Corb Blimey!

[Nefertiti2]

The Tories don' have any people to move around.

[Tubby Isaacs]

They don't have bodies like Labour, but they have politicians they can send along to a place to get a load of media coverage. That likely helps.

[Nefertiti2]

the only danger is mobilising the far right, which bannon Trump Farage are trying. There's no Conservative politican that can get the Tory vote out

[HeavyDracula]

John Woodcock - man so aptly named he has three euphemisms for penis in his name - has quit the Labour Party, blaming their failure to appoint an independent investigator to his case of sexual harassment. He also said, “pass it on, they hate Jews.” What a rotter!

[Tubby Isaacs]

He won't be missed. Given that a Corbyn government will renew Trident, Barrow has zero need for a Woodcock.

[Tubby Isaacs]

That's a very good line about 3 penis euphemisms.

[Tubby Isaacs]

Sajid Javid seems to have suggested on Twitter that Corbyn denied the Holocaust.

[Nefertiti2]

Which has been pointed out is libellous

Meanwhile the right of the Labour Party is taking advantage of an arcane but probably very important discussion about how to adapt the quite problematic guidelines of the he International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance Working Definition of Antisemitism so they allow criticism of Israel .

It's a complicated issue which I've debated with various people on here in various ways. It's now clearly being exploited by opponents of Corbyn as Labou gets a 45 lead in the polls. Margaret Hodge yesterday Tony Robinson today and Tony Blair on Newsnight tonight.

Meanwhile real beat-you-up kill-you make you register to buy kosher meat antisemitism is growing but a lot of it is supported by the Likud government in israel who welcomes Orban and Steve Bannon.

Newsnight had a very favourable piece about Tommy Robinson and UKIp last night. I suspect that some have seen that the only possible way Brexit will work is to smash the EU entirely.

[MsD]

^ Yes. To all of that.

[HeavyDracula]

Did 3 hours of door knocking tonight for today's by-election - as it was those who'd previously leaned towards Labour we got a generally decent response. Big team out, too, which is brilliant. I'm getting quite into this activism lark!

[Nefertiti2]

Brilliant, HD. I think that once an election is called these miserable vicious mean incompetent fuckers will be blown away. Which is why the Tories are pulling every trick iin the book- and so is the media, and right wing Labour.

[Lucy Waterman]

Stephen Bush is predictably excellent on this in the NS.

It's worth pausing to appreciate the scale of the unity that Labour’s position has provoked in the Jewish community. To give you an idea, here are some of the things that the 68 rabbis who signed a letter of protest against the party's actions disagree on: the literal truth of the Torah, the creation of the state of Israel and whether all of the 68 signatories really count as rabbis, to name just three. Yes, no community thinks in one mind but this is as close to unanimity as you could ever want to achieve.

He comments further on this week's NS podcast, explaining that the right of minority groups to define their own oppression is a plank of the Macpherson Report and on those grounds Labour would currently struggle to pass an institutional racism test. Interestingly, he suggests that the reason specific examples are omitted is because they would provide grounds for specific Corbyn allies to be removed from the party, but he doesn't substantiate this.

[Satchmo Distel]

I'm not comfortable with the idea* that victim groups get to define terms that need to have academic rigour but I do agree that if a significant number of Jews are uncomfortable with particular language used to attack Israel, then that language should at least be scrutinized as a potential dog-whistle. Context is key. A statement by Tommy Robinson is obviously more likely to be a dog-whistle than one by Corbyn.

(*Edited to correct the implication that Macpherson proposed this, which the following post by Nef refutes)

[Nefertiti2]

I like Stephen Bush usually, though that nod and wink stuff is a bit cheap.

But another Stephen, former Lord Justice disagrees on his analysis of the Macpherson report

https://twitter.com/MarkPerryman/status/1019824594285363200


There's determined attempt to say tha Jews aren't welcome in the Labour party and to represent the Labour Party as actively anti-semitic . That's simply untrue.

Those opposed to Corbyn like say Tony Robinson

https://twitter.com/Tony_Robinson/status/1019961507700977665

Helen Lewis

https://twitter.com/helenlewis/status/1019580613458874372

or Emily Benn/Jeremy Cliffe

https://twitter.com/Emily_Benn/status/1020043270448209920

https://twitter.com/JeremyCliffe/status/1020040643979202560



are clearly using the issue for their own ends.

Meanwhile Antisemite Viktor Orban visits israel and his regime is lionised by the Spectator. Steve Bannon is a regular guest on British radio and TV. I find both of those far scarier than exactly which examples should be added to the IHRA defintion.

[Snake Plissken]

Steve Bannon is a regular guest on British radio and TV.

