Current Affairs The Conservative Party

Status
Not open for further replies.
Lol of course

George Osborne’s London Evening Standard sells its editorial independence to Uber, Google and others – for £3 million
https://www.opendemocracy.net/uk/ja...d-promises-positive-news-coverage-to-uber-goo
Exclusive: Newspaper promised six commercial giants “money-can’t-buy” news coverage in a lucrative deal, leaving millions of Londoners unaware of who’s paying for their news.

London’s Evening Standard newspaper, edited by the former chancellor George Osborne, has agreed a £3 million deal with six leading commercial companies, including Google and Uber, promising them “money-can’t-buy” positive news and “favourable” comment coverage, openDemocracy can reveal.

The project, called London 2020, is being directed by Osborne. It effectively sweeps away the conventional ethical divide between news and advertising inside the Standard – and is set to include “favourable” news coverage of the firms involved, with readers unable to differentiate between "news" that is paid-for and other commercially-branded content.

Leading companies, most operating global businesses, were given detailed sales presentations by Evening Standard executives at the newspaper’s west London offices in an effort to sign them up to the lucrative deal.

Among those that have paid half a million pounds each to be involved are international taxi-app firm Uber, which is facing an imminent court appeal against the decision to cancel its licence to operate in London. The Evening Standard has previously come under fire for not declaring Osborne’s £650,000-a-year part time job with the fund managers BlackRock, who hold a £500m stake in Uber.

The global tech giant, Google, still recovering from reputational damage over its low UK tax bills and criticism over its close relationship to the Cameron-Osborne government, has also signed up.

Some companies, including Starbucks, walked away from the Evening Standard’s pitch, rejecting the offer of paying to boost their reputations through tailored news and comment.

London 2020 is scheduled to start on June 5. Unbranded news stories, expected to be written by staff reporters – but paid for by the new commercial “partners” as part of the 2020 deal – have already been planned for inclusion in the paper’s news pages within a week of the project’s launch.

A big commercial pay-off
The London Evening Standard has a circulation of close to 900,000 and distributes more copies within a two-mile radius of Westminster than the Times does across the UK nationally. Many London commuters, who pick up their free copy of the Standard at underground and rail stations, will be unaware that they will be reading paid-for news coverage that is part of a wider commercial deal.

An increasing number of British newspapers often carry “native advertising”, essentially paid-for commercials designed to look like independent editorial articles.

Although the 2020 campaigns will involve branded, native and advertorial pages, along with public debates hosted by the Standard, the six partners have also been promised the Standard will carry “money-can’t-buy” positive news and “favourable” comment pieces that will appear to readers as routine, independently written editorial.

By the established industry definition of “news” – which makes or breaks a newspaper’s integrity and its editor’s reputation – a commercial pay-off is supposed to play no part.

"...something you might do in Saudi Arabia, but not here

One Starbucks senior executive, who asked not to be named, told openDemocracy: “Buying positive news coverage is PR death…something you might do in Saudi Arabia, but not here. This wasn’t right for us. We do engage in advertorial [a hybrid mix of advertising and editorial] but that’s just marketing. We don’t need to buy our reputation.”

openDemocracy contacted the Evening Standard/ESI Media, Uber and Google for their comments on the London 2020 project. At the time of publishing, no response had been received from any of the three.


‘Improving London for the benefit of all’?

Uber’s involvement offers further conflicts-of-interest for George Osborne. The world’s largest fund manager, BlackRock, pays Osborne £650,000 a year for a one-day-a-week role as an adviser. BlackRock also has an investment stake in Uber worth £500m.

Google’s decision to involve itself in this paid-for news deal will also raise eyebrows, given the objectives of its Digital News Initiative in Europe. The DNI has a budget of €150 million over the next three years. Google have stated their aim is to “combat misinformation and disinformation” and “help consumers distinguish fact from fiction online”.

London 2020 involves six “themed projects” running for two years. These include politicised initiatives on clean air, plastic pollution, schools and workplace tech and a project designed to address London’s housing crisis. The six 2020 “partners” have each paid half a million pounds to head projects that will be sold to Standard readers as “improving London for the benefit of all.”

In language lifted directly from Osborne’s years as head of the UK Treasury in David Cameron’s government, the project was presented to potential partners as aiming to highlight London as an “innovative and economic powerhouse” which is “fit for the future”.

