Keir Starmer is a hypocrite
JVL Introduction
Andrew Fisher, Labour Party executive director of policy from 2016 to 2019 is appalled at Keir Starmer barring Jeremy Corbyn from standing for selection as Islington North parliamentary candidate.
As he says “ It is an outrage, but this is about more than the individual case of Corbyn.”
And he is contemptuous of Starmer’s claim that “with my leadership there will be zero tolerance of antisemitism, of racism, of discrimination of any kind.”.
All are tolerated in Starmer’s Labour – whether it’s transphobia, anti-Black racism, Islamophobia or other forms of discrimination, including antisemitism – if they come from supporters of the Party leadership.
JVL members know this all too well, as we have shown conclusively. Jewish party members are far more likely than others to face accusations of antisemitism!
This article was originally published by Novara Media on Thu 16 Feb 2023. Read the original here.
Keir Starmer is a hypocrite. His factional response to the EHRC proves It
This is about more than Jeremy Corbyn
“What I said about the party changing meant that we are not going back and that is why Jeremy Corbyn will not stand as a Labour candidate at the next general election.” With those words, Keir Starmer effectively barred Labour member Corbyn from continuing his 40-year run as the Labour MP for Islington North.
On a day when Starmer was lauding the party’s fair and independent processes for tackling antisemitism, having finally emerged from the EHRC’s supervision, he effectively sacked Corbyn by decree. What fair and independent process has been gone through there? Where is the right of appeal?
There has been no fair and independent process, no right of appeal. It is an outrage, but this is about more than the individual case of Corbyn.
Starmer also sought to smear socialism, suggesting some sort of link between the party’s antisemitism crisis and the policy ideas of the Labour left. Starmer asserted the party had changed, “from a party of dogma to a party of patriotism […] And I understand that some people won’t like the changes we’ve made. But I say this with all candour: the Labour party is unrecognisable from 2019 and it will never go back.”
As others have pointed out – from The Guardian to the Jewish Leadership Council to Conservative MPs – Starmer served under Corbyn until 2020, wanted to make him prime minister in 2017 and 2019, described him as “a friend and a colleague”, stood not only on a leftwing manifesto twice, but summarised many of its policies in his 10 pledges in 2020. In depicting as irredeemably bad both Corbyn and leftwing politics, he tarnishes himself.
When running for the Labour leadership in 2020, Starmer also said: “Local party members should select their candidates for every election.” That clearly does not apply to local party members in Islington North, or indeed a myriad of other seats where Starmer or his minions have interfered in selections.
As Corbyn said yesterday, “Keir Starmer’s statement about my future is a flagrant attack on the democratic rights of Islington North Labour party members. It is up to them – not party leaders – to decide who their candidate should be”.
Corbyn had his party membership suspended in 2020 for his response to the EHRC report. Corbyn backed the implementation of the report’s recommendations in full, but one sentence caused particular controversy: “the scale of the problem was also dramatically overstated for political reasons by our opponents inside and outside the party.”
The report was sober and relatively objective: concluding there were “serious failings in the party leadership in addressing antisemitism and an inadequate process for handling antisemitism complaints.”
This is uncontroversial – in 2019 Jennie Formby, having inherited the wreck of the party run by Iain McNicol, confirmed: “There was no consistent and comprehensive system for recording and processing cases of antisemitism” before she became general secretary in 2018.
The EHRC report recognised that progress had been made in improving Labour’s disciplinary processes once there was a professional apparatus running the party HQ. “Since 2019, there have been improvements in the rate of determining cases”, the report acknowledged.
Corbyn was investigated and then reinstated as a member by Labour’s disciplinary process. In that period he clarified his previous remarks, to make clear his belief that concerns about antisemitism had been neither “exaggerated nor overstated”.
While he was investigated the party whip was suspended – entirely in line with the rule book and normal party procedure. But then came the twist. Instead of the reinstatement of Corbyn’s membership, after he was cleared, being the trigger for the return of the parliamentary whip, Starmer intervened to withdraw it and open up a legal black hole in which the only say belonged to him: judge, jury and executioner.
