Ann Black: Why I voted against the NEC motion to block Corbyn’s candidacy

My first reaction to the Jeremy Corbyn motion was that it was fundamentally dishonest, because the reasons given for blocking his candidacy were not the real reasons. As one member wrote: “Whilst I wouldn’t consider myself a supporter of Jeremy Corbyn, I am concerned about the wording of this motion… it references Jeremy Corbyn’s electoral performance as grounds to prevent him from restanding as the Labour candidate in Islington North. This sets a dangerous precedent as Jeremy is not unique in having led the Labour Party to poor general election results. I would instead ask the [national executive committee] to consider rewriting a similar motion citing Jeremy’s unacceptable response to the EHRC report on antisemitism.”

That analysis was reinforced at the NEC, where only 10% of contributions related to the words actually before us. Most of the anger dated from Corbyn’s 2020 post: “One antisemite is one too many, but the scale of the problem was also dramatically overstated for political reasons by our opponents inside and outside the party, as well as by much of the media.” At the very moment that Keir Starmer was responding to the Equalities and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) report on behalf of the Labour party.

That post has never been regretted or removed, despite various bridge-building attempts, and continues to rankle. Others added that serial disloyalty, with 400 votes against the whip under successive leaders, could not expect loyalty in return. Mixing metaphors, a broad church was a two-way street, and many had felt unwelcome under Corbyn’s rule.

In favour of Corbyn, members highlighted his vision of a just society, the gains in the 2017 election and his attraction among young people. Membership is still double the level of the Brown/Miliband years. An independent candidacy would be politically damaging, as when Tony Blair blocked Ken Livingstone in 2000, and party unity would be further fractured.

Many messages demanded the democratic rights of local members to choose their own candidates and reminded Starmer of his previous support for the principle. However, that right has never been unconstrained. The NEC has removed candidates, notoriously Liz Davies in 1995, and in the current round of selections, a number of applicants have been excluded after due diligence checks. I would have preferred to take this route and evaluate Corbyn’s actions against the same standard as other candidates, rather than make this a special case.

I read and took seriously all the comments that I received, including this: “His failure to acknowledge the EHRC ruling would lose us the 300,000 Jewish voters we have regained, them having believed Labour to be their natural home. Getting Labour mired in antisemitism was inevitable given the ammunition handed to our opponents. We now have a chance to win, let’s not throw it away.” But the motion made no reference to the EHRC or antisemitism. In the end, I stuck to the words, where the named offence was losing the 2019 election, and voted against it. 

Leadership is a powerful factor in electoral success – the test of whether voters can see Michael Foot or Neil Kinnock or Ed Miliband or Jeremy Corbyn or Keir Starmer, entering No 10 Downing Street as Prime Minister. But losing is a collective failure. Leaving out the background lays open the possibility of barring other MPs if the NEC decides that the party’s interests are not well served by their candidacy. And of future leaders being removed for failing to win.

Finally, a word of caution. In moving the motion, Starmer assured us that the party had irrevocably changed. Since Tony Blair said “we ran for office as New Labour, we will govern as New Labour”, I’ve been through several regime changes, and however high our hopes, nothing in politics is forever. 

The motion was carried by 22 votes to 12, with a few abstentions, and the NEC moved on to other business – more on this soon.

Ann Black’s full report on the NEC meeting can be found here.