"Propaganda works best when those who are being
manipulated are confident they are acting on their
own free will." Josef Goebbels
The Labour Party was founded in February 1900 by people who felt under represented by #Tories and #Liberals. Keir Hardie and his colleagues gathered together at the inaugural meeting to campaign for change in #British politics. Since its formation the Labour Party has been seen as an anti-capitalist party. This perception arises because of a socialist held vision that seeks to redistribute wealth and the means of production. Private corporations, entrepreneurs and financiers fear that government involvement in the market place will increase personal and corporate taxes, while stifling competition through regulation of the workplace.
In a capitalist society the means of production and finance are held by a small percentage of the population. They see socialism as a threat to a system that brings
them personal wealth and power.
To maintain the status quo capitalists prey on the fear of individuals. People invariably
want to protect their own property and capitalists will exploit these fears to prevent
the establishment of a socialist managed economy. Smears Through The Years Let us look at the history of smears against the UK labour Party since its foundation in 1900. Some of the smears predate Josef Goebbels but they use his methods.. The "Zinoviev Letter" The 1924 General Election - Labour and the "Red Scare"
In 1924 a minority Labour government had been seeking to normalise trading ties with Russia. They intended to achieve this through two Anglo-Russian treaties. The treaties were intended to settle outstanding points of dispute between the two countries and lay the grounds for a resumption of trade. In August 1924, the Labour government dropped the prosecution of the #Communist newspaper editor J.R. Campbell under the Incitement to Mutiny Act (for calling on members of the armed forces to refuse certain orders); #Conservative and #Liberal Members of Parliament then combined to pass a motion of no confidence in the Labour government.
A new general election was called for on the 29 October 1924. Shortly before the day of the election, the Daily Mail published a letter alleged to be from Grigory Zinoviev, head of the Communist International, which it argued revealed "a great Bolshevik plot to paralyse the British Army and Navy with the aim of plunging the country into civil war", with the Communist Party as "masters of Mr. Ramsay MacDonald's Government". The letter was later confirmed as a forgery. The Labour Party lost the 1924 general election, the #Conservatives returned to government and the draft treaties with Russia were taken no further.
1945 General Election, Winston Churchills "Gestapo" Speech 4th June 1945
Winston Churchill's rhetoric may have been inspirational during WWII, but with the end of hostilities in #Europe, and #Japan losing in the #Pacific he resorted to his old #Victorian principles in the build up to the July 1945 general election. Afraid of change he attempted to maintain the status quo. His #Gestapo speech was born out of ignorance in the changing culture of a post war #Britain It was a vitriolic hate filled speech aimed at a party that he believed had undemocratic tendencies. It was a serious act of misjudgement.
Clement Attlee, the Labour Party leader, was a First World War hero and had been proclaimed by Churchill as his de facto deputy during the war. Calling #Atlee a #Nazi was libellous and clearly the act of a desperate man trying to cling to power.
The Assassination of "Harold Wilson" Harold Wilson served as Prime Minister from 1964 to 1970 and again from 1974 to 1976, winning four general elections. However, In 1976 Harold Wilson resigned his position citing health problems as the reason for his decision. Within weeks of his resignation #Wilson informed two #BBC journalists Roger Courtiour and Barrie Penrose that he was kept in the dark about the actions of his intelligence services. His concerns were so great he encouraged both to investigate forces that he believed were threatening #UK democracy.
Wilson's fears were publicised in July 1977 in an article in The Observer, in which he was quoted as claiming that a faction in the Service was mounting a "whispering campaign" against him and that he had been bugged.
