by Martin Odoni

Stupidity is quite the most abundant commodity in modern Britain. Alastair Campbell, former spin doctor of disgraced ex-Prime Minister Tony Blair, was absolutely correctly expelled from the Labour Party yesterday, after openly boasting that he had voted for the Liberal Democrats in the recent European Union Election.

Before I get to my central point here, let me make clear; Campbell had to be expelled, as it was an open-and-shut case. The Labour Party rules expressly forbid voting for, supporting, campaigning for, or promoting other British political parties. Any Labour member who is found to have done so during their Labour membership cannot remain in the party. Membership Rule Clause I 4B in the official rulebook is absolutely emphatic about that.

Labour Party Rule 2B

Excerpt from the Labour Party Rulebook explicitly banning support for other political parties.

A member of the Party who joins and/ or supports a political organisation other than an official Labour group or other unit of the Party, or supports any candidate who stands against an official Labour candidate… shall automatically be ineligible to be or remain a Party member

By putting a cross next to the name of a Liberal Democrat candidate, Campbell supported a candidate standing against an official Labour candidate. It is a textbook example of the rule being violated.

I have no doubt that some members of the National Executive Committee are quietly very happy to get rid of Campbell, given his endless undermining of the current leadership. But even if that were true for none of them, they still plainly had no choice. That Campbell is guilty of violating Clause I 4B is manifestly self-evident, because he himself revealed that he had done it. When the guilty openly declare their crimes, even when no one else is aware a crime has been committed, proving the guilt is very easy, and justice can be swift and summary. One can therefore feel as unsympathetic about Campbell’s brazen stupidity in announcing his transgression, as one can for him over the transgression itself.

Inevitably though, many in the media and the wider public have leapt to Campbell’s defence, trying to claim he is being made a ‘scapegoat’ for Labour’s poor showing in the Election, or even that he is being ‘made an example of’ for being on the right of the party. The former accusation is clearly nonsense, because no one is suggesting he was involved in any way with Labour’s campaign. The latter is downright laughable, simply because Campbell announced his expulsion himself, rather than the NEC ‘perching his head on Traitor’s Gate’ or something.

Those who side with Campbell are generally doing so for reasons quite other than an objective assessment of his conduct. Some defend him just because, like him, they are centrists who want the left removed from the Labour Party. Others because they have a pro-Remain position on Brexit, and know that Campbell does too. Unfortunately for all these people, whether we feel their stances are right on these subjects or otherwise, it makes no difference whatever to Campbell’s transgression, which is still undeniable and inexcusable.

Perhaps most absurd though – and this is my central point – many on social media are pointing to a Tweet that Jeremy Corbyn published in 2012, as they attempt to argue that Labour is exercising double-standards. The Tweet in question, congratulating George Galloway on winning a by-Election in Bradford as a Respect Party candidate, is being interpreted as the current Labour leader somehow ‘supporting’ a rival party in 2012.

The people leaping on this in triumph, thinking they have the ultimate Gotcha! moment, are of course making themselves look like complete cretins. Even LBC Radio, which mysteriously likes to think of itself – in spite of the overwhelming evidence to the contrary – as a ‘professional media outfit’, has leapt onto this bandwagon.

The lamest excuse for attacking Corbyn ever

Centrists and Remain campaigners demand action by the Labour Party against Jeremy Corbyn for a Tweet that is not, and should not be, against party rules

However, there is no comparison at all between voting for an opponent and simply congratulating an opponent after they have already won. This is because congratulating them after the event will have contributed nothing to their achieving the result in the first place, whereas voting for them will have.

Congratulating an opponent on winning a poll is absolutely one of the most standard behaviours there can be during an Election in fact, and is routinely done by beaten candidates when they deliver their speeches after results are announced. It is a simple display of magnanimity – ‘good sportsmanship,’ or ‘gentlemanly conduct,’ you might say. Like shaking hands with an opponent after the full-time whistle at the end of a football match, or after the last ball is bowled in a cricket match.

