This article is more than 2 years old

This article is more than 2 years old

Margaret Hodge has accused Labour of trying to purge Jeremy Corbyn’s parliamentary critics as the party faces further criticism over its handling of the antisemitism row.



The former minister’s comments came as a party investigation into the Dudley North MP, Ian Austin, was labelled “a farce and a disgrace” by his solicitors.

On Monday, Labour decided to drop an inquiry into Hodge after she called Corbyn “an antisemite and a racist” over his handling of Labour’s dispute with Jewish community leaders.

Hodge, the MP for Barking, called on the party to abandon its inquiry into Austin.

“I have absolutely no doubt that there are those in the leadership who want to get rid, whether it is through deselection or disciplinary action, of any opposition. The new style of politics is bullying and intolerance, not gentle and inclusive,” she said.

Hodge told the Guardian she believed the pursuit of Austin was a form of bullying. “Arguing passionately for what you believe in should be encouraged and celebrated, not punished,” she said.

“That’s what Ian was quite properly doing, and trying to close down the issue by disciplining him is tantamount to bullying.”

Hodge dismissed reports attributed to Labour sources that she had expressed regret for her claims that Corbyn is an antisemite: “I stand by my comments.”

Lawyers for Austin claim he has not been given specific allegations, and say the party has “failed to observe the most rudimentary principles of natural justice, due process and transparency”.

Austin released documents via his Twitter account on Tuesday, three weeks after he was first accused of breaking Labour’s internal rules.

The party’s general secretary, Jennie Formby, sent Austin a letter on 19 July saying the party was investigating “allegations [which] relate to abusive conduct in parliament on 16 July and 17 July”.

The incidents are alleged to have involved confrontations between Austin and Chris Williamson, a Corbyn loyalist, and Ian Lavery, Labour’s chair, sources said.

Austin’s solicitors, Hamlins, have replied to the party, questioning why they have not been given any details of the allegations, despite a meeting between Austin and Nick Brown, the Labour chief whip.

“This process has been a farce and a disgrace. It has plainly been designed to silence our client for his legitimate, honestly held criticisms of Mr Corbyn’s failure to address the scourge of antisemitism in the Labour party,” the solicitors wrote.

They said the party was “prejudging the complaints”.

Austin’s lawyers have also questioned why the Jewish Chronicle, the New Statesman and the website Skwawkbox appeared to have been briefed by party officials with details of the alleged complaints, while Austin had not been informed of the claims.

Austin and Hodge have asked why Labour under Corbyn has adopted the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of antisemitism, but excluded several examples that Jewish groups had called for the party to accept in full.

The UK delegation to the IHRA has questioned the decision by Labour to adopt a modified definition of their code – with seven of the 11 examples – instead of the version unanimously approved by 31 member countries.

A statement released on Tuesday said: “Any ‘modified’ version of the IHRA definition that does not include all of its 11 examples is no longer the IHRA definition. Adding or removing language undermines the months of international diplomacy and academic rigour that enabled this definition to exist.

“If one organisation or institution can amend the wording to suit its own needs, then logically anyone else could do the same. We would once again revert to a world where antisemitism goes unaddressed simply because different entities cannot agree on what it is.”

Following the backlash, Labour has launched a consultation over the IHRA definitions and is expected to fully adopt three of the four omitted examples.

Labour declined to comment.