In 1987 Peter Wright confirmed in his book Spycatcher, that Wilson was the victim of a protracted, illegal campaign of destabilisation by a rogue element in the security services. The actions of UK intelligence were apparently prompted by #CIA fears that Wilson was a Soviet agent. Was Wilson paranoid? In an article in the Sunday Times Wilson stated that Britain's counterintelligence agency investigated an alleged 1968 plot to overthrow his Labour Government. Lord Mountbatten was apparently approached to take charge of an interim
Government should a coup take place. However, Wilson himself states that Lord Mountbatten was not involved in any attempt to overthrow his government. Yet when Lady Falkender Wilson's former secretary was interviewed she named Lord Mountbatten as leader of the alleged plot. Lady Falkender went further stating: "Harold and I used to stand in the state room at number 10 and work out where they would put the guns. ''The story about the alleged coup followed an allegation by Chapman Pincher, a journalist, that Sir Martin's predecessor as head of M.I.5, Sir Roger Hollis, was suspected of being a Soviet agent. Perhaps we will never know the full truth surrounding the events of 1968 but Wilson clearly had some concerns that powerful people were trying to oust him. He voiced further concerns after his retirement that he was not privy to the work of his intelligence service. and that plots were indeed taking place as late as 1974-1975. The intelligence services have always denied the allegations against them. #Callaghan Wilson's successor and #Thatcher conducted investigations and concluded there was no evidence of any plots against Wilson.. The denials of a plot are contradicted by Retired Major Alexander Greenwood who recalls that he was setting up his own private army in 1974-75 while former intelligence officer Brian Crozier admits that a coup was seriously considered. Archive footage of troop manoeuvres at Heathrow, billed as a routine exercise exist, and Harold Wilson stated he was never informed about the planning of these manoeuvres.
General Elections 1987 & 1992 The Kinnock Years
In 2012 Rupert #Murdoch appeared before the #Leveson inquiry and was questioned about the role of the Sun newspaper in its coverage of the 1987 and 1992 General elections. When asked if he regretted his papers' attacks on Neil #Kinnock during the 1987 election campaign, Murdoch said the Sun was entitled to attack him as he was the "personification of the Labour party". Primarily his overwhelming concern was Clause 4 of Labour's constitution, guaranteeing "common ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange".
Concerns about Clause 4 were echoed by the Daily Mail. The paper did not make direct references to Clause 4 but it did state that Labour wanted to:introduce punitive wealth taxes, abolish the #Monarchy and the Lords. It also claimed that Labour wanted to make the media. police and judges accountable to the working class.
it beggars believe that making public servants more accountable to the public was seen as a justifiable #smear but at the time these actions were seen as a left wing attack on the establishment. It was however #Fake News, not one of the claims appeared in the 1987 Labour Party manifesto.
The smears and personal attack ensured that Labour lost the 1987 election. It is unlikely that it was smears alone that brought about Labour's defeat but without question they did nothing to help them win!
General Election 1992
Hostile tabloid headlines in 1992 were at a peak. The Tabloid press had for 12 year held a vitriolic hostility towards Labour. Without doubt the tabloid press campaign made the difference between a Conservative victory and a hung parliament. in 1992. In 1995 Labour under the leadership of Tony #Blair revised Clause 4 and adopted a new vision of an equitable society: "The Labour Party is a democratic socialist party. It believes that by the strength of our common endeavour we achieve more than we achieve alone, so as to create for each of us the means to realise our true potential and for all of us a community in which power, wealth and opportunity are in the hands of the many, not the few, where the rights we enjoy reflect the duties we owe, and where we live together, freely, in a spirit of solidarity, tolerance and respect " The statement basically ended Labour's commitment to the nationalisation of production and with its adoption ended hostilities with the Tabloids. The Miliband Years -The Smears Return In September 2010, Ed #Miliband was elected leader of the Labour Party. His election as leader witnessed a new campaign of hateful smears that grew in intensity in the build up to the 2015 general election and has continued under the leadership of Jeremy #Corbyn In 2015 in the days leading to a general election David #Cameron in an interview with the Daily Mail made the following personal attack on Ed Miliband. It was part of a smear campaign to instil fear into the electorate. A so called champagne socialist would through legislation curtail people's personal aspirations and deny them the ability to have their own home. It’s that mindset of “we know best”. “Don’t buy your council house because that’s thieving from society”, they say from a well-upholstered, comfortable red-brick Victorian mansion that they bought. ‘We’re not going to cut your taxes because frankly we know how to spend your money better than you do’. ‘Buying shares in businesses that you work for or state-owned enterprises, that’s selling the family silver’ – this sort of condescending view that we know best, the man in Whitehall knows best, David Cameron 2015
It was clear that the smears would continue throughout the campaign but why was #Miliband vilified as Labour leader? Remember the #Leveson Report and the questioning of Rupert Murdoch. Well the right wing press were nervous or should I say terrified of the prospect of a Labour government. The News of The World phone hacking scandals that were uncovered between 2005-07 continued to plague Rupert Murdoch's empire. The Tories won the 2010 election nevertheless the hacking scandal did not go away and Ed Miliband was very sympathetic towards media regulation, By 2015 the press feared that Miliband would implement the recommendations made by Leveson. The right wing media barons were not going to let this happen.
