Jeremy Corbyn needs to start showing some leadership to revive his flagging party Jeremy Corbyn is under pressure to steer his party out of the doldrums and show he can lead them to victory
John Major threatens LEGAL ACTION against Boris Johnson over No Deal Brexit In an astonishing step, the ex-Prime Minister said he'll seek "immediate" judicial review if Boris Johnson prorogues Parliament to force through No Deal
Nothing amazing here. Just party politics and the like.
The Labour Party was forced, by enormous media pressure, to adopt the full IHRA definition of antisemitism, and not to "dilute" it in any way.
Number of countries that have adopted it? 8. Including the UK, Germany, Austria and Israel.. Not the US, China, Russia, France etc.
There are many criticisms levelled at the current definition, due to it being both vague and inflammatory. To give just 1 example, one critic is the person whose idea it originally was (Kenneth S Stern), who has pointed out that the definition discriminates against Palestinians. This is because "anti-semitic" includes anything which in any way affects Israel's self-detyermination, which necessarily includes all pro-Palestinian activities.
Many Jewish groups oppose the definition-when Corbyn met one of those groups, he was derided as being "anti-semitic". Really? Likewise, if someone dares to suggest that anti-semitism is overblown, there is no debate-it is just root out the anti-semite. Ignoring the fact that all Palestinians and Arabs are Semites, too. Livingstone daring to quote history and facts re Hitler wanting a separate Jewish state-expel him. Don't debate whether this was accurate, don't debate whether it was wise-just histrionics. "just change the rules"? Impossible on this one. Even the Government were forced to back down on this by the Press.
The Conservative Party does not have the democratic rules that the Labour Party has. It cannot change the rules centrally in the way you suggest. Leaders of the Labour Party are not "pathetic"-they have constraints caused by that little thing called democracy. You know, where millions of people vote on things. not like the Conservative Party.
Alastair Campbell was not thrown out for voting LibDem. He was thrown out for making it extremely public, and giving press interviews about it. It's no different to if you had gone on TV declaring that a rival firm provided much better homes than the 1 you currently worked for. You are allowed to think it, just not make a song and dance about it. Unless you are prepared to accept the consequences.
The Labour Party was forced into accepting the definition in full rather than diluting it as they seemed to prefer.
It is easy to get lost in the details of definitions and sub-clauses and wonder what the problem is. Actually it is simple: the Labour Party, with astonishing arrogance given the events of the past three years, thinks it knows how to define anti-Semitism better than the Jewish Labour Movement, its Jewish MPs, or the Jewish community’s main leadership bodies, all of whom want the party to use the full, original IHRA definition of anti-Semitism.
High-profile suspensions over alleged anti-Semitic comments include MP Naz Shah, the ex-London Mayor Ken Livingstone and MP Chris Williamson, an ally and friend of Mr Corbyn. Ms Shah apologised for a string of comments on Twitter, including one suggesting Israel should be moved to the United States, although she was subsequently re-instated. Mr Livingstone quit the party after a long-running row over claims Adolf Hitler had once supported Zionism while Mr Williamson was stripped of his membership for saying the problem of anti-Semitism had been over-stated and Labour had been "too apologetic" over". Labour has never confirmed the number of anti-Semitism cases it is investigating and the scale of the issue among its supporters has become a source of political dispute itself. In April 2019, the Sunday Times reported that Labour had received 863 complaints against party members, including councillors. The newspaper claimed leaked e-mails it had seen showed more than half of the cases remained unresolved while there had been no investigation in 28% of them. It said fewer than 30 people had been expelled while members investigated for posting online comments such as "Heil Hitler" and "Jews are the problem" had not been suspended. Labour disputed the reports while Jewish Voice for Labour, a newly constituted group supportive of Mr Corbyn, maintained the number of cases being investigated represented a tiny fraction of Labour's 500,000 plus membership.
What has Labour done in response? Not nearly enough, say its critics. In 2016, Mr Corbyn asked the barrister and human rights campaigner Shami Chakrabarti - who was appointed a Labour peer soon after her report was published - to look into the extent of anti-Semitism and other forms of racism within the party. The report concluded that while Labour was not "overrun by anti-Semitism or other forms of racism", there was an "occasionally toxic atmosphere". It called for a series of recommendations to tackle what it said was the "clear evidence of ignorant attitudes" within sections of the party.
The Home Affairs Committee's 2016 report said the leadership's lack of action "risks lending force to allegations that elements of the Labour movement are institutionally anti-Semitic".
It is only the second time the EHRC has investigated a political party - in 2010, it ordered the BNP to re-write its constitution to comply with race relation laws. Row over international definition In July 2018, Labour adopted a new anti-Semitism code which critics, including Jewish leaders and some Labour MPs, said fell unacceptably short of the IHRA definition. Labour's version did not include a number of its examples of anti-Semitism, including: accusing Jewish people of being more loyal to Israel than their home country requiring higher standards of behaviour from Israel than other nations Following a consultation - and widespread criticism - Labour subsequently adopted the full IHRA definition and examples, along with an accompanying statement that "this will not in any way undermine freedom of expression on Israel or the rights of Palestinians". Critics have said the addition of a "caveat" undermines the IHRA definition - but Labour says it is intended to reassure members they can be critical of Israel without being anti-Semitic. Mr Corbyn proposed a longer additional statement - which would have allowed criticism of the foundation of the state of Israel as a racist endeavour - but this was not accepted by the party's ruling executive.
In March 2018, Mr Corbyn was criticised for sending an apparently supportive message to the creator of an allegedly anti-Semitic mural in 2012.
In March 2018, scores of Labour MPs joined Jewish groups, including the Jewish Leadership Council and the Board of Deputies of British Jews, and other anti-racism campaigners to demand action in an unprecedented "Enough is Enough" rally outside Parliament.
In May 2019, a member of Labour's ruling National Executive Committee - Peter Willsman - was suspended after LBC radio reported he had been recorded as saying that the Israeli embassy was "almost certainly" behind the anti-Semitism row.
And Labour's successful candidate in the Peterborough by-election, Lisa Forbes, was engulfed in a row after it emerged she had liked a social media post suggesting Theresa May had a "Zionist slave masters agenda".
1. Do you think any one race is more important than any other?
2. On the assumption that your answer to 1 above is "no", can you please explain why any one race should have a definition in relation to racism that is different to any other race?
I think anti-semitism should be judged by the same yardstick as every other race, and i will always question anyone who thinks otherwise.
Amazingly, the antisemitism problem continues. I believe that this is a really simple problem to solve, something that you previously disputed. I am not aware of the current rules, so it might require a rule change or two. This would seem simple for a political party, as the Tories consistently do this. They couldn't get rid of Theresa May, so they change the rules, and immediately oust her. They were concerned over attracting too many leadership candidates, so they change the rules, and reduce the number of candidates. Labour have an agreed definition of what constitutes antisemitism. The beauty of our communication these days is that it provides concrete evidence of our actions. As a solicitor I am certain you could easily determine whether or not some communication met their definition of antisemitism or not. If they immediately threw any guilty parties out of the party, the likelihood is that it would tail off, and stop. Their failure to deal with the problem has allowed it to continue.
