,
11 tweets,
3 min read
Read on Twitter
This thread from @berniekeavy is worth reading. I have my own story of being a Labour staffer witnessing a Ken Livingstone scandal unfolding, which might serve as an instructive contrast (another thread, I’m afraid, sorry).
I was with Corbyn and some other advisers (it must have been a PMQs prep session) in late 2015 when the news emerged that Ken Livingstone had said that shadow minister Kevan Jones, who had criticised him, needed “psychiatric help”. More on that here: bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-po…
As I remember it, I was the one who read the comments out to him, but I may be wrong. Anyway, Jeremy was instantly, and clearly, horrified. He could see the comments were offensive and that Ken shouldn’t have made them. He very quickly said to us that Ken would have to apologise.
Ken did indeed apologise, fairly quickly, partly I suspect because of pressure from Jeremy and his office.
I mention this because Jeremy’s reaction was clearly genuine, and clearly had nothing to do with the fact that Ken was a close ally and supporter and Kevan, frankly, was very much not. He recognised the problem, he wanted action to be taken, he made sure it was. Good.
And what this suggests to me is that in the case of people who are accused of antisemitism, like Chris Williamson or indeed Ken on another occasion, Corbyn’s failure to condemn is not about faction or personal loyalty at all, but about simply failing to recognise the problem.
If he had tried to defend or protect Ken Livingstone over his mental health comments, I think that would be evidence of a different kind of political problem from the one we in fact see (end of thread).
Just adding this to the bottom of the thread:
See also this for another account of JC’s reaction to the Ken-Hitler incident. Worth noting that the two accounts don’t contradict each other, although at first glance they appear to (I wasn’t present, I’m not pretending to be in a position to adjudicate):
Here’s another example of a rebuttal, if you read it carefully, not actually contradicting the accusation that’s being made.
Usefully unpacked here:
