Disciplining Corbyn would draw a line over Labour's anti-Semitism struggle, although Keir Starmer is likely to prefer the quiet life.
Source - Daily Telegraph - 22/07/20
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2020/07/22/jeremy-corbyn-deserves-lose-whip-would-plunge-labour-uncontrollable/?li_source=LI&li_medium=liftigniter-rhr
There was much excitement in the Twittersphere this morning about the prospect of former Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn losing the party whip. Corbyn wouldn’t be the first backbench MP to lose the whip but it would be an interesting development, more of which later. Because first and foremost, we need to address the much more substantive and important events in court this morning, where Labour finally and formally apologised to former staff members for smearing them.
The seven had agreed to take part in BBC Panorama’s expose entitled “Is Labour anti-Semitic?”, a title that would surely have benefited from the loss of the question mark and the rearrangement of the first two words. Those who work for the party – for any party – do so out of devotion to the cause and on the understanding that they will work absurdly long hours for very little remuneration. In short, they are the faithful workers without whom no party can function. And when these seven exposed what they had witnessed inside the organisation, when they described how their mental health as well as their professional careers suffered as a result of their concerns about anti-Semitism, they were smeared and disparaged by their comrades.
In a seemingly never-ending sequence of ugly events that characterised Corbyn’s reign, from failing to stand up for a young Jewish MP when she was publicly harassed by a personal friend of Corbyn’s at the launch of the party’s own report into anti-Semitism, to being present at the laying a wreath in commemoration of terrorists who planned the murder of Jewish athletes at the Munich Olympics, the organised defenestration of its own former employees was a particular low point.
The party’s decision to draw a line under the whole episode with a formal apology to them and to John Ware, the Panorama journalist who was also smeared, will go a long way to repairing Labour’s reputation as an anti-racist party.
There have been a number of occasions, since Keir Starmer took over as party leader, where he has asserted not only his authority but also the contrast between his and Corbyn’s styles and ethical approach. Sacking Rebecca Long-Bailey was one and appointing David Evans as the new general secretary was another. But today’s statement of apology and contrition was the most important one yet, because in no circumstances can anyone imagine those words being read out on behalf of Jeremy Corbyn.
But just as another hurdle is overcome, another one hoves into view. The draft report by the Equality and Human Rights Commission into Labour anti-Semitism has now been with the party for just over a week. It will be published at some point, after the party has had an opportunity to submit its own comments to the findings. One could be forgiven for believing that the shadow cast over the party by Corbyn may never disappear.
So would depriving Corbyn of the whip prove an effective way of drawing that line under the events of his leadership? Probably, but just as probably, that won’t happen.
There was a time when the leadership of the party could and should have removed the whip from the Islington MP. In 1984, he played host to IRA members in the House of Commons, just weeks after their comrades-in-arms murdered five people at the Conservative Party conference in Brighton and attempted to assassinate the cabinet, including the prime minister. Two years later Corbyn was arrested while protesting the trial of the Brighton bomber outside the old Bailey. And a year after that, during the 1987 general election, he stood in respectful silence in honour of IRA terrorists who had been killed while trying to blow up a police station in Northern Ireland. “I’m happy to commemorate all those who died fighting for an independent Ireland,” he told journalists.
He was clearly in contravention of the party rule that members must not bring the party into disrepute. And yet he was still an official Labour candidate at that election, and in every election since. Even Tony Blair and Gordon Brown did nothing to remove him from the parliamentary party, despite the urging of Blair’s then chief whip, Hilary Armstrong.
Corbyn is already 71 years old and may well not stand for election again anyway. Removing the whip and denying him the right to stand under Labour colours again might be, therefore, pointless, in that the next parliament may not contain him even if he retains the whip. There is a case, however, for going ahead with disciplinary action anyway. In previous years, there was a limit to the damage Corbyn could inflict on his party’s nationwide reputation. But as Labour leader, he seized the opportunity to trash Labour’s reputation in a way that, as an anonymous back bencher, he could only dream about.
Nevertheless, Starmer is likely to take the path of least resistance followed by his pre-Corbyn predecessors and opt for the quiet life. The internecine wars of the Corbyn years – mass resignations, votes of confidence, leadership challenges and, ultimately, complete capitulation – will seem like a pleasant day out compared to the war that would descend if Corbyn were disciplined for his record as leader. Yes, removing the whip from Corbyn would be the right thing to do, but the price Starmer would pay would be an uncontrollable civil war that would conceivably split the party and leave each half as unelectable as the other.
