Political neutrality and the Jewish Chronicle

Is the voice of Anglo-Jewry cosying up to the Tories?

Guest post from Julian Kossoff

The Kaminski affair was the freaky sideshow of the Tory party conference in Manchester. David Cameron and his handlers toiled hard to kill allegations that the Polish MEP Michal Kaminski, Cameron's new best friend in Europe, had an unsavoury anti-Semitic and homophobic track record, dismissing this as a Guardian/Labour stitch-up.

But by the middle of the week they were upended when the Board of Deputies of British Jews (the representative body of Britain's 300,000 Jews) asked "discreet" questions about Kaminski, the man now entrusted with leadership of the European Conservatives and Reformists Group.

What is Anglo-Jewry to make of this row?

Well, naturally, they would turn to the Jewish Chronicle -- the leading Jewish voice in the UK -- to find out more.

However, the JC has now become part of the story, in the shape of its respected editor, Stephen Pollard.

Pollard has made the unprecedented decision to use the considerable authority of his position to back Kaminski, despite compelling evidence that the MEP is, at least, a former fellow-traveller of Polish anti-Semitism.

The move is raising great concern that Mr Pollard has broken the JC's historic covenant with its readers to remain non-partisan, undermining its credibility as a "broad synagogue" inclusive of the differing opinions in a diverse community.

Pollard's gift of a "kosher" seal of approval for Kaminski has been a godsend for the Conservatives, but has left others wondering why the JC editor has cheerled so hard for an obscure professional politician from Poland. The question is whether, in doing so, he has betrayed the memory of the Polish Jews massacred at Jedwabne in 1941.

Indeed, Pollard repeatedly rubbished claims that Kaminski had drawn (anti-Semitic) parallels between that blood-curdling pogrom, committed during the Nazi occupation, and so-called Jewish collaboration with the Soviets, only for Kaminski to repeat these thoughts in an exclusive JC interview on Friday.

The following day, again in the JC, it was reported that Kaminski had also recanted previous denials that he had worn a Polish fascist symbol.

But this did not stop Pollard lambasting the Board of Deputies for its "catastrophic lack of judgement" (the words "pot" and "kettle" spring to mind) for requesting information on Kaminksi in the middle of the Tory conference. He denounced them as tools of New Labour -- yet what does such a vociferous and misjudged defence of a European anti-federalist make him?

Pollard has been left balancing on the pinhead argument that Kaminski is pro-Israel. However, many on the European right admire Israel as a bulwark against Islamic militancy, and not because of any feelings of fondness towards Jews in their own backyard.

As Pollard's strained self-justification built to a crescendo, members of his own editorial team have looked on aghast.

With a general election imminent, it is vital that the JC re-establish its all-important role as the independent voice of Anglo-Jewry.

Julian Kossoff was a senior reporter at the Jewish Chronicle from 1988-95

Getty
Show Hide image

Find the EU renegotiation demands dull? Me too – but they are important

It's an old trick: smother anything in enough jargon and you can avoid being held accountable for it.

I don’t know about you, but I found the details of Britain’s European Union renegotiation demands quite hard to read. Literally. My eye kept gliding past them, in an endless quest for something more interesting in the paragraph ahead. It was as if the word “subsidiarity” had been smeared in grease. I haven’t felt tedium quite like this since I read The Lord of the Rings and found I slid straight past anything written in italics, reasoning that it was probably another interminable Elvish poem. (“The wind was in his flowing hair/The foam about him shone;/Afar they saw him strong and fair/Go riding like a swan.”)

Anyone who writes about politics encounters this; I call it Subclause Syndrome. Smother anything in enough jargon, whirr enough footnotes into the air, and you have a very effective shield for protecting yourself from accountability – better even than gutting the Freedom of Information laws, although the government seems quite keen on that, too. No wonder so much of our political conversation ends up being about personality: if we can’t hope to master all the technicalities, the next best thing is to trust the person to whom we have delegated that job.

