Diary of a Corbyn Foot Soldier (February, 2021)
JVL Introduction
The decision to withdrawal of the whip from Jeremy Corbyn and the failure, to date, to reinstate it would appear to have been taken quite outside the scope of the Labour Party Rule Book, the details of which Michael Murray has gone through with a fine toothcomb.
The conclusion that members need to seek a root and bench overhaul of the Rule Book is given added urgency by the story told here.
As Murray points out: “When members of an organisation depart from their own agreed disciplinary rules and procedures shit happens. This is why they were drawn up in the first place: to manage, limit and mitigate conflict in organisations.”
Thanks to Michael Murray for permission to repost this article which we picked up and originally linked to on Cedar Lounge Revolution.
We are pleased now to change the link to Labour Affairs, an independent left wing magazine commenting on British politics, where it first appeared.
This article was originally published by Labour Affairs on Sat 27 Feb 2021. Read the original here.
Diary of a Corbyn Foot Soldier (February, 2021)
As the withdrawal of the whip from Jeremy Corbyn reaches the three month deadline, we ask: “They’ve taken the whip away from Jeremy: Can they do that?”
Loading article text…
Thank you for an excellent article!
The deficiencies of the complaints procedure had been noted by many CLPs including my own and an attempt made to correct them. The result of these deliberations by one CLP was published on the JVL site ..
The attempt by our CLP was an initial one and cut short by the
madness of the Brexit negotiations and in wanting to prevent a “no deal exit”. Then there was the 2019 election.
Since then the EHRC report was published and included a recommendation to change the unfair disciplinary procedures but this appears to have been kicked into the long grass along with many other important matters ..
Apropos CLPs concerned about the LP disciplinary processes – here is the Cambridge CLPs resolution submitted to the NEC – for apparently the fourth time:
https://jewishvoiceforliberation.org.uk/article/the-partys-disciplinary-process-cambridge-clp-resolution/
Thank you for an explanation of what’s been happening which is as clear and down to earth as this opaque “process” allows it to be!
I’m wholly baffled by the perverse actions and inactions of Starmer, Evans, the shadow cabinet and the NEC.
It must be obvious to Starmer and Evans their autocratic, manipulative approach to party management isn’t working and is producing calamitous consequences. It must be equally obvious to them that their own jobs are at risk now.
If they’re sensible people they ought to be seeking routes out of the trouble they and the party are in. They must have some “agency” of their own (even if acting independently could put the party or themselves at risk of losing financial and other support they value).
Why have the Shadow Cabinet and NEC seemingly stood back from HELPING Starmer to heal the conflicts and disunity brought about mainly by Evans (but probably with Starmer’s approval)?
Robert Peston.. “Is it anti-Semitic to describe Israel, its policies or the circumstances around its foundation as racist because of their discriminatory impact” on Palestinians.”
R L Bailey…”Yes”
Of course it all went downhill for Labour from there, only court action will stop the authoritarian policies of Starmer and Evans, plus a heavy defeat in the local elections, personally I would not contribute a penny to this undemocratic cabal.
In the last of his published diaries; ‘Free At Last’; there is an account by Tony Benn of the threat to withdraw the whip from Jeremy Corbyn when he invited members of Sinn Féin to the House of Commons without clearing this first with the Chief Whip. Tony Benn’s support stopped the other Tony B from taking action. My point was that they had a stronger argument to take action against Corbyn but did not do so because the implications were seen to be divisive. Pity this was not seen by the current party leader.
Thank you Michael Murray for a detailed analysis of the Labour Party Labarynthine procedures enshrined in the Rule Book. – Knowledge is Power – although few of us have expended the time and effort required to understand fully the rules that govern our bureaucratic party.
The utter disregard for rules and procedures designed to provide some degree of fair treatment and due process to party members can only call into question the true intentions of Starmer and his backers and supporters.
The damage being inflicted to the party and, therefore, its traditional objectives of peace and justice – at home and internationally – is not happening by accident.
NOTHING happens by accident.
All of this is directed and premeditated.
Our response to it must be considered, constructive and equally-focused.
An excellent article by Michael Murray.
And a pertinent remark by Harry Law.
One of the key ideas introduced – though not much discussed – in Michael Murray’s excellent article is that of “condign” sanctions – punishments that fit the ‘crime’. The Chakrabarti Report rightly pointed out that even where rules and codes were infringed, the Party’s response should not necessarily be suspension or expulsion. Unfortunately, the idiotic shoot-from-the-hip slogan of “Zero tolerance” undermines this approach.
One issue that Michael Murray doesn’t deal with is the drift to subjectivism. We have “upsetting” some Jews in a meeting or in a community standing in for hostility to Jews in general, which in turn is interpreted as evidence of anti-semitism. Thus, so long as some Jews in a given audience can be found to complain that they felt uncomfortable with someone’s contribution, the Party leadership alleges anti-semitism. A second example is currently being invoked by David Evans: obstructing the Party’s fight against racism, where only he as General Secretary determines what constitutes obstruction. In practice – in line with the leadership’s prioritising of anti-Jewish racism over other more pressing forms of racism – this “fight” simply means accommodation to the Board of Deputies.
