By Nathon Cowley
Edited by Ollie Lycett
Hard lessons to learn for all as Forde finds no innocent parties, but some are more guilty
than others in internal Party reckoning.
Established on the 1st of May 2020, the inquiry, led by Martin Forde QC, was implemented to undertake an independent investigation into the circumstances and contents of the leaked document “The work of the Labour Party’s Governance and Legal Unit in relation to antisemitism, 2014-2019”, more widely known as the Labour Leaks Report.
This article will aim to summarise the findings of Forde’s 138-page report in a more digestible way, with context and conclusions.
The Leaked Report
The Leaked Report, which was an 860-page document consisting of direct material evidence concerning the conduct of party personnel during Corbyn’s leadership, was initially intended to be an annex of the Party’s proposed submission to the Equalities and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) for the ongoing investigation into antisemitism within the Party. Forde states that “although it started life as an analysis of the handling of specific antisemitism cases” it quickly became “a wide-ranging critique of the factional attitude of senior professional party staff and in HQ to the Jeremy Corbyn leadership and to the Left faction that supported Jeremy Corbyn”.
The leaked document appeared to include evidence that opponents of the Corbyn leadership inhibited the former leader’s attempts to root out the scourge of antisemitism and expose evidence of attempts by his opponents within the Party to subvert the 2017 general election campaign by directing campaign funds away from intended targets.
Speaking early in the report about the leaked document, Forde says “most controversially, the authors reproduced the transcripts of WhatsApp messages which revealed shocking and wholly inappropriate attitudes amongst very senior officials”.
The report continues to state, “it has been put to us by a number of witnesses that the extracts of the messages quoted in the Leaked Report were cherrypicked and selectively edited, such that the quotes that appear in the Leaked Report are both unrepresentative and misleading.” Before stating that after reviewing transcripts, they “do not agree”, finding that the Senior Management Team WhatsApp group reveals “deplorably factional and insensitive, and at times discriminatory, attitudes expressed by many of the party’s senior staff”.
When referring to the authors of the leaked document, Forde claims that they were “left to compile the Leaked Report with seemingly little supervision from more senior staff”. He also states that the report's primary author “was not firmly embedded in either faction” and states that they were “far from unequivocally supportive of Jeremy Corbyn”.
Overall, Forde comes to the conclusion that the Leaked Report’s authors did not “embark on the task with a preconceived narrative or reverse engineered the evidence to fit it”.
Forde’s Foreword and Introduction
Forde recounts how following the confirmation of his appointment by the NEC, he “started to receive emails from some of those named in the Leaked Report” with lawyers’ letters threatening him and other Panel members with “great legal action” if they examined data referred to in it.
As his inquiry began, Forde began to hear “disturbing allegations of unacceptable treatment, much of which was factionally motivated”. He also states that WhatsApp messages to which the inquiry was given access show “real antipathy towards LOTO” (the Leader of the Opposition’s team) by Labour Party HQ staff following Jeremy Corbyn’s landslide victory in the 2015 leadership election and that the “feeling was mutual”.
Forde claims that his report “thoroughly disproves any suggestion that antisemitism is not a problem within the Labour Party”, a claim acknowledged and accepted by many across the political spectrum, including Jeremy Corbyn in his response to the EHRC report in October 2020. It is only the most militant of Corbyn’s supporters that deny the issue of antisemitism in the Labour Party completely. However, Forde also acknowledges that some Labour Party staff opposed to Corbyn’s leadership took advantage of the very real issue of antisemitism “as a means of attacking him”.
When examining issues of discrimination, Forde also found that “evidence pointed to a perception that some protected characteristics were regarded by the Party more highly than others. Equally, this meant that some were less highly regarded”. Forde refers to this shocking occurrence as a “hierarchy of racism and discrimination” in how the Labour Party dealt with complaints.
Forde finally goes on to commend the Party for its “efforts more recently to achieve a greater degree of independence in its system of regulation” as well as acknowledging that “further improvements are still required.”
