The Guardian reports this morning that:
More than a dozen people are drawing up legal action against Labour, after they were named in an incendiary leaked report that threatens to plunge the party into financial peril.
Claims covering the Data Protection Act, invasion of privacy and libel are all being considered and could be submitted to the party as soon as this week. The party, individuals and some media commentators are all said to be the subject of legal complaints as a result of the document's release and remarks made about its contents.
I have not given this leak much attention because I am not, to be candid, terribly interested in Labour's in-fighting.
That it happened is beyond dispute. That there were gross errors of judgment on all sides is I am sure absolutely certain. But is this the issue of the moment which many in Labour seem to think it is? Politely, no it isn't.
But there are several things to say. First, now we know why Labour cannot talk about this: anything it says can only make matters worse.
Second, the infighting will continue as a result because it would seem that this is all that matters to some in Labour (and people wonder why I chose not to join, even at the time when Corbyn was using my ideas?).
Third, the cost of all this could easily sink the Labour Party: people are not going to donate to bail out a party that has collapsed for this reason.
And fourth, this has massive consequences.
With a government that is utterly incompetent in power we are still not seeing effective opposition, because it is internally crushed.
And we are not seeing opposition with any confidence that it can present alternatives because it probably has very good reason to wonder whether it has any real chance of meeting the costs of the claims that are going to land on it, and so survive this fiasco.
And as a result, we are in an even deeper mess.
Or are we? Is this the moment for political realignment to begin?
This government's hold on credibility is in tatters when the Sunday Times has turned on it over PPE today.
Labour remains a tired force.
And the crisis is only going to get much, much worse, especially if the madness of Brexit is piled on top of everything else.
Labour might be entering its death throes, but so too might the Tories be doing so.
The hope is that democracy survives this.
There is, of course, no guarantee that it will.
But if it does realignment has to be on the cards.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Not that I disagree. But realign to what? The Lib Dems bet the farm on free movement and the open global agenda, that’s now gone. The Greens will be marmite but they’ll do ok I guess. We are yet to see the Green reaction in a world of $20 oil.
The Conservative Party will I think come out of this but it will be unrecognizable and it’s future is uncertain.
A realignment around age maybe? Not sure whether that would be a good thing.
I agree that the Labour Party, as we know it, is sadly beyond repair. Feels like the demise of a car that was once the trusty family workhorse but will no longer fire-up despite many attempts to replace the key moving parts. The Tory Party, on the other hand, is notoriously adept at reinventing itself, so I wouldn’t predict an early demise. But eventual death, yes. Gramsci’s ‘morbid symptoms’ seem ever more prophetic & pertinent.
Having campaigned for Labour in the last election (I am not a member of the Labour party) & met quite a few Labour members I am not prepared to see Labour “go down the plug-hole”. The members are good people wanting to see a better UK, for all. They are the party. They deserve better.
I have read the unredacted report. The sections of the report that describe the actions of senior members of the Labour organisation (if true) could be construde, in a court of law, to suggest that they have broken their employment contracts with the Labour party.
I am willing to fund/organise a class action against the people named in the report to test this “assertion” – that what was described was true and that as a consequence the people named broke their employment contracts with the Labour party.
Those interested can find me easily enough.
Richard,
Sorry, but I have to disagree with you, and strongly, in this post, characterising, as it does, the release of the antisemitism Report as an internal Labour matter (which it most certainly is, to a large extent), but otherwise as largely irrelevant to present concerns (which I would argue is not true), and a symptom of Labour’s terminal decline (which, alas could, and may, be true).
As to the internal Party aspect, in brief, is it any wonder, when one sees evidence (as yet unproven) that Labour HQ sabotaged the 2017 GE, to prevent Labour, and the then widely supported Leader, Jeremy Corbyn, from winning, and so from becoming PM.
There is strong evidence that Corbyn only needed 2,227 votes to claim the right to lead a minority Labour Government (see https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/corbyn-election-results-votes-away-prime-minister-theresa-may-hung-parliament-a7782581.html), and one person (known to both of us, but I won’t make, as I haven’t her permission to do so) reported on Facebook how she was directed away from Thurrock – list by only 300 votes – to help Wes Streeting, who won by 8,000 votes in 2017 – clearly poor use of resources, incompetent, if done unwittingly, and shocking, if done, as claimed, with malice aforethought. My own constituency of Norwich North was lost by only 507 votes, and may also have been starved of resources.
However, all such detail could be regarded a secondary, and the fact of such chicanery as being important, but not a key issue, as you say.