The paid-for campaigns will conclude close to the date of the next London mayoral elections in 2020. Partners have been promised the Standard will be “dedicated to delivering” the aims of the six projects over the next two years.

‘Theatrically-constructed news’
As part of the sales pitch at the Evening Standard’s West London offices, would-be partners were told to expect campaigns that will “generate numerous news stories, comment pieces and high-profile backers”.

One executive with knowledge of the project said that the paying partners were told that their company’s own planned communications and marketing strategies could be coordinated with the Standard’s news coverage. The Standard would trail positive “news” from the six 2020 partners, with other news organisations and media outlets expected to follow.


Image: Presentation given by Evening Standard executives promising companies “money-can’t-buy” news and comment stories


Another executive was told the “money-can’t-buy” campaigns in the Standard aimed to create “news that will make news, but news that comes with a positive message.” According to one insider: “What was being offered was clear – theatrically constructed news, showing everything good being done. “

“What was being offered was clear – theatrically constructed news, showing everything good being done. “

Uber, for its half-million fee, will be given the branded lead role in the “clean air project” which is supposed to highlight the benefits of “cleaner transport” and of turning London “electric” by 2020.

Starbucks was offered the “plastic pollution project” which claims it will be “lobbying to sharply reduce London’s single-use plastic consumption.” The coffee company refused to sign up, telling Standard executives they already had their own plans.

Google’s fee will cover parts of the schools and work tech projects. Both involve the promised promotion of digital skills and the development of a “network of digital training hubs.”

For their £3 million the partners have also been promised a special monthly print section themed to individual projects; a “bespoke” social media strategy including readers polls; and public debates, exhibitions and large-scale events organised by the Standard.

The deal is also set to include “specially created wraps”, where the front and back pages of the newspaper become a large showcase advert, along with special “native advertising” that matches the form and design of the Standard’s editorial pages.

Last week all the department heads in the Standard, including the news and comment editors, were given their first sight of the London 2020 project. Until then Osborne had confined the project to a small core team.

End of ‘church and state’ divide
Earlier this year openDemocracy exposed a similar paid-for deal at the Evening Standard involving the Swiss bio-chem and agriculture company, Syngenta. Positive news coverage and skewed public debates were part of the arrangement with the commercial division of the Standard, ESI Media.

Staff news reporters were involved in the Syngenta coverage which included telling Standard readers how GM crops would help solve the world’s food problems – without mentioning ESI’s lucrative deal with the GM-producing giant Syngenta.

ESI Media, owned by the Moscow-based oligarch, Alexander Lebedev and run in London by his son Evgeny, also governs the UK’s online Independent newspaper, which is located in the same Kensington office as the Standard.

The group commercial director of ESI, Jon O’Donnell, has previously said ESI no longer sees itself as just involved in advertising, but was now a “media business”. O’Donnell has also said the once “strict divide between the so-called ‘church and state’ [editorial and advertising] was doing more harm than good.”

‘Converting PR into news – for a price’
Details of London 2020 and Osborne’s lead role in driving the project has brought criticism from leading media commentators and industry figures.

The journalist and broadcaster, Peter Oborne, currently associate editor of The Spectator and a political columnist with the Daily Mail, resigned as the chief political commentator of the Daily Telegraph in 2015. He alleged there was an unscrupulous relationship between the editorial and advertising departments at the Telegraph, which led to the suppression of negative stories about the global banking giant HSBC because it was a major source of revenue. His resignation letter was published by openDemocracy. The Telegraph dismissed Oborne’s claims.

Speaking in reaction to the London 2020 deal, he told openDemocracy: “George Orwell – who worked for the Evening Standard – once said that journalism is printing what someone else does not want printed, and everything else is public relations. George Osborne, as the Standard’s editor, appears to be ignoring the dangers Orwell pointed out and is converting PR into news – for a price.

“It’s essential that the commercial arm of any newspaper is kept at arm’s length from editorial. openDemocracy’s report suggests that news and PR have become hopelessly intertwined and confused at the Standard. George Osborne as editor has a great many questions to answer as to why he’s doing this – the main one being that the news and comment pages of his newspaper seem to be up for sale. If this is allowed, how can the integrity of this newspaper be maintained?”

General Secretary of the Licensed Taxi Drivers' Association, Steve McNamara, accused the Standard of putting “its profits ahead of Londoners” by selling favourable coverage to Uber.

