Starmer sacks Rebecca Long-Bailey for sharing 'anti-Semitic article'

[Nearly Sane]

Be interesting to see how this plays. It's fast and decisive but will that make some people think that it's a real problem as opposed to the Govt tactics of ignoring  stuff till it goes away.



https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-53183085

[Gordon]

His justification is that he is trying to rebuilt confidence with the Jewish community, and their responses to this are certainly positive, but one wonders if the opportunity to remove one of Corbyn's favoured ones was too good to miss - but that may not play well with sections of his own party.

Perhaps too, and I may be wrong, Starmer wants to be decisive here so as to expose Boris the Liar's reluctance to deal with Jenrick on a similar basis.

Time to get some popcorn in.

[Gordon]

john Crace on the difference between how Johnson and Starmer have handled recent issues involving ministers.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/jun/25/starmer-strikes-without-warning-while-johnson-hangs-on-to-honest-bob

[Outrider]

I'm rather more worried at the fact that suggesting Israeli police are sometimes heavy-handed and might have taught other police forces how to apply those techniques is enough to be considered 'anti-semitic'.  It might be an incorrect allegation that this particular police force was trained by the Israelis, but they've not been shy about sharing their techniques with their allies, and there's a world of difference between anti-Semitism and legitimate criticism of Israeli policies and practice.

O.

[Nearly Sane]

'Might' in your post is doing a lot of heavy lifting.

[jeremyp]

john Crace on the difference between how Johnson and Starmer have handled recent issues involving ministers.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/jun/25/starmer-strikes-without-warning-while-johnson-hangs-on-to-honest-bob

Ironically, I think both Johnson and Starmer were wrong in their action (or inaction). Jenrick, I think, is guilty as charged.

I don't think it is antisemitic to criticise a police force for learning tactics from the Israeli civil service, even if the criticism is false. Unless, of course, you are deliberately doing it to libel the Jews. Long-Bailey did tweet a link to a story that contained a falsehood, but that doesn't seem to be an issue for politicians these days.

[Nearly Sane]

Ironically, I think both Johnson and Starmer were wrong in their action (or inaction). Jenrick, I think, is guilty as charged.

I don't think it is antisemitic to criticise a police force for learning tactics from the Israeli civil service, even if the criticism is false. Unless, of course, you are deliberately doing it to libel the Jews. Long-Bailey did tweet a link to a story that contained a falsehood, but that doesn't seem to be an issue for politicians these days.

it might be seen though to be anti semitic, or indicative of not thinking. It is politics so to be competent you should be thinking of that. If Starmer is at fault, it is much less egregious than Johnson who adds Jenrick to Cumming.

[jeremyp]

it might be seen though to be anti semitic, or indicative of not thinking. It is politics so to be competent you should be thinking of that.

The trouble is that, if you expect your politicians to be perfect in every way, you pretty soon end up with no politicians or, at least none that are prepared to do anything.

If Starmer is at fault, it is much less egregious than Johnson who adds Jenrick to Cumming.

That is true without even mentioning Cummings. What Jenrick seems to have done is far worse than what Cummings did.

[SteveH]

I still like Starmer, but I suspect he's wanted to do this since he was elected.

[Nearly Sane]

One take on the events


https://m.huffingtonpost.co.uk/amp/entry/keir-starmer-rebecca-long-bailey_uk_5ef50f91c5b6acab283efcb2/?__twitter_impression=true

[Harrowby Hall]

I don't think it is antisemitic to criticise a police force for learning tactics from the Israeli civil service, even if the criticism is false. Unless, of course, you are deliberately doing it to libel the Jews. Long-Bailey did tweet a link to a story that contained a falsehood, but that doesn't seem to be an issue for politicians these days.

Haven't we been in this area before? I seem to recall discussions on the deliberate blurring of anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism: legitimate criticism of the behaviour of the Israeli state being considered to be attacks on Judaism.

As party leader, Starmer is perfectly entitled to reduce the influence of what is left of Corbyn's polytechnic Trotskyism. But he should be straightforward about his motivation.