For me, however, it is a key issue – not even on the level of the Coronavirus pandemic, and certainly not on the level of climate change and climate destruction and the accompanying loss of biodiversity – but important and key nonetheless, affecting every UK citizen.
For it goes to the issue of democracy, and our trust in its processes, on the one hand, and on the other, to the situation we now find ourselves in.
As regards the first, this scandal calls into question the legitimacy of our whole electoral, indeed, our whole political system, making us ask questions as to the validity of all elections. Mrs May’s piggybacking on the DUP was shocking enough, but to see what may have happened in 2017 is making people ask about the legitimacy of Keir Starmer’s win, however implausible such questiong may be.
As to the situation we are now in, had Corbyn headed up a multi-party coalition, not only would he have kept to many of Labour’s popular 2017 Manifesto pledges, but far more importantly would definitely (or at least surely?) have negotiated a far softer BREXIT agreement, likely therefore to have obtained grudging acceptance from all, except for extreme Leavers and Remainers.
I cannot now recall what the 2017 Manifesto said, but he would probably have put this to the electorate in a Referendum – a Peoples’ Vote – and then implemented what that Referendum dictated – a Referendum based on known elements, rather than unknown as is 2016, BTW.
The country would, under such circumstances, be a far more united country, sure of where it was headed.
Further, judging by Corbyn’s responses and interventions, I really do not believe he would have been as remiss as the present Government has been over the Coronavirus crisis.
All of which is only post-2017 supposition, and so has no sway over where we are now, which is the place from which we must act, to take things forward.
But the question of the legitimacy and trustworthiness of our democratic system and outcomes IS important, and must be addressed.
Andrew
I have little doubt – because I saw it first hand – that Labour HQ sought to sabotage the Corbyn team. I need no persuasion.
I need no persuasion that much of what was said on anti-semitism was driven by agendas wholly unrelated to that issue, and that was utterly unacceptable
I accept all that.
It happened.
But if Labour cannot now say that it’s time to move on then under a new leader then it is failing the people of this country and that is unforgivable of an official opposition
I simply don’t care who did what to whom in that past. I don’t care about those fights. They s belong to an era long ago.
I do care about holding an incompetent government to account and if Labour is not going to do that the sooner it disappears the better.
Put simply, if we do not want to descend into a one party state then Labour had better stop navel gazing
The issue is that big.
And as ever the decision as to whether to focus on what matters or not is a choice.
Focussing on this internal fight would be the wrong choice for Labour, the country and democracy
Not much is at stake then
I suspect Labour will choose to squabble
And I’ll condemn that choice with an very easy conscience.
Best
Richard
Richard,
Have to agree with your final summation. The squabble is important, but not central
Thanks
Andrew
ED NOTE
Deleted for naming names and I do not think I can permit that if legal action is likely
Just a few points Richard.
1. I do not recall you at any time airing your belief (prior to the release of this report) that the antisemitism issue was being used cynically by vested interests opposed to a Corbyn government. I do wonder if you have let your personal animus towards Corbyn (or at least his political orbit) taint your judgement.
2. The idea that we just need to move on from Corbyn and get behind Starmer is ridiculous. Starmer was absolutely front and centre in the plot to bring Corbyn down, and now he stands in the position he had long coveted, largely as a result of factional skullduggery. The right of the party did not accept Corbyn even though he won 2 leadership elections fair and square. Why should the left accept Starmer, whose first significant act as party leader, and having read this leaked report, was to grovel to the board of deputies, apologising from an antisemitism ‘crisis’ both he and they know full well never existed?
With a modest amount of policy modification, the Green Party would be an acceptable place for much of the Labour left, and in the post pestilence political landscape, many of their policies will look very prescient. (excuse the alliteration)
I have no animus for Corbyn
He’s a great guy
I didn’t think he had the qualities to be PM and said so, having seen him in action
And if you can’t take Labour democracy – do you believe in democracy at all?
If not, why are you engaged with Labour?
“I didn’t think he had the qualities to be PM and said so”
Didn’t you sign a letter published in a newspaper just days before the last election saying you thought Corbyn deserved to be in power? When exactly did your Damascene conversion take place?
I supported the economic policies in the manifesto
And I think he would have been a better prime minister than Johnson’s
But that is proving to be a very low bar
My case stands
“ Put simply, if we do not want to descend into a one party state then Labour had better stop navel gazing.”
Put simply if half of what is in the report is true, without knowing we were in a sense living in a one party state; those leading the 2017 campaign were rooting for and working for a Conservative win. That is an absolute wrecking ball to a democracy.