The smears helped to ensure that Labour was defeated in 2015. They created a toxic environment that gave the public a false impression that Labour was entirely to blame for the economic crash in 2008. Soon after his defeat Ed Miliband resigned as leader. A successful leadership campaign saw Jeremy Corbyn elected as leader in 2015. With confirmation of Corbyn as leader the political world was turned on its head. Corbyn's success ensured that vindictive attacks on the leader of the opposition from the media and political opponents intensified, and they continue to this day.
McCarthyite Smears of Jeremy Corbyn
To understand why Jeremy Corbyn is being attacked by the media, opposition MPs and some MPs from his own party you have to delve deeper into the politics underpinning capitalism and its beneficiaries. I am not going to provide a scholarly masterpiece just a lay person's understanding of what has led to the current campaign of smears.
When Tony #Blair was elected leader he pursued Kinnock's policy of moving the Labour Party towards the centre ground. His predecessor John Smith had successfully introduced One Person One Vote with an agreement from the unions that they would agree to a reduction in the influence of union voting block.
The system inherited after John Smith's untimely death did not go far enough for Tony Blair he wanted to impose further restrictions on Unions etc. To do this he set about isolating left wing MPs, activists and unions from the decision making processes. This was achieved under the guise of democratising the party. Blair understood that unionists and activists had a greater voice than the average member, Firstly, because of the system of block voting had not been totally eradicated. Secondly, activists by nature were more active so accordingly could influence the decisions of the CLPs to a greater degree.
For Tony Blair further reforms of One Person One Vote (OPOV) was seen as a way of diminishing the power of both the unions and left wing activists, In doing so he was creating a more moderate and compliant membership. Compliant may seem a strange word to use when talking about democracy, but at the same time OPOV was introduced Blair began to centralise the decision making processes. He pursued strategy of centralisation by insisting and obtaining agreements that he as leader should be the only person to choose the chief Whip for the party. Simultaneously MPs on the front bench were instructed that any speeches they were proposing had to be vetted before they were made. The Blairite reforms had now become an attempt create a political dynasty that could not be revised. To achieve this the ability of CLPs to choose their own candidates was removed. Consequently, CLPs had to select who they thought was the best candidate from a list of candidates provided by the Labour Party's approved panel. This led to accusations of a move to an #American style system of politics. A system dominated by professional politicians selected from an elite group of people. Under such a system the only purpose of the CLP was to campaign for the MP they were given, while promoting policies that were dictated to them by the Leader and PLP, A zombification of "Free Thought". Democracy in the Labour Party was now a misnomer. Many of the MPs now opposing Corbyn from within Labour were Blairite minions They had been selected to perpetuate
the politics and economics of The Third Way. Blair's legacy was to organise the structure of the party in a way that his policies would continue to dominate after he left UK politics. The smoke and mirror reforms paved the way for Tony Blair to control the political direction of the Labour Party. However, convincing the media and financial institutions would require a statement of intent that the status quo would not be tampered with.
Tony Blair was a disciple of Third Way economics which asserted the "realism" of global economic capitalism as a permanent force in the world. The so called Third Way was an attempt to live within the capitalist system rather than trying to overcome it. Blair was able to appease the corporate sector by demonstrating his commitment to privatisation, deregulation and the marketisation of the welfare state. Crucially, there was little or no progress towards a more even distribution of wealth. While everyone felt comfortable and the cogs in the capitalist system worked like clockwork all was well with the world. However, a global banking crisis in 2008 highlighted the weaknesses of the economic system.
1. Irresponsible loans created a financial system constructed on debt.
2. PFIs brought into question the repayment costs imposed on the public sector
3 The selling of public sector housing without any contingency to replace them
stoked the housing market to an extent that people on low incomes could no
longer afford to buy a home.
,Many other problems arose and had to be addressed but Labour was no longer
considered trustworthy. The electorate showed their displeasure and voted Conservative in 2010 and the road to austerity began.
