Morning Star: from blind loyalty to Corbyn to endorsing antisemitic conspiracy theories

George Mann 🫧⚒️🫧 on Twitter: "Morning Star: We want Corbyn  #TomorrowsPapersToday https://t.co/YBTe4hLhRB" / Twitter

Loyalty to old friends is an admirable thing, but it can be taken too far – especially in politics.

The Morning Star is nothing if not loyal towards Jeremy Corbyn, who wrote a weekly column for the paper between 2005 and 2015 and still features in its advertising and publicity material. In 2016 Corbyn defended the paper as Assad’s forces advanced towards rebel-held Aleppo and the front page headline stated: “Final liberation of Aleppo is in sight” (though he did say he disagreed with the headline).

Let us be clear about Corbyn’s surpise victory in the 2015 Labour leadership election: it represented the possibility of rebuilding the labour movement at the base, both ideologically and in organisation in workplaces and neighbourhoods. That rebuilding would have made many other things possible, including the election of a leftist Labour government led by Corbyn and the implementation and consolidation of reforms. Without that rebuilding, the “JC4PM” (“Jeremy Corbyn for Prime Minister”) strategy was never going to work. There was some rebuilding: the Corbyn period showed that a left-led Labour Party could be popular. It freed discussion to go beyond puzzling over what would go down well with “focus groups”, and on to what was right and necessary for the working class. But, ultimately the “JC4PM” strategy prevailed and – at its worst – it was not even a “strategy” but more of an apolitical personality cult-cum-fan club. As the main publication backing Corbyn, the Morning Star (and its masters at the Communist Party of Britain), must bear a large part of the responsibility for this, especially as at least three of Corbyn’s closest advisers (Seumas Milne, Andrew Murray and Steve Howell) came from the CPB/Morning Star ambit.

In its 10-11 June edition, the Morning Star devoted no less than eight pages to a “celebration” of Corbyn’s 40 years as an MP. There’s a chummy interview with editor Ben Chacko, Lindsey German (of the so-called ‘Stop the War Coalition’) praises Corbyn for “calling for peace in Ukraine” (ie for Ukraine to capitulate), Islington Friends of Jeremy Corbyn hail him as “A man of the people” and one Chelley Ryan describes how she and her friends “grew to respect, trust and even love him as a leader.” Chelley says “we were accused of being a cult with our ‘Oh Jeremy Corbyn’ chant, scarves and badges. Frankly, we didn’t care.” David Rosenburg of the Jewish Socialists’ Group notes that Corbyn often spoke at Cable Street commemoration events: David was particularly impressed by “his no-frills persona and the ease with which he mingled with activists.”

If all this sounds like uncritical adulation that’s because it is.

Just one piece attempted to analyse why “Corbynism” eventually failed, and it’s by Andrew Murray, who formally “resigned” from the Communist Party of Britain in order to become a key member of Corbyn’s team between 2018 and 2019. Murray has written many articles and a book, all blaming the 2019 election defeat on Labour’s failure to accept Brexit (also the line taken by innumerable Morning Star editorials).

In his June 10-11 article, Murray once again blames “Remain” supporters for Corbyn’s failure: “the movement and its leadership impaled itself on the Brexit issue and ended up abandoning the successful 2017 policy of accepting the referendum decision to leave the EU in favour of giving the Remain side another crack at winning a majority before the first decision had even been implemented.”

Murray has to admit that: “Undoubtably that is what many Corbyn supporters wanted” but he’s made it clear in previous articles and his book that he thinks Corbyn should have overruled the wishes of the membership: in his Morning Star piece he argues that “most Corbyn supporters were surely much more invested in getting their leader into Downing Street to implement his agenda than in staying in the EU.”

Even if Murray is right about that, he ignores a fundamental point: in survey after survey, the reason given by voters for not backing Labour in 2019 was not Brexit … but Jeremy Corbyn himself. This may well have been, at least in part, the result of a vicious media campaign against him, but all the polling evidence is that voters had gone off Corbyn in a big way since 2017.

YouGov, for instance, conducted a survey of nearly 500 voters who’d voted Labour in 2017 but defected in 2019. The biggest reason for defection, mentioned by 35% of those surveyed, was Corbyn’s leadership.

