Read on Twitter
So I’m going to try to explain why labour had no choice but to suspend Jeremy Corbyn. This will change no one’s mind but should be cathartic at least
1/
1/
Firstly there are two rules that Jeremy’s behaviour can be seen to be breaching. The first is the one against antisemitism , the second bring the party into disrepute. See the full rules below
/2 https://twitter.com/_petermason/status/1321953395582869505
/2 https://twitter.com/_petermason/status/1321953395582869505
The two points in his original statement that were egregious. The first was not accepting all the finding of the report, the second claiming that antisemitism had been exaggerated. See below what the EHRC has to say about the latter /3 https://twitter.com/adamwagner1/status/1321775807220666368
Corbyn later tried to back track by pointing to polling (which merely proved that the electorate didn’t have a strong grasp on what’s actually happening in politics -shocking) but still hasn’t said that AS hasn’t been exaggerated /4
So definite grounds for action under the antisemitism rule.
Yes maybe his actions wouldn’t have previously lead to suspension but are processes have just been shown to be absolute shit so that argument doesn’t hold up /5
Yes maybe his actions wouldn’t have previously lead to suspension but are processes have just been shown to be absolute shit so that argument doesn’t hold up /5
The context is also super important. Corbyn isn’t a lay member. He was the leader for a period in which labour broke the Equalities law.
He’s also an MP, so according to the EHRC an agent of the party
That brings us to the ‘bringing the party into disrepute bit’ /6
He’s also an MP, so according to the EHRC an agent of the party
That brings us to the ‘bringing the party into disrepute bit’ /6
Let’s look at a timeline of events. Corbyn was warned about what was in Starmers speech. He had a chance to remove the denial from his statement. Anyone with half a brain would’ve done so /7 https://twitter.com/siennamarla/status/1321859213207941121
MPs are agents of the party, that’s why MPs were told not to comment on the EHRC report. The party is liable for their actions (and the EHRC has found incidents of denial as unlawful) /8
It’s also definitely bringing the party into disrepute for Corbyn to contradict the leader about the EHRC. Yes contradicting the leader is normally five for backbenchers, but the context here is key /9
Starmers statement also sent as message to the General Secretary and GLU to treat denial of antisemitism as a rule breech. Is this political interference??? I don’t know. Firstly it’s totally legitimate for the leader to use his influence this way ... /10
... ideally this will change with the new processes but these processes won’t change over night. It’s also a million miles away from LOTO instructing GLU how to act on specific cases (as it did repeatedly under Corbyn’s leadership) /11
This is the leader using moral leadership to steer the parties path. It’s not an ideal position to be in but it’s also not illegitimate/12
Also (again) context obviously matters so much. Of course GLU and the general secretary are going to hammer down after the EHRC report is published. That’s just obvious /13
Corbyn was given a chance to apologise before his suspension. He didn’t. That’s on him. He has been dealt with entirely fairly by the system /14
Obviously there is a degree of politics involved in this. Party staff deciding to suspend the former leader after the EHRC has released a damning report into them. But it’s only political because it has to be -given the situation and current disciplinary system /15
Basically the processes are flawed and need changing. But in this case they have been used as correctly as they can be (given the circumstances) /16
As a side point how MPs are dealt with in an independent process is a difficult question, and one I fear is impossible to answer /17
Correcting a few other myths I’ve seen:
-the EHRC was never going to recommend actions against individuals (read it!) so the fact that it hasn’t recommended Corbyn be suspended is not an argument against it
Also he was suspended for his actions after the EHRC report /18
-the EHRC was never going to recommend actions against individuals (read it!) so the fact that it hasn’t recommended Corbyn be suspended is not an argument against it
Also he was suspended for his actions after the EHRC report /18
-there is no evidence of LOTO interference like what the EHRC identified. It’s also absolutely hilarious for people defending LOTO interference under Corbyn to be claiming it now /19
- the general secretary does have the power to suspend people and its legitimate for them to do so. They also historically often sign off on suspensions in high profile cases. And of course they were behind this one (context people!) /20
-there is nothing recommended in the report contradicted by suspending Corbyn
-not suspending anyone until the new process is up and running is a terrible idea and not something the EHRC asked for /21
-not suspending anyone until the new process is up and running is a terrible idea and not something the EHRC asked for /21
-yes suspending Corbyn distracts from the report but that’s not the fault of Keir or the Labour Party. That’s the fault of Corbyn. I wish he hadn’t commented at all, but he did and now he has to face the consequences of his actions /22
And the idea that Corbyn shouldn’t be suspended because of party unity is beyond stupid.
People shouldn’t face disciplinary action if a certain faction won’t like it?
Now that sounds political decision making to me /23
People shouldn’t face disciplinary action if a certain faction won’t like it?
Now that sounds political decision making to me /23
Here’s a good thread on this from someone who represented CAA during the EHRC investigation. https://twitter.com/adamwagner1/status/1322093288971771904
The people choosing to make this political and factional are Corbyn and his allies. The easiest way for his suspension to be removed would be for him to issue a sincere apology.
They have chose to make this a political fight instead /24
They have chose to make this a political fight instead /24