The Forde report, commissioned by Starmer in 2020, adjudged that the party’s factional disciplinary staff, “prioritised ‘hunting trots’, ie suspending members who supported Jeremy Corbyn in 2015 and 2016, over dealing with complaints of antisemitism, Islamophobia or other types of complaints.”
Dealing with complaints, and running a fair procedure to do so, is not the role of the Labour leader, but general secretary. Despite his manifest failings, identified in both the EHRC and Forde reports, McNicol continues to sit in the House of Lords as a Labour peer with Starmer’s blessing.
Starmer told his audience yesterday, “[the Labour party] will never again be brought to its knees by racism or bigotry.”
Serious anti-racists and fighters for equality know that challenge is ongoing. Starmer should know it too, because the Forde report he commissioned is clear that there remains a “hierarchy of racism” within the Labour party. This fits with both the evidence provided by the Labour Muslim Network, and the readmission of Trevor Phillips into the Labour party under Starmer, despite Phillips having said things about Muslims that if he’d said about Jews would have seen him (rightly) kept out.
The Forde report found that senior staff in the party insulted Diane Abbott, using “expressions of visceral disgust, drawing (consciously or otherwise) on racist tropes.” The people who made those remarks remain party members. Similar comments were made about fellow Black Labour MPs Clive Lewis and Dawn Butler. Some of the people who made those remarks remain not only members, but senior party staff.
Starmer said yesterday, “with my leadership there will be zero tolerance of antisemitism, of racism, of discrimination of any kind.” That simply isn’t true – whether it’s transphobia, anti-Black racism, Islamophobia or other forms of discrimination, they are tolerated in Starmer’s Labour.
Even antisemitism will be tolerated if it is by MPs on the party’s right – like Barry Sheerman who faced calls for disciplinary action after tweets in August 2020. Sheerman faced no investigation (let alone disciplinary action) for his allegedly antisemitic tweets and continues to sit as a Labour MP.
As the Forde report, commissioned by Starmer, said: there were those who weaponised the issue for factional reasons – and those who for factional reasons downplayed it too.
By using the EHRC’s positive findings to launch an attack on the party’s left, Starmer has shown that he is willing to weaponise the issue of antisemitism to fight a factional battle. It was a tawdry and divisive move, and displayed Starmer’s hypocrisy.
Andrew Fisher is a freelance writer and policy consultant. From 2016 to 2019 he was the Labour party’s executive director of policy.
This is very interesting because, in a highly articulate and extremely well-informed interview with Politics Joe, Andrew Fisher concluded that, if he lived in Holborn and St Pancras CLP, he would canvass for Starmer, albeit somewhat half-heartedly.
Certainly none of the “outrage” was in evidence.
Starmer wears his hypocrisy on his sleeve, so criticism comes cheap. However Fisher’s piece adds nothing new and appears more to be a camouflaged exercise in self-exculpation. I do not criticise JVL for publishing it, but to do so without comment on Fisher’s false claims which directly contradict JVL’s own official position seems to me decidedly odd.
Firstly Fisher describes the EHRC report as ‘sober and relatively objective’. Do I need to remind JVL of its own judgment:
https://www.jewishvoiceforlabour.org.uk/article/how-the-ehrc-got-it-so-wrong-antisemitism-and-the-labour-party/
However it is Fisher’s exploitation of the EHRC’s supposed ‘objectivity’ to justify one of the most insidious claims in the leaked LP report which sticks in the throat:
‘The EHRC report recognised that progress had been made [since Jenny Formby took control] in improving Labour’s disciplinary processes once there was a professional apparatus running the party HQ. “Since 2019, there have been improvements in the rate of determining cases”, the report acknowledged.’