Harold Wilson and Edward Heath famously detested each other when they were fighting over the keys to 10 Downing Street in the 1960s and 1970s. But even then, the loser in Elections between them, however they might have felt privately, had the good grace to congratulate the other. After losing the 1970 General Election, Wilson, probably untruthfully, even claimed to have ‘always admired’ Heath as an opponent. Did that count as voting for, or campaigning for, or supporting, the Conservative Party?

When John Major became Tory leader in 1990, Neil Kinnock, the then-Labour leader, crossed the floor of the House of Commons to shake hands and congratulate him. Does that mean Kinnock should have been thrown out of the Labour Party?

This is not only stupidity on the part of centrists, who are leaping on it without even thinking, but it is also childish. Like impressionable teenagers, so many people are being drawn into agreeing with the accusation without pausing to think it through. They are too-easily-led into seeing resemblances that are not even there.

And centrists think that the left are too taken in by conspiracy theories and are ‘not living in the real world’?

Advertisements

by Martin Odoni

So, Theresa May, a war criminal, is stepping down as the Prime Minister of Her Majesty’s United Kingdom of Great Britain & Northern Ireland. Not because she is a war criminal, but because it is clearly the only way out of the Brexit gridlock she has done so much to create. She will depart 10 Downing Street on the 7th of June.

May was in tears when she made the announcement this morning. But as is so often the case with politicians – especially right wing politicians – the tears will not win any sympathy from my direction. She failed miserably as Prime Minister. She was unceasingly dishonest, evasive, cowardly, and mean-spirited, for reasons well-catalogued elsewhere in this blog. Her relentless boasting that only she could deliver Brexit, and her sneers that Jeremy Corbyn would lead a ‘coalition of chaos’ if he ever got into power, have both had a sorry outcome.

May fails and resigns

The Prime Minister resigns, having failed to see out three years in office, and having never truly established a firm mandate to govern.

But I have to comment on May’s speech announcing her departure, which was as littered with the same bare-faced deceit and hypocrisy that marked her entire stewardship. For her to resort to that even now, when she no longer has a job to cling to only serves to make clear that her dishonesty was no matter of desperation in difficult times. It was, and remains, simply a fundamental feature of her personality. She is leaving her post as Prime Minister anyway, there is no practical purpose left in her continuing to tell blatant untruths. But she did it anyway, because it comes as naturally to her as breathing.

May’s lecturing of others on the importance of ‘compromise’ was vomitous. She was the one who repeatedly refused to speak with Opposition parties throughout the Autumn, and when she finally opened talks with Labour this year, she persistently refused to give any ground at all, insisting that Jeremy Corbyn and Keir Starmer had to surrender to her every demand. Hence why, when May kept going back to Parliament to try and force through her Brexit deal that had already been rejected, it never contained any significant difference in its content. It had simply been reworded to mean the same thing each time. That stubborn refusal to give an inch is the very definition of failure to compromise, while her pretence that the Bill had really changed when it had not was the definition of dishonesty. For her now to lecture the rest of the House of Commons on the virtue of compromise means she deserves a milkshake over her head.

But even more deceitful still was May’s attempt to talk up her administration as a success. None of her claims, be they about job security, housing, environmental policies, mental health care, Grenfell Tower etc stands up to scrutiny. But a most particular reversal of the plain facts was her claim that her Government had delivered “a falling National Debt”.

Beyond absurd. The Office of National Statistics’ last two published totals for the National Debt were published in September last year, and April this year, for March 2018 and December 2018 respectively.  What do they reveal?

The National Debt in March last year was £1,763.8 billion. The figure announced for the end of 2018 was £1,837.5 billion. In other words, the later figure was higher than the earlier figure, therefore the amount has continued to go up. And May says that, “the National Debt is falling”?

