The Forde Report – some initial thoughts

JVL Introduction

 Richard Kuper writes

There is much in the long-delayed Forde Report that is extremely welcome, particularly in relation to Labour’s flawed disciplinary processes and its equally questionable approach to training.

We will develop a nuanced and referenced critique of the Report over time but here are some initial thoughts.

First off are serious criticisms of the Report’s framing which seems to be dominated by an apolitical “there-are-two-sides-equally-at-fault” approach.

This is nicely captured in David Timoney’s tweet: “If one side weaponsises (sic) antisemitism, and the other side recognises it as weaponisation, how is that other side also guilty of weaponisation? If I was falsely and maliciously accused of something, would that also make me a liar?”

Alex Swift tweeted something similar: “Both factions treated it as a factional weapon in the sense that one of them used it as a factional weapon and the other responded it to it as though it were being used as a factional weapon.”

The Report in large measure ignores the broad political context. It fails to deal with wider issues of democratic accountability, and in particular – except for the one instance (C2 63) relating to one of the interviews in the Panorama Programme ‘Is Labour Anti-semitic?’ –  the role played by a toxic media which ganged up against Corbyn from before he was even elected, generally lending its weight to fuelling a moral panic over many issues, none more so than antisemitism.

What it does do is destroy the Party’s attempt to silence its critics by treating references to weaponisation of antisemitism, as themselves antisemitic and a sacking offence.

In our view, the Report is far too accepting of the view that statements that are unwelcome (or even found offensive) by supporters of Israel, Jewish and non-Jewish, and those who define themselves as Zionist are, or are very likely to be, antisemitic. Here the poison of the IHRA working definition has sapped into the body politic. No remark about Israel can be innocent anymore – there is a bulk buying into the notion that criticism of Israel is likely to be antisemitic and that the onus is on the critic to establish innocence in advance.

The Report, recognises the inadequacy of what passes for training and this strips away from the Party their assumed authority to enforce ‘training’ as part of the disciplinary process.   But they seem to forget this need for nuance in understanding what are complex issues when it comes the assessment of allegations of antisemitism. Their bona fides are unquestioned (even though we know, for example that over a third in 2019 came from one complainant). The idea of a vexatious complaint doesn’t seem to occur to Forde.

Let us be clear. There have been cases of gross antisemitism, a few from conviction; others, more commonly, from confusion rather than malice. None are acceptable. But how you deal with them matters – by education wherever possible, as Forde clearly states, and not by the harsh and arbitrary, disciplinary-didacticism which passes for due process/instruction/education in the Party at present.

The effect of this coercive control, willed by members on the right and in the Party machine generally, is a disciplinary system which still remains unfit for purpose and a complete failure to develop any serious approach to fighting racism in general (the Report notes there are no attempts to develop equivalent training on racism beyond antisemitism), in the Party and beyond it. It functions, rather, to frighten members from thoughtful debate on the pressing issue of Palestinian rights (despite the Party’s paper commitment to these).

For the moment we merely post, without endorsement, a small number of the critical commentaries that have appeared in the 24 hours follwoing the Forde Report’s publication. There will be much more to say in time…


1. Jeremy Corbyn’s generous response

2. Mike Phipps, At last, the Forde Report, on Labour Hub

A good overview, dismissive of the claim by a Labour spokesperson that “Keir Starmer is now in control and has made real progress in ridding the party of the destructive factionalism and unacceptable culture that did so much damage previously and contributed to our defeat in 2019.”

3. Martin Odoni, An open letter to the Forde Inquiry

Highly critcal of the Forde Report, using phrases like “hundreds of complaints” but with NO discussion of the numbers involved at all…

4. Lorcan Whitehead & Hilary Schan, Momentum: Forde should prompt a moment of reflection, not triumphalism

“What should be a time for reflection and accountability is instead being used as an opportunity for chest-thumping triumphalism… Starmer himself should commit to stop disregarding Labour’s rules to benefit his own factional agenda, as he has recently on parliamentary selections.”

5. Labour Muslim Network, LMN Briefing – Forde Report

“It is difficult to read this report and reach any other conclusion than there being institutional Islamophobia within the Labour Party.”

6. Andrew Fisher, The Labour Party is making a terrible mistake if it ignores the Forde report

“Forde confirms that reflection is necessary. Cultural change requires painstaking work, not glib assertions of change.”

7. Aaron Bastani, The Forde Report Proves the Labour Machine Was Rotten to Its Core, NovaraMedia 19 July 2022

8. Martin Abrams of Momentum – an interview


1. Jeremy Corbyn’s generous response

The Forde Report casts an important light on events in the Labour Party in recent years. My election as leader in 2015 was a major shock in British politics. It wasn’t about me, but a popular demand for anti-austerity politics following the 2008 financial crisis and 35 years of market fundamentalism.

Despite overwhelming support from members and affiliates, powerful groups in the party found that change hard to come to terms with. This led to a conflict in Labour that created a toxic environment, which the Forde Report lays bare. In any party there are groups and factions, but the resistance we were faced with went far beyond that.

It included the secret diversion of campaign funds by senior HQ staff in the 2017 election, which Forde rightly condemns as “unequivocally wrong”. Whether or not that prevented the election of a Labour government, it was dishonest. In a democratic party those decisions should be taken by the elected leadership. Too often the will of the membership was overridden by people who thought they shouldn’t have had a say in the first place.

Whatever arguments there are about specific findings, this report should help us see a path forward. The politics of the many, not the few, are more needed in this country than ever. We suffer a cost of living scandal while billionaire wealth soars and climate breakdown accelerates while fossil fuel companies boast record profits. For the Labour Party to be the vehicle for a better and sustainable world, things need to change.

The appalling behaviour that Forde calls out, including the repulsive racism and sexism shown to Diane Abbott and others, should have no place in a progressive party. Toxic factionalism is far from over – nor are persistent problems of racism and sexism – and action must be taken, as Forde makes clear.

Most of all, the Party needs to decide what it is for and who decides that. Are we a democratic socialist party, run by members and affiliated unions, that aims for a fundamental transfer of wealth and power from the few to the many? Or are we something else?


2. Mike Phipps, At last, the Forde Report, Labour Hub 20 July 2022

The Inquiry into allegations of bullying, racism and sexism at the top of the Labour Party bureaucracy has finally delivered its Report to the Party’s National Executive Committee. Mike Phipps reports

The Forde Inquiry was established by Labour’s NEC in May 2020 to investigate the explosive contents of the 860-page Leaked Report into the functioning of the Legal and Governance Unit, originally proposed to be an annex to the Party’s submission to the EHRC, as well as its unsanctioned release to the media.