Having lost two general elections in 2010 and 2015 Labour devoid of ideas held another
leadership election. The Blairites made a huge error of judgement. Wanting to give a semblance of democratic balance Jeremy Corbyn was nominated and entered the leadership race. Blairites did not think that Corbyn a committed socialist had a cat in hells chance of winning. OPOV would ensure he would not win! Unfortunately the system that had been created to keep out the socialist element now worked against them. They underestimated the desire for change and Corbyn's ideas started to resonate with people in the party and the wider population. His election would allow him
to bring his circle of supporters to the front bench.
Corbyn was a strong critic of the Iraq war and an outspoken supporter of #Palestinian rights. his anti-war stance on Iraq was proven to be right and it enabled him to highlight the warmongering lies of Tony Blair. For the corporate media and the financial sector Corbyn's election was the equivalent of a nuclear winter. Here was a man who undoubtedly would introduce the Leveson recommendations. He openly discussed the re-nationalisation of utilities, rail services and is talking of restructuring the banking sector. In the meantime in public there were murmurs that Blair might face trial for war crimes (Corbyn has never discussed this). With an increasing membership invigorated by new ideas what could possibly go wrong? Antisemitism Fact or Fiction Antisemitism is an emotive subject and it is a stain on humanity. The labour Party has a large membership. It represents a large percentage of the population and antisemitism lurks within the general population. Therefore it is more than likely that antisemites lurk within Labour. In 2014 David Aaronovitch commenting on the rise in Anti-Semitic incidents in the UK and Europe wrote: "most Britons, as measured by all polls, believe Jews are OK. The younger generation, a tolerant lot, would sooner have their mobile phones confiscated than beat someone up because of their race or religion.." He concluded his article in the Jewish Chronicle with "Jewish lobby? Great idea, when does it start? Why might you ask is this article noteworthy? Well it highlights that incidence of Anti-Semitism were increasing prior to Jeremy Corbyn's election as leader of the Labour Party. It recognises that the majority of people in the UK are extremely tolerant of #Jews a position supported by research conducted by the Institute for Jewish Policy Research in 2017. It also supports the notion of a Jewish Lobby which we will come back to. In 2010 just 12 months after the Gaza War had ended Ed Miliband was elected leader of the Labour Party. Labour now had a Jewish leader, whose prominence coincided with increasing public concerns about the actions of the Israeli Defence force. The Institute for Jewish Policy Research acknowledged that incidents of anti-Semitism rose when tensions between Palestine and Israel were high. Of course the character assassination of Ed Miliband and his family by the right wing press throughout his tenure as leader had no impact in the rise of Anti-Semitic incidents? In 2013 a Daily Mail article gave the impression that Miliband's father was an ungrateful traitorous Jewish Communist Immigrant .
The personal attacks on Miliband continued and increased during the election campaign of 2015. It does not appear to have occurred to people that the smears themselves were based on an Anti-Semitic dislike of a Jewish politician. The attacks were considered vile, but largely appear to have been accepted as a well used common tactic to discredit a person of public interest. However, his resignation soon after the election defeat left a toxic political swamp in which a Pro-Palestinian politician was about to enter. In the video below Amy Goodman conducts an interview with former Israeli Minister of Education Shulamit Aloni on Democracy Now, August 14 2002.
The video introduces the public to the reality of how Israeli officials and their supporters weaponize Anti-Semitism to smear dissenters it also raises questions as to whether it can be used to undermine a democratically elected politician or government. The Israeli Lobby - Israel's Influence on the Political Arena The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) is the most influential political lobby in the history of American politics. AIPAC not only makes financial contributions to favoured members of congress it intervenes to mitigate reactions to illegal expansions of Israeli settlements. Similarly, when the Israeli Defence Force is seen using disproportionate responses to Palestinian protests AIPAC will step in. What might you ask has all this to do with the UK? As early as 2009 journalists were highlighting the influences of the Israeli Lobby, and how the Lobby was manipulating democracy in the UK. In 2009 Channel 4 aired a documentary "Inside Britain's Israel Lobby"
The documentary showed how the Lobby attempts to court favourable support for Israel. Although the documentary acknowledges that all parties are influenced by the Israeli Lobby its main focus was the Conservative Friends of Israel Group. It appears to
suggest that the CFI was the largest lobby group at the time. While the CFI may have been the largest Lobby labour Friends of Israel was probably a close second.