Now, as I have pointed out many times in the past, the size of the National Debt – while not unimportant – does not matter nearly as much as the Tories like to make out. But irrespective of that, what May said is still yet another a total reversal of the truth delivered with a mechanical bare face. It is possible to argue that the Debt, as a share of Gross Domestic Product, has fallen. But the problem with that is that the Tories are once again switching measurements whenever it suits them, and without telling anyone.

May resignation speech lie

Theresa May lives in a world of blackwhite, where a rising National Debt means the National Debt is falling.

If, as they should have been, public discussions of the Debt had been conducted in terms of the share of GDP from the time David Cameron became Prime Minister nine years ago, everyone would have known how completely pointless and toxic the Austerity program since then has been.

I would like to think May’s tears as she spoke came from the burden on her conscience that she had scarcely passed a day at Number 10 without deceiving someone, but I reckon it was more just a general haplessness on her part, having to acknowledge her failure to deliver the Brexit, or the “strong-and-stable leadership”, she had guaranteed. She cuts the most crumpled figure of a Prime Minister I have ever seen, and although the only candidates to succeed her from within her party are likely to be even worse, that does not constitute a defence of her. Her resignation may be the only truly right thing she has done as Prime Minister.

So May resigns as she served; by being deceitful, hypocritical, dysfunctional, high-handed, and unable to accept that anything that went wrong was her fault. Amazing how a Prime Minister can be so powerless.

As for the aforementioned Corbyn, that’s two Prime Ministers he has seen off as Leader of the Opposition. Not bad for the guy who was theatrically told after less than a year in the job by David Cameron, “For heaven’s sake, man, go!”

It is the Tory leaders who keep going at the moment, David.

by Martin Odoni

Imagine a desperate Palestinian committed a suicide bombing in Jerusalem. For all my support for the Palestinians, there is no sane denial of the fact that it sometimes happens, or of the horrific agonies that it genuinely inflicts. And say that one of the victims of such a bombing happens to be a supporter of the Palestinians. What would be the right thing to say to relatives of such a victim?

Would, “Don’t you think your family had better stop supporting the Palestinians now?” be appropriate? Surely not.

Well, one guy who has shown he would say it without a moment’s pause for thought – or even for dignity – is the rabid Zionist Rabbi Zvi Solomons. The terrible church bombings in Sri Lanka over the Easter weekend took over three hundred and fifty lives, and have left over five hundred injured. A relative of one of those who died is the Labour MP Tulip Siddiq. She revealed her family’s loss on her Twitter account a couple of days ago, and Solomons decided to extend his own, ‘unique’ brand of condolences.

Solomons Twitter attack via Siddiq

Rabbi Zvi Solomons demonstrates that no situation is too sensitive for him to use for cheap point-scoring.

“So sorry to hear this Tulip. Doesn’t your leader support Islamists like this? Are you still supporting him?”

Essentially, Solomons used the events, in traditional absurd-Zionist fashion, as an opportunity to scold Siddiq for being a ‘supporter’ of Jeremy Corbyn. Now, in fact, Siddiq is not really a supporter of Corbyn as such. She was originally one of the MPs who gave Corbyn a nomination to stand for Labour leader back in 2015, but when it came to the ballot itself, she voted for Andy Burnham. But that is not the real point. The real point is Solomons’ incredible mixture of cynical hawkishness and narrow-minded insensitivity.

Going up to someone when they reveal that they have entered a time of mourning, and trying to shame them for supposed associations, is not principle. It is cheap and cruel. It shows lack of human feeling, and betrays Solomons’ only real concern – his desire, shared with Zionists more widely, to see Corbyn isolated within the Labour Party.

Study Solomons’ Twitter feed, and you see a relentless chain of accusations and insinuations against Jeremy Corbyn, all implying in one way or another that he is anti-Semitic. There is little or nothing to support any such allegations, bar the usual deceitful quotemines and distorted half-truths, but they are unending, day-after-day, and give the impression of an almost disturbing obsession. Like most Zionists in Britain, Solomons clearly means Corbyn real harm, and sees isolating him from allies, even ones he does not really have, as a major first step. The corruption in political Zionism is demonstrated by the way it is only ever advanced by smears and bullying.