What was originally intended to take weeks has taken much longer. The Panel’s Call for Evidence received more than 1,100 submissions, running to many thousands of pages. Multiple threats of legal action against the Panel further hampered its work. Now more than two years later, Martin Forde QC has finally produced his 138-page Report. What does it say?

We were provided with a wealth of evidence of discriminatory behaviours based on religion, race, gender and sexual orientation, the Report says. This was “shocking and disappointing”.  We found “little evidence of mutual respect and a great deal of evidence of factionalism, so deep rooted that the Party has found itself dysfunctional.” WhatsApp messages reveal “deplorably factional” and discriminatory attitudes expressed by “many of the Party’s most senior staff.”

Forde’s Report rejects the assertion that extracts of the messages quoted in the Leaked Report were “cherry-picked” or “selectively edited” such that they had become “unrepresentative and misleading”.

In fact, there was overt and underlying racism and sexism in some of the WhatsApp messages between the Party’s most senior staff, the Report concludes. It talks of a “working environment totally at odds with the values the Party stands for.” This is a damning conclusion.

Factionalism impacted on the 2017 general election. The Report finds the decision by Party officials to set up a covert operation and divert money and personnel to it without the authority of the Campaign Committee was “wrong”.

In the media, the original Leaked Report was widely dismissed as an attempt by supporters of Jeremy Corbyn to defend his record on the issue of antisemitism. Forde’s Report challenges this.

The authors of the Leaked Report were not seeking to play down the scale of antisemitism but to show that the delays in progressing cases were factionally motivated by members of the LGU, it argues. The Report does not find clear and convincing evidence of a systematic attempt by Jeremy Corbyn’s office “to interfere unbidden in the disciplinary processes in order to undermine the Party’s response to allegations of antisemitism.”

The Report is highly critical of the WhatsApp culture established by senior officials to communicate among themselves. WhatsApp groups replaced a proper audit trail of emails, it finds.  There was a “real antipathy” to Jeremy Corbyn’s office. The issue of antisemitism was seen as a means to attack the Corbyn leadership.

The Party’s disciplinary procedures are not fit for purpose, concludes the Report. There are problems with the recruitment processes too, with existing officials reluctant to trust people they don’t know. “From an equalities perspective this was a disaster waiting to happen,” says the Report. As the Party’s senior officials became increasingly homogenous, “a degree of ‘groupthink’ appears to have taken hold.”

While others have dismissed the Leaked Report as a factional document by hardcore Corbynites, the Forde Report finds this analysis erroneous.  “In our view, the Leaked report’s primary author was not firmly embedded in either ‘faction’, and was far from unequivocally supportive of Jeremy Corbyn despite being on the Left of the Party. We do not consider that any of the Leaked Report’s authors embarked on the task with a preconceived narrative or reverse engineered the evidence to fit it.”

The Report concludes with a series of detailed recommendations about the Party’s disciplinary processes and reforming the Party’s culture. It will be interesting to see whether these ideas are acted upon or go the same way as the Chakrabarti proposals back in 2016.

Much of the media has been quick to endorse the ‘factionalism on both sides’ narrative, ignoring the way a twice-elected Party leader was undermined by unelected bureaucrats. The line taken by Labour spin doctors following the Report’s publication is that this is all in the past and things have greatly improved under Keir Starmer’s leadership.

But many on the left will feel vindicated by the Report’s findings. Hilary Schan, Co-chair of Momentum, said: “The Forde report is a damning indictment of the Labour right’s attempts to destroy from within the Corbyn leadership, and with it the hopes of a radical Labour government for the many.”

“Disgracefully, while tens of thousands of Labour members were pounding the streets to kick the Tories out in favour of a socialist Labour government, these right-wing factional operators were wreaking havoc on the party from within,” she added.

Jeremy Corbyn said the report confirmed his leadership had consistently been undermined by “powerful groups” in the Party and suggested some problems remained. “Toxic factionalism is far from over – nor are persistent problems of racism and sexism – and action must be taken, as Forde makes clear,” he said.

A Labour spokesperson told the BBC: “Keir Starmer is now in control and has made real progress in ridding the party of the destructive factionalism and unacceptable culture that did so much damage previously and contributed to our [general election] defeat in 2019.”

This is frankly risible. Firstly, the regime that Starmer has imposed on the Party is one of the most factional ever, with opponents expelled on flimsy pretexts, Conference rules on parliamentary selections ignored, experienced members left off parliamentary shortlists on arguably factional grounds and affiliated groups paralysed by right wing factional control freakery.

Secondly, the spokesperson’s focus on the 2019 election misses the point entirely. The Leaked Report focused on anti-Corbyn factional behaviour within the Party’ HQ running up to the 2017 general election, a strong result for Labour that many on the right seemed to have worked against at the time and now appear keen to airbrush form history.

Mike Phipps’ book For the Many: Preparing Labour for Power was published by OR Books in 2018. His new book Don’t Stop Thinking About Tomorrow: The Labour Party after Jeremy Corbyn (OR Books, 2022) can be ordered here.

 


3. Martin Odoni, An open letter to the Forde Inquiry, the Critique Achives, 19 July 2022

 

Can make even the right wing of the Labour Party look whiter than white

 

Good afternoon, Mr Forde & panellists

I thank you for your publication of the findings of your investigation into the Labour Party’s culture and conduct.

Referring you to page 50 of your report, I must draw your attention to the section C2.60, where you write; –

The level of allegations of antisemitism and concern of the Jewish communities [NB: WHAT IS MEANT BY ‘JEWISH COMMUNITIES’ IS NOT DEFINED] and interest of the media should have led to a major move by the leadership, the NEC and all sections of the Party to condemn and deal with signs of antisemitism in the Party. Instead there appears to have been an assertion among supporters of Jeremy Corbyn, including on the NEC and amongst the membership, that the issue was being exaggerated to undermine the leader. Whilst there is some evidence that several* complaints submitted did not involve members of the Party and of some double counting, the problem within parts of the Party was clearly of major significance. [Emphasis added.]

*The actual evidence shows that HUNDREDS of the complaints did not involve members of the Party, not ‘several’. This wording is beyond misleading and should never have been used.

You say the matter was “of major significance” – whatever that means? How exactly have you come to this conclusion, and largely to dismiss the concerns about false accusations? What does ‘major significance’ mean in this context? If you mean only that there was a major furore about it in the media that needed cooling off, this appears to be advice on political strategy, which is surely far beyond the panel’s remit? Whereas if you mean there were large numbers of cases and large numbers of members involved, the sentence is even more problematic, as it is couched in what is called “Weasel Words”. This is to say, you do not substantiate the assertion in any way, but just slip it into the text hoping it will go unchallenged.