Unless something pretty radical is done the Labour party’s leadership will have shown it’s acceptance of that democratic loss.
Or that it has actually taken control…
How can there be realignment in this country when so many people fail to do much in the way of joined-up thinking on issues. Support for the government’s handling of the coronavirus pandemic is even running at 60%! The immediate future for the UK is bleak especially after this government has made the almost inevitable hash of Brexit.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1105910/satisfaction-with-the-government-s-response-to-the-covid-19-pandemic/
When Labour is absent the scene – almost entirely – this is unsurprising
That is why we need realignment
Richard,
I am a former labour voter (voted Labour up to 2019 but will not be again)and I hope this is the end of Labour. I see it as a block to more progressive policies. Removing it means those who are prepared to challenge orthodoxy, may be forced to form some vehicle to do that.
Your blog, and the replies by a number of your regular contributers, have opened my eyes to what debt and defict really mean (I still struggle to understand but I’m getting there!). As a result, I can’t see how Labour could ever be the party we need.
Maybe, it is time to start from scratch, and build a movement around an economic plan designed for the future, rather than one built for factions.
Richard, I am an admirer of your work. However, it is simply not credible that Labour Party members can just allow this to be brushed under the carpet. It was a misuse of members funds and deeply offensive to the time and effort they put in. The party can and will survive, however, it needs to act quickly and honestly, and needs to unreservedly apologise to the members and the leadership of the 2017 election, and take appropriate action towards those responsible. Then the membership can come together, mainly united around the policies of 2019, which Keir has signed up to. I think both main parties will survive, but policy positions will alter radically.
That seems entirely sensible
But it does presume an acceptance on all parts
I think labour is dead, it just too torn by factions that cannot agree to get along. I am a Corbyn supporter, and i have met the man twice. He was and is a breath of fresh air. I did not care if he was PM material or not, the fact he did not want power is a good enough for me. This is the saying Muhammad the islamic prophet (pub) used. If a man does not want powr give it to him. Corbyn for all his faults and he has many is a man of virtue and honesty. He did hold the tories to account, Starmer has not. It is also true the labour party cannot ignore this shocking report. I do not hold any doubt that the undermining of Corbyn was not limited to the 2017 general election but to the 2019 GE as well. If people are interested in democracy in this country then this report needs to be read, as i have. What it says os the party HQ undermined it’s own leader so he could not win the election.
There you have it, we have two parties that have lied and cheated to the top. One in government and one to remove an elected leader of the opposition. This is scandalous. I agree covid 19 is the most important issue but Starmer was never going to offer any form of opposition to the tories regardless whether the report was released or not. His first words were the key, he said he will support the government when he can. Starmer has not bothered to hold it to account and he has stuck to his words. The Shadow Chancellor was talking about taxes and exit strategy on twitter for god’s sake, that is the government and MSM hype she is copying.
So there you have it – we had a man who did not want power but was willing to accept the responsibility of it. While Boris wanted power but not the responsibility.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/labour-hq-used-facebook-ads-to-deceive-jeremy-corbyn-during-election-campaign-grlx75c27
I am appalled that so many appear to see this as no big deal. Very senior officials with real power were actively working to prevent a Labour government being elected and they just succeeded. When 2500 people voting differently would have changed the result you have to say that without these people, who are frankly traitors, we would have had a Labour government since 2017.
Who knows where we would be now if this had been the case but it is almost certain that the NHS would have been in a healthier state and likely that the threat of the virus would have been taken seriously earlier. The disaster which is Universal Credit would have been reformed or replaced and climate change would have been addressed.
Now, having been exposed, they threaten to ruin the party even though they’ve succeeded in getting the centrists back in control proving they’d rather have a Tory government than any Labour one.
I can’t believe they’ll succeed with these lawsuits and if they do it will be a searing indictment of our legal system. Nevertheless just defending the suits will be enormously expensive.
It should be a massive story but only Novara and some one man bloggers have given it the attention it deserves. It’s been ignored or distorted by the rest of the media and I’m sorry to see you joining them.
Errrrr….have you noticed anything else going on?
And have you not noticed that in-fighting is the thing all parties do?
Obviously not….
So, many of us WERE right – Labour forgot about who it was supposed to be representing and why and squabbled amongst itself instead and (worse) still wants to squabble.
Just when we needed it the most.
To Labour party members, officers and MPs I’d like to offer this:
Thanks!
Thanks a lot.
I’m puzzled by this. A bunch of people who worked hard to rescue the party that they love from Jeremy Corbyn and his friends, and succeeded (although with some difficulty), are now going to destroy the party by suing it? Are they confused, or is it just me?