Yes, it is true that under the control of Formby the rate of processing
of antisemitism complaints increased dramatically, but all this did in practice was to accelerate the injustices committed against innocent LP members, a fact obscured by Fisher’s weasel use of the word ‘progress’, using the EHRC report as a figleaf. If anyone doubts the veracity of this please read my analysis of the LP’s disgusting inquisitorial methods published by JVL in February 2020. In my case, as in that of hundreds of other LP members, both Jewish and non-Jewish. the disciplinary process against me was, according to the leaked report itself, entirely under the control of Corbyn’s supporters. When Andrew Fisher has the honesty to admit the sad complicity of Corbyn’s office in the hounding of innocent and often vulnerable party members, I will be prepared to take what he writes more seriously.
https://www.jewishvoiceforlabour.org.uk/article/the-labour-party-inquisition-a-case-study/
Thanks to Harvey Taylor and George Wilmers for those comments, very appropriate information.
But about Starmer: Before I was expelled from the LP, incidentally, under Corbyn and Judas Jenny, I used to argue with right wingers in the Party that their policies on the NHS and other issues were not Socialist. The universal answer I received was “But the Labour Party is a broad church”. It most certainly was under Corbyn, to an extent, although you were still not allowed to upset Zionists! However now, under Starmer, it most certainly is not a broad church at all, unless it now means all shades of right wing opinion are allowed!
I too watched Fisher’s interview with Politics Joe. The greater part of it was enormously impressive, and I was happy to repost it on my Facebook page.
However, Fisher seemed in that interview – and in this article – also to have absorbed the notion that antisemitism was a serious problem within the Labour Party during Corbyn’s period of leadership. I don’t know why – and I don’t agree with him.
Of course, there was what any JVL supporter would recognise as genuinely dreadful antisemitism – as is shown by some horrifying material included in the Leaked Report – but as far as I remember (and it is some time since I read that report), there was nothing to indicate that the antisemitism quotes included were attributable to people on the left of the Party (i.e. likely Corbyn supporters). Indeed, they were pretty bog standard examples of vicious right wing antisemitism, none of it ‘anticapitalist’ stuff, or material influenced by rage on behalf of the Palestinians. Nor, though the examples were very difficult to read one after another and another, did their numbers reflect more than a minuscule proportion of Labour members i.e. as Corbyn said, not a huge organisational problem, and no evidence that the prevalence was any greater than in any other party. Which, as Tony Greenstein justifiably opined a few days ago in commenting on another article, should have been interpreted as Labour NOT having a capital letter ‘Antisemitism Problem’.
There were also innumerable examples of appalling PROCEDURAL deficiencies under Formby’s predecessor, over which Corbyn had no control, and which Formby clearly sorted out. I accept that in sorting procedures, the regime under Formby didn’t necessarily get their evaluation of CONTENT right and sometimes got it terrible, cruelly and outrageously wrong. But it is important to be clear that many criticisms of procedure WERE justified, except they should have been directed towards the pre-Formby regime, and NONE should have been aimed at Corbyn.
However, I don’t believe that Fisher was being hypocritical – rather, along with many others in the Labour Party, including some of the left, he didn’t apply his first class critical faculties to the antisemitism farrago. I doubt, for example, that he read JVL’s hatchet job on the disgraceful EHRC report, nor that Fisher’s expertise extends to equality law and implementation – and it is a different world from political commentary. Again, why such inadequate consideration? It’s really disappointing, but I would like the opportunity to ask him why not before I attacked his motives. Perhaps a discussion could be organised between Fisher and some JVL people to get to the bottom of Fisher’s decisions and judgments.
But in spite of all, Andrew Fisher has some very interesting and important things to say, and I would rather JVL posted this article than did not – JVL makes it clear that this is supposed to be a forum for ideas and debate, not the left’s own echo chamber. It is also significant that Fisher is not alone is his concern about Starmer’s determination to turn the Labour Party into a one-trick political policy pony. See too, Neal Lawson (Compass) writing in the Guardian, George Monbiot’s Comment-is-Free piece, Michael Crick (self-describing as Centre-Right Labour) with his fierce denunciation of Starmer’s strategy on Not the Andrew Marr Show. None are perfect, all have written/said stuff we would disagree with, but their combined challenge to Starmer may indicate the worm’s very definitely turning.
