Before becoming leader of the Labour party in September 2015, Jeremy Corbyn will have anticipated a fractious experience ahead. Labour leaders have almost always presided over party divisions, many of which have spilled over into crisis. For Corbyn, who swept to victory on the back of overwhelming support of the party membership despite unprecedented hostility from his backbenches, division was all the more likely.
Such expectations proved accurate, especially in relation to allegations of antisemitism that plagued Corbyn’s tenure as leader. Corbyn’s critics lamented his reluctance to acknowledge the problem existed, his dithering response once he did, and propensity to inflame the matter further. Corbyn’s supporters, on the other hand, adhered to his view that the scale of the problem was being exaggerated for factional reasons. For them, any blame for the delays in dealing with antisemitism lay with the supposedly Blairite-controlled Governance and Legal Unit (GLU).
Since succeeding Corbyn as leader, Keir Starmer has been praised for moving quickly to eradicate antisemitism. Starmer removed the whip from Corbyn for implying that accusations of antisemitism were factionally motivated, sacked shadow minister Rebecca Long-Bailey for sharing an article containing an antisemitic conspiracy theory, and implemented a new independent complaints system equipped to handle sensitive cases. However, Starmer’s detractors suggest he has used antisemitism as cover for a ruthless purge of Corbynism and operates a “strange amnesty” when dealing with allegations of other forms of prejudice, such as towards Muslims and people of colour.
This latter criticism has become harder to bat off given recent reports that black Labour MPs are “losing faith” in the leadership’s commitment to dealing with anti- black racism. Now Starmer is the one being accused of dithering over implementing the recommendations of an investigation that found “serious problems of discrimination” in the party.
Inquiries in the Labour party
Labour has, at this point, been subject to five investigations and inquiries concerning antisemitism and discrimination. The Chakrabarti inquiry was established by Corbyn following the suspension of Labour MP Naz Shah and former London Mayor Ken Livingstone for antisemitic comments. The Royall Report was commissioned to investigate alleged antisemitism within Oxford University Labour Club. In 2019, the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) launched an investigation into the party following numerous complaints of antisemitism. Then, some Labour party staff compiled their own dossier documenting the work of the GLU in relation to antisemitism. This has been intended as a submission to the EHRC investigation but was leaked in April 2020.
Finally, Labour’s National Executive Committee established the Forde inquiry to investigate the contents of this leaked dossier. It is this report that opened up the conversation about concerns that attempts to deal with antisemitism were overshadowing discussions about other forms of racism.
Despite this recent explosion, internal party inquiries are a rare occurrence. The Labour party’s most recent significant internal inquiry was a 1986 investigation into the influence of Militant Tendency in Liverpool. Far more common are public inquiries, which are “part and parcel of public life” and investigate matters of public concern. This begs the question, why has a tool typically used to deal with public matters outside of political parties featured so prominently in Labour’s antisemitism crisis?
Why are inquiries used by political elites?
Public inquiries are an essential part of crisis management. Ostensibly, inquiries establish the facts, make recommendations and deliver accountability. However, they also occur during high-stakes moments and deal with matters which pose a serious threat to the political futures of those involved. In these moments of political survival, what political scientist Jim Bulpitt called “crude, subsistence-level objectives” take precedence over substantive attempts to address the issue at hand. In Bulpitt’s famous “statecraft interpretation”, self-interested political leaders must cultivate an image of competence to maintain power and at the same time manage competing factions in the party to fend off political rivals.
Hiving a scandal off to a purportedly apolitical body allows besieged political elites to achieve an image of competence by demonstrating an apparent commitment to accountability. An inquiry enjoys and aura of authority and at the same time closes the space for contestation by removing whatever issue is being investigated from the political arena.
This can also be true of internal inquiries. Just as national level scandals pose severe risks to national political leaders, internal party scandals pose severe risks to the political futures of party leaders and jeopardise their ability to achieve an aura of competence in the eyes of voters. In Labour’s case, this process comes with the added challenge of needing to manage the conflicting political traditions within its ranks.
These dynamics are crucial to understanding how both Corbyn and Starmer have responded to complaints of discrimination and accusations of failing to act on any number of recommendations for change. When political survival is on the line, leaders and their allies will continue to take a “factional view”, even on the most divisive issues.
