Things the Forde Report doesn't say
Watching the reaction has been like living in a parallel universe
I’m down with the covid at the moment (I’ll be fine), which means being bed-bound, bored, and on social media even more often than usual. Luckily for me, this was the week when the long-awaited Forde Report was finally published.
For the uninitiated (i.e. almost everyone), the Forde Report was commissioned by the Labour Party back in 2020 following the leak of a report which was initially intended to be part of a submission to the EHRC’s investigation into antisemitism in the party. This report morphed into a sprawling 860 page document which made a lot of serious allegations of toxic behaviour and a horrendous, factional culture within Labour.
Martin Forde was appointed to understand how this report came to be commissioned, written and then leaked; the truth or otherwise of the various allegations in the leaked report (in particular there were some very serious claims of racism, sexism, and other discriminatory attitudes and behaviours); whether the structure, culture and practices of the organisation are appropriate and fit for purpose.
If you want to read it, the full report is here. Sadly, it does seem that, despite a lot of online noise, people either haven’t read it or don’t care about representing the findings accurately, such as in this dismal article here.
I’m sure it’s fighting a losing battle at this point, but many of the claims circulating online are just not made anywhere in the report; Forde may as well have handed out blank pads of paper for all that people are writing their own versions anyway.
But, for my own sanity as much as anything, I thought I might try and correct the record. So here are some claims being made about the report which are either not true or highly partial interpretations.
Claim: The Labour Right deliberately sabotaged the 2017 general election.
Forde finds the exact opposite.
Forde finds that whilst both “sides” were basing resourcing decisions on factionalism (and there are unproven allegations that the Leaders’ Office was keen to divert resources to allies in seats with big majorities), this was not because either side wanted to lose.
As Forde puts it on page 62, “the two sides were trying to win in different ways”. Also on page 62, “the evidence available to us did not support claims that HQ staff wanted to do badly in the 2017 general election”.
Some resource was diverted away from “winnable” seats to pursue a more defensive strategy, which made complete sense at the time. When the election was called, the Conservatives had a huge polling lead and the consensus was Labour would lose badly. Even with little more than three weeks of campaigning left, arch-Corbynite Len McCluskey said holding on to 200 seats would represent a success. The definition of a “winnable seat” looks different with hindsight to how it did at the time, and resourcing decisions are viewed in Forde in that context.
The claim of deliberate sabotage is not a finding of the Forde Report.
Claim: Without the Labour Right diverting resources, Labour would have won the election.
Again, false. On page 72, Forde states that “we consider it to be highly unlikely that the diversion of funds and personnel into the Ergon House operation lost the Party the general election”.
Claim: Forde shows there was a hierarchy of racism in the Labour Party.
The report does not go as far as establishing this. Forde is very careful to always couch this as a perception of respondents; on pages 5 and 81, it is discussed as a theme of the submissions to the inquiry; page 90 offers a flavour of these submissions; page 97 says submissions are suggestive of a hierarchy of racism; page 112 begins the claim with “some would argue”.
Forde does not explicitly find a hierarchy of racism in the Labour Party. However the discriminatory culture and the racism described on, amongst other places, pages 81-83 makes for grim reading and is certainly something the party should address in very short order.
Claim: The Labour Right “weaponised” antisemitism as a way of attacking Corbyn.
This one is supported by Forde, although it’s a very partial interpretation; on page 7, the report states that “both factions treated [antisemitism] like a factional weapon”.
This is one place where Forde goes very badly wrong; the report attempts to “both sides” Labour antisemitism, treating racism as a factional battle with fault on both sides. But of course there is no equivalence between antisemitism and opposition to antisemitism, and anyone attacking Corbyn over antisemitism is surely to be commended. Stephen Pollard has written very well on this point, so I’ll let his article respond here.
Claim: There has been a “media blackout” on the Forde Report.
One of the weirder claims, but it seems to be a common perception amongst Corbynites, and Owen Jones said something similar the other day. The Guardian have run a few pieces. The BBC carried a story. The Times. The Telegraph. The Sun.
For what is a hugely niche report focused on internal Labour politics, I don’t think you can ask for much more from the media coverage. It may not be reporting from the angle Owen Jones would like, but it’s no blackout.
One thing Forde does say
I’ll finish by quoting Forde again, as I think this would be useful for the many Corbyn supporters misrepresenting the report in recent days:
“The evidence clearly demonstrated that a vociferous faction in the Party sees any issues regarding antisemitism as exaggerated by the Right to embarrass the Left”.
If you’re going to hold the Forde Report up as an incredibly important document, instead of misrepresenting the findings, you might start by considering the points which apply to you.