My view is that this is just more proof of how pathetic a leader Corbyn is.
They were able to immediately remove Alistair Campbell, in respect of him voting for another party in the EU elections. A matter that most people would consider far less serious.
Their current rules allowed them to do this, if they don't allow the same consequences for those that are clearly guilty of antisemitism, then they just need to change the rules.
Strangely, the other prominent members that admitted to voting for other parties, in support of Alistair Campbell, are still members.
Nothing amazing here. Just party politics and the like.
The Labour Party was forced, by enormous media pressure, to adopt the full IHRA definition of antisemitism, and not to "dilute" it in any way.
The fact that they were forced shows a lack of determination to sort the problem out. Why would any organisation have to be forced to root out antisemitism.
Number of countries that have adopted it? 8. Including the UK, Germany, Austria and Israel.. Not the US, China, Russia, France etc.
Irrelevant. They needed to adopt a definition as a first step towards sorting out this problem.
There are many criticisms levelled at the current definition, due to it being both vague and inflammatory. To give just 1 example, one critic is the person whose idea it originally was (Kenneth S Stern), who has pointed out that the definition discriminates against Palestinians. This is because "anti-semitic" includes anything which in any way affects Israel's self-detyermination, which necessarily includes all pro-Palestinian activities.
They should only adopt a definition that they are able to enforce. If this is not possible with the current definition then they should amend it. Once adopted it has to be enforced.
To say they have adopted a definition that they cant really enforce, and are therefore doing very little to solve the problem, is complete lunacy.
They feature in the press almost on a daily basis regarding this problem, which has become more prevalent since Corbyn became leader.
Many Jewish groups oppose the definition-when Corbyn met one of those groups, he was derided as being "anti-semitic". Really? Likewise, if someone dares to suggest that anti-semitism is overblown, there is no debate-it is just root out the anti-semite. Ignoring the fact that all Palestinians and Arabs are Semites, too. Livingstone daring to quote history and facts re Hitler wanting a separate Jewish state-expel him. Don't debate whether this was accurate, don't debate whether it was wise-just histrionics. "just change the rules"? Impossible on this one. Even the Government were forced to back down on this by the Press.
The Labour Party have been unwilling to provide much information regarding the details of the complaints, nor the numbers, or the action taken.
Ken Livingstone is a superb example of their effectiveness, and they didn't expel him.
He was suspended in 2016 over his comments. If you think his comments were fair, then you could argue whether or not his suspension was justified.
I am not arguing about his comments, I am arguing that the leadership is pathetic in the way they deal with the problems they face.
So going back to Ken, he was suspended for 12 months in 2016, the suspension was extended for a further 12 months in 2017, an indefinite extension was imposed in 2018, prior to him getting fed up and resigning.
So the Labour Party didn't actually accomplish anything, whatever they thought of his comments.
Alistair Campbell admitted to voting for the LibDems on the telly,one day and was expelled the next.
The Conservative Party does not have the democratic rules that the Labour Party has. It cannot change the rules centrally in the way you suggest. Leaders of the Labour Party are not "pathetic"-they have constraints caused by that little thing called democracy. You know, where millions of people vote on things. not like the Conservative Party.
The point is that the Labour Party is so democratic, that they vote on just about everything and the leadership then ignores the result.
Alastair Campbell was not thrown out for voting LibDem. He was thrown out for making it extremely public, and giving press interviews about it. It's no different to if you had gone on TV declaring that a rival firm provided much better homes than the 1 you currently worked for. You are allowed to think it, just not make a song and dance about it. Unless you are prepared to accept the consequences.
The ins and outs don't matter, the facts are, there was no investigation, he wasn't suspended, he was immediately expelled. There was no action taken against those that were guilty of exactly the same thing, that had admitted this in the national press, and on the tv. The party seems to have a completely different attitude to anti-Semitic complaints.
1. Do you think any one race is more important than any other?
No 2. On the assumption that your answer to 1 above is "no", can you please explain why any one race should have a definition in relation to racism that is different to any other race?
I am not sure if it is a race or religion.
I think anti-semitism should be judged by the same yardstick as every other race, and i will always question anyone who thinks otherwise.
I think that similar definitions may be brought in for other religions in the future. When you think that Boris Johnson was heavily criticised for his comments regarding Burka wearing women.
What does that come under?
Would it be racist, Islamophobic, or just mysogynist?
You cant get away from the fact that the Labour Party has an antisemitism problem. Nor can you argue that they are having any success in resolving it.
The leadership have agreed to adopt a definition, and now have to execute it.
If they weren't happy with the definition, they shouldn't have adopted it.
Comment: Wetherspoon boss Tim Martin may be ready for no deal Brexit, but his drinkers aren't
A toast to Tim Martin and JD Wetherspoon. Anyone who knocks out a well-kept ale, a Coke and two hot meals in Fulham for under 25 quid and still makes a margin clearly knows his business. As a competently run organisation, ’Spoons has apparently prepared well for a hard Brexit . In today’s trading update, Martin boasts to the Brexit-sceptic City of how it has struck deals to swap French fizz and German lagers with alternatives from the US, Australia and the UK. But, even glossing over the fact that this prospect is in no way positive for his customers (they lose their favourite European tipples, and he could have offered Aussie lagers anyway), Brexiteer Martin’s latest gung-ho soapboxing about a no-deal departure neglects the most important point. He might have been able to prepare his relatively straightforward supply chains, but what of the thousands of more complicated, or less well-organised businesses that haven’t? The Institute of Directors says fewer than half of its members are ready for No Deal. What if they cannot simply and cheaply reorganise themselves if we crash out of our relationship with our biggest trading partner? What if foreign investment goes elsewhere, as it has been since the referendum, or the pound continues falling, further driving up the cost of UK firms’ raw material imports? These are the very businesses that employ Tim Martin’s millions of happy customers and are likely to lay them off or cut their hours if Brexit goes badly. You and Wetherspoons may be well prepared for Brexit, Tim.
But there’s no point having a well-stocked bar if your punters are too broke to drink from it.
Concise answer to first question, total fudge on 2nd.
Being Jewish is BOTH a race AND a religion. Adherents deserve protection. Just like every other race and religion. No more. no less. Or do you think that it is right and fair that displaced Palestinians should not be able to voice various things in support of their cause?
Is the Labour Party doing enough to combat anti-semitism? No. Just like both the Conservative Party and the mainstream media in relation to Islamophobia. Which is routinely ignored by the Press. Imagine if Baroness Warsi was Jewish and in the Labour Party-think she would get more coverage?
Read anything in relation to whether UKIP should already have ceased having as an Adviser a man awaiting sentence for a serious offence? No? Why?
The Labour Party is trying to find a middle ground on Brexit. In fact, it is a middle ground that both I. and indeed YOU, have advocated.
Concise answer to first question, total fudge on 2nd.
Being Jewish is BOTH a race AND a religion. Adherents deserve protection. Just like every other race and religion. No more. no less. Or do you think that it is right and fair that displaced Palestinians should not be able to voice various things in support of their cause?
