Watching Ed Miliband on the Marr show this morning brought to mind a show that was supposed to be satire but turns out to be ‘not’. In ‘The Thick of It’ media strategies are hastily cobbled together to divert the public’s attention from The Party’s crazy mixed-up, contradictory policies, gaffes and incompetences.
This morning we got a peep into the way it works in all its Thick of It glory. Ed was tasked with reconciling bendy-knee Starmer’s contradictory messages in an attempt to restore the Party’s credibility.
Neatly rationalising (leftsplaining away) the inconsistency in sacking someone for “telling the truth” (as the left still insist is what has happened) and not wishing (AsaJew) to be seen to be giving Israel a free pass, he finessed with a convincing justification for sacking R L-B with a deft: “Why single out Israel and not the UK when the UK also trains US police?” (nice one)
Then, bravely attempting to keep the antisemites onside, he came out with an impassioned: ”I’m one of the biggest critics of the Israeli government.”
However, this embarrassingly transparent example of toeing the ‘the party line’ was poorly thought through. Making unrealistic demands on the public - a big ask - that it must apply nuance and thoughtfulness to the sacking of R L-B on the one hand while jumping on the laziest most un-subtle bandwagon of an excuse for slamming Israel with a nuance-free, trigger-happy sledgehammer, on the other hand, was desperate ‘In the Thick of It” style, almost satirical, inconsistency gawn mad.
Of course, Andrew Marr nodded along sympathetically throughout.
P.S. Guido has it, so I felt obliged to upload it.
In 2016 we wrote about Maxine Peake, when she played the feisty heroine in “Three Girls”
“I can’t imagine hard leftie, pro-Palestinian Maxine Peake playing anything other than a passionate Social Justice Warrior. It will probably be all about the struggle against those heartless authorities who wouldn’t listen. Not about the grooming gangs with a warped attitude to females.”
Peake has also played a feisty character in “Shameless” and a feisty barrister in Silks and she is a real-life feisty agitator in that hypocritical, “literally a communist” (and probably well-remunerated thank you very much) feisty, actressy, opinionated way that is prevalent amongst actors whose careers the BBC disproportionately promotes. Unlike, say, Laurence wrongthink Fox, whose career has plummeted. (apparently)
Several references to Peake in the Spectator have greeted the connected news of Rebecca “Wrong-Daily’s” sacking (for retweeting Peake’s innuendo-laden remark that blames the IDF for putting that nasty ‘restraint technique’ into the innocent little heads of the US police) by declaring that they’ve never heard of Maxine Peake or that she’s a rotten actress.
I beg to disagree with such a mean spirited sidetrack. I’d say she’s as good an actress as any of the other hard-left, opinionated Corbynista actresses that abound in “BBC drama” circles, and perhaps better than some. However, her political opinions certainly don’t do much for her image, and by association, certainly don’t do much towards redressing the BBC’s reputation as a lefty echo-chamber.
In which not only does Maxine Peake blame the death of the George Floyd on Israel, but the Independent sees fit to tell readers that this might indeed be the case. https://t.co/0tsDmqpGY8
I jumped to the conclusion that Starmer had been looking for an opportunity to sack Long-Bailey, and I think he has taken advantage of that ill-judged tweet rather prematurely. It might come back to bite him on the bum, because, unfortunately, the argument that there was nothing actually “untruthful” in Peake’s accusation in the Independent article will gain traction, simply because the elasticity within left-wing antisemitism stretches in a wider and more complex and convoluted manner than (the typically superficial) public opinion can cope with.
It doesn’t matter if the allegation that the IDF ‘trained’ George Floyd’s killer has been debunked. It doesn’t matter if the only link between the IDF and US cops was that “100 officers attended a conference hosted by the Israeli consulate eight years ago” or that it was for “a seminar about counter-terrorism”. No-one who’s got the bit between their teeth cares one jot about such a trivial discrepancy. The current antisemitism within the BLM movement and within the left-wing establishment is so ingrained I’m increasingly pessimistic about the future.
I’ll just assume Starmer doesn’t think much of Long-Bailey, (and I don’t blame him) but if he claims sacking her was done to demonstrate his virtuous determination to rid the Labour Party of antisemitism, I simply don’t believe him.
“…… the bigger the big lie is, the more believable it becomes. So of course rioters in Los Angeles smash Jewish stores and spray ‘Free Palestine’ on a synagogue in the name of George Floyd. Of course Twitter seethes with ignorant and malicious claims that Israel trains American police in how to kill black people. The radical left have been teaching hatred of Jews and Israel for decades, and the mainstream left has pandered to those groups and their obsessions.”
