Heads up - webchat with Jeremy Corbyn Monday 19th Sept @ 2pm.

[JustineMumsnet]

Hello,

We’re pleased to announce a webchat with the leader of the Labour Party (and candidate in the current leadership election) Jeremy Corbyn MP on Monday 19 September at 2pm.

Jeremy has been MP for Islington North since 1983, and before 2015 was best known as a rebellious backbencher and chair of the Stop the War coalition. His leadership of Labour over the past year has inspired enthusiastic support as well as attracting sustained criticism. Among other things, he’s taken a new crowd-sourced approach to Prime Minister’s Questions, opposed military intervention in Syria and proposed the renationalisation of the railways.

His last webchat on Mumsnet (alongside fellow leadership candidate in 2015, Liz Kendall) featured lively discussions about socialism, electability and the provenance of Jeremy’s vests (Holloway Road market, since you ask).

Please do join the chat on Monday at 2, or if you can’t make it, leave a question here in advance. If you know people who you think would like to ask Jeremy a question, do please share the link around on social media too.

(If you’re interested in our webchat with the other Labour leadership candidate Owen Smith, take a look here .)

As always, please do keep in mind our webchat guidelines - one question each, follow-ups if there’s time and above all, keep it civil [taps nose like that geezer Shaw Taylor in Police 5] (Horribly showing my age there).

As for why 'anti-semitism'

So, I am not looking to get flamed, but I have asked this before and never had a satisfactory answer, but generally, why do some people believe that anti-Semitism is different from racism? Surely we should all be against all forms of bigotry and hatred?

I'll give an example of where I get confused an frustrated by this - I once raised this on a thread about this issue - I pointed out that the state of Israel has done some regrettable and in some cases illegal things. I was told that I could only say that if at the same time I recognised that other Middle East states do (OK, go with that). When I then mentioned racism I was told that anti-Semitism had to be held out separately (by the same person). Surely those two positions are contrary to each other?

I don't know much about it, admittedly (and I apologise if I am ignorantly stepping into a great big hole with this statement), but I think you can be anti-Israel without being anti-Semitic? But I would count anti-semitism as racism, not to is weird?

However, the reason anti-semitism is being mentioned specifically is because, as piglet says, there have been reports of it within the party (not alongside other racism, hence not called racism) and inquiries into it.

And questions by mners about these inquiries were specifically about anti-semitism, hence being disappointed by the lack of comment on anti-semitism

Sian ("Lots of women unhappy with no mention of antisemitism. Ok, so antiblackness or misogynoir were not mentioned specifically. Does that mean that no shits will be given about black people and black women? What about islamaphbia or xenophobia or the rise in hate crimes?") does not seem to understand that the webchat was for answering specific questions.

Yy, a number of the questions on the web chat were very specifically about Shami Chakrabarti's specific report into 'anti-semitism in the Labour Party'.

Implying or saying you are anti-bullying (or anti - racist, anti-sexism...you get the picture ) is one of those things which is easy to say and sounds good but doesn't actually mean anything unless you back it up with action.

One would hope that every leader is anti those things.
Even Farage was capable of sound bites that he was anti racism.

Exactly Beyond

Yes, I get those points around this webchat, totally understand that. It was more of a general question about it (and as I mentioned, partly based on another thread). Just never got the answer to that point I raised. I just don't get it.

And absolutely agree with the PP who said saying it is nice, but doing something about it is the real test.

I have a question around another of Sian's points ("I get the prostitutiom answer was vague. But labour don't have a stance on it. There is no policy. Nor is there with the Tories. It would be nice to know his personal views but he doesn't single handedly write the manifesto. I'm more interested in who will be driving any policy change on this issue, when it will be decided on, how and by whom.")

If we're not asking a candidate for leader their personal views on something that the party do not have an official stance on, what is the point in having a webchat with a candidate and not with a random party spokesperson?

Women were disappointed that he did not answer the specific questions about anti Semitism and the report into it, because it was a specific question.

Interesting snippet of info that just popped up on my news feed.

Apparently Corbyn's first wife has given an interview to Radio 5 live saying that's she's voted for Owen Smith in the leadership election.

Is that because 0wen likes biscuits? runs and hides

Not being shallow but ...

If Owen invited you round for tea, it wouldn't be cold baked beans straight out the can and there would be biccies afterwards.

A girl could be seduced over to the dark side by that.

Vanilla

Apparently she voted for him last time out of loyalty but switched her vote as she thinks Owen Smith has better leadership qualities and is better at dealing with the media.

Wouldn't any ex wife vote for the rival?

Why? It's not a referendum on whether he makes good husband material.

That's what I'm saying. Who cares if his ex wife voting for someone else

Well, presumably the radio station who interviewed her and the various media outlets (including BBC News, The Guardian, Politics Home and The Telegraph) who reported details of the interview are interested in her opinion? If you think it's not newsworthy take it up with them.

Looking at the interview, she doesn't seem to have been married to him long, they divorced a long time ago, she has no reason to bear a grudge, and she voted for him first time round.

However, like many of his colleagues, she just doesn't think he is the right person to lead the Labour Party to win an election.

They could all have it in for him, but he was a happy back bencher for 30 years. There is really no indication that he enjoys leading other people or that he wants to spend any time getting involved in the grunt work of getting things done, as opposed to talking about ideals.

No, it didn't seem to me like she was looking to stick the boot in.

The idea that JC is somehow above criticism is infuriating and that anyone saying remotely critical has it in for him is both absurd and rather childish.

In the vastly unlikely scenario that he does get to be PM and has to cope with both close scrutiny AND robust criticism I'm imagining a collective spontaneous combustion scenario. Messy.

I agree he is a wolf in sheeps clothing

He is the same as John McDonnell but comes across as a nicer person, he is no nicer he is in a better position to call out the bullying that his mp's are suffering, to speak out about antisemitism. He is becoming increasingly smug and will not budge on the way he wants things to be the Labour Party the way he wants it to be lead and run regardless of it being electable

Any mistake Corbyn makes he is immediately excused from for its McDonnell behind him, it's his team that made a mistake. And sadly those in the media are going along with this I was dismayed at his on QT last week

Well, that must be a first on Mumsnet. Ex-wife says disparaging things about ex-husband. Should we ring a bell or something?

Except she wasn't personally disparaging. Having known him well and not seen any evidence to the contrary, she just doesn't think he is the right person to lead the Labour Party.

Well, that must be a first on Mumsnet. Ex-wife says disparaging things about ex-husband. Should we ring a bell or something?

Apart from the fact she didn't you mean. Or is saying that he isn't the right person to lead the part 'disparaging' now.

It is if it's against Saint Jeremy

It's getting beyond ridiculous nothing can be said against this man in any form