Labour party

As so often these days, if you want real political insight, go to Mumsnet. In a web chat there today, John McDonnell has offered extensive proof that – whatever you think of his politics and policies – he is an extremely professional and skilful political communicator. Mumsnet, as Gordon Brown, Nick Clegg and countless others will remember, is about the toughest gig out there: you’re faced with a bombardment of questions ranging from traditional political analysis to deeply personal issues and of course humour, much of it biscuit-related. Striking the right tone is very, very hard. These days, Mumsnet is even harder for politicians because an awful lot of users

When Peter Willsman was re-elected onto the Labour NEC this month, there was a sense of shock in the party. It wasn’t that it was surprising a Corbyn ally had beaten a moderate in a party vote – that’s now the status quo. Instead, it was curious that Willsman was elected despite being recorded saying that Jewish ‘Trump fanatics’ are ‘making up’ anti-Semitism allegations within the party. The incident led Momentum to revoke their endorsement of his candidacy. So, with Willsman back on the NEC, questions had remained as to how the party would handle his re-election, with many MPs calling on him to stand down and spare the party (any

It’s been over a year since the last general election, but it looks like there are still some Labour MPs who are confused about their presence on the opposition benches. One such appears to be the shadow minister for women and equalities and Corbyn devotee, Dawn Butler. In an interview on TalkRadio this afternoon, it was put to the MP,  that Labour’s manifesto can’t have been that brilliant if they went on to lose the general election. Butler responded: ‘Well actually, we didn’t lose. We didn’t win, but we didn’t lose the election’ Dawn Butler: "We didn’t lose the election. We didn’t win." Watch ▼@Matthew_Wright | @DawnButlerBrent | @TVKev https://t.co/sv3MZUm41c

Former Chief Rabbi Jonathan Sacks has been roughed up enough lately and I am loath to add to the calumnies but something he keeps saying bothers me. ‘The hate that begins with Jews never ends with Jews.’ Sacks has dropped this aphorism into speeches and articles for the past few years and no wonder: it’s a pithier version of the Niemöller verse, a shorthand for the metastatic nature of prejudice. First of all, I’m not convinced it’s true. They always come for the Jews but they don’t always come for the Communists or the Catholics or the trade unionists, not least because the Communists and the Catholics and the trade

You have to hand it to Labour – they certainly know how to make an entrance. In the week that parliament returns, it was announced on Monday that the full slate of Corbynista candidates had been elected to Labour’s National Executive Committee (NEC). This included Pete “Trump fanatics” Willsman, who was given a hero’s welcome by activists as he arrived at Labour HQ the following day. This was caught on camera with one activist bellowing through a microphone: “Jews are not oppressed…Jews are not discriminated against. They don’t suffer economic discrimination.” Apart from sending chills down the spines of British Jewry, the main outcome of this NEC election is likely

Jeremy Corbyn is a man of peace with an unfortunate tendency to find himself in the wrong place at the wrong time with the wrong wreath – when it comes to anti-Semitism. Just last week it emerged that the Labour leader once claimed that Israel’s Prime Minister and other leading politicians compete to see ‘who can kill the most’ people in Palestine. Only Corbyn seems to be more relaxed about leaders who talk up killing Israelis and Americans. In the spring of 2004, the Labour leader – then a lowly backbencher – visited Palestine. It was a rather curious time for a visit given that after a series of assassinations

It is quite clear what today’s NEC results mean for the Corbynites in the Labour Party: they’ve consolidated their control over the party structures. All the candidates who won were backed by Momentum, apart from Peter Willsman, who had seen the Corbynite grassroots organisation drop its support after a recording emerged of him making anti-Semitic comments. Willsman pushed moderate candidate Eddie Izzard out and will remain on the party’s ruling body. Izzard and ‘independent left-winger Ann Black’ came 10th and 13th respectively. Less clear is the implication for that rather nebulous group of anti-Corbynites generally known as ‘the moderates’. One of the reasons that the implications are less clear is

Why does Jeremy Corbyn show such disdain for the mainstream Jewish community? Why does he prefer to associate with terrorist “friends” in Hamas and Hezbollah? And why does the Corbyn clique now in charge of Labour insist on diluting the internationally accepted definition of anti-Semitism? The fact is that – despite its own boasts about “anti-racism” – the far-left has had a longstanding problem with Jews, and not just with “Zionists.” This problem pre-dates 1844, when Karl Marx published On The Jewish Question; but Marx’s essay is a good place to start. In On the Jewish Question, Marx tied up Jews with capitalism: “What is the worldly religion of the

Labour is belatedly about to adopt the IHRA anti-Semitism definition with all its examples, according to three members of its ruling NEC. They tell me this should happen at the next full NEC meeting on 4 September. This would seem to represent a big climbdown by Labour’s leader, Jeremy Corbyn, in the face of great pressure from many in the Jewish community. In particular, he and his closest advisers, led by Seumas Milne, have been fervently resisting the IHRA examples which define as anti-Semitic any statement that the Israeli state is racist or that question the right of Jewish people to national self determination. “It looks like we will adopt

After a weekend of politicians feuding over the merits of a second referendum, Barry Gardiner, Andy Burnham and Conor Burns have become the latest politicians to criticise the People’s Vote campaign to do just this. Meanwhile the BBC reports of a leaked memo which shows that the group has its eye on changing Labour policy – encouraging MPs and activists to submit a motion at Labour conference next month. As I reveal in this week’s Spectator, the People’s Vote campaign – which argues the public should have a say on the final deal – has a three-point Parliamentary strategy when it comes to bringing about a second referendum. Although the

It should be said that Jeremy Corbyn’s ideas for shaking up the media aren’t all bad. The Labour leader is right for instance to focus on the need to help out local media; the death of regional newspapers in recent years means that local government is almost entirely unaccountable nowadays. It’s only when things go badly wrong that people actually sit up and pay attention. Corbyn is also right on the need to reform freedom of information laws, which have now been rendered virtually redundant by those in authority who know exactly how to prevaricate and obstruct requests at every turn. But too many of the Labour leader’s other ideas

Political parties rarely have good summers. If you’re in government, something normally goes wrong just as you’re settling into a deckchair. If you’re in Opposition, a good summer is when something has gone wrong in the government. A disappointing summer is when no-one notices your carefully-planned announcements. A bad summer is when you get plenty of attention, but for all the wrong reasons. Labour has had a bad summer. It has spent much of it making rather wan attempts to calm the row on anti-semitism. A handy diversion turned up this week in the form of Dawn Butler taking exception to Jamie Oliver’s jerk rice, which has led to a

Have you ever looked at a job advert with a temptingly high salary, and thought to yourself… you’d have to be mad to apply to that. Mr Steerpike suspects many Labour staffers had a similar reaction this week to a job posted on the Labour website. Labour HQ are on the lookout for a new ‘Head of Disputes,’ and they’re willing to pay over £50,000 to the person mad enough to take it. The new job holder will be responsible for internal disputes, disciplinary affairs and, rather ominously, ‘undertaking investigations as necessary’ within the party. While the job description seems innocuous at first glance, and even vaguely powerful, the toxic