Indeed – this is what encourages the impression of a witch-hunt among Labour members – you offer NO discussion of the numbers involved at all. Previous reports, such as that offered by the EHRC last year, also failed to offer any mention or insight into the scale of the issue within Labour ranks, apart from using more meaningless, proportion-free weasel words – “the tip of the iceberg,” which without numbers can mean whatever the reader wants it to mean. The relentless evasion of discussion of the real numbers involved has always been the reason why Labour members have objected very strongly to the constant insinuations against them. You have done NOTHING to change this. Your investigation was supposed to be the opportunity to establish once and for all how many people were involved – that is the only way to establish whether Corbyn supporters were right to claim the problem was ‘exaggerated’ – and all you have offered is the, in this context, completely meaningless and un-valued term, “Major significance.”

Worse, you contradict yourselves rather in the very next paragraph when you state, “several on the Right did seize on the issue as a way to attack Corbyn,” which means you accept that the issue was being manipulated and therefore raising the possibility of it being distorted. This surely demands closer investigation to see how much this was affecting the public perception of the problem. But again, you explore this avenue no further.

Incidentally, please do not offer any pretence that you do not have access to the numbers involved. If that were the case, you should have demanded them, but in any event, you make repeated reference throughout to the ‘Leaked Report’ of April 2020, and the numbers involved were in the appendix of that document – a trifling 56 people in a party of nearly 600,000. Why do you not make any mention of these figures? Why do you not make any attempt to cross-analyse the numbers and make certain of their accuracy, or to establish their inaccuracy, as the case may be? And above all, why do you not draw any attention to how small the proportion was in comparison with the party membership’s overall size? Antisemitism in the Labour Party during Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership was proportionally lower, far lower, than in most other political parties, and yet the media were ONLY focusing on the problem in Labour.

 

Total expulsions from the party by NEC and NCC combined, quarter-by-quarter This table shows how NEC disciplinary processes were sped up by the new system introduced by Jennie Formby Sounds familiar… But so many are not party members, and some are duplicated complaints.

Surely you must see that the omission of numbers is a gigantic flaw in your research at the most fundamental level, and therefore makes your report a failure at best, a whitewash at worst?

Could you also explain your complete failure to investigate – even to show any detectable curiosity about – why such a large proportion of the Labour members being expelled for antisemitism were and are Jewish? Approximately one-quarter of those suspended are understood to be Jewish – ALL of them on the left of the party (which is another detail that adds to the suspicions) – and surely such a phenomenon is at least counter-intuitive enough to be grounds for analysis? Again, I can see you making absolutely no mention of this in your report, implying lazy disinterest at best, which, again, means that if you are accused of attempting a whitewash of the behaviour of the Labour Right, you have no one to blame but yourselves.

And could you please offer more clarity on whom you mean by ‘Jewish communities’? Are you actually talking about Jewish members of the public? Or are you assuming that Zionist groups like the Board of Jewish Deputies, and the Campaign Against AntiSemitism, proportionally speak on behalf of Jewish Britons? Because they do not. The BoD only represents about 30% of UK Jews, and the CAA personnel represent no one except themselves.

My conclusion of this report you have published is that it is the result of negligent investigation, and at an extraordinarily basic level. NOT ACTUALLY INCLUDING THE FIGURES is an astonishing oversight that would result in its rejection by any academic institution.

In anticipation of your detailed and prompt reply.

Kind regards
Martin Odoni, a Jewish former member of the Labour Party

POSTSCRIPT:

I await a response to the above, but that is fine as I only submitted it about an hour or so ago at the time of writing. There are plenty of other objections to Mr Forde’s standard of investigation. His repeated use of the term ‘Far Left’ to describe Jeremy Corbyn and his supporters throughout the report raises severe concerns about his impartiality. There is considerable lazy “both-sidesing” of the factional dispute between 2015 and 2019, with no clear attempt in various situations to establish which faction initiated the problems. Too many acts of destructive and vindictive cynicism by right wing officials are described as “misunderstandings” without providing enough real indicators to that effect.

The report also fails at every level to acknowledge that Corbyn had a democratic mandate and the right wing faction of the party did not, therefore mention that “both sides” were aggressive towards each other is somewhat irrelevant; the left had a democratic right to take action against any group obstructing the pursuit of policies that had been mandated. The right wing had no right to obstruct in the first place, as the democratic majority were overwhelmingly in favour of the policies.

However, overall, the report is far more damning of the right of the Labour Party than it is of the left, and it does accept that anti-Semitism accusations were being exploited by the right. It also quietly admits, on page 52, section C2.67, that individuals in the Labour Party were “unfairly maligned” in the anti-Semitism furore. That is a significant first step towards formalising the reality of the Labour anti-Semitism scam.

There is still a feeling at the end though that the whole investigation is something of a bucket of white paint.


4. Lorcan Whitehead & Hilary Schan, Momentum: Forde should prompt a moment of reflection, not triumphalism, LabourList 20 July 2022

After two years of excuses and delays the Forde Report was finally published yesterday, and it makes for grim reading. It confirmed what many of us already knew: right-wing Labour staffers used their positions to obstruct and undermine the leadership of Jeremy Corbyn, despite his democratic mandate from hundreds of thousands of party members. Perhaps most shamefully, the report also lays bare how the serious issue of antisemitism was used by these staffers as a weapon in their sabotage operation.

The report states that there was a “conviction that the end of Jeremy Coyn’s leadership (be it brought about by the PLP or electoral disaster) would be good for the party” and that members of the senior management team were “focused on what they saw as protecting the party from Jeremy Corbyn” and engaging in “straightforward attempts to hinder [the leader’s office] work”.

This included attempts to shape the leadership election outcomes against Corbyn in 2015 and 2016 through vetting Corbyn supporting members – or “trot hunting” as staffers called it – and peaked at the deliberate undermining of Labour’s 2017 general election operations, when senior staff covertly diverted resources to “sitting largely anti-Corbyn MPs”, instead of “pro-Corbyn candidates in potentially Tory winnable seats”. This is unforgivable. Whilst members from across the political spectrum of the Labour Party were working day and night to elect a Labour government, these people were undermining us at every turn.

As Forde describes, the obsessive opposition of right-wing staffers to Corbyn’s administration fuelled a toxic and abusive culture where racism and misogyny were commonplace, as evidenced in the WhatsApp conversations exposed in the leaked report. Karie Murphy, a senior staffer in Corbyn’s team, was called a “crazy woman” and a “bitch face cow” and the first Black, female MP Diane Abbott was described as “truly repulsive” and “a very angry woman” – a common slur against Black women. These staffers joked about seeing Abbott “crying in the loos”. The report also finds that during this period, BAME and female MPs were not afforded the same “level of instinctive respect” as their white or male counterparts.

Equally shamefully, Forde finds that the obsession with purging left-wing members led to the mishandling of antisemitism complaints. Labour’s governance and legal unit (GLU) prioritised “suspending members who supported Jeremy Corbyn in 2015 and 2016, over dealing with complaints of antisemitism, Islamophobia or other types of complaints”. Cases were delayed by headquarters (HQ) staff, who sought input on some cases and “refused to proceed until they had it”, only to then weaponise the responses and use them to generate “wholly misleading media reports”, suggesting that staff in the leader’s office had “aggressively imposed themselves on the process against HQ’s wishes”. As Forde confirms, this was a lie.

This is shocking. Yet Forde also finds no evidence “that the effects of factionalism have been eliminated from Party recruitment, management and promotion processes” under the current leadership. Incredibly, Keir Starmer’s team were yesterday quoted as saying that “Keir Starmer is now in control and has made real progress in ridding the party of the destructive factionalism and unacceptable culture that did so much damage previously”. Those of us on the left of the party will know that this could not be further from the truth.

The past two years have focused on continuing this factional warfare, in an attempt to purge the party of the left entirely: the suspension of Jeremy Corbyn, the silencing of Young Labour, the factional blocking of left-wing candidates, and the escalating series of unjustifed suspensions, expulsions and proscriptions. When the right claim that they have transformed the ‘culture’ of the party, what they mean to say is that under Corbyn they burned the house down rather than respect the left’s democratic mandate (‘factionalism’) – and now they are crushing the left (‘unity’).

What should be a time for reflection and accountability is instead being used as an opportunity for chest-thumping triumphalism. What we need from the Labour leadership now is careful consideration of the Report’s findings, guarantees that those involved in this sabotage never again join or work for the Party, and for the delayed implementation of Labour’s BAME structures to be accelerated, to strengthen the cause of anti-racism in Labour. What’s more, Starmer himself should commit to stop disregarding Labour’s rules to benefit his own factional agenda, as he has recently on parliamentary selections.

For all those who were so inspired by the hope of real change that Corbyn’s leadership represented, whose hopes were frustrated at every turn by antidemocratic forces within our own party, we share your pain. Momentum is committed not just to a radical policy platform, but to a democratic party in which members and minorities are empowered. It won’t be quick, it won’t be easy, but united and determined, we can make it happen. We urge members to stay in Labour and join Momentum in this fight. With NEC election ballots dropping on Monday and annual conference nearly upon us, we have an opportunity now to stand up for democracy and the change we want to see. Join us.

Related

Forde inquiry report into claims of racism, sexism and bullying published 19th July, 2022

Exclusive: Labour accused of breaching rules in Wakefield candidate selection13th May, 2022

Graham urges “timid” Labour to “keep punching” government on cost of living12th May, 2022

Lorcan Whitehead is national secretary of Momentum.


5. Labour Muslim Network, LMN Briefing – Forde Report

Introduction

In April 2020 the Labour Party commissioned an independent investigation into the contents and circumstances surrounding a leaked report entitled ‘The work of the Labour Party’s governance and legal unit in relation to anti-semitism, 2014-2019’.

As the leaked document entered the public domain, there were significant and legitimate complaints surrounding the structures, culture and practices of the Labour Party at all levels. This included concerns surrounding senior staff at Labour HQ, the elected leadership and amongst members. Amongst those with serious concerns were Muslim members and the Labour Muslim Network.

The leaked report and the communications contained within raised allegations of Islamophobia and discrimination against Muslims by senior staff and within the party culture and structures. These were raised on multiple occasions by the Labour Muslim Network with both the Leader and the General Secretary of the Labour Party.

An investigative panel chaired by Martin Forde QC, and consisting of Baroness Debbie Wilcox (The Baroness Lister of Burtersett CBE), Lord Larry Whitty (the Rt. Hon. the Lord Whitty) and Baroness Ruth Lister (The Baroness Lister of Burtersett CBE) was commissioned and appointed by the NEC in May 2020.

The investigation was concluded and the report published on Tuesday 19th July 2022.

The Findings

‘Overt and Underlying Racism’

Following nearly two years of evidence, scrutiny and investigation, the report concluded that there are ‘serious problems of discrimination in the operations of the Party.’

These include, but are not limited to:

  • ‘The undoubted overt and underlying racism and sexism apparent in some of the content of the WhatsApp messages between the Party’s most senior staff.’
  • ‘A significant number of replies to our Call for Evidence – mainly from ordinary Party members – spelling out their experiences of discrimination – racism, islamophobia, sexism – in constituency parties and in Party processes.
  • The ‘failure of Party officials at regional and national level to take such problems [of racism, islamophobia and sexism] seriously.
  • ‘Submissions from current and former member of staff describing their experiences of discrimination and of lack of sensitivity to issues of racism and sexism displayed by senior management.’
  • ‘Racist, sexist and otherwise discriminatory behaviour’ feeding a ‘toxic culture’ within the highest levels of the organisation.
  • ‘A culture of denialism across all factions in which many of the people involved in such behaviour failed to accept that they may have acted in a way that is bullying, threatening, discriminatory or which perpetuates discriminatory behaviour, simple because they are committed to progressive politics.’

These findings were entirely consistent with the islamophobia report published by LMN in 2020 and highlights many similar areas of concern. We were pleased to see the panel had taken our report into consideration – noting that ‘the Labour Muslim Network has produced an excellent report on islamophobia in the Party’ – and goes on to advise the Party to ‘consider carefully’ its contents.

‘Hierarchy of Racism’

For many years there have been concerns raised, particularly amongst Muslim members of the Labour Party, that there is a hierarchy both in process and in intensity pertaining to different forms of discrimination within the Party. Muslim members have consistently told us they feel islamophobia often sits at the bottom of this perceived hierarchy. This was a clear theme amongst the submissions to the LMN Islamophobia report.

It is clear, both in the reflections and conclusions of the Forde Report, similar concerns and conclusions have been reached within this investigation.

The report highlights that ‘the Party was in effect operating a hierarchy of racism or discrimination with other forms of racism [including islamophobia] being ignored. For a Party which seeks to be a standard bearer of progressive politics, equality, and workers’ rights, this is an untenable situation. The Party must live by its values and lead by example.’

Within the submissions received, the report also highlights suggestions of ‘manipulation of process along factional lines, marginalisation of those with protected characteristics, opacity of procedures and a perceived hierarchy of engagement with different protected characteristics.’