Significant Allegations
The Forde Report details six “main allegations” made in the Leaked Report. Which are then explored by the inquiry in greater detail. Four of the six allegations will be discussed in this article.
Allegation 1: There was an unusual intensity of factionalism during the period 2015-2019, evidenced and/or exacerbated by attitudes and conduct of senior staff and their relationship with the elected leadership
Forde highlights how “Corbyn’s election marked the first time that the leader was seen as so out of step with the predominant political view of most of the permanent staff. This meant that the conflict reached a level of intensity not previously seen”, going on to explain how “the toxic atmosphere within the Party in this period was compounded by an antagonistic relationship between HQ and LOTO”. Forde claims that this was “exacerbated by the confusion and entanglement of their respective roles, some of which predated the Corbyn era”. However, as the report continues, it details how much of this confusion and entanglement occurred during Corbyn’s leadership and was often both a cause and a result of mutual factional distrust.
With the leadership and party staff so at odds, “a small minority of HQ staff, including some senior staff, were from the start unwilling to accommodate or proactively assist LOTO.” Despite this, it appears there were some efforts between the two camps to cooperate with each other and ease tensions, but this remained unsuccessful and the situation deteriorated over time, with Forde claiming that “many have lost sight of the humanity of those who they see as being in an opposing faction”.
Allegation 2: Factionalism adversely impacted on the handling of antisemitism complaints in the relevant period
Forde states that the inquiry saw “no evidence that claims of antisemitism were fabricated… or improperly pursued by the complaints team”, however, does add that “claims about antisemitism that were made public did not in fact concern members of the Party”.
When discussing the role of the leader and his allies, Forde details how there was not a “systematic attempt by the elected leadership or LOTO to interfere unbidden in order to undermine the Party’s response to allegations of antisemitism”. Forde maintains that “the problem was principally a lack of clarity (on both sides) about how involved LOTO should be”.
The report dismisses claims that LOTO staff “aggressively imposed” themselves on the disciplinary process, and instead, Forde emphasises how “LOTO’s involvement in disciplinary cases followed an enthusiastic invitation from the GLU” (the GLU being the Governance & Legal Unit). Forde later asserts that he “saw no documentary evidence of an organised or premeditated power grab by LOTO”, claiming that contrarily “there is some evidence to show that LOTO staff resisted invitations to expand their involvement”.
Forde’s report agrees with the EHRC that there was not a “systematic attempt by LOTO to hinder the Party’s response to antisemitism complaints”, however it also addresses “denialism” among supporters of Corbyn as well as acknowledging that “several on the Right did seize the issue as a way to attack Corbyn”, showing that the issue of antisemitism was treated by some opponents of Jeremy Corbyn as a stick to beat him with rather than showing real concern for those facing abuse.
In spite of this, the inquiry references GLU staff, claiming that they “determined” to tackle antisemitism but were “hindered from taking decisive action by LOTO staff” and “political pressure… combined with outright political interference from individual NEC members.”
One LOTO staff member said they “had not the faintest idea” of who any of the complaints were about, claiming “none of them were friends of mine, none of them were associated to Jeremy Corbyn in any way… this picture was painted that we were protecting friends of Corbyn, but I didn’t know any of those people, I didn’t have any loyalty to them in any way”.
Therefore, Forde concluded that LOTO did not interfere in the disciplinary process “unbidden”. Forde is also critical of media portrayals of LOTO staff, such as the BBC Panorama episode ‘Is Labour antisemitic’ from 2019, with the report stating “that the narrative put forward… was partial and misleading.”
The inquiry also addresses the so-called “validation” exercises prior to the 2015 and 2016 leadership elections, done by HQ staff to decide whether new members who have been flagged should be eligible to vote in the leadership election or if they should have their membership application rejected.
