Starmer Brings Labour Party Into Disrepute

Keir Starmer has brought the Labour Party into disrepute, and should be held accountable to the party and, immediately, its disciplinary bodies. He is acting like a dictator, both in his support for the authoritarian policies being pursued by the Tories, his support for authoritarian measures in relation to the internet, and free speech generally, and now via his disregard for the party's own internal mechanisms, by refusing to accept the decision of the NEC's disciplinary panel to reinstate Jeremy Corbyn, and so refusing to restore the whip to him. These are the actions of a Bonapartist, who sees himself above the party and its democracy. He, thereby, brings the party into disrepute, and should be subject to disciplinary action as a consequence. 

Starmer is a tool of the Right who seek to take back control of the party from its membership, and to make it once again a willing tool of big capital. That is what Starmer has shown by his removal of progressive social-democrats from his Shadow Cabinet and the promotion of openly pro-Capitalist MP's, whose politics would make them more at home in the Liberal Party than the Labour Party. The suspension of Corbyn was clearly a provocation of the Left designed to provoke a response that would open the door to large scale further suspensions and expulsions, similar to those undertaken by Kinnock during the 1980's. Already we have seen CLP officers suspended for allowing their parties to discuss the EHRC Report, and Corbyn's suspension, and for passing motions calling for him to be reinstated. 

There was no basis in anything contained in the EHRC Report, or in Corbyn's response to it, that justified his suspension. The suspension certainly could not be justified on the basis of anti-Semitism itself, and so instead was justified on the grounds of bringing the party into disrepute. But, how? Corbyn, in fact, in his response, said nothing that was not already contained in the EHRC Report. A look at the Report's findings, even on the most generous of interpretations, finds that the actual instances of “anti-Semitism” were tiny compared to the size of the party membership.

In other words, contrary to the claims of Labour's enemies, inside and outside the party, the charge of institutional or rampant anti-Semitism could not be justified. Those that made those claims, and continue to make those claims are Labour's enemies, and certainly Corbyn's enemies, and so, whatever truth there may be in respect of any particular instance of anti-Semitism, it is clear that overall, this claim about institutionalised or rampant anti-Semitism, was itself being used for political purposes to attack Labour in general, and Corbyn in particular. Those that elide that fact are being either duplicitous, or else are being used as useful idiots, as a result of their own blind spot, when it comes to the way the charge of anti-Semitism is used as a weapon against political enemies. That Starmer has himself failed to identify that from the EHRC Report, and to hold those responsible for using anti-Semitism as a political weapon accountable, makes Starmer himself complicit in those unwarranted slurs against Labour. 

And, as Jewdas point out in their Open Letter to Starmer this is illustrated by the fact that the charges of anti-Semitism are used very selectively. They point to the comment by Barry Sheerman for example, who wrote, 

“Apparently there has been a bit of a run on silver shekels!” 

This was in relation to two Jewish businessmen left off the Lords list of that year. 

They give other clear examples. 

“Luke Pollard MP successfully initiated a campaign to erect a statue to a self-professed antisemite, namely Nancy Astor, for her contributions to women’s rights. Mr Pollard then refused to apologise when confronted with Astor’s record of hideous antisemitism. Given your principled actions thus far, we trust you will agree that Astor’s support for the Nazi Party and her description of Jews as a “world problem” make Mr Pollard’s statue campaign entirely unacceptable for a Labour MP. 

Rachel Reeves MP tweeted public praise for Nancy Astor with regards to the planned statue. Ms Reeves refused to retract her tweets or apologise when confronted with Astor’s antisemitism, in particular her claim that Hitler would have to do more than “give a rough time…to the killers of Christ” before Britain should risk war.” 

But, it appears, not only is Labour not proposing any disciplinary action against these MP's for their clearly anti-Semitic tropes, but Starmer has not even replied to these Jewish Labour members. Rather Starmer appears more concerned to assuage the concerns of known Tories and appeasers of anti-Semitism, amongst the ranks of the Board of Jewish Deputies, the Jewish Chronicle and so on. Its amongst those organisations, after all, that has seen some of their leaders welcoming the election of Trump, and of the anti-Semite Orban in Hungary. 