In September 2001 in the weeks following 9/11 a new lobby group "Stop The War Coalition" was founded and Jeremy Corbyn was a strong supporter. While Corbyn
was protesting war in the middle east Tony Blair was developing stronger ties with
the Labour Friends of Israel group
Jon Mendelsohn speaking in September 2002 said; " “The milieu has changed. Zionism is pervasive in New Labour. It is automatic that Blair will come to Labour Friends of Israel meetings,” The developing relationship between Labour, Israel and the LFI was no doubt nourished by a contribution made to Labour of $2.8 million on New Years Eve 2001. The gift came from Lord Paul Hamlyn, a multimillionaire publisher whose family had fled to London from Berlin in 1933, Mendelsohn a former chair of Labour Friends of Israel (LFI) has acknowledged that membership of LFI was a passport to promotion and many New labour MPs were attracted to the group. How much influence LFI members have is not clear but it is undoubtedly significant. A sample of ex-labour LFI MPs demonstrates the prominence some of them had while in parliament, and in some cases continue to have in posts outside of parliament.
Ivor Caplin (LFI) elected as a Labour MP in 1997 serving until 20o5. In 1998 he became Parliamentary Private Secretary to Margaret Beckett After re-election in 2001 he became an Assistant Government Whip and then Parliamentary Under Secretary of State and Minister for Veterans. Lorna Fitzsimmons (LFI) elected as a Labour MP in 1997 serving until 20o5. Became CEO of Britain Israel Communications and Research Centre from 2006 to 2012 James Purnell (LFI) elected as a Labour MP in 2001 serving until 2010. He served as Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport from 2007 to 2008 and Secretary of State for Work and Pensions from 2008 until 2009. In late September 2016, he was appointed as the #BBC's Director of Radio, and took up his position in October that year, in addition to his other role as the BBC's Director of Strategy and Digital, a job he has held since March 2013. Joan Ryan MP (LFI) Joan Ryan Chair of LFI left the Labour Party in February 2019 citing
Anti-Semitism within the party as a reason for resigning. She remains an MP and has joined The Independent Group The seven founding members who Ryan joined resigned from the Labour Party, citing their dissatisfaction with the Labour leadership's approach to Brexit and its handling of allegations of antisemitism in the party. Six of the 8 leavers
remain members of Labour Friends of Israel.
Joan Ryan served as an MP between 1997 to 2010. Many believe she lost the seat in 2010 because of her involvement in an expenses scandal. between 2002 and 2006 she was a government whip under Tony Blair. In 2015 she was re-elected to parliament and has been a staunch opponent of Jeremy Corbyn. Anti-Semitism A Constructed Crisis For Political Ends
Leaders of the Jewish Labour Movement meet Israeli Ambassador to the UK Mark Regev, From left to Right Jeremy Newmark, Ella Rose, Mark Regev.
Mark Regev the Israeli Ambassador to the UK writing in the Guardian (April 2018) stated: "When Zionists are portrayed as a sinister and malevolent influence on British democracy, we see a modern manifestation of that same ancient hatred.
When activists who have never called for a boycott of any of the Middle East’s many dictatorships embrace a boycott of the region’s only democracy, this is far more than just a double standard.
When British leftists proclaim solidarity not with their comrades on the Israeli left but with the homophobic, misogynistic and racist Islamists who seek to destroy Israel and murder its citizens, something is seriously wrong. When parts of the left relentlessly vilify the modern Jewish state – the “collective Jew” – this is a contemporary expression of a lasting prejudice that has been labelled the “socialism of fools”. It was a full on attack on socialists and Jeremy Corbyn while espousing Islamophobic tropes. Furthermore, Regev's message equated criticism of Zionism as evidence of antisemitism, yet many critics of Zionism are Jews, For anyone who had watched "The Lobby" an undercover investigation by Al Jazeera in 2016, it was hardly a surprise. The documentary showed how far Israeli officials were prepared to go to support members of Labour Friends of Israel. Joan Ryan was seen being offered £1 million, and was caught falsely accusing a Labour Party member of Anti-Semitism.
