You might wonder why I, a philosopher, have been invited on to this panel. I guess the reason is I'm interested in and have published on the ways in which bullshit beliefs - myths and prejudices - can get a grip on public thinking.
I wrote a book called Believing Bullshit - How Not To Fall Into an Intellectual Black Hole which flags up some of the key signs that we are dealing with a with a myth or prejudice rather than rational belief.
So how, in particular do prejudices regarding women, black people, Jews and so on get started?
Well, once it's been suggested that a certain group have some 'problem' - that women have a bad driving problem, say, or Jews have a greed problem, it's usually not hard to find examples.
After all, inevitably, some women are terrible drivers. And inevitably, some Jewish people are greedy.
Indeed, once it's suggested there may be a 'problem', people will often start to find their own examples. Often, they'll notice the really emotionally arresting examples and then later be able to recite them with ease - a woman who caused an awful motorway pile-up that killed several children, for example.
Once this pattern of thought has set in - it's called confirmation bias - where we search only for positive instances to confirm what we already suspect is true - people can easily convince themselves of things that aren't true.
They may become so convinced, in fact, that if we present them with hard evidence that women are just as good - perhaps even better - drivers than men, they'll dismiss it out of hand. They'll insist it's just obvious that women are bad drivers - everyone knows women are bad drivers - that they can point to lots of examples of women being bad drivers.
And yet this supposed evidence that women have a 'bad driving problem' is of course entirely useless and ancedotal. Obviously some women really are very bad drivers. There's no denying that. But of course, that doesn't remotely justify the conclusion that 'women have a bad driving problem' - i.e. that women are worse drivers than are men.
I'm sure we all recognise such anecdote-driven patterns of thought are one of the main ways racial and other prejudices get a grip: including anti-semitism.
So, now let's consider the charge that Labour has an anti-semitism problem.
It's now widely considered obvious that Labour has an anti-semitism problem - that levels of anti-semitism are higher in Labour, or higher on the Left - than elsewhere.
Indeed, many now suppose anti-semitism is rampant on the Left.
This summer 68 Rabbis signed a letter saying: "As British rabbis, it is with great regret that we find it necessary to write, yet antisemitism within sections of the Labour party has become so severe and widespread that we must speak out with one Jewish voice."
The Jerusalem Post' has claimed that 'Britain’s Labour Party has a major problem with rampant antisemitism.'
New York Post ran a leader that 'Britain's Left is melting down over rampant antisemitism'
This finger-pointing at the Left matters. In fact it may well influence the outcome of the next general election. Labour are increasingly viewed as toxic because of the this perpetually repeated allegation that it's now riven with anti-semitism.
What's the evidence supporting the allegation that Labour has an anti-semitism problem? For the most part it consists of a few hundred complaints to the Labour Party, out of well over half a million members. That's a small fraction of one percent of the membership.
And then there are various other alleged cases of left anti-semitism that have been featured very heavily in the media.
That's it. That's pretty much all the evidence. But of course this is, again, entirely anecdotal, cherry-picked evidence.
Citing such examples no more supports the allegation that 'Labour has an anti-semitism problem' than it supports the allegation that women have a bad driving problem.
This is not to say that there is no antisemitism in Labour - obviously there is. But the suggestion that the Left is riddled with anti-semitism is clearly entirely unjustified. Indeed, drawing that conclusion on the basis of that sort of evidence is a classic example of confirmation bias.
Actually there is plenty of much better quality evidence concerning levels anti-semitism on the Left. However, all this evidence flatly contradicts the claim that there's more anti-semitism in Labour or on the Left than there is elsewhere. For example:
· Jewish Policy Research - a Jewish think-tank - conducted an extensive survey looking at anti-semitism, including on the left. They concluded, and I quote, 'antisemitism is no more prevalent on the left than in the general population'. That's a Jewish think-tank's conclusion.
· A Cross-Party Home Affairs Select Committee was tasked with looking into levels of anti-semitism in the UK. It concluded, and I quote, '...there exists no reliable, empirical evidence to support the notion that there is a higher prevalence of antisemitic attitudes within the Labour Party than any other political party.'
· There is, further, yougov data on antisemitic attitudes that indicates antisemitic attitudes have actually *reduced* in Labour under Corbyn.
· The Chakrabarti inquiry looked into the accusations of significant antisemitism in Labour and found no significant problem.
· In 2016, Channel 4 Dispatches programme did a 6 month undercover investigation of Momentum, looking for dirt, including anti-semitism. They found none at all. After six months of undercover investigation.
So, so far as I can see, all the available hard evidence not only fails to support the allegation that Labour has an anti-semitism problem - it directly contradicts that allegation.
Pretty much everyone agrees there are some anti-semites in Labour. Just as everyone agrees that some women are bad drivers. Is there a greater percentage than in the population at large, or in other parties?
Pointing to a bunch of emotive anecdotes supplied by the Press and on social media is not good evidence that there is. And the fact is that all the available hard evidence very strongly suggests there isn't.
So how has this myth been generated? Journalists have played a key roll.
The real story regarding 'Labour's anti-semitism problem' is the story of how this myth about Labour being riddled with anti-semitism arose and came to so dominate the British media for so long - on front page after front page after front page - and with such potential significance for the outcome of the next general election.
A recent Birkbeck College London and Media Reform Coalition Research project into Press reporting on anti-semitism recently concluded that British media reporting of allegations of anti-semitism in Labour has involved, and I quote, "a persistent subversion of conventional news values"
In particular, they said, and I quote: "completely false claims were presented as fact, often without even the most basic challenge." Shockingly, the BBC were singled out as one of the very worst offenders.
We all have a moral duty to be vigilant and call out anti-semitism when we see it, but we also have an important moral duty to be careful, calm, and not shoot from hip and fire off accusations on the basis of obviously flimsy or nonexistent evidence.
Those who do fire off accusations cavalierly, without taking care with the evidence are, (i) are disrespecting the memory of the millions who were slaughtered by real antisemitism during the Holocaust, (ii) drawing our attention away from the real anti-semites in our ranks, (iii) crying wolf: making it more likely that genuine reports of a/s will not be believed.
Ironically, all this actually puts Jews at increased risk.