Do I think Ken Livingstone is an anti-Semite? No.
Is that important? Yes.
Do I think his unsolicited defence of Naz Shah was necessary or clever? Absolutely not.
Are elements of the Labour right exploiting those comments for cynical, factional gain? Yup.
Are those attacks also aimed at Corbyn’s leadership? Erm, yes – of course.
Was that predictable? Pretty much.
Do we need further conspiracy theories, involving racist or anti-Semitic tropes? No.
Is everyone who is defending Ken guilty of that? No.
Is Ken the only politician with an addiction to headlines? No.
Do I think that his comments about Hitler and Zionism were well judged, a valuable contribution to the debate? No.
Would that be the case whether they were historically accurate or not? Yes.
Have other politicians made similarly crass interventions? Yes.
Have they all been the subject of disciplinary investigations and a high-profile media hounding? No.
Does that make Ken beyond criticism? No.
Would it have been easier if Ken had apologised? I reckon so.
Was that ever likely? No.
Does that mean that he should be expelled? No.
Does the Livingstone scenario stop us from talking about Israel’s flouting of international law, treatment of the Palestinian people, illegal settlements and killing of civilians? No.
Does that discussion need to be wrapped up in the type of language that David Icke would be proud of? No.