But the insubstantial nature of Solomons’ remarks is not confined to his misunderstanding of the relations between Siddiq and Corbyn. He fails to see the laughable hypocrisy in his own words, or the insane associative illogic he uses. Partly, it is because the Zionist cries of “racism!” are coming from a man who is himself using racist – or at least religiously sectarian – reasoning. Now all the indicators are that the bombers in Sri Lanka do have Islamist links (Islamic State have claimed responsibility, although with their history of trying to associate themselves with anything going wrong upwards of a national leader catching a cold, it is tempting to disregard their word), but Solomons is plainly using an “All-Muslims-are-the-same” argument.

Corbyn once addressed delegates from Hamas as “My friends”, and Hamas are a Muslim faction. Therefore, Hamas must be Islamists, and Corbyn is literally friends with Hamas, and Hamas are the same as the Sri Lanka bombers, ergo Corbyn is an ally of the Sri Lanka bombers and is personally implicated in the attacks over Easter.

This mixture of silogistic fallacy and telescopic definitions shows where the prejudice really lies. On present information (at the time of writing at least), it is transparent nonsense to try and associate the bombers in Sri Lanka in any way with Corbyn at all, or indeed with Hamas.

Any doubt about the selfish, irrational scaremongering is dissolved by a later remark in the thread; –

“I don’t want Jews to start being killed by Jeremy’s Islamist friends.”

So there you have it. At a time of national mourning among the Christian community of Sri Lanka, Solomons wants to make it all about Jews. Incredible.

Yet again, ‘anti-Semitism’ is shown not to mean a hatred of Jews for being Jews, but to mean the manifestion of anything a Zionist hates.

As a Jew, it is a very saddening and disturbing reality that we all have to treat hearing the term ‘anti-Semitism’ with enormous caution. But in the present climate, we have no alternative, thanks to irresponsible, hate-addled wolf-cryers like Solomons.

by Martin Odoni

A vote of no confidence in the leadership of someone you do not recognisably follow is a pretty futile gesture. Imagine Joseph Stalin, in 1943, had run a ballot of the Soviet population asking them, say, whether they had confidence in the Presidency of Franklin D Roosevelt in the United States – the USSR’s ally-of-convenience during World War II. Now I daresay the result of such a vote might have been interesting, but it would not have made any practical difference.

With this in mind, it seems bizarre that the media are reporting yesterday’s news that the ‘Jewish Labour Movement’ have voted that they have no confidence in the leader of the Labour Party, Jeremy Corbyn, as though it is some major development. Does anyone in full honesty imagine that the vote matters one jot?

I often encounter people on social media who claim that the JLM is the true voice of Jewish members of the Labour Party. But if you cast your eyes down the constitution of the JLM, you quickly notice two gigantic flaws in that assumption. Have a look at the below section copied from the document, section 4.3, which deals with the qualifications required to become a member of JLM; –

JLM absurd rules

Membership of the ‘Jewish Labour Movement’ requires neither a Jewish background nor membership of the Labour Party.

Quite simply, if you wish to join JLM, you do not have to be Jewish, or a member of the Labour Party. Furthermore, while it is affiliated to the Labour Party, it is not actually a Labour Party organisation. Therefore JLM does not really follow Corbyn, as such, while the only real requirement for joining boils down to a prospective member must not already be a member of another party. Therefore, JLM’s qualification as either representative of left wing British Jews, or even an organisation ‘following’ the leader of the Labour Party is shaky in the extreme.

Many of the same people who swear by the word of JLM frequently mock its rival, ‘Jewish Voice For Labour‘, as being the proverbial ‘two-men-and-a-dog’. But really, how do these people imagine JLM has any more credibility, when its very name is so hopelessly misleading?

