[Offwidth]

Instead of asking whether he has gone too far for your taste, might it be better to ask what on earth Corbyn's leadership has done to the Labour Party?  How has the biggest force against racism in this country has been reduced to this?

Should Mirvis or Corbyn be in the frame here?

Both. I 've been banging on about Corbyn's failure to deal with antisemitism all year, but now Mirvin distorts in a way that effectively means we likely get an even more racist and probably more anti-semitic party in power, the tories, and along the way damage the prospects of some of the most shining examples of those MPs fighting UK antisemitism (as other jewish groups who criticised Corbyn took care to avoid).... nearly all the hateful personal Jewish slurs I've heard in my life came from the right... the far left were mainly guilty of unfairly blaming jews for things that were the responsibility of a very nasty right wing government in Isreal.

Back on the editing point am I the only one to realise how lame the response from the BBC is. This is their main news edit of  one of their top election events: so saying the change in the news clip was an editing fault is even worse than being too polite or deferential .... as only a moron of an editor under a moronic management would not recognise the audience response was more important in a political sense and had more honesty that the PM's answer. That is why it needs proper investigation... if its a cock up why did it happen and what needs to change.

[seankenny]

JR - while you're writing on the subject, whenever it happens - could you give a few examples of actual effective anti-semitism from Corbyn / Labour?? I did google for it a while ago and didn't get much (as a devout agnostic and previously apolitical person) that I fully understood. Given it, along with Corbyn's general "lack of impressiveness" , seems to be the big issue for Labour (compared to the Conservatives where it would seem to be quicker to list the current leadership's very few redeeming qualities), I'd like to be able to put it into context.

I'm thinking stuff like:

Internal policy that would have a detrimental effect on Jews?
Foreign policy that would have an effect on Jews?
Encouragement or incitement of hostility or discrimination towards the Jewish community?
Stances or behaviour that are deliberately offensive towards Jews (this is one I am vaguely aware of when JC was expressing support of a wall mural that was considered anti-Jewish)?

(Yes I am pretty ignorant about this, I'd only really come across the concept of anti-semitism in the context of Israel-Palestine conflict which seems very far away, and with marginal and dismissable imbeciles like holocaust-deniers)

Maybe watch the Panorama programme?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m0006p8c

Nick Cohen has written a lot about this, here is his latest missive:
https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2019/11/corbyn-doesnt-care-about-reassuring-british-jews/?fbclid=IwAR2Vc6dy7T03PD6Yr57aft2RjQ8SvJ0lsQNgyHS1iM36Wb47TWZU0bypoH4


You may also have missed this:
Corbyn has also:

• Taken tea on the parliamentary terrace with Raed Salah, who he described as “a very honoured citizen” despite that fact that Salah was charged with inciting anti-Jewish racism and violence in January 2008 in Jerusalem and sentenced to eight months in prison. He was found by a British court judge to have used the “blood libel”, the medieval antisemitic canard that Jews use gentile blood for ritual purposes;

(From: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/aug/13/jeremy-corbyn-labour-leadership-foreign-policy-antisemitism)

How would you feel about a Tory who had a friendly chat with a KKK member who'd said all blacks were child killers?

[Offwidth]

With all due respect sean we can compare this with the UK state vists of mass murderers from Mugabe to Pinochet. Edward Norton made the point on the J Ross show last night that when he made American X the far right were a tiny minority in the US. The joke that followed was a sequel could be made with the US President.

I'm not forgiving Corbyn but all the increasing links to extremism need calling out. A million muslims being brainwashed in re-education camps. The main theological inspiration and back channel finance for islamic terrorism coming out of a state that is one of our so called greatest allies etc. etc.

[seankenny]

Can we compare them? No, I don't think we can. In government, one has to deal with some very unsavoury people. That's part of the job. I personally don't think Mugabe or Pinochet should have received state visits but both occured under the Conservatives if it makes you feel any better (tho obviously I'm accusing you of a subtle form of whataboutery). But still, we have to work with countries we find odious. I've worked for organisations operating under unpleasant regimes - holding one's nose is unpleasant but part of life, and when to stay silent and when to protest is always a judgement call. I totally agree that the west has collectively ignored Saudi Arabia's crimes for far too long, but otoh how would you fancy a bout of early 70s style inflation as the price of calling them out? (Insert whatever revenge of choice Saudi would take if you think I'm over-exagerating for effect here.)

