The Labour frontbencher Steve Reed, Shadow Secretary for Communities and Local Government, has deleted a tweet containing an antisemtic trope, specifically referring to Richard Desmond, who is of Jewish heritage, as a "puppet master" of the Tory party following the revelations of his property business dealings with Robert Jenrick, the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government. This would appear to be a textbook case of thoughtless antisemitism. Reed deleted the tweet shortly afterwards and issued an apology today: "I want to apologise unreservedly for the language in the tweet I posted on Saturday. It was inappropriate and as soon as I realised my error I deleted it". While he has come in for criticism from the Conservatives, his behaviour has been lauded by the Labour right and various centrists with many comparing his contrition favourably to Rebecca Long Bailey, who was sacked as Shadow Education Secretary in June.
Of course, this praise for Reed's prompt action ignores that he was bang-to-rights. Even if the former press baron were not Jewish, the "puppet master" image would remain a well-worn antisemitic trope. In contrast, Long Bailey was guilty of referring to Maxine Peake as "an absolute diamond", without apparently having spotted an inaccurate claim by the actor in the Independent interview that she retweeted ("The tactics used by the police in America, kneeling on George Floyd’s neck, that was learnt from seminars with Israeli secret services"). That she didn't promptly apologise, any more than the editor of the Independent did, but instead tweeted that she didn't endorse the claims made by Peake but felt the interview was worthy of attention because of the actor's emphasis on the importance of staying in the Labour party, appears to have been the final straw for Keir Starmer who insisted that zero tolerance means zero tolerance.
However, it's worth recalling that some defenders of Starmer last week, notably Paul Mason in his new occasional berth at the Spectator, insisted that Long Bailey's real offence wasn't circulating a claim that could be interpreted as antisemitic but her refusal to obey orders: she insisted on issuing a clarification rather than simply deleting her original tweet and thought that she could negotiate a compromise with the Leader's office. As Mason put it, "A story emerges of press-imposed deadlines vs unanswered phone calls. Starmer’s people sound flabbergasted that Long-Bailey refused to delete her offensive tweet — and that’s the substance: you can’t have a shadow cabinet member refusing a direct order". Whether he really has an inside line or not, Mason's interpretation does get to the heart of the issue. The charge of antisemitism is not merely an instrumental weapon for delegitimising the left, the response to it is now a loyalty test. If you argue, you're out.
It's possible that Reed might still be sacked, if the charge of hypocrisy becomes too difficult to deflect or if the Tory press decide to run with it (so far, the Guardian is doing its best to ignore the whole affair), but my expectation is that he will be saved precisely because he has loyally followed the procedure: an unreserved apology with no cavilling or attempts at mitigation. This proceduralism was also in evidence this morning in Starmer's latest weekly appearance on LBC. Challenged on his dismissive language towards the Black Lives Matter movement last week, suggesting it was a momentary phenomenon, the Leader of the Opposition revealed that he is to undertake "unconcious bias training" as part of a new programme being deployed party-wide. That apparently will be enough. You might reasonably have expected a former human rights lawyer and Director of Public Prosecutions to have an above-average understanding of unconcious bias already, but he is determined to lead by example.
The problem for Labour arising out of these recent incidents is twofold. First, it reinforces the media impression that Labour is a hotbed of various forms of bigotry and bias. This will probably remain the case until after the Equalities and Human Rights Commission inquiry into antisemitism within the party reports. Starmer is clearly hoping that the pre-emptive adoption of a zero tolerance approach will mean he can welcome the findings with open arms, regardless of how critical they may be, and then move the political agenda onto more favourable ground. He can be reasonably confident that the EHRC won't focus on named individuals but will focus on processes and training instead, so the role of the right in sabotaging case-handling can be occluded and the media interpretation biased towards the ideological damnation of the left. In the meantime, incidents like Steve Reed's tweet can be managed so long as the correct procedure is followed. Whether figures on the party left will be allowed to follow that procedure is another matter.
The second problem is that the commitment to proceduralism reinforces the developing media impression that Labour is now a party of elite lawyers. Of course, barristers and solicitors have been disproportionately influential throughout the party's history, and the pettifogging and bureaucracy of organised labour and local government is central to its organisational culture. But since the mid-90s, as trade unions and councils have been weakened and as the "malevolent forces" of modernity have been associated more and more with global businesses and supranational courts, the party has been increasingly identified with an increasingly dysfunctional legal system. Paradoxically, it is criticised as both the architect of punitive law, from ASBOS to asylum detention centres, and the champion of "politically correct" interference in the operation of that law, from the 1998 Human Rights Act to the EHRC itself. At present, it is the latter aspect that is dominant, largely because of Brexit and in particular Starmer's own role in arguing for a second referendum.
It doesn't take a political genius to work out that the Tory attack line in 2024 will focus heavily on the caricature of Starmer as the "remain lawyer". While the remain part will still motivate some, Labour can hope that the passage of time will make it less salient and that a more robust left-leaning economic offer will change minds in Northern seats. The problem for the party is the lawyer part. Taking a socially conservative line on the police and armed forces, or inadvertantly belittling BLM and transsexuals because that's what you unconsciously think many voters want, may shield you from accusations of excessive "wokeness", but it isn't going to neutralise the charge that your sympathies are instinctively cosmopolitan and elitist. "Forensic" may play well with the London media, but it "don't mean shit" in Bishop Auckland. The problem is that too many voters felt Labour had failed the loyalty test in 2019, and that was to do with Brexit, not support for Palestine.
No comments:
Post a Comment