Labour officers spent years stabbing Corbyn in the back, according to suppressed report

“Straight talking”? “Honest politics”? Prove it, Lord McNicol; prove it.

Labour lawyers have stepped in to stop a report on the party’s response to anti-Semitism accusations being submitted to the Equalities & Human Rights Commission – because it shows that right-wing party officers spent years backstabbing Jeremy Corbyn.

The report runs to 860 pages and concludes that factional hostility towards Mr Corbyn amongst former senior officials contributed to “a litany of mistakes” that hindered the effective handling of the issue.

It provides evidence that senior staff “openly worked against the aims and objectives of the leadership of the Party, and in the 2017 general election some key staff even appeared to work against the Party’s core objective of winning elections”.

In other words, by the time Jeremy Corbyn became leader, it seems the organisational structure beneath him was riddled with individuals who hated the Labour Party and were actively working to ensure it would not win a general election.

Reading between the lines, it seems this means they misled the elected leadership about the number and nature of anti-Semitism allegations, hid documents to make some claims appear more credible than they were, and deliberately obstructed investigations to falsely make Mr Corbyn’s leadership appear incompetent.

Of course, there’s no way to know whether that’s true, until the report is published. I look forward to seeing new leader Keir Starmer order it, although I fear I may be waiting for some time.

What we do know, from a Sky News report on the document, is that it says there was “abundant evidence of a hyper-factional atmosphere prevailing in Party HQ” towards Jeremy Corbyn which “affected the expeditious and resolute handling of disciplinary complaints”.

It seems the anti-Corbyn faction ensured a lack of “robust processes, systems, training, education and effective line management”.

The report doesn’t find any anti-Semitic intent behind the behaviour, or that anti-Semitism complaints were handled differently to any other – but this should not come as any surprise.

The anti-Corbynites’ intention was to create an impression that anti-Semitism was a huge problem in the party – not to engage in it themselves. That would have been counter-productive.

And why should anti-Semitism complaints be handled any differently when the intention was to portray Mr Corbyn as incompetent?

In this context, the report casts doubt on the validity of claims made by the BBC in last year’s Panorama documentary, Is Labour Antisemitic.

Some of the stars of that particular film – which took their claims as cast-iron fact – are also heavily featured in the report, including the former General Secretary, Lord McNicol, and the former acting head of the governance and legal unit, Sam Matthews.

Lord McNicol and other senior figures are accused of providing “false and misleading information”on the handling of anti-Semitism complaints to Mr Corbyn’s office, which the report claims meant “the scale of the problem was not appreciated” by the leadership.

Note that we are not told whether this means anti-Semitism was more or less prevalent than Mr Corbyn was led to believe.

According to Sky News, the report quotes:

  • Conversations in 2017 which appear to show senior staff preparing for Tom Watson to become interim leader in anticipation of Jeremy Corbyn losing the election

  • Conversations which it is claimed show senior staff hid information from the leader’s office about digital spending and contact details for MPs and candidates during the election

  • Conversations on election night in which the members of the group talk about the need to hide their disappointment that Mr. Corbyn had done better than expected and would be unlikely to resign

  • A discussion about whether the grassroots activist network Momentum could be ‘proscribed’ for being a ‘party within a party’

  • A discussion about ‘unsuspending’ a former Labour MP who was critical of Jeremy Corbyn so they could stand as a candidate in the 2017 election

  • A discussion about how to prevent corbyn-ally Rebecca Long-Bailey gaining a seat on the party’s governing body in 2017

  • Regular references to corbyn-supporting party staff as “trots”

  • Conversations between senior staff in Lord McNicol’s office in which they refer to former director of communications Seamus Milnes as “dracula”, and saying he was “spiteful and evil and we should make sure he is never allowed in our Party if it’s last thing we do”

  • Conversations in which the same group refers to Mr. Corbyn’s former chief of staff Karie Murphy as “medusa”, a “crazy woman” and a “bitch face cow” that would “make a good dartboard”

  • A discussion in which one of the group members expresses their “hope” that a young pro-Corbyn Labour activist, who they acknowledge had mental health problems, “dies in a fire”

The report was drafted as a submission by the Labour Party to the EHRC’s ongoing investigation into “institutional anti-Semitism” in the Labour Party, and contains passages that refer to that organisation or address it directly. It therefore seems strange in the extreme that the party is now refusing to submit it, and claiming that it is out of the scope of the EHRC’s inquiries. Here’s Sky’s Tom Rayner:

The quoted extract says, “We hope the EHRC will focus on the documentary, primary-source evidence that the Party has made available to it… rather than the personal accounts of staff or former staff.” How is the EHRC supposed to do that if Labour won’t hand over the report?

Mr Rayner went on to say that a Labour source who worked in Mr Corbyn’s office said the report showed the leadership had been “sabotaged and set up left right and centre by McNicol’s team”.

Now read the quotes he had from McNicol himself, and from Matthews:

From McNicol we get whataboutery: party officers have been “trawling 10,000 emails rather than challenging anti-Semitism”. Of course, it would not have been necessary if he had done his job properly, right? And, really, an issue affecting only 0.06 per cent of party members (some of whom have been falsely accused, like This Writer) doesn’t merit the attention of every single person working for Labour.

Matthews simply attempts to divert blame. But here’s the thing: the report asks for the primary evidence – the documents – to be considered, rather than the comments on those documents by interested parties. The data doesn’t lie.

The report’s non-publication has scandalised those of us with a stake in the issue – and should upset anybody else with an interest in justice. Many in the media leapt on the fabrication and treated it as real, without any reason to do so.

