I do not know why right wingers join the Labour party. Why not just join the Tories and have done with it? Leave the Labour party to unify with the Greens and work to create a decent sustainable place for all to live. Why is it that they want to contaminate the only major party that has the capacity to make things much better?
The Forde Report has revealed to anyone interested what a vile place the Labour party was and is. People that should never be allowed in the party retained and those who should be its life blood removed. Parasites that have taken over the host with the outcome that the host becomes unrecognisable.
It must not be assumed however, that the Labour party has only recently had a problem with discrimination. That would be entirely wrong. Although it has dealt with social change much better than the Tories that does not mean it should be proud. Sexism, racism, homophobia… have sadly been a major problem since the beginning. Trade unions also have not done nearly enough to counter it historically.
In Comrade or Brother? A History of the British Labour Movement, Mary Davis looks at patriarchal divisions as well as imperialism and racism and the ways these have shaped the British working class. In ‘connecting the separate spheres of class, race and gender,’ she highlights how UK trade unions too have had to deal with questions of racism and xenophobia. Reviewing the second edition (Pluto Press, 2009), Ronaldo Munck writes:
The term social imperialism, first coined by Karl Renner in 1917, accurately sums up a system in which the spoils of empire would be used to finance social reform at home. Racism, eugenics and jingoism or national chauvinism united in a potent mix. For Mary Davis this constellation “provided the new unifying antidote to the emerging socialist consciousness of the 1880’s which threatened to expose the possible class conflict of a declining economy” (p.88). Social imperialism continued as a powerful force into the 20th century, and not even all the socialist organizations took an anti-imperialist stance. As to the mainstream labour movement at the very best it was silent on Empire, the partition of Africa was simply never referred to, but much more common was a fervently pro-Empire stance. Notions of the ‘white man’s burden’ were more or less dominant with a racial chauvinism greatly weakening the unifying potential of the trade unions. Overt racial prejudice and an effective colour bar in many areas contributed to high Black worker unemployment, a situation that only changed with the acute labour shortages during the Second World War.
And on the existence of sexism and misogyny Helen O’Connor concludes:
‘If lessons are to be learned and effective action taken to address the serious issues of bullying, sexual harassment and cronyism highlighted in the recently published GMB report it must be recognised these problems exist not just in one union but across the entire labour and trade union movement’.
Racism and sexism are but two examples.
It must not be forgotten though that the Labour party and the trade unions have and are doing great things to confront discrimination. This is though being seriously undermined by allowing the right to continue to hold positions of power and authority.
As the Forde Report reveals the parasites are impacting and influencing and must be removed.
To say that some are annoyed at the Factionalism and the right wing attempts to destroy Labour under Jeremy Corbyn would be an understatement:
Never underestimate the parasites in the Labour party and the corporate media to manipulate those who desire manipulation and undermine democracy:
As usual this is merely the tip of the iceberg. The last words from Ben Sellers and Martin Odoni sum up the culture the right wingers pervaded:
Martin Odoni:
Good afternoon, Mr Forde & panellists
I thank you for your publication of the findings of your investigation into the Labour Party’s culture and conduct.
Referring you to page 50 of your report, I must draw your attention to the section C2.60, where you write; –
The level of allegations of antisemitism and concern of the Jewish communities [NB: WHAT IS MEANT BY ‘JEWISH COMMUNITIES’ IS NOT DEFINED] and interest of the media should have led to a major move by the leadership, the NEC and all sections of the Party to condemn and deal with signs of antisemitism in the Party. Instead there appears to have been an assertion among supporters of Jeremy Corbyn, including on the NEC and amongst the membership, that the issue was being exaggerated to undermine the leader. Whilst there is some evidence that several* complaints submitted did not involve members of the Party and of some double counting, the problem within parts of the Party was clearly of major significance. [Emphasis added.]
*The actual evidence shows that HUNDREDS of the complaints did not involve members of the Party, not ‘several’. This wording is beyond misleading and should never have been used.
You say the matter was “of major significance” – whatever that means? How exactly have you come to this conclusion, and largely to dismiss the concerns about false accusations? What does ‘major significance’ mean in this context? If you mean only that there was a major furore about it in the media that needed cooling off, this appears to be advice on political strategy, which is surely far beyond the panel’s remit? Whereas if you mean there were large numbers of cases and large numbers of members involved, the sentence is even more problematic, as it is couched in what is called “Weasel Words”. This is to say, you do not substantiate the assertion in any way, but just slip it into the text hoping it will go unchallenged.
