Blackmailers Always Want More by Les May

AFTER Jeremy Corbyn was suspended from the Labour party the Guardian newspaper opened its comment column to Margaret Hodge. Her article is high on opinions, hers, resorts to generalisations, ‘the hard left’, complains about online conspiracy theories, which originate abroad and have nothing whatsoever to do with the Labour party, and dismisses as ‘fantastical’ the notion that she and her acolytes sought to ‘weaponise anti-semitism’, a view that is shared by many Labour supporting people I know.

Here’s an example.

In the article she claimed; ‘Only last week, the trade union leader Len McCluskey repeated a common antisemitic trope on television when attacking Peter Mandelson.’ But a more detailed account in the Jewish News, an online publication of the Times of Israel, which I quote verbatim, suggests a very different interpretation.

The Unite union’s general secretary, a leading ally of Jeremy Corbyn, made his comments on BBC Newsnight after reporter Lewis Goodall told him that former cabinet minister Lord Mandelson had been 'nothing but full of praise for Keir Starmer' in an interview.

Len McCluskey responded: 'I stopped listening to what Peter Mandelson said many, many years ago. I would suggest Peter just goes into a room and counts his gold. Not worrying about what’s happening in the Labour Party – leave that to those of us who are interested in ordinary working class people.'

Mr Goodall had said earlier in his report that 'When Mr McCluskey sat down with me, he used language that could be considered an antisemitic trope.'

After the Newsnight report looking into Sir Keir Starmer’s leadership and the future of the Labour party was aired, a clarification of Len McCluskey’s comments was read out.

The statement by Unite the union said:

'Mr Mandelson’s religion was not relevant to the comments made by Mr McCluskey. Indeed to the best of our knowledge Mr Mandelson is not Jewish.

'The ordinary meaning of the statement made by Mr McCluskey is one of his belief that in recent years Mr Mandelson has had more interest in increasing his own wealth than fighting for justice for working class people. The suggestion of any antisemitic meaning to the commentary would be ludicrous.'

Lord Mandelson is not religiously observant but his grandfather founded the Harrow United Synagogue.’

At this point you might ask yourself if you knew that Mandelson had Jewish ancestry and whether knowing it now makes any difference to your opinion of him. As for ‘counting his gold’; in August 2011 the media showed considerable interest in how he could afford an £8 million pound house and in January 2009 the Evening Standard published the results of its detailed investigation into how he could afford to buy his £2.5 million pound Regency Villa.

Hodge shows far more interest in the Jewish ancestry of herself and others than I can muster. And, as in this case, she’s always ready to ‘play the race card’ when it suits her, though she is hardly the first politician to do this.

In July 2018 she called Corbyn a ‘fucking racist and antisemite’ in the chamber of the House of Commons. Her response to hints that she might face being reported to the Whips, and face a disciplinary inquiry was to give an interview to Sky News and say: 'On the day that I heard that they were going to discipline me and possibly suspend me, it felt almost like, I kept thinking what did it feel like to be a Jew in Germany in the Thirties?' For ITV News this was: 'Because it felt almost as if they were coming for me. It’s rather difficult to define, but there’s that fear… '

This must surely be one of the most preposterous exaggerations that any politician has ever uttered. To try to draw a comparison with what happened to many Jewish people and many others in Nazi Germany in the 1930s beggars belief. And then she has the gall to use the word ‘fanatastical’ about other people!

Hodge’s response to the Unite statement was to say: ‘Regardless, he doesn’t get to obfuscate and dictate to us what is and is not anti-Semitic when called out. The ignorance with which these tropes are used by McCluskey and others shows just how pervasive and unchallenged antisemitism is on the Hard Left.’

Aside from the fact that comments in a similar vein about Mandelson are unlikely to be confined to what she calls the Hard Left, it seems clear that the intention of Hodge and those who think like her is to insist that they, and they alone, have the right to decide what is, and what is not, anti-semitic.

We have already seen this used to attack Livingstone, Corbyn and McCluskey, allowing her view to prevail would have implications, not just for the Labour party, but for the whole of civil society. In February of this year Lisa Nandy said that if she became leader she would try to go further than accepting the IHRA definition of anti-Jewish hatred. This is some of what the Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP) has to say about that definition.

The International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of antisemitism, which is increasingly being adopted or considered by western governments, is worded in such a way as to be easily adopted or considered by western governments to intentionally equate legitimate criticisms of Israel and advocacy for Palestinian rights with antisemitism, as a means to suppress the former. This conflation undermines both the Palestinian struggle for freedom, justice and equality and the global struggle against antisemitism. It also serves to shield Israel from being held accountable to universal standards of human rights and international law.