As for the reasons for this vote, they are a joke for reasons well-recorded. Anti-Semitism in the Labour Party is entirely fleeting, while holding Corbyn individually responsible for dealing with what instances of it there are shows a laughable ignorance on JLM’s part of the party’s disciplinary process. The party leader does not have the power or authority to intervene in that process, as it would risk politicising any judgements made. (Although it is all-too-clear that politicised judgements are being made anyway, only by the National Constitutional Committee.)

JLM’s expression of no confidence in Corbyn is both ignorant and insignificant.

by Martin Odoni

Jacqueline Walker, a black Jewish activist and long-time Labour Party anti-racism campaigner, was expelled from the party today. The story of her, somewhat-carelessly-worded-but-accurate, remarks about Jews being leading financiers of the slave trade in past centuries, is well-enough recorded that I doubt I need to go over it. If you need to refresh your memory, see here.

Jackie Walker stitched up

Jackie Walker has been expelled from the Labour Party for stating historical facts.

However, the reason why this is as much a stitch-up as the expulsion of Marc Wadsworth last year bears mentioning. As with the Wadsworth hearing, the disciplinary process was clearly corrupted.

The pretext for Walker being suspended was supposed ‘anti-Semitic’ behaviour. There is a reluctance on the part of many in the media to mention that the accused is herself Jewish. (As indeed there has been with the accusations against the likes of Tony Greenstein, Cyril Chilson, Jo Bird, myself, and others. As Alexei Sayle has pointed out, those suspended or expelled from Labour for anti-Semitism are frequently Jewish.)

Walker was not allowed to speak in her own defence at her hearing, although as she had chosen to have a legal counsel present, that is not an irregularity in itself; the party rules are quite explicit that any defendant who accepts legal counsel must leave all the talking to him/her.

The critical matter, which media reports of the expulsion are not making much effort to mention is that Walker, just like Wadsworth last year, was not charged with anti-Semitism. The charge that the Labour National Constitutional Committee levelled against her was Prejudicial and grossly detrimental behaviour against the party. This is taken from part of the text of Clause 2.I.8 of the Party rulebook.

This charge is problematic in itself –  see below – but more concerning yet is that Walker was not made aware until a few days ago exactly to which of her actions/words the charge applied. She and her legal counsel had insufficient time to prepare a full defence against some of the accusations therefore, and Walker’s wish to make an opening statement was in response to this serious irregularity.

The main reason the charge is problematic is similar to the one with the charge levelled against Wadsworth last year. At his tribunal, Wadsworth was charged with Bringing the party into disrepute, a lazy, catch-all term that effectively amounts to, “The NCC can throw you out just because its members don’t like something you said or did”. While being slightly more specific, the charge Prejudicial and grossly detrimental behaviour against the party, in the cold light of day, does not appear to mean anything greatly different. It is useful as it matches words in the clause of the rulebook, so it sounds legitimate, but does so without having to give the ‘transgression’ any precise definition or clarity.

Both Wadsworth’s and Walker’s charges amount to extremely blunt legal instruments. They hand an excessive amount of power to the party right-wingers who dominate the NCC, and make it much too easy for them to get rid of any member for whom they just have a political, or even personal, antipathy, on the shakiest of pretexts.

Zionist organisations like The Jewish Labour Movement, The Campaign Against Anti-Semitism and The Jewish Chronicle are trying to insinuate that Walker has been thrown out precisely for being an anti-Semite, and no other reason. What they fail to explain is why the NCC needed to press such a vague and subjective charge as prejudicial and grossly detrimental behaviour in order to ‘convict’ her? Surely if they really had sufficient grounds to convict her of ‘anti-Semitic behaviour’, they could have made it more explicitly clear?

The ruling given by the judgement panel on the NCC was worded,

“The National Constitutional Committee has found that the charges of breaches of party rules by Jackie Walker have been proven. The National Constitutional Committee consequently determined that the sanction for this breach of the rules is expulsion from Labour Party membership.”

