Keep the focus on Forde!
JVL Introduction
David Rosenberg has added another a fine commentary on the Forde Report to the many we have already posted.
Like us and others he criticises the “pervasive framing” which is of “a party at war with itself because of ‘toxic factionalism’, for which more zealous activists of the left and right are deemed equally responsible.
But he also emphasises how “Forde frequently contradicts his own ‘even-handed’ framework, as he exposes the Right’s shenanigans and dishonesty”.
And he stresses the flimsiness of this balance: “The criticisms [Forde] makes of the Right are backed with solid evidence; those aimed at the Left are much more speculative and evidence-free, or they are quotes from submissions by right-wing members of the party, including HQ staff.”
His conclusion is that we need to demand a mature, reflective and detailed response from the current Labour leader and NEC.
But can we hold their feet to the fire…
This article was originally published by davesrebellion on Sun 31 Jul 2022. Read the original here.
Keep the focus on Forde!
Loading article text…
Masterly, thank you David.
What is good for the goose is good for the gander
Anyone who has made vexatious claims of anti semitism has no place in the Labour party
Draw up a list, forewarn them that they will be thrown out of the party
1) Tony Blair
2) Margaret Hodge
No problem acting retrospectively as we already know
Amazing
Random thoughts here:-
(1) I THINK Starmer may be running out of room. Twigs in the wind:-
– the tone of the Guardian’s coverage of Starmer has become more critical over the last few weeks.
– Starmer and Evans were named by Cohen (when she won her tribunal case against her employer Mahmoud Labour MP) as repeatedly failing to carry out their duty to investigate the antisemitism she’d suffered and the racism / abuse the women she had tried to help had suffered. There’s a paper trail of the relevant correspondence. Normally such a situation wouldn’t bring down a party leader … but Starmer is now in a very weak position.
(2) The run-up to the Labour conference will be a good time to nobble sympathetic CLPs to act jointly and to prepare a range of helpful press releases. It might be sensible to muse on a post-Starmer world and whether there any credible candidates who should be encouraged to put themselves forward in any future Labour leadership contest.
Excellent analysis by David Rosenberg. I am not a member of the Labour Party. I feared for the mental health of Jeremy Corbyn given the manner in which his character was traduced across the media by right wing pro zionist activists. Perhaps I shouldn’t have worried, he is a strong courageous man of principle. I’m 71 years old now coming to North London from Dublin in September 1957. From that time to this I do not remember Labour politician receiving so much abuse. Not even Tony Benn, who was characterised as having a ‘mad stare’ etc.
Newspapers such as the Guardian and Observer in particular backed the Jewish Chronicle claims, leading the charge against Corbyn, notwithstanding the rest of the ‘popular press’ and online media.
I hope that the Forde Report does at least draw an apology from the Starmer leadership and that he is reinstated should he wish to be.
In solidarity
Dave Clinch
When I read David Rosenberg’s thoroughly balanced forensic commentary: the Focus on Forde”, Rebel Notes I briefly contemplated writing my own critique of Forde’s Report for a bipartisan? magazine such as Conversation.
However, back to earth I had a change of heart. I agree with Doug’s JVL post a few days ago. We now urgently need to establish a Social Democratic Party led by a preferably young principled energetic leader who understands what it means to ‘work for the many – not the few’.
Bravo, David!
(And I am still looking forward to the party leadership’s response to the report).
Brilliant evaluation of the Forde Report! But the gynormous big elephant in the room is this (and I very much doubt that Forde and his team missed it, along with numerous MSM journalists and columnists AND their editors). And that is that not a single one of the groups and individuals who loudly proclaimed Jeremy Corbyn to be a threat to the Jewish population *EVER* spelt out what the threat – in the event he became PM – amounted to. Each and every one of them ALLUDED to something, but never-ever elaborated as to what it was they were alluding to. And they did so for the obvious reason that they couldn’t think of anything that wouldn’t have sounded totally absurd and preposterous to the vast majority of people.
It only occurred to me recently that Pompeo did exactly the same as all the rest of them, and alluded to something – ‘those things’ – that Jeremy supposedly had in store for the Jewish population, but didn’t specify what they were of course. I mean HOW can anyone believe that he is a threat, and yet not spell out to the whole country what it is they believe he would actually do. Of course you would! But not a single one of them did so!
Just to remind you re Pompeo:
Citing a leaked recording of a private meeting, the Washington Post said that Pompeo was asked: If Corbyn is elected “would you be willing to work with us to take on actions if life becomes very difficult for Jews in the UK?”
Pompeo responded: “It could be that Mr. Corbyn manages to run the gauntlet and get elected. It’s possible. You should know, we won’t wait for him to do those things to begin to push back. We will do our level best. It’s too risky and too important and too hard once it’s already happened.”
https://www.timesofisrael.com/pompeo-us-will-push-back-against-corbyn-before-he-makes-things-hard-for-jews/
PS It would be interesting to ask the editors of the three Jewish newspapers – along with the BoD and JLM and CAA and LAA et al – just precisely how they thought this existential threat would have manifested itself, and what it is they thought would happen.
