Margaret Hodge's ‘Irrelevant Man’ by Les May

IN an article I wrote for NV in February of this year I said:

‘Last year I attended a Labour party supporting discussion group. Everyone who attended was aware that the constant barrage of articles in the press on the squabbling within the Labour party about anti-semitism, was simply serving to distract attention from Labour’s policy proposals. One of the people who attended had first hand experience of the disciplinary procedures within the party because they had been subjected to an investigation. One outcome of this was that they had been told they must not discuss any aspect of the investigation or procedures with third parties. Secret procedures like this seem to me to have all the hallmarks of a ‘Star Chamber’, so after the discussion group wound up I approached the person involved, told them I wrote for NV and asked if they would speak to me if I gave them an assurance that I would ensure that they could not be identified, and a veto on the use any articles I wrote about their experiences.

'We agreed to exchange telephone numbers and e-mail addresses as we lived some distance apart. I said I would contact the person after they returned from holiday. When I did the person said they had had second thoughts because even with my assurances of anonymity and a final veto, they were still scared that they would be ejected from the Labour party if it came to light that they had talked to anyone about what their experiences. It does not seem an exaggeration to say they had been traumatised by their experience.’

As I have no reason to doubt the veracity of what I was told I find it difficult to understand how anyone can claim that allegations of anti-semitism were not taken seriously by the Labour party.

Taken at its face value, the suspension of Jeremy Corbyn suggests that the findings of the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) are being treated by the Labour party as something which cannot be questioned.

This is a dangerous road to travel. The EHRC is not a court. Its findings apply to bodies, not individuals, something which is much easier to ‘prove’ because individuals are protected by the rules of evidence whereby those accused can cross-examine the witness.

By definition ‘unlawful acts of discrimination and harassment’ are against individuals and as the adage goes “where there’s blame, there’s a claim”. In coming months are we going to be treated to the spectacle of Jeremy Corbyn fighting for his political reputation, and in many ways his political legacy, alongside the unedifying sight of individuals suing the Labour party for compensation and citing the EHRC report as evidence?

Figuring out whether Corbyn’s suspension and potential expulsion from the Labour party has an impact on membership won’t be easy due to its complicated support structure of ‘full members’, ‘affiliated supporters’ and ‘registered supporters’. In August 2015, prior to Corbyn’s election to the leadership the Labour Party reported 292,505 full members. In December 2017 this figure had risen to about 552,000 full members making it Britain’s most financially well party at the time. Perhaps Margaret Hodge’s ‘irrelevant man’ won’t prove to be so irrelevant after all.

Today, Saturday, speaking on the BBC News programme ‘Dateline London’ the political presenter Jo Coburn raised the question of whether if, in response to the suspension of Jeremy Corbyn from the Labour party, some unions reduced their financial support, Keir Starmer might be quite happy to see their influence wane. Coburn is asking the wrong question. As I point out in the last paragraph, the number of full members of the Labour party almost doubled in the two years after Corbyn’s election to the leadership. The right question is whether Labour can afford to dispense with the unions and Corbyn at the same time. Corbyn has asked his supporters to stay in the party; they may not feel they any longer have a home there.

****************************************************