In one of my previous posts one of the articles stated the following,
Following a consultation - and widespread criticism - Labour subsequently adopted the full IHRA definition and examples, along with an accompanying statement that "this will not in any way undermine freedom of expression on Israel or the rights of Palestinians".
Perhaps there are more aspects to antisemitism, than other racism.
I don't believe it is relevant. It is obvious that Labour has a serious problem with it, and are clearly unable to resolve this problem.
Is the Labour Party doing enough to combat anti-semitism? No. Just like both the Conservative Party and the mainstream media in relation to Islamophobia. Which is routinely ignored by the Press. Imagine if Baroness Warsi was Jewish and in the Labour Party-think she would get more coverage?
Two wrongs don't make a right. The Labour Party just don't have a clue. You brought up Ken Livingstone. If you forget whether or not you agree with his comments. They suspended him for a year. without resolving anything. Then another year, again without resolving anything. Then a further indefinite extension without a decision on his future. Only for him to resign a couple of months later, with no resolution. How long does it take for them to make a decision, for Gods sake.
The fact that the Tories may have some similar problems does not help them at all.
Read anything in relation to whether UKIP should already have ceased having as an Adviser a man awaiting sentence for a serious offence? No? Why?
UKIP are dead are not considered newsworthy by that many people.
The Labour Party is trying to find a middle ground on Brexit. In fact, it is a middle ground that both I. and indeed YOU, have advocated.
The Labour Party lack leadership. They seem to want to sit on many fences. I think that constructive ambiguity is equivalent to hiding under the sofa. Just look whats going on. The Tories have just slung out the PM, they have screwed up Brexit, not even talked about many serious problems, have been in complete disarray for the last 3 years. Ideal conditions for the opposition. Yet according to the polls, Theresa May is still more popular than Corbyn. Labour have polled at their lowest level ever, when you would expect them to be 30% in front.
Political parties are meant to come up with policies, campaign for them and sell them to the electorate, with a view to getting elected.
Labour don't stand for anything, they just say things, change their minds, and sit on fences.
There is very little passion in the Labour Party. I blame Corbyn. He rarely appears in public, and has to be forced to take a position on anything.
Peak Corbyn has long gone.
Their position on Brexit is still an absolute joke, and have completely ignored the memberships vote at last years conference.
1. Do you think any one race is more important than any other?
2. On the assumption that your answer to 1 above is "no", can you please explain why any one race should have a definition in relation to racism that is different to any other race?
I think anti-semitism should be judged by the same yardstick as every other race, and i will always question anyone who thinks otherwise.
Top Labour figures 'interfered' in anti-Semitism disputes
Senior Labour figures have interfered in the disciplinary process of dealing with accusations of anti-Semitism, ex-party officials have told the BBC's Panorama. Seumas Milne, one of Jeremy Corbyn's closest aides, told officials the party was "muddling up political disputes with racism" and must review processes. And General Secretary Jennie Formby attempted to interfere in who sat on a panel examining a high-profile case. Labour said there was no interference. Instead, it said the former staff making the claims were "disaffected". 'Instruction' Labour's disputes team is supposed to operate independently from the party's political structures, including the leader's office. But Sam Matthews, the party's former head of disputes, said he interpreted an email sent by Mr Milne - the Labour leader's communications chief - in March 2018, calling for a review into how complaints were handled, as "an instruction". Mr Matthews is one of eight former Labour officials - seven of whom worked in the party's Complaints and Disputes Department - who have spoken to Panorama about their experiences of dealing with anti-Semitism cases.
They claim: The leader's office was "angry and obstructive" when it came to the issue Officials brought in by Ms Formby "overruled" disciplinary decisions and "downgraded" punishments to a "slap on the wrist" Mr Milne laughed when advised by a long-serving party official about what Mr Corbyn should do to tackle anti-Semitism in the party On one occasion, Jeremy Corbyn's office ordered batches of anti-Semitism complaints to be brought to his Commons office for processing by his aides Four chose to talk publicly despite having signed non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) with Labour not to discuss any aspects of their work for the party. Louise Withers Green, a former disputes officer, left the Labour Party after being signed off with depression and anxiety. She had signed an NDA so she did not have to work her notice period, but despite that spoke to the programme, saying she wouldn't "be able to live with myself unless I speak up about the horrendous things that I know have been happening". The party has been engulfed by a long-running dispute over anti-Semitism within its ranks, which has led nine MPs and three peers to leave the party. The leadership has been accused of failing to get to grips with the problem, with allegations of hundreds of complaints against members remaining unresolved. BBC Panorama spoke to more than 20 former officials as part of its investigation - Is Labour Anti-Semitic? - which will be broadcast at 21.00 BST on Wednesday. They allege that they had to deal with a huge increase in anti-Semitism complaints since Mr Corbyn became leader in 2015. Panorama discovered there was backlog of a thousand anti-Semitism allegations this spring, with only 15 people having been expelled. Asked about that relatively small number, Andrew Gwynne, shadow communities secretary, said there were "lots of cases that are ongoing as well" and some people, when faced with an investigation, had chosen to leave of their own accord. "We are serious about getting shot of this problem," he insisted.
The testimony Panorama reveals tonight - and the leaked emails they have obtained - will paint a picture that contrasts with the leadership's claims that they are doing as much as they can. And they will cause deep alarm in many parts of the Labour movement. For their part, Mr Corbyn's allies totally reject the testimony that's been put forward - instead claiming those who have come forward are "disaffected". But this is a real challenge to Mr Corbyn's handing of anti-Semitism.
'Bad publicity' Mike Creighton, Labour's former head of the disputes team, told BBC Panorama he was approached by Mr Milne for advice in spring 2016. He said he had suggested the party dealt with some of the top level anti-Semitic cases "much more swiftly and much more robustly", and that Mr Corbyn make a speech on the Middle East, "particularly saying that Israel had a right to exist". But Mr Creighton claimed Mr Milne's response was to laugh at him. "I thought he actually wanted to know how we tackle anti-Semitism within the Labour Party," he added. "I think what he actually meant to say was, how do we deal with the bad publicity we're getting?" When Panorama put this allegation to the Labour Party, they said: "The Labour Party dispute this conversation ever took place… this allegation is false and malicious. "Jeremy Corbyn has repeatedly expressed his support for Israel's right to exist and for a two state solution... so there is no reason whatsoever to laugh at any such suggestion."
Officials said they received an email from Mr Milne in March 2018, in which he said "something's going wrong and we're muddling up political disputes with racism". "I think going forward we need to review where and how we're drawing the line." Mr Matthews, who left his role after two years in 2018, said he interpreted the email as "the leader's office requesting to be involved directly in the disciplinary process". He added: "This is not a helpful suggestion. It is an instruction." Officials also told the programme Mr Corbyn's office had on one occasion ordered batches of anti-Semitism complaints to be brought to them to assess. But Labour said this was a "staff resourcing matter", and it was not unusual for people to be seconded into the party's governance and legal unit - so separation was maintained. The party said in a statement: "The Leader's Office did not intervene. These former disaffected employees sought the view of staff in the Leader's Office, which was compiled with in good faith. "These disaffected former officials include those who have always opposed Jeremy Corbyn's leadership, worked to actively undermine it, and have both personal and political axes to grind."
