In which David Lammy becomes the latest “person I once foolishly thought might make a good fist of being Labour Party leader” casualty.
Some preliminaries:
1) No, I will NOT shut up about this (if you want me to because you’re tired of hearing about it, I hope you want Lammy and everyone else who continues to pound Corbyn with unjust accusations thinking it might grab a few more votes to shut up about it as well).
2) No, I am not “infighting”. I don’t belong to any particular faction or wing of the Labour Party and I am a fan of nobody. Defending basic standards of integrity and decency when they are under attack, and demanding evidence for claims when they are made, is not “infighting”. Betraying those standards to make vote-grabbing attacks on fellow MPs whose policy positions are the same ones you claim to endorse — that’s infighting. I’m not the infighter — I’m the one complaining about the infighting.
3) Should I turn a blind eye for political expediency when the Tories are tanking in the polls (strangely, it seems, for holding illicit Christmas parties rather than being responsible for thousands of preventable deaths and the Brexit-related supply chain and export car-crash and threat to peace in NI)? Oh sure, I get that argument. I’ve made it myself often, about issues of lesser import. But this cuts right to the heart of everything vile and venal about British politics. This is my line in the sand. We should be better than this.
Without further ado…
I am extremely disappointed in Lammy for joining in with the smear campaign against Corbyn. He seemed like such a nice guy, too. I’d like to hear what it is that he believes he “now knows”, about the things he is implying about Corbyn.
Yes, I know he was talking to some Jewish people. An apology for the actual, though low, incidence of antisemitism among party supporters and the small number of upheld complaints about antisemitism would have been entirely sufficient, without actively suggesting by implication that Corbyn somehow encouraged this and apologising for nominating him, with a bizarre statement along the lines of “I never thought he’d win the party leadership when I nominated him”.
If there are still antisemitic individuals in the party under Starmer, then by application of Lammy’s logic he’s expressed here, Starmer is the person responsible for their antisemitism. His actions taken in the name of combating antisemitism notwithstanding.
Now he’s come out with this, I’m also a bit worried that his definition of “antisemitic” might include “People who require statistical evidence for claims that a party has become ‘rife with antisemitism’ under a particular leader, and demonstration of any suggested causal link; controlling for the prevailing level of antisemitism in the public as a whole and comparative to the incidence of antisemitism in other parties, and also comparative to incidence and growth of all forms of racism in the public and said institutions over the time period in question.”
Because I know there are some who think subjecting claims to that degree of scrutiny, rather than extrapolating from the handful of shouty antisemites you’ve encountered on Twitter, or some anecdotes you’ve heard, means you must be “one of them (antisemites)”. Even though the EHRC report Starmer claimed to endorse enshrines the right of people to ask these kind of questions under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, a fact that his punishment beating of Corbyn ignores and is in violation of.
I’m not setting an impossibly high bar for this evidence, personally. I’d just like to see something reasonably convincing. Just anything at all quantitative, with accompanying context, would be a start. Rather than the current “You think there’s no antisemitism in the Labour Party?” [no, I don’t actually] “Here’s my anecdote to prove you wrong” quality of evidence.
John McDonnell once said “It’s not about the numbers, it’s about the pain.” No, I disagree. When Trump was ousted, it was all about the numbers, regardless of what his supporters wanted to believe and how much pain they felt. Show me the goddamn numbers.
And what is Lammy apologising for? Last time I checked, making decisions based on the best evidence you have at the time, but then changing your mind when fresh evidence comes to light (though crucially, Lammy doesn’t actually present any here) wasn’t any cause for shame.
Lammy also seems to be apologising that due process exists for dealing with allegations of antisemitism. Why?
One day, the judgement of history will not look kindly on this deeply shameful phase of the party’s history, when so many of the PLP sank to such depths.
The UK is truly cursed to have such a terrible government and a terrible opposition at the same time.
As an afterword: it is heartwarming to hear Lammy, and other Labour Party grandees, declare their admiration for the late Archbishop Desmond Tutu.
Despite the fact that, without a doubt, he would, if a member of the Labour Party, have been expelled by the current regime for the following Guardian article written in 2002:
