Anti-Semitism, Lord Sugar and Current Reality

Labour_antisemitism

One need to salute the ingenuity of some of our lords and “leaders”!

They have more expertise in deceiving audience, compared to experienced magicians.

Need proof?

Just look at the excitement on Corbyn’s Facebook post.

A post, which was posted in 2012!

It was intended as a general comment about removal of public art on the grounds of freedom of speech.

Later Corbyn clarified it as well:

“I sincerely regret that I did not look more closely at the image I was commenting on, the contents of which are deeply disturbing and anti-Semitic.”

The matter should have closed by this statement.

But of course, our “magicians” are experts!

By this tweet, Lord Sugar too proved he is not behind anyone.

Labour and anti-Semitism

Like in any large party, unfortunately there could be few racists in Labour as well.

The party launched inquiry chaired by Shami Chakrabarty; it’s report is being implemented.

Two senior Labour figures were suspended too.

While these are the facts, current attacks on Labour are nothing but cheap tactics.

Cheap tactics, by Tory supporting media and a small section of “old” Labour supporters.

They are afraid of the growing popularity of the true Labour and it’s strong, left leadership.

A leadership which condemned the Iraq war.

A leadership which firmly stands against inequality.

A leadership which has taken the right stand on Brexit.

The Tories, “old” Labour and some of its MPs know their days are gone.

They are desperate.

So desperate, that they’re whining over a Facebook post from 2012.

To discuss more about this topic is just to deceive and divert public’s attention away from current government and its pathetic “achievements”.

Here are some of those “achievements”:

Just three “achievements” from just last few days and weeks.

They summarises the incompetency of May’s minority government.

It is this incompetency that Lord Sugar, Tory media and others are trying to divert our attention from.

Let us not fall in to their diversion tactics.

Coming back to anti-Semitism.

The world stood firmly behind Jewish community during Nazi brutalities.

The world should show same support for Palestinians, who are oppressed for decades.

Labour was clear in their 2017 manifesto:

“A Labour government will immediately recognise the state of Palestine”.

That statement is very clear.

Being pro-Palestine is in no way anti-Semitic.

Advertisements

Is “Two-leader” formula a better alternative to Labour’s future?

Two_Leader

Is “Two-leader” formula a better alternative to Labour’s future?

Before proceeding, I want to mention that:

  • Per me, the best possible resolution for current dilemma is: Eagle to step back and let Corbyn – who was democratically elected by more than 60% of the membership – to continue leading the party
  • I no way claim I know the intricacies of party policies, rule-books and inner-party activities.  Instead, this is a novice attempt of a Labour supporter, who just want the party to come out of current deep divisions and focus more on what the grass-roots want and aspire for.
  • In this post, I am just thinking aloud and playing around with the possibilities
  • By no means has this “Two-Leader” formula perfectly answered all open issues.
  • It needs to be ironed-out on how to approach government discussions / decisions on sensitive / security / foreign affairs

With those caveats in place, let me try to explain further!

By Two leaders, I mean

  1. Leader of the Labour Party, who is
    • Democratically elected by Labour members
    • Leads NEC
    • Governs day-to-day Labour Party activities
  2. Leader of the PLP, who is
    • Elected by the PLP members
    • Should be member of the NEC
    • Governs day-to-day PLP activities, but limited to PLP.

Some key points that support above formula are:

  • NEC is the ultimate authority within the party.
  • PLP is a subset of party, not over the party.  Think of PLP as an “elite branch” working within Westminster.
  • PLP leader is free from day-to-day party activities, though PLP decisions (with possible exclusions of sensitive items, I mean military, security etc.)  are discussed / endorsed with NEC
  • Party Leader is free from day-to-day government activities, though PLP decisions are still discussed within NEC.

Will try to extend this further, but what is your opinion on it, in its current form?

Let me know your thoughts!