I Wish Keir Would Steer Calmer
Starmer’s tin-eared and divisive leadership, in only a short time, has brought me to the point of feeling unsure I can vote for Labour
Tempers have run hot over Keir Starmer’s treatment of Corbyn, and rightly so.
I decided to seek out more nuanced views than the inflammatory soundbites carefully picked by the media to exacerbate tensions (including the BBC). I was interested to see if anyone could provide a critical view that was less histrionic.
I found this, which is a much more balanced and thoughtful analysis. It does come from a point of view that is critical, overall, of the Labour Party. But I wanted to read what the “other side” had to say that wasn’t just the usual toys out of the pram stuff. I do have some points of disagreement with the authors, but they do look at things from both sides.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/.../10.1111/1467-923X.12854
I do recommend reading the whole thing, it is not too lengthy.
Two segments I will highlight and comment on.
“the complaint that antisemitism is being used as a stick with which to beat the Labour Party is unworldly. From the ancient world to the contemporary scene, political adversaries have drawn attention to their opponents’ ethical weaknesses. In the case of the Corbyn-led Labour Party, it was politics as usual when its rivals, both outside the party and within, drew attention to what they perceived to be a grave and persistent failure of principle. When the tables are turned — as they are over Islamophobia in the Conservative Party — this is just what the left does. Without doubt, there have been attempts to use Labour’s antisemitism for political advantage, and this has had significant consequences. However, acknowledging this dimension of the controversy does not require us to assert a priori that allegations of antisemitism are made in bad faith or that there has not been an underlying problem.”
In other words the authors are saying the politicised “Labour antisemitism crisis” is just “politics as usual (so stop complaining)”. I reject this notion because there are quite fundamental differences in the impact of accusations of Islamophobia in the Conservative party — (a) the media do not give this the same degree of attention (b) it is not something that a faction within the Conservative party itself is weaponising against another group, with only a small handful of Conservative politicians talking about it at all and (c) the issue of racism is not high on the list of priorities of the Conservative party aside from the occasional paying of lip service; indeed Conservative politicians are engaged in efforts to water down the teaching of racism in schools. Importantly, the Conservative party leadership aren’t being accused of racism by writers in right-leaning publications. In short, there is a profound asymmetry to this.
And how would Jewish complainants react if they were told that their complaints about antisemitism are “unworldly” because “racists are just going to be racists, sorry”?
I will draw attention again to the second-to-last sentence:
“Without doubt, there have been attempts to use Labour’s antisemitism for political advantage, and this has had significant consequences.”
So they agree with Corbyn on this point. This is the type of statement for which Corbyn has lost his status as a Labour MP.
Next, the following is an abridged extract from the “Responding to Antisemitism” section:
“Because the problem was understood as a problem of antisemites and not of antisemitism, defenders of the leadership were quick to emphasise the small number of ‘real’ antisemites in the party. Those accused of broadcasting antisemitic tropes were often defended on the basis of not being antisemites.”
“On the other side of the debate, the problem was seen as not one of a few bad apples, but of a host body afflicted with the sickness; Labour was framed as a party riddled with antisemites, requiring radical surgical attention in the form of large-scale expulsions. Mainstream Jewish organisations made increasingly sweeping demands to punish the offenders.”
“The two responses — denial on the one hand and zero tolerance on the other — created a dynamic in which relations between the party and the Jewish community could only deteriorate. The demand for zero tolerance is almost certainly impossible to meet: while antisemites might be rooted out, antisemitism, flowing through our political culture at large, cannot be. Meanwhile, denial blocked the possibility of developing an understanding of how antisemitism works as a reservoir of ideas and images. At the same time, it prevented any serious coming to terms with the hurt these ideas and images cause, regardless of the intent of those who use them.”
Commendably, this section identifies the problem not solely as an issue within the Labour party or leadership, but as a breakdown in relations in which discourse became heavily polarised along a “There are only a tiny number of antisemites / Labour has become full of antisemites” axis.
In other words, the obsession with “zero tolerance” is just as harmful as “outright denial” and both sides need to soften their positions to tackle the wider issue.