I agree with you – it is pretty odd
And if true, they take a lot of blame
I hope I made that clear
But this is still not the issue of the day Labour should be concerning itself with, and that was my point.
When will Labour actually do politics for real people? That is the issue
It’s better to throw out the charade of democracy, surely, than to keep pretending we have two separate parties representing different views about how to run society.
The idea of a mildly left wing government (which is what Corbyn seemed to be offering) is so offensive to our society even the party that is supposed to stand for that has to sabotage the possibility.
So *#@& it, let’s be the one party state everyone would prefer it to be and see if there might rise an opposition to that from somewhere.
Otherwise you want to wave a flag for Starmer and his gang of “centrists”, why? What would they change?
I always find it very odd that anyone might think that a government under the likes of say Starmer might be the same as one under Johnson
I could be wrong of course
But I have to say that I think they would be very different
Not all I would want, of course. Of that I am sure
But very different
And in a democracy I will not get all I want
I know that
SO what system of government are you proposing where you get exactly what you do want?
I propose a system of government that provides the greatest number of people with the stuff they need to lead a meaningful life. I propose a system where no one is without enough food or without secure housing and medical care and that provides a decent education for kids and anyone else who wants it. I propose not allowing anyone to accrue a disproportionate amount of power or wealth. I propose a system in which people can do business but where business doesn’t run the show. Profit can be a bonus for those people who find the acquisition of wealth fun but its pursuit shouldn’t be allowed to harm anyone. I propose a system that works things out so that the damage humans are doing to the ecosystem is viewed as the number one crime and all the stops are pulled out to reverse it. I propose learning to live within the constraints required to enable all life forms to exist happily on the planet.
Capitalism is anathema to that. Is it a game that has some benefits? Sure, but don’t advocate for it being in control of people’s lives.
And this isn’t about what “I” want. That’s stupid. It’s obvious that your insights and observations and vital criticisms are not related to what “you” Richard want, but what you see as being in the best interests of society. Likewise me.
Meanwhile, the current Labour Party, like New Labour, won’t offer any meaningful alternative. Corbyn’s lot was a move in the right direction, at least. But Starmer et al are neoliberals. They would no more support your point of view than mine. They would shovel money at Easy Jet and lick Branson’s boots. They will continue to privatise the NHS, they will torture the poor and the disabled. Maybe they’d be slightly less awful than the current bozos. I’m not going to put energy into supporting that or pretend that means I have any meaningful choice in how society is run.
At this point I’m guessing that if you replaced all MPs and lords with randomly selected members of the public, it would immediately improve the running of society.
And how are you going to get people to agree with you?
And why would randomly chosen people want to run the government?
Di you really think that is fair, or appropriate?
Why?
And how would you stop them abusing their power?
And how?
Joe’s got an excessively optimistic view of “randomly chosen people”. For suggesting the other day that charity probably wasn’t the best way of funding the NHS I was accused of being “so far left as to be to the left of Putin”! Most people in this country have no idea of the wider world outside the bubble they live in, just vaguely remembered tropes fed to them by the media.
I totally agree with you Joe. The two party system is dead. Starmer is a zombie leader for a zombie party, and it was that before the virus struck . Then look across at the Tories . Absent Johnson and his bluster, Raab, Hancock, even Gove – not known for his reticence – all look as though they fear a pikestaff about to be thrust in their direction. Populism is now the only political game in town and none of the above have the faintest clue what that is, or what is means for their future as politicians. Why is this : one word answer – connection . They could do no better than take a close look at the 99 year old who is ploughing around and around his garden and when I last looked had raised over £20 million for the NHS. Everyone connected with him and what he set out to achieve . Will they ‘ get it ‘ ? Who knows ? It’s not that they are horrible people necessarily , but when they became politicians in the present era they became part of the professional, technocratic political class . Their worldview is the worldview of that class. The virus has thrown them all into a state of panic and confusion. My wife was born into a poor family in Liverpool in the forties and one Christmas when her father – a union representative and staunch Labour member – was sick and receiving only a basic benefit , the local MP , Bessie Braddock, came to their house with a chicken for their Christmas dinner. We are a long, long way from those times and those people now.
I agree this report on the workings of Labour Party HQ staff should not draw our attention too much away from the other crisis we are facing at the moment with Covid-19, climate, economic and financial meltdown (threat of) and much else.
