Outrage! Socialist discovered in Labour Party as Ken Loach says he's expelled

[longwayoff]

Yes. KEN LOACH for crying out loud, director of "I, Daniel Blake" and many other films. AIBU to suggest this is not likely to be a vote winner? Idiots.

I like ken loach. I'm appalled at labour.

Can anyone add a few more sources, where KL is denying the Holocaust? I was not aware he had made any such statements. Thanks

Google The search terms 'Perdition Ken Loach'.

His responses to objections to portrayals of historical events was that there was 'a Zionist lobby', with disproportionate power.

That, right there, is ... worrying. When you don't see such objections as legitimate but rather see evidence of some co-ordinated network of 'Zionists', wielding shadowy, disproportionate power, that, right there, means you have a head full of worrying and disturbing beliefs.

Everyone is a socialist, until they can’t get an iPhone.

Seriously, it is astonishing that people bemoan the loss of these over privileged virtue signalers living in a bubble. Labor deserves to be in the mess it is today for me letting people like this man and Corbyn ruin it.

And, frankly: good.

I'm glad he's off.

I'm beyond tired of

• people trying to downplay antisemitism

• people who are creating and believing crazy conspiracy theories eg. Labour lost in 2019 because of a Zionist-Labour Right plot.

Labour lost in 2017 and lost in 2019 because the electorate did not vote for Labour.

If Labour wants to get back into government, the path to that lies in getting the electorate to vote for Labour.

Dreaming up ever more convoluted conspiracy theories to hide from this basic fact helps no-one who actually wants to see a Labour government.

Good riddance

@1WayOrAnother2

Ken Loach does not seem to deny the Holocaust: 'my words have been twisted to suggest that I think it is acceptable to question the reality of the Holocaust. I do not. The Holocaust is as real a historical event as the second world war itself and not to be challenged. In Primo Levi’s words: “Those who deny Auschwitz would be ready to remake it.” The terrible pictures I first saw as a nine-year-old are ingrained on my memory, as they are for all my generation.'

That was my understanding. He was misquoted or someone decontextualised a comment.

I'll have to go looking now...

www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/this-anti-semitic-bbc-interview-perfectly-illustrates-britains-left-wing-anti-semitism-problem

www.jpost.com/israel-news/culture/ken-loach-clarifies-comments-on-holocaust-denial-507502

Even in a condemnatory piece you can see how, at the time, the knives were out and the accusations were based on a truth that is latterly unwise to utter - that no topic, no history is above being discussed.

A tale told only too often in these times of feelings over science.

What this means:

Labour is moving forwards. It's being firm that it will learn from and show that it will no longer be a Party that tolerates anti-semitism.

And that is a good thing.

Labour isn't moving forwards. It's supposed to be a left wing party. What exactly is KS trying to do as it seems that he's just alienating left wing, socialist supporters. His recent results were appalling but he's still blaming corbyn! What is he offering, out of interest? Why would anyone be inclined to vote for him over the Tories?

Being a socialist doesn't mean it's ok to be a racist. I don't know much about him (know of a couple of his films), but if posts on this thread are right - about his racism - than good riddance.

www.jewishvoiceforlabour.org.uk/article/flimsy-and-vindictive-the-case-against-ken-loach/

www.theguardian.com/world/2017/oct/05/ken-loach-i-give-no-legitimacy-to-holocaust-denial

Labour is already signalling it will go into the next election with detailed recovery (post-pandemic) plans.

Plans that emphasise equality irrespective of socio-economic background, plans that have a serious response to climate issues.

That is directly in opposition to this present government who have used the pandemic as a cash-siphoning exercise for cronies and who are ignoring climate change because 'it's hard'.

I know it's fun to accuse Starmer of having no real politics and not opposing this government - but it's not true.

I actually don't know what to make of supposed Labour supporters who bleat that there is no difference between Starmer's Labour and Johnson's Conservstive government.

It's not true. And ... why? Why would you do that? What possible purpose can it serve? How does it help in getting rid of a terrible venal, lazy and incompetent government?

Seriously - why would you perpetuate such a myth?

Genuinely, I do wonder if a lot of the supposed lefties who attack Starmer actually understand how politics works.

I think that some of them equate 'opposition' with

• stopping harmful legislation
• getting some positive legislation on the books.

The fact is, neither of these two things is possible because Johnson has an 80-seat majority.

Starmer frequently talks about what Labour hopes to achieve if Labour gets into government.

But cut-through is hard. Partly because of the pandemic but overwhelmingly because Labour is very much in Opposition.

Johnson sets the agenda because Johnson is currently governing.

If you don't like that, now is the time to add your weight to the push to change that.

It's not the time to invent ever more convoluted conspiracy theories about how Labour has become some sort of right-wing plot against the true-believers.

"Labour is already signalling it will go into the next election with detailed recovery (post-pandemic) plans.

Plans that emphasise equality irrespective of socio-economic background, plans that have a serious response to climate issues."

But these aren't policies, they're just blather. It's not like anyone from any party is going to say, "we're not going to have any recovery plan and we're not interested in equality." He's been leader for 16mths and I have no idea of any of his policies or how he sees the future other than, of course, evening up. I could get my parrot to say that but it wouldn't be able to define how either!

...and I don't know what the differences are between Starmer and Johnson because I don't know what Starmer stands for. He offers no new ideas or inspiration for the future. We desperately need an opposition and an alternative. At what point will Starmer stand up and become a leader?

Serious policies take time to research - and you don't want to advertise them too far in advance - Johnson has form for Cherry-picking and introducing gutted versions of progressive ideas.

Sure-start, for example, was the product of long-term, serious research and discussion. Which was why it worked.

I know it's fun to dismiss political communication of key directions of travel as 'blather' but - actually - all you are doing is

• Refusing to engage seriously with politics
• hiding your own refusal to engage with politics behind a veneer of cynicism
• ultimately adding to a general refusal to engage with politics; a disengagement which ultimately leads to a refusal to condemn absolute corruption and to demand better.

When people say, 'they're all the same,' I despair. Politics has real effects in your life, my life. It is far, far too important to disengage from under the pretence of cynicism.

Ken Loach is kicked out of the Labour Party

Keir Starmer’s Labour Party has expelled legendary film-maker Ken Loach for refusing to disown fellow members who were expelled without evidence.

How ridiculous: this pillar of the Left has been unjustly expelled from Labour for insisting that people have been unjustly expelled from Labour.

The director’s I’Daniel Blake was a damning indictment of the Tory policy of persecution against the unemployed – particularly people with long-term illnesses and disabilities. Starmer’s decision to expel him may be seen as support for such policies.

He announced his removal on Twitter:

'Labour HQ finally decided I'm not fit to be a member of their party, as I will not disown those already expelled. Well…' KL

— Ken Loach & Sixteen Films (@KenLoachSixteen) August 14, 2021

One minute's googling and I can paste the Children's Recovery plan. Which has the backing of the NEU.

So, on that issue alone, it's actually not hard to find out what 'Starmer stands for'.

labour.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/15059_21-Childrens-Recovery-Plan.pdf

This, and other statements, have been available on social media, discussed in on-line events, been in mainstream media.

But it's easy to miss if you don't generally follow lots of political news. And that's fine. People are busy.

But the fact that the Labour Party - or Starmer - can't come round for a cup of tea and individually chat about all this is not the same as 'Starmer stands for nothing.'

I get that it's a 'thing' to be cynical and dismissive, and I get the anti-Labour people coming out with this line.

What I don't understand is why supposed leftists, progressives and supposed Labour supported do it.

It's not true.

PS Labour can't actually legislate until they are in power. The whole 'this is just verbiage' angle is a clever line of attack because it turns the fact of their Opposition against them.
But that's what it us: a clever kind of attack.

Some good posts @thecatfromjapan

"Serious policies take time to research - and you don't want to advertise them too far in advance - Johnson has form for Cherry-picking and introducing gutted versions of progressive ideas."

I don't get this attitude. If its a good idea, surely any political party would,want it introduced as soon as possible. If it a stolen idea badly implicated, then you go after that.

And I say it's blather because what sort of decent politician goes into local elections and by election with no policies to give people reason to vote for you. People won't vote for an empty vessel. Unfortunately Keir Starmer has no charisma so he needs to express concrete ideas that people can believe in. Just saying we're going to make things better is empty rhetoric and if you think it will win over the electorate then you take us for fools.

No. The problem lies in noticing a policy has traction, taking the headline, gutting it of actual bite, and then introducing legislation that has a little, or even completely contrary effect.

All that does is take public attitude for change in an area and betray it. Which ultimately leads to more cynicism and an increased feeling of powerlessness in the public.

I think we're going to see this a lot with Conservative proposals for economic recovery and green issues.

And, again, it's all 'saying you'll make things better' until you can legislate.

And for that, you need to be in government.

The best-researched and costed pledges are ultimately promises until you legislate them.

Dismissing every promise from an Opposition as 'just words' is a redundant cynicism that only serves to disempower you, because it serves only to disengage you from politics which actually, really affects your life.

And it serves only to render invisible and beyond criticism what this actual government are actually, really doing.

For example, the Civil Service has objected to the cronyistic handing of PPE contracts to friends of the government during the pandemic.

They actually, really turned a disaster into a money-leeching operation, which is thought to have cost every tax payer in the U.K. over £400 each. And made a small circle of mates very rich.

Dismissing pledges to 'do better' than that is simply to dismiss any suggestion that it is possible, desirable and necessary to do better.

We deserve better.

And it is not just verbiage to state this.