Yep - that’s more or less the nonsense you’d expect to read in the tabloid/murdoch media.
Meanwhile, in the real world, there have been proper studies of the ‘antisemitism’ controversy, which have forensically documented the media distortions - including even the BBC.
Among the starkly revealing findings have been that the general public believe on average that 34% of Labour Party members have been accused of anti-semitism - but the actual figure is 0.1% (one in every thousand - and this includes all those accusations - the majority - that were in reality unfounded). In other studies, the general public has been found to be much more anti-semitic than this - so the reality is precisely the opposite of the media/public perception.
Meanwhile, racism and xenophobia really are a big problem in the Tory party, even leaving aside Johnson’s statements. 54% of Conservative party members believe Islam is “generally a threat to the British way of life” - yet the BBC - let alone the notorious ‘gutter’ press - talks about racism in Labour over 5 times more often than it talks about racism in the Tory party.
Well that’s a useful label, but isn’t it really that Brits will never vote for revolutionary socialism, but they might like something a bit left of centre that will look after the poor and disadvantaged without rocking the boat too much?
Labour has wasted too much time arguing about things that can never happen. Starmer’s task is to get them all singing from the same hymn sheet and GET ELECTED!
Ultimately this is why Starmer had little choice - rightly or wrongly it is seen as a Labour “problem” and Corbyn pissed around and prevaricated about it (and much else).
Starmer has to rid Labour of the smell & stain of anti- Semitic attitudes as well as purging the Party of the extreme Lefty Trots - generally one & the same thing. If he doesn’t then Labour will never get votes from the likes of myself. Brits don’t sympathise will extremes or prejudice.
Bad News for Labour - Antisemitism, the Party and Public Belief, by Greg Philo, Mike Berry, Justin Schlosberg, Antony Lerman and David Miller.
Greg Philo is Professor of Communications & Social Change at the University of Glasgow, and Director of the Glasgow University Media Unit; Mike Berry is a lecturer in the Journalism School at Cardiff University; Justin Schlosberg is a lecturer in Journalism and Media at Birkbeck College, University of London, a former Chair of the Media Reform Coalition and Edmund J Safra Network Fellow at Harvard University; Antony Lerman is Senior Fellow at the Bruno Kreisky Forum for International Dialogue in Vienna and Honorary Fellow of the Parkes Institute for the Study of Jewish/non-Jewish Relations at Southampton University; David Miller is Professor of Political Sociology at the University of Bristol. a founder director of Public Interest Investigations, and a director of the Organisation for Propaganda Studies.
There are two carotid arteries, one on each side of the neck. If one compresses (with a strangle hold or with a knee) the carotid against the jawbone or against the lower margin of the skull it will cut off blood supply to the brain and cause unconsciousnness. There is also potential for stopping the heart abruptly.
And then came the sacrifice to maintain the social values, the democracy, that we continue to value. Of course extremists exist but they’re extremists, not the British norm.
Your own political rhetoric, John, doesn’t support any claim you might make to be a moderate commentator with an objective, reasonable and open-minded outlook on affairs.
Bit of an angry rabble-rouser, perhaps? But if you’re a progressive democratic socialist who’s willing to fight against extreme regimes like Netanyahu’s oppressive, expansionist and racist Likud, I would embrace you as a Party brother and campaigning comrade.
Given that you know nothing about me of any significance I take issue being described as a - even maybe - rabble - rouser. I wouldn’t deign to pass judgement on an unknown like yourself. I expect similar respect.
Opposition to the state of Israel’s treatment of Palestine does not consitute anti-Semitism. But it’s a terrible, shameful dilemma. Can the Shoah, the genocide, of 6 million Jewish people justify the appropriation of the whole of the territory of Palestine accompanied by the murder, rape, progressive destitution of the Palestinian people? Zionists believe that it does. I can see why they might feel that any means justifies the end. However, at the same time I just cannot support or condone what is happening to Palestine, although I recognize that this in itself is a kind of white privilege. Nobody in my family has died in a concentration camp and I can’t know what it feels like to belong to a persecuted race.
Probably there are some people who genuinely don’t understand the difference between anti-Semitism and a critical stance regarding the state of Israel’s treatment of Palestine. Political affiliation tends to come from the gut rather than facts and standards of journalism are so low these days that balanced, rigorous reporting is hard to find. For example, the Guardian journalist Jonathan Freedland is known to be at Zionist but he reported extensively and hostilely on Labour politics. It suits opponent of Labour to use the anti-Semitism issue against the party and its leaders, even if the very principles of socialism are rooted in inclusion and many prominent socialist leaders have been/are Jewish.
In theory it’s impossible to be a socialist and be racist, but in every political party there are individuals are motivated more by the desire to gain power than anything else and who may as individuals, harbour racist or anti-Semitic views.
So the anti-Semitic card was used to huge effect against Labour over the last two years and Keir Starmer obviously felt that he had to act this way in order to give clear messages to the electorate. He clearly says that he knows that RLG is not anti-Semitic and he is not accusing her of being so; but he had to be seen to act decisively. As one reporter said, politics is a game played in primary colours. Most people never get the nuances.
Personally, I think he was mistaken and he should have held out.
Yeah, I know. This is just my opinion. These are different times and Starmer is not Jeremy Corbyn. He broadly has the press and public opinion much more on his side. It could have been the moment to carry through with the courage of his convictions, actually elucidate the difference between anti-Semitism and Palestine. Starmer is playing the game because he feels he has to. But in the end it plays you.
What Corbyn did had absolutely no consequences Graham. There were 2 things driving the way he was represented:
(1) The fact that he was sympathetic to the Palestinian case, and
(2) The fact that he advocated radical change.
If you look back at the media coverage of previous Labour leaders - such as Michael Foot - you will find that any Labour leader (or senior figure) that conservatives regard as capable of actually carrying through radical change is treated in much the same way - including the fact that if the policies look too popular they attack the person with all that ‘leadership’ kind of nonsense. None of it has anything to do with Corbyn personally - or indeed with antisemitism.