I wonder what they would say!
Thank you, David Rosenberg! It is so good to read such a reasoned, and thoughtful, article, in these fractious times.
I’ve often wondered – over the past two years, while ‘Waiting for Forde’ – if the interminable delay was because, the language in the ‘original’ was not acceptable to the party hierarchy. Too much emphasis on the misdemeanours of ‘the right wing’.
It would explain why, on first sight, The Report appears so anodyne. Your review winkles out those anomalies, and – for that, most of all – you should be thanked.
Strange how the Jewish Chronicle has now become one of the ‘go to’ papers for comment & not only on the BBC but also the Murdoch press.
It is true that the Forde Report strains the facts to adopt an even-handed, ‘faults on both sides’ position. I think however that this was because the members wanted to act as a sort of Truth and Reconciliation commission. They were seeking to move the Party towards an end to factional infighting which meant that they could not be seen to take sides except where there was no possible alternative. By accepting the report in full the leadership clique could have backed away from its most extreme positions without losing too much face.
Unfortunately there seems to be no will to do this. The leadership’s response to the report suggests that it still sees the factional fight against the left as its absolute top priority, and as justifying any sort of behaviour, however abusive. There have been no apologies because the people running the party see nothing to apologise for.
The report refers to the principle that ‘the worst Labour Government is better than the best Conservative Government’, which would once have been accepted universally within the party. This is no longer the case. Between 2015 and 2019 a significant section, including much (perhaps most) of the PLP, decided that they would prefer Labour to lose rather than win under Corbyn’s leadership. They have never retreated from this position. Rachel Reeves in particular has stated openly that she was glad that Corbyn did not become Prime Minister, implying pretty clearly that she welcomed Labour losing in 2019 and indeed that she preferred Johnson to Corbyn. Nobody in the leadership group has openly dissented from this.
I would say that the Forde report was a thoughtful, honourable and well-intentioned attempt to achieve a worthwhile aim. Unfortunately the people to whom it was addressed are considerably less honourable and well-intentioned.
Forgive me for saying so Rory, but that’s tantamount to saying that Forde thought he’d give both the bully and the bully’s victim equal blame so as to reconcile them.
Perhaps you didn’t notice that much of the MSM chose to mainly go with the stuff that was critical of Jeremy Corbyn and his team and his supporters, ‘provided’ by Forde, and omitted just about everything that was critical of Jeremy’s enemies and those who conspired to undermine him.
Doug said:
Anyone who has made vexatious claims of anti semitism has no place in the Labour party
Draw up a list, forewarn them that they will be thrown out of the party
So WHO exactly is going to draw up this list Doug and forewarn them that they will be thrown out of the party? And then throw them out?
Thank you David. It’s refreshing to read a clearly intelligent (and above all these days) truthful analysis of the Forde report.
The most powerful condemnation of the destruction of Corbyn is that it was not just Corbyn who was undemined but the wishes of the great majority of Labour Party members. The whole Labour Party was robbed of our chosen leader.
Can someone explain how the actions of Red Tories to prevent JC from winning in 2017 does not constitute ‘Electoral Fraud’
Remember it wasn’t just Ergon House, at every level our efforts were sabotaged from within by the few
An example of how the mainstream media are silencing any coverage wrt the Forde Report…. three times, across three different articles on the Guardian website , I made a comment about why is no one mentioning or discussing the Forde Report. Three times, each comment I made never made it onto the website, not even for a second. It was immediately moderated for being against their “community guidelines”.
Any mention of the Forde Reprot is being actively shut down in the Guardian, obviously not only from an editorial point of view, but also on their comment section . I probably shouldn’t be surprised but I still can’t believe how blatant and widespread they are in their censoring of this.
S Hassan: That’s odd, because I just did a search on the Guardian’s website re the Forde Report, and there were five articles about the report (posted since it was published), and although only one of them had a comments section, the impression I got on looking through a few dozen comments (out of 216) was that posters were free to say what they wanted to say….. for example the following comment:
a supposedly left wing newspaper – i.e. this one – played its part in undermining Corbyn.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/jul/20/forde-report-labour-factionalism
Allan Howard. So in summary , you found a total of 5 articles wrt Forde Report, and only a single article open to comments, and that had 216 comments.
How can you not see that is a ridiculously low number of articles considering the conclusions of the report, and 216 comments means that the article you mentioned would most likely been very limited in its prominence on its website, as would have been only open for comments for a very limited time.
Guardian has also for the past year started to publish , about once a month stories specifically related to the injustice that Palestinian people suffer. For the past few years that just not has been the case. That does not mean the Guardian for has been balanced in its reporting with regards to Corbyn , Labour and the Forde Report, as well as its editorial stance with regard to Palestine.
The Guardian just offer a few crumbs of comfort to gullible people like me who keep going back it’s website hoping that it would stand up to those suffering from injustice.