In September 2018 Hodge excused her calling Corbyn a ‘fucking racist and antisemite’ on the grounds that she had just learned that Labour’s NEC had declined to adopt the IHRA definition.

**************************************************************

Mea Culpa. by Les May

WHEN I wrote the recent piece ‘Blackmailers Always Want More’ I described Margaret Hodge’s attempts to avoid the potential consequences, for her, of calling Jeremy Corbyn a ‘fucking racist and antisemite’ I wrote; ‘This must surely be one of the most preposterous exaggerations that any politician has ever uttered’.

I failed to recognise that not all Jewish people would automatically accept her comments at face value. This was a mistake on my part. Below I give the transcript of a response by the historian Michael Finkelstein.

“Dame Hodge hasn’t a clue what it means to talk about deportations, having a suitcase and being prepared to flee. My parents, both of them, were in the Warsaw Ghetto from 1940s until the repression by the Nazis of the uprising in 1943. They were deported at the Umschlagplatz. If you go there now there’s a monument to the deportees, and my mother’s name Maryla and my father’s name Zacharias; they’re on that monument.

“You haven’t a clue, Ms Hodge, Dame Hodge, you haven’t a clue what you’re talking about. You know the suffering? You know the death? My mother used to talk about how she walked the streets of the ghetto and there were dead bodies all around her. She lost both of her parents, all of her family: her sisters, her brother were deported. But unlike you Dame Hodge they weren’t deported to a summer home, they were deported to a death camp. My parents ended up in Auschwitz and Majdenek, and slave labour camps. Where are you going Ms Hodge? To Switzerland? To your chalet? And you have the gall, the brass, the audacity to compare your life with what my parents endured.

“You felt it was like 1930s, when you got a letter from the disciplinary committee. I wonder Dame Hodge when you were in sixth grade and your principal called you down to his office, did it bring back memories of the Holocaust? Or maybe you got a letter from the tax office, and they called you down, did that remind you of the Holocaust? What’s the point… What’s the relevance… What’s the pertinence of dragging in the suffering, the death, the martyrdom of what Jews endured during World War II in this context, except to cheapen and exploit the memory of Jewish suffering, as you carry on a blackmail and extortion racket against Jeremy Corbyn.

“It’s disgusting, it’s revolting, and if any of the rules that are now being implemented in the Labour Party have any meaning whatsoever, if they have any content whatsoever, the first person who should be booted out of the Labour Party is Dame Hodge, for trivialising the memory the Nazi Holocaust and for making wretched, disgusting, repulsive comparisons between herself and what Jews endured during World War II.

“Speaking of bags and suitcases, Dame Hodge, it’s time now to pack your bags, pack your suitcase, and get the hell out of the Labour Party.”

The transcript is taken from; https://wallofcontroversy.wordpress.com/2018/08/23/norman-finkelstein-calls-out-dame-hodge-and-speaks-to-the-crucifixion-of-corbyn/

The original video can be found on YouTube and at; http://normanfinkelstein.com/2018/08/16/norman-finkelstein-to-dame-margaret-hodge-you-havent-a-clue-what-youre-talking-about/

****************************************************

Margaret Hodge's ‘Irrelevant Man’ by Les May

IN an article I wrote for NV in February of this year I said:

‘Last year I attended a Labour party supporting discussion group. Everyone who attended was aware that the constant barrage of articles in the press on the squabbling within the Labour party about anti-semitism, was simply serving to distract attention from Labour’s policy proposals. One of the people who attended had first hand experience of the disciplinary procedures within the party because they had been subjected to an investigation. One outcome of this was that they had been told they must not discuss any aspect of the investigation or procedures with third parties. Secret procedures like this seem to me to have all the hallmarks of a ‘Star Chamber’, so after the discussion group wound up I approached the person involved, told them I wrote for NV and asked if they would speak to me if I gave them an assurance that I would ensure that they could not be identified, and a veto on the use any articles I wrote about their experiences.

'We agreed to exchange telephone numbers and e-mail addresses as we lived some distance apart. I said I would contact the person after they returned from holiday. When I did the person said they had had second thoughts because even with my assurances of anonymity and a final veto, they were still scared that they would be ejected from the Labour party if it came to light that they had talked to anyone about what their experiences. It does not seem an exaggeration to say they had been traumatised by their experience.’

As I have no reason to doubt the veracity of what I was told I find it difficult to understand how anyone can claim that allegations of anti-semitism were not taken seriously by the Labour party.

Taken at its face value, the suspension of Jeremy Corbyn suggests that the findings of the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) are being treated by the Labour party as something which cannot be questioned.

