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.