Wednesday 11 September 2019

Can anyone now take the Labour Party seriously?

Just catching up…….. things have already moved on….. but:

There are several versions of this speech on YouTube, but this one includes the opening passage,  where Ian Austin is interrupted - “barracked” - by gurning Labour MPs shouting insults like “You’re not welcome here” from a sedentary position. The Speaker, at his most pompous, tolerates this disruptive behaviour as it rises almost to the point of obliterating the speech. 

I wonder how Louise Ellman feels, sitting in the row just in front. Barry Gardiner smirks and ostentatiously stifles a yawn as he sits beside Jeremy Corbyn.

There are other notable YouTube clips from this fiery session, particularly a speech by Ivan Lewis who is wearing a kippah.

The BBC has taken a mild interest in Ian Austin’s battle against antisemitism in the Labour Party, but the flurry on 22nd February seems to be it.  

Labour MPs are about to cause chaos  The Labour Party. Can anyone take it seriously? 


  1. Yes, Paul Mason and that other twerp who is always yapping in The Guardian and the BBC. Oh yeah I've remembered: he's called Owen Jones.

  2. Labour will sadly continue to be treated seriously. This is in large part due to the role played by the BBC and other MSM agencies.

    We are familiar with the concept of the "national interest". For the BBC that is of no account. Instead it looks to the "progressive interest" - which of course encompasses its own views. For the BBC, a rise in say 10% of GDP in one year in the UK would be no cause for celebration if the government in place was deemed by them not to be pursuing progressive causes such as: equality of outcome, increased public expenditure, arts subsidies, group identity politics, pro-Remain/pro-EU, pro-working class bias in education, criminalisation of Islamophobia, increased mass immigration, transgenderism, extreme feminism, gay rights and so on. A huge rise in the nation's prosperity would not be lauded by the BBC in such circumstances.

    I think once you understand that, you understand the BBC's attitude to the Labour Party.

    The BBC sees the Labour Party as the main vehicle to deliver "Progressivism" in all its forms. The Lib Dems, Left Wing Conservatives and SNP may help out but the Labour Party is key.

    This means for the BBC that Labour need to be (a) kept on the progressivist path and (b) kept electiable.

    In turn this means that the BBC subtly and not so subtly backs all the MPs and others in the Labour Party who are pushing strong progressivist policies. It also means that they have concerns about electability. The BBC were clearly hostile to Corbyn to begin with because he appeared to them to be jeopardising the party's electability. That was when they were prepared to publicise anti-semitism within Labour and the backing it was getting from the Far Left. They hoped they could dislodge Corbyn from the leadership and put in place someone more congenial to their views like Starmer or Cooper.

    Things have changed, however, since Corbyn's better than expected performance in the 2017 election and since he has surrendered pretty much to Remainer demands.

    So now the BBC are essentially cleansing Corbyn's record and suppressing consideration of anti-semitism in the Labour Party.

    Whilst Tommy Robinson is forever "ex leader of Far Right EDL", Jeremy Corbyn is never "ex friend of assorted terrorists including IRA, Hamas and Hizbollah, paid presenter for the Ayatollahs' TV station, friendly tourist in East Germany, perceived agent of influence for the Czech communists, proponent of law breaking to remove governments or someone who believes Jews don't understand British irony."

    Incidentally, for what it's worth, I strongly oppose the EHRC investigation into the Labour Party. Such investigations will be used in future against populist parties, just as the Electoral Commission has been used to go after populists and Leavers.

    1. Without integrity and rigour the EHRC investigation could indeed have the ‘chilling effect’ you describe.

      The EHRC website is full of waffle. I’d be surprised if anything comes of the investigation
      This substantive list of Jeremy Corbyn’s activities and affiliations might not fit the definition “unlawful acts”

    2. This EHRC investigation will inevitably be "balanced" by an investigation into Islamophobia in another party before too long, don't worry.

  3. After listening to Emily Thornberry’s performace on Politics Live a couple of days ago it is indeed difficult imagine anyone taking Labour seriously. Or, for that matter the whole of Labour’s contradictory position over Brexit. But unfortunately adherence to the far left is closer to religious faith than coherent political thought - completely outside any normal considerations of logic. Hugo Chávez can bankrupt his country and still be held up as a hero. This is what makes Corbyn so dangerous. His followers do take him seriously.

    Not completely unrelated to this was the unanimous applause by Labour after Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi’s speech in the HOC, which the BBC portrayed as some kind of unprecedented event. In the BBC’s eyes an indictment of Conservative Islamophobia. It was nothing of the sort. It may well have been a spontaneous reaction, but one that had more to do with Labour’s anti-Semitism than claims about Islamophobia. Anger from the anti-Semites who know that they have been caught out and perhaps shame from the few who have a conscience.


Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.