This is a dangerous road to travel. The EHRC is not a court. Its findings apply to bodies, not individuals, something which is much easier to ‘prove’ because individuals are protected by the rules of evidence whereby those accused can cross-examine the witness.

By definition ‘unlawful acts of discrimination and harassment’ are against individuals and as the adage goes “where there’s blame, there’s a claim”. In coming months are we going to be treated to the spectacle of Jeremy Corbyn fighting for his political reputation, and in many ways his political legacy, alongside the unedifying sight of individuals suing the Labour party for compensation and citing the EHRC report as evidence?

Figuring out whether Corbyn’s suspension and potential expulsion from the Labour party has an impact on membership won’t be easy due to its complicated support structure of ‘full members’, ‘affiliated supporters’ and ‘registered supporters’. In August 2015, prior to Corbyn’s election to the leadership the Labour Party reported 292,505 full members. In December 2017 this figure had risen to about 552,000 full members making it Britain’s most financially well party at the time. Perhaps Margaret Hodge’s ‘irrelevant man’ won’t prove to be so irrelevant after all.

Today, Saturday, speaking on the BBC News programme ‘Dateline London’ the political presenter Jo Coburn raised the question of whether if, in response to the suspension of Jeremy Corbyn from the Labour party, some unions reduced their financial support, Keir Starmer might be quite happy to see their influence wane. Coburn is asking the wrong question. As I point out in the last paragraph, the number of full members of the Labour party almost doubled in the two years after Corbyn’s election to the leadership. The right question is whether Labour can afford to dispense with the unions and Corbyn at the same time. Corbyn has asked his supporters to stay in the party; they may not feel they any longer have a home there.

****************************************************

Labour Party suspends Jeremy Corbyn!

WHIP REMOVED FROM FORMER LABOUR LEADER

MARGARET HODGE said on Radio Four today at 1pm that 'I don't want to hear about that irrelevant man' and 'I think there is still a culture of anti-semitism' in the Labour Party. Meanwhile, Angela Rayner, the Deputy leader of the Labour Party also told us: 'Jeremy Corbyn has a blind spot'.

While later on the The Canary, a leftist website, Sophia Purdy-Moore wrote as follows:

'Former Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn has been suspended, “in light of his comments” in response to an investigation into antisemitism in the Labour Party. The Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC)’s investigation, published on 29 October, found Labour responsible for “unlawful acts of discrimination and harassment” in its handling of allegations of antisemitism.'

In his statement following the release of the report, Corbyn said he regrets it took “longer to deliver that change than it should,” but that:

"the scale of the problem was also dramatically overstated."

This comment led to his suspension from the party. Corbyn told followers that he will “strongly contest” Labour’s decision to suspend him.

One Labour party member described what has happened to Jeremy Corbyn with the withdawal of the Labour whip and his suspension amounted to a 'witch-hunt' and a 'political assasination'.

Len McCluskey, the leader of the Unite union, has said this will lead to 'chaos' in the party.

Looks like more fun to come from the people's party! Watch this space!

***************************************************************

Has Hodge lost the plot over exaggerated claims of Labour anti-Semitism?

Chuka Umuna, Luciana Berger and Tristram Hunt

I wonder what the American playwright Arthur Miller would have made of all this crazy hysteria about anti-Semitism in the Labour Party. It certainly has a touch of the Salem witch trials and McCarthyism about it. Apart from the 'Jewish Chronicle', 'Jewish News' and the 'Jewish Telegraph', does anyone seriously believe that a Corbyn-led Labour government, would pose an 'existential threat' to Jews living in Britain?

Although the Labour MP Ruth Smeeth has claimed that under Jeremy Corbyn, Labour was not a "Safe space for British Jews", a group of fifteen Jewish Labour Party supporters recently wrote to the Guardian about the furore over anti-Semitism. They denied that Jewish people were living in fear of an 'existential threat' as some have claimed and pointed out that Jewish people are not threatened with deportation in this country, death in custody, stop and search, or economic discrimination, that many black and Asian people face on a daily basis.

Yet, Dame Margaret Hodge (née Oppenheimer) the Labour MP for Barnet, who slanderously called the Labour leader, Jeremy Corbyn, a ‘fucking, racist, anti-Semite’, recently said in an interview that when she received a letter from the Labour Party saying  she faced a disciplinary investigation for her insulting remarks, it made her think - ‘What it felt like to be a Jew in Germany in the 3os.’ Hodge said she felt that - ‘they were coming for me’ and it reminded her of what her dad used to say to her as a child:

‘You've got to keep a packed suitcase at the door Margaret, in case you ever have to leave in a hurry.’