Indeed – this is what encourages the impression of a witch-hunt among Labour members – you offer NO discussion of the numbers involved at all. Previous reports, such as that offered by the EHRC last year, also failed to offer any mention or insight into the scale of the issue within Labour ranks, apart from using more meaningless, proportion-free weasel words – “the tip of the iceberg,” which without numbers can mean whatever the reader wants it to mean. The relentless evasion of discussion of the real numbers involved has always been the reason why Labour members have objected very strongly to the constant insinuations against them. You have done NOTHING to change this. Your investigation was supposed to be the opportunity to establish once and for all how many people were involved – that is the only way to establish whether Corbyn supporters were right to claim the problem was ‘exaggerated’ – and all you have offered is the, in this context, completely meaningless and un-valued term, “Major significance.”
Worse, you contradict yourselves rather in the very next paragraph when you state, “several on the Right did seize on the issue as a way to attack Corbyn,” which means you accept that the issue was being manipulated and therefore raising the possibility of it being distorted. This surely demands closer investigation to see how much this was affecting the public perception of the problem. But again, you explore this avenue no further.
Incidentally, please do not offer any pretence that you do not have access to the numbers involved. If that were the case, you should have demanded them, but in any event, you make repeated reference throughout to the ‘Leaked Report’ of April 2020, and the numbers involved were in the appendix of that document – a trifling 56 people in a party of nearly 600,000. Why do you not make any mention of these figures? Why do you not make any attempt to cross-analyse the numbers and make certain of their accuracy, or to establish their inaccuracy, as the case may be? And above all, why do you not draw any attention to how small the proportion was in comparison with the party membership’s overall size? Antisemitism in the Labour Party during Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership was proportionally lower, far lower, than in most other political parties, and yet the media were ONLY focusing on the problem in Labour.
Surely you must see that the omission of numbers is a gigantic flaw in your research at the most fundamental level, and therefore makes your report a failure at best, a whitewash at worst?
Could you also explain your complete failure to investigate – even to show any detectable curiosity about – why such a large proportion of the Labour members being expelled for antisemitism were and are Jewish? Approximately one-quarter of those suspended are understood to be Jewish – ALL of them on the left of the party (which is another detail that adds to the suspicions) – and surely such a phenomenon is at least counter-intuitive enough to be grounds for analysis? Again, I can see you making absolutely no mention of this in your report, implying lazy disinterest at best, which, again, means that if you are accused of attempting a whitewash of the behaviour of the Labour Right, you have no one to blame but yourselves.
And could you please offer more clarity on whom you mean by ‘Jewish communities’? Are you actually talking about Jewish members of the public? Or are you assuming that Zionist groups like the Board of Jewish Deputies, and the Campaign Against AntiSemitism, proportionally speak on behalf of Jewish Britons? Because they do not. The BoD only represents about 30% of UK Jews, and the CAA personnel represent no one except themselves.
My conclusion of this report you have published is that it is the result of negligent investigation, and at an extraordinarily basic level. NOT ACTUALLY INCLUDING THE FIGURES is an astonishing oversight that would result in its rejection by any academic institution.
In anticipation of your detailed and prompt reply.
Kind regards
Martin Odoni, a Jewish former member of the Labour Party
POSTSCRIPT:
I await a response to the above, but that is fine as I only submitted it about an hour or so ago at the time of writing. There are plenty of other objections to Mr Forde’s standard of investigation. His repeated use of the term ‘Far Left’ to describe Jeremy Corbyn and his supporters throughout the report raises severe concerns about his impartiality. There is considerable lazy “both-sidesing” of the factional dispute between 2015 and 2019, with no clear attempt in various situations to establish which faction initiated the problems. Too many acts of destructive and vindictive cynicism by right wing officials are described as “misunderstandings” without providing enough real indicators to that effect.
The report also fails at every level to acknowledge that Corbyn had a democratic mandate and the right wing faction of the party did not, therefore mention that “both sides” were aggressive towards each other is somewhat irrelevant; the left had a democratic right to take action against any group obstructing the pursuit of policies that had been mandated. The right wing had no right to obstruct in the first place, as the democratic majority were overwhelmingly in favour of the policies.
However, overall, the report is far more damning of the right of the Labour Party than it is of the left, and it does accept that anti-Semitism accusations were being exploited by the right. It also quietly admits, on page 52, section C2.67, that individuals in the Labour Party were “unfairly maligned” in the anti-Semitism furore. That is a significant first step towards formalising the reality of the Labour anti-Semitism scam.
There is still a feeling at the end though that the whole investigation is something of a bucket of white paint.
Now that we know, the Labour party must get rid of every single individual who was racist, sexist, homophobic…, acted in bad faith against Jeremy Corbyn or any of his supporters and who actively engaged in undermining UK democracy. If not then we must unite and stick them in the High Court until they do.
Jason Cridland
If you prefer demanding content that turns the apple cart upside down please SUBSCRIBE to our Youtube channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCQ1Ll1ylCg8U19AhNl-NoTg
and please support us where you can: Award Winning Independent Citizen Media Needs Your Help. PLEASE SUPPORT US FOR JUST £2 A MONTH https://dorseteye.com/donate/