For example: remember Phillip Schofield demanding an apology for the anti-Semitism crisis in Labour, on live TV during the general election campaign? Now we see evidence that it was cooked up by backstabbers, will Mr Schofield be issuing an apology for sabotaging Labour’s election campaign?

Twitter has been alive with outrage:

There is already a mechanism by which anybody who is concerned about this issue can demand that the report be published for all to read, including the EHRC. Here it is:

Please visit the site and sign the petition. I have!

Source: Report in to antisemitism in Labour Party concludes that Jeremy Corbyn and senior leadership were stitched up – Dorset Eye

Have YOU donated to my crowdfunding appeal, raising funds to fight false libel claims by TV celebrities who should know better? These court cases cost a lot of money so every penny will help ensure that wealth doesn’t beat justice.

https://www.crowdjustice.com/case/mike-sivier-libel-fight/


Vox Political needs your help!
If you want to support this site
(
but don’t want to give your money to advertisers)
you can make a one-off donation here:

Donate Button with Credit Cards

Here are four ways to be sure you’re among the first to know what’s going on.

1) Register with us by clicking on ‘Subscribe’ (in the left margin). You can then receive notifications of every new article that is posted here.

2) Follow VP on Twitter @VoxPolitical

3) Like the Facebook page at https://www.facebook.com/VoxPolitical/

Join the Vox Political Facebook page.

4) You could even make Vox Political your homepage at http://voxpoliticalonline.com

And do share with your family and friends – so they don’t miss out!

If you have appreciated this article, don’t forget to share it using the buttons at the bottom of this page. Politics is about everybody – so let’s try to get everybody involved!

Buy Vox Political books so we can continue
fighting for the facts.


The Livingstone Presumption is now available
in either print or eBook format here:

HWG PrintHWG eBook

Health Warning: Government! is now available
in either print or eBook format here:

HWG PrintHWG eBook

The first collection, Strong Words and Hard Times,
is still available in either print or eBook format here:

SWAHTprint SWAHTeBook

Related posts

17 Thoughts to “Labour officers spent years stabbing Corbyn in the back, according to suppressed report”

  1. trev

    Think I’ll go back to voting Green. The Labour party make me sick with how they’ve conspired against the Left.

  2. SteveH

    A test of Starmer’s leadership, will he have the courage to do the right thing?

    1. SteveH

      Unfortunately the initial response from Keir Starmer and Angela Rayner rather bizarrely appears to concentrate on questioning (undermining) the remit of this report and identifying the whistle-blower rather than the very disturbing revelations.

      I want to know specifically who authorised the Labour Party’s lawyers to try and silence this long overdue and insightful report and also who has prevented its contents being passed onto the EHRC investigation team. These decisions must have been by their nature taken at a very senior level, we (the membership) have a right to know who tried to bury this report.

      There must be accountability otherwise any pretensions of Labour being a democratic party accountable to its membership will be exposed as nothing more than an ‘Animal Farm’ scam.

  3. I’ve long wondered whether the Labour Party has been infiltrated by Tory fifth columnists.

  4. Neville

    Does anybody care about these revelations? In my opinion, this is nothing new. Labour have been at each others throats since 2010. Despite the Conservative government mishandling the COVID 19 pandemic, they simply have nothing to worry about.

    1. Mike Sivier

      Yes – people care about the revelations because now we know the names of some of the people who have been attacking Labour from the inside.

      1. Neville

        Keir starmer should release the report unamended, so the real scandal about what is happening within the party can be exposed to all of us. Remember the old saying: Sunlight is the best disinfectant.

    2. Knowing what’s been going on is one thing, Neville. It’s far better to be able to PROVE it.

  5. Johann Owen

    Because of these people, who effectively gave the Tories the election they have denied the country of someone who could have changed this country for the better. They should be kicked out of the party, not rewarded for the traitors they are.

  6. Jeffrey Davies

    1930s burning books aktion T4. Fast forward we had a decent person in charge but at every level he was backstabbed looked to be a radical commy or dear it was those greedie self serving b who wouldn’t want a true labour person back to run the country shameful are they the most corrupt politicians and backers one will see in ones life time god help those who are lost has of it

  7. Jan Brooker

    Were the LOTO staff team not aware of ANY of this? In any workplace I’ve been in, or managed, such hostile and undermining of an organisation’s purpose would lead to suspension, pending dismissal, for such actions [gross misconduct]. Were such outright hostility to the supposed decision-makers discovered, there’s that little-used bit of employment law: “the trust & confidence necessary for the working relationship has broken down”. What else does the sheer hostility mean? The senior stff were ACTIVELY working against the members’ wishes and MISUSING FUNDS [again something that would normally lead to dismissal, if not criminal charges ~ the fraud of deception [they were hiding the channeling of OUR funds to chosen favourites, whilst hiding this from the organisation]. Beyond belief that this went on for 4 or more years.🤔

  8. Andy Wales

    Mike, Can you email me if you want a copy of something relevant 😉

    1. Mike Sivier

      Sorry but I don’t give out my email address to strangers making vague offers.

  9. pgthai

    I have long stated that the Labour Party had been taken over by Tories, this is just further evidence.

  10. Simon Tucker

    I suppose we will just have to share your posts to Facebook until they unlock your account again.

    1. Mike Sivier

      Yes please!

      1. On that subject, I was interested to read pages 840-841, because they reveal the REAL reason I and a few other left wing bloggers were permanently banned from Facebook. We were all part of a loose collection of writers on what the Labour Party calls “The Tracy Kelly Network” – it included about five accounts Tracy herself owned – and the Labour Party pressured Facebook to throw us all out.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this:

By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies. This includes scrolling or continued navigation. more information

The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this.

Close