Have you ever heard anything more bleedin' ridiculous, talk about milking the holocaust! The Irish writer Brendan Behan would have perhaps understood Dame Margaret's persecution mania. He once remarked - "Others have a nationality. The Irish and the Jews have a psychosis." 

Despite the Nazi slur, Hodge was told that if she apologised, no action would be taken against her. Though disciplinary action was dropped against Hodge, who was a one-year-old when WWII ended - and still acts like she's a one-year-old - after  some Labour MPs threatened to leave the party, a Labour Party spokesman said: 

‘The comparison of the party's disciplinary process with Nazi Germany is so extreme and disconnected from reality, it diminishes the seriousness of the issue of anti-Semitism.’

Despite repeated claims that the Corbyn-led Labour Party, is mired in antisemitism, there has been a distinct lack of evidence to support any such claim. When Labour N.E.C. member Peter Willsman suggested that Jewish 'Trump fanatics' were making up allegations of antisemitism in the party and accused some Jews of "making up duff information without any evidence at all", Jewish community leaders reacted furiously, accusing Willsman of a disgusting rant against the Jewish community. The Board of Deputies, called for Willsman to be expelled from the Labour Party for his "Slur against the Jewish community." To ask where is the evidence? hardly seems, to most reasonable people, to suggest anti-Semitism or a slur on the Jewish community.

While anti-Semitism can be defined as "hostility to Jews as Jews", the term is being used in the most arbitrary of ways to silence critics and political opponents and free-speech. Jackie Walker who is Jewish and was Vice Chair of Momentum, was suspended twice for anti-Semitism, when she claimed that  many Jews including her own ancestors, were the chief financiers of the sugar and slave trade. Ken Livingstone, was suspended from the Labour Party and denounced by some as an anti-Semite, when he suggested that Hitler supported Zionism with the 'Haavara Agreement', signed in August 1933.


Corbyn has said that he's aghast at the spread of anti-Jewish conspiracy theories and would "not for one moment accept that a Labour government would represent any kind of threat" to Jewish life in Britain.


What seems to unite many of those who claim that Labour is mired in anti-Semitism, is they are, by and large, anti-Corbyn. They are horrified  at the very thought of a Corbyn-led  socialist Labour government and would prefer almost anything, even a Tory government. The Board of Deputies of British Jews have criticised Corbyn's links with the Palestine Solidarity Campaign (PSC) and they believe that to de-legitimise the state of Israel is anti-Semitic.


Chuka Umunna, (pictured above), the grandson of High Court Judge, Sir Helenus Milmo, has accused Labour of 'institutional racism'. But he's been criticised for using the anti-Semitism row, to justify his plans for founding a breakaway political party. His former girl friend, Luciana Berger, the Labour MP for Liverpool Wavertree (also pictured), is a former Director of Labour Friends of Israel (LFI). She once claimed that she had been spat on at a student conference for being Jewish. Ruth Smeeth, the Labour MP for Stoke-on-Trent North and Kidsgrove, since 2015, is a former employee for the pro-Israel lobby group, 'Britain Israel Communications Centre' (BICOM).

According to WikiLeaks, Smeeth was identified by a U.S. embassy diplomatic cable as a "strictly protect" U.S. informant. Her husband Michael Smeeth, was a member of the 'British American Project' (BAP). In June 2016, Smeeth resigned her position in Corbyn's shadow cabinet. Her resignation coincided with 60 co-ordinated resignations by plotters aimed at forcing Corbyn to resign.


In 2004, the Guardian reported that BAP (possibly CIA funded), was essential in the formation of Tony Blair's 'New Labour' and described it as a Trojan horse for U.S. foreign policy. Two years ago (July 2016), Robert Stevens writing on the 'World Socialist Website', claimed that right-wing supporters of Tony Blair were spearheading an attempt to remove Jeremy Corbyn and to set up a new right-wing party in "intimate collusion" with the security services in Britain and the U.S. Stevens claimed that the plotters wanted to reverse the referendum result and re-fashion the Labour Party as a tool to carry this out.


Corbyn and his supporters, such as the union leader Len McCluskey, think that by Labour adopting the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of anti-Semitism, they can draw a line under the anti-Semitism row. This is highly unlikely and will probably result in even more accusations of anti-Semitism.

Despite denials that the IHRA definition does not conflate criticism of Israel with anti-Semitism, this is disputed by  Stephen Sedley, a former appeal court judge. In May 2017, (London Review of books), Sedley wrote that the definition failed the first test of any definition because "it is indefinite", and posed a threat to free speech. And to talk about anti-Semitism as solely a matter of perception, is according to Sedley, likely raise more questions than it answers.


