The following according to the Independent is a full transcript of what was said Thursday during events that led up to Ken Livingstone's suspension from the Labour Party.
It does not however include the questions he was responding to meaning that in some ways his words remain taken out of context. However it may help those of you trying to understand what was said that was deemed offensive and why. But it may not. BBC London, Vanessa Feltz Show The interview that sparked the controversy Asked whether Naz Shah was antisemitic: “She’s a deep critic of Israel and its policies. Her remarks were over-the-top but she’s not antisemitic. I’ve been in the Labour party for 47 years; I’ve never heard anyone say anything antisemitic. I’ve heard a lot of criticism of the state of Israel and its abuse of Palestinians but I’ve never heard anyone say anything anti Semitic.q “It’s completely over the top but it’s not antisemitism. Let’s remember when Hitler won his election in 1932, his policy then was that Jews should be moved to Israel. He was supporting Zionism – this before he went mad and ended up killing six million Jews. On Israel and Palestine: "The simple fact in all of this is that Naz made these comments at a time when there was another brutal Israeli attack on the Palestinians; and there’s one stark fact that virtually no one in the British media ever reports, in almost all these conflicts the death toll is usually between 60 and 100 Palestinians killed for every Israeli. Now, any other country doing that would be accused of war crimes but it’s like we have a double standard about the policies of the Israeli government. On Antisemitism in the Labour Party: “As I’ve said, I’ve never heard anybody say anything antisemitism-Semitic, but there’s been a very well-orchestrated campaign by the Israel lobby to smear anybody who criticises Israeli policy as antisemitic. I had to put up with 35 years of this. “Let’s look at someone who’s Jewish who actually said something very similar to what Naz has just said. Albert Einstein, when the first leader of Likud, the governing party now in Israel, came to America, he warned American politicians: don’t talk to this man because he’s too similar to the fascists we fought in the Second World War. Now, if Naz or myself said that today we would be denounced as antisemitic, but that was Albert Einstein. “After Jeremy became leader I was having a chat with Michael and he said he was very worried because one of his friends who was Jewish had come to him and said ‘the election of Jeremy Corbyn is exactly the same as the first step to the rise of Adolf Hitler to power’. “Frankly, there’s been an attempt to smear Jeremy Corbyn and his associates as antisemitic from the moment he became leader. The simple fact is we have the right to criticise what is one of the most brutal regimes going in the way it treats the Palestinians.” Daily Politics, BBC Two A response to critics aired at 12.10 On antisemitism in the Labour party. “Literally I’ve been a member for 47 years I’ve never heard anyone say anything antisemitic. I’ve heard a lot of criticism of Israel. If I was to criticise the South African government as riddled with corruption you wouldn’t say I was racist – you’d say I was being critical of that government. “I think blurring these two things undermines the importance of antisemitism because a real antisemite doesn’t just hate the Jews in Israel, they hate their Jewish neighbours in Golders Green or Stoke Newington, it’s a physical loathing. On Naz Shah: “It’s completely over-the-top and rude, but who am I to denounce anyone with all of that. It was wrong. I don’t think she is antisemitic, it was incredibly rude but I don’t believe she is an antisemite. When the NEC investigation is finished they'll say it was rude and over the top but they won’t find any evidence that she actually hates Jews. “We’ve got to investigate all these charges and the context in which they are made. If she is antisemitic like the other three or four members we’ve found who are antisemitic, she’ll be expelled.” On other alleged antisemites in Labour. “That is part of the classic antisemitic thing about an ‘international Jewish conspiracy’ – that is the reason we need to have an investigation. I’ve got an open mind. I’ve seen nothing to suggest to me that she is antisemitic. I wouldn’t have supported her if I [thought] she was antisemitic. On whether what Hitler did was legal, as stated by Naz Shah: “That’s a statement of fact – Hitler, I’m sure, passed all those laws that allowed him to do that … it’s history … literally, Hitler was completely mad, he killed six million Jews. “She’s not saying it’s legal to kill six million Jews: what they were doing in that country allowed them not just to kill six million Jews, kill all the communists, kill all the leftists like me, my father almost died when a Nazi sub sank his boat. I have no sympathy with Hitler. On another alleged antisemite in Labour. “No, that is, and that’s why she’s been suspended or expelled. What I’ve said is that in 47 years of the party in all the meetings I’ve been in I’ve never heard anyone say anything antisemitic. There are bound to be in a party of half a million people you’ll have a handful of antisemites, you’ll have a handful of racists. “You’ve managed to dig out virtually every antisemitic comment that Labour members have made out of half a million people. I’ve never met any of these people. There’s not a problem. You’re talking about a handful of people in a party of half a million people. Jeremy Corbyn has moved rapidly to deal with them. “ On Jeremy Corbyn’s response to the allegations: “He met with Naz and she agreed she would stand down while the investigation is going on. He called her in to see her. “There’s been a huge investigation of virtually everything that anybody put on the internet … many of these people are quite new and recent members of the party that joined in the big influx. 