I agree with the above. We at JVL and many others have know the painful facts for the past two years. Yes Starmer is an appalling hypocrite snd a dangerous leader for the Labour party. Andrew Fisher should not be taken seriously until he denounces Starmer as a hypocrite in the MMS or a mainstream BBC interview.
Spot on George Wilmers. Jenny Formby has a lot to answer for, and Fisher & even Corbyn appear to have been complicit in the “hounding of innocent and often vulnerable party members.”
I agree with George Wilmers’ comments. The article contains several *weasel* phrases; but [as a victim myself] much of the anti-democratic processes were imported from the McNicol period to the Jenny Formby period; especially the lask of *natural justice* and the inability of those smeared to get ANY response from what has become known as the *Stasi* department.
When Black LP members are accused of racism by white staff, and left-leaning Jewish members accused of antisemitism there is clearly something major wrong with the processes.
This did not all start under Starmer. Having met and spoken with Marc Wadsworth, Jackie Walker, Tony Greenstein,Chris Williamson ~ they were targetted under the period JC was LOTO. The article is somewhat self-justifying for this *witch-hunt period [and maybe for Andrew Fisher’s future *career*?]. Novara Media also *wobble* all over the place in trying to triangulate between the left and the right in the LP; meanwhile bona-fide LP members are smeared and their reputations besmirched in public.
Perhaps, Alex Nunns will be able to clarify the points raised by – firstly – Andrew Fisher, in the Novara Media article, and – secondly – in the ‘Comments’ underneath this article, in his – long awaited – follow up to The Candidate :
‘Sabotage: The Inside Hit Job That Brought Down Jeremy Corbyn.’
due to be published on the 28 Feb 23.
I do believe that the alleged antisemitism crisis in the Labour Party was overstated. There was a concerted campaign by the Campaign Against Antisemitism to smear the Labour Party with grossly inflated claims of antisemitism in order to discredit Jeremy Corbyn. Unfortunately the news media in the UK acted as a kind of echo chamber, giving the impression that the Party was irretrievably antisemitic. Keir Starmer became the self-appointed hero pledging to sort it out. He targeted members who criticised Israeli treatment of the Palestinians, of which Jeremy is one.
It is a strange phenomena that anti-Semitism in the Labour Party has now completely disappeared with the removal of Socialists within the Party QED it is Socialism that is its root cause. Can we now see the ‘confidential’ evidence submitted to the EHRC by the CAA?
In her comment above Naomi Wayne attempts to exculpate Corbyn’s team by claiming that the PROCEDURAL defects of the disciplinary process were all attributable to the previous McNicol régime, whereas after Formby took over the injustices perpetrated were due were due to errors in the “evaluation of CONTENT”. This is very strange because my published analysis of the (first) Notice of Investigation against me, brought under the Formby régime, concentrated almost entirely on criticism of the outrageous procedures – the same procedures that was used against hundreds of other victims. At the time (Feb 2020) Naomi herself seems to have had a quite different opinion since in an approving comment underneath my piece she wrote:
“Since the Labour Party doesnt seem to be able to do it for itself, perhaps the next stage should be to develop a legally respectable disciplinary procedure for them.”
https://www.jewishvoiceforlabour.org.uk/article/the-labour-party-inquisition-a-case-study/
Labour MPs need to watch out in case they also get described as ‘a friend and colleague’ by Starmer!
Our goal should be clear: To bring him down.
I definitely concur with Naomi Wayne’s observation that ‘Fisher’s interview with Politics Joe … was enormously impressive’ overall.
