Anti-Semitism - Tory Hypocrisy EXPOSED

We have heard all about Labour’s supposed problems with anti-Semitism, and the campaign to effectively browbeat the party into adopting not only the definition of anti-Semitism agreed by the IHRA, but all of the examples that accompany it. But while rather a large part of the Pundit Establishment continues the browbeating, very little is heard of what the Tories are doing in the same regard - or the lack of it.

As Zelo Street revealed in August, “the UK Government adopted only the definition, without taking a formal position on the examples”. That’s the Tories. And those examples are the ones over which Labour was castigated. So where was the press and pundit outrage? For some reason the attacks which have been mounted against Labour for going further have not materialised. So what is the position now?

Ah well. The problem here is that we do not know what the position is, as the Tories are proving evasive on the subject, even as to whether the IHRA definition applies to all their members. Still, Michael Rosen was willing to take up the challenge, first asking “Did you find out @BrandonLewis whether the IHRA code in your party applies to all members or only to elected officials and representatives? Which is it?”

As there was no reply by the next day, Rosen tried another senior Tory whom he had previously met. “Hello Eric, Can you tell me exactly when the Conservative Party adopted in writing the IHRA code and all its examples? And does it apply (in writing) to all members? (We met briefly at the Holocaust Education sun-Committee meeting.)” he asked Eric Pickles. But Eric din’t want to drink any of that.

But then, he saw that Lewis was advertising his appearance on The Andy Marr Show™. “Did you have a chance to check up exactly when the Conservatives adopted the IHRA code in full with examples and in writing? And does it apply to all members of the Conservative Party (is this stated in writing somewhere)?” No reply there either.

Meanwhile, Rosen asked the Board of Deputies of British Jews their opinion. “Can you please clarify: when did the Conservatives adopt the IHRA definition in full with examples (where is it in writing) and does it apply to all members? (in writing again, please)? (You use the word 'eventually' re. Lab so I guess  you think the timing is important.)”

No, nothing from them. Rosen therefore concluded “I'm afraid to say that @BrandonLewis has been much too busy to answer my questions about when and exactly how the Conservative Party has (or has not) adopted the IHRA code. I guess when you know that you have the press supporting what you say, you don't have to bother”. Well, quite.

But then came success! “You'll see  @BrandonLewis has very kindly replied. He has re-sent the para where the Conservatives' code says it has adopted the IHRA *definition* in full but NOT the examples. He makes no mention of the fact that 'Conservative Party' in this instance does not incl all members”. So he made up a conclusion for them.

“As spokesperson for 'We Really Care' branch of the Conservative Party can I point out that when Labour said they adopted the IHRA 'definition' but not all the 'examples', that was antisemitic. When we adopted the IHRA 'definition' and didn't mention the 'examples', that was OK”. Can anyone smell hypocrisy? Double standards all round!

Enjoy your visit to Zelo Street? You can help this truly independent blog carry on talking truth to power, while retaining its sense of humour, by adding to its Just Giving page at

https://www.justgiving.com/crowdfunding/zelostreet1