300,000 new people came in.” On his meeting a man accused of antisemitism in London: “This is the man who called for Muslims around the world to donate blood after the attacks of 9/11 when he came to London I went with him to the Regent’s Park mosque where he said no man should hit a woman and you should not discriminate against homosexuals. So I can’t equate what I heard him say… he made no antisemitic statement while he was here in London. I don’t investigate people. “I’ve simply said what I believe to be true which is that Naz was not antisemitic. She was completely over the top, very rude, but that does not make her an antisemite. “ On John Mann’s comments: “He went completely over the top. I was actually doing a radio interview at the time that he was bellowing that I’m a racist antisemite in my ear. I’ve had that with John Mann before a few weeks ago screaming that I was a bigot down the phone. “I’m not an apologist for anyone who makes antisemiticstatements. What I’m saying is don’t confuse antisemitism with criticism of the Israeli government policy. “These things erupt, they dominate the news for 24, 48 hours, people calm down again when you go back and check what was really said. I’m sure people have had calls from the Daily Mail and the Daily Telegraph saying ‘he’s said this, that and the other’ – they’ll find out that’s not what I’ve said. We’ll leave Naz to be investigated, I believe she’ll be cleared of antisemitism, if she isn’t she’ll be expelled from the party.” On calling a Jewish journalist a “concentration camp guard” whilst Mayor of London: “I can’t tell if a journalist is Jewish or Catholic or anything. If a journalist is chasing you down the street at nine of clock at night you might be rude to them. Some people might have hit him! He said he was just doing his job. We went all the way to the High Court and the judge opened his judgement by saying ‘I hope no one here is going to suggest that Mr Livingstone is antisemitic’. We won the case.” On claims about Hitler and Zionism: “He didn’t win the election, he became the largest party in 1932, his policy here wasn’t to kill the Jews it was to deport them all to Israel. The simple truth, if you go back and check, that was Hitler’s policy when he first came to power – to move Germany’s Jews to Israel. I denounce that. “I’m being questioned in an interview I answer the question. You’ve never known me not answer a question you’ve put to me. I’m asked a question, I answer it … the simple truth is that was Hitler’s policy in 1932 when he came to power. “Things are either historically true or they’re not – that’s one of the reasons I pursue the policies I do because I study history. If you study history you can avoid making the same mistakes again. “My objection to the Israeli government is that for nearly 70 years the Palestinians have been kept in appalling conditions. I’m not making any link between the current Israeli policy and Hitler. I was asked the question in the interview and it just so happens to be a historical fact. If you say to me 'is it true that we were invaded by the Normans in 1066' I’m going to say yes, because it’s true, and I’m not going to avoid the truth.” On John Mann: “I’d simply say to John Mann go back and check. Is what I say true, or is it not? The BBC, you’ve got a huge team of researchers, it will take just an hour or two to go back and confirm. I was asked a question, I answered it. I have never in 45 years since I won my first election, I have never lied. I have always answered the question. “He was a monster from start to finish but it’s simply the historical fact. His policy was originally to send all of Germany’s Jews to Israel and there were private meetings between the Zionist movement and Hitler’s government which were kept confidential, they only became apparent after the war, when they were having a dialogue to do this. “What John Mann just said isn’t true – I’ve not said that Hitler was a Zionist, what I said was his policy in ‘32 was to deport Germany’s Jews to Israel. I condemn that. I never said it, what I said was that was his policy. “I’m not raising these points. I was planning to have a nice quiet morning in the garden until suddenly I’m descended on by all these journalists saying ‘is this true, is that true’. I’m be much happier just to do the gardening, it’s such a nice day out there.” “It’s not inflammatory to tell the truth and one of the reasons we make so many mistakes in politics is