When it came to Ms Formby, a leaked email chain appears to show an attempt to influence the selection of the disciplinary panel for the case of Jackie Walker - the former vice chair of the Left-wing Labour campaign group Momentum, who was expelled in March over allegations of anti-Semitism. An email written by Ms Formby on 5 May 2018, said: "The National Constitutional Committee cannot be allowed to continue in the way that they are at the moment and I will also be challenging the panel for the Jackie Walker case." Later in the chain, Ms Formby wrote that she had "deleted all trace of the email", adding: "Too many eyes still on my Labour [email] address." The email chain was copied to Mr Milne, Karie Murphy - Mr Corbyn's chief of staff - and Mr Corbyn's personal email address. 'Held accountable' Ms Formby's predecessor as general secretary, Lord McNicol, said the emails should set "alarm bells ringing across the party". "The NCC was created in a specific way to remove itself from politics and from political interference. So to try to interfere politically within the NCC is just wrong." The Labour Party told Panorama that Ms Formby temporarily stopped using her party email because of concerns a political opponent had access to it. They said that "the emails… are simply about ensuring the NCC is held accountable for the length of time they take to hear cases, and about protecting the party against any successful legal challenge on the basis of perceived bias if the same panel is used in high profile cases". A spokesman added: "Labour is taking decisive action against anti-Semitism, doubling the number of staff dedicated to dealing with complaints and cases. And since Jennie Formby became general secretary, the rate at which anti-Semitism cases have been dealt with has increased four-fold." 'Vile views' Kat Buckingham, who was the former chief investigator on the disputes team, told Panorama she had a breakdown and decided to leave the party as a result. "I was stuck between…an angry and obstructive Leader's Office and an arcane disciplinary system," she said. "I couldn't hold the tide and I felt so powerless and I felt guilty and I felt like I failed." Former Labour cabinet minister Lord Falconer told BBC Radio 4's PM the allegations were "hair-raising" and showed the party was "still in denial" over the issue. Ex-foreign secretary Jack Straw said the fact people with "vile views" had been allowed to remain in the party showed the extent of Mr Corbyn's "complacency". He said he deplored what he called "the clique" around Mr Corbyn attempting to "rubbish" those who had given years of loyal service to the party.
Seumas Milne is Jeremy Corbyn's communications chief and at the heart of his inner circle. He is in charge of how the party gets its message across, and its relationship with the media. But his history lies in newspapers, having worked on the Guardian for over 30 years before taking up the role in Mr Corbyn's office. He is considered to be on the far Left of the party and worked for a magazine produced by the Communist Party of Great Britain (although he was never a member). He also wrote a book called The Enemy Within: The Secret War Against the Miners about the strikes in the mid-1980s. Jennie Formby is the general secretary of Labour - the most senior employee in the party. She is responsible for around 200 staff and has a number of tasks to perform, including running the party's internal committees, organising the party conference and preparing campaigns. Her role is separate from the Leader's Office and focuses on the membership. Before taking the post in 2018, Ms Formby worked as a trade unionist, working her way from branch secretary of the Transport and General Workers' Union to the regional secretary of Unite for south-east England. She joined Labour's National Executive Committee - the party's governing body - in 2011.
No-deal Brexit to put 40,000 jobs in Northern Ireland at risk with some to disappear 'overnight'
A no-deal Brexit would have “immediate and severe consequences” for Northern Ireland and put 40,000 jobs at risk in the country, according to a report from the Stormont government’s Department for the Economy. Many jobs could “disappear almost overnight, especially in industries such as agri-food and haulage”, the report warned.
Concise answer to first question, total fudge on 2nd.
Being Jewish is BOTH a race AND a religion. Adherents deserve protection. Just like every other race and religion. No more. no less. Or do you think that it is right and fair that displaced Palestinians should not be able to voice various things in support of their cause?
Is the Labour Party doing enough to combat anti-semitism? No. Just like both the Conservative Party and the mainstream media in relation to Islamophobia. Which is routinely ignored by the Press. Imagine if Baroness Warsi was Jewish and in the Labour Party-think she would get more coverage?
Read anything in relation to whether UKIP should already have ceased having as an Adviser a man awaiting sentence for a serious offence? No? Why?
The Labour Party is trying to find a middle ground on Brexit. In fact, it is a middle ground that both I. and indeed YOU, have advocated.
Labour denies claims senior figures interfered with anti-Semitism complaints
The Labour party have denied senior figures interfered with anti-Semitism complaints after fresh claims were made by BBC Panorama. The Labour figures have been accused of interfering with a disciplinary process investigating claims of anti-Semitism in the party. In a Panorama programme due to air on Wednesday night, communications chief and Jeremy Corbyn ally Seumas Milne and National Constitution Committee general secretary Jennie Formby are singled out for criticism. Labour has denied the claims and written a complaint to the BBC.
Sir Kim Darroch's resignation from his ambassadorial role in Washington dominates the front pages. The Daily Mirror blames Boris Johnson, calling him "the man with no shame". This view is shared by the Guardian, which says the episode demonstrates that Mr Johnson has no "concept of loyalty" and has diminished the office of prime minister before reaching it. The Daily Telegraph is concerned that a Johnson premiership could be undermined.
The paper says the former ambassador was ill-advised in making clear he thought Mr Johnson was responsible for his exit. The Times says what it calls Sir Kim's "clumsy ejection" suggests the "only way to gain the ear of the president is to flatter him." This, its leader concludes, is a "miscalculation". But an editorial in the Sun insists "our links with America are stronger than one ambassador". Labour anti-Semitism investigation The Daily Mail says the revelations in the BBC's Panorama programme about the Labour's handling of anti-Semitism should come as bombshells, but the prejudice is so ingrained the allegations just add to a "seemingly endless charge sheet". The Daily Express columnist Leo Mckinstry says the party's criticism of the programme reinforces the point that the leadership doesn't take the issue seriously. The Sun accuses Labour of hypocrisy by turning on the whistleblowers in the documentary, when in the past it has called for better protection of those who speak out against their employers.
The Times notes that while Labour accuses the programme's reporter, John Ware, of repeatedly attacking the Labour left, Jeremy Corbyn used a Commons motion in 2002 to praise his work. House of Lords bullying A senior barrister has found that undue deference, fear and hierarchy are to blame for bullying and harassment at the House of Lords, according to the Financial Times. Naomi Ellenbogen QC has found what she called "toxic behaviours" and "systematic cultural issues". The Sun says she's called for CCTV to be fitted in the hotspots, including the library. The Mail adds that dementia has contributed to some of the problems and suggests peers undergo medical examinations.