While the character attacks continued on Corbyn there was a concerted effort to remove his supporters from the political arena ( Jackie Walker, Marc Wadsworth, Dr. Alex Scott-Samuel ) Jackie Walker - Black Jewish Female Socialist. In May 2016 A private Facebook discussion between Jackie Walker and a friend was apparently hacked by the Israeli Advocacy Movement an allegation that does not appear to have been denied. The post was part of a private discussion with a Zionist friend and others about the African holocaust and the fact that Jews – notably Jackie’s own Portuguese Jewish ancestors whose history she has researched – had been involved in the sugar and slave trade. Her Facebook contribution was reduced to a sensationalist and inaccurate headline in the Jewish Chronicle The role of Jews in the slave trade has been a contentious issue for many years and much was made of Jewish involvement by Louis Farrakhan and Leonard Jeffries. However, it is not a question of how many Jews were involved rather Walker's comment was an acknowledgement that there was involvement. This is acknowledged by Rabbi Jacob Rader Marcus a scholar of Jewish history in his books.. David Mills wrote about this very emotive issue and period of Jewish History in 1993 in the Washington Post in which he appears to give a balanced account of the argument. The result of the complaint against Walker was that she was initially suspended / expelled from the party but was later reinstated after further investigation.. In September 2016 Jackie Walker attended an antisemitism training event held by the Jewish Labour Movement on behalf of the labour party. This is the same conference that Al=Jazeera recorded Joan Ryan making a false allegation of Anti-Semitism against a Labour Party member. In the training session Walker explained that she did not feel that the definition of Anti-Semitism was one that she could work with. She also questioned how the Holocaust Memorial Day was publicised, as she did not feel that the memorial day was inclusive. As she tried to clarify her points others at the event started to heckle her. Yet in an article published by The Telegraph a video of the incident is published with a banner that
suggests that Jackie Walker was doing the heckling. Jackie Walker was again expelled from the Labour Party in 2018 for the second incident and she has appealed the decision. For an alternative view of the mainstream medias narrative you may wish to watch the video below about the events leading to Jackie's expulsion .
The Daily Mail February 2019 continued to peddle the smears of Anti-Semitism against Jackie Walker in order to discredit John McDonnell Labour's Shadow Chancellor.
Marc Wadsworth Black Anti-Racist Socialist
Marc Wadsworth formed the Anti Racist Alliance in 1991 The ARA was the first Black-led, broad-based coalition campaigning to stem the rising tide of racism, antisemitism and support for the extreme right. The ARA was supported by more than 800 organisations including many national Black and Jewish organisations. It also had the support of more than 90 MPs and MEPs from across the political spectrum, as well as thousands of individuals..
In 2016 Marc Wadsworth attended the launch of the Chakrabarti Report which had been commissioned by Labour in response to the accusations of Anti-Semitism. The report set out to explain the actions they would take in the future to tackle the problem.
The launch attracted many Labour members and representatives of the press. These included Ruth Smeeth a Jewish labour MP. Soon after opening presentations Marc Wadsworth appears to have noticed a press release being handed to Ruth Smeeth by a reporter from the Telegraph. Wadsworth was heard saying that Smeeth was "working hand in hand" with the media or at least the reporter who handed her the document.
Smeeth took offense and stormed out the meeting. A complaint was made against Wadsworth of Anti-Semitism. For Wadsworth's comments to be Anti-Semitic he would have had to have known that Smeeth was Jewish, and this he has always denied.
In the photo below Smeeth is seen being marched by a number of Labour LFI MPs to the Wadsworth disciplinary hearing.
Wadsworth's was expelled from the labour Party but not for Anti-Semitism. He was found guilty of having breached party rules. Dr. Alex Scott-Samuel Jewish Disabled Socialist Dr. Alex Scott-Samuel is the Chair of #Wavertree CLP which happens to be Luiciana Berger's constituency in #Liverpool. Luciana Berger is a Jewish MP and member of Labour Friends of Israel. She stood 3 times as a Labour MP in this district and was successfully returned to #parliament at all 3 elections. Since Corbyn's leadership #election in 2015 and the #European Union membership #referendum 2016 #Berger
has become more vocal in her criticism of Corbyn repeatedly citing Anti-Semitism and #Brexit as the cause of her displeasure. On the 7th of February 2019 it was reported in the Liverpool Echo that the CLP had called an 'extraordinary meeting' after motions of no confidence in MP Luciana Berger were tabled. Two motions were proposed and seconded both basically stating: "Instead of fighting for a Labour government, our MP is continually using the media to criticise the man we all want to be Prime Minister." they went on to ask CLP members to agree that "Our CLP has no confidence in Luciana Berger as our parliamentary representative"
The announcement of the meeting was like shit hitting a fan. The swamp monsters began to smell a story and the McCarthyite smears and reporting commenced. Allegations of bullying were made. A Jewish MP who nine months pregnant and regularly appearing on the radio and TV was suddenly ill. How dare her CLP have the temerity to question her loyalty.