They did not mention anti-Semitism, or racism, as being the reason for the expulsion. Given Walker’s long history of fighting racism – just like Wadsworth’s – that should go without saying really. And yet – just like Wadsworth – it did not

This imprecise announcement fits a pattern that occurs a lot when Labour members are expelled for alleged anti-Semitism. See the ruling when Tony Greenstein was given his marching orders last year; –

“The NCC of the Labour Party has today found that all three charges of a breach of the Labour Party’s rule 2.1.8 by Tony Greenstein have been found proved. The NCC consequently determined that the sanction for the breach of Labour Party rules will be expelled from membership.”

And the ruling at the end of the aforementioned Wadsworth expulsion; –

“The National Constitutional Committee of the Labour Party has found that two charges of a breach of the Labour Party’s rule 2.1.8 by Marc Wadsworth have been proven. The NCC consequently determined that the sanction for this breach of Labour Party rules will be expulsion from membership.”

All sounds very similar does it not? And all very obscure.

What do all the accused mentioned on this page have in common?

Well of course; they are all pro-Palestine supporters of Jeremy Corbyn.

Thus it is quite impossible not to suspect that Walker’s guilt and expulsion – just like all the others’ – were premeditated conclusions. My own, much lower-profile suspension will doubtless lead to the same place in whichever century the NCC finally get around to assessing my case of implied ‘self-hating-Jewry’. But in Walker’s case, all that was in doubt was not her expulsion, but how the NCC chose to word the verdict. In the event, they took the tried-and-tested route, making it as obscure and legal-ese-precise as possible.

What happened to Jackie Walker today was just history ‘rhyming’. As Wadsworth was stitched up a year ago, so Walker has been stitched up now, demonstrating just how much right-wing corruption remains in the innermost mechanisms of the Labour Party.

by Martin Odoni

I have no wish to make light of the childish tantrum thrown by the Labour Right today. The first batch of what will doubtless be a considerable number of Labour MPs resigned the whip today. I suspect more may follow this very week, to keep the story at the top of the headlines. The danger of splitting the Labour vote by going their own way is potentially as big a gift to the Conservatives as the breakaway of the Social Democratic Party was in the 1980s. Considering the media history of giving MPs who leave the Labour Party – at least via its right wing – enormous positive publicity for months afterwards, that danger is quite genuine.

ELIMINATE SNAKEs 7

Sort of like Blake’s 7, only all seven of them are Vila.

Nonetheless, most of the sting has been taken out of the day by a couple of absolutely hilarious blunders the breakaway faction have made, making the day less resemble the launch of the SDP and more resemble the maiden voyage of the Titanic. Angela Smith, the central source of hilarity, managed to contradict herself completely during the faction’s press conference, re-stating her wish for a ‘People’s Vote’ over Brexit, while effectively insisting that she would not support a Labour move for another General Election – or offer up her seat for a by-Election – on the grounds that people are bored of voting. Doh!

Somehow, the Blairite wing of the party just cannot stop being the most laughable hypocrites. They always try to appear ‘charismatic’ and ‘sincere’ by being regimented and strictly ‘on-message’ at all times, even when the message is inherently absurd. Automatic soundbites abound – today’s being the constant repetition of the term “broken politics” – making them sound machine-like and cold, rather than charismatic. They have learned nothing from the 2015 Leadership contest.

But of course it got very much worse after the press conference was over. An endorsement from Katie Hopkins of all people immediately caused blushes for the faction, but they could always say, “We can’t control that”. But then, in an interview with the BBC, Smith managed to discredit the single biggest pretext the faction had for breaking away from Labour in the first place. That pretext was the wildly-exaggerated ‘anti-Semitism-in-the-Labour-Party’ controversy. “We can no longer, in good conscience, remain in a party so mired in racism!” was the message.

Angela Smith Guess Who?

