Another attempt to explain the basics to David Evans…

JVL Introduction

On 8th December we published a letter from one “Fred Wall” a generic local Labour Party officer commenting on the latest David Evans diktat.

Having had a reply from Evans  (not personally, you understand, but in the form of another generic iron-fist-in-velvet-glove e-missive), Wall returns to the fray with a further deconstruction of the latest instruction.

We repeat our apologies to all Labour Party officers wherever they may be who happen to share the name Fred Wall. You may find yourself under investigation…

Dear David

Thank you for your second letter: which will compound the damage you are doing to the Party. Your letter is in black, my comments in plum italics.

I wanted to put on record my thanks to the Branch and CLP officers who have been implementing the guidance around motions that I circulated recently. The Labour Party is dependent on the hard work of its volunteer officers, and only with your support will we succeed in changing the culture of the Party and making sure our meetings are a welcome space for all.

The Party does indeed rely on the voluntary commitment of members and officers. It will not have escaped your notice how many of these have now been suspended for allowing or facilitating discussion of matters of concern to the members, nor how many have signed open letters in their support. This is obviously demotivating for all concerned and I have heard of candidates for councils attracting no volunteers to phone banks in recent weeks. That is one way the culture of the Party appears to be changing. The star chart for phone bankers currently being circulated looks like a fairly desperate attempt to use extrinsic motivation to make up for a loss of intrinsic passion for the course the “new leadership” is on. I can’t see that working for you. Put bluntly, you can’t thwack the members across the knees with a hockey stick, then expect them to jog out with a pile of leaflets.

The suspension letters that you send out sustain the flaws in the disciplinary procedures of the Party that the EHRC identified. There are no specific charges. Accusers are not identified. The accused are instructed not to talk to anyone, but referred to the Samaritans if the accusation causes distress. Just to be clear, I presume that you are aware that the role of the Samaritans is to try to talk people out of killing themselves. I wonder how much this bothers you; or how compatible it is with any duty of care you think you have? It also sits oddly with your assertion that the intention of all these suspensions is to make the Party a “welcoming space for all”. The word “all” there possibly being interpreted in what might be called a limited and specific way.

I can understand the desire of people to discuss contentious and controversial issues that they feel deeply about. But to be clear, the Labour Party was found guilty of breaking the law on anti-Semitism. We are now not trusted to run our own affairs until we satisfy the EHRC that we have fully addressed the issues that meant our Party is not a safe space for Jewish members.  Just as we should have zero tolerance for all forms of racism, homophobia, sexual harassment and other prejudicial behaviour, our responsibility to double down on anything that may cause members to continue to feel unwelcome and unsafe must take precedence over our rights at this time.

You put an enormous weight on the two instances in which the EHRC found the Party in breach of the law in its view – a rather tendentious interpretation of “harassment” apparently in contradiction with Article 10 of the Human Rights Act which has not been tested in court – written by an Equalities Commissioner who has sympathy with the views of Roger Scruton. But even if it were as clear and incontestable as you make out: they cite two instances. Not thousands. Not hundreds. Not even dozens. Two. The French phrase “the mountain laboured and brought forth a mouse” comes to mind. And for this our rights must be suspended – along with so many of our members? I note that your sentence admits that your stance on this question is “contentious and controversial.” Quite so. And a Party that does not discuss such issues is being lobotomised.

You will also be well aware that the number of Jewish comrades suspended or being investigated as part of this process – supposedly designed to make the Party a “safe space” for Jewish members – has now grown to 35 – so far. This means that the “safe space” you are creating is for SOME Jewish members at the expense of other Jewish members. The distinction between those made to feel welcome and those being suspended cannot therefore be ethnic or cultural identification – a protected characteristic under equalities legislation -it can only be political view – which is not, cannot and should not be protected under equalities legislation.  This is about who has a right to a story and who does not. Who can speak and who must be silenced. We both know this; but it is clarifying to have it in the open. Labour is a big broad Party and differences of view are inevitable. No one can learn anything if these are not debated and argued out and we develop a culture in which we argue in a robust and respectful way that generates more light than heat. That is the culture that needs to be nurtured. Closing down any such discussion to avoid “unnecessary confrontation”, thereby imposing administrative unity, will create, at best, a sort of Stepford Party wreathed with the fake smiles of doorstep evangelists, but dead from the neck up. 

I can only assume that the “Jewish stakeholders” that will be consulted about the Party’s disciplinary process will be similarly one sided and not take account of the full diversity of views among Jewish members: which is what would be required to make the Party a “safe and welcoming space” for all of them. I note again in passing that Lord Mandelson has still not been suspended for criticising this aspect of the EHRC recommendations. This is not because I think he should be. Quite the reverse. But the leeway extended to him to state his view, and the immediate suspension of others for stating theirs, underlines your inconsistency and – dare I say it – factionalism. 

I also wanted to confirm that the effect of my guidance was to rule motions on the topics mentioned out of order. This means they should not appear on the agenda or any other meeting papers, and that there is no requirement for Chairs of meetings to make rulings (nor should there be any resulting challenges to such rulings). I hope this clarification will help avoid any further unnecessary confrontation.

The bottom line here is that you have suspended many members and intimidated others into silence on this issue: but in so doing have stripped illusions and positive feeling about the leadership from many more. And be in no doubt that that will find its way out from here on in all sorts of unpredictable ways.

In anger and in sorrow,

Fred Wall