that so few politicians study history. We keep making the same mistakes. “All the times I’ve been interviewed I’ve never refused to answer a question. If someone puts a question to me, I’ll answer it. The simply reality is that I answered that question. “It shouldn’t take, given the scale of the BBC’s research department, for someone to go back and check. It will confirm that what I’ve said is true: that’s the historical truth. I’m not going to deny that the Normans invaded Britain in 1066, we have to live with history. The World at One, BBC Radio 4 A response aired at 1pm On John Mann: “I’ve had the same problems with John Mann before, he was accusing me of being a racist. He does go over the top. You try and have a conversation with him and he just keeps talking over you – there’s not much you can do about it, really. That’s just John Mann’ style. “Back in 1932 when Hitler won the election that brought him to power his policy then was to deport all Germany’s Jews to Israel. That’s not because he was a Zionist, it is because he hated Jews. He then had a dialogue with the leaders of the Zionist movement, private, not him personally but his officials, privately discussing whether or not to proceed with that policy. In the end he didn’t – he chose to kill six million Jews. “It’s a statement of historical fact: he was, well not him personally, but senior officials were in a secret dialogue with the Zionist movement about whether to proceed with this policy. “It’s not inflammatory to tell the truth and one of the reasons we make so many mistakes in politics is that so few politicians study history. We keep making the same mistakes. “All the times I’ve been interviewed I’ve never refused to answer a question. If someone puts a question to me, I’ll answer it. The simply reality is that I answered that question. “It shouldn’t take, given the scale of the BBC’s research department, for someone to go back and check. It will confirm that what I’ve said is true: that’s the historical truth. I’m not going to deny that the Normans invaded Britain in 1066, we have to live with history. On raising the issue of Hitler: “It lays you open to people smearing and lying about you. I’ve always answered the questions put to me and that simple fact is we’ve had a handful of people saying antisemitic things in the Labour Party, they’ve been suspended, some of them are on their way to being expelled, some of them have been expelled already. “I have to say I supported Naz in her campaign, I wouldn’t have done that if I thought she was antisemitic … she was completely over the top and rude and she apologised. I’ve been a Labour party member for 47 years and I’ve never heard anyone say anything antisemiti. If you’re a bigot you’re not going to join the Labour party. “She’s been suspended, there’ll be an investigation. We’ll see what the whole quote is, not just a bit of it. If it turns out she’s antisemitic she’ll be expelled from the Labour party, but if it turns out she isn’t I’ll accept that. “Let’s see what the investigation comes up with because I wanted to see the whole context of that. What worries me is this blurring of antisemitism with criticism of Israel undermines the importance of tackling antisemitism. Someone who is antisemiticisn’t just hostile to the Jews living in Israel, they’re hostile to their neighbour in Golders Green, or the neighbour in Stoke Newington. It’s a personal loathing just like people who hate black people. On people calling for him to be suspended: “All my usual critics – but the simple fact is I agree with them; there is no place for antisemitism in the Labour party. For them to suggest I am antisemitic is a bit bizarre considering we worked with Jewish groups and put on exhibitions about the scale of the holocaust, we worked with Jewish groups to tackling the scale of antisemitism back in the 1970s. I’ve always opposed every form of racism whether it’s against black people or Jews. “I’m going to stay in the Labour party and continue to fight against all forms of racism and discrimination as I have my entire life.” BBC Newsnight Afternoon reaction after his suspension released before programme “If you don’t want me to answer questions journalists shouldn’t ask them. All I wanted to do today was to go out and do some gardening and then some journalists asked me a question, I answer it too. I would have loved it, it’s a nice day. “One of the problems that we’ve had ever since Jeremy Corbyn got elected is that the media whip up all these issues which are side-issues, not the ones that really … will he wear a white poppy, was he going to bow to the Queen? What we want to talk about is Labour's economic strategy about massive increases in investment, cracking down on tax avoidance.” http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-anti-semitism-row-full-transcript-of-ken-livingstones-interviews-a7005311.html
0 Comments
Op-ed: Ex-pats have lost their legal challenge to their exclusion from the UK EU in / out referendum but vow to fight on. They will have to get a move on as the referendum is scheduled for June 23. It seems even ex-pats who have lived outside of the UK for many years feel they should have a say in the upcoming EU referendum. The reason for exclusion is obviously as many are expected to be heavily biased in favour of the UK opting to stay a member of the EU According to BBC News the legal challenge was launched by two Britons living abroad, World War Two veteran Harry Shindler, 94, who lives in Italy, and lawyer and Belgian resident Jacquelyn MacLennan. This week they lost a High Court battle over the right to vote in June's EU referendum. But only ex-pats who have been resident outside of the UK for more than 15 years are excluded. Both argued that the EU referendum directly affected them although why Mr Shindler aged 94 is greatly concerned is not clear. But age is not a factor in the EU referendum though it is safe to say the younger generations of the UK and the EU will bear the brunt of the vote in the coming years. Will the BRemain and BRexit camps both going strong the EU referendum is still a tough one to call though gut instinct tells me the 'in' vote will win on the day. As many people struggle deciding which way to vote British people are being bombarded with advice from at home and abroad. Some is fact based other self-serving. One website that tries to offer true facts is Full Fact More: Register to vote Labour supporters get out and vote May 5 UK EU referendum news You have to be in it to win, vote May 5 Join me and vote for UK to stay in EU International Women’s Day, why European Union matters [Shindler and MacLennan's case] They asked the two judges to declare that Section 2 of the EU Referendum Act 2015, which established "the 15-year rule", unlawfully restricted their right to freedom of movement under EU law. Op-ed: When MPs vote in the House of Commons they do so as our representatives. Sometimes they follow their conscience other times hard facts. At times they have to obey the party whip and disobey at their peril. The party whip may try to make MPs vote following the line their party is supporting but rebelling is always an option. A rebellion can be by way of a soft option abstention or a tough direct opposition. As a backbencher Jeremy Corbyn regularly rebelled against the party whip. He was and is a known rebel but that is no bad thing. It can and will of course make it difficult for him to make his MPs toe the party line now that he is the leader. But his record on rebelling is pretty good and shows a Labour MP truly representing the left wing of politics and his constituents. Jeremy Corbyn consistently voted against introducing foundation hospitals, while most Labour MPs generally voted for. Monday there was an important vote on an amendment to the immigration bill. It would have enabled vulnerable children such in refugee camps in Europe access to the UK but it was defeated.
The vote was lost by a slim margin and according to Politics UK absent Labour MPs allowed the government to block the child refugee measure. That article led to a debate which included the practise of 'pairing' for voting in the House of Commons. Parliament UK describes pairing like this: "Pairing is an arrangement between two MPs of opposing parties to not vote in a particular division. This enables an MP to be absent without affecting the result of the vote as they effectively cancel each other out. Pairing is an informal arrangement which is not recognised by the House of Commons but must be registered with the Whips. Pairing is not allowed in divisions of great political importance." But does it represent true democracy in parliament? On the surface it may sound acceptable but it has to be 'sloppy seconds'. Certainly there are times when an MP will not be able to attend a vote in the Commons; our MPs are after all human beings and hit by the usual stuff which can affect us all such as bereavement and ill health. But is 'pairing' used too often and for trivial reasons? One thing it does do is allow people to check who has voted and how and criticise perhaps unfairly. In the end no matter how those in the inner political circle and its fringes try to spin pairing it just feels wrong and gut instinct can be telling. Perhaps the way MPs vote in important Commons debates needs to be brought into the 21st Century by utilising technology. It should be worth any cost and as we all know MPs sit in the Commons with their IPhone or whatever gizmo to hand their fingers working away through events. But maybe some prefer to maintain the staus quo? More: SNP MP Defends Locking Himself In The Toilet During Crucial Vote A calmer Dennis Skinner July 2015 Op-ed: Living legend Dennis Skinner has been at it again. This time Dennis told Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt to wipe 'that smirk from your face' as the row over the Junior Doctor's new working contracts deepened. Tuesday junior doctors walked out on strike in what will be two-day all out industrial action. That is unprecedented for the NHS. But for the record they are only striking between the hours of 8am and 5pm on each of the days. The last major junior doctor's strike before the recent flurry of industrial action occurred in 1975; at that time it was a Labour government under Harold Wilson. In the House of Commons Monday Jeremy Hunt tried to lay the blame for the current