But again, there is asymmetry — Corbyn has never issued any denial that antisemitism exists within the party; yet he has been pilloried under the banner of zero tolerance, as if he had.
I found Keir Starmer’s insistence that anyone stating that antisemitism had been politically weaponised shouldn’t be anywhere near the Labour party, personally insulting and offensive as it is a crime against the truth; which is the kind of thing that has turned me against Conservative politics. It also showed really appallingly bad judgement; this and withholding the whip from Corbyn is one of the worst political mis-steps I’ve seen a leader make in my lifetime. It has downgraded my view of him as a suitable person to be in charge of running the country.
Starmer will never unify his party until he understands that both sides of this divide need to be drawn together and that requires both sides to admit that the other has something valid to say. That will require the people insisting that the party became “rife” with antisemites under Corbyn and that “The left / Corbyn’s tribe” are solely responsible to stop dispensing this rhetoric. That will require a degree of courage I now seriously doubt he has. That is, if party unity is even something he is as interested in as as he claims to be.
Making a mockery of my initial high hopes — he was my preferred candidate! — Keir Starmer has made history now as the Labour leader I want to see replaced after the shortest time in office; because he clearly lacks the qualities needed for the job. (Point of information: as I have related elsewhere, after a time, I also wanted Corbyn replaced, but that was a much harder decision to arrive at).
What I would like to see the Labour party do, in addition to implementing the recommendations of the EHRC report:
- Recognise this is a two-sided problem, and that tropes of leftists and Corbyn supporters as antisemites and “cultists” are themselves a form of harmful abuse
- Stop the obsessive focus on “purging” antisemites within the party
- Accept that (as stated in the EHRC report) people are allowed to question the actual extent of antisemitism, whether it has been politicised, and whether it should be referred to as a “crisis” and not knee-jerk suspend people over it — it is not antisemitic to ask meta-questions of this nature as long as they are asked in good faith and are not cover for blanket dismissal of concerns about antisemitism
- Stand up to bullies who do demand such knee-jerk suspensions and expulsions — whosoever they be
- Realise the actual problem is antisemitic tropes in wider society (as identified in the above linked report) and outline steps to educate the public (all the public, not just the Labour party) as to why they are racist in nature
Based on his ill-considered actions to date I really don’t hold out much hope that we’ll see this under Starmer. It would be great if he grows as a leader proves me wrong. (Some apologies will be in order, though.)
Consequently, I find my political positioning presently to be best described as “in a state of flux”.
I watched Owen Jones’ interview with John McDonnell today. Now, usually I find McDonnell talks a lot of sense and I generally think of him as a fairly astute politician possessing a clarity of insight; indeed, I think he would have made a better left-leaning Labour leader than Corbyn. But on this occasion, he did himself something of a disservice in his comments on this matter.
McDonnell was keen to stress the importance of acknowledging the pain that the Jewish community have felt over the “Labour Antisemitism Crisis”. And in fact, I don’t disagree with that at all; that pain definitely needs to be acknowledged. Where I depart from McDonnell though, is that that acknowledgement of pain needs to be placed within the context of evidence. And here is the key sentence McDonnell utters that I take issue with:
“I keep saying, it isn’t about the numbers, it’s about the pain”
That way lies madness.
Let’s play that game with the pain Trump supporters feel at the Dems having stolen their election victory. Hush now — don’t wave those numbers and facts at them, this is about the pain they are feeling. They feel in their hearts, are truly sure, that the election was rigged, and that is more important than numbers. We should acknowledge their pain, and remove those who keep claiming that Biden won the election fairly from public office.
I’m afraid McDonnell (who is normally more sensible than this) is wrong here. This is where abandoning evidence-based decision making to pander to the mistaken beliefs of those who have been misled by propaganda takes us.
How very 2020.
The Jewish community — some of it, anyway, by no means all , and every time it is referred to as a homogenous mass, many Jewish voices who disagree are disenfranchised — feels pain, and people feel what they feel, and their feelings, yes, should be acknowledged but when the numbers say that the Labour party is not rife with antisemites, the correct response is to ask: who, then, should be held responsible for that pain?
Hint: It shouldn’t be the people saying “But look at the numbers”.