For me, the most fascinating section of that interview, vis-a-vis essential pragmatism, came when he appraised the way in which Starmer played to his leadership contest audience, which was of course an expanded, generally more left-leaning LP membership, while he is currently trying to play to the bigger, more right wing, don’t rock the wrong boats audience. All of which is fairly obvious I suppose, but the most interesting dimension to this sort of mood music analysis comes when Fisher projects forward, judging that Starmer will be the next UK PM anyway, so all he has to do, like Johnson in 2019, is to play to the prevailing national mood through 2023 into 2024, so he has no need to purge anything he deems to bear any resemblance to ‘socialism’ or which attempts to raise some of the bigger questions. Fisher seems to imply that this is little more than an amusingly frustrating irony, whereas I think it is glaringly obvious that what we are experiencing is the true, policy-free, status quo friendly Starmer.
This is good but what did we expect from SKS? It would have been helpful for Andrew Fisher to have emphasised that Corbyn was correct in his assessment that the levels of antisemitism ad been exaggerated for political purposes. Concern about antisemitism is different, of course and unsurprising, given the extensive coverage of “Labour antisemitism”, especially after the broadly positive result in 2017, fought with a phenomenal lack of cooperation from the paid staff, especially for Corbyn supporting candidates. The failure to state that actual levels of antisemitism were very low continues to give ammunition to our opponents, Being concerned, a Jeremy Corbyn was and is about even one case of antisemitism, does not mean that it is justified to talk about levels of antisemitism as though the party wa rife with it when the best figures available put the levels of people accused at less than 0.5% of the membership!
Starmer is far, far, worse than a hypocrite.He and his bought and paid for cronies have betrayed us all!
Jan, you mention Marc Wadsworth, Jackie Walker, Tony Greenstein and Chris Williamson, and of course just about everyone on the left knows that none of them said anything remotely anti-semitic, but, the anti-democratic fascist forces ranged against us transformed it in each case into anti-semitism, along with mountain-loads of (faux) outrage and condemnation by the usual groups and individuals, and the corporate media (and the semi-corporate Tory-controlled BBC) played ball with them.
And the point I’m making is that Jeremy and Jenny and left-wing MPs were in a no-win situation, and they all knew that should any of them refute the claims and defend and support Marc or Jackie etc, they themselves would be attacked and vilified – ie condemned for being in denial and, as such, being part of the problem, or being conspiracy theorists.
Turning reality on its head (and deceiving and manipulating the masses) is second nature to devious, duplicitous people, and it highly amuses them to do so, and amuse other sadistic psychopaths of their ilk. They really are like some alien anti-human species, and but for them our realty – and our history – would be completely different.
Allan Howard writes that “Jeremy and Jenny [Formby] and left-wing MPs were in a no-win situation, and they all knew that should any of them refute the claims and defend and support Marc or Jackie etc, they themselves would be attacked and vilified…”
Nothing in that observation can alter the fact that collectively the leader’s office and the disciplinary committees under Formby committed terrible acts of betrayal. The greatest irony is that, as those of greater perspicacity warned at the time, the betrayal would only serve to increase the rightwing attacks upon them! In the book of justice what any of them may have thought privately is of little consequence compared to their words and actions in the betrayal of honest comrades and in their complicity with the inquisition. Almost every Labour MP including Starmer himself could, if they choose, use the same threadbare excuse to justify their current actions, when they come to write their memoirs.
Moreover what I have just pointed out illustrates the weakness of the simplistic analysis in psychopathological terms of Allan’s final paragraph. As Hannah Arendt an others have pointed out, history cannot be explained by conveniently attributing all evil to “sadistic psychopaths” who act lke “an alien anti-human species”. If there is one thing that we should have learnt from the history of the Holocaust it is that the most terrible acts can be performed as “normal” by the most ordinary and “civilised” of human beings if the social pressures are sufficiently strong. Of course under the present global conditions of anarchic disaster capitalism, clever psychopaths may rise naturally to high political office everywhere in the “democratic” world, because the requirements of a formal democracy managed for the benefit of financial capital favour their pragmatic amorality and manipulative managerial abilities. This is no accident: rather it is a symptom but not the cause, of a dysfunctional régime and of a putrescent social contract.