“Uber was stripped of its licence in London for failing to protect passengers in this city. Uber deliberately did not report serious crimes or conduct appropriate background checks on its drivers. Buying positive news coverage to try and influence the upcoming licence appeal hearing is the lowest of the low. If Uber is really sorry for its ‘mistakes’ it should use this money to clean up its operation and pay its drivers more.”
 
Lol of course

George Osborne’s London Evening Standard sells its editorial independence to Uber, Google and others – for £3 million
https://www.opendemocracy.net/uk/ja...d-promises-positive-news-coverage-to-uber-goo
Exclusive: Newspaper promised six commercial giants “money-can’t-buy” news coverage in a lucrative deal, leaving millions of Londoners unaware of who’s paying for their news.

London’s Evening Standard newspaper, edited by the former chancellor George Osborne, has agreed a £3 million deal with six leading commercial companies, including Google and Uber, promising them “money-can’t-buy” positive news and “favourable” comment coverage, openDemocracy can reveal.

The project, called London 2020, is being directed by Osborne. It effectively sweeps away the conventional ethical divide between news and advertising inside the Standard – and is set to include “favourable” news coverage of the firms involved, with readers unable to differentiate between "news" that is paid-for and other commercially-branded content.

Leading companies, most operating global businesses, were given detailed sales presentations by Evening Standard executives at the newspaper’s west London offices in an effort to sign them up to the lucrative deal.

Among those that have paid half a million pounds each to be involved are international taxi-app firm Uber, which is facing an imminent court appeal against the decision to cancel its licence to operate in London. The Evening Standard has previously come under fire for not declaring Osborne’s £650,000-a-year part time job with the fund managers BlackRock, who hold a £500m stake in Uber.

The global tech giant, Google, still recovering from reputational damage over its low UK tax bills and criticism over its close relationship to the Cameron-Osborne government, has also signed up.

Some companies, including Starbucks, walked away from the Evening Standard’s pitch, rejecting the offer of paying to boost their reputations through tailored news and comment.

London 2020 is scheduled to start on June 5. Unbranded news stories, expected to be written by staff reporters – but paid for by the new commercial “partners” as part of the 2020 deal – have already been planned for inclusion in the paper’s news pages within a week of the project’s launch.

A big commercial pay-off
The London Evening Standard has a circulation of close to 900,000 and distributes more copies within a two-mile radius of Westminster than the Times does across the UK nationally. Many London commuters, who pick up their free copy of the Standard at underground and rail stations, will be unaware that they will be reading paid-for news coverage that is part of a wider commercial deal.

An increasing number of British newspapers often carry “native advertising”, essentially paid-for commercials designed to look like independent editorial articles.

Although the 2020 campaigns will involve branded, native and advertorial pages, along with public debates hosted by the Standard, the six partners have also been promised the Standard will carry “money-can’t-buy” positive news and “favourable” comment pieces that will appear to readers as routine, independently written editorial.

By the established industry definition of “news” – which makes or breaks a newspaper’s integrity and its editor’s reputation – a commercial pay-off is supposed to play no part.

"...something you might do in Saudi Arabia, but not here

One Starbucks senior executive, who asked not to be named, told openDemocracy: “Buying positive news coverage is PR death…something you might do in Saudi Arabia, but not here. This wasn’t right for us. We do engage in advertorial [a hybrid mix of advertising and editorial] but that’s just marketing. We don’t need to buy our reputation.”

openDemocracy contacted the Evening Standard/ESI Media, Uber and Google for their comments on the London 2020 project. At the time of publishing, no response had been received from any of the three.


‘Improving London for the benefit of all’?

Uber’s involvement offers further conflicts-of-interest for George Osborne. The world’s largest fund manager, BlackRock, pays Osborne £650,000 a year for a one-day-a-week role as an adviser. BlackRock also has an investment stake in Uber worth £500m.

Google’s decision to involve itself in this paid-for news deal will also raise eyebrows, given the objectives of its Digital News Initiative in Europe. The DNI has a budget of €150 million over the next three years. Google have stated their aim is to “combat misinformation and disinformation” and “help consumers distinguish fact from fiction online”.

London 2020 involves six “themed projects” running for two years. These include politicised initiatives on clean air, plastic pollution, schools and workplace tech and a project designed to address London’s housing crisis. The six 2020 “partners” have each paid half a million pounds to head projects that will be sold to Standard readers as “improving London for the benefit of all.”