However the outright racist and sexist remarks directed at black and female MPs such as Diane Abbot and Dawn Butler are inexcusible and should be taken up by the Equality and Human Rights Commission and acted upon. Also the direction of funding in favour of safe right- wing Labour seats in the 2017 election and the witholding of funds for left candidates is also unforgiveable. The attempt by the Labour heirarchy to suppress discussion of this damning report will not do them any favours.
NOTE: EDITED TO REMOVE NAMES
Please do not include them
Thanks Richard, we don’t want to end up in the Old Bailey!
Labour Party in turmoil – it’s deja vu all over again. “Where shall [we] go? what Shall [we] do? Frankly, my dear[s], I don’t give a damn.”
2700 odd votes could have given us a Corby government, or 300 odd more and May would have had a majority. The UK electorate is around 45 million and it comes down to a few hundred votes. I’m astounded that anyone could think this is the main point to take from this absurdity, when there are millions of votes that count for nothing, nothing at all because we have a rotten, corrupt electoral system. No wonder we end up with parties which are totally unfit for government. A pox on all their houses.
It’s been said here many times: we need a different electoral system, in fact we need a different political system altogether, one that gives the ordinary citizen a say, in other words: democracy.
After we’ve dealt with the immediate health emergency, and the developing economic and employment emergency we need to deal with the political emergency which has shown that the current settlement is part of the problem, and has helped create the current emergencies delivering politicians so incompetent, so out of their depth, so lacking in empathy, or understanding of how so many millions live in this country.
And most sickening of all is that they will walk away and never be held to account as they slip through the revolving door to some highly paid sinecure, like the man whose austerity economics left the country’s preparedness in such a parlous state.
Starmer is supposed to be an intelligent man.
He and his front bench can hold the Government to account despite all this – he will be good at that because I’m sure he will get his evidence and do this in a measured way. Plus hopefully he will get the timing of it right too.
What worries me though is how orthodox he and his front bench will be regarding economics and social policy plus market management.
Starmer’s Labour must re-democratise the money supply and make a case for this. It must also be more accommodating of allies – different progressive parties must be made to feel welcome.
I’m not very hopeful however that this will be the case.
Labour, just like any party close to power, is a basket of crabs.
What do you do with the crabs in the basket?
You either let them eat each other, or you eat them yourself.
I can see other parties getting ready for a feast.
Will they digest the crabs?
Depends if they can crack the hardened shells.
Meanwhile a virus left free to roam the shore may kill them all once they’ve feasted.
And there may be few left willing to wash up.
Sorry, but this whole absurd mess is getting to me.
Feel free not to publish Richard, it doesn’t matter…having one of my ‘absurd’ moments.
Members of a political party need to have more that unites them than divides them.
I’m not sure that this is the case with the Labour Party. Actively trying to “torpedo” your own party in a GE, seems to be crossing a line.
If a “Broad Church” becomes too broad, eventually the roof falls in.
The Tories just culled all the decenting voices in its ranks. Then won a thumping majority. If Labour does the same, I still don’t think they can win.
I can’t see a new political movement forming any time soon. FPTP makes it virtually impossible for new parties to gain a foothold. Unless PR is introduced (which ain’t gonna happen any time soon)
I’m not sure the public at large are looking for radical policies either.
Bernie Sanders, just failed. Not because the DNC stiched him up, but because not enough people supported his ideas.
We now have a political party that can conceiveably win a GE with only 25% of the electorate voting for them! (Bearing in mind, 30% of the electorate don’t vote) and an opposition that is totally divided.
The Tories will win the next GE, even if they have a terrible 5 years. The swing needed for Labour is too big. (Even if they can get their shit together)
So alas, forget a Green New Deal, People’s QE or any of the other radical stuff for another 10 years!!! That takes us up to 2030. By then the impacts of climate change will be very much front and centre and possibly irreversible.
We have created such a complex set of human interactions, that it seems that we have become trapped by them.
I agree with Graham – unless the current electoral system is changed radically then I fear the UK will not meet the challenge of managing what may be even more apocalyptic events linked to the climate crisis over the coming years. The Labour Party seems to share a strong trait of paternalism with other political parties in this country but I cannot see, at this time, the Labour Party collapsing. We should remember that a majority of voters at the 2019 election did not vote for the Tory Party and this has been the case for the majority of general election results. The problem for me is that the Labour party looks to be a tired, largely self referential body that is constrained by its history from repositioning itself at this time of major political and ecological crises.
