Andrew Neil's forensic probe

Subject: Andrew Neil's forensic probe versus Corbyn's ethical integrity.

One can see the difficulty of entering into a forensic question and answer program which covers the whole field of politics,  finance, moral integrity and the fine tuning which goes on in all our lives as we progress through the years when the political climate and the norms of today are so out of tune from those in the past.
Andrew Neil's interview with Jeramy Corbyn was simply a well researched minefield of trip wires and who ever was in the hot seat would find it hard to survive. 
The Anti -Semantic issue, which has haunted Corbyn for years, was first in line with Neil bringing up statements from Corbyn's past, a time when society was far more inclined to view others who were not of British stock, as foreigners who were different and we had the unfortunate tendency to depreciate the difference. He has found it difficult to repudiate ideas formed at that time. The TV was in those days littered with comic sketches describing what was perceived to be the character of Jewish people and Jewish comedians from America were famous for their parody of what it meant to be Jewish. This was a time before we became sensitive regarding race. The society had an image of Jewish society which encompassed wealthy exclusivity and banking. The class struggle had always considered bankers as the enemy in the struggle between 'labour' and the means of production and 'finance' which always seemed to scoop up more than it's fair share of the profit. Jewish society seemed to own or manage a fair proportion of this financial facility and therefor were cast as the villain in the class struggle. It's no use condemning perceptions. The Jews were proud of their exclusivity of being separate, of insisting on  marrying only within their racial group force which only force fed the image. Today this is thought to be an anathema but in the 40s, 50s and 60s it was a prejudice held by the working class for which the Jewish community did little to counter. Corbyn having grown up in that era holds the view that the Jewish persona  was in part itself to blame with its complicated views on so many things and especially in making assimilation difficult. Also the Palestinian question and Netanyahu's belligerent attitude towards the Arabs, particularly the Palestinian's, has marked Corbyn's  attitude of what takes place in Israel, an attitude mirrored in many countries which today make up the United Nations.
With regard to financial matters the close scrutiny of Andrew Neil's questioning displayed the age old conflict between the suggested need for Financial Prudence, prudence which further impoverished the poor (at the same time enriching the 1%), versus  'Investment led' growth, paying decent wages and allowing growth to come through a financial multiplier, spending, which depends in the first place on sufficient numbers of people having enough money to spend. In a society which has shown real earnings stay stagnant for a decade, whilst the top 1% have multiplied their wealth many, many, many times over the questions pursued by Andrew Neil missed the point and no matter what Corbyn said ideology got in the way.
The gulf  between Keynesian Economics and the Milton Friedman school of economics is as wide as the ocean which separated their protagonists. The UK and the USA have, since the end of the war, up until the period Mrs Thatcher governed the country the left and the right have been poles apart in their objectives. One seeks to include society in its financial objective the other sees only the needs of the individual.
The program was as if one person was talking Mandarin the other Swahili. Communication had broken down because the answers were written with a different perspective of societal need and under the influence of a different moral compass.