But Jeremy Corbyn wasn't in power. He was a backbench MP free to invite who he wanted into the Commons. He really was not a peacemaker of any sort - that's just a fanboy fantasy. The reality is Corbyn just liked hanging out with violent extremists opposed to the British state and its allies. He chose to laud out and out racists. I mean, consider that time he had taken up paid employment for Iranian TV and got a caller who made anti-semitic remarks. Did Corbyn pull the guy up on those remarks? Why no! He just carried on as if nothing had happened.

Still, he got his mullah money, and could pretend he was initiating a dialogue on human rights or some such contrivance.

[Offwidth]

So, your KKK 'whataboutery' is OK but I'm being naughty?

I simply don't believe in some horrific Saudi revenge, we (the UK, EU and US) chose to ignore them knowing we could apply real pressure for real improvements (not just women being allowed to drive) but we chose not to for political and economic reasons, including the nice earner of arms sales in the billions.

Talking of unsavoury characters,  being on the early UCU NEC I got to watch plenty of strange folk from the SWP, Respect and various other far left factions in action, and their supportive MPs to their right... especially McDonnell. My impression is these activists really believe their shit (they reminded me of evangelistic christians) and from the occasional  antisemitism to terrorist support (mainly Hamas) they think they are doing good. For most it seemed to me to be less an evil plot and more delusion or stupidity (too much 'Peoples Popular Front of Judea' going on for them all to be coordinated). In contrast inviting Mugabe or Pinochet, where back channel diplomacy was possible, and the visits were probably against civil service private advice, isn't delsion or stupidity, it's misuse of power by a PM. Back to Corbyn he simply wouldn't get away with such abuse, even with a Labour majority (as the PLP is way more sensible than him); all his past bad decisions are irrelevant but those of Boris won't be if we give him a majority.

[rich d]

[/quote]

My impression was the new Rushcliffe tory candidate was an IT consultant with party loyalty and the more 'getting brexit done' candidate was rejected. I'd be interested to hear what the election fliers say as too much aggresion on brexit might be a problem for them (the local conservative party are dominated by the usual clowns stuck in the deep past). Ken was well liked by his constituents (despite his big faults ... like sitting on a tobacco company board). Without Ken, Oliver and Dominic we would probably already have been fucked by the Boris deal.
[/quote] yep Ruth Edwards, IT - presume she's just suppporting the party line on her myplan bit get brexit done is her first thing listed. https://www.ruthedwards.org.uk/myplan plus she's not from the area but lives in Norfolk, which could be an issue as Ken was often seen in and around the area and probably felt like a local in terms of political beliefs and attitudes. The labour candidate has said she's against Brexit - which could split the remain majority vote here and still mean the conservatives get in. 

[IanP]

Back on the editing point am I the only one to realise how lame the response from the BBC is. This is their main news edit of  one of their top election events: so saying the change in the news clip was an editing fault is even worse than being too polite or deferential .... as only a moron of an editor under a moronic management would not recognise the audience response was more important in a political sense and had more honesty that the PM's answer. That is why it needs proper investigation... if its a cock up why did it happen and what needs to change.

Arguably some of the coverage of this also misrepresented what had happened giving the impression that the BBC had specifically edited out laughter e.g. "BBC admits 'mistake' in editing out laughter at Johnson in TV debate" from the Guardian.  In fact they had removed the first few seconds of the clip which included the laughter and Johnson faltering over the first couple of words of his answer which he then repeated in the part of the clip played.  A subtle difference maybe but not the same as some heavily doctored 'false news' clip which could have been the impression taken.

More significantly if you want a conspiracy theory this has been much more effective as a potential anti-Tory attempt to get Johnson being laughed at to continue in the news cycle.  Given the full clip was played on the main news the night before what possible significant impact could having a slightly different clip being played on the (I assume) significantly less watched lunchtime news the next day.  Certainly the eventual impact of the different clip was that the original ended up being played many more times across mainstream and social media.