Just consider the way this Govt. has so far handled the Coronavirus pandemic and then reflect on where the Labour opposition are in terms of challenging their narrative. This is not a time , in my opinion, to defer to some arcane agreement that in a time of crisis there should be minimal criticism of the Govt. and to wait for a public inquiry to ask difficult questions. Most of us wanted testing, tracing and quarantining to have been the policy option from the outset of this crisis but instead I see no consistent criticism from any of the shadow cabinet. The Labour Party will have to build an effective narrative over the next five years that helps people give constructive voice to alternative ways of going about their lives. This will include changing the electoral voting system, reforming the benefits system towards Universal Basic Income and articulating much of the good sense on modern monetary theory and taxation articulated by Richard Murphy. The time to start this journey for Labour is now.
We are as likely to be sued to for discussing the contents of this leak as we were for discussing the Panama Papers or the Podesta Emails.
Surely you are not naive enough to think these threats are anything other than an attempt to suppress discussion on a subversion of parliamentary democracy by a bunch of creeps.
I think in a litigious environment and given the readership level of this blog that naming names would be unwise
And I take the risk
You don’t
Whether this defence is plausible will be down to the courts to decide, but it looks reasonable to me.
https://skwawkbox.org/2020/04/19/starmers-probe-into-commissioning-of-leaked-report-is-a-red-herring-party-had-duty-to-because-of-lawsuit-and-ehrc/
I have read much of the leaked report. I concur with other readers that if the comments are accurate ( I haven’t seen any denials) then virtually all of the commentators who have responded to your article would be described as “trots” , including yourself, by those alleged to have conspired to lose Labour the 2017 election.
There are sections ridiculing those who want to protect the NHS, redistribute wealth from rich to poor ( often using your suggestions) and many other reasonable suggestions.
There was disappointment expressed in comments to previous posts on your site regarding Clive Lewis not making the final ballot in the leadership contest; but he himself is subjected to scathing comments.
I accept that if Corbyn had been able to form a coalition then much of his programme would have had to be moderated, particularly if it relied on the Lib-Dems for support; there would also have been problems from those on the right of the Party who might have voted against lots of the economic legislation, or faced opposition in the Lords. He would also have had to conceded holding another Scottish referendum. But we would be well advanced on a Green New Deal.
Also consider those who were suspended or ejected from the Labour Party by what may have been false allegations. Some lost jobs and some committed suicide: I do believe some former members are pursuing legal action: has this prevented the Labour Party from doing its job in opposition?
New post on The SKWAWKBOX
Starmer’s probe into ‘commissioning’ of leaked report is a red herring. Party had duty to because of lawsuit and EHRC
by SKWAWKBOX (SW)
Two-thirds of Starmer’s investigation are redundant. Party had obligation to investigate staff conduct – and he has said himself that whistleblowers must be protected
Keir Starmer
Labour leader Keir Starmer last week announced an ‘independent’ investigation into the leaked internal report that accused right-wing headquarters staff of insulting colleagues, obstructing disciplinary processes – and sabotaging Labour’s 2017 by-election and general election campaigns.
But Starmer’s strangely-structured parameters for his investigation have raised concern among members and party insiders that he is going after the staff who created the report and the whistleblowers who leaked it, rather than the staff who were paid to work for Labour and are accused of doing their best to undermine it:
We have seen a copy of an apparently internal report about the work of the Labour Party’s Governance and Legal Unit in relation to antisemitism. The content and the release of the report into the public domain raise a number of matters of serious concern.
We will therefore commission an urgent independent investigation into this matter. This investigation will be instructed to look at three areas. First, the background and circumstances in which the report was commissioned and the process involved. Second, the contents and wider culture and practices referred to in the report. Third, the circumstances in which the report was put into the public domain.
We have also asked for immediate sight of any legal advice the Labour Party has already received about the report.
In the meantime, we ask everyone concerned to refrain from drawing conclusions before the investigation is complete and we will be asking the General Secretary to put measures in place to protect the welfare of party members and party staff who are concerned or affected by this report.
Two out of the three areas of scope for the investigation concern the staff who investigated the behaviour of former HQ staffers and the whistleblowers who brought the investigations findings into the public domain.
But the first – Starmer’s investigation of ‘the background and circumstances in which the report was commissioned’ – is a naked red herring that needs no investigation at all.
Because Labour and its general secretary Jennie Formby had a legal duty to do so.
Legal duty
The party is being sued by a number of former staff who appeared in last year’s BBC Panorama programme accusing Labour of failing to deal with antisemitism complaints and protect Jewish members – and a key plank of their attempt to sue is that Labour responded to the programme by saying that those interviewed were politically motivated.
