The predicament facing Diane Abbott has led to something quite rare in today’s
Labour Party : agreement from the left and right. Abbott, the first female Black member of parliament, lost the Labour whip 11 months ago amid allegations of antisemitism and now she has an impressive coalition of people, including Ed Balls, Harriet Harman and Angela Rayner, saying they would like to see her back. It was nearly a year ago when a letter appeared in The Observer newspaper from Abbott that said “Irish, Jewish and Traveller people… undoubtedly experience prejudice… But they are not all their lives subject to racism.” Abbott apologised immediately and retracted her comments in full. “There is no excuse, and I wish to apologise for any anguish caused,” she tweeted within hours of publication. “Racism takes many forms, and it is completely undeniable that Jewish people have suffered its monstrous effects, as have
Irish people, Travellers and many others.” The Labour Party said they had no choice but to suspend the whip from Abbott, pending an investigation. This means Abbott currently sits as an independent MP. Nearly a year later, she still languishes in limbo, thanks to Labour’s obscure disciplinary processes. But last week Abbott was unwillingly thrust into the media spotlight when comments emerged from multi-millionaire Tory donor Frank Hester , saying her existence made him “want to hate all Black women” and that Abbott “should be shot”. The exact terms of Labour’s investigation are not in the public domain, but it surely boils down to some pretty simple binaries: either the party accepts her apology as genuine or it doesn’t; either the party believes her words in that letter were so grotesque as to be unforgivable, or it doesn’t. Read Next The treatment of Diane Abbott shows the true nature of
Britain There is a myth, peddled on the media by Labour frontbenchers, that the party has “an independent process” for disciplinary cases, as Jon Ashworth told the BBC’s Laura Kuenssberg on Sunday. This is far from true. Labour’s process continues to fail people and not bring justice. Following the report by the Equality and
Human Rights Commission, Labour introduced some independent elements into its disciplinary procedures , but the decision to initiate an investigation or not remains a political decision, and one often taken, or not, for factional reasons. Take the case of Barry Sheerman, another longstanding Labour MP, who sits on the right of the party. In August 2020, Sheerman tweeted “ apparently there has been a bit of a run on silver shekels ”, later adding “Richard Desmond and Philip Green [two Jewish businessmen] were on the original list for seats in the House of Lords”. The remarks sparked outrage and Sheerman was accused of perpetuating antisemitic tropes. He deleted the tweets and apologised. No investigation was opened, the whip was never withdrawn, and Sheerman continued to sit as a Labour MP. Like Abbott, he transgressed, and promptly apologised. This weekend, Martin Forde KC, who investigated
racism and disciplinary procedures within the Labour Party at the behest of Keir Starmer, told LBC that if Abbott “offered a swift apology then why does that differ from apologies that have been offered by others, including politicians within the parliamentary Labour Party who’ve had the whip restored… it’s the lack of consistency that is troubling”. So what sets them apart? What is little understood outside of the party is that the process can be run as a purely political process – dictated formally by the Chief Whip (appointed by and answerable to the party leader). This process seems to be applied almost exclusively to MPs on the left of the party. Let us take another comparison: Steve Reed, a member of Labour’s Shadow Cabinet, tweeted in July 2020 that Jewish Tory donor Richard Desmond was “the puppet master to the entire Tory cabinet”. He apologised and deleted the tweet. Like Sheerman, there was no suspension or investigation. Later that same year,
Jeremy Corbyn was suspended by the party, and had the whip withdrawn for his response to the EHRC report into antisemitism in the Labour Party. Corbyn called for the report’s recommendations to be implemented in full, but asserted some claims had been “dramatically overstated for political reasons” by his opponents. A couple of years later Martin Forde KC would conclude in his inquiry that both sides had weaponised the issue. Corbyn later said, “I regret the pain this issue has caused the Jewish community and would wish to do nothing that would exacerbate or prolong it”, and clarified that “concerns about antisemitism are neither ‘exaggerated’ nor ‘overstated’. The point I wished to make was that the vast majority of Labour Party members were and remain committed antiracists deeply opposed to antisemitism”. Read Next Diane Abbott is the start of a very awkward year for Labour His membership was reinstated by a party-appointed panel, independent of the leadership – only for the Chief Whip to withhold the whip, with no recourse to appeal. He was later barred from representing Labour at the next
election . HuffPost
UK ‘s Kevin Schofield wrote last week of Abbott’s fate. He said he understood “an investigation by the Labour Chief Whip into her conduct is still ongoing and that there is no imminent prospect of her being given the whip back” – seemingly confirming that the process for Abbott is one solely run by Chief Whip Alan Campbell, who is appointed by Keir Starmer. The concern over the length of time that this is dragging on for is because if the whip is not reinstated Abbott would not be eligible to stand as a Labour candidate in the general election expected later this year . This would have the double benefit to the leadership of both removing an independent-minded (they would say disloyal) MP on the left of the party, and would enable them to impose a more compliant candidate into what is a safe Labour seat. I’ve been told by people close to the Labour leadership, and sources close to Abbott, that the party is prepared to restore the whip if Abbott agrees to stand down at the next general election. This process therefore appears neither independent nor fair – as the lack of transparency, and contrast with previous similar cases, shows. So it is no surprise then that it has led to an unusual coalition of people from across the party calling for the whip to be restored to Abbott, from ex-shadow chancellors like Ed Balls and John McDonnell, to Angela Rayner and Harriet Harman (current and ex-deputy leaders), and from former senior advisers to Labour leaders like me (to Jeremy Corbyn) to John McTernan (to Blair). The fight against racism and bigotry is not something to be conveniently deployed for partisan or factional gain. No one expects any individual or any institution to be flawless, but consistency matters. Andrew Fisher is the former executive director of policy for the Labour Party