The Forde report goes on to suggest ‘a parallel approach is needed [between work on antisemitism and] with regard to islamophobia and that…both forms of prejudice and discrimination need to be integrated into a broader ethical anti-racism education programme alongside education on other protected characteristics.’

Conclusion

The Labour Muslim Network welcomes the publication of the Forde report and the critical issues it raises relating to racism and islamophobia within our Party.

While we are shocked and saddened at the scale of Islamophobia within the Party (including by senior staff and elected members), the toxic culture of minimisation and denialism and the hierarchy of discrimination, we must also note that much of the issues raised are similar to our own report published nearly two years ago.

It is difficult to read this report and reach any other conclusion than there being institutional Islamophobia within the Labour Party.

This must now be a turning point for our party. There is a racism emergency we must deal with urgently. We hope the leadership, NEC, Parliamentary Labour Party, and all members meet this moment with the seriousness it deserves.


6. Andrew Fisher, The Labour Party is making a terrible mistake if it ignores the Forde report, iNews, July 19, 2022

As someone who worked for Jeremy Corbyn, today’s report makes sober reading

Martin Forde QC was appointed in May 2020. The original deadline for his report into allegations of bullying, racism and sexism within the Labour Party was 15 July 2020. Over two years later, it has arrived and should be sober reading for every Labour official, politician and member.

It shows that a big and deep cultural change is needed, with a clear separation between the political and administrative functions of the party.

The factionalism and dysfunction of the party has left Labour in opposition for 12 years now. But just as importantly it means poor behaviour – including racism and misogyny – has been tolerated unless there was a factional reason to make political gain from challenging it.

Another serious allegation, investigated in the report, was that some senior Labour Party officials had actively tried to undermine Labour’s 2017 general election campaign. In 2017, Labour surged in the polls – defying expectations – to take away the Conservatives’ majority, leaving Theresa May scrabbling around to do a deal with the DUP and stay in office by a whisker.

If Labour had taken just a few more seats, the Conservatives would have been unable to form a government, and a minority Labour government would probably have been the only option. The Forde Report declines to get into hypotheticals about what might have been – which are unknowable.

It does however confirm that officials set up a covert operation “spending some £135,000 in total on campaigns supportive of sitting largely anti-Corbyn MPs and not on campaigns for pro-Corbyn candidates in potentially Tory winnable seats”.

Forde concludes by saying, “it was unequivocally wrong for HQ staff to pursue an alternative strategy covertly… We are absolutely clear that this should never have happened, and we consider that the anger amongst the membership regarding the issue is justified.”

I was the party’s Executive Director of Policy at the time. I knew several party staff disliked us and were out to undermine us, but it was not until the 860-page document was leaked in April 2020 that we all saw both the extent of the vitriol and the substantial actions taken by a largely unaccountable group of senior staff in the party’s headquarters.

Likewise, Forde documents allegations of poor and inappropriate behaviour by the Leader of the Opposition’s (LOTO) staff at times. He cites my resignation letter (which was itself leaked) as citing a “lack of professionalism, competence and human decency”. Certainly we were not flawless.

But the fundamental point is that democracy must be respected. Jeremy Corbyn was elected – he had an overwhelming mandate for change. In many instances, senior staff effectively refused to recognise this. As Forde reports, “by 2015, the majority of the Party’s senior staff did not see their roles as requiring perfect neutrality, or even the appearance of it”.

Forde found that such factional behaviour meant staff actively weeded out party members and supporters from voting in Labour leadership elections who might have been pro-Corbyn: “In our view the intention and effect of both validation exercises was to remove ballots from individuals who would otherwise have voted for Jeremy Corbyn.” This is a lesson not just about party management but about re-establishing a culture of respect for democracy in the party.

It would be easy for Keir Starmer and General Secretary David Evans to pretend these are historic issues and everything is now rosy. A glib statement from Keir Starmer’s spokesman asserted: “The Forde Report details a party that was out of control. Keir Starmer is now in control and has made real progress in ridding the party of the destructive factionalism and unacceptable culture that did so much damage.”

This is a terrible mistake, as well as a misreading of Forde’s report. Forde expresses concern that today still, “there appear to be no published procedures governing the use of administrative suspensions and that these appear to be operating without clear criteria”.

He adds that, “we do have continuing concerns – in particular, in relation to the use of… sanctions on individual members deemed to have supported newly proscribed organisations”. In a parallel with the vetting of members in 2015 and 2016’s leadership contests, many left-wing delegates attending last year’s conference were suspended in the days before. Some are still suspended, others expelled and awaiting an appeal 10 months on.

Likewise, just this past week the Party has briefed against two former female members of staff who allege they suffered sexual harassment and were asked to sign non-disclosure agreements under Starmer’s leadership.

Keir Starmer was elected promising unity and integrity. He pledged “the selections for Labour candidates needs to be more democratic and we should end NEC impositions of candidates. Local Party members should select their candidates for every election”. Try telling members in Hartlepool, Stroud or Wakefield that has been the case.

Several of Starmer’s key lieutenants in his 2020 leadership election campaign have also been parachuted into key roles within the Party HQ – breaking with Forde’s concept of Labour staff’s “expected neutrality… serving in effect as the party’s civil service”.

Damagingly, the Forde report accuses the party of “operating a hierarchy of racism and discrimination” with many forms of racism and discrimination being ignored. In November 2020, the Labour Muslim Network surveyed Muslim party members and found 44 per cent did not believe Labour took Islamophobia seriously, while half did not have confidence in the complaints procedure.

As I wrote, in April 2020, the leaked report “and the recently announced investigation into it – must be a turning point for Labour … a chance too for all staff, members and elected representatives to reflect on their own behaviour too.”

Forde confirms that reflection is necessary. Cultural change requires painstaking work, not glib assertions of change.

Andrew Fisher is a former executive director of policy for Labour

 


7. Aaron Bastani, The Forde Report Proves the Labour Machine Was Rotten to Its Core, NovaraMedia 19 July 2022

And the mainstream media covered it up.

This morning members of the media finally got their hands on the long-awaited Forde report, the 138-page conclusion of the inquiry led by Martin Forde QC. It had been tasked with investigating the contents of a controversial leaked dossier, initially covered by Novara Media in 2020, which examined the handling of antisemitism complaints within the Labour party.

As soon as the report was out, Labour party spinners reached out to favourable journalists. Rather than read the report, and inform their audiences of its contents, several simply repeated the spokesperson’s words verbatim – with the i newspaper’s Paul Waugh even doing so without quotation marks. To the ordinary person, Labour’s claim that the report “completely debunks the conspiracy theory that the 2017 general election was somehow deliberately sabotaged” comes across as Waugh’s own conclusion, rather than the words of a party press officer.