To defend the party against the suit, Labour was obliged to look into their conduct and messages during their time as employees and had a duty to its members to do its utmost to protect their interests and investment.
And as the journalist who originally published information on the leak noted, they found far more than they bargained for.
A similar obligation exists because of the Equalities and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) investigation into Labour’s handling of antisemitism complaints. The party has a duty to investigate and provide its findings to the EHRC – and it found that right-wing party staff were failing to deal with, and in some cases obstructing, investigations into various complaints, not only concerning antisemitism.
Related: Right-wing Labour staff shredded thousands of disciplinary documents – but gave copies to press
And the party had every right to access the messages contained in the report. The SKWAWKBOX understands that some were provided to Labour by one of the participants-turned-whistleblower – and some were accessible either because those involved used a party messaging system, or because participants had used their Labour email to send archives of the chats to themselves.
In all those cases, Labour has a right to access the information – and being able to access it, the party had a duty to do so on at least two counts.
Whistleblower protection
In addition, Keir Starmer said in February that whistleblowers must be protected – and he must protect those who blew the whistle on the alleged conduct of former (and a few current) Labour staff when the party decided not to release the report into that conduct.
On legal grounds and on his own words, two-thirds of Keir Starmer’s ‘urgent’ investigation are redundant.
He must focus all effort and resource on investigating those who, in all likelihood, prevented Labour becoming the party of government the knife-edge 2017 general election.
Anything else is a diversion and a smoke-screen.
The SKWAWKBOX needs your support. This blog is provided free of charge but depends on the generosity of its readers to be viable. If you can afford to, please click here to arrange a one-off or modest monthly donation via PayPal or here for a monthly donation via GoCardless. Thanks for your solidarity so this blog can keep bringing you information the Establishment would prefer you not to know about.
If you wish to reblog this post for non-commercial use, you are welcome to do so — see here for more.
SKWAWKBOX (SW) | 19/04/2020 at 10:59 pm | Tags: anger, antisemitism, by-election, campaign, concern, conduct, defence, duty, ehrc, email, Formby, GE2017, general election, general secretary, HQ, investigation, journalist, Labour, lawsuit, leadership, leak, legal, members, messages, misconduct, msm, obligation, parameters, probe, report, right-wing, sabotage, Scope, staff, staffers, Starmer, undermining, WhatsApp, whistleblowers | Categories: Analysis, comment | URL: https://wp.me/p2sftc-CyY
Comment See all comments
Unsubscribe to no longer receive posts from The SKWAWKBOX.
Change your email settings at Manage Subscriptions.
Trouble clicking? Copy and paste this URL into your browser:
https://skwawkbox.org/2020/04/19/starmers-probe-into-commissioning-of-leaked-report-is-a-red-herring-party-had-duty-to-because-of-lawsuit-and-ehrc/
Reading the various comments above, two key strands emerge (for me at least).
The first is broadly encapsulated by Richard and others. This is indeed a big deal, not only for Labour but for the country as a whole and for democracy. If the LP goes out of business then in a country with a FPTP voting system and a biased media, we are almost certainly into the realms of a one Party State. Myriad small opposition parties scrabbling for prominence will no match for the Tory hegemony. Labour MUST somehow survive this crisis and emerge in fighting form (Tory fighting form that is, not the comrade on comrade variety).
The second key strand emerging is that for many of the contributors here the issue of what happened in 2017 appears to be much more important than what is happening now in 2020. Keir Starmer won convincingly on a platform of uniting the LP, recognising that this was a prerequisite if the Party is to have any chance of rebuilding and beating the Tory’s in 2024. But here we are, less than two weeks into his leadership, and someone in the Party has deliberately chosen to directly undermine both the man himself and his Unity Project.
There was a clear choice available here for those who leaked Formby’s report. Do we want to reignite internal Party warfare or do we want to seek reconciliation and move on. Many of the comments above seem to clearly endorse the former objective.
For those such as myself who are desperate for Labour to rebuild as a credible, strong opposition that will hound and eventually defeat this appalling government, this is a tragic blow.
Another interesting sub theme that emerges above is this one. At this juncture, when he has finally gone and been replaced with someone more electable, are the people who allegedly tried to undermine Corbyn in 2017 (I assume that in their particular view, this was also for the longer term benefit of the Party) really prepared to proceed with financially wrecking the Party? If so, they are clearly equal in their dysfunctionality as those who leaked the report.