Boris Johnson fought to save partner's £80k job at Tory HQ when she 'faced sack' EXCLUSIVE: Carrie Symonds was asked to step down from her communications role in the Conservative Party - or warned she could be fired
Tory Matt Hancock refuses to answer Piers Morgan 15 TIMES in car crash interview Piers Morgan and Susanna Reid even asked Alexa on ITV's Good Morning Britain after the Boris Johnson backer refused to say if our US Ambassador should be sacked
Richard Branson: pound will plunge to same value as dollar on no-deal Brexit
Sir Richard Branson has warned the pound could plummet to the same value as the dollar if Britain leaves the EU without a deal. The Virgin boss said crashing out without agreement could leave Britain “near bankrupt,” causing big losses at his UK companies and forcing them to shift investment out of the UK. Advertisement Branson told the BBC: “The pound was at $1.53 when the referendum took place. The pound today it is at $1.22, $1.23, and the pound will collapse to parity with the dollar if there is a hard Brexit.
Johnson denies throwing Sir Kim Darroch 'under a bus'
Boris Johnson has hit back at criticism that he threw the former British ambassador to the US “under a bus”. He has insisted he is a great supporter of Sir Kim, who has dramatically quit, and has revealed that he rang him to commiserate. It has emerged that the ambassador decided to resign after Mr Johnson - odds-on favourite to become prime minister in two weeks' time - refused to pledge his support for him in Tuesday's head-to-head TV debate, while his rival Jeremy Hunt backed Sir Kim to carry on.
Sir Kim Darroch has resigned as the United Kingdom's ambassador to the United States
The strongest criticism of Mr Johnson came from his former deputy at the Foreign Office, Sir Alan Duncan.Boris Johnson has basically thrown our top diplomat under a bus," he said. "His disregard for Sir Kim Darroch and his refusal to back him was in my view pretty contemptible, but also not in the interests of the country."
1. Do you think any one race is more important than any other?
2. On the assumption that your answer to 1 above is "no", can you please explain why any one race should have a definition in relation to racism that is different to any other race?
I think anti-semitism should be judged by the same yardstick as every other race, and i will always question anyone who thinks otherwise.
Labour antisemitism row: 30 whistleblowers come forward
Labour's Jewish affiliate has said that 30 whistleblowers have come forward to detail their experiences of the party's handling of antisemitism allegations. The Jewish Labour Movement told Sky News that it has heard from current and former staff members and party officers on the issue, despite the party being "very keen on silencing those who wish to come forward". One whistleblower, former head of complaints Sam Matthews, told Sky News that leader Jeremy Corbyn has "refused" to "take responsibility for what's happened" to the party. He claimed that some people still in the party have not come forward to speak out because they are "fearful" of retribution.
Comments
Jeremy Corbyn is under pressure to steer his party out of the doldrums and show he can lead them to victory
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/jeremy-corbyn-needs-start-showing-17490231
In an astonishing step, the ex-Prime Minister said he'll seek "immediate" judicial review if Boris Johnson prorogues Parliament to force through No Deal
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/breaking-sir-john-major-threatens-17794135
Nothing amazing here. Just party politics and the like.
The Labour Party was forced, by enormous media pressure, to adopt the full IHRA definition of antisemitism, and not to "dilute" it in any way.
Number of countries that have adopted it? 8. Including the UK, Germany, Austria and Israel.. Not the US, China, Russia, France etc.
There are many criticisms levelled at the current definition, due to it being both vague and inflammatory. To give just 1 example, one critic is the person whose idea it originally was (Kenneth S Stern), who has pointed out that the definition discriminates against Palestinians. This is because "anti-semitic" includes anything which in any way affects Israel's self-detyermination, which necessarily includes all pro-Palestinian activities.
Many Jewish groups oppose the definition-when Corbyn met one of those groups, he was derided as being "anti-semitic". Really? Likewise, if someone dares to suggest that anti-semitism is overblown, there is no debate-it is just root out the anti-semite. Ignoring the fact that all Palestinians and Arabs are Semites, too. Livingstone daring to quote history and facts re Hitler wanting a separate Jewish state-expel him. Don't debate whether this was accurate, don't debate whether it was wise-just histrionics. "just change the rules"? Impossible on this one. Even the Government were forced to back down on this by the Press.
The Conservative Party does not have the democratic rules that the Labour Party has. It cannot change the rules centrally in the way you suggest. Leaders of the Labour Party are not "pathetic"-they have constraints caused by that little thing called democracy. You know, where millions of people vote on things. not like the Conservative Party.
Alastair Campbell was not thrown out for voting LibDem. He was thrown out for making it extremely public, and giving press interviews about it. It's no different to if you had gone on TV declaring that a rival firm provided much better homes than the 1 you currently worked for. You are allowed to think it, just not make a song and dance about it. Unless you are prepared to accept the consequences.
The Labour Party was forced into accepting the definition in full rather than diluting it as they seemed to prefer.
It is easy to get lost in the details of definitions and sub-clauses and wonder what the problem is. Actually it is simple: the Labour Party, with astonishing arrogance given the events of the past three years, thinks it knows how to define anti-Semitism better than the Jewish Labour Movement, its Jewish MPs, or the Jewish community’s main leadership bodies, all of whom want the party to use the full, original IHRA definition of anti-Semitism.
https://cst.org.uk/news/blog/2018/07/10/the-arrogance-of-labours-antisemitism-definition
A guide to Labour Party anti-Semitism claims
High-profile suspensions over alleged anti-Semitic comments include MP Naz Shah, the ex-London Mayor Ken Livingstone and MP Chris Williamson, an ally and friend of Mr Corbyn.
Ms Shah apologised for a string of comments on Twitter, including one suggesting Israel should be moved to the United States, although she was subsequently re-instated.
Mr Livingstone quit the party after a long-running row over claims Adolf Hitler had once supported Zionism while Mr Williamson was stripped of his membership for saying the problem of anti-Semitism had been over-stated and Labour had been "too apologetic" over".
Labour has never confirmed the number of anti-Semitism cases it is investigating and the scale of the issue among its supporters has become a source of political dispute itself.
In April 2019, the Sunday Times reported that Labour had received 863 complaints against party members, including councillors.
The newspaper claimed leaked e-mails it had seen showed more than half of the cases remained unresolved while there had been no investigation in 28% of them.
It said fewer than 30 people had been expelled while members investigated for posting online comments such as "Heil Hitler" and "Jews are the problem" had not been suspended.
Labour disputed the reports while Jewish Voice for Labour, a newly constituted group supportive of Mr Corbyn, maintained the number of cases being investigated represented a tiny fraction of Labour's 500,000 plus membership.
What has Labour done in response?
Not nearly enough, say its critics.
In 2016, Mr Corbyn asked the barrister and human rights campaigner Shami Chakrabarti - who was appointed a Labour peer soon after her report was published - to look into the extent of anti-Semitism and other forms of racism within the party.
The report concluded that while Labour was not "overrun by anti-Semitism or other forms of racism", there was an "occasionally toxic atmosphere".
It called for a series of recommendations to tackle what it said was the "clear evidence of ignorant attitudes" within sections of the party.
The Home Affairs Committee's 2016 report said the leadership's lack of action "risks lending force to allegations that elements of the Labour movement are institutionally anti-Semitic".
It is only the second time the EHRC has investigated a political party - in 2010, it ordered the BNP to re-write its constitution to comply with race relation laws.
Row over international definition
In July 2018, Labour adopted a new anti-Semitism code which critics, including Jewish leaders and some Labour MPs, said fell unacceptably short of the IHRA definition.