Tom Watson Labour's Deputy Leader became embroiled in the debacle and complained about the actions of the CLP. Meanwhile the vultures had been doing some research into Dr. Alex Scott-Samuel and found that he had appeared on the Richie Allen Show. The discovery of his appearances appears to have been made by the Conservative supporting Guido Fawkes Group in the post they made they make the following statement: "
"On the Richie Allen Show in February 2017, Dr Scott-Samuel was introduced as a senior lecturer at the University of Liverpool.* He told the audience that “The Rothschild family are behind a lot of the neo-liberal influence in the UK and the US. You only have to google them to look at this.” If you follow the link to the episode in question which the major newspapers have referred to, Dr Scott-Samuel speaks from about 30 minutes - 60 minutes about Housing, Jeremy Corbyn and the #NHS, No Anti-Semitic references are made by him and yet he was pilloried in the mainstream media. On the 23/02/2019 the Guardian Newspaper repeated the comments made by Guido Fawkes about the Rothschilds. It could be argued that the way the paper reports the comment that they were targeting David Icke and not Scott-Samuel. You will have to follow the link and make your own judgement. The proposed vote of no confidence caused so much turmoil that it was withdrawn and the meeting never took place. Soon after Luicana Berger appeared on National TV to announce that she was resigning her position in the Labour Party. to join a new collective
called The Independent Group.
Facts and the Labour party Response to Anti-Semitism
In 2016 the all-party Home Affairs Select Committee held an inquiry into antisemitism in the United Kingdom and found "no reliable, empirical evidence to support the notion that there is a higher prevalence of antisemitic attitudes within the Labour Party than any other political party",
it should be made clear that antisemitism is a problem for Labour and the authors of the report did not feel the labour party had been robust enough in its response to the problem.
Many of the complaints made about antisemitic abuse were the result of social media messages sent to individuals. The problem with attributing blame to any members of a political party is that many Social Media accounts are anonymous, or fake accounts
At this point you may think that here is an attempt to dismiss the allegations that have been made, it is not! Rather it is an attempt to provide some balance to an emotive debate and present evidence that the Main Stream Media often overlooks or distorts.
On the 18th January 2017 an Early Day Motion was tabled, it announced and welcomed the Prime Minister's announcement of 12 December 2016 that Britain will adopt a formal definition of antisemitism in response to the work of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) It also thanked Jeremy Corbyn for his support.
The Early Day Motions Primary sponsor was John Mann MP Labour Friends of Israel (LFI)supported by Margaret Hodge MP (LFI), Luciana Berger MP (LFI) and all other LFI members.
IHRA Controversy In 2018 some Jewish labour members complained that Labour had failed to adopt the IHRA and the mainstream Jewish press were happy to report this. The reports were misleading. Labour had adopted the IHRA but wanted to adjust and clarify some of the working examples.. To understand the problem we need examine some of the history behind the reasons for a definition and the reason for concern.
In 2005 the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia (EUMC) an EU agency reported back to the EU with a ‘Working Definition of Antisemitism’. This consisted of a 2-sentence definition plus a page or so of guidance giving 11 illustrative examples of statements which could be antisemitic (depending on the context). Of these examples 7 referenced Israel rather than Jews.
The principal author of this European definition was an American Jew Kenneth Stern, working for the American Jewish Committee. The definition was constructed in response to a rise in antisemitic incidents within the EU. Countries in the EU had been recording incidents based on their own understandings of antisemitism So the definition was intended to enable countries to collect data on antisemitic incidents using a suitably recognised tool.
The disgraced Labour MP Dennis McShane, a member of Labour Friends of Israel Policy Council for many years strenuously promoted the definition, but failed to have it adopted. In 2013 the EUMC’s successor body the Fundamental Rights Agency (FRA) disposed of the definition. It was stated that it had never been adopted by the EU.