industrial action anywhere but at his door. It is safe to say the government will not give in on this one at least not without a fight. They hope that more strikes from junior doctors will lead to a tragedy. In effect they are playing with our lives. The Tory government will sit back and wait for public opinion to shift in their favour; in months the new intake of junior doctors will begin work for the NHS and if the government has its way it will be with new working contracts in place. Once new working contracts are implemented the government hopes to move on to other NHS staff. In the Commons Monday Hunt tried to say that junior doctors were working against the wishes of the people. He cited the Tories election pledge of a seven-day NHS once again cherry picking from that manifesto. "The first line on the first page of this government's manifesto said if elected we would create a 7-day NHS," Hunt said. "No trade union has a right to veto a manifesto promise voted for by the British people." But they do; it depends how any government tries to fulfil its election promises and this time it is by foul means. Many election promises melt into nothing but those that suit are spun and spun again. And the Tories may be in government but they did not win a true majority representative of all the people. Hunt pathetically and insincerely begged junior doctors not to strike when he appeared in the Commons Monday but Hunt, or is that the Tories, refused to accept a cross party solution; a deal brokered by Shadow Health Secretary Heidi Alexander and backed by a Tory former Health Minister, the Royal College of Surgeons, Lib Dems and the SNP. Make no mistake changing working contracts for NHS staff has little to do with meeting an election manifesto pledge and all to do with Tory plans for a privatised NHS. Hunt has been shown to be a waste of space, time and money even being 'chauffeured 50 yards to avoid a Downing Street doctors protest' Monday. Tories may have opted to shout 'shame' when the Beast of Bolsover Labour MP Dennis Skinner, yelled, "Wipe that smirk off your face!" but we were with him in spirit. The Daily Mirror reported "Mr Skinner told MPs: "There's a smirk and arrogance about him that almost betrays the fact he's delighted in taking part in this activity. “He could start negotiations today - wipe that smirk off his face!" And how many watching wanted to wipe it off for him? Also: Emergency care will still be available during junior doctors' strike, BMA says Who is Jeremy Hunt, a career of cock ups Hunt imposes new working contracts on NHS Junior Docs Dennis Skinner all guns blazing
Op-ed: The blistering attacks against Jeremy Corbyn continue this time with Lord Alan Sugar leading the charge. With such a short time left before local elections in May undermining the Labour leadership and spearheading a leadership coup seems the prime objective. The attitude shown toward Jeremy Corbyn by some highlights that people like Sugar will never accept him as party leader. Sugar quit Labour when Ed Miliband was party leader over alleged anti-business politics. Like many on the rich side of life they do not want a Labour Party that even inches over to the left. So it is no surprise that he attacks Labour with Mr Corbyn at the helm. Sadly he and other dissenters have a loud voice in the mainstream media in effect manipulating the electorate. This time Sugar is voicing his concerns over the upcoming election for mayor of London. He has attacked Labour candidate Sadiq Khan presumably preferring fat cat Tory candidate Zac Goldsmith. Sugar may claim to be a non-affiliated Peer these days but he is a Conservative in all but name or maybe his only affiliation is Alan Sugar? Either way the big winner from mainstream media attacks on the Corbyn leadership is the Tory government. The big loser is 'we the people'. The Jewish News reports "The billionaire businessman accused Mr Khan of being personally responsible for wrecking the Labour Party as Lord Sugar branded the City Hall favourite and Jeremy Corbyn the “Laurel and Hardy” of politics. Lord Sugar, who quit Labour to become a non-affiliated peer in protest at what he called its anti-business stance under Ed Miliband, warned Mr Khan would be a disaster for London if he wins the May 5 showdown with Tory Zac Goldsmith." Sugar was writing in Murdoch's Sunday Times and the Jewish News was quick to follow on. They posted a piece damning Khan, Ed Miliband and Corbyn claiming "labour now welcomes anti-Semites and terrorist sympathisers to its ranks, the TV star warned." It is a hate filled piece but if you are a Labour Party member or supporter be careful how you respond. Those with their own agenda are quick to shout anti-Semitism. It seems it is fine to call those of the left of Labour the 'hard' left with the obvious connotations but not to call those from the Blairite camp attacking the Corbyn leadership ' bitterites'. And of course the Tories love and welcome Sugar's distraction coming at a time when that party is split over Europe and not fit for government. Sugar is quoted as saying “Under Corbyn, the lunatics have truly taken over the asylum" which is divisive and biased. Those on the left will simply