It is a week now since Britain changed significantly and quite possibly for at least the rest of our lifetimes. There is very little doubt that for any of us – it does not even matter which political party that you support – the political landscape in the immortal words of The Fresh Prince of Bel Air has ‘flipped-turned upside down’.
The past seven days have shown just how massively the way we take in our knowledge of current affairs has changed. Most of us have been unable to drag ourselves away from social media and the claim and counterclaim of one camp or another. Traditional news has had to compete with the never-ending supply of blogs and exposés which all too often have lacked any of that most important aspect – evidence.
To the vast majority of us, including our financial markets, our greatest fear is the unknown, so when this morning I woke up I did so with a sense of serenity. The battles of the past few days may not be resolved but there at least appears to be a clearer path emerging.
I even began to enjoy the machinations of Mr and Mrs Gove, ramping up conflict in the Tory party and the effective career decapitation of Boris Johnson, and thinking to myself ‘For Heaven’s sake man, go’.
And yet I should have known better. Just when this party that I have loved for most of my adult life and given countless hours to seems to be at least temporarily going through a moment of calm it jumps out and shocks you with yet another misstep.
It was supposed to be straightforward, wasn’t it? After a whole host of seemingly antisemitic incidents had been reported throughout the media, Jeremy Corbyn had brought in a respected and independent expert in the shape of Shami Chakrabati to investigate ‘minority hateful and ignorant attitudes’ among some of our membership.
This morning the results of that inquiry were published and instantly there is a real chance that its contents will be lost.
In presenting the report to the gathered media our leader announced that, ‘Our Jewish friends are no more responsible for the actions of Israel than our Muslim friends are for those various self-styled Islamic States or organisations.’
One thing that all of us should have learned in recent months from none other than Ken Livingstone is that, regardless of our good intentions, words matter – they matter immensely. And yet Corbyn has come perilously close to comparing Israel to Islamic State itself – an established democratic state and a close ally compared to a barbaric group of murderers.
This could have been quickly clarified – although at a time like this such wording remains far too close to the bone – but it was reported that no questions were allowed at this most important of events.
In Chakrabati’s report itself there is much to be admired. It is important that such a review was carried out and that that review understands nuances, but there are also far too many platitudes which really should not need saying.
Should we really need a recommendation that ‘racist epithets have no place in the Labour Party’? Should it need to be told that it’s wrong to use the word ‘Zio’?
Of course it shouldn’t, unless there was a problem there in the first place.
Many in Labour have been concerned for quite some time about extremist elements infiltrating the party inciting racial hatred. I honestly do not know if the Chakrabati report fully addresses that. It rightly needs reading and digesting in some depth.
What I do know, without hesitation, is that in delivering the report today in the manner that it has done nothing to alleviate the justifiable concerns of many members.
And that quickly my serenity is gone. When it comes to turbulence and disruption the Labour party really is the gift that keeps on giving.
———————————–
Leon Spence is a member of Leicestershire county council. He tweets @CllrLeonSpence
Maybe things have changed significantly for the workshy, over-privileged political class, but here on planet reality, we’re carrying on much as we did before the referendum. Maybe Mr Spence should try stepping outside the bubble and live something like the lives the rest of us have to live.
What’s that got to do with Corbyns acceptance through turning a blind eye of anti semeticism
Leon
There has been some faux indignation at Jeremy Corbyn’s speech, much as one might expect ,given the current circumstances but at least one honest piece of journalism from Cathy Newman of Channel 4 News.
It’s a radical suggestion but perhaps reading the report first may help! The comments made by Jeremy Corbyn essentially match those expressed, in the final 3 paragraphs on page 10 of the Chakrabarti Inquiry. This may prevent some people (and particularly MPs) making unnecessary fools of themselves, on politics websites and social media but I wouldn’t bet on it!.
http://www.labour.org.uk/page/…
Sorry, is the quote I attribute to Mr Corbyn incorrect? Happy to rectify if it is.
