The only answer we need about the leaked Labour report is the reason Starmer sat on it for so long
Keir Starmer: he had the Labour report on right-wing factionalism interfering with the party’s response to anti-Semitism – for more than a week – and did nothing about it. He doesn’t need to hear other people’s answers – he needs to provide them himself.
The report that shows how a right-wing faction among the Labour Party’s staff actively sabotaged the party’s electoral chances, partially by interfering in investigations into alleged anti-Semitism, was commissioned by the party’s general secretary, Jennie Formby, it seems.
This is entirely proper.
It was intended to be an annex to Labour’s submission to the Equalities and Human Rights Commission, which is investigating claims that there is “institutional anti-Semitism” in the party.
Keir Starmer, as new leader, was handed the report soon after he took on the role on April 4, along with a recommendation from the party’s lawyers that it should not be sent to the EHRC. It seems we don’t know the reasons for this recommendation.
Starmer sat on the report. He didn’t send it back with a call for changes that would make it suitable for submission; he didn’t authorise its submission; and he didn’t cancel it either.
Perhaps that is the reason whoever it was leaked it.
Here’s the juice from ITV News:
Formby, a close ally of Corbyn, worked on the report which was intended to serve as an annex to the full submission that is being sent to the EHRC.
It also involved a handful of others who worked in Labour's Governance and Legal Unit – most of whom are also Corbyn allies.
— Shehab Khan ITV (@ShehabKhan) April 14, 2020
Senior figures within the party like Seamus Milne and Karie Murphy provided information, evidence and emails that related to the allegations of antisemitism to aid research for the EHRC submission, but did not help to write this report – the process was managed by Formby.
— Shehab Khan ITV (@ShehabKhan) April 14, 2020
In one case a senior Labour staffer had sent themselves their entire WhatsApp conversation history by email – so the researchers were able to access group chats of colleagues at Labour HQ discussing their opinions about Corbyn and Labour’s performance at the 2017 general election
— Shehab Khan ITV (@ShehabKhan) April 14, 2020
Some of the conversations in the WhatsApp groups were “abusive and inappropriate language about the leader, MPs, Labour members and about other staff”, the report claims.
— Shehab Khan ITV (@ShehabKhan) April 14, 2020
The real question, as it occurs to This Writer, is why Starmer sat on the report for so long.
Is it because, as Mr Khan describes it, the report’s researchers “found more than they bargained for” among the hundreds of thousands of emails and the WhatsApp chats to which they were granted access?
Was he trying to cover up the genuine institutionalised racism and other misbehaviour that the report describes?
If so, he doesn’t need an independent inquiry.
He should just confess what he did.
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.
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:
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:
Health Warning: Government! is now available
in either print or eBook format here:
The first collection, Strong Words and Hard Times,
is still available in either print or eBook format here:
“He should just confess what he did.”
Where does Starmer appear in this report?
Steve, you’ve obviously read the article. Why are you making such a silly comment?
Whilst I acknowledge that Keir’s response to this report was very disappointing because it appears to concentrate more on the remit and who leaked it rather than the very disturbing contents of the report and it also failed to reflect the genuine anger of many members but your emphasis on him sitting on this report for an excessive period is I feel misjudged. Even if he was given the report immediately after the announcement of his victory it wouldn’t surprise me if he never even got round to looking at it till Tuesday at the earliest and it would not be in anyway unreasonable for him to take a few days to discuss and reflect on it’s contents with collogues in the party and the architects of this document in the NEC. However if there is firm evidence that he was going to bury the document then that would be a whole new ball game.
You are aware, of course, that as a frontbench Labour MP and leadership candidate, Keir Starmer would have been made aware that the report had been commissioned, and he would have known its purpose and authors. In this context, doesn’t it even seem the slightest bit odd to you that he has commissioned an investigation to discover information he already knows?
Mike – Do you have any actual evidence to support your assumptions of Starmer’s prior knowledge. My impression (rightly or wrongly) is that very few people knew about the details of this report whilst it was being compiled.
Do you mean evidence as in, Was Keir Starmer a member of Labour’s top team? Was he a leadership candidate? Was he therefore entitled to know?
That kind of evidence?
What is your point in asking me these silly questions? Trying to find a way for him to squirm out of it? Give us all a break.
Mike – Or in other words (like me) you don’t really know. As far as I’m aware the only information in the public domain is that the report was handed to him shortly after his election.
Because he voted for him. Isn’t that right, SteveH?
Yes I voted for him, along with the majority of the party who participated in the leadership election. I guess that’s how democracy works.
What a mistake to make!
Mike – Time will tell, as far as I’m concerned (and obviously many others) the alternatives on offer were even less inspiring.
In fairness, they weren’t much cop. But you all had to go for the worst, didn’t you?
Don’t try to answer; you’ve already said time will tell. I simply told you what time will tell.
Stammer the spammer will try to hides it away but how can the true labour people’s act on it
If this had happened in sport – a side deliberately fixing the outcome of a game – people would be going to jail. Could you please find out if the same applies here? I feel that this is even more serious than a mere football match, for example. It is about democracy, the governance of a whole country, the fall-outs of which have huge implications for all of us in society. This was deliberate sabotage. It is said to have been engineered from within the LP itself. But is it possible that the other side had a hand in it to ensure that they remain in power? There are so many questions to answer. I think that this is a lot bigger than it is being made out to be.
What upsets me is that Starmer and others want an inquiry into how the report was leaked, rather than an inquiry into the despicable behaviour of some of the people mentioned in it.
kateuk – Surely given the extreme gravity of the revelations that were exposed in this report it would be irresponsible for the leadership to jump in with both feet before they had verified the contents of this report and made sure that all the legal stuff is sound.
I remember Jeremy Corbyn was also repeatedly vilified for emphasising the necessity to gather all the relevant information and verify the facts before acting precipitately.
Would all the contents not have been verified before the report was submitted?
Don’t answer that; I’ll do it for you: yes they would.
That’s very basic housekeeping.
Mike – Given the magnitude of what has been exposed and the seniority of those involved I refer you back to my response to kateuk above.
Bit of a silly, nonsense response, that.
I could say the same if I was being impolite but it obviously wouldn’t make any contribution to resolving our differences on this.
We obviously have differing opinions about this that I doubt will be resolved by us taking snipes at each other so I suggest we call it a day on this particular thread.
#starmermustresign
Why?