Labour’s civil war: what is it good for?

Sign up to LabourList’s morning email for everything Labour, every weekday morning.

Labourite self-reflection or Tory government chaos? That’s the question I have to answer every morning before I choose a focus for the daily email. And many are saying that’s the question the Labour Party must answer too.

This week has seen the government defeated on a key Brexit vote, Anna Soubry call for a ‘unity government’, Boris Johnson give a resignation speech urging the country to ‘save Brexit’, Esther McVey admit universal credit is still failing, the Tories admit that their chief whip asked MPs to break crucial pairing agreements, and a ‘no deal’ Brexit look increasingly likely.

But attentions have been drawn to Labour’s internal strife. John Woodcock quit the party while under investigation for sexual harassment, calling Jeremy Corbyn a “security risk” and the party “rigged”. Brexiteer Kate Hoey was threatened with deselection after voting with the government on Brexit. Labour’s NEC approved a controversial new code of conduct and pushed forward with the democracy review. Margaret Hodge told the Labour leader he was a “racist” and “antisemite” to his face, and Corbyn’s spokesman reacted by saying “action will be taken”.

It should be noted that the pledge to take action against Hodge will likely go no further. The current Labour Party didn’t kick out John “I will not countenance ever voting to make Jeremy Corbyn Britain’s prime minister” Woodcock, after all. Plus there’s the recognition that to discipline a veteran Jewish Labour MP looks terrible. (Whether the optics are what matters here is obviously questionable.)

The broader question still nags, though. Should Labour MPs and activists stop fighting each other and get on with preparing for government? The answer is of course yes, but that doesn’t make avoiding internal disputes any easier. As I wrote earlier this week, this latest antisemitism row over the IHRA definition could be resolved – but the issue will be the basis of furious infighting for as long as Corbyn is leader.

As for the party democracy review led by Katy Clark, and Chris Williamson’s democracy roadshow advocating mandatory reselection, Corbynites would say that to get our own house in order isn’t to be distracted and inward-looking. Instead, it is seen as an essential process without which Labour could not move on as a party from the Blair, Brown and Miliband eras.

Corbynsceptics naturally disagree, or at least think the motivations behind rule changes currently being discussed are wrong. Of course, that includes LabourList columnist Luke Akehurst, who today gives his verdict on Labour’s latest democracy review proposals: “Overall, 10/10 for effort, 5/10 for content.”

It doesn’t look as if the pause button will be pressed on Labour’s intra-party battles any time soon.

Sienna @siennamarla

Sign up to LabourList’s morning email for everything Labour, every weekday morning.