It is a long-standing principle of the labour movement that we do not accept the right of the bourgeoisie, or its state, to interfere with the inner workings of our movement. The cooperation with the EHRC was a clear violation of that principle. Why on Earth would any sensible person believe that our class enemies and their institutions would be impartial when it comes to any such intervention. Their whole aim is to undermine and destroy us. In fact, the EHRC, no doubt much to the chagrin of Starmer and the Starmer-rights, did not actually do that in respect of its finding in respect of Corbyn, or Labour in general. Even more to the Starmer-rights disdain, Labour's disciplinary committee, despite its right-wing majority, could find no grounds to support Corbyn's suspension, and so rescinded it. 

That, of course, is not enough for the Starmer-rights, and so Starmer has ignored the decision of the party's disciplinary body, and NEC, and acted like the Bonapartist he now clearly is, and has simply refused to restore the whip to Corbyn. In part, Starmer's action can be seen as responding to the bourgeois pressure from outside, but, in the main, it is simply a reflection of his own Bonapartist authoritarian tendencies. The NEC did not give Starmer the decision he wanted, so he ignores it, and now clearly seeks to wait until a tame bourgeois “independent” complaints procedure can be set up, to ensure that no decisions can be made in future that challenge the predominance of the bourgeoisie within the party, and will give him the result he wants. They realised that they made a mistake by introducing OMOV, and greater democracy that allowed Corbyn on to the ballot. They have no intention of making the same mistake again. 

In part, the Starmer-rights themselves admit that what they are doing is allowing the bourgeoisie and its Tory representatives to dictate to Labour. All of the argument is framed in terms of what the Board of Deputies, the Jewish Chronicle and other Jewish Tory organisations have to say, whilst ignoring the views of Jewish socialists. That is to give these Tory organisations a veto on Labour policies and statements that would never be given to anyone else, solely on the basis of them being Jewish. It is a clear example of “anti-Semitism” itself, because it treats these Jewish organisations differently to say, Catholic or Muslim organisations. It is a blatant form of exceptionalism. 

Often this exceptionalism is framed in crude, opportunist, electoral terms of the effect on the Jewish vote. Yet, even on this crude measure, the capitulation to Jewish Tories, makes no sense. Trying to subordinate yourself to Jewish Tories is not going to win the votes of those Jewish Tory organisations, or even of Jewish voters, who for a very long time now, have been committed Tories. It was once the case that Jews who escaped the pogroms of Eastern Europe, towards the end of the 19th century, joined in émigré socialist organisation. But, that is a century ago, and things have moved on considerably since then. Long before Jeremy Corbyn, around 75% of British Jews voted Conservative. 

In his book "The Jewish Vote" Geoffrey Alderman writes, 

"After 1945 an upwardly mobile but still working‐class Jewish electorate became disenchanted with the Labour Party. Conservative politicians were quick to exploit this alienation. In the 1960s and 1970s Jewish voters became substantially middle class and also substantially Conservative in outlook."

By the 1980's, the majority of Jewish voters voted Tory. And, the majority grew larger and larger into the 1990's, long before Corbyn or even Miliband. The main motivation seems to be politico-economic, as they opposed the social-democratic agenda of Labour, even in its conservative manifestation under Blair. 

That, of course, was the real objection of all those right-wing Labourites to Corbyn, and for whom anti-Semitism was a convenient whip to beat him with to cover their real agenda, whatever longer term damaging consequences for fighting actual anti-Semitism that might have. 

In 2015, a survey of British Jews showed that 69% intended to vote Tory, with only 22% saying they would vote Labour. 

Starmer, seems set on ensuring that Labour is returned to the right-wing politics at least of Blair, but even that will not be enough for those Tory Jewish organisations, who seek to destroy Labour itself, in the same way they have sought to destroy the Democrats in the US, and who have lined up behind the anti-Semite Trump. That in itself shows that the real issue, here, is not about anti-Semitism. It is about two basic issues – class politics, and nationalism. The Democrats, like Labour are the party of big socialised capital, whereas the Tories, like the Republicans, are the party of the petty-bourgeoisie, of the small capitalist. It is in that category that a large part of the Jewish population in the US and UK/Europe, now falls. A similar thing can be seen in Britain with the growth of the British-Indian bourgeoisie. 

