextualise that quote?

By adding the very next sentence, like I did, he's talking about how various factions are taking bits of his report out of context to score points. Maybe you should listen to him

[Kuwabatake Sanjuro]

Today they are trying to write Mo Mowlam out of history, it is like the current leadership is completely allergic to decency.

[Seat68]

Look at him breathing and walking. How **** dare he. 

[Jareth]

27 minutes ago, bickster said:

By adding the very next sentence, like I did, he's talking about how various factions are taking bits of his report out of context to score points. Maybe you should listen to him

So this is untrue if presented on its own? Do you accept it? 

The lawyer echoed his previous comments that complaints made by black and Asian members were not being treated as seriously as those related to anti-Semitism.

[Jareth]

2 hours ago, blandy said:

Can you help me here, too, please. As I’ve read this thread I’ve found out that He was commissioned to do a report. The report made lots of observations and comments. Labour, as a result implemented a whole ton of changes and processes and guidelines and so on and the report authors job was finished. He is no longer involved. He has said he is no longer involved. As a now non involved person, he has then commented that rooting out anti-semitism is, in his opinion, being given higher priority than other complaints (of, we assume, racism).  I’m not sure how he’d know that, as he’s no longer involved (I bet he’d like to be, on £big per hour), but let’s assume he is correct. If it is, then why would that be?  Is it because Labour, having had a significant problem with AS, is still focused on driving it out as top priority? Or is it because Labour is fearful of media coverage around AS. Or is it because Labour doesn’t take racism as seriously as it should? Or is it because their system of dealt with complaints is flawed in some way? Or something else, or is he wrong?

Without evidence in front of us it’s hard to know what’s noise and what’s real

Short of writing an essay on Forde, the facts I know have already been mentioned. It's entirely up to the Labour leadership to decide if they want to listen to it or not - and truth is if they have listened to it and taken action - nobody is any the wiser, including the man who wrote the report and said last month that Labour have not engaged. 

[bickster]

14 minutes ago, Kuwabatake Sanjuro said:

Today they are trying to write Mo Mowlam out of history, it is like the current leadership is completely allergic to decency.

Shit, you're right, they also forgot to mention Bertie Ahern, David Trimble, George Mitchell, Bill Clinton, Reg Empey, John Holmes, Lord Murphy, Mark Durkan, Lord Hulme or Seamus Mallon too. 

Or, alternatively, it wasn't a history lesson, it was about a commitment to the future. As for airbrushing... she literally wasn't in the film clips because when the agreement was signed, her work had already been done behind the scenes.

 

[Jareth]

22 minutes ago, Seat68 said:

Look at him breathing and walking. How **** dare he. 

You should have seen the job they did on the last guy. 

[bickster]

2 minutes ago, Jareth said:

Short of writing an essay on Forde, the facts I know have already been mentioned. It's entirely up to the Labour leadership to decide if they want to listen to it or not - and truth is if they have listened to it and taken action - nobody is any the wiser, including the man who wrote the report and said last month that Labour have not engaged. 

Despite it all being on Labour's website and the comprehensive links I provided to them up thread, you apparently are none the wiser. Maybe its because you didn't read them

Repeating bollocks is bollocks to the power of bollocks

[bickster]

Just now, Jareth said:

You should have seen the job they did on the last guy. 

We did, Forde wrote a report about it.