Forde draws attention to what he calls “questionable” rejections of applications, and “wholly inadequate” rejections, where applicants who had in one case been found guilty of “retweeting Green Party material” were denied membership. The report states that it can see “no legitimate non-factional reasons why the search tool was apparently designed only to catch abuse aimed at MPs on the centre and Right of the Party, and to ignore the majority of abuse aimed at MPs on the Left (including Jeremy Corbyn)”.
Forde continues “the intention and effect of both validation exercises was to remove ballots from individuals who would otherwise have voted for Jeremy Corbyn.” This denotes how HQ staff sought to use internal party mechanics to undermine the electoral chances of Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership campaigns on two occasions without adequate justification.
Allegation 4: The Party’s results in the 2017 general election were either (i) undermined by factionalism or (ii) deliberately sabotaged by one faction
With Theresa May’s Conservatives having a 20 point lead in the polls when the 2017 snap election was called, Labour HQ and LOTO agreed on a largely defensive campaign approach, with LOTO pursuing a “graduated strategy” whereby the Party would become more offensive in the campaign “as resource availability and polling allowed”.
However, some HQ staff went against the strategy that LOTO and HQ had agreed to pursue in terms of resources and targeted seats. In what has become known as the “Ergon House Operation”, HQ staff diverted £135,000 away from the agreed targets and towards “campaigns supportive of sitting largely anti-Corbyn MPs and not campaigns for pro-Corbyn candidates” in “potentially winnable seats”. Those involved in the Ergon House Operation were told to “never speak of it, in hope the leadership would never find out”.
To conclude, Forde states that “the individuals who… were offered additional support from Ergon House were not drawn from a poll including every MP. In the main, they were to the Right… of the Party, and none of them were supporters of Jeremy Corbyn.” Forde concludes by saying opposition to Corbyn was “necessary” for inclusion.
The section finishes by saying “it was unequivocally wrong for HQ staff to pursue an alternative strategy covertly”. This highlights how staff in Labour HQ opposed to Corbyn undermined the party’s electoral strategy and, in an election of such fine margins as 2017, could have been the difference between a Labour and Conservative government according to Corbyn’s former Deputy Director of Strategy & Communications Steve Howell.
Allegation 6: A racist, sexist and otherwise discriminatory culture exists in Party workplaces
The report begins by stating there was undoubtedly “overt and underlying racism and sexism apparent in some of the content of the WhatsApp messages between the Party’s most senior staff” which were shown or referenced in the Leaked Report.
Forde details how “a significant number of replies to our Call to Evidence … [were] often complaints in part about the failure of Party officials at regional and national level to take such problems seriously”.
When media coverage surrounding the topic of antisemitism within the Party was at its peak, “attention to the surge of cases relating to antisemitism and the importance they appeared to play in the interfactional conflict meant that the Party was in effect operating a hierarchy of racism or discrimination with other forms of racism and discrimination being ignored”. This shows a clear lack of preparedness in the party to deal with complaints, with many staff feeling that “specific problems were only dealt with when it was politically expedient and/or essential to do so,” showing that Labour has not moved on from these problems since Starmer replaced Corbyn, it is just that less attention has been paid to them.
Several extracts from the Senior Management Team (SMT) WhatsApp transcripts have been cited as evidence of discriminatory views being held by senior management. The report cites the following as the “most significant”:
“Comments that Diane Abbott ‘literally makes me sick’, is ‘truly repulsive’ and is a ‘very angry woman’;
Discussions about the attire of junior female staff, in which one is said to be ‘wearing a see through, flesh coloured, skin tight top and no bra’; ‘You’d think with all that money she could afford to buy a jacket and a bra’; and
Descriptions of Karie Murphy as a ‘crazy woman’ and ‘bitch face cow’, as well as comments about her physical appearance”
The report itself states that they “agree with Diane Abbott’s own comments that: ‘None of this narrative was ever challenged in the WhatsApp groups which leads to the conclusion that the remarks in the report were not outliers but represented the general tone of conversation amongst senior Labour Party staff about me and other black elected members. And it is worth noting that not a single member of the Senior Management Team or the Labour Party Forward Planning group was black’”.
