After Labour leader Keir Starmer sacked Rebecca Long Bailey from the shadow education brief yesterday for the not especially heinous crime of endorsing one of the party’s
more outspoken supporters, there was predictable irritation on the left. This, though, misses the great opportunity for Starmer to turn an issue - allegations of ant-Semitism - that had dogged his own party, into an effective weapon against the Tories.
For starters, while alleged Prime Minister Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson, influenced by chief Downing Street polecat Dominic Cummings, has effectively told the world that his Government doesn’t do resignations - hence Cummings remaining in post, and Robert Jenrick likewise - Starmer has, by taking the action of sacking one of his front bench team, showed that same world that he now occupies the moral high ground.
Then we come to racism, and especially anti-Semitism. Starmer will act on the faintest whiff of the latter, but will Bozo? And
we all know the answer to that: no he won’t. Hence the promotion of Suella Braverman, who used the Nazi-era anti-Semitic trope of “
Cultural Marxism”, and of Priti Patel, who caused disquiet with her pointed attack on the “
North. London. Metropolitan. Elite”. Because it’s code for “
Rich Jews”.
Bozo has also taken no action against Michael “
Oiky” Gove for conflating “
Jews” and “
Israel”, which the IHRA definition of anti-Semitism calls anti-Semitic. And he has not even said boo to Jacob Rees Mogg for claiming that George Soros was behind the Remain campaign, or for attacking John Bercow and Oliver Letwin as “
Illuminati”, another hoary old anti-Semitic trope. Nor has he apologised for his own anti-Semitism.
Munira Mirza - back catalogue under scrutiny
As a group of Jewish academics and campaigners put it in
a recent letter to the Guardian, Bozo wrote a book while in opposition which “
describes ‘Jewish oligarchs’ who run the media, and fiddle the figures to fix elections in their favour. He portrays a Jewish character, Sammy Katz, with a ‘proud nose and curly hair’, and paints him as a malevolent, stingy, snake-like Jewish businessman who exploits immigrant workers for profit”.
And then we have Munira Mirza. While Bozo’s choice for head of the 10 Downing Street policy unit
has previously told the world “
The press should be free to ridicule Islam" (it already is, thanks), "
Diversity is divisive", "
Stop pandering to Muslims" (stop something that never started - good move, eh?) and "
Lammy review: the myth of institutional racism", there was also her time at Spiked predecessor
Living Marxism.
As Iggy Ostanin
has noted, in an
LM article published back in 2000, she told “
[the N Word] ’is described as “arguably the single most offensive slur in the English language”. But depending on who is on the receiving end of an insult, I can think of worse’”. And in that same
LM issue, its editor Mick Hume made another interesting claim.
Ostanin
summarises thus: “
the editorial was titled ‘Exploiting the Holocaust’. It ridiculed the idea of putting elderly Nazi War criminals on trial and argued ‘The Holocaust has become perhaps the ultimate symbol of our victim culture’”. Munira Mirza may not have written those words. But she does not appear unhappy to have featured alongside them.
The stench of anti-Semitism hanging over the Tories is overpowering.
So let’s say so.
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/zelostreet6
17 comments:
"Starmer has, by taking the action of sacking one of his front bench team, showed that same world that he now occupies the moral high ground."
Sorry, Tim, whereas I seldom have any argument with your blogs I don't see how sacking someone for what was clearly not antisemitism under the IHRA definitions can be construed as occupying the 'moral high ground'.
On the contrary, I would argue that his action in this case is highly immoral for sacking someone under false pretenses, which is not to say I disagree with your condemnation of Bozo's complete lack of integrity.
Furthermore, if the antisemitism accusation is merely being used as an excuse to cover up a different reason for the sacking, e.g. perhaps a profound difference of opinion over schools reopening as has been suggested elsewhere, then that just shows him to be even more disreputable.
I'm surprised that few people have noticed that Maxine Peake's comment is an attempt to divert some of blame away from the US Police and pass it to the Israeli military.