Just imagine what she’d be saying if she had a couple of drinks in her…

So Smith’s use of the term, “funny tinge” or “funny tint” (still not sure which) to describe the skin of people-of-colour was perhaps the greatest media backfire in left-leaning politics since Gordon Brown’s ‘bigoted woman‘ remark was caught on microphone nine years ago.

Chuka reacts to Angela Smith

When your non-party leader is Chuka Umunna, it’s not a wise move to talk about other races having skin of a ‘funny tinge’ (or ‘tint’).

Now, this is more funny than insidious. There may be an element of a Freudian slip, but I think it likelier that Smith was struggling to find the correct synonym and blurted out something she did not mean. I do not believe Smith is a closet racist.

But really. This was barely three hours after the faction had officially announced their departure from the Labour Party, and already one of them was bringing shame and embarrassment on the entire manoeuvre, by implying an attitude it was supposedly hoping to escape.

We can be sure, if even the most obscure Labour Party member had made a similarly clumsy remark, especially about a Jew or even a Zionist, it would be all over the news bulletins for the rest of the week. It would be cynically-presented, including by the ‘Snakes’ 7′ faction themselves, as conclusive evidence of ‘rampant Labour anti-Semitism’.

As you can see above, I am not so cynical, and I am happy to give Smith the benefit-of-the-doubt, at least on racial grounds – as I say, I think she was speaking clumsily, and is not a racist. (Although if we pity Smith as a fool rather than lambaste her as a bigot, well, how much benefit of the doubt have the Labour Right given Jeremy Corbyn down the years when he has been accused of incompetence?) But no person need be a racist to be disgusting. Just being cynical, opportunistic, willing to lie for advantage, and unhesitating about ruining the reputations of decent people, are enough in combination to make a person disgusting. And the entire breakaway faction have shown these hypocricies in profound quantities.

Berger Angela said what

The woman who cries ‘racism!’ on the flimsiest of grounds suddenly will not call it when the accused is a fellow party-rebel.

If Luciana Berger, for instance, had any honour, she would immediately disown Smith. (And note how Berger once again is only selectively ‘too pregnant’ for political conflict.)  Her grounds for besmirching the reputations of tens of thousands of Labour members as ‘racists’ are every bit as flimsy as calling Smith a racist because of ‘Tinge-gate’. But Berger still besmirched those many, many Labour members, and so should feel compelled to condemn Smith in the same way, following the simple principle of all people being subject to the same rules. But Berger does not, because she is a disgusting cynic. Nor do Chris Leslie, Gavin Shuker, Mike Gapes or Anne Coffey. Because they are all disgusting cynics.

Even the independent faction’s official status as a non-party is probably the result of disgusting cynicism; it allows them to side-step laws capping funding of political parties.

These independents are not a ‘moderate’ alternative to the Labour Party.  They are greedy children who are taking their ball home because they cannot tolerate being in the Labour Party when it is no longer answering to them. They know that splitting left-wing support would stop Labour getting into Government, and give them a self-fulfilling opportunity to say, “Told-you-so.”

Voting for greed is voting for Tories. These MPs have demonstrated once and for all that the term pinned to them of Queasy-conscience Tories is entirely correct.

by Martin Odoni

So there you have it. Anti-Semitism in the Labour Party is to be found among less than 0.1% of its membership. As I have been saying since what feels like the Dawn-Of-Time, the British right wing, especially Zionist factions, have been making a giant mountain range out of an ant-hill.

Zionists after Labour AS stats announced

0.1% of the party MIGHT be anti-Semites. Yeah. Really worth all this fuss, wasn’t it?

The evidence against the accusers, on the other hand, is truly mountainous. Recent, very corrupt smear tactics by Wes Streeting, and the whining response of the Labour Party’s right wing to moves to have dissatisfaction with Luciana Berger placed on formal record in her local constituency, are enough on their own to show how contrived the furore has been. Add in earlier cynicisms, especially from Margaret Hodge, who actually boasts that around 200 of the complaints made were from herself, and you can see how thoroughly the right wing are going out of their way to see vast anti-Semitism where there is very little. On the subject of Hodge, there is a particular reason why the outcome is not to her liking, but do not expect her to mention it; –

Margaret Hodges reports loads of non-Labour members

Hodge and her allies are trying to present abuse from non-Labour members as examples of in-party anti-Semitism.