In his article Sedley wrote that policy was not law and that "criticism (and equally defence) of Israel or of Zionism is not only generally lawful: it is affirmatively protected by law."

He added:
‘Endeavour to conflate the two by characterising everything other than anodyne criticism of Israel as anti-Semitic are not new. What is new is the adoption by the UK government (and the Labour Party) of a definition of anti-Semitism which endorses the conflation.’

The Corbyn witch-hunt is not likely to end with any adoption of a new definition of anti-Semitism and only a fool would think otherwise.

See also:    www,greenswipe.blogspot.com 

****************

Margaret Hodge is a Humbug

by Les May

IN June 2016 Margaret Hodge and Ann Coffey submitted a motion of no confidence in Jeremy Corbyn Labour leader for discussion at the following Monday's PLP meeting. This triggered a leadership contest which Corbyn won by a bigger margin than in 2015.  In July 2018 she called Corbyn a ‘fucking racist and antisemite’ in the chamber of the House of Commons.  Whether there is any connection between these two things I do not know though perhaps I could be forgiven for thinking there might be.  The proximate factor for her recent outburst was that she had not got her own way about something.

https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/jeremy-corbyn-told-by-veteran-jewish-mp-youre-a-fucking-racist-and-anti-semite-margaret-hodge_uk_5b4e34cbe4b0fd5c73bfe020

Clearly this woman thinks she can do no wrong.  Her response to hints that she might face being reported to the Whips, and face a disciplinary inquiry was to give an interview to Sky News and say 'On the day that I heard that they were going to discipline me and possibly suspend me, it felt almost like, I kept thinking what did it feel like to be a Jew in Germany in the Thirties?'

'Because it felt almost as if they were coming for me. It’s rather difficult to define, but there’s that fear… '

http://www.itv.com/news/2018-08-16/dame-margaret-hodge-likens-labour-disciplinary-investigation-to-nazi-germany/

This must surely be one of the most preposterous exaggerations that any politician has ever uttered.  To try to draw a comparison with what happened to many Jewish people and many others in Nazi Germany in the 1930s beggars belief and might raise a few eyebrows.

What it shows is that Hodge is a complete humbug.  She wants to be free to call other people a ‘fucking racist and antisemite’, but not let the rest of us have the freedom to compare the policies of the government of Israel towards the Palestinians with those of the Nazis or say that Israel is a racist nation without finding ourselves branded an antisemite.

Hodge’s antics are an exercise in self indulgence.  She wants to argue about the wording of something when we are heading towards an exit from the EU in seven months time which will please neither those who voted Leave nor those who voted Remain, when people being forced to live on the streets is given such low priority that the problem will not be solved until 2027, when …  Need I go on?

Socialists might like to follow the links below.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/businesslatestnews/9668396/Margaret-Hodges-family-company-pays-just-0.01pc-tax-on-2.1bn-of-business-generated-in-the-UK.html

https://www.ibtimes.co.uk/anti-tax-avoidance-campaigner-margaret-hodge-given-1-5m-shares-tax-haven-liechtenstein-1498813

If any of the links are not ‘live’ and showing blue, holding down the left mouse button drag it over the text of the link, then press the right mouse button and copy the marked text. Paste this into your browser, e.g. Firefox.

***********

Who Will Defend Free Speech?

By Les May

AS a Labour supporter I ought to be pleased that Boris Johnson has got different sections of the Tory party at each others throats and embroiled in a row about ‘islamo-phobia’.  I’m not!

This row is following an all too familiar pattern.  Increasingly we have people trying to grab the moral high ground by claiming that something they read or hear, and do not like, is, racist, anti-semitic, islamo-phobic, mysoginistic, trans-phobic, homo-phobic, patriarchal or in the latest catch all phrase, ‘hate speech’, and should not be said.

This is the ploy Matthew Offord,Tory MP for Hendon, used to try to persuade the government to shut down the Israel Apartheid Week (IAW) events at British universities when he said in March this year, ‘This isn’t about preventing free speech, it’s about stopping hate speech, in this instance anti-Semitic hate-speech’.  He wants the UK government to enshrine into UK law both the definition of anti-semitism, which is not controversial, and the examples which are.  Some of these would effectively prevent any criticism of the behaviour of the state of Israel towards the Palestinians.