Finally, would it not be an astounding and magnanimous act of statesmanship in the spirit of Nelson Mandela himself, if Jeremy Corbyn stepped forward with a demand for his allies to down arms and fall in behind a new leader who has shown firm commitment to the policies that Corbynism fought so hard to procure during this last five years.
but didn’t the rise of UKIP bleed away support from the Tories and put them in the position of having to accomodate UKIP policies?
if the Corbynista’s moved en masse to the Green Party and a few Labour MP’s defected too, wouldn’t this put a similar pressure on the Labour Party?
it’s always been felt that UKIP was a one policy movement, basically Brexit, although it had strong undertones of far right wingnuttery too,
but you could equally say that the Green Party is primarily about environmental issues but then approaches the problem from a socialist perspective,
I know with FPTP that you need half the country with you to effectively win and hence we have two major parties but UKIP has shown that the Tories could be nudged further to the right,
why not use the Greens to nudge Labour back to the left?
This has turned into a really interesting blog – for me at least.
Are those threatening legal action Left or Right or Centrists or a mix? That seems to be the obvious question that might be answered given the legal sensitivities.
It is true that which ever side of the party, those involved seems to have forgotten what their job is – and the job is not internecine warfare that benefits no one except the bloody opposition on the other side of the House. These people are rather pathetic, self absorbed and ignorant.
The Labour party can now only disaggregate itself into smaller parties and choose to work together or shut up and get on with each other. Matters are made worst in that Parliament cannot actually sit.
As for a realignment or a fresh start – I’ve got no idea where to start.
All this does is give the Tories even more time to plan on how to lie to the country and avoid accountability.
Pilgrim Slight Return
Of the two options you set out, much of the Left of the Labour Party is choosing the latter one of shutting up and get on with each other, rather than walking away. Quite apart from the fact that those who leave Labour often seem to bring their grievance(s) with them, the current electoral system in England is a deterrent to splitting.
In my opinion, there is other possibilities that would be attractive to some. Either turn Labour into something more akin to the US Democratic Party, or merging/closely aligning with the Liberal Democrats. These alternatives would be facilitated if the Labour Party fails and fail badly in the next few years.
Well, Ed Balls has just lived up to his name and on R4 just praised the Government/Treasury’s response to the crisis.
I ask you…………………!! La La Land. Establishment lackey – that’s Labour’s Ed Balls.
David
The Democratic Party does not work as far as I can see – it accommodates popular socially-minded movements and then effectively nullifies them by watering them down so much that people just lose the thread and give up. Labour needs to be the focus for progressives – a rallying point – that is the role I have in mind for it. And not just as a protest group either – but for effective action; effective opposition.
The Lib Dems are more confused that any Left party about what they believe in. They will be on the counsellors couch for a long time.
Overall though, all of our ‘main’ parties are bedevilled by the same thing: they believe in markets and have no faith in their own politics which results in no imagination whatsoever.
They are a waste of space.
I always thought Balls talked…..you know the rest
Another interesting view on the report
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2020/04/that-leaked-labour-party-report/?fbclid=IwAR2q16rGkGl0IweGjlv3tGOpZzaAVs1JN0jDOyf-Af0r5GJUgtfwtTHvFjY
Thanks
Read it
Craig Murray has read the report and written: https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2020/04/that-leaked-labour-party-report/
Read it
And I agree, it’s pretty shocking
But Labour has to deal with it under Starmer and move on or cease to be credible at all
I have read both too (you can actually access the report on the first page of Murray’s comments section – someone has left a link) .
I don’t know what to say.
Except that extremism – so often associated with the Left – seems to now belong firmly in the Right. No wonder the Tories did not take Corbyn seriously when right wing members of the Labour party are knowingly working with them!!
Maybe the Party seriously needs to split now, right down the middle. This is kamikaze politics (what I have read in the report). I’ve smelled a rat in the anti-Semite accusations from the beginning.
It’s hard realising that maybe Corbyn was genuinely onto something, yet members of his own party worked against him. It’s enough to make anyone distrust even people of Richard’s integrity – no wonder Corbyn’s circle became so resistant to outside ideas.
What a mess. A complete fucking mess. And who suffers in the end?
[…] Richard Murphy of Tax Research UK said Labour “might be entering its death throes” – but so could the […]
[…] Richard Murphy of Tax Research UK said Labour “might be entering its death throes” – but so could the […]
Richard. I offered a comment yesterday that did not appear. Just wondered if it arrived and what was the problem. Was trying agaon to focus on the present and future rather than the past.
Alan
Sorry – I can find no trace of a missing comment
Apologies…it was not deleted in error and is not in spam and nothing is waiting for moderation from you
Richard
Thanks for looking Richard. Obviously a sending error at my end.