By the way, in case it’s useful, below is a resolution passed by a wide majority at our recent All-member CLP meeting.
Noting that
1. despite the recommendation of the Chakrabarti report the Governance and Legal Unit persists in its blanket use of administrative suspension
2. in many cases letters sent out by the GLU advising members of investigation and/or administrative suspension fail to indicate the specific allegations against the recipients of these letters
3. in many cases letters sent out by the GLU advising members of investigation and/or administrative suspension fail to indicate the specific rules that such alleged acts are deemed to have breeched
4. these letters seek to impose on the recipients a duty of “confidentiality”, leaving those against whom the allegations have been made without procedural support and means of defence;
5. these practices constitute an abuse of the principles of natural justice,
this CLP calls on the NEC to ensure that the GLU cease these practices immediately and adopt and implement the recommendations of the Chakrabarti report (as endorsed in the EHRC report) with respect to these questions.
Further that the CLP should contact the CLPs in the county with a view to presenting a united front of resistance and opposition to the practices outlined above and support those campaigns fighting on these issues.
This sadly rings all too true. I am also a retired TU Organiser and have on several occasions noted on the JVL website that the LP Disciplinary Procedure isn’t fit for purpose and is certainly nowhere near best practice in the Labour Movement. Even the Chakrabarty proposals fell some way short, particularly in relation to appeals. I’ve all too often joked that I thought the union I worked for was bad until I rejoined the LP after a (very) long break.
Will Starmer suddenly notice that his “efforts” to unite the party aren’t working and start behaving in a just and objective manner? Absolutely not. And why? Because he knows exactly what he’s doing and why. Like many on the right and in the centre, he resents the incomers and returners who arrived with the Corbyn leadership and would much rather have a smaller and more malleable party. The suspensions, expulsions and blatant ignoring of the rules are expressly designed to bring that about.
A lot of good activists have already resigned before they were pushed and it’s getting increasingly difficult not to join them. Fortunately, there are a lot of good non-party and cross-party organisations doing really useful work across society, so it’s not a question of stay and fight or collapse in a heap!
But it’s a tragedy that the party founded to represent us has sunk so low.
I’d like to thank all those who have commented on this issue of “The Diary of a Corbyn foot soldier,” which I’ve been writing from about 6 months into Jeremy’s leadership. The next issue goes deeper into the Rule Book through a close scrutiny of the use and abuse of such language as “Competent Business”: “Reminder of Conduct” – and “Chapter 2,1.8,” much influenced by Lewis Carroll’s much quoted lines on the “Master” being able “to make words mean what he wants them to mean.” The final article, of a “trilogy,” looks at, possibly, the most glaring breach of due process: the way in which ‘suspension’ – “administrative or otherwise – is used. ( Andrew Hornung , a commentator above, please note. And Andrew, to answer another valid comment you made: about the article not dealing with “subjectivity” and “selective” racism. It doesn’t. I’m self-censoring. The only “BOD” you’ll see me writing about is Brian O Driscoll, one of the best Irish rugby players ever and former captain of the British and Irish Lions. Or, lower case “bod” Irish (Gaelic) word for penis. Talking about “subjectivity”: I don’t feel secure enough in the Labour Party to talk openly and, I would hope constructively, without being misunderstood or misconstrued about the issues you say weren’t dealt with. And, isn’t that a sad state of affairs?)
Yes yes. No due process, completely ignoring standing orders, the rule book, natural justice . All semblance of these these procedures and processes have been thrown out of the window over the last 6 to 9 months by Starmer and Evans but they have got away with these outrageous actions and behaviour. Divine rights of kings is the process now with this leadership and no part of the Labour movement appears capable of reigning the terrible two in. Let alone make them acc!
@ Mike Scott
“Like many on the right and in the centre, [Starmer] resents the incomers and returners who arrived with the Corbyn leadership and would much rather have a smaller and more malleable party”
You could well be right – but surely Starmer (and Evans) did a proper assessment beforehand of the COSTS consequent on turning Labour into a party of docile nodding heads? All prudent managers carry out risk assessments.
Starmer and Evans had prior warnings of the likely COSTS of their approach from their experiences of the leaked Labour report getting into the public domain (in spite of seemingly desperate and determined efforts to hide it).
That report is causing ongoing problems for them over a year later. The Forde Inquiry report – based partly on that leaked report – may well blow up in his face most leadership and staffing decisions Starmer has made, to such an extent he won’t be able to carry on as leader.
Starmer’s leadership approach involves high risks for minimal return. It just doesn’t seem rational. But there’s no reason to believe Starmer irrational.