,
26 tweets,
6 min read
Read on Twitter
Some thoughts on this thread
(a thread... on a thread)
(a thread... on a thread)
I should say as introduction that I have come to hate tweeting about this issue. It feels like jumping into a vat of slime. A relatively friendly environment (Twitter) becomes a horrible, personal and hostile pit. Sorry to say but that's what this is is like.
Also, as this is such a tribal issue - and one which I have devoted a lot of time and energy to - it’s very difficult to see the wood from the trees. I think many people, me included (of course), jump to conclusions and confirmation bias is very strong.
So please take my word for this - I’m trying hard to listen to people who criticise the ST article, and also look with clear sight at the primary evidence. Whether you believe me or not I suppose depends on your view of me, but I can’t say more than that.
OK
Firstly, I agree with Owen on one major point
"Labour's own disciplinary procedures are out of date, not fit for purpose and need far reaching reform"
That's a big point. A political party with a significant racism problem needs a working discipinary process.
Firstly, I agree with Owen on one major point
"Labour's own disciplinary procedures are out of date, not fit for purpose and need far reaching reform"
That's a big point. A political party with a significant racism problem needs a working discipinary process.
So for those who are reading Owen's thread as a dissection or demolishing of the Sunday Times article (hello: confirmation bias! 🙋♂️) I think you are missing the fact that he essentially agrees with the key conclusion which a reasonable reader has to reach when reading it.
Yet 4 years on from Corbyn winning leadership, and taking control of key party committees, disciplinary process is totally broken.
It’s just not good enough. It has real world effects because even really clear cut cases aren’t resolved. That was an important scoop by the ST
It’s just not good enough. It has real world effects because even really clear cut cases aren’t resolved. That was an important scoop by the ST
And it does beg the Q how things have got to this terrible stage. For those clinging to the ‘small percentage’ of 500k members proportionate with antisemitism in wider society narrative, as far as I know Labour’s processes aren’t overwhelmed with any other kind of racism. Why?
Something about the movement around Corbyn has brought in (or out) a lot of anti-Jewish racism and the party still isn’t equipped to deal with it.
My theory, for what it’s worth, is you can see the cause of this every time the issue arises. Blame the press, the Tories, the 'weaponisers', Israel, even the Jews - but never individuals in the party. No wonder the LOTO hasn’t got a grip on this, they are too busy doubling down.
Anyway, back to the article. The point of real contention which I think is why this series of articles has been so controversial - and why it may be an important one which can’t be brushed aside: Whether Corbyn’s office intervened in disciplinary cases.
Now, the Party line is the one Owen refers to: “Loto [leader of the opposition office] staff didn't intervene or make decisions, but gave advice when they were asked to do so - i.e. in good faith.” Formby says it’s ‘categorically untrue’
But *what* is categorically untrue? The number of times it happened (101 according to ST) or the fact that the LOTO office intervened?
I think it has to be the number, because unless you take a purely legalistic view of what happened, clearly LOTO was directing the process.
I think it has to be the number, because unless you take a purely legalistic view of what happened, clearly LOTO was directing the process.
How do we know this? Because thanks to the whistleblowers we now have the emails. See e.g. this one to Laura Murray in Corbyn’s office: “Please let me know what you think and how you would like us to proceed”. That’s seeking a direction, not advice (ht @michaelsavage) 
Why does this matter? A few reasons. First, it means the formal disciplinary processes were being bypassed, and at an extremely sensitive time, the precise moment the Jewish community was attempting to work with the party in good faith and even protesting standard.co.uk/news/politics/…
Nb it wasn’t just a couple of weeks, I don’t think - McNicol resigned 23.2.18 and Formby was appointed 20.2.18. So it was at least a month.
Who decided that LOTO should be consulted on cases, contrary to the formal processes, and why?
Nobody knows.
Who decided that LOTO should be consulted on cases, contrary to the formal processes, and why?
Nobody knows.
2nd, this was behind closed doors. If it had been revealed at the time it would have been a huge, huge scandal. Corbyn’s office - perhaps he himself (we cannot discount this, it’s a tiny office)- deciding antisemitism complaints! If not for whistle blowers, we wouldn’t know this
And don’t forget Corbyn and Amy Jackson, his political secretary, told Hodge that this has *never happened* in his office. People are horrified Hodge recorded the conversation but who can blame her? She was being played and was right to suspect that
3rd, some of the specific decisions are genuinely troubling. Why can’t the party recognise antisemitism? Why is the ‘zero tolerance’ approach not really that at all? Why are political considerations being used to excuse racism? This isn’t just about process, it’s about substance.
👆
A council candidate was excused from suspension for antisemitism because he was a council candidate
Let that sink in.
A council candidate was excused from suspension for antisemitism because he was a council candidate
Let that sink in.
Anyway, in conclusion, this all leaves a bad taste. I don’t think the ST has got this fundamentally wrong in any way, they have reported what they have seen and have been told by people who have come to them with primary source evidence.
Now there are plenty of rumours of backstabbing within the party, of leaking to damage Corbyn etc, but the leaks are real and expose at the least a serious breach of trust. How, going forward, are we meant to trust assertions that this isn’t still going on?
What to do now? Well, again I agree with Owen. The party’s disciplinary processes need to be given over to an independent body to manage.
And, more urgently, the EHRC need to step in.
And, more urgently, the EHRC need to step in.
One further thought - my experience of many broken institutions is that processes are always secondary to organisational culture. No mater how tight processes are humans will always find an ingenious way to bypass them if they feel it’s important to do so.
In other words
Not sure why I ended on that, but it’s late and Prof Malcolm usually has something useful to add
Not sure why I ended on that, but it’s late and Prof Malcolm usually has something useful to add
This mini thread includes a bit about the Thomas Gardiner issue - the article made clear there were competing interpretations. Labour staff had had the opportunity to respond, as the ST asked them and printed (as far as I can see) their version of events