[seankenny]

So, your KKK 'whataboutery' is OK but I'm being naughty?

It's not whataboutery, as I'm not sure such a thing has happened. Instead it's an invitation to imagine how one would feel if a political opponent did the same thing, and whether that would be enough for you to consider them a racist or racist sympathiser. I'd feel a Tory doing this would have stepped well over the line, so I have to believe Corbyn did the same.

Simple question: do you think it's different?

I simply don't believe in some horrific Saudi revenge, we (the UK, EU and US) chose to ignore them knowing we could apply real pressure for real improvements (not just women being allowed to drive) but we chose not to for political and economic reasons, including the nice earner of arms sales in the billions.

I broadly agree, tho of course with the proviso that my living isn't dependent upon those arms sales. Saudi should be a pariah state.

Talking of unsavoury characters,  being on the early UCU NEC I got to watch plenty of strange folk from the SWP, Respect and various other far left factions in action, and their supportive MPs to their right... especially McDonnell. My impression is these activists really believe their shit (they reminded me of evangelistic christians) and from the occasional  antisemitism to terrorist support (mainly Hamas) they think they are doing good. For most it seemed to me to be less an evil plot and more delusion or stupidity (too much 'Peoples Popular Front of Judea' going on for them all to be coordinated). In contrast inviting Mugabe or Pinochet, where back channel diplomacy was possible, and the visits were probably against civil service private advice, isn't delsion or stupidity, it's misuse of power by a PM. Back to Corbyn he simply wouldn't get away with such abuse, even with a Labour majority (as the PLP is way more sensible than him); all his past bad decisions are irrelevant but those of Boris won't be if we give him a majority.

I agree - and said I agreed! - that neither Pinochet nor Mugabe should have enjoyed state visits. I suspect you're pursuing this point to avoid the awkward fact that Corbyn chose to be pals with an out-and-out bigot, casually ignores blatant racism when it occurs in front of him, and refuses to accept absolutely ANY responsibility for his own shit. He is either really bigoted or really thick.

Your faith in Labour democracy is touching, but doesn't pass the smell test. My own MP is decent but won't dare say anything about anti-semitism because she fears deselection from the mob. We can all remember the crucial Brexit vote at conference, which used a voting method barely suitable for a meeting in a room above a pub and saw a blatant abuse of power by the general secretary. The far left are a ruthless bunch and moderate Labour MPs have shown themselves to be spineless.

Boris is truly, truly awful, but Labour haven't done much better. So much of this needs to be laid right at the feet of Labour activists, whose self-indulgent decision to stick with Corbyn through thick and thin is a massive part of the problem. A more self-righteous bunch of fools is hard to find, and they have had a disproportionately negative effect on the country.

They'll spend the next few years blaming the rest of us, of course.

[Offwidth]

Well Sean... my MP Chris Leslie, a good chap, ended up leaving Labour partly because of the mob. I've watched the mob and opposed them politically in my trade union (including standing agaisnt them at NEC)  for decades. I know Corbyn did those things, but I don't know his motives... as an outlier MP he had the luxury of 'playing student politics' for decades  before his leadership candidacy and election. His election shows up Labour democracy (his problematic history was well known but ignored by the votors... stupid since as party leader he needed to convince swing votors). Candidate re-selection events also show up Labour democracy (usually well less than 1000 members voting and some ballots triggered by less than 100 votes) yet by far the majprity of the PLP are good and sensible, in great contrast to most tory MPs. That congress problem you describe was shameful.

Not all tories are bad ...up thread I've already pointed out we are only 'where we are' due to the bravery of some tory MPs and ex tory big names (add Major, Hestletine, Clarke, Gauke, Stewart and Hammond to those I already mentioned).

On the smell test ..if I'm starving and something smells but the alternative stinks, I'll eat what smells. Now voter registration has closed, my efforts will be to argue passionately for the best local candidate to beat Boris (a few might still be those rare brave moderate tories in safe seats..... who might stand up to Boris if say he gets a majority by just a few votes ).

[TobyD]

Boris is truly, truly awful, but Labour haven't done much better. So much of this needs to be laid right at the feet of Labour activists, whose self-indulgent decision to stick with Corbyn through thick and thin is a massive part of the problem.

They'll spend the next few years blaming the rest of us, of course.

I'm concerned about this. It would be really nice to have some more hope of a less problematic left to oppose the rise of regressive nationalism. But I fear that it will continue to look inward, try to blame the media and doubters for its own failing.

[Offwidth]

Hi Ian ....I think its most probably a telling cock up, not a conspiracy. It might show BBC news editorial standards in this case are well below where they should be. The laughter and jeering was arguably the biggest news about Boris in the QT show, not something that gets lost by accident in careful news editing but something that could be removed by accident by a technician  if the news editors are asleep. It could also be deliberate. It needs BBC investigation, not an anodyne excuse.

[Offwidth]

 https://www.ruthedwards.org.uk/myplan plus she's not from the area but lives in Norfolk, which could be an issue as Ken was often seen in and around the area and probably felt like a local in terms of political beliefs and attitudes. The labour candidate has said she's against Brexit - which could split the remain majority vote here and still mean the conservatives get in.

Thanks, I'd missed that .. sad ...but unsurprising,  given what the selection commitee said and what Boris expects... she didn't look like a rabid brexiter from her past profile, as at least one of the others did. Good news for those campigning against her in terms of cutting the majority (she will win).

[spidermonkey09]

If anyone would like to defend the BBC over the unfolding clusterfuck over Johnson not turning up for his Andrew Neil interview, I'm all ears...

I love the BBC for all sorts of reasons, but too often their fuck ups favours the Tories. It's beyond a joke.

Edit: passive aggressive tone not intended! More just incredulous that this has been allowed to even be an issue. They all should have been locked in. Maybe he'll back down but I think it's unlikely.

[Oldmanmatt]

If anyone would like to defend the BBC over the unfolding clusterfuck over Johnson not turning up for his Andrew Neil interview, I'm all ears...

I love the BBC for all sorts of reasons, but too often their fuck ups favours the Tories. It's beyond a joke.

Edit: passive aggressive tone not intended! More just incredulous that this has been allowed to even be an issue. They all should have been locked in. Maybe he'll back down but I think it's unlikely.

Really?

I saw it as Bojo doing a runner/dodging the interview.

[spidermonkey09]

That's definitely the case, but we now have a situation where all the other leaders have been pulled apart by Neil with the resulting negative headlines (deservedly) and the PM is being allowed to dodge it. They all should have been contracted to do them at the same time. An alternative would be an hour of Neil asking questions of an empty chair, which I'd accept as a reasonable solution, but again would be surprised if it happens...

[Oldmanmatt]

Well, yes, it would be nice if they were compelled to a public cross examination of their policies and personalities.

Not sure how you would do that and it seems a little Orwellian for a public broadcaster to be endowed with quasi judicial powers...

Seriously, I know what you mean. Unfortunately, we must hope that the public sees it as an act of cowardice on the part of Bojo.

[cowboyhat]

Seriously though, it is good to hear from someone on the front line.

Just to play Devil’s advocate again, and genuinely interested to hear your thoughts on it, would the 2016 footage from the cenotaph have been close enough at hand to just slip in by accident?

Not by accident no, but again we're speculating abut the possible motives etc.

Close at hand; certainly.

Reporter writing script, we all discuss shots, decide to get one of Boris at cenotaph. Producer restores from archive server, its on avid for me two mins later. In searching, the producer might search by date, Boris, Cenotaph, etc. Same at bbc. On our system, the list, top clip might be one thats been used the most before, occurred in more previous VTs for whatever reason, not necessarily most recent. So time constraints would come into it.

How many people are in the room? Is there a lawyer? Has someone prior knowledge of that specific occasion and goes 'no don't use that one'..etc. Or 'do use that its funnier'.

Are they saying, don't use that because we're under great scrutiny about bias atm and it makes Boris look like the tit he is.

Back to time constraints. there is another shot but its shorter and from a shit angle or has a camera wobble in it. Or a rerack. Anyway it doesn't fit the script.