Labour's version did not include a number of its examples of anti-Semitism, including:
accusing Jewish people of being more loyal to Israel than their home country
requiring higher standards of behaviour from Israel than other nations
Following a consultation - and widespread criticism - Labour subsequently adopted the full IHRA definition and examples, along with an accompanying statement that "this will not in any way undermine freedom of expression on Israel or the rights of Palestinians".
Critics have said the addition of a "caveat" undermines the IHRA definition - but Labour says it is intended to reassure members they can be critical of Israel without being anti-Semitic.
Mr Corbyn proposed a longer additional statement - which would have allowed criticism of the foundation of the state of Israel as a racist endeavour - but this was not accepted by the party's ruling executive.
In March 2018, Mr Corbyn was criticised for sending an apparently supportive message to the creator of an allegedly anti-Semitic mural in 2012.
In March 2018, scores of Labour MPs joined Jewish groups, including the Jewish Leadership Council and the Board of Deputies of British Jews, and other anti-racism campaigners to demand action in an unprecedented "Enough is Enough" rally outside Parliament.
In May 2019, a member of Labour's ruling National Executive Committee - Peter Willsman - was suspended after LBC radio reported he had been recorded as saying that the Israeli embassy was "almost certainly" behind the anti-Semitism row.
And Labour's successful candidate in the Peterborough by-election, Lisa Forbes, was engulfed in a row after it emerged she had liked a social media post suggesting Theresa May had a "Zionist slave masters agenda".
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-45030552
1. Do you think any one race is more important than any other?
2. On the assumption that your answer to 1 above is "no", can you please explain why any one race should have a definition in relation to racism that is different to any other race?
I think anti-semitism should be judged by the same yardstick as every other race, and i will always question anyone who thinks otherwise.
The Labour Party was forced, by enormous media pressure, to adopt the full IHRA definition of antisemitism, and not to "dilute" it in any way.
The fact that they were forced shows a lack of determination to sort the problem out. Why would any organisation have to be forced to root out antisemitism.
Number of countries that have adopted it? 8. Including the UK, Germany, Austria and Israel.. Not the US, China, Russia, France etc.
Irrelevant. They needed to adopt a definition as a first step towards sorting out this problem.
There are many criticisms levelled at the current definition, due to it being both vague and inflammatory. To give just 1 example, one critic is the person whose idea it originally was (Kenneth S Stern), who has pointed out that the definition discriminates against Palestinians. This is because "anti-semitic" includes anything which in any way affects Israel's self-detyermination, which necessarily includes all pro-Palestinian activities.
They should only adopt a definition that they are able to enforce. If this is not possible with the current definition then they should amend it. Once adopted it has to be enforced.
To say they have adopted a definition that they cant really enforce, and are therefore doing very little to solve the problem, is complete lunacy.
They feature in the press almost on a daily basis regarding this problem, which has become more prevalent since Corbyn became leader.
Many Jewish groups oppose the definition-when Corbyn met one of those groups, he was derided as being "anti-semitic". Really? Likewise, if someone dares to suggest that anti-semitism is overblown, there is no debate-it is just root out the anti-semite. Ignoring the fact that all Palestinians and Arabs are Semites, too. Livingstone daring to quote history and facts re Hitler wanting a separate Jewish state-expel him. Don't debate whether this was accurate, don't debate whether it was wise-just histrionics. "just change the rules"? Impossible on this one. Even the Government were forced to back down on this by the Press.
The Labour Party have been unwilling to provide much information regarding the details of the complaints, nor the numbers, or the action taken.
Ken Livingstone is a superb example of their effectiveness, and they didn't expel him.
He was suspended in 2016 over his comments. If you think his comments were fair, then you could argue whether or not his suspension was justified.
I am not arguing about his comments, I am arguing that the leadership is pathetic in the way they deal with the problems they face.
So going back to Ken, he was suspended for 12 months in 2016, the suspension was extended for a further 12 months in 2017, an indefinite extension was imposed in 2018, prior to him getting fed up and resigning.
So the Labour Party didn't actually accomplish anything, whatever they thought of his comments.
Alistair Campbell admitted to voting for the LibDems on the telly,one day and was expelled the next.
The Conservative Party does not have the democratic rules that the Labour Party has. It cannot change the rules centrally in the way you suggest. Leaders of the Labour Party are not "pathetic"-they have constraints caused by that little thing called democracy. You know, where millions of people vote on things. not like the Conservative Party.
The point is that the Labour Party is so democratic, that they vote on just about everything and the leadership then ignores the result.
Alastair Campbell was not thrown out for voting LibDem. He was thrown out for making it extremely public, and giving press interviews about it. It's no different to if you had gone on TV declaring that a rival firm provided much better homes than the 1 you currently worked for. You are allowed to think it, just not make a song and dance about it. Unless you are prepared to accept the consequences.
The ins and outs don't matter, the facts are, there was no investigation, he wasn't suspended, he was immediately expelled. There was no action taken against those that were guilty of exactly the same thing, that had admitted this in the national press, and on the tv.
The party seems to have a completely different attitude to anti-Semitic complaints.
More bad news on Panorama tonight.
A toast to Tim Martin and JD Wetherspoon. Anyone who knocks out a well-kept ale, a Coke and two hot meals in Fulham for under 25 quid and still makes a margin clearly knows his business.
As a competently run organisation, ’Spoons has apparently prepared well for a hard Brexit . In today’s trading update, Martin boasts to the Brexit-sceptic City of how it has struck deals to swap French fizz and German lagers with alternatives from the US, Australia and the UK.
But, even glossing over the fact that this prospect is in no way positive for his customers (they lose their favourite European tipples, and he could have offered Aussie lagers anyway), Brexiteer Martin’s latest gung-ho soapboxing about a no-deal departure neglects the most important point.
He might have been able to prepare his relatively straightforward supply chains, but what of the thousands of more complicated, or less well-organised businesses that haven’t? The Institute of Directors says fewer than half of its members are ready for No Deal. What if they cannot simply and cheaply reorganise themselves if we crash out of our relationship with our biggest trading partner?
What if foreign investment goes elsewhere, as it has been since the referendum, or the pound continues falling, further driving up the cost of UK firms’ raw material imports?
These are the very businesses that employ Tim Martin’s millions of happy customers and are likely to lay them off or cut their hours if Brexit goes badly.
You and Wetherspoons may be well prepared for Brexit, Tim.
But there’s no point having a well-stocked bar if your punters are too broke to drink from it.
https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/wetherspoon-boss-tim-martin-may-101200678.html
Concise answer to first question, total fudge on 2nd.
Being Jewish is BOTH a race AND a religion. Adherents deserve protection. Just like every other race and religion. No more. no less. Or do you think that it is right and fair that displaced Palestinians should not be able to voice various things in support of their cause?
Is the Labour Party doing enough to combat anti-semitism? No. Just like both the Conservative Party and the mainstream media in relation to Islamophobia. Which is routinely ignored by the Press. Imagine if Baroness Warsi was Jewish and in the Labour Party-think she would get more coverage?