If free speech means anything it means having the right to tell people what they do not want to hear. Some people don’t like what Johnson has had to say so they have called it ‘islamophobic’ and are using it as an excuse to demand an inquiry into ‘islamophobia’.  Some people don’t like what some of us have to say about the behaviour of Israel towards the Palestinians and want to label it ‘antisemitic’ so as to shut us up.

Essentially all these people expect their views to be privileged, and the rest of us to sing from their hymn sheet or not sing at all. The Labour party readily accepted the 38 word long working definition of anti-semitism to which I do not think anyone can reasonably take exception.

'Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.'

The sticking point is some of the eleven examples which follow this definition.

This is what the ‘Jewish Voice for Peace’ has to say:

The International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of antisemitism, which is increasingly being adopted or considered by western governments, is worded in such a way as to be easily adopted or considered by western governments to intentionally equate legitimate criticisms of Israel and advocacy for Palestinian rights with antisemitism, as a means to suppress the former.
This conflation undermines both the Palestinian struggle for freedom, justice and equality and the global struggle against antisemitism.  It also serves to shield Israel from being held accountable to universal standards of human rights and international law.

Some of the complaints about ‘antisemitism’ in the Labour party seem to start from the presumption that the eleven examples somehow define antisemitism.  This would include ‘tweets’ which are thought to cast doubt upon or belittle what is commonly known as The Holocaust.  Given the overwhelming evidence in the form of documents, books, court records, films, and interviews with victims and perpetrators, is that Hitler’s Nazi regime did murder 6 million Jews, nearly 8 million Russians, 2-3 million Poles and more than a million others, I find it difficult to believe that such a ‘tweet’ could have the slightest impact on anyone’s belief.  The only people who will take it seriously are those looking for something to be offended at. In other words anyone being kicked out of Labour for doing this is being punished for being a fool not for making a serious political comment.

My figures come from:

But see also:

If anyone in the Labour party thinks that meekly acquiescing to the demands of some sections of the press and the party that both the uncontroversial definition of antisemitism and the examples be adopted will end the ongoing row,  I think they are mistaken. Corbyn’s efforts so far have merely been greeted with further demands.  The sole effect of acquiescing would be that the Labour party would be tied in knots by disciplinary hearings following complaints of antisemitism and that could include legitimate criticism of Israel.  The Tory press would love it!

The problem is that the examples following the IHRA definition are prefaced by the words ‘Contemporary examples of antisemitism in public life, the media, schools, the workplace, and in the religious sphere could, taking into account the overall context, include, but are not limited to:’  What the last five words mean is that the list of ‘antisemitic’ behaviour is infinitely extensible and in the eyes of the beholder.

If you look at the IHRA web pages you will see that they take exception to my deliberately hyphenated ‘anti-semitic’ in the second paragraph, which was done to draw attention to the regularity with which some people use words as a weapon to halt discussion of anything they do not like.  I really don’t want people who think like this policing what I say or think.

The word ‘antisemitic’ has strong pejorative connotations.  In some cases labelling someone in this way could lead to them being shunned, disciplined or losing their job.  It should not be tossed around like confetti such as Margaret Hodge seems to have done after not getting her own way.  Any respect I had for this woman is gone.

In the meantime you might like to ponder what Matthew Offord, who seems to want the world to ignore Israel’s policies towards the Palestinians, might have to say about these.

https://news.un.org/en/story/2004/07/108912-international-court-justice-finds-israeli-barrier-palestinian-territory-illegalhttps://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/israel-jewish-nation-state-law-passed-arabs-segregation-protests-benjamin-netanyahu-a8454196.html

As a politician I think Margaret Hodge could reasonably be asked to comment on both of these things.  Or would even asking her fall foul of one of the examples tagged onto the definition of antisemitism?

*************

Labour: Conspiracy, Cock Up or Catastrophe?

by Les May

Is there really a conspiracy within the Labour party to prevent Jeremy Corbyn leading the Labour party? On the evidence available to us the answer to this question must be 'Yes!'  

So what is the evidence? Consider the following newspaper headlines since Corbyn was elected in September 2015. 'Secret bid to oust Corbyn' (The Times 28 November 2015); 'Revealed: plot to oust Jeremy Corbyn by using veteran Labour MP Margaret Hodge to spark leadership contest' (Daily Telegraph 3 May 2015):  'Labour rebels hope to topple Jeremy Corbyn in 24 hour blitz after EU referendum' (Daily Telegraph 13 June 2016):  'Labour rebels plan to elect own leader and create 'alternative' if Jeremy Corbyn is re-elected' (Daily Telegraph 30 July 2016). 

Now, Owen Smith dismissed the last of these stories by insisting he would not 'indulge in gossip'.  But given that the other two stories from the Telegraph proved to be true this hardly looks like a considered response.

