The EHRC Report

This is the third in my series on antisemitism and the new leader. The first piece examined how the new Leader needed to react to the Disciplinary Process and the second focused on how to change the culture. This article deals with the EHRC investigation into the Labour Party.

Response to the EHRC Investigation

Shameful is not a strong enough word to describe the EHRC’s decision to launch a full statutory inquiry into the Labour Party. This is the second inquiry of this scale; the first being into institutional racism in the Metropolitan Police. The EHRC clearly has probable reason to expect unlawful acts have occurred.

Unsurprisingly Labour failed to react to the EHRC inquiry with the gravity it deserved, with the Shadow Equalities Minister describing the investigation as a “good thing because then we can say without doubt that we have the most strengthened and progressive procedures in place to deal with any kind of racism.” Denial and distortion are not the response of someone who understands the problem and is committed to change. Trivialisation of the problem (or the EHRC investigation) feeds the toxic culture at the grassroots. It is up to the Leadership candidates to each show they understand the significance of the EHRC investigation.

The Labour Party’s response to the EHRC has not improved over time. The NEC officer group decided against the NEC seeing the Party’s response to the EHRC- even though the NEC is the Party’s ruling body. It is unclear if the Leader has even seen it. There are also concerns about the Party redacting vast amounts of data, and refusing to hand over documentation it deems irrelevant. It is essential that the Party’s response to the EHRC is published. The NEC, as the ruling body, ought to be fully in the loop of the inquiry. The release of the response to the EHRC is needed to store trust, and if the Party has no case to answer for, as is claimed, why not release it as evidence? The Leader needs to demand to see the response, for the response to be shown to the NEC and for it to be publicised.

In the unlikely event that the Party is still submitting evidence to the EHRC at the time the new Leader takes office, they need to ensure that they are fully involved in the processes. And oversee data and documentation that is handed to the EHRC to ensure that all relevant information is shown to them.

The most recent scandal has been that Corbyn nominated Karie Murphy for a peerage. Murphy has faced numerous allegations of interfering in the disciplinary process, including discussions with General Secretary, Jennie Formby, about potentially rigging the NCC panel for Jackie Walker’s hearing. Her conduct is amongst the things the EHRC is looking at and it is grossly inappropriate for her to be nominated for a peerage. All Leadership candidates need to vocally oppose this nomination. If the EHRC report hasn’t been published once the new leader takes over, they should remove the Labour whip from Murphy pending its publication.

Dealing with those implicated in the EHRC Report

If the EHRC report is not released during the leadership election (which is unlikely) it will probably be one of the first things that drops into the new Leader’s lap. A strategy on dealing with it is essential. Whilst some candidates appear to appreciate the significance of the EHRC launching an inquiry into Labour, none appear to be aware of the scale of the fallout following publication of the report.

JLM’s leaked final submission to the EHRC is a damning read. It shows rotten and corrupted procedures, a toxic culture prevalent at all levels of the Party, and there are allegations against sitting MPs, and senior staff members. New MPs, Kate Osborne (former NCC member) and Claudia Webbe (former NEC member) were alleged to have improper conduct on disciplinary issues. John McDonnell, and to a much greater extent Jeremy Corbyn, are more heavily implicated. Karie Murphy, who has now been nominated by Labour for a peerage, has been accused of interfering in disciplinary cases to let the accused off. And there are numerous allegations of unlawful acts from Seumas Milne, Thomas Gardiner and General Secretary Jennie Formby. The next leader needs to be prepared for the possibility of the EHRC finding some or all of the JLM submission true.

Any MP found to be complicit should have the whip withdrawn and go through the disciplinary process (not least for bringing the party into disrepute), and this includes Jeremy Corbyn. The political fallout resulting from this has the potential to be huge, and it will be a challenge to politically manage the situation. Firm action must be taken whilst preventing swathes of the membership turning against you.

Dealing with senior staff members who are implicated will be just as hard. The staff in question are employed by Party HQ, where the Leader has no jurisdiction. They need to make clear that the expect that any staff implicated will resign immediately, and if not push for their firing. As I discussed in my previous piece taking on the machine that controls the internal party will be hard, but it is important. It is entirely possible that the General Secretary is implicated, and not beyond the bounds of possibility that she wishes to remain in post. This would mean a nasty, factional fight occurring between the Leadership and party HQ. All candidates must be prepared to have this fight, and if they are not prepared then they should withdraw from the contest.

Dealing with the recommendations

The EHRC report must be accepted by the Party. There must be no challenge or appeal to the decision, nor should the EHRC be scapegoated or targeted. The next Leader must accept the findings, however damming, of the report and must deal with the political aftermath in an appropriate way. The Leader, not an outrider or MP, must face the media, answer the tough questions and admit (if applicable) that the Labour Party is institutionally racist. They must divorce themselves of responsibility without diminishing the problem. And they must attack those responsible (Jeremy Corbyn) without turning the membership and/or major unions against them. This will be hard, if not impossible.

It goes without saying that the EHRC recommendations should be implicated as soon as possible, and the Leader needs to take the lead on that. From consulting with Jewish organisations, to writing up the rule changes, they need to be leading on this. The EHRC only have limited powers, and internal changes beyond the recommendations may be needed. Again, it is up to the next Leader to lead the way on this, and work with stakeholders such as the Jewish Labour Movement. Whilst it is positive to hear all Leadership candidates promising to implement the EHRC’s recommendations, having someone who is willing to go beyond them, to truly strengthen the internal processes, would be ideal.

Whistleblowers

There would never have been an EHRC inquiry without the whistleblowers. The brave members, and even braver staff and former staff members, who submitted testimonies to the EHRC should be commended. Of the reported 70 whistleblowers only a handful have gone public (in the press and in media interviews); resulting in them being treated appallingly by the Party. Leadership candidates should reach out to those who went on the record and apologise for the legal threats and nasty briefings they received. But they should also listen, and learn, about what changes are necessary and adopt them into their platform. The whistleblowing former staff not only understand the failings in process but also will have ideas on confidentiality clauses, changes to the working environment and how (if at all) LOTO ought to engage with those in HQ.

If the EHRC report is damming, then it is likely that there will be a backlash against the whistleblowers who are identifiable. Leadership is needed, it must be made explicit that they did the morally right thing in coming forward, and that any attacks against them are wrong.

Long term effects

Once the EHRC report has landed, the problem will not just go away. Implementing recommendations and ensuring that those complicit leave frontline politics is just the beginning. Victims could be entitled to pay-outs, something which could bankrupt the Party and make NEC members liable to cover costs. Several whistleblowers are suing the Party over its response to Panorama. The crank fringes of the membership will get even crankier. And there will be a huge political fallout. Many members will have to deal with the reality that their heroes are complicit in institutional racism; some of whom will see the light, but others will descend into a path of denial and anger over the ‘smears’. The findings will be used, by all sides, as excuses for factional battles. And as those alleged to be complicit occupy some of the most senior positions in Labour, its going to get nasty. Navigating this political minefield is not an enviable task, and it remains to be seen if any of the Leadership candidates are up for it.