This is ‘churnalism’, where journalists simply repeat the lines of press teams and releases without doing actual work or reporting themselves. It’s one rung below fake news on the ladder of journalistic ethics. For the public, such a lack of professionalism can make it hard to know what to believe, the truth secondary to an information war peddled by certain factional interests who are aided by friendly journalists and pundits.

‘Deplorably fictional, insensitive and at time discriminatory attitudes’.

But cutting through all of the biased coverage is a paragraph that no amount of spin can hope to conceal. It is the knockout punch for all of those who tried to stop the initially leaked report from seeing the light of the day. It should mean the final curtain for several political careers, including that of former party general secretary, Iain McNicol.

On page 25, the report says:

“It has been put to us by a number of witnesses that the extracts of the messages quoted in the leaked report were cherrypicked and selectively edited, such that the quotes that appear in the Leaked Report are both unrepresentative and misleading. Having reviewed the transcripts & considered evidence from many of those involved we do not agree. We find that the messages on the SMT WhatsApp reveal deplorably factional, insensitive and at times discriminatory attitudes expressed by many of the party’s most senior staff”.

In other words, the Labour party’s most senior officials – including McNicol, now a Labour lord, and Emilie Oldknow, who was reputedly Starmer’s first pick to replace Jennie Formby in the top job, as well as Patrick Heneghan MBE and John Stolliday, are guilty of “factional and discriminatory attitudes”.

For all of the media’s response to the EHRC report (which I found to be a largely thoughtful document), Forde’s report – and this moneyshot paragraph – prove wrongdoing by McNicol, Oldknow and others that extends far beyond anything laid at the feet of Jeremy Corbyn or his chosen general secretary, Jennie Formby.

This was the party’s senior management team, and any assessment of wider organisational failings should start with them.

But far from facing political disgrace, Oldknow is today an assistant general secretary at Unison, where Stolliday also works, while McNicol was pictured canvassing with Anneliese Dodds and David Evans last year. He is regularly put forward as a media representative by the Labour party and as recently as April appeared to be on official party business, meeting representatives of the Israeli Labour party in London.

The media is determined to ignore the report’s extraordinary findings.

There are a number of other extraordinary conclusions in the report – all of which would be political dynamite, subject to widespread media coverage, if those targeted weren’t on the left. They include the fact that there was indeed a politically motivated purge of Labour members in both 2015 and 2016, and that the Labour machine tried to rig internal votes. That there are specific barriers for Black people to progress in the party. That Labour officials opposed to the leadership, “covertly diverted election funds away from winnable seats.” And that there is a “real danger” the party could be seen as establishing a “hierarchy of racism or discrimination” if it continues on its present course.

There is even a clear rebuttal to the claim that GLU staff were prevented by the leader’s office from investigating antisemitism complaints, a central assertion in John Ware’s controversial Panorama documentary. Despite questions from Novara Media and others about the veracity of Ware’s reporting, the BBC programme went on to be nominated for a Bafta.

In the report’s foreword, Forde even writes about how “within minutes” of the NEC confirming his appointment he started to “receive emails from some of those named in the leaked report, and lawyer’s letters threatening me and other panel members with legal action.” The document – despite its predictably understated, lawyerly tone – confirms a host of issues that have been minimised and even mocked by much of the media – again, simply because those on the receiving end were on the left. If you are a socialist then it seems you’re fair game for lies, misrepresentation and cheating.

The report’s assessment is that – unlike the senior management team – the leaked document’s ‘primary author’ was not embedded in either ‘faction’ and was “far from unequivocally supportive of Jeremy Corbyn”.

Furthermore, Forde adds how the inquiry does not “consider that any of the leaked report’s authors embarked on the task with a preconceived narrative or reverse engineered the evidence to fit it”. In other words, while the old party management was guilty of unacceptable behaviour, those behind this widely ridiculed report were trying their best to create a fair piece of work. If I said that on the BBC or Sky I would be laughed at, not just by the other guests but by the host too. And yet that’s the conclusion of a QC-led inquiry. It certainly makes you think about how the media reports stories like this.

The major takeaway from the report, alongside the unacceptable behaviour of leading party bureaucrats, is the complete failure of the media to report both sides of the story. Had it not been for Novara Media – and other independent outlets – the leaked dossier, and this outrageous conduct, would never have been exposed. It shined a light on the ugly side of the Labour party – and legacy media has spent two years trying its best to cast a shadow.

Aaron Bastani is a Novara Media contributing editor and co-founder.


8. Martin Abrams of Momemtum, interview

 

 

Comments (20)

  • Doug says:

    Enough
    The position is clear Red Tories worked night and day for the worst Tory government this country has ever seen
    Instead of what would have been the best Labour government since 1945
    There is no way they can stay in the party, we must demand their expulsion and prosecution
    The Left should call for KS to leave the party and take Red Tories with him
    If not then democracy is dead and we are officially a one party state

    0
    0
  • I am so shocked that the Forde report has even been even published at long, long last that it will take a long time to digest any of it.
    My total conviction is that Starmer and Evans were always fully supportive of the Labour Party saboteurs and it is only coincidence that their names have not, as yet, appeared on the list of the guilty.
    If starmer and Evans were not ,at least, sympathetic to those named in the leaked report then disciplinary action would have been taken against them.

    0
    0
  • Alan Maddison says:

    I was disappointed when the Forde report referred to the Leaked Labour report demonstrating that there was indeed a serious problem of antisemitism in the Labour Party, and then asserting that left- wing claims that it was ‘all a fabrication or smear’ by Corbyn supporters were unfounded.

    In other words framing it as the anti- Corbyn faction proven correct,and the Corbyn supporters wrong. To me this is a serious inversion of the truth.

    In my experience, left-wing members did not deny the existence of some antisemitism in Labour ranks, rather their point was that despite the repeated claims in the media, transmitted by pro- Israel groups and anti- Corbyn PLP members, there was no evidence that antisemitism was more widespread than elsewhere. This was a point also made by the HAC in their 2016 report into Antisemitism.

    In one recent survey 70% of Labour members considered in their experience that antisemitism had been exaggerated or was not as big a problem as often claimed. This is not denial.

    There was ample evidence to support this anti-democratic exaggeration.

    So this distortion of conflating left- wing claims of obvious and damaging ‘exaggeration’ with ‘denial of existence of any antisemitism in Labour’ is a grave error in this Forde report. It is an error Starmer has made, and a criticism in bad faith made by many anti-Corbyn groups.