explain they are turning the Labour party back to its roots and changing it from a second class Tory party to a real party of the people. Sadiq Khan is from the Muslim faith and Alan Sugar the Jewish faith-that should not be relevant but these days it is. Last week David Cameron used parliamentary privilege to launch an attack on Khan and as always he uses the mainstream media as a drip feed. Guess he will be sending Sugar a thank you note then. Jewish News Cameron called racist but allowed free rein by Bercow More revelations Thursday as the saga continues but when will the Electoral Commission act? Op-ed: Allegations of election overspending look set to undermine the legitimacy of the UK Tory government but will allegations be explained away? Once again Channel 4 news is at the heart of allegations against the Conservative party. Early in 2015 they broke the story of David Cameron's fathers' links to an off shore tax haven following it up a few months later with "George Osborne family business' £6m offshore deal"; in 2016 it has been a series of revelations that appear to indicate the Tory Party did not play fair during the 2015 General Election campaign. Maybe that is why in November 2015, according to the Mail Online, "Channel 4 could be sold off to raise £1billion: Cameron confirms ministers are 'looking at all the options' for station." Cameron was quick to insist he was a huge fan of Channel 4 harking back to its origins; he may however not like the direction its news service is now taking. Channel 4 investigators have uncovered a series of overspends by the Tory party during its successful 2015 General Election campaign; a lot depends on what was local spending and what national. Wednesday Jon Snow was in the TV studio with nine empty chairs as those accused opted not to take part. But there is every chance the corruption runs deeper than just nine people. [Thursday evening Channel 4 news had 24 empty chairs to represent the number of Tory MPs accused of election overspending and invited on to the show. The invitation was extended to the Labour party too but no person or persons agreed to take part} "Channel 4 News has obtained further undeclared receipts showing more than £38,000 was spent accommodating activists at hotels across the country, as part of the BattleBus2015 campaign. The spending was not declared to the Electoral Commission in accordance with the law. The investigation has also obtained evidence that the BattleBus campaign was focused on local candidates, suggesting the accommodation costs incurred should have been declared on local candidate spending returns, if so this could constitute a criminal offence." The Conservative party claims administrative errors or should that be incompetence though some will suspect purposeful wrongdoing in order to win an election at any price. And although the Conservative party and others may try to dismiss the allegations selective overspending at elections is a criminal offence. The typical Tory method of firstly denying allegations and then back pedalling somewhat should not save them this time, assuming the Electoral Commission and our political system is fit for purpose. "The Conservative Party today confirmed to Channel 4 News that it had failed to declare the costs related to the Battlebus hotels due to what it described as an "administrative error" despite previously stating that all of the party's returns were accurate." While in many ways it matters whether the extra costs were actually an administrative error or the Tories flouting the rules to get their way back into government either way it looks like they have broken the law. Will the Conservative Party run true to form trying to dig up election spending inconsistencies a cross parties and maybe even reforming the electoral commission and its rules to suit? The Electoral Commission has strict rules about election spending but does it have any teeth when it comes to wrongdoing? So "The Electoral Commission is an independent body set up by the UK Parliament. It regulates party and election finance and sets standards for well-run elections. The Commission is independent of Government and answerable to Parliament" but is it? Channel 4 News's Political Correspondent Michael Crick has spent more than three months investigating Conservative Party expenses in 2014 and 2015. http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/complaints
http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/find-information-by-subject/political-parties-campaigning-and-donations/political-party-spending-at-elections http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3304019/Channel-4-sold-raise-1billion-Cameron-confirms-ministers-looking-options-station.html http://www.channel4.com/news/battlebus-conservatives-admit-election-expenses Dodgy Dave the bully boy and his braying donkeys Op-ed: Warning-This report may not pull its verbal punches. UK PM David Cameron opted to stick two fingers up to the opposition in the Commons during PMQs Wednesday. He did not of course do so literally. Lacking the balls of veteran Labour MP Dennis Skinner who called Cameron Dodgy Dave in the Commons last week, and not for the first time, Cameron