Read anything in relation to whether UKIP should already have ceased having as an Adviser a man awaiting sentence for a serious offence? No? Why?
The Labour Party is trying to find a middle ground on Brexit. In fact, it is a middle ground that both I. and indeed YOU, have advocated.
Just look whats going on.
The Tories have just slung out the PM, they have screwed up Brexit, not even talked about many serious problems, have been in complete disarray for the last 3 years. Ideal conditions for the opposition.
Yet according to the polls, Theresa May is still more popular than Corbyn. Labour have polled at their lowest level ever, when you would expect them to be 30% in front.
Political parties are meant to come up with policies, campaign for them and sell them to the electorate, with a view to getting elected.
Labour don't stand for anything, they just say things, change their minds, and sit on fences.
There is very little passion in the Labour Party. I blame Corbyn. He rarely appears in public, and has to be forced to take a position on anything.
Peak Corbyn has long gone.
Their position on Brexit is still an absolute joke, and have completely ignored the memberships vote at last years conference.
Senior Labour figures have interfered in the disciplinary process of dealing with accusations of anti-Semitism, ex-party officials have told the BBC's Panorama.
Seumas Milne, one of Jeremy Corbyn's closest aides, told officials the party was "muddling up political disputes with racism" and must review processes.
And General Secretary Jennie Formby attempted to interfere in who sat on a panel examining a high-profile case.
Labour said there was no interference.
Instead, it said the former staff making the claims were "disaffected".
'Instruction'
Labour's disputes team is supposed to operate independently from the party's political structures, including the leader's office.
But Sam Matthews, the party's former head of disputes, said he interpreted an email sent by Mr Milne - the Labour leader's communications chief - in March 2018, calling for a review into how complaints were handled, as "an instruction".
Mr Matthews is one of eight former Labour officials - seven of whom worked in the party's Complaints and Disputes Department - who have spoken to Panorama about their experiences of dealing with anti-Semitism cases.
They claim:
The leader's office was "angry and obstructive" when it came to the issue
Officials brought in by Ms Formby "overruled" disciplinary decisions and "downgraded" punishments to a "slap on the wrist"
Mr Milne laughed when advised by a long-serving party official about what Mr Corbyn should do to tackle anti-Semitism in the party
On one occasion, Jeremy Corbyn's office ordered batches of anti-Semitism complaints to be brought to his Commons office for processing by his aides
Four chose to talk publicly despite having signed non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) with Labour not to discuss any aspects of their work for the party.
Louise Withers Green, a former disputes officer, left the Labour Party after being signed off with depression and anxiety.
She had signed an NDA so she did not have to work her notice period, but despite that spoke to the programme, saying she wouldn't "be able to live with myself unless I speak up about the horrendous things that I know have been happening".
The party has been engulfed by a long-running dispute over anti-Semitism within its ranks, which has led nine MPs and three peers to leave the party.
The leadership has been accused of failing to get to grips with the problem, with allegations of hundreds of complaints against members remaining unresolved.
BBC Panorama spoke to more than 20 former officials as part of its investigation - Is Labour Anti-Semitic? - which will be broadcast at 21.00 BST on Wednesday.
They allege that they had to deal with a huge increase in anti-Semitism complaints since Mr Corbyn became leader in 2015.
Panorama discovered there was backlog of a thousand anti-Semitism allegations this spring, with only 15 people having been expelled.
Asked about that relatively small number, Andrew Gwynne, shadow communities secretary, said there were "lots of cases that are ongoing as well" and some people, when faced with an investigation, had chosen to leave of their own accord.
"We are serious about getting shot of this problem," he insisted.
The testimony Panorama reveals tonight - and the leaked emails they have obtained - will paint a picture that contrasts with the leadership's claims that they are doing as much as they can.
And they will cause deep alarm in many parts of the Labour movement.
For their part, Mr Corbyn's allies totally reject the testimony that's been put forward - instead claiming those who have come forward are "disaffected".
But this is a real challenge to Mr Corbyn's handing of anti-Semitism.
'Bad publicity'
Mike Creighton, Labour's former head of the disputes team, told BBC Panorama he was approached by Mr Milne for advice in spring 2016.
He said he had suggested the party dealt with some of the top level anti-Semitic cases "much more swiftly and much more robustly", and that Mr Corbyn make a speech on the Middle East, "particularly saying that Israel had a right to exist".
But Mr Creighton claimed Mr Milne's response was to laugh at him.
"I thought he actually wanted to know how we tackle anti-Semitism within the Labour Party," he added. "I think what he actually meant to say was, how do we deal with the bad publicity we're getting?"
When Panorama put this allegation to the Labour Party, they said: "The Labour Party dispute this conversation ever took place… this allegation is false and malicious.
"Jeremy Corbyn has repeatedly expressed his support for Israel's right to exist and for a two state solution... so there is no reason whatsoever to laugh at any such suggestion."
Officials said they received an email from Mr Milne in March 2018, in which he said "something's going wrong and we're muddling up political disputes with racism".
"I think going forward we need to review where and how we're drawing the line."
Mr Matthews, who left his role after two years in 2018, said he interpreted the email as "the leader's office requesting to be involved directly in the disciplinary process".
He added: "This is not a helpful suggestion. It is an instruction."
Officials also told the programme Mr Corbyn's office had on one occasion ordered batches of anti-Semitism complaints to be brought to them to assess.
But Labour said this was a "staff resourcing matter", and it was not unusual for people to be seconded into the party's governance and legal unit - so separation was maintained.
The party said in a statement: "The Leader's Office did not intervene. These former disaffected employees sought the view of staff in the Leader's Office, which was compiled with in good faith.
"These disaffected former officials include those who have always opposed Jeremy Corbyn's leadership, worked to actively undermine it, and have both personal and political axes to grind."
An email written by Ms Formby on 5 May 2018, said: "The National Constitutional Committee cannot be allowed to continue in the way that they are at the moment and I will also be challenging the panel for the Jackie Walker case."
Later in the chain, Ms Formby wrote that she had "deleted all trace of the email", adding: "Too many eyes still on my Labour [email] address."
The email chain was copied to Mr Milne, Karie Murphy - Mr Corbyn's chief of staff - and Mr Corbyn's personal email address.
'Held accountable'
Ms Formby's predecessor as general secretary, Lord McNicol, said the emails should set "alarm bells ringing across the party".
"The NCC was created in a specific way to remove itself from politics and from political interference. So to try to interfere politically within the NCC is just wrong."
The Labour Party told Panorama that Ms Formby temporarily stopped using her party email because of concerns a political opponent had access to it.
They said that "the emails… are simply about ensuring the NCC is held accountable for the length of time they take to hear cases, and about protecting the party against any successful legal challenge on the basis of perceived bias if the same panel is used in high profile cases".
A spokesman added: "Labour is taking decisive action against anti-Semitism, doubling the number of staff dedicated to dealing with complaints and cases. And since Jennie Formby became general secretary, the rate at which anti-Semitism cases have been dealt with has increased four-fold."
'Vile views'
Kat Buckingham, who was the former chief investigator on the disputes team, told Panorama she had a breakdown and decided to leave the party as a result.
