Keir Starmer’s choice to sack Rebecca Long-Bailey over antisemitism will help Labour to reclaim its integrity

Editorial: This is a political as well as a moral matter. Ignoring it would have neutered any attacks the party leader makes on the behaviour of those in power

Allowing Ms Long-Bailey to stay on would have neutered any attacks Sir Keir makes on the behaviour of those in power (AFP)

When Rebecca Long-Bailey retweeted The Independent’s interview with the actor Maxine Peake, she was seeking to make a point about the actor’s views on the state of the Labour Party. The interview involved a number of views – some of them politically controversial, such as those on the position of Corbynism – as well as, more seriously, views amounting to an antisemetic conspiracy theory.

Ms Long-Bailey’s error was in sharing what was a broadly positive message via social media without addressing the troubling comments that were also present. Keir Starmer’s decision was not, as some of Ms Long-Bailey’s allies claim, an “overreaction”. Those aspiring to lead the country – and it is not long since she was running for Labour leader – have to demonstrate strong judgement and care.

The current incumbents in ministerial office show all too easily what happens when that is lacking. In retransmitting a plain antisemitic conspiracy theory Ms Long-Bailey showed a serious lack of judgement. Her attempts to make amends were deemed insufficient. She had to go.

To understand the pressure on Sir Keir, it is only necessary to remember two things. First is the sincere pledge he made to restore the faith of the Jewish community in the Labour Party as an engine of progressive change. It is widely acknowledged that something had gone badly wrong within Labour in recent years. It needs to be fixed through zero tolerance, and it is not fixed yet. Wrong in itself, in any case, the antisemitism was corrosive and damaged Labour’s reputation.

The report of the Equalities and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) into the matter will present Sir Keir with fresh challenges, perhaps relating directly to his predecessor, and those closest to him. Mr Corbyn has already cast doubt on the EHRC’s independence, claiming it is a “part of the government machine”. It does not point to a happy ending.

It is a political as well as a moral matter, and allowing Ms Long-Bailey to stay on would have neutered any attacks Sir Keir makes on the behaviour of those in power. It is easy to write the script for the next session of Prime Minister’s Questions. Sir Keir calls on Robert Jenrick, the local government secretary, to address allegations and invites the prime minister to consider firing him.

In return, Mr Johnson asks Sir Keir why he’s done nothing about the transgressions of his own front bench, and invokes the scandal of antisemitism. It might or might not be fair, but that’s politics. Sir Keir seems determined that no one will blunt his party’s attacks on the Tories. It is the kind of ruthlessness that tends to get you into power.

It is though, something of a pity. Ms Long-Bailey took her defeat in the leadership election as well as she could. Her “green new deal” was one of the few highlights in Labour’s disastrous general election campaign. She was an assiduous shadow education secretary. There were signs that she, like her flatmate Angela Rayner, was coming to terms with life after Jeremy “Ten Out of Ten” Corbyn.

There was no particular benefit to Sir Keir in plonking a possible leader of leftist dissent on his backbenches (though she seems disinclined to snipe). Yet he had no choice. Ms Long-Bailey will not be the last to feel the effect of firm leadership.