[thread 🧵] I’m pretty sure the deployment of antisemitism allegations against the British left in the period from 2015 onwards will be discussed by historians in the future. And unless history also goes down the sewer, it’ll be discussed more objectively than the present. (1/14)
Apart from wading through the distortions & the political game-playing to establish the facts, something else they will surely have to consider is what it’s done to our political culture. I want to explain what I mean by that, because it’s important for the left too. (2/14)
Everything I say is entirely separate from the battle against antisemitism in real life - which is serious & must be combated through political opposition & most importantly, anti-racist education. The tragedy about its weaponisation is how that work has been relegated. (3/14)
First thing to say is that it’s more than allegations. As the #LabourFiles documentaries show (please watch them), what we’ve seen is a whole architecture of political targeting, harassment, defamation & silencing. While ugly, we have to accept it’s been hugely successful. (4/14)
Those documentaries showed the pain & injury caused by this campaign, especially on an individual level. But multiply that by thousands, tens of thousands & all of the fall out that goes with it, and you get the true impact on our politics & our political culture. (5/14)
The deployment of antisemitism allegations by the right of the Labour Party is one of the most effective political campaigns of all time. It was successful because it understood the vulnerabilities of the socialist project it opposed & because it had no boundaries. (6/14)
It also understood that, in an age of social media, perception is key. Facts, evidence, integrity are pretty much irrelevant when you can defame someone, or a group using half-truths, guilt by association, slurs & outright lies with impunity. (7/14)
Of course, that dishonesty in politics has always been there. People have always been lied about, movements defamed. Only now, it’s blown up. It’s endemic, instant & addictive. The ease with which people can be marginalised or destroyed is incredibly powerful. (8/14)
And this is where the model used by the right of the party to destroy the Corbyn project is so corrosive. Because for those seeking short-cuts, who don’t want to do the exhausting work of political argument & persuasion, there’s an easier way. Just nail people. (9/14)
This is also why this is an issue for the left as well as the right. Social media, great though it has been, has made us lazy thinkers. Not all, but a significant portion of us have learned from the antisemitism example & are deploying something similar ourselves. (10/14)
This won’t be immediately obvious in the heat of political battles, exactly because it has become a political culture, a normalised way to *do* politics. Years ago, I could see this coming - especially in the way parts of the left were identifying others as ‘cranks’. (11/14)
The whole point of that was to create a centre & a periphery of the left around Corbyn. It was a power play. There was no engagement in the issues, just a manoeuvring to hold off a larger, ‘Corbynista’ group that might want a say. It was lazy & destructive. (12/14)
We have to reject this kind of political culture - a model created by our enemies. Because further down the line, it destroys any chances of building a coherent, open, democratic left which is able to deal with disputes & arguments in a comradely way. (13/14)
It won’t always be easy. It’s so much easier to nail people based on who they follow or what they said when they were 16. But it’s about integrity & socialists should do integrity better than the Labour right. Only we can break this addiction to the politics of the gutter (14/14)
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Just watch & listen to @Keir_Starmer here because I think it’s important that we understand how political narratives are established. I have been thinking a lot about this & about how the big lie about @jeremycorbyn’s antisemitism sticks. (1/10)
Firstly, he’s asked about how he feels about essentially betraying someone he called a friend not long ago. Starmer simply ignores this questioning from @BethRigby, talking over her & getting quite animated. (2/10)
But notice what he does next.
Without even trying to link to that question, or relating it to the motion that was placed before the NEC (all about Corbyn’s electoral failure), he moves onto antisemitism. That’s called elision - merging unconnected ideas. (3/10)
[thread 🧵] A few weeks ago I was sitting in a pub & by chance ended up in a conversation where I was asked: ‘What do you think of @Keir_Starmer?’ The person asking was not a big activist, but definitely a Labour supporter, so I was very calm & considered about it. (1/8)
I explained carefully what he & those around him had done to @jeremycorbyn & countless other good people. I told her that since being elected @UKLabour in 2020, Starmer had lied through his teeth about Jeremy’s supposed antisemitism & a range of other issues. (2/8)
I went into quite a lot of detail about how & why Starmer had done it, why he’d cynically decided to throw Jeremy under the bus & targeted socialists in the party. I explained that for that reason alone, I could not respect or trust this guy - nor those who propped him up. (3/8)
[thread 🧵] I was at a meeting last night discussing Govt threats to our civil liberties & the speaker from @PSCupdates, Ryvka Barnard made such an important point that I don’t think we consider enough: that the real aim of these attacks are to encourage self-policing. (1/11)
This is what is known as the chilling effect - when individuals of groups refrain from expression for fear of falling foul of a regulation or a law. It doesn’t have to be a formal or legal threat - it could be the fear of being publicly exposed (e.g as a racist or crank). (2/11)
This is where the real power of legislation, regulation or a code lies, relying on the assumption that people are generally cautious & even if convinced of their truth, will risk assess the potential consequences of speaking out, e.g on Palestine & decide they’re too high. (3/11)
[thread🧵] I’ve heard people on the left say that @Keir_Starmer will regret targeting @jeremycorbyn & his supporters, citing the fact that they & many of the people they know will refuse to vote Labour because of the abuse they’ve suffered since the change in leadership. (1/21)
Starmer & those around him have clearly decided that’s either (a) an idle threat or (b) not significant in terms of numbers - i.e votes lost. There’s also a calculation that any loss of left-leaning votes is more than compensated for by the publicity hit of left bashing. (2/21)
This is the thing about the rightwing of @UKLabour. Any notions of truth, justice or integrity are entirely secondary to electoral calculation. That’s why moral arguments are a waste of time with them. They attack @jeremycorbyn because they think it wins them votes. (3/21)
[thread on 2019] In politics, I think it’s important to be honest. If you don’t you’ll either (a) be found out or (b) not learn. So, in that spirit, I have to say that #GE2019 wasn’t the best I’ve been involved in & compared unfavourably to 2017. It’s important to ask why. (1/21)
Of course, there were factors that could be described as external that contributed to how hard that campaign was for us as socialists, Brexit being the principal one. And we now know that many of our own side were working against. But it wasn’t all bad luck & sabotage. (2/21)
I was in Labour HQ for #GE2017, working mainly on @jeremycorbyn’s social media & I have to say, it was breathtakingly exciting. It felt like we were breaking new ground & the connection between Jeremy’s office & the movement outside (offline & online) was palpable. (3/21)
[thread] Let me explain something, for those who think politics is about “objective conditions” rather than human emotions. (1/16)
Hundreds of thousands of people joined the Labour Party under @jeremycorbyn. Many more identified with the project’s message. Corbyn & the movement he represented spoke to them in a way that hundreds of left projects & parties had failed to do over decades. (2/16)
That was because it offered an open space where you didn’t have to be an expert on socialism to take part, but you could find your voice alongside other, ordinary people who wanted a better world. It offered hope in a simple way that was accessible & exciting to people. (3/16)