    It wrongly positions Corbyn’s critics on the right side of the issue, and thus avoids the critical need to examine who was involved in this relentless smear campaign.

    Another point is that the Forde report says there were only a handful of complaints prior to Corbyn, and put the increase partly down to growth in membership. But they refer to this ‘handful’ increasing to several thousands of complaints (not sure their figures are correct), yet the membership only increased by 150%. The Forde report fails to point out that this huge increase in complaints was not from Jewish victims but mostly from certain anti- Corbyn groups trawling social media of left wingers. As Michael Rosen tweeted, if you are only searching for antisemitism in Labour you are not fighting antisemitism but the Labour Party. I suppose this applies to factions too. Those involved in such selective trawling should have been under scrutiny.

    Despite this, over six years only about 0.33% of Labour members have faced antisemitism complaints. This is not evidence for a widespread problem, nor an infestation or cess- pit of antisemitism as often claimed. the Labour right and pro- Israel groups.

    The Forde report had the opportunity to expose this unjustified and dishonest attack on our democracy, but decided not to do so. Instead the impression was that the anti- Corbyn faction was justified in their repeated claims, and those supporting Corbyn were in the wrong.
    How can the Labour Party possibly move on when the clearly attacked faction on the left are attributed equal blame, when they were defending the truth?

    Sadly Starmer’s team have also fed some journalists with what appears to be false information on the Forde report, so any hope of reconciliation or improvement seem totally absent, and we can expect more of the same.

    0
    0
  • James kemp says:

    Again it’s we must understand, consider take our time bla bla bla. NO this demonstrates just the tip of the ice burg of hate and lies used against the left for one purpose only total power and control!

    Well, you have it I hope you all choke on it. After 40-plus years I will never waste my vote for these scumbags. Never give them another penny and if you wish to forgive and hope that’s up to you my ideology doesn’t allow betrail of this magnitude to ever get near government.

    I will vote only for a socialist party and campaign for constant surveillance and prevention of any right-wing entryism into true socialist parties like PAL. To prevent this from ever happening again. I will never understand how any self-respecting socialist can stand being a member of Labour the thought alone makes me feel physically sick. Seeing daily reminders from the smug right-wing cult in charge and the stupid assumption we will have to come back and vote for them as we won’t vote Tory. Oh, boy is Starmer and crew in for a shock next election let’s see how they like it!

    0
    0
  • Philip Ward says:

    It’s clear from the paragraph on page 25 that Aaron Bastani quotes that the enquiry has had access to ALL the WhatsApp messages someone downloaded from the LP server. The leaked report never seriously challenged the idea that harsh, even “offensive”, criticism of Israel and Zionism is anti-Semitic. Its main focus was on the right’s factional use of their positions and the disciplinary process to undermine Corbyn. With a number of legal cases coming up, all the WhatsApp exchanges should be released. I bet they contain solid evidence of the weaponisation of accusations of anti-Semitism against the left and supporters of Palestinian rights that Jenni Formby was unwilling to acknowledge or challenge.

    0
    0
  • Les Hartop says:

    Thank you Martin Odoni. Well put !

    Who can have anything but contempt for the seething mass of right-wingers still occupying the central bureaucracy of this ‘Labour Party’ ?

    This isn’t an issue just about factional games and personal ponsificaton.

    Its about Labour being a cowardly party who fails to stand up for any workers or peoples who stand up for their rights or to defend themselves.

    Its about Labour being an obedient appendage to the US neo-con warmongers, instead of being a voice, a spanner in the works, preventing the ÙS’s drive to confront and break up Russia, and soon China.

    Its a life or death issue, the consequence of which has been Labour loyally following the US and failing to prevent war in Ukraine. UK opposition to NATO expansion could have prevented this war.

    0
    0
  • Caroline Raine says:

    Thanks for this very thorough analysis. I was pleased with the Forde Report’s response in relation to JLM, JVL and the whole area of training, including the integration of anti-semitism training into anti-racism training which would help to tackle the current exceptionalism. On the other hand, my biggest disappointment with the Report, was what Richard Kuper refers to as buying in to the notion that any criticism of Israel is likely to be anti-semitic. I was very disappointed to see the Report state that the frequent tabling of motions critical of the Israeli government at certain CLPs might make Jewish members feel accused of complicity, uncomfortable or intimidated and thus constitute anti-semitism. I am not denying that this may be how some Jewish members have felt. But the Report does not give sufficient emphasis to why members may be made to feel this and that endlessly hearing from certain politicians and mainstream media that the Party is anti-semitic could well contribute to this feeling. Surely criticising a regime – any regime – for breaches of international law, for operating an apartheid system or for human rights abuses is always valid for debate in a political party, even if this makes some members feel uncomfortable (and surely all political issues make some of us feel uncomfortable according to where we stand on them – that is the nature of politics). Further, I would not expect the Report to acknowledge this, but surely the reason we need to debate Palestine so often has nothing to do with a perverse desire to make Jewish members feel uncomfortable but is because the Party takes no notice of the policies that members vote for. If the Party acted on the 2021 Conference motion on Palestine rather than hide it away as if it never happened we could all shut up for a while! Meanwhile I am pleased to say that my experience of the Labour Party has never been as suggested in the report. I have never felt anyone in the Party has believed I must be a supporter of Israel’s regime simply because I am a Jew. Indeed it would be true to say that my local experience is that Jewish members have been amongst the most articulate and well informed critics of Israel while some of its most vocal defenders have not been Jewish. I am not trying to make a point here about who has the right to a particular opinion – we all do, regardless of whether or not we are Jews – but to demonstrate that our differences are accounted for by our political beliefs not by anti-semitism.

    0
    0
  • Sabine Ebert-Forbes says:

    Doug my thoughts exactly. As long as they remain in the party we will get nowhere fast. It is decision time for the party to decide what it is and stands for and act accordingly. And I also think that the difference in opinion about that will be staggeringly obvious. The organisation and its bods will not give us what we need because they have sold out. There is in my view no place for red tories in a democratic socialist party. But I am unsure of how we could achieve that, either within the existing party, or in a new party, but I think we might be needing the intellectual rights to the titles. We cannot have red tories calling themselves Labour Party.

    0
    0
  • Allan Howard says:

    Yes, Doug is right, and we have to call for Starmer to leave the party and take his Red Tory colleagues with him. It’s such a simple solution it’s hard to believe no-one thought of it before.

    0
    0
  • Tony says:

    “Despite questions from Novara Media and others about the veracity of Ware’s reporting, the BBC programme went on to be nominated for a Bafta.”

    Some things really are beyond parody!