All that the police forces in America need now is a scapegoat for their tendency to shoot people in the back.
I agree with all Anon has said above. I was about to make a similar comment when I read this.
'"Starmer has, by taking the action of sacking one of his front bench team, showed that same world that he now occupies the moral high ground."
Sorry, Tim, whereas I seldom have any argument with your blogs I don't see how sacking someone for what was clearly not antisemitism under the IHRA definitions can be construed as occupying the 'moral high ground'.
On the contrary, I would argue that his action in this case is highly immoral for sacking someone under false pretenses, which is not to say I disagree with your condemnation of Bozo's complete lack of integrity.
Furthermore, if the antisemitism accusation is merely being used as an excuse to cover up a different reason for the sacking, e.g. perhaps a profound difference of opinion over schools reopening as has been suggested elsewhere, then that just shows him to be even more disreputable.'
IHRA examples? 'Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel.' And that seems to have been what Starmer has done. Neither Peake nor Long Bailey has done that. Also he repeatedly talks of one 'Jewish community', as though all Jews think and act as one. Er... again, antisemitic of him?
Glass houses and all that.
Bad case of "whataboutery" there, Tim.
A VERY bad case.
You know perfectly well the "antisemitism" stuff is utter bullshit.
As for Starmer "holding the moral high ground".....oh my aching sides. The guy's a quiffed-up fraud. Always was, always will be.
@ anonymous, 13:04
On occasions like this I am reminded of Attlee's put-down to Harold Laski:
I can assure you there is widespread resentment in the Party at your activities and a period of silence on your part would be welcome.
Mrs Long-Bailey offered a thought which was, if not downright offensive, at least open to some very dubious misinterpretations. If Labour is to regain semblances of common decency and truth, and not least the trust of the Jewish voters of at least four key marginal constituencies some discretion is needed. Or. as Brutus has it:
It is the bright day that brings forth the adder,
And that craves wary walking. Crown him that,
And then I grant we put a sting in him
That at his will he may do danger with.
Keir Starmer is wisely walking warily. And good luck with that. So a request was made to Mrs Long-Bailey to do the proper thing, take down her tweet, and observe a period of silence. Mrs Long-Bailey, it seems, managed to evade any such advice.
Looks like a failure of common sense, political nous, and basic loyalty on her part. She had to go.
"This, though, misses the great opportunity for Starmer to turn an issue - allegations of ant-Semitism - that had dogged his own party, into an effective weapon against the Tories."
The Tories won't care. The tonnage of outrage re. Cummings? He's still in his job. Mirza? Still in hers? Johnson? PM despite a history of racism. Starmer hasn't - yet - called for Jenrick's resignation. Good luck trying to shame the Tories into doing the right thing.
Moreover, Starmer's sacked the runner-up in the leadership contest (also the leading female candidate) and a key figure on the left. Who else does he have to sack or throw out of the party in the hope that it shows up the Tories rather than confirming that the Tories can do whatever they like - and Labour can't?
What the hell was 'the runner-up in the leadership contest (also the leading female candidate) and a key figure on the left' doing re-tweeting something which could be used against the only political party which can offer an alternative to the bunch of bastards and incompetents who have defeated Labour in the last 4 elections?
Where are her political and media antennae? There can be no excuse over the next 4 years for anyone in Labour exhibiting such naivety.
Corbyn couldn't win. Starmer might. Any accident-prone shadow-cabinet minister stupidly offering the rags material to help stop that victory will be disposable.
Of course she isn't 'anti-semitic' but she could well be a liability. Principles are of limited use in a power struggle. Self-discipline (or, in its absence, ruthlessness) is absolutely necessary.
Remember how you felt at 10pm on December 12 when the exit poll was announced.
Malcolm Redfellow
"Looks like a failure of common sense, political nous, and basic loyalty on her part."
That would be the same basic loyalty, would it, that Starmer failed to show the previous incumbent less than a year into his leadership in 2016, claiming that 'it was "simply untenable now to suggest we can offer an effective opposition without a change of leader"', before going on to run Owen Smith's pathetic attempt at a leadership challenge?