For Corbyn, allegations of antisemitism represented a threat to the pursuit of successful statecraft and was, as such, responded to in a strategic way. Starmer’s response to the scandal, meanwhile, aims to demonstrate his competence by illustrating a decisiveness that Corbyn lacked, and by demarcating himself from the Corbynite left.
Corbyn, Starmer and the management of inquiries
The toxic atmosphere that pervaded under Corbyn has been well documented. Dissenting MPs passed a motion of no confidence in their leader and party staff were “ill-disposed and often uncooperative” with Corbyn’s team and the wider left. Considering this context, it was explicable for Corbyn to deflect blame onto his internal opponents and downplay the extent of antisemitism to retain control of the party and reassure the public.
The Chakrabarti inquiry and the leaked dossier are part of this picture. The inquiry, led by a Corbyn ally, stressed that Labour was “not overrun by antisemitism, Islamophobia or other forms of racism”. It did mention the “occasionally toxic atmosphere” within the party and recommended changes to procedures which predate Corbyn’s leadership.
The leaked dossier, meanwhile, offset blame for the delayed handling of antisemitism complaints to anti-Corbyn staff in the GLU, distancing the leader from responsibility. The inquiries were therefore used to preserve Corbyn’s authority, successfully manage internal party conflict, and present an image of competence regarding the handling of a sensitive issue.
Starmer’s emphasis on turning the page is also motivated by these subsistence-level objectives. Starmer has styled himself as a decisive leader and distanced himself from Corbyn, who is seen as culpable for the antisemitism crisis by large swathes of the public.
Starmer’s response to the EHRC report focused on “serious failings in leadership”, the implication being not his leadership. Corbyn, in contrast, praised the report for highlighting that Labour’s handling of complaints had not been “fit for purpose” before he became leader and emphasised that reform during his tenure had been “stalled by an obstructive party bureaucracy”.
Starmer has also been quick to pounce on the EHRC’s announcement that it is no longer monitoring the Labour party, stressing that he has “permanently, irrevocably, fundamentally” moved Labour on from Corbyn’s inwards looking “party of protest”.
Thus, because of the highly politicised, factional context that Labour’s antisemitism scandal has erupted within, both Starmer and Corbyn carefully select which findings from the litany of inquiries to focus on in order to suit their own interests. Meanwhile, the substantive problems around antisemitism and other forms of racism do not get addressed.
The Forde report
The report from the inquiry led by barrister Martin Forde has been less comfortable terrain for Starmer. It was commissioned with an initial deadline of July 2020 but was repeatedly delayed because of concerns it might prejudice a parallel investigation. Owing to the fact that the leaked report contained evidence of racist abuse targeted at black MPs by staff in the GLU, nine black Labour MPs criticised the delays for further “doubling down on the impression that the party does not take anti-black racism seriously”.
When the report was finally published in July 2022, it provided evidence of discriminatory views against people of colour by senior party staff, and found that the importance attached to antisemitism cases “in the interfactional conflict meant that the party was in effect operating a hierarchy of racism or of discrimination with other forms of racism and discrimination being ignored”. A litany of evidence was provided to show that factionalism worked both ways, leading the report to conclude:
the whole situation rapidly deteriorated as several on the Right did seize on the issue as a way to attack Corbyn and several on the Left adopted a position of denialism and conspiracy theories.
Starmer again framed these findings as relating to a time before he came to office, arguing that the “focus of the report was 2014–19 and deflecting questions onto Corbyn.
Martin Forde has since voiced concerns that Starmer and his staff have effectively ignored the report’s recommendations. He warned it is not "a sufficient response to say that was then, this is now”. In response, the party retorted that Starmer has implemented many of Forde’s recommendations and led the drive to rid “the party of the destructive factionalism … that did so much damage previously”.
Political elites will always manage crises with their political legitimacy and survival in mind. The establishment of investigations and inquiries, and official responses to them, are therefore intertwined with the political interests of the actors involved. Acknowledging this sheds light on Corbyn and Starmer’s response to the antisemitism crisis and accusations of racism. It explains why both issues remain entangled in factionalism. The uncomfortable conclusion, then, is that even issues of racism and discrimination will be dealt with in ways that maximise the political advantage of political elites, no matter how sincere their motivations may be.