Jeremy Corbyn has come off far worse than Keir Starmer in this Labour spat

The current Labour leader is accused of weakness in dealing with his predecessor. John Rentoul isn’t convinced

Keir Starmer pre-empted Tory attacks on Jeremy Corbyn’s readmission to Labour (Reuters TV)

One of the tests of a leader is that they act decisively when they have the chance to secure the result they want. But another test is that, when things go wrong, as they are bound to sometimes, they act decisively to recover what they can from the disarray. 

Keir Starmer seemed to have failed the first test, when a Labour disciplinary panel decided to end Jeremy Corbyn’s suspension from the party yesterday. Starmer issued a carefully worded statement suggesting he was unhappy with that decision – although he couldn’t say so directly because as leader he is supposed to stay out of disciplinary matters. 

But today Starmer passed the second test, by announcing that he had decided “not to restore the whip” to Corbyn, which means that the former leader is now a member of the party again, but not a Labour MP. It was messy, but Starmer got enough of the result he wanted. 

He can say to those who want Corbyn expelled from the party that he has done the right thing with the powers he has, by expelling the former leader from the parliamentary party. He can explain that the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) report on Labour antisemitism criticised Corbyn’s involvement, as leader, in disciplinary matters. 

That means Starmer argues that, as leader, he shouldn’t interfere in the question of whether Corbyn should be a Labour member, but he is entitled to rule on the political question of whether Corbyn should be a Labour MP. It sounds like a legalistic distinction, but if it holds it allows Starmer to say that he has acted on his “mission to root out antisemitism from the Labour Party”. 

Inevitably, the dispute is wholly political. Even those who think Corbyn has been unfairly blamed for antisemitism in the Labour Party ought to accept that he provoked his own suspension. On the day of the publication of the EHRC report on 29 October, he issued a defiant and inflammatory statement in which he said: “One antisemite is one too many, but…” That is not an assertion that can be qualified with a “but” without undermining its sincerity. 

Worse, Corbyn went on to say: “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.” This not only seemed to be trying to minimise the seriousness of the problem, but it directly contradicted what Corbyn knew Starmer was about to say in his statement on the publication of the report – that anyone who said the problem is exaggerated should be “nowhere near the party”. 

I don’t believe that Starmer expected Corbyn to issue this statement, but we can guess that Starmer would have approved of Corbyn’s suspension if he hadn’t been required to stay out of that decision, which was taken by David Evans, appointed by Starmer as Labour’s general secretary. 

The right course of action would have been for Corbyn’s case to be considered by the independent disciplinary procedure that the EHRC recommended, and which Starmer promised to bring in next year. Corbyn’s allies were not prepared to wait that long, and organised to convene an urgent session of the party’s existing, non-independent, disciplinary process. A five-person subcommittee of Labour’s National Executive Committee (NEC) met yesterday and there was a three-to-two majority in favour of restoring Corbyn’s membership. 

This happened just days after Starmer strengthened his majority in the NEC elections, prompting one Labour watcher to comment: “What use is a majority on the NEC if you can’t even pack a committee?” I doubt that Starmer wanted Corbyn readmitted, so presumably the other side proved better at packing the committee. 

But the leader still has control over who takes the whip and who is allowed to call themselves a Labour MP. So, although Corbyn’s suspension from the parliamentary party was automatic, and followed his suspension from the Labour Party itself, the automatic restoration of the whip was overruled by Starmer’s statement this morning – issued just in time to avoid Boris Johnson making hay with Corbyn’s restoration at Prime Minister’s Questions. 

The outcome is unsatisfactory for both sides, but it is worse for Corbyn. He won’t be allowed to stand as an official Labour candidate at the next election (when Starmer says he’ll keep the whip “under review” I assume that means for at least four years, by which time Corbyn will be 74). 

And Starmer can say to those who want Corbyn expelled altogether that he promised to accept the EHRC recommendations in full, and one of them is an independent disciplinary process, so he cannot, and should not, interfere. But the bottom line is that Corbyn’s political career is over.