Militant tendency

Retrieved on:

星期三, 七月 12, 2023

Labour leaders have almost always presided over party divisions, many of which have spilled over into crisis.

Key Points:

Labour leaders have almost always presided over party divisions, many of which have spilled over into crisis.
Corbyn’s supporters, on the other hand, adhered to his view that the scale of the problem was being exaggerated for factional reasons.
Now Starmer is the one being accused of dithering over implementing the recommendations of an investigation that found “serious problems of discrimination” in the party.

Labour has, at this point, been subject to five investigations and inquiries concerning antisemitism and discrimination.
In 2019, the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) launched an investigation into the party following numerous complaints of antisemitism.
Then, some Labour party staff compiled their own dossier documenting the work of the GLU in relation to antisemitism.

However, they also occur during high-stakes moments and deal with matters which pose a serious threat to the political futures of those involved.
In these moments of political survival, what political scientist Jim Bulpitt called “crude, subsistence-level objectives” take precedence over substantive attempts to address the issue at hand.
In Bulpitt’s famous “statecraft interpretation”, self-interested political leaders must cultivate an image of competence to maintain power and at the same time manage competing factions in the party to fend off political rivals.
In Labour’s case, this process comes with the added challenge of needing to manage the conflicting political traditions within its ranks.

The inquiry, led by a Corbyn ally, stressed that Labour was “not overrun by antisemitism, Islamophobia or other forms of racism”.
It did mention the “occasionally toxic atmosphere” within the party and recommended changes to procedures which predate Corbyn’s leadership.
The inquiries were therefore used to preserve Corbyn’s authority, successfully manage internal party conflict, and present an image of competence regarding the handling of a sensitive issue.
Starmer has styled himself as a decisive leader and distanced himself from Corbyn, who is seen as culpable for the antisemitism crisis by large swathes of the public.

The report from the inquiry led by barrister Martin Forde has been less comfortable terrain for Starmer.
Owing to the fact that the leaked report contained evidence of racist abuse targeted at black MPs by staff in the GLU, nine black Labour MPs criticised the delays for further “doubling down on the impression that the party does not take anti-black racism seriously”.
Starmer again framed these findings as relating to a time before he came to office, arguing that the “focus of the report was 2014–19 and deflecting questions onto Corbyn.
Martin Forde has since voiced concerns that Starmer and his staff have effectively ignored the report’s recommendations.