Further reflections on “Bad News for Labour”
Published
by
Richard Kuper
JVL Introduction
We have already reported on the publication of Bad News for Labour, the suppression of its launch at Waterstones in Brighton in September and, of course, on the analysis developed in the book and of mainstream media’s silence in the face of its devastating critique.
As the general election campaign gets under way, and allegations of antisemitism are ramped up, we post Jonathan Rosenhead’s timely review and overview of the arguments put forward by Greg Philo and others in Bad News.
This article was originally published by Bricup on Fri 1 Nov 2019. Read the original here.
"Bad News for Labour" – a review
Loading article text…
Thanks for your review. When i heard about the Waterstones incident I wrote to them and they said they were keen to offer another booklaunch – some one should take them up on this offer:
I wrote:
“I just read that “Waterstones Brighton caved in to vicious censorship campaign and cancelled launch of Bad News for Labour, a book, ironically about suppression of Free Debate on Israel and Palestine.”
Is this true?”
they replied:
From: Waterstones
Date: Thursday, 26 September 2019 at 11:36
Hello Tony,
Thank you for contacting us.
We have cancelled this event and regret the inconvenience caused.
We did so because we found ourselves, largely inadvertently, about to run an event without proper preparation or with the professionalism that we expect. At the most basic level, we were uncertain that we would have any books on hand. As a bookseller that expects to be able to sell books, this was the most basic of failings, but also gave us little confidence from a central prospective that the event was being managed properly.
It is not true that we have been threatened or harassed in any way, let alone that this is the reason for the cancellation. Our own lack of organisation, and that of the publisher, is the cause.
We will gladly arrange future events for the book. We require simply that this be done professionally.
Kind regards,
Anthony Cochran
Waterstones Customer Support
The book’s authors are in negotiations with Waterstones about launches in their shops
An excellent summary of the current situation. It could be a guide to Labour spokespeople as a replacement for tedious and needless apology.
Bad News For Labour should now be regarded as essential reading for any discussion of claims about Labour antisemitism. It details the development of the media-manufactured crisis some aspects of which are extraordinary even to people with well well-developed sceptism about our media’s concern for the truth. One of the most disturbing things in that respect has been the role played by the Guardian which even now is carrying articles by its regular comnentators claiming, for example, that a Corbyn-led government would be “the most antisemitic government western Europe has seen since 1945” (Nick Cohen). In this the Guardian/Observer has fully embraced absurdity of a particularly nasty and viscious kind.
The book largely does what it set out to do in a responsible and professional manner. Nevertheless, I felt that it failed to satisfactorily answer the question it raises about why Labour’s response to the media onslaught was so muted, ineffective and even incompetent (my words not the books). This is explained by leadership exhaustion and a party machine acting against the leadership. While I don’t doubt the reality of both factors I don’t think that will do.
The LP’s approach to racism, including antisemitism, is overwhelmingly at the level of a humanistic moral gesture. That is well-meaning as far as it goes but the problem is that such a moralistic stance quickly runs out of steam when faced with an avalanche of criticism of detailed issues. A perfect example of this inability of Labour to repond clearly and robustly to the pressure to adopt the IHRA “definition” and then the IHRA example. And it is not as if first class advice was not available on both issues at the time. Labour, including its leaders just couldn’t handle the debate. That is not just a matter of overwork and unhelpful officials. It’s an issue that still merits discussion.
Having read the book, one fact that stays in my mind is the response from one woman in one of the focus groups, who said that her impression that the Labour Party had a major antisemitism problem had been formed by looking at the headlines in the newspaper rack in the supermarket where she worked.
She had never read any of the articles but it was the sheer unremitting paper headline coverage that had created the perception of a real problem.
This just goes to show how well the Big Lie tactic works.
Just keep on repeating the same lie over and over and over again.
That will create an impression of a problem, however untrue it may be.
What this exposes – to my mind at least – is that the UK establishment is every bit as effective as the tactics of the former Dr Goebbels in creating wholly untruthful mindsets among the wider UK public.
Those alleged pillars of the UK media – The Guardian and the BBC – have played an absolutely key and pernicious role in spreading disinformation.
Our country is in peril, as are all the minorities in this country.
These are very dark and disturbing times we are all living in.
Maybe it is time we all looked into finding our own alternative place of sanctuary to escape to from the lying mass media of this country?
I have read the book and think this is a very accurate and insightful review. Well done (the other) Jonathan!
Yes, the book is excellent. I sold a copy to someone who has just received an investigation notice. He has just written back to say “I have just finished reading the book and it helped me immensely to put into perspective what I am being subjected to.”
Apart from the facts and examples the book offers it offers context. And, as you can see, context means comfort. Individuals are being picked off thanks to a combination of vexatious denunciation by wreckers inside and outside the Party and either collusion or cowardice on the part of Party officials.
One member of my own CLP (not the one quoted above) has received an “immediate suspension” notice without a single specific allegation or indication of “evidence”. Natural justice? More a denouncers’ field-day!
Waterstones has yet to fulfil its promise to the publisher and authors to compensate for cancelling the book launch in Brighton in September by hosting events in flagship stores around the country. Readers can encourage them to make good on their pledge with polite emails to [email protected].
Such a good and much needed book. But it’s relentless. The Guardian is definitely the worst offender.. see Jonathan Freedland’s recent editorial, How can Jews vote for Corbyn? He needs to be answered publicly and loudly
A brilliant review, thank you Jonathan.
I’ve written to James Daunt.
On the website of the Campaign Against Antisemitism there is a page entitled Antisemitism Barometer 2017, and on page 6 it says the following:
Our data also revealed patterns in antisemitism across political divides, with supporters of left-wing political parties and supporters of the ‘remain’ camp in the EU referendum all less likely to be antisemitic than those on the right or supporters of the ‘leave’ camp.
As soon as I read this, I had little doubt that further on the ‘report’ they would come up with some explanation – offer an explanation – as to how it is that there has been so much media coverage about anti-semitism in the Labour Party in the preceeding two years or so (the Yougov poll was conducted on the 2nd and 3rd of August (2017), as stated on page 43, and their own ‘fieldwork’ conducted between July 19th and August 8th, as stated on page 83), and on page 19 this is what they say:
The YouGov data shows, for example, that Labour Party supporters are less likely to be antisemitic than other voters, so the cause of British Jews’ discontentment with the Labour Party must be the way that it has very publicly failed to robustly deal with the antisemites in its ranks. This means that the Labour Party has fallen out of step with its core supporters, who are generally less likely to hold antisemitic beliefs.
Yes, well that explains it, doesn’t it! So if the LP had been less ‘public’ about it like other political parties, A/S wouldn’t have been a problem!
If it wasn’t such a serious issue it would be laughable.
Send the review to The Guardian as a submission to their Long Read section in The Journal. They probably won’t accept it, but worth a try with a suitable introductory letter say why it should be published. Overcoming the problem of making our voice and evidence heard remains the issue. We can’t solve it by just talking to ourselves. But how?
So you say that Bad News For Labour has been subject not just to biased coverage, but unprecedentedly biased coverage across an unusually wide range of media outlets? What sinister, manipulative force pulling strings behind the scenes could have brought this about? Blinking heck, give it a rest. Maybe it got bad reviews and indifference because it’s a bit of hack work?
Maybe your comment would would have more force if you engaged with the carefully constructed and evidenced arguments in the book rather than just abusing it.
Bet you won’t allow my comment.
we did