had enough, I really have

David Ward MP, a LibDemologist of whom I had never heard until yesterday, has referred to Auschwitz in the same sentence as "the Jews" whom he holds responsible for what is happening to "the Palestinians" - and I don't think he was referring to the Palestinians murdered by Syrian troops in a refugee camp recently. The Normster takes this odious Jew-hating to task far better than I can, so please read him. His chief point (and mine) is that any parallel with Auschwitz, where at least a million people were murdered because they were Jews, is false, because those who were killed at Auschwitz had not taken up arms against Germany. There was no political conflict going on, as there is today in Israel/Palestine. It was attempted genocide. Norm's other point, which is perhaps harder to defend, is that it is only Israel which is accused in this way, namely compared to the Nazis, and any action taken by its military is compared to the Holocaust. I'm not sure that's true, or that it is helpful to the argument even if it is. Norm speculates that Ward may simply be a political fool (and why else would he be a LibDem, say I) or that he may know perfectly well what he is doing, and knows that there is a constituency out there for Jew-hating. There always is. That doesn't make it right, and arguably doesn't win you any votes either. But the stupid left is certainly out there in Ward's support, one creature I follow tweeting ominously this morning "the lobby is strong". What can he mean?

Norm has not suggested, as far as I know, that Ward should have the whip withdrawn, or that he should be deselected, forced to resign as an MP, whatever. My experience was that anyone facing deselection as a Labour MP might save themselves by indulging in a little light Jew-hating. Jew-hatred was certainly used by Reading Labour Party senior figures in some of their publicity material when I was in that situation some years ago. To the disgust of many, not including the self-hating Jew Martin Salter, who put his name to the hate speech I can still remember. About the LibDems, I wouldn't know.

No. Ward has spoken out. Let him continue to do so. Let his constituents decide if they want to re-elect him in 2015 or so. If the LibDem whips (seems like an oxymoron) have any sense they will let him hang himself with his own rope. Freedom of expression is more important than anyone's delicate sensibilities. Even if that freedom is used for Jew-hating hate speech.

Oh yes.

how very dare they?

hat-tip James Hallwood via Mark Ferguson

the LibDems the nice people's party?  I think not.  A lot of them are racist (not so much so as the Greens, obvs) and the lyrics pictured left are what they think is amusing to sing at their conference.  But why, as Labour List and I both wonder, is Nick Clegg not being asked to distance himself from this vile and hateful doggerel, as Labour were asked to distance themselves from the "Thatcher Death" T-shirts at the TUC?   Anyone got an answer? *sound of tumbleweed*

that pesky election count incident again...

in May, at the election count in Reading, a violent incident was reported to have happened.  Gareth Epps it was, LibDem of this parish, who broadcast that an incident had taken place, in which he, Epps, was violently attacked, perhaps head-butted, by a Labour activist, George Loughlin.  Later, Epps apparently reported the incident to the police.  No other witness has come forward, though Epps and Loughlin were presumably not the only occupants of the room at the time.  Was has not left this alone, and posts about it from time to time.  The LibDem hierarchy appears to have taken it as true that an incident of this kind did happen, according to an email from one of them he quotes.  Other parties have not denied that an incident happened, although Labour has said things like "If an incident did happen..." Loughlin's name has disappeared from later mentions of the alleged incident, so it is my unalloyed pleasure to place in print again the name of that thuggish little git, George Loughlin, for whom a violent attack of such a kind would be entirely in character.  However, that is not to say it did happen.  Was says that Epps is a liar.  He may be right, I wouldn't know.  Was also says that the LibDem hierarchy believe Epps and do not check allegations he makes.  This is what party hierarchies tend to do in respect of their favourite sons, unfortunately.  What interests me here is that Labour has not denied it, so in the unlikely event of there having been no Labour witness to any incident, Reading Labour believe it is possible that such a thing happened.  They are right.  We do not know yet what if any view is taken by Her Majesty's Constabulary.  So this story needs to be kept alive, in my view, for what it has already exposed, and what it may yet expose.  An aside - Was informs us that Epps was intending to take a dog-whistle to the Church ward count.  Why did he not do so?  If I had been there I certainly would have done so.  Which leads us to...

Reading Labour racist dog-whistle

Oh yes, she's one of us.

dog whistle

not racist.  No.

is what is being used by the LibDems here.  The Tory candidate they are fighting is gay, and they use the words "it's a straight fight".  Which of course is perfectly innocent language, hein?  No.  Dog whistle is a very simple thing.  You use plain language about your opponent, and it contains a code word or words which indicate that you are contrasting your party's candidate with the other one by saying that person is gay, or black, or otherwise "other", and your candidate is not.  It could be a number of things.  Typically it is sexuality or race.  Reading Labour has form on this too, as recently as this year's local elections, remember? Reading Labour's white girl is "one of us", unlike the Tory candidate, who was born in Pakistan.

this might be intruding on private grief

but it's good fun.  Handbags at dawn among the LibDems.  Read it here.

that head-butt

here is what the Reading Chronicle had to say about it (so it must be true).  It's clear that Gareth Epps. former councillor and leader of the Reading LibDem group, had a go at Reading Labour when the Church ward result was announced, referring no doubt to the disgraceful desperate racist dog-whistle leaflet - the response by Wee Georgie Loughlin was physical violence.  In character.  For Georgie.  Gareth Epps made his view - disgust - at that leaflet public before election night.  Rightly in my view.  The response, according to the Chronicle, of senior LibDems was to distance themselves from Gareth Epps.  Shame on them.  Because if that is what he said, he was right.  And if Wee Georgie attacked anyone physically - and I have seen him do it before, he is a loathsome violent dysfunctional little git - nobody should be "distancing" themselves from anything, but charges should be brought and laid.  I wish they would be.  It is clear from the Chronicle piece that something did happen.  Despite the denials from Was and from Reading Labour, which have appeared as comments on this blog.  Because Dave Peasley, no stranger to tussles of various kinds I believe, was involved, and cannot be gainsaid, nor does he have party political loyalty to consider.  Makes you think really, why don't we all just start biffing our opponents?  It was Was who said, where is Basher when you need him?  But Basher kept the biffing domestic, for the most part, and confined it to women in the political sphere, hein?

the dead trees begin to take notice

the Reading ones that is.  Yes folks, step forward the Reading Chronicle, which has this on Reading Labour's racist dog-whistle, fairly factual on the whole, unlike His Master's Voice, which so far, on its website at least , has been silent on the issue.  Well, there's only been what looks like a criminal offence committed by a candidate a matter of days before a local election, and only a racist dog-whistle publication which has become a national disgrace, so nothing to get in the way of Whitley Dad Pissed Off With Council and Tragic Teen In Plea For Money, hein?  So big up the Chronicle, considering how poisonous the political climate is in Reading.

Word reaches me too of a late surge in the LibDem vote in Church ward.  Unlikely, you might say.  I thought so too.  And how much it will amount to on May 3rd I don't know.  But some people are saying they will not vote for a party (Labour) which has called them racist, and they have never been Tory voters, and at least the LibDems don't insult them.  Hmmm.

I've known for a long time what the Reading Labour boys think of the people of south Reading, because I've heard them say it.  Racist, they say.  That's why the local party members are not usually allowed to choose a candidate, unlike other wards, because they cannot be trusted to choose the one the boys want.  I know that the people of Church ward are not racist, and the local party members I know are not either.

There's still time to withdraw the leaflet, apologise and move on.  You will (probably) be forgiven electorally.  You weren't when at least one of your candidates was responsible for electoral fraud in Redlands - you lost every councillor there.