-
As I said on the previous page, we can disagree on opinions but let's not disagree on facts, eh?
Is it a fact that you wrote "All the left needed to do was not be antisemitic." I think it is.
If you wanted to say "There is no war on the left, but instead, there have been specific attacks on two individuals for these antisemitic things..." it would be different. But you didn't say that. Instead you seemed to accept the premise of the point (that there is an attack) and approve of it by labelling an entire wing of a party as antisemitic (which, as a side note, is profoundly unhelpful in the current situation). I think those are facts, but I guess I (and clearly other people reading this thread) misunderstood them. Maybe because:
I'm not a mindreader.
You are reading a single comment by @ and its replies.
Click here to read the full conversation.
As I said on the previous page, we can disagree on opinions but let's not disagree on facts, eh?
We were talking about how Starmer had 'picked a needless civil war with the left'. The only example I've seen of such a thing is when he excluded two MPs (one from the whip, one from the shadow cabinet) for unapologetically applauding antisemitic conspiracy theories on the one hand, and minimising antisemitism on the other. And I referred to both of those things directly, because I don't think it's an example of what's being talked about. If he has started a war, it's a war on antisemitism, and frankly one that's overdue.
If @frank9755 was talking about something else there -or if you're talking about something else there - then I suggest you tell me what it is. I'm not a mindreader.
On another note, this Starmer speech is great. Holding the tories to account - which is great - but also, crucially, providing a credible alternative. The economic stuff is very much like what John McDonnell was doing last year before we torpedoed our credibility - talking about working hand in hand with business to improve society. It's what we need more of.