Ending Labour's "Culture War"

Almost everyone in the Labour Party agrees about antisemitism. You wouldn't think that from the news or newspapers, from arguments on Twitter or elsewhere on social media, from disagreements in meetings or events in the capital. But it's true. There is only a tiny and irrelevant minority that disagrees with the view that antisemitism is abhorrent, completely unacceptable and a genuine problem in society that should be taken very seriously. That tiny minority is made up of a small number of racists who have snuck into the party from somewhere, and a small number of people who consider the issue so trivial that they are prepared to weaponise it for their own factional advantage.

But the vast majority essentially agree. That is not to say that they all get everything right, that nobody makes mistakes, that everyone's perception and interpretation of events is correct: that is clearly not the case. But if we accept that they all find antisemitism abhorrent and serious, then we have to look elsewhere to understand the depths of the division and disagreements currently occurring in the party.

First, a word or two about prejudice and discrimination. While I don't think I've ever encountered a committed antisemite - someone who consciously hates Jews (though such people undoubtedly exist and walk among us) - I have encountered antisemitism. I have heard people make sweeping generalisations about Jewish people. We find it shocking when we encounter it, but on one level we should not be shocked. After all we hear people make similar sweeping and negative generalisations about Muslims, "Asians", gay people, etc. all the time. And while I'm sure it's true to say we hear such comments more outside the Labour Party than in it, it would be dangerously complacent to suggest the party was free of such discrimination: it is not. So the Labour Party, like any organisation, needs to address prejudice and discrimination. Perhaps more so than other organisations, due to our principles and historic mission. So the question is not whether to tackle discrimination and prejudice. It is how. 

Let's look at some cases from the last few years: [Edit: A reader has suggested this next section was "whataboutery". It certainly wasn't written in that spirit. It is simply meant to be a list of high-profile examples of why - as a party - we need to address prejudice and discrimination. The fact that some readers won't agree with the inclusion of each of these names is addressed afterwards, so please don't stop reading in anger.]

2007 and Margaret Hodge pandered to racist mythology with outrageous and inaccurate comments about housing policy, drawing widespread condemnation. https://www.theguardian.com/news/2007/may/27/letters.politics

Notoriously Phil Woolas, in 2010, distributed blatantly racist and Islamophobic leaflets ( https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2010/nov/05/full-judgment-phil-woolas ). Many of Woolas' colleagues came to his defence, such as Tom Watson (who had earlier run Liam Byrne's 2004 campaign which stoked fears and a moral panic about asylum seekers).

Tom Harris, MP, in 2013, engaging in blatant discrimination against people from Eastern Europe. No subtle tropes, or careless language here, but straightforward and unapologetic stereotyping: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/10477858/Object-to-mass-immigration-from-the-EU-Join-the-Romaphobe-club.html

A less extreme, but also less political, example: Toby Perkins, MP in 2018 made a homophobic remark to Owen Jones and George Eaton (quipping "you make a lovely couple"). At least Toby made a half-hearted apology.

These are just a few high-profile examples. We could all point to cases - some less high profile than others - of racism, homophobia, misogyny, etc.

Now, did the Labour Party react appropriately in any of these cases? Woolas was suspended, after a court threw him out of parliament (although prior to the court decision he had been appointed to the Shadow Cabinet) but otherwise: I don't know. And the reason I don't know is that, if any action were taken it was presumably done in a confidential manner.

And indeed, for the most part, that is the proper way to deal with such things. No doubt many people are reading this blog and fuming, because they think that one or more of the names above have been wrongly included in such a list. And that's fine too: there is usually more than one side to a story. None of these people should have been instantly auto-excluded, or not be allowed to defend themselves or be defended by others.

But fundamentally, these are issues that should be dealt with not in terms of punishing individuals - unless they are engaged in abuse or bullying - but in terms of education and development. I've written about this before, and Clive Lewis has recently commented helpfully on this too. Ultimately, it should be possible for a mature party to disagree civilly over the interpretation of words by Margaret Hodge or Jackie Walker, while expelling people who send threatening or abusive messages or behave in a threatening or intimidating manner, and - as a group - educating each other about the sort of prejudice were are discussing. The disciplinary procedures should police behaviours and clear rule breaches. Political education should ensure that we are all more respectful of differences, and are reflective about our own prejudices and limitations. A positive and collective approach to improve our political culture should ensure that we can do that reflection without seeing everything through the prism of factionalism. The latter is only possible in an open and educative culture which allows people - whichever internal faction they may align to, if any - to make mistakes and learn from them. Where there are disciplinary proceedings, everyone should be confident in them; it must be possible for them to find in the accused's favour as well as against them, depending on the evidence and rules and a fair hearing.

So why isn't this what's happening? There are a few clear reasons for this, but the most notable is that the whole thing has become distorted by an unrelated argument about the future political direction of the Labour Party and the leadership of Jeremy Corbyn.

Through this prism, arguments are distorted. These are arguments that would be difficult and intemperate in any case. People are naturally and rightly angry if they perceive a comment or communication to be antisemitic. People are naturally ultra-defensive if they feel they are being accused of racism. Throw factionalism into the mix and the whole thing blows up: one faction piles in on the accused, another piles in on the accuser, neither reflects on the real offence, or on the real explanations. "It's endemic of the hard left"; "it's a weaponised slur". Nothing can really be achieved in this sort of situation. And everything is made worse by drops of poison added by that tiny minority I mentioned at the start. So real racists will "defend" the accused with appalling, unacceptable comments which add to the initial charge sheet. And people who don't give a damn about antisemitism will play to the gallery, building a narrative where the only end to this infernal and eternal fight is for their faction to regain control of the party.

How do we move on? The vast majority in the party - the good will actors, regardless of faction or political tradition - should come together to support a mass equalities training programme. This training should be for everyone - not just those who stand accused of some particular wrongdoing - and there should be a careful review of complaints and compliance to ensure that processes and procedures are confidential, robust and command confidence. But more than anything else, the factionalism must be taken out of this argument and the minority who only seek to damage the party and care nothing for the victims of prejudice and discrimination should be marginalised and eradicated, whether they are a keyboard warrior at home, or a former minister plotting their comeback.

Beyond Zero Tolerance: Fixing Labour's Political Culture

Since 2015, the Labour Party's membership has more than doubled, bringing a whole new array of people into the party, with a wide variety of experience and previous political activity. This is overwhelmingly a positive thing. However, at the same time the political culture today is often disappointingly divisive and ill-tempered.

Much of this is inevitable. First, many of the new members joined in a particular political circumstance - around the leadership elections of 2015 and 2016 - and were met with a very negative reaction from many MPs, officials and the mass media. In these circumstances, a culture emerged at an early stage of new members (and old members on the left) being under attack and all engagement with activism and the rest of the movement was in the context of factional division.

At some point, concerns began to be expressed about the presence of antisemitism in some discourse within the party (and outside the party in the broader left). These concerns were not entirely new - there were controversies surrounding both Ken Livingstone and George Galloway from before this period, and some of Nick Cohen's argument in his polemic What's Left related to these issues too. For the most part, at this time, it was in relation to the language of pro-Palestinian activism, and also the presence or tolerance of individuals within pro-Palestinian activism who held antisemitic views. With the new influx of party members came another source of potential antisemitism - online conspiracy theory discourse, much of which focuses on mythology about "Rothschild bankers", etc.

The active and established left must take some responsibility for this: this is a discourse that crept back into radical, anti-establishment politics because of an absence of political education. Essentially, we left a vacuum for this stuff to blossom.

Of course, these are not the only negative aspects of the party and movement's political culture. As well as a minority of members using or sharing antisemitic discourse, a minority uses other forms of racist language and assumptions, there is homophobia and sexism. Indeed, we need to look at all of this with a broader view: the labour movement is in need of equalities training, just like any other organisation. We like to think we're better - because we should be better - but actually any organisation, and particularly a large organisation with a fast-changing membership, requires learning and development as a group.