In language lifted directly from Osborne’s years as head of the UK Treasury in David Cameron’s government, the project was presented to potential partners as aiming to highlight London as an “innovative and economic powerhouse” which is “fit for the future”.

The paid-for campaigns will conclude close to the date of the next London mayoral elections in 2020. Partners have been promised the Standard will be “dedicated to delivering” the aims of the six projects over the next two years.

‘Theatrically-constructed news’
As part of the sales pitch at the Evening Standard’s West London offices, would-be partners were told to expect campaigns that will “generate numerous news stories, comment pieces and high-profile backers”.

One executive with knowledge of the project said that the paying partners were told that their company’s own planned communications and marketing strategies could be coordinated with the Standard’s news coverage. The Standard would trail positive “news” from the six 2020 partners, with other news organisations and media outlets expected to follow.


Image: Presentation given by Evening Standard executives promising companies “money-can’t-buy” news and comment stories

Another executive was told the “money-can’t-buy” campaigns in the Standard aimed to create “news that will make news, but news that comes with a positive message.” According to one insider: “What was being offered was clear – theatrically constructed news, showing everything good being done. “

“What was being offered was clear – theatrically constructed news, showing everything good being done. “

Uber, for its half-million fee, will be given the branded lead role in the “clean air project” which is supposed to highlight the benefits of “cleaner transport” and of turning London “electric” by 2020.

Starbucks was offered the “plastic pollution project” which claims it will be “lobbying to sharply reduce London’s single-use plastic consumption.” The coffee company refused to sign up, telling Standard executives they already had their own plans.

Google’s fee will cover parts of the schools and work tech projects. Both involve the promised promotion of digital skills and the development of a “network of digital training hubs.”

For their £3 million the partners have also been promised a special monthly print section themed to individual projects; a “bespoke” social media strategy including readers polls; and public debates, exhibitions and large-scale events organised by the Standard.

The deal is also set to include “specially created wraps”, where the front and back pages of the newspaper become a large showcase advert, along with special “native advertising” that matches the form and design of the Standard’s editorial pages.

Last week all the department heads in the Standard, including the news and comment editors, were given their first sight of the London 2020 project. Until then Osborne had confined the project to a small core team.

End of ‘church and state’ divide
Earlier this year openDemocracy exposed a similar paid-for deal at the Evening Standard involving the Swiss bio-chem and agriculture company, Syngenta. Positive news coverage and skewed public debates were part of the arrangement with the commercial division of the Standard, ESI Media.

Staff news reporters were involved in the Syngenta coverage which included telling Standard readers how GM crops would help solve the world’s food problems – without mentioning ESI’s lucrative deal with the GM-producing giant Syngenta.

ESI Media, owned by the Moscow-based oligarch, Alexander Lebedev and run in London by his son Evgeny, also governs the UK’s online Independent newspaper, which is located in the same Kensington office as the Standard.

The group commercial director of ESI, Jon O’Donnell, has previously said ESI no longer sees itself as just involved in advertising, but was now a “media business”. O’Donnell has also said the once “strict divide between the so-called ‘church and state’ [editorial and advertising] was doing more harm than good.”

‘Converting PR into news – for a price’
Details of London 2020 and Osborne’s lead role in driving the project has brought criticism from leading media commentators and industry figures.

The journalist and broadcaster, Peter Oborne, currently associate editor of The Spectator and a political columnist with the Daily Mail, resigned as the chief political commentator of the Daily Telegraph in 2015. He alleged there was an unscrupulous relationship between the editorial and advertising departments at the Telegraph, which led to the suppression of negative stories about the global banking giant HSBC because it was a major source of revenue. His resignation letter was published by openDemocracy. The Telegraph dismissed Oborne’s claims.

Speaking in reaction to the London 2020 deal, he told openDemocracy: “George Orwell – who worked for the Evening Standard – once said that journalism is printing what someone else does not want printed, and everything else is public relations. George Osborne, as the Standard’s editor, appears to be ignoring the dangers Orwell pointed out and is converting PR into news – for a price.

“It’s essential that the commercial arm of any newspaper is kept at arm’s length from editorial. openDemocracy’s report suggests that news and PR have become hopelessly intertwined and confused at the Standard. George Osborne as editor has a great many questions to answer as to why he’s doing this – the main one being that the news and comment pages of his newspaper seem to be up for sale. If this is allowed, how can the integrity of this newspaper be maintained?”