utilised all his slimy cunning to attack and undermine democracy. Knowing that Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn will not rise to the bait Cameron continues to try a range of attacks aimed to hit hard. He is sadly helped along by those within the Labour party who feed the mainstream media and perhaps even the Tories a diet of first-class bullshit. The over-funded Tory spin machine scours the internet and media for ammunition to use against Mr Corbyn. Wednesday Cameron decided to weigh in to who feeds members at a Labour party conference. Why this should concern the Tories who knows. Perhaps after all the Tory hype about improving diets they really want us all to eat a diet of crap and be as unhealthy as possible? "This week Jeremy Corbyn has faced an MPs’ revolt over the Labour party’s decision to ban McDonald’s from having a stall at its party conference. A number of MPs have accused the Labour leader of snobbery, while Corbyn’s spokesman has had to admit that he does not know what the vegetarian Labour leader could even eat at the popular fast food chain." Spectator What a load of tosh. Perhaps Podgy Dave should ditch McDonalds and try a healthier option. But also today it was a racist attack levelled against London mayoral hopeful and Labour politician Sadiq Khan. House of Commons Speaker John Bercow was unable or unwilling to hold Cameron to account for his nasty slurs and innuendos but was happy to remove Skinner from the HoC for one day for calling Cameron Dodgy. It was amusing to watch Bercow last week pathetically shy away from uttering the word Dodgy instead asking Skinner to withdraw the word that started in D and ended in Y. It had all the hall marks of a public school come Whitehall farce. Still he did not have that problem this week as he simply chose to allow Cameron a field day in spite of protests from the opposition. According to the Guardian: "The prime minister criticised Labour’s candidate for London mayor for ‘sharing a platform with extremists’. David Cameron was met with cries of “racist” in the House of Commons as he joined attacks on Labour’s London mayoral candidate, Sadiq Khan, claiming he has shared a platform with extremists. The prime minister laid into Khan during prime minister’s questions, claiming the Labour candidate had nine times shared a platform with a known Islamist extremist called Sulaiman Ghani." Dodgy Dave's attack was of course bunkum. There are some nicely spun reports in Murdoch papers but they are short on truth. Londoner's get to vote on a new Mayor and candidates include George Galloway; you may not be aware of that fact as the MSM try to exclude Galloway. But if the Tories want to throw stones perhaps they should leave their glass houses. In February 2016 we posted a report titled "Zac Goldsmith non dom squirm Newsnight." "The Goldsmith's family office operates out of Geneva not London or even the UK" we reported. We added "I have always been tax resident in the UK," Goldsmith told Davis. "I have always paid full tax on my income in the UK since I've been paying tax since I was 18." "Let me just explain, my father died around 20 years ago. I became non-dom at age 20 or 21. Being non-dom allows you to make lifestyle choices to avoid paying tax." He added: "I've never been accused of not paying tax." He went on to say ""I have a huge family that covers every continent in the world, more or less. I am one of very many siblings and members of the family. My father was an international businessman. He established an overseas trust before he died. "I am a beneficiary of that trust. I have absolutely no control over it." He then added "What I do have control over is the income I get. And that income I get is subject to the full tax regime in the UK and has always has been." That interview however left me wondering if Goldsmith protested a little too much and just why he wanted to be the next mayor of London. If you watch PMQs you will know that silence and deference is shown to the SNP's Angus Robertson. Similarly others are afforded some respect. The sheer contempt Cameron saves to use on Jeremy Corbyn is there for all to see. But without support from his MPs Corbyn is pushed into the bull ring without a weapon. Still for me watching the civilised looking Labour party at PMQs as opposed to the Tories who go from resembling nodding dogs from the back of cars to braying donkeys from Disney's Pinocchio Labour win hands down. But of course many people will only get to see the highlights or is it lowlights of PMQs? What clips are aired on mainstream early evening news is selective. Tory House Speaker has had his day and some. It was Labour under Ed Miliband that saved his neck once before but who would oblige now? The obvious improvement when the House of Commons Deputy Speaker stands in is remarkable. He stands head and shoulders above Bercow and not just in feet and inches. Related reading: Mayfair Tax loophole debate lost to plot Another dodgy Conservative fund raising dinner Colorado river poisoned with mine sludge When if ever will DWP publish Hardship fund data Op-ed: According to an ICM poll Monday their latest poll figures suggest the Labour party is not as far ahead