I was hoping that Oliver Dowden’s suggestion that “The BBC must reflect nation’” was going to be one of the topics on Politics Live’s agenda. When I saw Melanie Phillips on the panel I thought she might be up for it. Apparently, it was on the list; but they ran out of time.
They had a satisfactorily robust, if brief, airing of “Labour’s antisemitism problem” with special reference to Rebecca Long-Bailey’s awkward non-response to Andrew Neil’s persistent questioning on his show yesterday evening.
“With retrospect I should have called that out directly”. She could have said that about anytime in the last three years. https://t.co/DWKpy8eeiH
— SussexFriendsofIsrael (@SussexFriends) March 4, 2020
I think R L-B’s goose is cooked.
Gratifyingly, Neil focused on the incident that passed her (and Sophy Ridge) by during Sky’s leadership hustings.
Warning. This may seem slightly off-topic but it's not entirely unrelated to BBC bias and I'm going to say it. Each time we see the last-trio-standing in the Labour leadership cabaret another massive haemorrhage of credibility squirts out; the last vestiges finally oozed out during C 4’s ‘hustings’.
“It was devastating in the election campaign to knock on doors and find that many within the Jewish community just didn’t trust us any more.” - @RLong_Bailey
We have some irreconcilable, antithetical positions. Number one, the so-called support for the “Right of Israel to Exist” as proclaimed earnestly by Lisa Nandy and through gritted teeth by Rebecca Long-Bailey (and not at all by Keir Starmer (?)) against the diametrically opposed and equally enthusiastic support for the Palestinian cause with its inherent desire for the non-existence of Israel.
Number two, the right of people with a penis to self-identify (as women) against the right of biological women to exclude them from the few remaining women-only spaces.
Cases of rape or sexual assault may be rare in such circumstances, but even on the grounds of modesty alone (which apparently is a big thing in a community that traditionally encourages segregation of the sexes and regards venturing out without your burka as ‘asking for it’) if you sign a pledge to the effect that everyone else is expected to welcome the presence of women-with-penises in the few remaining intimate female situations, you must at least have the intelligence to acknowledge that these positions are irreconcilable and contradictory.
Incidentally, has no-one in the Labour Party noticed that ‘no place in our party for antisemitism’ discriminates against, nay, disqualifies a substantial section of their culturally antisemitic fan-base from having a place in their precious party, while their new-fangled advocacy of aggressive trans-rights discriminates against and alienates feminists. Or just women.
This craze for legitimising self-identification changes everything. When applied to competitive sport we already have a huge, masculine trans-man-to-woman competing against biological women in ‘women’s’ cycling events, so let’s allow able-bodied sportspersons to identify as disabled and make the Paralympics implode.
Lisa Nandy has all but spontaneously combusted by snatching potential defeat from the jaws of unexpectedly coming-from-behind. And she looked so promising before we saw that she has signed these ill-conceived, bordering on antisemitic, pledges.
“To oppose any proposed solution for Palestinians, including Trump’s ‘deal’, not based on international law and UN resolutions recognising their collective rights to self-determination and to return to their homes.
"To adhere to a consistent ethical UK trade policy, including in relation to Israel, in particular by applying international law on settlements in the occupied Palestinian territories and stopping any arms trade with Israel that is used in violation of the human rights of Palestinians.
"To oppose the government’s proposed restrictive legislation regarding procurement and investment and, if that is passed, to promise that a future Labour government would make it a priority to rescind laws which restrict the globally recognised rights to freedom of expression and association to campaign for ethical trade policies.”
What’s the problem?
"Prospective leaders of any major party shouldn’t be having their stance on Israel and the Palestinians dictated by the PSC, an organisation that has never committed to a two state solution, never accepted Israel’s right to exist, leads the BDS (Boycott Divestment and Sanctions) campaign in the UK, and has failed to deal with antisemitism in its own ranks. The pledges say nothing at all about Israel or two states.
In fact, the first one undermines the concept of two states with a reference to a complete right of return. We know from its campaigning that PSC don’t mean a symbolic settlement of this issue with small numbers of Palestinians returning to Israel, and compensation for others, it argues for the absolute right to live in Israel of all descendants of Palestinian refugees, about seven million people. This would mean Israel ceasing to exist as a Jewish state. There would be two Palestinian states, not two states for two peoples.
One plausible suggestion for an outside-the-box, vote-winning, strategy for Labour is to ditch the pretence. (I'm not sure that Dawn Butler isn't ahead of the curve already.) At least they wouldn’t have to make contorted arguments that do not compute, and at least they could run on a unique platform of extreme, radical honesty.
