As UK-based forumites may know, the UK Labour Party ordered a report in the last few months of Jeremy Corbyn's tenure, which intended to investigate the handling of complaints of antisemitism. It was leaked to media outlets in April this year.
Among other conclusions, it states that there was internal hostility to Corbyn's leadership with hampered the party's efforts to tackle antisemitism (this is at odds with the claims of several party whistleblowers). It quotes WhatsApp messages from Labour staffers which seem to indicate that they were working against their own party's success;
The report was intended to be a submission to the EHRC, but was not submitted. Fast-forward, and the new Labour Party leader Keir Starmer has ordered an inquiry (headed by a QC) into the contents of the report, including the claims of internal sabotage. The deadline for submissions to this inquiry was yesterday.
OpenDemocracy has a letter written by one of those who has made a submission, which you can read here. It contains a wealth of additional details of party staffers working against their own party--
* The Offices of the Leader of the Opposition were gutted of their contents, including numerous PCs, before Corbyn and (former Shadow Chancellor) John McDonnell took residence. Setting up these offices was the responsibility of Labour HQ.
* Hiring decisions were frequently blocked by HQ. The Office of the Leader of the Opposition had only about half the staff of (Corbyn's predecessor as Leader of the Opposition) Ed Milliband.
* Party Officials directed to set up social media posts intentionally designed them to be seen only by Corbyn's team, so it would look as if they had done their job but the posts wouldn't go out. This detail has also been mentioned to the Sunday Times;
* Party officials allocated funds during the 2017 election against the direction of the Leadership.
===
Now, the Labour Party's failure in 2019 was pretty big. But in 2017, according to some analyses, Labour could have been as few as <3000 votes away from victory.
So, a few things I want to discuss: How realistic would the prospect of a Labour victory in 2017 have been, if not for such internal sabotage?
And to what extent does this represent an act of fraud perpetrated against their employer?
To add to the above question: the Labour Party is the official Opposition in the UK: laws exist to protect parity of spending between the Government and the Opposition. These are supposed to protect the integrity of the democratic choice that we have. Would you agree that undermining one party (by misdirecting funds or falsifying social media posts) breaks the spirit of these laws? Should it be considered defrauding the donors who provided the money, or defrauding the electorate whose choices are no longer on equal standing?
((NB. the staffers identified in the report, I believe, have all moved on from the Labour Party. There is not much Starmer can do, I suppose, except slap on a lifetime ban. But I feel there needs to be some form of reckoning)).
Among other conclusions, it states that there was internal hostility to Corbyn's leadership with hampered the party's efforts to tackle antisemitism (this is at odds with the claims of several party whistleblowers). It quotes WhatsApp messages from Labour staffers which seem to indicate that they were working against their own party's success;
(A large amount of other messages are available to view here, including Labour's head of political strategy & head of press hoping their party polls badly and celebrating polls that showed Labour doing poorly).Labour Party staffer said:
The report was intended to be a submission to the EHRC, but was not submitted. Fast-forward, and the new Labour Party leader Keir Starmer has ordered an inquiry (headed by a QC) into the contents of the report, including the claims of internal sabotage. The deadline for submissions to this inquiry was yesterday.
OpenDemocracy has a letter written by one of those who has made a submission, which you can read here. It contains a wealth of additional details of party staffers working against their own party--
* The Offices of the Leader of the Opposition were gutted of their contents, including numerous PCs, before Corbyn and (former Shadow Chancellor) John McDonnell took residence. Setting up these offices was the responsibility of Labour HQ.
* Hiring decisions were frequently blocked by HQ. The Office of the Leader of the Opposition had only about half the staff of (Corbyn's predecessor as Leader of the Opposition) Ed Milliband.
* Party Officials directed to set up social media posts intentionally designed them to be seen only by Corbyn's team, so it would look as if they had done their job but the posts wouldn't go out. This detail has also been mentioned to the Sunday Times;
* Local party officials organised events (including one to be attended by McDonnell as a speaker) in remote, hard-to-reach areas in order to suppress turnout.Anonymous Party Official said:
* Party officials allocated funds during the 2017 election against the direction of the Leadership.
===
Now, the Labour Party's failure in 2019 was pretty big. But in 2017, according to some analyses, Labour could have been as few as <3000 votes away from victory.
So, a few things I want to discuss: How realistic would the prospect of a Labour victory in 2017 have been, if not for such internal sabotage?
And to what extent does this represent an act of fraud perpetrated against their employer?
To add to the above question: the Labour Party is the official Opposition in the UK: laws exist to protect parity of spending between the Government and the Opposition. These are supposed to protect the integrity of the democratic choice that we have. Would you agree that undermining one party (by misdirecting funds or falsifying social media posts) breaks the spirit of these laws? Should it be considered defrauding the donors who provided the money, or defrauding the electorate whose choices are no longer on equal standing?
((NB. the staffers identified in the report, I believe, have all moved on from the Labour Party. There is not much Starmer can do, I suppose, except slap on a lifetime ban. But I feel there needs to be some form of reckoning)).