General Secretary of the Licensed Taxi Drivers' Association, Steve McNamara, accused the Standard of putting “its profits ahead of Londoners” by selling favourable coverage to Uber.

“Uber was stripped of its licence in London for failing to protect passengers in this city. Uber deliberately did not report serious crimes or conduct appropriate background checks on its drivers. Buying positive news coverage to try and influence the upcoming licence appeal hearing is the lowest of the low. If Uber is really sorry for its ‘mistakes’ it should use this money to clean up its operation and pay its drivers more.”
Oh no, something that already happens online in papers.
 
Wow, stirring defence that.

And no, this is without even the flimsy pretext of small type identifying it as advertising.
Still happens within the realm of digital. There’s countless millions spent on getting ‘influencers’ to review goods and services, again without the context that people are being compensated for doing so. If anyone thinks there’s anything approaching editorial independence in today’s day and age then it’s absolutely naviety.
 
Wow, stirring defence that.

And no, this is without even the flimsy pretext of small type identifying it as advertising.

Obviously it's hard to say as the devil will be in the detail, but my understanding is that this project would be a series of events around various topics, ie the future of mobility in London, which would feature Uber as a sponsor, and that event would generate varying levels of content. I don't think (or at least I hope) it wouldn't influence editorial policy around taxis or the Uber legal case, although as @zzr45 says, it's far from unknown for companies to lavish freebies onto journalists in the name of relationship building, and that relationship to be valuable for both parties. As soon as you're critical of a company then access to that company tends to dry up, which if they're important to your brief then that's not ideal. It's a fine line between being a sycophantic mouthpiece and being a decent hack.
 
Trump’s favorite smear factory 'employed by Tories' to dig up Labour secrets
Published time: 31 May, 2018 14:02Edited time: 31 May, 2018 14:48
Get short URL
5b0ffdd9fc7e93821b8b458b.jpg

The Tory party digging for Labour's darkest secrets. © Stringer / Reuters
The Tories are reportedly paying a smear firm with multiple senior Conservatives at the helm to dig up dirt on Labour. Tory sources confirmed the party is using the UK arm of Trump’s personal favorite political attack group.
The UK Policy Group, a private company appointed to carry out opposition research for the Conservatives, has two ex-Number 10 officials advising them. Sources have revealed to The Mirror that the firm deep dives into the personal histories, online videos and posts of Labour candidates. Evidence is then compiled into dossiers for the Conservatives. The information is then reportedly leaked to right-wing websites and newspapers to back-up negative articles on the Labour Party.

Read more
How the US stifles free speech: Reviving McCarthyism & nurturing Orwellian society
It is understood that this is the first time that one of Britain's political parties has stood accused of outsourcing its attack research to an external company; a tactic frequently used in US elections.

The firm in question, launched in January 2017, was originally registered with Companies House under the name UK Rising Ltd, according to official documents. The UK Policy Group is the London branch of Definers Public Affairs, the elite US opposition research firm set up by two senior Republicans, Matt Rhoades and Joe Pounder. Rhoades ran Mitt Romney’s failed 2012 bid for the White House, while Pounder is the former head of research for the Republican Party.

A number of former Tory high flyers now work for the research firm. The staff include ex-Number 10 staffers and former Conservative Party researchers. The firm’s UK vice president is Andrew Goodfellow who was, in another life, the Conservative Party’s director of policy and research. Staff also include the Tory party’s former head of media monitoring and a former member of George Osborne’s own communications team.

Official documents have revealed that Ameetpal Gill, David Cameron ’s former director of strategy, was given the OK by authorities to accept a contract advising the firm through Hanbury Strategy, his own political strategy company.

Theresa May’s former Director of Government Relations Chris Brannigan is a member of the UK Police Group’s advisory board, but he has said that he is not involved in opposition research. “I advise them on the strategic political scene and interpretation of political activities,” he said. “Dull stuff.”

The Conservative Party, UK Policy Group Ltd, and Goodfellow have not commented".
 
The only way this will get off the ground, is if Wasri explains to her party how this can be used to attack Corbyn and the Labour Party.

Conservatives under fire for failing to tackle party's Islamophobia ...