Anyway, after 15 cups of coffee, three ice-bucket challenges and a bottle of poppers I borrowed from a Tory MP, I finally made it through. I didn’t feel much more enlightened, though, because there were notable omissions – no mention, thankfully, of rolling back employment protections – and elsewhere there was a touching faith in the power of adding “language” to official documents.

One thing did stand out, however. For months, we have been told that it is a terrible problem that migrants from Europe are sending child benefit to their families back home. In future, the amount that can be claimed will start at zero and it will reach full whack only after four years of working in Britain. Even better, to reduce the alleged “pull factor” of our generous in-work benefits regime, the child benefit rate will be paid on a ratio calculated according to average wages in the home country.

What a waste of time. At the moment, only £30m in child benefit is sent out of the country each year: quite a large sum if you’re doing a whip round for a retirement gift for a colleague, but basically a rounding error in the Department for Work and Pensions budget.

Only 20,000 workers, and 34,000 children, are involved. And yet, apparently, this makes it worth introducing 28 different rates of child benefit to be administered by the DWP. We are given to understand that Iain Duncan Smith thinks this is barmy – and this is a man optimistic enough about his department’s computer systems to predict in 2013 that 4.46 million people would be claiming Universal Credit by now*.

David Cameron’s renegotiation package was comprised exclusively of what Doctor Who fans call handwavium – a magic substance with no obvious physical attributes, which nonetheless helpfully advances the plot. In this case, the renegotiation covers up the fact that the Prime Minister always wanted to argue to stay in Europe, but needed a handy fig leaf to do so.

Brace yourself for a sentence you might not read again in the New Statesman, but this makes me feel sorry for Chris Grayling. He and other Outers in the cabinet have to wait at least two weeks for Cameron to get the demands signed off; all the while, Cameron can subtly make the case for staying in Europe, while they are bound to keep quiet because of collective responsibility.

When that stricture lifts, the high-ranking Eurosceptics will at last be free to make the case they have been sitting on for years. I have three strong beliefs about what will happen next. First, that everyone confidently predicting a paralysing civil war in the Tory ranks is doing so more in hope than expectation. Some on the left feel that if Labour is going to be divided over Trident, it is only fair that the Tories be split down the middle, too. They forget that power, and patronage, are strong solvents: there has already been much muttering about low-level blackmail from the high command, with MPs warned about the dire influence of disloyalty on their career prospects.

Second, the Europe campaign will feature large doses of both sides solemnly advising the other that they need to make “a positive case”. This will be roundly ignored. The Remain team will run a fear campaign based on job losses, access to the single market and “losing our seat at the table”; Leave will run a fear campaign based on the steady advance of whatever collective noun for migrants sounds just the right side of racist. (Current favourite: “hordes”.)

Third, the number of Britons making a decision based on a complete understanding of the renegotiation, and the future terms of our membership, will be vanishingly small. It is simply impossible to read about subsidiarity for more than an hour without lapsing into a coma.

Yet, funnily enough, this isn’t necessarily a bad thing. Just as the absurd complexity of policy frees us to talk instead about character, so the onset of Subclause Syndrome in the EU debate will allow us to ask ourselves a more profound, defining question: what kind of country do we want Britain to be? Polling suggests that very few of us see ourselves as “European” rather than Scottish, or British, but are we a country that feels open and looks outwards, or one that thinks this is the best it’s going to get, and we need to protect what we have? That’s more vital than any subclause. l

* For those of you keeping score at home, Universal Credit is now allegedly going to be implemented by 2021. Incidentally, George Osborne has recently discovered that it’s a great source of handwavium; tax credit cuts have been postponed because UC will render such huge savings that they aren’t needed.

Helen Lewis is deputy editor of the New Statesman. She has presented BBC Radio 4’s Week in Westminster and is a regular panellist on BBC1’s Sunday Politics.

This article first appeared in the 11 February 2016 issue of the New Statesman, The legacy of Europe's worst battle