Still, it would be fun to watch.
Source - Daily Telegraph - 22/07/20
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2020/07/22/jeremy-corbyn-deserves-lose-whip-would-plunge-labour-uncontrollable/?li_source=LI&li_medium=liftigniter-rhr
There was much excitement in the Twittersphere this morning about the prospect of former Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn losing the party whip. Corbyn wouldn’t be the first backbench MP to lose the whip but it would be an interesting development, more of which later. Because first and foremost, we need to address the much more substantive and important events in court this morning, where Labour finally and formally apologised to former staff members for smearing them.
The seven had agreed to take part in BBC Panorama’s expose entitled “Is Labour anti-Semitic?”, a title that would surely have benefited from the loss of the question mark and the rearrangement of the first two words. Those who work for the party – for any party – do so out of devotion to the cause and on the understanding that they will work absurdly long hours for very little remuneration. In short, they are the faithful workers without whom no party can function. And when these seven exposed what they had witnessed inside the organisation, when they described how their mental health as well as their professional careers suffered as a result of their concerns about anti-Semitism, they were smeared and disparaged by their comrades.
In a seemingly never-ending sequence of ugly events that characterised Corbyn’s reign, from failing to stand up for a young Jewish MP when she was publicly harassed by a personal friend of Corbyn’s at the launch of the party’s own report into anti-Semitism, to being present at the laying a wreath in commemoration of terrorists who planned the murder of Jewish athletes at the Munich Olympics, the organised defenestration of its own former employees was a particular low point.
The party’s decision to draw a line under the whole episode with a formal apology to them and to John Ware, the Panorama journalist who was also smeared, will go a long way to repairing Labour’s reputation as an anti-racist party.
There have been a number of occasions, since Keir Starmer took over as party leader, where he has asserted not only his authority but also the contrast between his and Corbyn’s styles and ethical approach. Sacking Rebecca Long-Bailey was one and appointing David Evans as the new general secretary was another. But today’s statement of apology and contrition was the most important one yet, because in no circumstances can anyone imagine those words being read out on behalf of Jeremy Corbyn.
But just as another hurdle is overcome, another one hoves into view. The draft report by the Equality and Human Rights Commission into Labour anti-Semitism has now been with the party for just over a week. It will be published at some point, after the party has had an opportunity to submit its own comments to the findings. One could be forgiven for believing that the shadow cast over the party by Corbyn may never disappear.
So would depriving Corbyn of the whip prove an effective way of drawing that line under the events of his leadership? Probably, but just as probably, that won’t happen.
There was a time when the leadership of the party could and should have removed the whip from the Islington MP. In 1984, he played host to IRA members in the House of Commons, just weeks after their comrades-in-arms murdered five people at the Conservative Party conference in Brighton and attempted to assassinate the cabinet, including the prime minister. Two years later Corbyn was arrested while protesting the trial of the Brighton bomber outside the old Bailey. And a year after that, during the 1987 general election, he stood in respectful silence in honour of IRA terrorists who had been killed while trying to blow up a police station in Northern Ireland. “I’m happy to commemorate all those who died fighting for an independent Ireland,” he told journalists.
He was clearly in contravention of the party rule that members must not bring the party into disrepute. And yet he was still an official Labour candidate at that election, and in every election since. Even Tony Blair and Gordon Brown did nothing to remove him from the parliamentary party, despite the urging of Blair’s then chief whip, Hilary Armstrong.
Corbyn is already 71 years old and may well not stand for election again anyway. Removing the whip and denying him the right to stand under Labour colours again might be, therefore, pointless, in that the next parliament may not contain him even if he retains the whip. There is a case, however, for going ahead with disciplinary action anyway. In previous years, there was a limit to the damage Corbyn could inflict on his party’s nationwide reputation. But as Labour leader, he seized the opportunity to trash Labour’s reputation in a way that, as an anonymous back bencher, he could only dream about.
Nevertheless, Starmer is likely to take the path of least resistance followed by his pre-Corbyn predecessors and opt for the quiet life. The internecine wars of the Corbyn years – mass resignations, votes of confidence, leadership challenges and, ultimately, complete capitulation – will seem like a pleasant day out compared to the war that would descend if Corbyn were disciplined for his record as leader. Yes, removing the whip from Corbyn would be the right thing to do, but the price Starmer would pay would be an uncontrollable civil war that would conceivably split the party and leave each half as unelectable as the other.
Still, it would be fun to watch.
Comments
Post a Comment