Additionally, the report refers to comments about Karie Murphy and junior female staff as “straightforwardly sexist”.
Of 68 submissions to the inquiry from current or former party staff, 45 said they had either experienced or witnessed discriminatory behaviour in Party workplaces during their time as employees. Additionally, in a June 2020 survey from GMB, 54% of respondents reported encountering discrimination while working for the party.
Describing the attitudes of the staff towards discrimination, the report said: “there seems to be a tendency among Party staff to believe that they are insulated from the ills of their society - the same dynamic which was, in our view, behind the failure of the elected leadership to countenance that (as lifelong antiracists) they could be behaving in a way which perpetuates antisemitism”.
One submission from a female junior staffer said: “the Labour Party is not a safe space for women, in fact - I would go as far as saying it is a dangerous place and young women are at risk of being exploited, overlooked and assaulted”. It illustrates the work that must be done by the Party to recover from these horrific events, and redeem itself in the eyes of the communities and groups it has failed.
This shows the clear failure of the Labour Party to eradicate the evils of discrimination that can be seen from the revelations in this report, with the SMT from HQ often being abusive and discriminatory.
Criticisms of the Report
A concern is also raised by Alex Nunn, a former Jeremy Corbyn speechwriter, who points out that the report seems determined to ensure “both sides” are criticised even when there is only evidence for the wrongdoing of one. The example Nunn uses is when the report states, in reference to the SMT WhatsApp group, “we can only speculate if similar online group chats were used by the opposite (left) faction where they too could comment on the febrile workplace situation and perceived attitudes of staff towards them”. There is no evidence to support the existence of a chat used for similar purposes from staff on the left, and certainly no evidence to imply that the content of these chats was of the seriousness of the contents of the SMT chat outlined in both the report and this article.
Finally, the report equates the actions of the democratically elected leadership with a mandate to the internal unelected party bureaucrats working to undermine the aims of the leadership at times. Whilst Corbyn had a mandate and backing from a significant portion of the party membership for his program, the internal bureaucracy, was instead undermining these aims. If that occurs, then it is the responsibility of the elected leadership to remove those blockages and fulfil the promises made which led Corbyn to be elected, which, based on this report, it appears LOTO did attempt to do. The Forde Report, as a legal document, is unable to emphasise that.
Conclusion
The Forde Report largely strikes a well-balanced tone, ensuring no side was left without some level of criticism.
The contents of the report are troubling with regards to the undermining of Labour’s electoral chances by Corbyn’s factional opponents and the evident failures in tackling issues of discrimination, with the sickening reality of a “hierarchy of racism” being prioritised, Labour has a lot to learn moving forward.
The way that staff behind the scenes work against the democratically elected leadership at times, denotes how a radical culture change at HQ is required in order to increase chances of future electoral success and cease the undermining of any future left-wing leadership by Right-leaning staff. The undermining of the elected leadership by permanent Labour Party staff will have political consequences for decades to come.
Whilst no side comes out of this clean or without guilt, with both the Left and Right engaging in factionalism, this is a clear vindication of Jeremy Corbyn, though not an exoneration of complete impunity to criticism.
Whilst both sides come out of this with many lessons to learn, it is clear that it is the figures on the Labour Right with the most to answer for. Although no one is innocent, some sides are more guilty than others.
Related Links
https://www.fordeinquiry.org/ (Forde Inquiry Website)
https://www.fordeinquiry.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/The-Forde-Report.pdf (Forde Report)
https://cryptome.org/2020/04/Labour-Antisemitism-Report.pdf (The work of the Labour Party’s Governance and Legal United in relation to antisemitism, 2014-2019)
https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/sites/default/files/investigation-into-antisemitism-in-the-labour-party.pdf (Investigation into antisemitism in the Labour Party)
Comments