Beyond doubt, many of them also committed the cardinal sin of conflating anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism – as has happened to accusations against me, an anti-Zionist Jew.

And of course, the Zionist Imperialist Chronicle (I refuse to dignify the periodical smear-rag with the title ‘Jewish’) has been making mischief in another Liverpool Labour constituency, namely Walton. Stephen Pollard, the pathological liar running the Chronicle, and who used to edit the even-more-disgraceful Daily Express, has refused to apologise, even though he published a retraction that he had the nerve to call a ‘clarification’.

Sadly, vindication for those of us who were saying that the furore was a storm in a teacup does not mean satisfaction. Partly, there is inevitable pushback by the usual suspects, arguing that the figures have been massaged in some way. We can expect a lot of heels being dug in over the next few weeks in that regard. But further than that, there is an aggravation that both defenders and detractors of the Labour Party are causing. It comes in the form of a platitude that I am getting a little tired of seeing rehearsed; –

“Even one case of anti-Semitism is one too many!”

Now I must emphasise that I do agree with the statement as it reads. One case of anti-Semitism – indeed of any form of racism – is one too many. But the main reason I want people to stop retreating into saying it is that they only ever seem to say it in response to the anti-Semitism-in-the-Labour-Party hysteria. Sure, when real anti-Semitic behaviour in Labour is discovered, the person behind it needs to go, but that should be true in every party.

Platitudes in general are a bad practice, as they are usually a sign of making polite gestures without engaging the brain. More specifically in this case, it also rather shifts the metaphorical ‘goalposts’. There has been a relentless three-year clamour about anti-Semitism being ‘rife’ in Labour. Then, when the evidence shows that the numbers involved are proportionally trifling, the accusers just cry out, “But even one anti-Semite is one too many!!!” and keep the outrage alive. But the outrage was about the problem being ‘rife’. Now it has quietly become about the problem being present in any proportion at all. It is the same outrage, maintained without a break-in-stride, only it is now based on something quite other than what it was originally.

This means that those who defend the Labour Party over anti-Semitism need to avoid being drawn into saying, “One is one too many,” because they are allowing themselves to support attempts to change the narrative on the quiet.

Such a changed narrative is not only deceitful, it also holds the Labour Party to a standard that is probably unattainable. So long as anti-Semitism exists in society, some of it is bound to seep into all political parties, and it is quite unfair to insist that Labour has to wipe it out from its ranks entirely as a bare minimum, which is what the complaints that the party “is not doing enough” or “does not take the problem seriously” amount to. This is doubly true when nowhere near the same amount of pressure is being applied to  other parties, especially the Tories of course, to combat their own racism issues.

29572657_10156366518233489_4954806921188844906_n

Anti-Semitism is RARER on the left than on the right.

I sometimes hear people arguing that, as Labour aspire to higher ethics than the Conservative Party, Labour need to be held to a higher moral standard. But that is nonsense. It just gives the Tories an excuse not to try, even makes it acceptable for them to say that they are unconcerned about their lack of morals, and above all, gives racists a safe harbour in one of the largest political parties in the country. Real racism should not be allowed to influence Government policy; if you want to see the dangers of that, just ask the Windrush Generation.

In any event, holding Labour to a higher standard does not mean holding them to an unattainable standard. It makes it much too easy for McCarthyite troublemakers like Berger, Streeting and Hodge, whose real reasons for anger are ideological disagreements with Jeremy Corbyn, and provides a needless distraction from the real priority issues facing the United Kingdom; the twin struggles to end Austerity, and to rescue the country from the self-harm of a chaotic and ill-planned Brexit.