And this is really where our political culture is a problem: not that we are "institutionally antisemitic" (we're not) but that we have a political culture that does not support learning and development. And we have a complaints and discipline process that is hard to make work fairly and justly, because of the extraordinary way in which it is made public.

Anyone who has delivered equalities training will tell you that one of the first things that you say in such training is "it's okay to make mistakes". The way to encourage learning and development on equalities issues is to welcome discussion - yes, to challenge but also to listen and to try to understand. At the moment, it isn't okay to make mistakes in the Labour Party. There is no such thing as a mistake. If someone uses language that someone else considers antisemitic, that person is an antisemite and if they are not expelled from the Labour Party that is evidence of institutional antisemitism. That is not a way to resolve the problem or to progress. And (fortunately!) it is not how we respond to other equalities issues.

Anyone who has worked as a union rep and helped individuals who are facing allegations and are subject to disciplinary proceedings know that this should be a confidential process (after all, the investigation may find in the accused's favour) and that outcomes could include verbal warnings that would be confidential and would not follow that person for the rest of their life. And remember, that the sorts of allegations that might be made within an organisation in the Labour Party does not just impact their political futures but could impact their reputation beyond politics and their ability to get a job, and the allegations can continue to have that impact whatever the outcome.

Not at all in a spirit of whataboutery, I will illustrate this with some real examples and some hypothetical situations in relation to other types of discrimination or prejudice.

I dislike the "gotcha" element of identifying those who "make mistakes" so I point out that my real examples are chosen not because I think the people in question should have been suspended or expelled, but because it was right that they weren't. Let's start with MP, Toby Perkins.

Toby responded to tweets by journalists George Eaton and Owen Jones agreeing with each other with "you make a lovely couple". The tweet was rightly called out as being homophobic and he tweeted a brief apology "yeah, probably not my finest moment, sorry..." But I wonder how Toby would have responded if he'd been suspended from the party and investigated and referred to as "a homophobe" rather than having said something homophobic? Obviously we don't know, but most people would become very defensive and feel they were being unfairly treated, pointing out how the criticisms might be politically-motivated and part of an agenda. And then how might those who might be considered to be part of the same political faction as Toby react if people further suggested that this was typical of their views? And that they should apologise for it?

Imagine we were canvassing and a voter blamed economic problems on "Eastern European immigrants". Would a sensible response be to call the voter a racist and say we hope they didn't vote for us? And then maybe to expose them on social media as a racist? Of course we wouldn't, whether they were a Labour Party member or not. We might want to discuss their views and try and persuade them of a different perspective.

It is not that we were wrong to say there should be zero tolerance. But what does it actually mean? There should be zero tolerance of discriminatory abuse - absolutely. Anyone engaging in that sort of thing has no place in the Labour Party. There should also be zero tolerance of discriminatory language, discourse and behaviour that is not in itself abusive, but here it is the language, discourse and behaviour for which there should be zero tolerance, not necessarily the person who uses it. Because it has to be okay to make mistakes and to learn from them.

So here's an alternative approach. And it's one that everyone needs to come on board with. First off, we need to begin with an assumption of good faith on all sides. Of course, starting from such a position, sometimes we will be disappointed. But if we can't at least start with that assumption, there's not much point to any of the rest of this. Next, we need to row back from a culture where people seek to catch people out. We roll out and promote equalities training for all members, but we stop seeing language and error (e.g. use of tropes and conspiratorial thinking) as disciplinary matters and instead see them as education and training matters, so that disciplinary processes can focus on abusive and clearly discriminatory behaviour. That the labour movement as a whole works to take the factionalism out of all of this and instead seeks to to ensure a) that victims are protected, and b) that everyone learns and develops together because we all have a lot to learn about each other if we are genuinely to do politics better.