Read on Twitter
So I’ve seen a fair bit of misinformation about Keir’s response to the leaked report so I thought I should put the facts straight. This isn’t me condoning his actions or the response of the party.
But basically Keir and his office (LOTO) have no say in the disciplinary process 1/
But basically Keir and his office (LOTO) have no say in the disciplinary process 1/
There have been lots of allegations about LOTO interfering in disciplinary cases under Corbyn. Whistleblowers say LOTO instructed them what to do, the leaked report claimed they asked LOTO for help 2/
WBs also claimed that direct LOTO influence reduced/ceased after a series of appointments (that were In correspondence with LOTO) to GLU (the disciplinary team). The leaked report (sort of) backs this up, claiming that the new appointees stopped LOTO involvement 3/
The report claimed that currently LOTO had no involvement in the disciplinary process. Taking that as true that means all the power in the disciplinary process was (in 2019) in the hands of GLU, and ultimately the General Secretary 4/
None of the staff implicated in the leaked report are still staff members afaik. Nor are they MPs. (One or two are lords which is more complicated) that means only action to be taken is standard disciplinary action- and its down to GLU 5/
It was GLU and the General Secretary who wrote the leaked report. When they found incriminating evidence they could’ve acted immediately and started disciplinary processes. No reason for waiting for the EHRC 6/
Assuming the report was accurate and there was no LOTO involvement it is GLU and Formby who bare the responsibility of not starting disciplinary proceedings when the evidence came to light /7
I’ll leave it up to you to decide why they didn’t. Any way so the report is later leaked and lands on Starmer’s desk. Starmer has multiple times said that he will not be involved in the disciplinary process. So again up to GLU and the Gen Sec (still Formby) to deal /8
Obviously it’s slightly more complicated, moral leadership has a role. Eg if a leader takes a strong stance on antisemitism then GLU will handle antisemitism cases more stringently. It’s legit to criticise Keir on his rhetoric not being strong enough... /9
But decision on action is out of his hands. Several former staff members have been revealed to be facing disciplinary action but again that’s down to GLU not Keir /10
And now onto RLB. Disciplinary action relating to MPs and Peers is really messy. It’s unclear when the whips should deal with something and when GLU should. This needs to be sorted out /11
But RLB didn’t face any disciplinary action. She was sacked from the shadow cabinet which is entirely different. People are sacked from the Shadow Cabinet for reasons that would not otherwise result in disciplinary action /12
The Shadow Cabinet is expected to be the government in waiting. It speaks with one voice -hence CMR. It’s totally within a leaders right to sack someone who breaks the line, undermines the leadership or acts in any way deemed inappropriate/13
RLB shared an article containing an antisemitic conspiracy. She had the chance to apologise and delete but she didn’t take it. The article was also negative about Keir, his supporters and the electorate. Keir was well within his right to sack her for it /14
So basically the sacking of RLB and the treatment of implicated former staff in the leaked report are in no way comparable and I don’t think it’s helpful to anyone to compare them /END