Not only does this point to a conspiracy but given that no disciplinary action has yet been taken against any of the people involved it would appear that those who run the party are turning a blind eye to what is going on.

If not actually encouraging the plotters they are certainly guilty of a monumental 'cock up'.

On 15 July, Iain McNicol circulated members informing them that the National Executive Committee had decided 'to suspend all normal party meetings at CLP and branch level until the completion of the leadership election'.  The reason (excuse?) given was the by now all too familiar one of some people feeling 'threatened'.

Now I can think of little that would be more likely to destroy cordial relationships between a sitting MP and Labour members in his or her constituency than this.  If Labour members disagree (or agree) strongly with the behaviour of their MP in the Leadership contest (or anything else) they need a way of resolving their differences.  Being unable to meet for two months to do this collectively is asking for trouble.

Three days after these instructions were issued a Labour party member asked me rhetorically, 'what does she think we are, postmen to deliver her leaflets at election time?'  Later that day at an informal meeting of his branch, complaints were voiced about the something the MP had been doing for some time.  My response when I was told this was to point out that it clearly had not bothered anyone up to the present, so why complain now?

Keeping channels of communication between Labour members and their constituency MPs is important.  Whilst I do not doubt that a number of Labour MPs have been plotting against Corbyn, I am sceptical that all those who resigned from his front bench team were active plotters.  Nor do I know what pressure was applied to them to persuade them to resign.

If, as seems likely, Corbyn is re-elected as leader of the Labour party some of the MPs who originally resigned may wish to reconsider their position and agree to work with him.  They need to have a way back without losing face.  Bridges have to be built (or rebuilt) to enable this to happen.

The alternative, that a group of MPs attempt to form a parliamentary group calling itself the 'Labour' party and with a different leader would be a catastrophe, not least because it would involve tearing up the 'one member one vote' electoral system for leader in favour of one in which members of the Parliamentary Labour Party (PLP) chose the leader.

Neither The Times nor the Daily Telegraph can be described as papers which support Labour.  A weak and factional Labour party suits their proprietors very well.  So perhaps we should take some of what they say about Labour's difficulties with a pinch of salt.

However that should not stop us from wondering whether the plotters are in fact puppets with someone else 'pulling the strings'.  Bankrolling a legal challenge over who has the right to use the Labour name and owns the assets would not be cheap.  But perhaps someone intent on destroying the Labour party would think it was worth it.  

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/politics/article4626500.ece http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/05/03/revealed-plot-to-oust-jeremy-corbyn-by-using-veteran-labour-mp-m/

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/13/labour-rebels-hope-to-topple-jeremy-corbyn-in-24-hour-blitz-afte/

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/07/29/labour-rebels-plan-to-elect-own-leader-and-create-alternative-gr/

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/07/30/jeremy-corbyn-mps-considering-splitting-the-party-should-think-c/

John Spencer-Davis on the Owen Smith Bid

John Spencer-Davis July 26, 2016 at 18:32

I received an e-mail from Owen Smith MP today, and I publish it and my response below.

*****************************************************
E-mail from Owen Smith MP dated 26th July 2016 Labour’s future, radical politics

John,

I grew up in South Wales during the miners’ strike. That’s when I came alive politically.

I saw the power of politics to change lives, for better and worse. We are seeing it again with a Tory government inflicting such damage through austerity. That’s why we need a radical, united Labour Party and why I am standing for Leader.

Jeremy Corbyn has reconnected our party with its radical principles. But it’s now time for a new generation with the energy and ideas to turn those principles in to action.

Under my leadership, we will be a powerful voice for social justice.

Together we can defeat this government.

Owen

***************************************************

John Spencer-Davis:

Please be so kind as to share as widely as possible, and show to every member and supporter of the Labour Party that you can think of or reach. Many thanks, John

Reply dated 26th July 2016 to Owen Smith MP’s e-mail of the same date

Mr Smith,

No, I will not click here to watch your election video. I am not interested in your leadership challenge. You should not be running for the Labour leadership at all. The Labour Party already has a leader, elected less than a year ago with a vote so far above that of his nearest challenger, that you should be heartily ashamed of what you and your colleagues in the Parliamentary Labour Party have done. Given the ridiculous antics that you and your fellow MPs have indulged yourselves in over the past month, I am astounded that you have the temerity to e-mail the membership at all.

