The Sacking of Rebecca Long-Bailey.
Sir Keir takes decisive action to quash any remnants of Antisemitism in the Labour Party; even if it means sacking members of his own Cabinet.
Words by William Cooper.
The expulsion of Rebecca Long-Bailey last week from the Shadow Cabinet over her retweeting of, and comments on, the interview between the actress Maxine Peake and the Independent, has been met with both widespread support and criticism towards the swift and decisive actions taken by the Labour Leader, Sir Keir Starmer. Many believe that Starmer acted too quickly and was too impulsive; eager to oust his leadership rival. Others say he acted appropriately for the leader of a party whose recent history of Antisemitism has been embarrassingly scandalous.
Antisemitism has plagued the Labour Party over the years, coming to a head under Jeremy Corbyn. Although only espoused by a tiny minority of Labour members and MPs, it has still been a grave issue that, to the horror of the majority, has not been quashed. Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership of the Labour Party was riddled with evidence of antisemitism; so much so that the Chakrabarti Inquiry was held in 2016, and another report was internally commissioned in the final year of Corbyn’s tenure, to investigate the allegations.
Corbyn undoubtedly, and unfortunately, tolerated Antisemitism too much. It was a fatal flaw that came to define his leadership, and his refrainment from completely eradicating it meant that his successor would be left with the task of fixing the problem that he failed to.
Sir Keir Starmer made it his first and foremost objective to re-establish the connection between the Jewish community and the Labour Party. Both have a long history of mutual support, however over the past five years, this mutuality has faded; many Jewish Labour members quitting the party out of disgust and fear. This is the context that Starmer’s leadership was first placed into.
The interview between Maxine Peake and the Independent contained an ‘Anti-Semitic conspiracy theory’, when Peake claimed that:
“The tactics used by the police in America, kneeling on George Floyd’s neck, that was learnt from seminars with Israeli secret services”.
(This allegation has been explicitly denied by the Israel Police).
This is a claim that has been contested for many years, however Peake’s false assumption that somehow the state of Israel, the Jewish State, was implicitly responsible for the death of George Floyd, is a flawed judgement. Peake also discussed other issues in her interview, which was subsequently published by the Independent and then retweeted by Rebecca Long-Bailey, who called Peake “an absolute diamond”.
This clear approval of the interview and its contents was then noticed by Starmer’s office, and after speaking with Long-Bailey, Starmer asked her to step down from her position as Shadow Education Secretary.
Starmer has subsequently come under great criticism from the radical Left of the Party, who have stood in solidarity with Long-Bailey, a fellow radical Leftist. Starmer has subsequently had words with Diane Abbott, John McDonnell, and his predecessor Jeremy Corbyn. They have criticised what they claim to be rushed judgement and an unfair decision on behalf of the new Labour Leader.
Starmer has been supported however by most of his Shadow Cabinet, most notably the Shadow Business Secretary and previous leader of the Party, Ed Miliband. In an interview with Andrew Marr, whilst stating that he believed Long-Bailey is not Anti-Semitic and is a “decent person”, Miliband supported Starmer’s decision, stating that what Long-Bailey had retweeted contained a “false criticism of the State of Israel, linked to the death of George Floyd, wrongly”. He said that Sir “Keir recognises the gravity of the hurt that has been caused to the Jewish Community over the past few years”.
Starmer’s Shadow Chancellor, Anneliese Dodds, told Good Morning Britain that Starmer took “decisive action” and that when something like this happens, which incorporates a senior member of the front bench, “there has to be consequences”. Dodds, like Miliband, believes that Long-Bailey is not Anti-Semitic, however states that Starmer was right to take “strong action against [her]”.
Starmer, in the expulsion of his leadership rival, has done three things:
1) Shown moral authority and superiority over the government. Boris Johnson has still not sacked either Dominic Cummings or Robert Jenrick, for their respective blunders and offences. By taking swift and decisive action to sack Long-Bailey, Starmer looks strong in his position. His front bench remains professional and scandal-free. He holds the moral high ground over Johnson, an advantage which will come to help him in time.
2) By sacking Long-Bailey from the Shadow Cabinet, Starmer rids his cabinet of the final Corbynite and radical Left minister. He was forced into incorporating Long-Bailey in the first place; however, this was an opportunity to establish a truly centrist cabinet. His underlying objective to break from the previous leadership is now complete, done so whilst not looking as if it was his intention.
3) Starmer continues to rebuild legitimacy and trust with the Jewish community, an objective which he has rightly prioritised from his first day as leader. If he had defended Long-Bailey, he would have undermined his own position, an act he would have been crucified for by the mainstream media. Sacking his rival and bearing the brunt of radical Left criticism is a small price to pay, compared with a full onslaught from the big five Tory-supporting papers (Mail, Express, Sun, Times, Telegraph).
Ultimately, Long-Bailey’s fate as Shadow Education Secretary was sealed as soon as she called Peake an “absolute diamond”. Neither Long-Bailey nor Maxine Peake are Anti-Semitic, that must be made clear. What this exposed however was how easy it is to falsely claim things that the evidence is not there to support. And even if the evidence is there, how does this claim propagate the argument that Peake is trying to make? It was a fatal error of judgment, both on behalf of Peake and Long-Bailey.
Starmer’s hand was determined as soon as Long-Bailey retweeted the interview. The Labour Party hasn’t had such swift and decisive action since the early days of Tony Blair. It has always been the party of indecisiveness and tolerance. Starmer is saying ‘no more deliberating’. The action he took was the only viable option available to him, the benefits of which in the long run will outweigh the short-term detriment.