In the light of what we now know were then successful attempts to derail the 2017 election by those in the Labour Party machine, when a bit of prior solidarity would probably have won the day and unseated May's government, I wouldn't call Starmer's words and actions that of someone with much common sense. More like that of someone blinded by their own ambition.
Furthermore, just when he could have had the Tories on the back foot over Cummings antics and Jenrick's follies he chooses instead to profess support for Johnson's government in the first instance, and then sack RLB in the second. Both times taking the attention away from the Tories and now presenting the public once again with a divided party. So much for political nous!
Malcolm Redfellow
Oh, and let's not forget Starmer's outspoken support for the People's Vote prior to the 2019 GE which cost Labour dearly in it's so-called 'Red Wall' seats.
And, no, I didn't vote to Leave the EU, am fully aware of the skulduggery that went on with the leave campaigns and which has been conveniently swept under the carpet but would never have supported the change of direction at such a critical moment politically. Dividing the party in that way was suicidal, especially with the Tories appearing united under Johnson.
On the other hand, if Labour had won then it would always have been possible to address the issues accordingly.
Again, so much for 'common sense, political nous, and basic loyalty.'
@13:56.
Utter right wing lying claptrap.
https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/joint-us-israel-police-and-law-enforcement-training
The Tories could call every UK Jew responsible for every dreadful false thing they have been accused of in the past like child sacrifice and Britain's media couldn't and wouldn't give a stuff nor would I suspect, the majority of Brits.
The BoD have successfully neutered Starmer. He looks set to become HM's Loyal Permanent Leaser of the Opposition unless he is eventually rolled.
@17:09
If you had taken the trouble to read the article that you linked, you would have noted that it was all about officials (senior staff not officers in blue) meeting to discuss counter-terrorism.
@18:53.
And if you had taken the trouble to UNDERSTAND the article you wouldn't have posted your "It wasn't me, guv" sophist bullshit.
Malcolm Redfellow has to be Malcolm from mailwatch.
Though, somehow he makes less sense.
I suggest we have an infestation.
But, what cost Labour dearly ... it's [sic] so-called 'Red Wall' seats is a wee bit more complicated that that. Like half-a-century of de-industrialisation. Like half a nation left behind.
I know. I went to work in a so-called 'Red Wall' seat back in 1965. It was controlled by a TU that didn't like 'interlopers'. I wasn't acceptable and my Labour membership couldn't be transferred.
I'm still none too far away. And — through thick (present company not excepted) and thin — I'm none to far away.
There's more demographics and group-psychometrics involved than 'Anonymous' reckons. Like the effects of half-a-century of de-industrialisation. Like being told by a succession of 'woke' sociology graduates what to believe. Like a lack of good principles, circa-1945.
Quite frankly, my 'Victory for Socialism' schtick didn't work back in the '60s. Waving SWP and IMG credentials didn't work later, unless one was of and with the North London cadres. And doesn't work now.
We need to rebuild a mass-member, socially-committed and voting movement across three nations. Starting last March. I reckon Keir Starmer stands a chance of leading it. Why are the weirdos opposed?
@Burlington Bertie:
"What the hell was 'the runner-up in the leadership contest (also the leading female candidate) and a key figure on the left' doing re-tweeting something which could be used against the only political party which can offer an alternative to the bunch of bastards and incompetents who have defeated Labour in the last 4 elections?"
It 'sent a message'. To Jewish groups that he is serious about dealing with antisemitism. To Starmer's supporters, that he is 'serious about winning'. To the Labour party, either that *no-one* will be exempt from zero tolerance policy or that it only applies to the party's left wing that must be crushed regardless (delete according to preference). These are not mutually exclusive interpretations, though the priorities may differ.
@ 21:45.
"...group-psychometrics...'woke' sociology graduates..."
No wonder you got fucked off.
Only surprised they didn't kick your narcissistic arse on the way out.
Post a Comment