FEBravo wrote:
Mirth wrote:
Agreed on both counts. This just provided touch point for both sides to square off on and, frankly, this is going to make Starmer popular amongst the electorate.
However, as someone looking in I don't feel comfortable that both of Corbyn's statements invoking 'all forms of racism' and 'overstated the impact' when talking about anti-semitism. These statements are too well polished for them to know what the implications are for that kind of language.
Can you elaborate on your last paragraph? I find it hard to find a balanced account on the issue so would be grateful for any details, or if you can refer me somewhere. Think there was always a bit of a hit job on Corbyn (including by the Guardian, etc.), so am a bit cautious before making judgment.
It's quite hard to write a neutral account. I guess it depends on whether you're talking about the wider context or the immediate context. From a wider context, it's whether you have a Labour party or a 'Labour' party that is always willing to compromise to the centre and how you feel about this is largely driven by where you sit on that spectrum. But that's a debate that's gone on for 30 years now.
My feeling is that it's not acceptable for anyone to say an independent report touching on difficult a subject like this is being 'overstated' by the public reaction it generates. Particularly not as an immediate response because you know exactly how that will play out in the media which is what I think the intention was and it builds on the pre-existing confrontation between both sides seeking to weaponise a very delicate subject. Certainly this is not something you or I could get away with doing in a professional setting. But, on a fundamental level, it absolutely pisses off people who directly are impacted by anti semitism in their day to day life to hear this - I'm sure they weren't the targets but are collateral damage once again and that's not very nice.
