Panorama, anti-semitism and labour's long nightmare | thearticle

“_Have you or someone you know been affected by the Labour Party? Perhaps you fell into some anti-Semitism at work and your employer refused to support you? Well the law firm of Ohmigod,

Whatamess and Shotshiw are here to represent you. You too can have your day in court – everyone else is_.” The Labour Party has apologised to the staff whistle blowers and the maker of the

Panorama documentary “Is Labour Anti-Semitic?” for its reaction to the programme and has paid both costs and damages. This should have been the beginning of the end of the affair. The end of

the legal wrangling over this documentary and an end to the legal side of Labour’s anti-Semitism nightmare. It’s not. As Keir Starmer put it when offered an open goal at Wednesday’s PMQs,

Labour is “under new management”. Labour is desperate for that to mean a change of direction and an end to the problems caused by Corbyn’s leadership, in particular the anti-Semitism crisis.

Sadly for Labour, not everyone got the memo. Both former leader Jeremy Corbyn and General Secretary of the Unite Union Len McCluskey came out against the decision. It has since been

announced that the journalist who made the programme — John Ware — will be suing Jeremy Corbyn for saying this was a political and not a legal decision. Corbyn is apparently still defending

the very actions for which the Party has now apologised. Corbyn and McCluskey’s argument rests on a report, leaked earlier this year, which was put together by then-General Secretary Jennie

Formby. The document was meant to be submitted to the Equality and Human Rights Commission, but was shelved by the party’s own lawyers. The report was then leaked, unredacted, therefore

making public the private details of many complainants. The report claimed that factionalism played a part not just in the toxic atmosphere of the Labour Party (which is pretty undeniable

and came from all directions) but also in decisions by staff members over disciplinary cases. That is disputed. Patrick Maguire of the _Times_ has tweeted that Iain McNicol, the former

General Secretary of the Labour party, will be suing Labour over claims made in the report. The report and its contents are also subject to an internal investigation looking at both what it

said but also how it was commissioned and leaked. Like all things in the Labour Party, how you view these court cases, these reports and these investigations will be led by how you view the

leaderships of Jeremy Corbyn and Keir Starmer. As in all things, the answer probably lies somewhere between the extremes. There was a coterie of people — around 20 per cent — who were never

going to be persuaded by Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership of the Labour Party. They were ideologically opposed to all that he stood for and felt that he had hijacked the party. There was another

group who were completely dedicated to Corbyn and would not hear a word against him (as he won, we have to assume this group is larger so let’s say 50 per cent). These detractors and fans

exist for all leaders.They certainly did for Labour’s most electorally successful leader Tony Blair. It’s how you convince the other 50 per cent that counts. Blair won elections and kept a

grip on the party’s machinery even though Labour people disagreed with many of his decisions. From the disaster of Iraq to controversial PFI decisions, politically Blair was often on a

different page — perhaps even a different book from his party. But crucially, his competence was rarely at question. Corbyn blames the people who never liked his leadership for the problems

he faced. But the problem wasn’t the small percentage who were irreconcilable but the vast swathes who wanted his leadership to be better than it was. Many people who voted for him ended up

disillusioned. The vast numbers of people willing to give him a go were disappointed. The chaos and incompetence that surrounded him was at a remove from the factionalism that his leadership

produced. But because he only hired from his own true believers, he had a small talent pool who were unable or unwilling to reach beyond their comfort zone and get a grip on the party. It

was Corbyn’s own factionalism that caused many of the competence issues. It is in this light that different parts of Labour respond to the aftermath of Corbynism. The 20 per cent who loathed

Corbyn dismiss the Formby report out of hand. Those who adore him take it as gospel. Nothing is going to persuade either side to shift position, despite there being some really quite

horrific content in the Formby report. The EHRC investigation — damning as it is expected to be — will not do that either. To truly draw a line under the past, Labour has to reckon with it.

That will mean tackling both the allegations in the Formby report and the culture of unprofessionalism that saw it leak — that’s a tough needle to thread. It also means accepting all the

recommendations of the EHRC, however much that splinters Starmer’s fragile left/right coalition. It may also mean sitting through many more court battles. Factionalism will not end in the

Labour Party. But for Labour to once again be successful it must be sidelined in favour of rebuilding a machine that — whatever politics it serves — is professional and competent.