Labour broke equalities law over anti-Semitism

[cyril evans awaydays]

I think the Rawnsley 'explanation' is bullshit and I am sorry you are promoting it.

There have clearly been examples of antisemitism in the Labour Party - in line with that in wider society and other parties - although the EHRC report adds very little to what was previously in the public domain. The two main case studies (one is Ken Livingston) are very thin, and many of the examples given are where an antisemtitic intent is assumed without evidence! However, whilst thin (and with no allegations about Corbyn himself) there are some appalling examples derived from the 70 case files that were examined (58 put forward by the Jewish Labour Movement and the Camapign Against Antisemitism and 12 by the Labour Party).

It implies a definition of antisemitism that allows it to denounce anyone who claims that political enemies used the crisis for factional purposes (they did) or that the press exaggerated the prevalence of allegations (they did) which is very different from convictions. The report did though dissect the way allegations were managed and investigated - and made a series of recommendations that almost anyone could support. Corbyn supported the recommendations. He refused to accept every line in the EHRC report (quite rightly) and put out a statement that generally accepted the report whilst repeating again his view that the crisis had been manipulated and that it had been reported in a way that gave the public (and the Jewish communities) an impression of case numbers that was 1000x the reality.

What Corbyn said on publication of the report was to my mind fair and reasonable. The way Starmer characterised it was false and dishonest. Starmer (not Corbyn) has acted to escalate the issue and has lost any control he had. He is now being pushed to suspend another 20-30 leading figures, including half of the Campaign Group of MPs. Interestingly he has directly intervened in the internal party process, contrary to his own claims (but subsequently came clean on TV), and doing exactly what the EHRC denounced in their report.

Several years ago Clive Lewis (before he stepped down from the leadership contest) made a very powerful speech in which he argued it was possible (because it was true) for there to be both incidents of antisemitism in the party and for those incidents to be misused and misrepresented for factional purposes. That's where I am today after reading the report and acres of reaction from all sides over recent days.

I hope the process recommendations are implemented quickly and that there is clarity and fairness for people who feel they are victims, but also for those who are accused (frequently falsely over recent years - with a minority of the accused being sanctioned). I also hope that the rising number of incidents of antisemitism in the UK get more attention that anti-zionist tweets by obscure Labour councillors! The real victims of this crisis are not the main protagonists but the victims in the UK who don't have a united and effective anti racist party to stand with them, and the victims in Gaza, the West Bank and the refugee camps who have had their voices silenced and their repression 'normalised'!

Jon,

The key question for me is whether the Rawnsley description of events is true. If he spent the night before "clearing" what he was going to say with Corbyn and he still couldn't stay in line with a new leader then I am afraid it fits my impression of his frailties. The Rawnsley view that many who would consider to be in his camp think Corbyn's exposure on this is not the hill to die on resonates.

[jon1959]

Jon,

The key question for me is whether the Rawnsley description of events is true. If he spent the night before "clearing" what he was going to say with Corbyn and he still couldn't stay in line with a new leader then I am afraid it fits my impression of his frailties. The Rawnsley view that many who would consider to be in his camp think Corbyn's exposure on this is not the hill to die on resonates.

Corbyn has many frailties and was a mixed bag as a party leader. As a party manager - albeit in a very hostile PLP and press environment - he was very poor. He wasn't interested in the job as it is. He wanted ideas, campaigns, collective action. He is modest and principled, but also a pacifist in all his relationships. He dithered and then capitulated to many of the attacks on him and the values he represents. He thought that would buy him space and time, but it did neither. The latest batch of opinion pieces attacking Corbyn imply that it is ego or vanity that produced his response. I don't believe that. I think it was a limited push back against false allegations and press reporting whilst accepting most of the report and (I think) all of the recommendations.

There are several incompatible versions of what was agreed between Starmer and Corbyn the evening before the report was published and the press conference. I don't know the truth but based on personalities and recent record I am much more inclined to accept the Corbyn version than Starmers (direct or via the likes of Rawnsley). I thought Starmer would at least be straight and honest as party leader - even if dull and conservative. I don't think he has been. He repeatedly misrepresented Corbyn's statement on national TV and his latest lie was that he didn't make the call about Corbyn's suspension but left it to David Evans. He later admitted his involvement. Neither should have been involved if Labour is accepting the report recommendations!

I didn't vote for Starmer but I did believe his 10 Point pitch at the leadership hustings - now I don't trust him an inch.

This is one where we will have to agree to disagree.