The 2001 UK Census showed that 30.5% of economically active Jews were self-employed, compared to a figure of 14.2% for the general population. Jews aged 16–24 were less likely to be economically active than their counterparts in the general population; 89.2% of these were students. In a 2010 study, average income per working adult was £15.44 an hour. Median income and wealth were significantly higher than other religious groups. 

But, in addition to that, is the question of nationalism, and specifically Zionism. A large proportion of the Jewish émigré population has always associated with Israel, for fairly obvious reasons. In the same way that left anti-Semitism arises because hostility to Zionism, and the actions of the Israeli state can flow over, so too the opposite occurs, where concern to oppose anti-Semitism, or, for Jewish people, a desire to defend Israel from the attacks upon it, flows over into a justification of Zionism, and its reactionary nationalist and colonialist ideology, which inevitably finds expression in the expansionist and racist policies of the Israeli state. 

In the US, that has caused an increasing schism, as US Jews have found themselves unable to continue to justify the actions of the Israeli State, which do flow inexorably from the reactionary nature of Zionism. Yet, the bourgeois organisations of the Jewish community, in the US, have continued to try to maintain that link, especially attempting to, thereby, line up with Trump, whose own reactionary nationalist ideology chimes with Zionism, and whose Bonapartist and authoritarian politics ties in closely with those of the Bonapartist Netanyahu. It is no coincidence that all of these figures such as Putin, Netanyahu, Trump, Johnson, Orban, Erdogan all sing from the same hymn sheet, and pat each other's backs. 

And, the same process is happening in Britain, but not yet as developed. The old Tory organisations of the Jewish community also continue to push that Zionism, and uncritical support for Israel, meaning that anything less from any politician is inadequate, whilst younger Jews have distanced themselves from it.  Again, it is nonsensical to say that claims that the Israeli state itself interferes in these processes is conspiracy theory, or part of some anti-Semitic trope.  Every state interferes in this way.  That is the job of the state, and there is plenty of documented evidence of how the Israeli state does undertake such interference.  To suggest that it doesn't or shouldn't is again an example anti-Semitism, of exceptionalism, of suggesting that the Israeli state is somehow different to every other state on the planet!  The links between the Israeli State and BICOM for example, are fairly open for everyone to see, just as the links between BICOM and the JLM are open for every one to see.  There is no conspiracy theory, here, when everyone can see the links in plain sight!

When people can see the links between the old USSR, and the Morning Star and CPB, or of Putin's Russia with various groups in the West that parrot Moscow's line, it is rather odd that, when the even more open links between the Israeli state and pro-Israel groups in the West are there for all to see, they somehow become conspiracy theories!

In May 2018, the community was described by one of its most prominent figures, Rabbi Laura Janner-Klausner, as being “on the path to self-destruction” due to divisions over how to respond to conflict in Israel. 

The use of anti-Semitism as a weapon against the Left, then, is not just a matter of a reflection of pure class interest. The Labour Right, along with the Tory media will use any weapon to undermine Labour, and particularly its progressive wing. They did not settle on anti-Semitism to begin with, and for good reason, because its a double edged sword. The Tories are clearly more anti-Semitic than Labour, and particularly the Left of Labour. It was, after all the Tories, like Winston Churchill, who welcomed the coming to power of Mussolini in Italy, and Hitler in Germany. To begin with they tried to use charges of bullying and violence against the Left, but that lacked traction. Only later did they settle on anti-Semitism as their weapon of choice. Then they used it in scatter gun approach, with Owen Smith prominently accusing the pro-Zionist AWL of being anti-Semitic, during his leadership bid, for example.  But, Labour has other enemies, represented by the proponents of Zionism. For them, its not Labour's progressive social-democratic politics that are the problem, but its failure to be totally uncritical cheerleaders of the Israeli state. That is why such elements can equally be hostile to the tame social-democracy of Biden and the Democrats. 

The problem for the Left in the UK and US, is that these two forces are combined, for convenience under the rubric of opposition to anti-Semitism, as a means of opposing progressive social-democracy.