The conclusions of the EHCR report into Labour and anti-Semitism were devastating but it now presents Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer with an opportunity, says Ivor Gaber

FOR just a brief few days one topic has knocked coronavirus off the front pages of the newspapers – Labour and anti-Semitism.

Regrettably, it’s a topic that is of particular interest to us here in Brighton and Hove as this issue has dogged local Labour politics for years.

This year alone we have seen councillors suspended, members investigated and even a local Member of Parliament accused of anti-Semitism.

Just why a city like Brighton – a city which prides itself on its tolerance and diversity and which has a large local Jewish community – should be such a hotspot for this virulence is something of a mystery.

Is it because of the presence of one or two key individuals, or is it because Brighton attracts people with alternative views and ways of life and that has included more than its fair share of people with extreme left views who regard the Israel/Palestine conflict as almost more important than any other?

Whatever the explanation it has to be a matter of sadness that the situation has become so toxic that a former Labour leader of the council threatened to ban his own party from holding its annual conference here because of the welter of anti-Semitism it attracted in its wake.

When elected leader of the Labour Party earlier this year Sir Keir Starmer pledged to make ridding the party of anti-Semitism his top priority.

He has reportedly made a start, speeding up the complaints procedure and increasing suspensions and expulsions.

However, in the midst of this the Equalities and Human Rights Commission – an official government watchdog – produced a report at the conclusion of their five-month investigation into whether Labour was institutionally anti-Semitic.

The conclusions were devastating but they did give Starmer the opportunity of making real his obvious desire to indicate that this was not the same party as the one previously led by Jeremy Corbyn, branding the party as being under “New Leadership”.

He instantly accepted the report’s findings, promising to implement their recommendations in full and issuing a full apology to the Jewish community for the hurt they had suffered.

Before making his statement, both Sir Keir and his deputy Angela Rayner (hitherto an ally of Jeremy Corbyn’s) had contacted the former leader and assured him they would not be blaming him personally for what had happened under his watch, as long as he held his own fire about the report.

Whether or not Corbyn actually agreed to this arrangement is not clear but, importantly it was also the advice he was getting from his close allies, including John McDonnell, his former Shadow Chancellor.

But if there was a deal Corbyn didn’t stick to it. Almost inevitably, as soon as the report was published, Labour’s former leader was on the attack, dismissing most of the report’s key findings and, implicitly, exonerating himself from any blame.

He posted his statement on Facebook and within minutes was asked by the leadership to retract it.

He refused and so had his membership of the party suspended, pending a disciplinary hearing.

It is a bizarre and unprecedented situation for the leader of a national political party to suspend his immediate predecessor.

Why did this happen? Was it inevitable? And what does it tell us about the two protagonists?

In Jeremy Corbyn Labour members elected as their leader someone who had voted against the party in arliament on more than 500 occasions – rebelling was in is blood. That was partly why he was so attractive to both the new younger members who joined under his leadership and to the older re-joiners who had left, uncomfortable with Blairism.

Corbyn denouncing the EHRC Report was predictable. As for Starmer, those who know him say he has been waiting for the chance to stamp his authority on the party and this was it.

In recent weeks he has come under increasing criticism for what some, mainly on the left of the party, saw as his failure to capitalise on the government’s mishandling of the pandemic. He was accused of being half-hearted in his condemnations.

The EHRC Report was a golden opportunity to demonstrate that this was a new party with a new leader – and if he lost some of the Corbyn recruits as a result, so be it. Starmer’s taken a big a gamble – it could split the party, but with the next election not scheduled until 2024 it’s a gamble he clearly thought worth taking.

Ivor Gaber is Professor of Political Journalism at the University of Sussex and a former Westminster political correspondent