And then, you get to the grown ups. There can be a surprising lack of people asking these questions, the actual editor of the news programme who's name is on the titles. They would be thinking 'don't use that because we're under great scrutiny about bias atm and it makes Boris look like the tit he is'

But have they seen it? I doubt it. And they get themselves into these muddles. So they should obviously be throwing bodies at it, which they have!

I still think the idea of, in this instance, some conspiracy is silly. As someone pointed out, in the end the unedited clip has been seen way more. What have they got Gary Kasparov back there planning out how twitter will interpret their response to the criticism they will receive in five days time?

I can't speak for the beeb at all but I've worked on news for several different broadcasters and the grown-ups and bodies thing unfortunately, but obviously, comes down to budget. On screen errors, ofcom whoopsies; how much do they pay? Is the only person who's seen this ulay before it airs an FOB Australian aged 25 who doesn't know who any of these people are? All these people going, ooh its shocking that the bbc have done this etc have a very inflated view of what is actually involved in making television. Especially at the weekend.

[cowboyhat]

Interestingly my parents constituency Rother Valley, where I voted in '97, has become a swing seat. A collection of former mining villages, in South Yorkshire, is about to become a Conservative seat!

Here in the west side of hackney however, Diane doesn't look worried.

[Will Hunt]

Mr Cowboyhat, I don't know who you are but please could you stop interfering with our conspiracy theories, please? We need reality to fit our worldview, not the other way round. You're a step away from me calling you a Red Tory/class traitor/Tory plant etc etc etc blah blah blah.

[petejh]

My hunch: part of the cause of the paranoia some Labour supporters feel is that when events appear to favour those in a position of relative power a natural psychological reaction is to feel a touch of the conspiracy-theoryitis, as if the powerful are preying on the powerless; the feeling's more profound than when events appear to favour those in positions of relative weakness. Anyone know if this has any evidence to back it up? 

[Oldmanmatt]

My hunch: part of the cause of the paranoia some Labour supporters feel is that when events appear to favour those in a position of relative power a natural psychological reaction is to feel a touch of the conspiracy-theoryitis, as if the powerful are preying on the powerless; the feeling's more profound than when events appear to favour those in positions of relative weakness. Anyone know if this has any evidence to back it up?

Well, probably, but given the cast of clowns in the current revival of Monty Python’s Flying Circus, that is British politics; I think you can cut them some slack. It’s all pretty unbelievable and anything seems possible. Upto and including Bojo being caught in a Scooby doo moment by Gina Millar, who pulls off his mask to find Putin underneath.
The Cenotaph thing is hardly surprising in it’s controversy, regardless of whether it was deliberate or not. Frankly it’s no different to the traditional “slag the Labour leader off for being too scruffy/wearing the wrong jacket/being there” that the Fail indulge in every year.
(Rumour is Bojo had overdone pre-service drinkies, scuttlebutt from the formers brigade, probably bollocks).
An upside down wreath is hardly disrespectful anyway.
Also, “most viewed” coming top in a search; seems a rather probable explanation for a good many fuckups in all walks of life (especially antivax “research”).

[Oldmanmatt]

Just to get todays surreal debate underway, a reminder:

The Truth

[TobyD]

My hunch: part of the cause of the paranoia some Labour supporters feel is that when events appear to favour those in a position of relative power a natural psychological reaction is to feel a touch of the conspiracy-theoryitis, as if the powerful are preying on the powerless; the feeling's more profound than when events appear to favour those in positions of relative weakness. Anyone know if this has any evidence to back it up?

I don't know about power differences playing this role,  so much as politicians of questionable character, and their supporters mistrusting and being reluctant to engage with the media in a non confrontational manner. 
Mischaracterisation of criticism and questioning of motives as conspiracy or lies is a criticism that I'd level at Johnson,  Corbyn and Trump. Lightweight populists with a poor ability to make a sound and coherent argument obviously don't like having their flimsy platforms questioned.

[Oldmanmatt]

Probably not hugely interesting to most of you, but here’s a summary of the errors in defence claims in party manifestos.
All but SNP are fairly honest and their errors are minor. SNP’s claim seems like a politically motivated lie. The LD proposal is stupid, from a strategic perspective.

comparison

[petejh]

Plaid Cymru's manifesto? Incorrectly stated the number of petrol bombs it would produce..