I don't want to be rude, but Becky is useless at interviews. She's like an ineptly-programmed robot. Even Andrew Marr managed to tie her in knots and run rings round her, especially over the trans issue and antisemitism.
On the latter, just like her ideological progenitor Papa Corbyn, she somehow 'couldn't recall' that she'd been at a widely-reported meeting where JC (to a storm of controversy afterwards) said something she herself has stated is antisemitic:
AM: Alright, let’s talk about another big issue. You have stood up to antisemitism in the party, you said, yes?
RLB: Yes.
AM: Do you recognise this sentence? ‘It should not be regarded as antisemitic to describe Israel, its policies or the circumstances surrounding its foundation as racist.’
RLB: I think under the International Holocaust Movement’s definition it would be antisemitic to regard Israel as a racist endeavour.
AM: So you regard that sentence as antisemitic? You’ve said that?
RLB: I don’t think it’s racist to stand up for the right – or antisemitic, should I say, or racist, either/or to stand up for the right of Israel to exist. And that’s something that I very much support. But I also support a two-state solution and don’t condone the actions of the Israeli government in terms of illegal settlements etc, etc. And that’s why it’s so important...
AM: That sentence – you in the past have said was antisemitic. There was a National Executive Committee meeting in October 2018 where Jeremy Corbyn arrived and read out that statement as a proposed addition to the Labour Party policy. You must have been horrified when that happened.
RLB: I think under the IHRA definitions it’s very important to make it clear that supporting the right of Israel to exist and not kind of examining in any great detail the history is not – it’s incompatible with the definition of antisemitism, quite frankly. And we need to be very careful on that. But that doesn’t discriminate against...
AM: Sorry to interrupt, but when you heard that statement made by Jeremy Corbyn, which you have described as antisemitic, did you speak out against it at the time?
RLB: I don’t remember the incident itself. It was mentioned to me at a meeting the other night and I don’t recall it.
AM: You were at that meeting.
RLB: Well, I don’t recall that statement being made. But I’m very clear on us not questioning the right of Israel to exist, and certainly not saying that in any way it’s a racist endeavour. I’m clear on that, Andrew.
AM: This happens at the moment when the antisemitism row is at its height in the Labour Party. You’re at an NEC meeting, your leader arrives and reads out a statement which you regard as antisemitic, and you can’t remember that?
RLB: And why I’m being clear on what my view on this is, Andrew, I do not think that it’s right to call Israel or the creation of Israel a racist endeavour. I think that that’s antisemitic. And we’ve got to recognise where we are on antisemitism within the party. We have not taken enough action. It’s not been robust enough. And as Labour leader I would adopt any recommendations made by the EHRC, I would atop the ten pledges made by the Board of Deputies, and I would restore trust with the Jewish community.
AM: Rebecca Long-Bailey, thanks very much indeed for talking to us today.
Andrew seemed much more taken with Angela Rayner. He's previously called her "charismatic" and was 'bigging' her up again today. She'd have his vote any day, I suspect.
Grant Shapps was perky, and skated through his interview.
The programme ended with Benjamin Grosvenor playing the piano - a brilliant bonbon by Moritz Moszkowski, performed beautifully.
Here is a somewhat younger Benjamin performing something more substantial:
I’ll be talking to Andrew Marr in the morning about my proposals for a People’s BBC owned by staff & the public.
In response to Tory attacks, the BBC must be freed from government control & guaranteed as a cornerstone of public knowledge in our democracy.
Really? Is that what she's going on the BBC to talk about?
I do hope it is, because it will be fascinating to see how Andrew Marr questions her about what, precisely, she means by all of that:
How exactly, under Becky L-B's rule, will BBC staff "own" the BBC?
And what if most of them are soggy-left/Blairites - like Andrew Marr, minus the Iraq War, which he opposed - rather than far-left types like her?
And how exactly will the public "own" the BBC when she becomes PM?
Direct democracy? The public choosing the next BBC DG?
What if it's another Leaver win? Or a Corbyn-loathing, red-wall-breaking vote against the likes of her?
Or will unrepresentative, thuggish Momentum 'Owen Jones' types simply be gerrymandered into place as representatives/tribunes of the people, and Paul Mason made BBC director-general?
And how exactly will far-left Becky, as an anti-privatisation leftist, "free" the BBC from government control? And what on earth (and beyond) does she actually mean by that from her seemingly ill-thought-out, ideology-driven position?
And how will she guarantee the BBC as "a cornerstone of public knowledge in our democracy" if many, probably the majority of voters, don't agree with her view of "public knowledge"?
I do hope that Andy Marr won't duck this and that Rebecca Long-Bailey gets to debate the whole BBC thing with him this morning without him changing the subject at the first mention of BBC matters.