    0
    0
  • Nick Jenkins says:

    Some thoughtful responses here to a report that, even as we speak, is being quietly buried.
    As many have pointed out, Forde has bent over backwards to suggest both sides were as bad as each other – and, of course, that is the message most members of the public will take away from the minimal media coverage. But Martin Odoni is absolutely right: much of the writing in this report is vague and generalised. Not at all focused and forensic, which is odd as he is a QC. The report contains some killer conclusions, but they are carefully disguised.
    One point that doesn’t seem to have attracted much attention: he says four of the staffers disgraced by the leaked report are still working for the party. Easy to miss this point as it is framed as “most of them AREN’T still working for the party”. We don’t know who they are as the threat of legal action (surely something a QC could deal with in a less cowardly way?) meant he didn’t name any of those staffers highlighted in the leaked report. But surely, at the very least, we deserve to know who they are – and why they are still working for the Labour Party.
    Otherwise, what was the point of this hugely expensive 27-month inquiry? We must not allow it be quietly forgotten.

    0
    0
  • Simon Cohen says:

    The Forde report is an historical document and whilst purporting to make ‘recommendations’ is in fact years too late as Starmer can claim everything has been done by:

    1. The exit of a third of the membership Rachel Reeves dismissed as a block of antisemites.

    2. Suspending and expelling the ‘wrong Jews.’

    3. Creating an authoritarian mon-culture.

    I agree with Marc Wadsworth and Phil Bevin who, on Resistance TV, while discussing the report, that the Labour Party is dead and we need to move on.

    In my view JVL should now move on and simply call itself Jewish Voice for Socialism and leave the ‘Labour’ bit out. There is no point in engagin with the Party hoping for dialogue or reasoned response.

    0
    0
  • Stephen Richards says:

    What a good time to publish the Forde Report, wait 2 years & then make it officially available for MSM scrutiny during the election of the next PM by the Tory Party. No debate.

    0
    0
  • Michael Rosen says:

    I’ve seen one interesting ‘defence’ of weaponising antisemitism. The tweeter said in effect, ‘Aha, because Forde said that antisemitism was weaponised in the Labour Party that proves that there was antisemitism.’ Logic fail there, I think. One way to weaponise antisemitism is to say that it’s there when it isn’t. (There are of course ways to do when it does exist but it doesn’t have to in the phrase ‘weaponise antisemitism’.)

    0
    0
  • Alan Howard I thought of Starmer and cohorts leaving Labour long ago and have stated this in some comments. But never mind that as I read this morning the statement made by the “witch finder general”, Steven Pollard on “cap X.” His comment on the Forde Report is total condemnation. He describes it as “this awful report” so Forde must have got a lot right. Steven`s outrage makes satisfying and amusing reading as he sputters with indignation as some of the truth comes out.
    Read, and relish the noises of desperation he makes.
    I have always stoutly maintained that the only way to deal with the fictitious allegations of “antisemitism” is not to engage in any discussion with the perpetrators of “the big lie” but to blankly refuse them any dialogue at all. This, I feel, was one mistake that Jeremy made in his attempts to placate his accusers.

    0
    0
  • Kuhnberg says:

    Forde’s is probably as fair a report as we could have expected, which doesn’t mean that it is fair in its approach or in detail or in its conclusions: only that given the weight and nature of the evidence it would have been impossible for Forde to complete his task without mentioning some of the injustices done to Corbyn and his supporters during the years 2015 to 2019. In general it is a whitewash, but the bare bones of a proper analysis poke through the white coating, giving us a clear enough idea of what a fully fair-minded and objective investigation would have told us. Wherever a critical judgement is called for, Forde inserts a sentence of two to pull the punch, supplying the right with the material to justify their actions, and Starmer for his continuing purge of the anti-Zionist left and his dismissal of Corbyn to the outer wilderness. The media, and Labour’s careerist MPs, predictably follow suit like the obedient lap-dogs they are.

    Quite simply the cards are stacked against the left; the three main parties refuse to offer them a home, just as they refuse to function as a vehicle for the sort of transformative change that was essential to the Corbyn project. Our only hope lies in founding such a vehicle ourselves. There could be no better time to do this than now, at a time when the country faces a massive cost-of-living crisis, and both Tories and Labour have decayed into burned-out neoliberal husks, bereft of the solutions that might offer hope to the millions reduced to penury by companies and billionaires dedicated to maximizing their already obscene profits. The widespread popularity of Union representatives like Mick Lynch suggests that the mood of the country is ready for such a step, and unions like the RMT would be ideal partners, if they could be persuaded to transfer their allegiances to a new unashamedly socialist party.

    0
    0
  • Allan Howard says:

    I was being sarcastic Jay. Saying such things might chime with some left-wingers, but it’s just pointless doing so. I mean does anyone seriously think that Starmer and Co are gonna leave the LP on account of the left telling them to go. The very idea is nonsensical.

    In his post Doug says ‘we must demand their expulsion and prosecution’, but of course omits to mention who it is we make this demand to (them??!), and it’s just nonsensical rhetoric. In my book such divorced-from-realty rhetoric is just contrived to play with peoples emotions.

    Sometimes someone makes a valid point, for example saying that if Starmer has now ditched the ten pledges that won him the leadership election, then he should resign and stand for the leadership again. It’s not going to happen of course, but it’s making a valid point.

    0
    0
  • Doug says:

    ‘One Party State’
    No matter who you vote for, the same people get in
    One Nation Tories equally need to get their party back and ask the Brexit party to get out of town
    As we know from the AS Scam its how you frame the story, repeat Ad Nauseum
    Red Tories do not have a Socialist bone in their body, we know who they work for and it’s not for any members, unions or supporters
    It works because it’s true
    Brexit had to be delivered for simple reason they won the referendum, most people in this country accepted that
    Red Tories are in the wrong party and off they must trot
    Simples

    0
    0
  • Tim Barlow says:

    Corbyn’s response reminds us what a class act we lost when we needed it most – a dignified man of integrity and compassion overwhelmed by a political environment riddled with corruption and breathtaking depravity.

    He never stood a chance! He should instead create his own political environment and start up the party the country is crying out (and ripe) for.

    0
    0
  • Allan Howard says:

    In his post Tim says that Jeremy never stood a chance (when he was leader), and then immediately goes on to say that he – Jeremy – should establish a new party……. which Tim somehow thinks WOULD stand a chance, and that his enemies – the forces ranged against him – wouldn’t kick off again full blast with all their smears and demonisation. Of course they would. And they would no doubt trawl through the social media accounts of anyone else involved in the party to find ‘dirt’ on them – anyone they haven’t ‘trawled’ already that is.

    0
    0

Comments are now closed.