Indeed, last week he was interviewed on the very same programme that last night broadcast a report on anti-semitism within Labour.

[johnr]

I pointed out to Tony on Twitter that my East End Jewish friend had only the other week joined her East End Jewish brother as a Labour member, which she subsequently followed up on saying that she'd defintely found 'room' for herself. Tony didn't have time to reply.

There's loads of people pointing out to Helen Lewis that she could maybe bolster her 'pro-truth' journalist credentials if she even just considered a thorough, nuanced piece such as Brian Klug's, but she hasn't had time to reply on that.

I don't know where to start with that Jeremy Cliffe tweet, and Benn's response. Something about 'why would adding a couple of examples to an already-accepted definition amount to Jew-hate?' might do it, but then they're too far gone to really debate with, if that's his level of discourse.

[HeavyDracula]

The results are in for the by-election that I doorstepped for - and we won!

St George Divison by-election result:

Anjona Roy (Labour) - 839
Martin Sawyer (Lib Dem) - 564
Ausra Uzukauskaite (Con) - 285
Andy Smiles (UKIP) - 111
Scott Mabbutt (Green) - 83

I'm not sure how I would handled failure, tbh, but I'm sure I'll have plenty of practice in a few years!

[johnr]

Congrats, HD.

[Nefertiti2]

I pointed out to Tony on Twitter that my East End Jewish friend had only the other week joined her East End Jewish brother as a Labour member, which she subsequently followed up on saying that she'd defintely found 'room' for herself. Tony didn't have time to reply.

There's loads of people pointing out to Helen Lewis that she could maybe bolster her 'pro-truth' journalist credentials if she even just considered a thorough, nuanced piece such as Brian Klug's, but she hasn't had time to reply on that.

I don't know where to start with that Jeremy Cliffe tweet, and Benn's response. Something about 'why would adding a couple of examples to an already-accepted definition amount to Jew-hate?' might do it, but then they're too far gone to really debate with, if that's his level of discourse.

Lewis is vile.
I've written to Cliffe at the Economist asking for his evidence for making such a highly contentious statement.

and well done HD

[Tubby Isaacs]

David Schneider
@davidschneider
Jul 18
More
It can be v uncomfortable for a Jew engaging with the ignorance and, to be generous, unwitting anti-semitism of some Labour supporters on here. It makes me question whether I, a Jew, have a place in the party I’ve supported for decades, one that I rejoined when JC became leader.

Schneider says that Corbyn himself is trying to do the right thing, and he's not going anywhere. But there's something here that's not very good, isn't there?

[johnr]

It's definitely 'not very good'. But if anybody - here, in the press, on TV, on Twitter - can say exactly what it is, I'd be grateful. There's a furore, sure, but is this furore actually about a couple of extra definitions to an accepted IHRA code? If it really is, then it would be good to see some explanation as to exactly why those definitions aren't acceptable (or, indeed, why they were acceptable to Umunna and Co a couple of years ago, but aren't now). I'm looking everywhere, and all I can see it's a lot of unsubstantiated stuff, and hot air.

[Satchmo Distel]

The social media he is plugged into might attract the most fanatical Labour fringe, though, as might some local meetings. Are we talking a few bad apples being used to characterize the entire party?

[Tubby Isaacs]

It's definitely 'not very good'. But if anybody - here, in the press, on TV, on Twitter - can say exactly what it is, I'd be grateful. There's a furore, sure, but is this furore actually about a couple of extra definitions to an accepted IHRA code? If it really is, then it would be good to see some explanation as to exactly why those definitions aren't acceptable (or, indeed, why they were acceptable to Umunna and Co a couple of years ago, but aren't now). I'm looking everywhere, and all I can see it's a lot of unsubstantiated stuff, and hot air.

Well, here's Laura JannerKlausner:

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/poli...-a3889171.html

“So now, not only do you have to say something that’s anti-Semitic, you have to have intent. We’d ask, why are you setting a completely different bar than is set out in criminal courts? Why aren’t the targets of racism the ones that get to define what happens?”

[Nefertiti2]

I'm sorry Tubby that article is full of half-truths evasions and down right lies

"

ut the code stops short of signing up in full to the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s (IHRA) working definition of anti-Semitism

It signs up in full to the definition it doesn't include all the suggested examples for good reason.

As Stephen Sedley points out in the letter I linked to above Macpherson did not say that the fact that the victim perceived it as racist meant that it was racist. It meant that it should be investigated as such. Intent is obviously relevant.

[Tubby Isaacs]

I wasn't quoting the article, just what Laura JannerKlausner said.

I know what Macpherson said, and I can remember how it was misrepresented as "they can say anything's racist and there's nothing you can do about it". Intent doesn't need to be relevant with Macpherson racism, does it?