• MurrayL@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    31
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    4 months ago

    Not surprising. He was sadly too divisive to be a widely-popular Labour leader, but afaik he’s well-liked by his actual constituents, and this backs that up.

    • SuddenDownpour@sh.itjust.worksOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      48
      ·
      4 months ago

      If someone being consistent with Labour’s values is too divisive to lead Labour, there can’t be Labour at all. I disagree with some of his stances, but what this man suffered wasn’t internal opposition, it was political assassination.

      • cbarrick@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        17
        ·
        4 months ago

        As an American looking in, Corbyn has always been the face of UK’s Labour Party.

        Why was he ousted? The article says something about an antisemitism statement, but surely that’s not the whole of it.

        • hotspur@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          45
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          4 months ago

          They basically did something similar to what happened to Bernie with the DNC. they did a full court press antisemitism campaign against him, but like many of the charges of antisemitism in the US right now, it was largely based on criticism of Israeli policy AFAIK.

          Edit: to clarify—they ousted him because labor was looking ascendant, and the more centrist and corporatist elements of labor could not stomach the idea of actually having a PM that wanted to do left wing things that aligned with the theoretical purpose of the labor party, so they took him out by getting enough articles published in the famously above-board uk media to force him from leadership.

          • Aceticon@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            22
            ·
            edit-2
            4 months ago

            Just to illustrate the nature of that campaign, at one point and in order to accuse Corbyn of being anti-semitic, they said that he had sat on a panel in a conference where one of the members of the same panel compared the actions of Israel to those of the Nazis, “hence” (by association) Corbyn was an anti-semite.

            The thing is, said member of the panel who compared the actions of Israel to those of the Nazis was a Jewish Holocaust Survivor.

            If such words made Corbyn an anti-semite by association then, having said such words, said panel member would even more so have to be an anti-semite.

            In other words, the anti-Corbyn campaign was so rabid ragingly extremist and sleazy that they were accused a Jewish Holocaus Survivor of being an anti-semite in order to try to taint Corbyn by association.

            PS: And, by the way, this very newspaper - The Guardian - was an active participant in that campaign and published this slander, amongst others.

          • aleph@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            14
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            4 months ago

            Yup, this pretty much sums it up.

            To add, the vast majority of the antisemitism complaints involved other Labour ministers liking and posting anti-Israel Tweets that were consider too extreme. These ranged from ones that “crossed the line” of criticism against Israeli policy and the Israel lobby in the UK (some of which you can read in the report on pages 27-30) to ones that allegedly blamed Jewish members of the Labour party for making false complaints, or even tried to dimish the Holocaust (although I can’t find the exact details of those).

            Either way, none of the complaints involved Corbyn himself but his reputation was tarnished and it made him an easy target for his opponents.

        • FelixCress@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          4 months ago

          By “antisemitism” they mean not licking Israeli arse while they keep murdering Palestinians.

        • Apollo42@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          4 months ago

          He was ousted because capitalists are shit scared of socialists getting anywhere near the levers of power.

    • ShittyBeatlesFCPres@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      46
      ·
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      In 2017, under Corbyn, Labour got over 40% of the vote compared to about 34% yesterday. Even in 2019 under Corybyn, Labour got like 32%. The narrative in Britain might be that Corbyn was too divisive and Starmer is a unifier but the real issue is that the right wing was split this time in ways it wasn’t under Boris Johnson.

      I mean, say what you want about Corbyn — lord knows the garbage UK media will — but his Labour Party did very well once and about average the next time. The main issue is that using a “first past the post” system in a country with more than 2 parties is silly and undemocratic.

    • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      31
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      He was sadly too divisive to be a widely-popular Labour leader

      Bullshit. He was elected leader because people wanted to go back to the party’s left wing roots.

      The Blairite Neoliberal wing of the party didn’t like that, so they ousted him with a smear campaign calling him “divisive” (read: agrees more with the broader population than with the neoliberal establishment and their rich owner donors) and “antisemitic” (read: isn’t in the pocket of the fascist apartheid regime, has empathy for their Palestinian victims)