In the same year 2013 the BBC rejected the definition. A complaint was made about the broadcasters comments about Israel by a British member of Parliament, David Ward. The complaint was dismissed when the BBC trust wrote:
"A press officer at the FRA has explained that this was a discussion paper and was never adopted by the EU as a working definition, although it has been on the FRA website until recently when it was removed during a clear out of “non-official” documents. The link to the FRA site provided by the complainant in his appeal no longer works."
Moving forward to 2016 the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance issued a press release adopting a definition that appears to be controversial. Although the FRA is a permanent member of the IHRA it is not clear whether it has itself now accepted the following definition:
“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.” https://goo.gl/kkafV4
It is notable that the definition appears to be the EUMC version verbatim which was dropped by the FRA. So what is the controversy why all the furore. Well in 29 March 2007 The Report of the All-Party Parliamentary Inquiry into Antisemitism noted that the EUMC evidence to the Committee clearly stated that the "definition is in fact a work in progress and has not been recommended to states for adoption". https://goo.gl/QSo7EJ
if you recall at the start of this conclusion an EDM supported by members of Labour Friends of Israel thanked Jeremy Corbyn for adopting the definition. so why is there any criticism of Jeremy Corbyn? Well that is not clear but Professor Brian Klug when examining the Labour NEC stance addresses the issue rather eloquently.
"Has Labour tried to create its own definition, as some critics claim? No. The new code adopts, unaltered, the IHRA definition. But the definition is vague. So, IHRA provides 11 “examples” that “may serve as illustrations” to guide its work. Similarly, Labour’s code includes “guidelines” to assist the party in its work, and these guidelines include a list of examples.
Here is where there is a measure of difference. Seven of IHRA’s examples are incorporated word for word in Labour’s list. So, the row boils down to: why not the remaining four? Because the IHRA intends its examples as mere indications of what “might” and “could” manifest antisemitism, whereas Labour’s code says its examples are “likely” to be deemed antisemitic. This shift – from mere possibility to likelihood – strengthens the role of the examples and makes them easier to apply as guidelines.
By the same token, it means that any examples that are seen to be problematic in terms of protecting free speech must be dealt with separately, which is what the new code does. The four remaining IHRA examples are discussed in subsequent guidelines along with other tricky issues, and guidance is provided to help people apply the IHRA definition, for example within party disciplinary tribunals. Whether the code has “got it right” or not is open to debate. But Labour is right to discuss the complexities that arise with these four examples, and critics are wrong to say that the code simply omits them. In contrast, critics have not acknowledged these complexities since the code was released.
Labour’s code would have enhanced the IHRA document. For instance, it adds the use of derogatory terms for Jewish people such as “kike” or “yid”, plus stereotypical physical depictions of Jewish people, and equating Jews with “the ruling class”. These additions will assist Labour in practice.
Moreover, the code stipulates that it is wrong to require “more vociferous condemnation of [Israel’s] actions from Jewish people or organisations than from others”, which speaks to the lived experience of some Jewish people on the left. It highlights the antisemitism expressed by an unjustified reference to being Jewish (as in “Jewish banker”, comparable to “black mugger”) and prohibits the use of “Zionist” or “zio” as a codeword for “Jew”.
In all these respects, Labour’s code was an advance on the IHRA text. But these improvements have been passed over in silence by critics.
The bottom line is this: critics maintain that Labour (or anyone else) has to adopt the IHRA document “in full”. But the text is not written in stone. It is a working definition with working examples. It is a living document, subject to revision and constantly needing to be adapted to the different contexts in which people apply its definition.
The fear of many is that acceptance of the code with all its examples, without clarification will stifle freedom of speech. The issue of freedom of speech has to be taken seriously Kenneth S. Stern the author of the definition raised concerns many years before the current controversy Stern believes that the definition and the examples could be used to prevent freedom of speech and criticism of Israel..
If, the author of the definition, and other academics have raised concerns that the definition could be used to suppress freedom of speech one has to ask what is behind the accusations of antisemitism levelled at Jeremy Corbyn?
Clearly, there is a lot more to Labour Smears through the years and without doubt there is more to come but finishing on a positive note many members of the Jewish community came out in support of Jeremy Corbyn. recently.