as it should be at this stage of the political game. ICM quote: ICM Phone: CON 38%, LAB 33%, LDEM 7%, UKIP 13%, GRN 3% ICM Online: CON 36%, LAB 31%, LDEM 7%, UKIP 16%, GRN 4% The problem with polls is they are not reliable but they are usually used to suit. Ahead of the GE 2015 pundits were predicting a hung parliament and then miraculously as the actual polls closed switched to show a majority Tory vote which proved to be correct. That means the latest ICM polls can and will be viewed to suit but may be flawed. One writer at the Labour List, Luke Akehurst, a man standing for election to the NEC, Labour's governing body, was quick to respond to the polls tweeting: "Corbyn should put party above faction & resign. He has wrong politics to win an election, & lacks skills & experience to lead effectively." Why would a man who feels this way want to work as part of Labour's NEC? But Mr Akehurst has been saying similar for some time; he has openly showed a lack of respect for the party leader and more. I imagine that may appeal to those actively working to oust Jeremy Corbyn as party leader but will anger many more supporters and voters. Currently the Tory party is not just split it is disintegrating mainly over the EU referendum. Now could be the perfect time for Labour to unify and organise but many will think it will be a case of fighting a losing battle as self-servers within the party continue on their merry way. Tuesday Akehurst posted "Time for a reality check: Labour is plunging to historic lows" at the Labour List a website that often bears little resemblance to the Labour party and its supporters; it often reads more like an opposition publication. One can almost read the glee Mr Akehurst feels in posting yet another damning report undermining Corbyn's leadership. Akehurst may choose to believe that "ICM are often described as the gold standard of opinion pollsters in terms of accuracy" but we do not. He adds "And ComRes also showed us 5% behind this week" for good measure. Jeremy Corbyn has been party leader since September 12, 2015, and has faced a barrage of criticism from day one; criticism from within the party but mainly employees such as politicians not supporters and voters. He was elected with a huge mandate but some people will not be happy until he is ousted and the party split. You could understand that if attacks were coming from the Tory party but they are not. In January 2016 the Telegraph ran a live blog titled "Labour revolt: Shadow minister quits on live TV in fury over Jeremy Corbyn's revenge reshuffle - live." It is telling that report included tweets from Akehurst and some of his little gang. Jamie Reed @jreedmp tweeted "So people who campaigned, worked & sacrificed so much to establish the UK's most redistributive gvt ever are now 'hard right'. Inexplicable." And accepting the prompt John Woodcock MP tweeted ""Hard right" in British politics means the BNP. Shadow chancellor on media about his own MPs - destructive madness." Yet it appears fine for those three men to call Mr Corbyn's supporters hard left which following that logic must mean we are all raving communists? As a handful of disgruntled Labour activists and politicians jockey for position we the ordinary voters and party supporters are watching. That is not any sort of threat but a reminder that YOU are not the party. We are all the Labour party and without supporters the Tories will be in office for decades. Perhaps those planning a coup or coups think they can act this year and give themselves time to recover before the 2020 scheduled election but they are wrong. A coup could be that straw that breaks the camel's back for many Labour supporters. Those touted to replace Mr Corbyn may appeal to floating voters but will offer little to socialists or left-wing politics supporters. We do not need another centre right of politics party; we need a left wing political party in government and with help from those riding the gravy train that could become reality. Having tweeted for Corbyn to resign Akehurst back pedals slightly in his report Tuesday saying: Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell have two and a half weeks to turn round our performance and win the May elections. How do you feel Comrades when you read that?
Oh the arrogance. I doubt Akehurst et al will be delighted if Labour does well in the May elections but it will shut the coup gang up at least temporarily. Most times we blame the right wing MSM for undermining Corbyn and causing party splits but who do we blame when it is these people and includes one man expected to be elected to the NEC? What future for the NEC and more importantly what future for Labour? Related: Open Letter to BDS, the Labour Party, NEC hopefuls Left Futures- Young Labour in Left landslide but chaos, manipulation & smears mar NEC election |
British political scene
The next General Election in the UK may not be scheduled any time soon but the British political landscape is changing. With that in mind this blog will concentrate on the political scene but with a left wing perspective. Opinion pieces and news will bring you the stories that the MSM prefer to ignore. Archives
September 2018
Categories
All
|