Motion passed by Labour backbenchers means party’s MPs are all but certain to vote to adopt IHRA definition of antisemitism

Labour averted a bitter showdown with MPs over its code of conduct on Monday, with a key vote on whether the party should adopt an international antisemitism definition deferred until parliament returns in September.

Jeremy Corbyn was criticised by some MPs for not attending the crunch meeting of backbenchers of Monday, though the leader’s office said he had never been scheduled to attend.

At the emotional PLP meeting, sources said numerous Labour MPs spoke strongly in favour of adopting the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition, though one objection was raised by the former deputy prime minister John Prescott.

Hodge stands by comments accusing Corbyn of antisemitism Read more

MPs said Prescott called it “untrue” that the Jewish community had lost trust in Labour and criticised fellow former minister Margaret Hodge, who confronted Corbyn last week calling him “a racist and antisemite”.

Hodge has since defended her comments and instructed lawyers to fight disciplinary action by the party.

Speaking after the meeting, Hodge said she felt extremely emotional because of the show of support from MPs and said Prescott’s comments were wrong. “He [Prescott] said it was not true the community has lost trust, but it is true,” she said. “The first step to rebuild trust is to accept the definition. We cannot start unless we accept it.”

The veteran Labour MP said she thought Corbyn should have attended the meeting. “Clearly this is an issue that is totally central to my family and my politics. I think it would have been much, much better if he had been there,” she said.

In a letter on behalf of Hodge sent to the Labour general secretary, Jennie Formby, on Monday, law firm Mischon de Reya accused the party of failing to set out the allegation against the MP or the rule that had been breached, calling it “hasty and ill-thought out disciplinary action … the result of which appears to be predetermined”.

“It is a fundamental breach of natural justice and principles of fairness. You have left our client in the bizarre position whereby possible suspension is hanging over her for future unspecified behaviour,” the letter reads.

The coverage meant there has been “ongoing and serious abuse being levelled against our client … this abuse should not be allowed to fester and multiply,” the letter read.

Labour should drop action against Margaret Hodge, McDonnell says Read more

While the final vote has been delayed, the preliminary motion passed at Monday’s meeting means MPs are ultimately all but certain to vote to adopt the IHRA definition of antisemitism, with all its working examples, into their own official rulebook.

That move would put them directly at odds with the party’s ruling body and Labour leadership, which has endorsed a code of conduct where several examples have been excluded.

Labour hopes to reach a compromise in the coming weeks while it consults further on its code of conduct but MPs are highly unlikely to back down before the ballot in September.



The motion, proposed by two prominent Jewish Labour MPs, Louise Ellman and Ruth Smeeth, was passed without objection but will now go to a ballot on 5 September . MPs said they had agreed to the delay to allow fuller participation and to comply with PLP rules.

At the meeting, several Labour MPs urged the party to draw a line under the issue. Hilary Benn said it should “stop digging” and that the dispute had gone on too long, while fellow MP Kate Green said she was unable to look Jewish relatives in the eye while the saga dragged on.



Speaking after the meeting, Ellman said it was “very moving to see the strength of feeling from colleagues in the room”.

If MPs vote to change their own rulebook, that change would then need to be put to the ruling national executive committee - whcih would vote on the change. Some MPs believe that would force committee members, including Corbyn, to show their personal views on a subject that has caused widespread tension in the party and with Jewish communal leaders.



Labour has said the IHRA examples omitted from the new Labour code agreed by the NEC are already covered in the rest of the wider code. They include claiming that the existence of the state of Israel is a racist endeavour and comparing Israeli actions with those of the Nazis.

The NEC voted to adopt the code last week, without some of the specific IHRA examples, but said discussions and consultation would continue with the Jewish community.

However, Ellman said it was inaccurate to suggest the party was still consulting. “It’s completely false, they know exactly what the Jewish community thinks and if that was genuine, they wouldn’t have accepted the code of conduct initially,” she said.