Conservatives
Conservatives under fire for failing to tackle party's Islamophobia


Sayeeda Warsi backs Muslim Council of Britain’s call for inquiry over ‘more than weekly incidents’

Peter Walker and Nicola Slawson

Thu 31 May 2018 18.39 BSTFirst published on Thu 31 May 2018 08.55 BST



Lady Warsi said it was a shame it could require such a public rebuke for the Tories to start confronting the issue. Photograph: David Levenson/Getty Images
The Conservatives have been accused of failing to take the issue of Islamophobia seriously by the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB), which is calling for an independent inquiry into a problem it said had “poisoned” sections of the party.

Conservative party officials insisted they were treating the issue seriously, but the MCB cited nine cases of anti-Islam sentiment from Tory politicians and candidates since April, calling it “the tip of the iceberg”.

Sayeeda Warsi, the party’s former chair, said she had spent more than two years trying and failing to get her successors and Theresa May to engage with the problem, and warned that the Tories faced a wider institutional problem of Islamophobia.

Labour, which has faced its own recent controversy over antisemitism, said the Conservatives had shown a “systematic leadership failure” on the issue.

A letter to the Tory party chair, Brandon Lewis, from the head of the MCB, Harun Khan, called for a “genuinely independent inquiry”.

He listed two months of incidents involving members, including one who shared a message which called Muslims “parasites” and another who posted a photo of bacon hanging from a door handle with the caption “protect your house from terrorism”.

Khan questioned why no action had been taken against Bob Blackman, the Harrow East MP, after he re-tweeted an anti-Islam message from the hard-right activist Tommy Robinson, and hosted a hardline Hindu nationalist, Tapan Ghosh, in parliament.

Blackman said he accidentally re-tweeted the Robinson post and had not known in advance that Ghosh was being invited to last October’s event.



MCB

✔@MuslimCouncil

https://twitter.com/MuslimCouncil/status/1001914876992868352

We are calling for an independent inquiry into Islamophobia in the Conservative Party following more than weekly occurrences of Islamophobia in the party last month

8:54 PM - May 30, 2018


Warsi, now a Tory peer, said she backed the MCB’s call, adding that it was “a shame” that it could potentially require such a public rebuke for the Conservatives to start treating the subject with proper seriousness.

“What I would like to see is, first of all, people within the party stopping denying this is an issue and then starting to acknowledge the extent of the issue, and then setting out a clear pathway of how we’re going to deal with it,” she told Sky News.

Warsi said she had raised the problem with “successive chairmen” and had written personally to May to seek action.

She said: “Each time it kind of seems we’ve said, ‘Yes, we take these issues very seriously’ and then shrugged our shoulders and moved on.”

She said the problem went beyond the actions of a few candidates, saying the party must also look at the “terrible Islamophobic, anti-Muslim campaign” run in 2016 when Zac Goldsmith stood for London mayor against Labour’s Sadiq Khan.

The MCB letter also cited Goldsmith’s campaign as evidence of a wider problem in the Conservatives with “dog whistle anti-Muslim racism”.

Labour MP Rupa Huq said the cumulative record of the Conservatives pointed to “the very definition of institutional racism - not merely bad apples, but a systematic leadership failure to address both personal prejudice and systemic unfairness”.

She said: “The Tories’ failure on Islamophobia is desperately disappointing. But for Britain’s Muslims it’s worse than that. If the people who claim to be leading this country are shirking their responsibility to protect all the communities living here, it sends an appalling message. It makes racists inside and outside their party think they can get away with it.”

Huq said she felt there had been “a glaring difference between how Labour is responding to antisemitism and how the Tories have reacted to this”, saying Jeremy Corbyn and Labour officials had taken notably more action.

A number of Muslim Conservative party members told the Guardian that they felt the issue had been marginalised, with one saying his reaction to the MCB letter was: “How refreshing - this is something that all Muslim Conservatives are feeling.”

Khan’s letter to Lewis called for an independent inquiry into Islamophobia among not just Tory members but also the party’s structures and campaigns. The MCB is pushing for the publication of a list of incidents where action has been taken, the launch of an education programme and a public commitment to tackle bigotry.

In response to the letter, a Conservative spokesman said: “We take all such incidents seriously, which is why we have suspended all those who have behaved inappropriately and launched immediate investigations.”
 
The Tories are Islamophobic and broadly racist in the same way Labour are anti-semitic. That's what happens when parties veer off to the extreme right and left. It's par for the course.

The sole difference is that the Tories acknowledge it but don't do anything about it because it's who they are, whereas Labour pretend it doesn't exist and do nothing about it because there's nothing to address.
 
The Tories are Islamophobic and broadly racist in the same way Labour are anti-semitic. That's what happens when parties veer off to the extreme right and left. It's par for the course.

The sole difference is that the Tories acknowledge it but don't do anything about it because it's who they are, whereas Labour pretend it doesn't exist and do nothing about it because there's nothing to address.

The Labour party are not anti semitic. It is par for the course that the Tories will never address racism in their party, as it seeps out of every pore of their being as a party. This was from 2 years ago and has not been dealt with. The Labour party need to have an early day motion to raise these serious racist issues.

dossier on racism in the Conservative Party - Unite the union

Conservatives
Unite leader claims Tory racism goes unpunished


Len McCluskey accuses David Cameron of failing to tackle offensive comments made by Tory councillors, MPs and candidates

Rowena Mason Political correspondent

Thu 5 May 2016 15.26 BSTLast modified on Fri 23 Mar 2018 15.40 GMT

This article is over 2 years old


Les McCluskey accused the Conservatives of a smear campaign against Labour before the local, mayoral and assembly elections. Photograph: Rex Shutterstock
Len McCluskey, the general secretary of Unite, has accused David Cameron of failing to tackle racism in the Conservatives while whipping up fury about antisemitism in Labour.

McCluskey claimed offensive comments made by Tory MPs, councillors and candidates rarely resulted in serious disciplinary action, while Labour had taken swift and thorough action when allegations had come to light.

The union published a dossier of dozens of allegedly racist incidents involving Conservatives on Thursday, after a fortnight in which Labour revealed it had had to suspend 18 members for possible antisemitic remarks. These include the Bradford West MP Naz Shah, who has apologised, and the former London mayor Ken Livingstone.

Cameron used prime minister’s questions to attempt to link Jeremy Corbyn, the Labour leader, and Sadiq Khan, the party’s London mayoral candidate, to antisemitic extremism.

But McCluskey and Diane Abbott, the shadow international development secretary, accused the Conservatives of a smear campaign against Labour before the local, mayoral and assembly elections.

McCluskey said: “Voters can see for themselves the sort of party the Conservative party is and the sort of government this prime minister is happy to lead. It is a party where the routine denigration of peoples and culture is too often met with no more than a shake of the head.

“It is a disgrace and the prime minister has debased his office, not only by allowing a culture of division to be fostered in the London mayoral election campaign but to use the House of Commons as the platform for his hateful brand of dog-whistle politics.

“How dare he whip up fury about the Labour party, which has acted swiftly and thoroughly when allegations of racism among members is made in sharp contrast to his party’s behaviour. He is dragging this country back by decades and his party into the sewer.”

The Unite dossier highlights the suspension of Abdul Zaman, deputy chair of Bradford Conservatives, for allegedly making inappropriate comments about Jews and women, and the expulsion of David Whittingham, a Fareham councillor, for saying he didn’t want foreigners living in his road and for comments and behaviour that were allegedly “racist in nature” – both in April.

It also lists Chris Joannides, a Tory councillor in Enfield, whose Facebook page in 2013 contained a post comparing Muslim children to black bin bags and David Coulter, a a Tory council candidate suspended for a post describing Travellers as “pikies” and “thieving troublemakers”.

It also cited cases where Conservatives had kept their elected positions after controversies. Bob Fahey, a Leicestershire councillor, allegedly referred to a colleague as a “chink”, and Smith Benson, a Tory councillor in Pendle, said there were “too many Pakis” in the town.

Unite called on the Equalities and Human Rights Commission to “look very closely at the conduct of the Conservative party and its repeated indulgence of fear-based politics”.

A Conservative spokesperson said: “This is a pretty cheap attempt by a Labour-linked union to distract from the overwhelming evidence of antisemitism in Labour that has emerged in recent weeks. Instead, why aren’t they making sure the Labour leadership actually finally get to grips with the problem?”
 
Oh dear, lefties dredging the bottom of a barrel to excuse their own anti semitism,instead of addressing their issues......
 
Home Secretary who denied being Muslim disputes Tory Islamophobia because ‘my name is Sajid Javid’
Published time: 4 Jun, 2018 11:49Edited time: 5 Jun, 2018 09:11
Get short URL
5b1525eefc7e93c6368b45dd.jpg

© Reuters / Reuters
Sajid Javid has rejected the Muslim Council of Britain's call for a probe into alleged Tory Islamophobia, saying “look at who the home secretary is in this country”, despite claiming he wasn’t a Muslim in a 2010 interview.
Talking to the BBC’s Andrew Marr, Javid, the new Home Secretary, was asked to respond to Tory peer Baroness Warsi’s claim that there was a “simmering anti-Muslim underbelly of Islamophobia within the party.”

Javid rejected this claim, appearing to use his own apparent Muslim identity as proof there was no Islamophobia within the Tory party. He retorted, “let’s just look at who the Home Secretary is in this country. As you just described me, my name is Sajid Javid – I’m the Home Secretary in this country.”

READ MORE: ‘Simmering underbelly of Islamophobia’ in Tory party, says Muslim Council

Javid’s assertion that his Muslim identity refuted Tory Islamophobia was picked up by Al Jazeera’s Mehdi Hasan and journalist Hussein Kesvani.

Hasan quoted what Javid had said in a 2010 election hustings in Bromsgrove reported by religious publication, Christian Today, seemingly contradicting his Marr interview on the subject of being a practicing Muslim.

He told Christian Today: “My own family's heritage is Muslim...but I do not practise any religion...the only religion practised in my house is Christianity.”


Mehdi Hasan

✔@mehdirhasan

https://twitter.com/mehdirhasan/status/1003339741792821249

'My own family's heritage is Muslim...but I do not practise any religion...the only religion practised in my house is Christianity." - Sajid Javid in 2010

"Look at who the home secretary is" - Sajid Javid today, claiming Muslim identty when Tories accused of anti-Muslim bigotry https://twitter.com/HKesvani/status/1003239937406390272 …

7:16 PM - Jun 3, 2018

The Home Secretary went on to question which Muslims the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB) actually represent, when challenged by Marr on the issue of an investigation. He said: “The Muslim Council of Britain does not represent Muslims in this country. You find me a group of Muslims that thinks that they are represented by the MCB.”

Javid’s jab at the MCB saw an immediate show of solidarity from over 350 mosques and Muslim organizations who on Sunday wrote to the Conservative party calling for an immediate formal inquiry into the “more than weekly occurrences of Islamophobia from candidates and representatives of the party,” the Independent has revealed.

READ MORE: Tory MP with alleged history of Islamophobia found to have been a member of racist Facebook groups

The Independent reported that 11 umbrella organizations from across the UK, including Manchester, Wales, Belfast and Scotland have backed calls for an urgent inquiry.

In response an MCB spokesperson said: “We very much welcome the many councils of mosques who have written in support of our call for an inquiry into this issue.

“It reflects the importance that this issue holds in Muslim communities across the UK and the breadth of support for the Muslim Council of Britain.”

 
The Tories are Islamophobic and broadly racist in the same way Labour are anti-semitic. That's what happens when parties veer off to the extreme right and left. It's par for the course.

The sole difference is that the Tories acknowledge it but don't do anything about it because it's who they are, whereas Labour pretend it doesn't exist and do nothing about it because there's nothing to address.

Not really - for a start, the last London mayoral election was blatantly and deliberately Islamophobic (and in some areas racist, especially with the targetted mailshots to Indian families where Khan's Pakistani heritage and bad things happening to the family gold were raised as issues) and this was something led from the top of the party.

I cannot recall one Labour campaign where they have done anything like that.
 
Not really - for a start, the last London mayoral election was blatantly and deliberately Islamophobic (and in some areas racist, especially with the targetted mailshots to Indian families where Khan's Pakistani heritage and bad things happening to the family gold were raised as issues) and this was something led from the top of the party.

I cannot recall one Labour campaign where they have done anything like that.

I said that in that very quote - the Tories don't give a toss about being Islamophobic, so they shrug their shoulders and do whatever they want to create a "hostile environment" for them and others, whereas Labour don't acknowledge anti-semitism at the highest levels; they just allow it to fester in the grass roots.
 
The Tories have paved the way for Murdoch to increase his stranglehold on sky, let the scandals die down a little move some stuff around and the rich and powerful get back to acting how they like
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Welcome

Join the Everton conversation today.
Fewer ads, full access, completely free.

🛒 Visit Shop

Support Grand Old Team by checking out our latest Everton gear!
Back
Top