True, Brexit was next on the list of reasons, with 19% saying it was their main reason for defecting. But even here, the story’s not quite what Murray and the Morning Star would have you believe. YouGov commented at the time: “It wasn’t just due to [Corbyn’s] position being too far towards Remain (just 3% thought that) or too far towards Leave (just 6% said this), but rather the fact that he doesn’t seem to have any position at all – making him look weak and indecisive.”

To his credit, Murray – unlike many Morning Star contributors and editorials – does not fall back on conspiracy theories about supposed ‘Zionist plots’ and, in fact explicitly rejects the idea that claims of antisemitism were concocted: “When 85 per cent of Jewish people feel there is a problem, there is a problem, no avoiding it.”

Previously (8 March 2023) in his Morning Star column (Eyes Left), Murray had written: “Even many [left MPs] who otherwise admire Corbyn’s leadership do not claim that he handled [antisemitism] well. It is no MP’s hill of choice to die on.”

In a Morning Star article (22 July 2022) about the Forde Report, Murray was even clearer: “However, I do share [Forde’s] view — rejected as it is on parts of the left — that some of Corbyn’s supporters simply denied that there was a problem with anti-semitism in the party, and that this inhibited the necessary handling of what was a genuine issue, with the result that it bedevilled Corbyn’s leadership to the end.

“I saw too much evidence of anti-semitic attitudes, sometimes inadvertent ones, to disagree with Forde on that point. The “leaked report” itself collated much of that evidence and Forde is right that its authors worked in good faith to challenge the ‘denial’ narrative.”

Murray’s frankness on that particular issue makes his participation in the film Oh, Jeremy Corbyn: the Big Lie (which does claim that allegations of antisemitism were made up and/or exaggerated as part of a ‘Zionist conspiracy’ against Corbyn) almost inexplicable. Meanwhile, the Morning Star (editorial 21 June) has described the film – without qualification – as being about “the forces that brought down the Corbyn movement”.

So, in the absence of a coherent analysis of Corbynism’s failings, the Morning Star once again falls back on a factually inaccurate fairy story about Brexit and backs antisemitic conspiracy theories.

  • This is a slightly expanded version of the ‘Antidoto’ column I’ve written for the this week’s Solidarity.

9 thoughts on “Morning Star: from blind loyalty to Corbyn to endorsing antisemitic conspiracy theories

  1. As you say it is curious that Andrew Murray agreed to be interviewed for the film – but only if he knew the “its the joos wot killed our messiah” thesis of the film. It is likely he did not, but was told it was just about the Corbyn years yadda yadda. Likewise, was Graham Bash told he’d be lined up with David Miller? Recent video shows Bash is aghast when Miller expounds on his Iran state propaganda on recent Iranian protests. Looking at the full interviews uncut and the correspondence to the interviewees asking for participation could be fun. It will never happen!

    Liked by 1 person

  2. You find my participation in ‘The Big Lie@ inexplicable. Let me try to explain it.

    I was invited by one of the makers of the film, whom I have known for several decades, to participate in the film. I accepted because I believe that all initiatives on the left that seek to explore and learn from the Corbyn experience should be encouraged. It was a significant passage, and unless it is scrutinised and debated nothing worthwhile will be carried forward.

    I did not seek to find out what “thesis”, if any, the film was pursuing, nor did I know all of the other participants in it. In particular, I was unaware of the involvement of David Millar and Chris Williamson. While they have a right to be heard, much of what they say I find odious and I would certainly not share a platform with either.

    It is easy to grasp that an interviewee in a film is responsible for what (s)he says and not for the totality of the production, which rests with the Director and Producer above all, just as an author is responsible for the contents of a book, not the people (s)he may interview for it. I am entirely comfortable with everything I am quoted on in the film.

    Having seen the film I think it has strengths and weaknesses. There were indeed conspiracies against the Corbnyn leadership – the majority of the PLP was conspiring in plain sight, as was the McNichol-era party apparatus to the extent of its limited capabilities. We may assume that the British and US states did their bits too.

    However, I do not believe that Corbynism was defeated by conspiracies in the common sense of the term. It was defeated by the class enemy, and its own mistakes contributed to that significantly. One can argue about which mistakes carried what relative weight, but that is where the debate needs to be.