Fortunately, there is actual video of the press conference, so the exact wording of Jeremy Corbyn’s speech can be verified, rather than journalist’s or hostile Labour MPs interpretation of it. It is then easy to compare this with the matching content in the Chakrabarti report (page 10, last 3 paragraphs).
https://twitter.com/cathynewman
There may be those who also choose, for various reasons, to condemn the report itself but unless they are prepared to do so openly then they can hardly criticise Jeremy Corbn for reflecting its contents and wording.
I have reviewed the video. The quote is exactly spot on. Of course many will choose to ignore such an egregious comparison. Not sure there are many views being changed right now, although the longer this goes on plenty of votes are being lost.
So are you also disagreeing with the Chakrabarti report?
All it states is: that being a member of a particular ethnic group or race should not oblige you to preface any debate with apologies for the policies, or acts carried out by, groups who claim that these are on behalf of, or associated with, that particular ethnicity, religion or race.
Simple really?
I’m really not disagreeing with the report. I’m comment on Mr Corbyn’s speech. The simple fact is his statement linking Israel and self-styled Islanic states is roughly equal to comparing the US government to the Westboro Baptist Church. One is a democratically elected sovereign body, the other is a hate group. Surely it’s not difficult to see why there might be some criticism?
I see your confusion. The quote implies a plurality of Islamic states hence the use of the words: “various” and “States or organisations”. This may be open to personal interpretation but I suspect many would assume Saudi Arabia (absolute monarchy/totalitarian) and some other gulf states tc. would also easily fit this category.
There may perhaps be more of an equivalence between Israel and Turkey. Both claim to be democratic states but suppress elements of the population, either within their own borders, or in areas that they partially control or illegally occupy.
If we were to accept that notion, and this was something I considered whilst writing the article, I don’t understand he why he would qualify it by using the term ‘self-styled’. Are Turkey or Saudi Arabia not sovereign nations in their own right? Furthermore why would he then expand onto organisations?
Genuinely I think you make a good point but respectfully it’s flawed because of how he placed those qualifications. I honestly don’t think there is any other conclusion to draw other than he was referring to ISIL and potentially Palestinian terror organisations.
I realise that people will take differing views but I would suggest that conclusion is a reasonable one, isn’t it?
Self-defined Islamic States might have been a better term, I agree.
Did you listen to the Shami Chakrabarti interview, mentioned in my earlier post? This is an excellent example of how the media have managed to spin some of their stories today, compared to what Actually happened at the event! Well worth 12 minutes 42 seconds of anyone’s time and not something you were normally learn from the short clips shown on TV, or particularly from social media.
People would learn a lot if they can spare the time and all the points you queried are covered in some detail. Link repeated below:
http://www.lbc.co.uk/chakrabat…
Thanks for such a civilised debate.
His criticism was of the Israeli regime .Not Jews .Why not call out John Kerry he referred to it as Apartheid
Now listen and learn what Actually took place today, from Shami Chakrabarti, without the media spin or bias. Very different to some of the reporting elsewhere. An excellent lesson, on how to not be so easily fooled or misled. (12:42 minutes long)
http://www.lbc.co.uk/chakrabat…
None of my Labour supporting family found anything wrong with what Corbyn said – the comparison was avoiding Jews AND Muslims being blamed for things that they each get lumbered with – seemed ludicrously obvious to me, but we don’t have any hidden agenda – just high levels of intelligence, both being psychotherapists and quite experienced at how the unconscious and subconscious mind works.
Agreed- it was quite obvious to all (except the willfully ignorant with a political axe to grind)!…
I wonder if Mr Spence actually bothered to listen to Jeremy Corbyn’s speech, as this point was, in fact, clarified in response to a question from the audience.
Also, the link given above by Mr Spence makes it clear that it was only questions pertaining to Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership that were not welcome at the event, and rightly so.
Yes, words matter. Mr Spence, ‘Progress’ et al?…. not so much.