However, I am very glad of the opportunity to tell you exactly what I think of you and your colleagues, and why. I am also going to formally request a response to this e-mail. First of all, I would like to draw your attention to a report in the Times dated 28th November 2015, of which I am certain you will be perfectly aware, titled “Secret bid to oust Corbyn” which describes senior Labour figures and MPs as “desperate to keep Corbyn off the ballot paper” in the event of a leadership challenge, and states that the firm GRM Law has issued legal advice on the matter at the request of these senior Labour figures and MPs. Secondly, I draw your attention to a report in the Telegraph dated 3rd May 2016, titled “Revealed: plot to oust Jeremy Corbyn by using veteran Labour MP Margaret Hodge to spark leadership contest”, which includes the following: “A plot to oust Jeremy Corbyn as Labour leader has emerged, with veteran MP Margaret Hodge said to have been persuaded to stand against him to spark a leadership contest…The veteran MP could be used as a stalking horse before dropping out to allow moderate MPs to remain unscathed as they launch their leadership bids”. Thirdly, I draw your attention to a report in the Telegraph dated 13th June 2016, titled “Labour rebels hope to topple Jeremy Corbyn in 24-hour blitz after EU referendum” which includes the following: “Labour rebels believe they can topple Jeremy Corbyn after the EU referendum in a 24-hour blitz by jumping on a media storm of his own making… By fanning the flames with front bench resignations and public criticism they think the signatures needed to trigger a leadership race can be gathered within a day”.

I assume that in the light of what began on 26th June 2016, you are not going to insult my intelligence by suggesting that these newspaper reports, and a number of others like them in newspapers and social media, were fantasy, and I assume that you will not likewise insult it by suggesting that you were unaware of these reports and the movements behind them. One of the two MPs who submitted a vote of no confidence to the Parliamentary Labour Party Chairman on 24th June 2016 was Margaret Hodge. A series of front bench resignations began after Hilary Benn MP deliberately invited his own dismissal in the early hours of the morning of Sunday 26th June. Among those front bench resignations was yours from the Shadow Cabinet. You participated in the vote of no confidence in Jeremy Corbyn as leader of the Parliamentary Labour Party. I will be pleased to be more specific about other similar reports if necessary.

In the light of what I have stated above, it is impossible to credit that the events of the 24th to the 26th June 2016, and subsequently, did not take place in order to force the resignation of Jeremy Corbyn from the Labour leadership and thereby assure that he was not able to garner sufficient support from the PLP and MEPs to be eligible to seek re-election, as per the legal advice provided by GRM Law in November 2015, two months after his emphatic victory in the leadership election. It is also impossible to credit that an intelligent person with your political connections and experience could fail to be aware of what was going on during those days, and therefore, whether you care to admit it or you do not, it is as plain as day to any objective observer that your resignation from the Shadow Cabinet and your participation in the vote of no confidence make an utter mockery of your assertion, as reported on 13th July 2016, that you were not part of any plot or coup against Jeremy Corbyn MP. That assertion is flatly and obviously false. I also draw your attention to the tweet by Andy Burnham MP on 26th June 2016, which honourably stated: “I have never taken part in a coup against any Leader of the Labour Party and I am not going to start now.” Mr Burnham evidently knew what was going on. Do you seriously assert that you did not? You are taking all of the members and supporters of the Labour Party, including myself, for mugs, Mr Smith, and I do not like it. I also draw your attention to the tweet by John Mann MP on 13th July 2016, which stated: “I was approached six months ago to back Owen Smith to be Labour leader. I politely declined the offer”. I quote again the Telegraph from May 2016 regarding Margaret Hodge MP: “…could be used as a stalking horse before dropping out to allow moderate MPs to remain unscathed as they launch their leadership bids”.

I don’t need to know any more about your leadership bid than I have outlined above, Mr Smith. Unlike Andy Burnham MP, you have acted in the most dishonourable and disgraceful way, and have enthusiastically participated in a wholly undemocratic attempt to deny the members and supporters of the Labour Party their right to choose, again, the leader that they overwhelmingly chose in late 2015. You have also had the hypocrisy to state that you will fight a clean leadership campaign, when your campaign has been dirty and tainted from the very beginning, for the reasons I have summarised. Your subsequent actions have also been so, but that is no surprise given the way you started, and there is no need to go into that: what I have said is enough. You should be ashamed to show your face at any leadership husting, and I urge you to do the honourable thing even now, at this late stage, and say that you will have no further part in this cynical affront to Labour Party democracy and to the members and supporters.

I will be publicising your e-mail to me and my answer to it as widely as possible, so that as many members and supporters of the Labour Party I can reach can see the sources I have cited and what an ordinary member thinks of you and your e-mail and your leadership bid. I will also be copying it to my own MP.

I await your reply.

Yours sincerely,

John Spencer-Davis