    As far as anti-semitism goes, it has always been my view that the Jewish community had real concerns which were not properly addressed. Bad faith actors in the mass media and those opposed to Corbynism for other reasons surely exacerbated the problem (that’s political life wherein any weakness is exploited by opponents), but they did not invent it. Anti-Semitism on the left is a complex issue that needs addressing in a sober fashion. #Itsascam does not help in the slightest and in so far as ‘The Big Lie’ went in that direction, I do not endorse it. It would have done better to interview at least a more balanced range of those involved in the Corbyn movement rather than leaning heavily in the conspiracist direction.

    I do not however believe that there is a justification for banning showings of the film or no-platforming it. Giving it the aura of contraband while not discussing its shortcomings seems like the worst outcome.

    To conclude, for anyone on the left to believe that Corbyn was defeated by a conspiracy by Jewish organisations is doubly dangerous:
    First, it risks stirring up animosity towards the Jewish community and breathing further life into anti-Semitism at a dangerous time.
    Second, it misdirects the Left down a blind alley and prevents it learning the lessons that need to be drawn from the achievements and failures of the Corbyn years.

    Like

    1. Thank you for taking the trouble to reply, Andrew. I can accept that you were unaware of the main thesis of the film and of some of the other participants when you agreed to take part. I would urge you, though, to make your feelings about the conspiratorial (and , I would argue, antisemitic, though you may not agree) nature of much of the film’s content, known more widely – maybe in your ‘Eyes Left’ column in the Morning Star?

      Like

    2. I have great respect for your work in UNITE (speaking as a many years Branch Chair and hearing reports from your full time colleagues.) Your politics are very different to the part of the left I am from, which under the umbrella of Another Europe is Possible, goes from Jim’s group, the group close to the Fourth International Anti-Capitalist Resistance, Red Pepper, my own friends in Chartist, to Open Labour and the Greens.

      Labour Briefing, which I was aligned with for many many years, fell apart over this issue. Labour Hub was created after serious disagreements on anti-Semitism, formed by a long-standing comrade. Two of the key people in the film were involved with the Briefing, one was its leading spirit for decades. The other, his partner, is a much more recent arrival. She has been a divisive figure. Reading some of things she has Tweeted in the last couple of days alone – she has accused someone I know, who believe it or not, used to be letters editor of the Weekly Worker, of being a “sleeper agent”, you can see why many of us want nothing to do with the them and the film.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Thank you. I share your feelings about the particular individual you are referring to based on my limited engagement with her. Obviously anyone is free to take what view they like regarding the film, and I am fairly critical, but I do not believe that banning it is right or wise.

        Like

    3. What are the odious views of Miller and Williamson?

      And you mean #ItWasAScam – as a Jewish Labour member myself this has been a vital conduit for calling out what is the biggest and still ongoing political smear campaign I’ve ever seen. Look how it’s been used to take down Jamie Driscoll in Tyne.

      There are two things to hold in one’s mind: a very small number of genuine antisemites (who disqualify as socialists anyway), and a tidal wave of grotesque weaponisation of fake antisemitism that serves the dual purpose of marginalising pro-Palestinian voices and what’s left of the socialist left in Labour. These two things are not related; this has never been about antisemitism unless you redefine it as the ‘new antisemitism’, which is anti-Zionism. Read Tony Lerman’s latest book.

      Liked by 1 person

  3. Andrew, you are generous in finding that this film has some strengths. I could find none. Although you are content with your interview, you clearly recognise this is a very flawed project. The producer/directors explicitly chose and intended to amplify antisemitic tropes and to give a platform to the abhorrent ideas of Miller and Williams et al. In so doing they damage the left. I cannot regard them as part of the left. It is not no-platforming, banning or censorship when venues are asked to examine what it is they are screening and to reconsider. No venue is obliged to show this film. If a venue withdraws consent it is simply demonstrating good judgment. Nothing good comes from antisemitism. Nothing.

    Liked by 1 person

  4. All I can say is that the conflation of critisism of Israeli policy with antisemitism it at the root of much misrepresentation of the left. Antisemitism on the left is complex because very few are genuinely antisemitic but many others, if they dare to criticise Israel or show support for Palestine, will be labelled antisemitic. That really is something that needs addressing. One thing the film seems to have done, is to be seen as promoting a conspiracy theory, because those who view it may believe all the organisations mentioned are 100% Jewish. When in fact some are more representive of Zionism and Israel and some have none Jewish members. It’s a sad fact that the penalties paid by the left and anyone supportive of Palestine is more often than not because of the misrepresentation of a political ideology as representative of Judaism as a whole.

    Like

Leave a comment