"I was stuck between…an angry and obstructive Leader's Office and an arcane disciplinary system," she said. "I couldn't hold the tide and I felt so powerless and I felt guilty and I felt like I failed."
Former Labour cabinet minister Lord Falconer told BBC Radio 4's PM the allegations were "hair-raising" and showed the party was "still in denial" over the issue.
Ex-foreign secretary Jack Straw said the fact people with "vile views" had been allowed to remain in the party showed the extent of Mr Corbyn's "complacency".
He said he deplored what he called "the clique" around Mr Corbyn attempting to "rubbish" those who had given years of loyal service to the party.
Seumas Milne is Jeremy Corbyn's communications chief and at the heart of his inner circle.
He is in charge of how the party gets its message across, and its relationship with the media.
But his history lies in newspapers, having worked on the Guardian for over 30 years before taking up the role in Mr Corbyn's office.
He is considered to be on the far Left of the party and worked for a magazine produced by the Communist Party of Great Britain (although he was never a member).
He also wrote a book called The Enemy Within: The Secret War Against the Miners about the strikes in the mid-1980s.
Jennie Formby is the general secretary of Labour - the most senior employee in the party.
She is responsible for around 200 staff and has a number of tasks to perform, including running the party's internal committees, organising the party conference and preparing campaigns.
Her role is separate from the Leader's Office and focuses on the membership.
Before taking the post in 2018, Ms Formby worked as a trade unionist, working her way from branch secretary of the Transport and General Workers' Union to the regional secretary of Unite for south-east England.
She joined Labour's National Executive Committee - the party's governing body - in 2011.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-48929244
A no-deal Brexit would have “immediate and severe consequences” for Northern Ireland and put 40,000 jobs at risk in the country, according to a report from the Stormont government’s Department for the Economy.
Many jobs could “disappear almost overnight, especially in industries such as agri-food and haulage”, the report warned.
https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/no-deal-brexit-put-40-133256704.html
The Labour party have denied senior figures interfered with anti-Semitism complaints after fresh claims were made by BBC Panorama.
The Labour figures have been accused of interfering with a disciplinary process investigating claims of anti-Semitism in the party.
In a Panorama programme due to air on Wednesday night, communications chief and Jeremy Corbyn ally Seumas Milne and National Constitution Committee general secretary Jennie Formby are singled out for criticism.
Labour has denied the claims and written a complaint to the BBC.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/newslondon/labour-denies-claims-senior-figures-interfered-with-anti-semitism-complaints/ar-AAE8Plf?ocid=spartanntp
Sir Kim Darroch's resignation from his ambassadorial role in Washington dominates the front pages.
The Daily Mirror blames Boris Johnson, calling him "the man with no shame".
This view is shared by the Guardian, which says the episode demonstrates that Mr Johnson has no "concept of loyalty" and has diminished the office of prime minister before reaching it.
The Daily Telegraph is concerned that a Johnson premiership could be undermined.
The paper says the former ambassador was ill-advised in making clear he thought Mr Johnson was responsible for his exit.
The Times says what it calls Sir Kim's "clumsy ejection" suggests the "only way to gain the ear of the president is to flatter him." This, its leader concludes, is a "miscalculation".
But an editorial in the Sun insists "our links with America are stronger than one ambassador".
Labour anti-Semitism investigation
The Daily Mail says the revelations in the BBC's Panorama programme about the Labour's handling of anti-Semitism should come as bombshells, but the prejudice is so ingrained the allegations just add to a "seemingly endless charge sheet".
The Daily Express columnist Leo Mckinstry says the party's criticism of the programme reinforces the point that the leadership doesn't take the issue seriously.
The Sun accuses Labour of hypocrisy by turning on the whistleblowers in the documentary, when in the past it has called for better protection of those who speak out against their employers.
The Times notes that while Labour accuses the programme's reporter, John Ware, of repeatedly attacking the Labour left, Jeremy Corbyn used a Commons motion in 2002 to praise his work.
House of Lords bullying
A senior barrister has found that undue deference, fear and hierarchy are to blame for bullying and harassment at the House of Lords, according to the Financial Times.
Naomi Ellenbogen QC has found what she called "toxic behaviours" and "systematic cultural issues".
The Sun says she's called for CCTV to be fitted in the hotspots, including the library.
The Mail adds that dementia has contributed to some of the problems and suggests peers undergo medical examinations.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-the-papers-48945583
Boris Johnson fought to save partner's £80k job at Tory HQ when she 'faced sack'
EXCLUSIVE: Carrie Symonds was asked to step down from her communications role in the Conservative Party - or warned she could be fired
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/boris-johnson-fought-save-partners-17859061
Tory Matt Hancock refuses to answer Piers Morgan 15 TIMES in car crash interview
Piers Morgan and Susanna Reid even asked Alexa on ITV's Good Morning Britain after the Boris Johnson backer refused to say if our US Ambassador should be sacked
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/tory-matt-hancock-refuses-answer-17794201
Sir Richard Branson has warned the pound could plummet to the same value as the dollar if Britain leaves the EU without a deal.
The Virgin boss said crashing out without agreement could leave Britain “near bankrupt,” causing big losses at his UK companies and forcing them to shift investment out of the UK.
Advertisement
Branson told the BBC: “The pound was at $1.53 when the referendum took place. The pound today it is at $1.22, $1.23, and the pound will collapse to parity with the dollar if there is a hard Brexit.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/news/richard-branson-pound-will-plunge-to-same-value-as-dollar-on-no-deal-brexit/ar-AAEaKCk?ocid=spartanntp
Boris Johnson has hit back at criticism that he threw the former British ambassador to the US “under a bus”.
He has insisted he is a great supporter of Sir Kim, who has dramatically quit, and has revealed that he rang him to commiserate.
It has emerged that the ambassador decided to resign after Mr Johnson - odds-on favourite to become prime minister in two weeks' time - refused to pledge his support for him in Tuesday's head-to-head TV debate, while his rival Jeremy Hunt backed Sir Kim to carry on.
Sir Kim Darroch has resigned as the United Kingdom's ambassador to the United States
The strongest criticism of Mr Johnson came from his former deputy at the Foreign Office, Sir Alan Duncan.Boris Johnson has basically thrown our top diplomat under a bus," he said. "His disregard for Sir Kim Darroch and his refusal to back him was in my view pretty contemptible, but also not in the interests of the country."
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/johnson-denies-throwing-sir-kim-darroch-under-a-bus/ar-AAE9iFn?ocid=spartandhp
Labour's Jewish affiliate has said that 30 whistleblowers have come forward to detail their experiences of the party's handling of antisemitism allegations.
The Jewish Labour Movement told Sky News that it has heard from current and former staff members and party officers on the issue, despite the party being "very keen on silencing those who wish to come forward".
One whistleblower, former head of complaints Sam Matthews, told Sky News that leader Jeremy Corbyn has "refused" to "take responsibility for what's happened" to the party.
He claimed that some people still in the party have not come forward to speak out because they are "fearful" of retribution.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/labour-antisemitism-row-30-whistleblowers-come-forward/ar-AAEbsaP?ocid=spartandhp