Transcript of John Pienaar's interview with Lord Falconer on Labour and antisemitism

Pienaar’s Politics, BBC Radio 5 Live, 03/03/2019

Lord Falconer, who’s expected to lead a review into cases of anti-Semitism in the Labour Party, told John Pienaar he wouldn’t have taken up the role if Chris Williamson MP had not been suspended.

He said he wants his review to look at whether there is institutional anti-Semitism within the party and that he hopes his review will be completed in “months not years”.

And he said there are ”a lot of people” in the Lords who are “toying” with leaving the Labour Party.

Transcripts follow. For all quotes, please credit Pienaar’s Politics on BBC Radio 5 Live. 

----------

On Chris Williamson’s suspension

(At 10.11.30am)

Charlie Falconer: "I spoke publicly about that. I was incredibly concerned that if he wasn't suspended there wouldn't be confidence in any changes that the Labour Party made. I was very worried that if he wasn't suspended I couldn't really do effectively my job."

John Pienaar: “You felt as strongly as that. If he hadn't been suspended, you would not have taken on this role?”

CF: “Well, if he hadn't been suspended I think it would have been impossible, so probably I wouldn't. But he was suspended, and that was a signal - because my conversations with members of the Jewish community make it absolutely clear to me that the Jewish community has absolutely no confidence in the Labour Party or Jeremy Corbyn as being a person who will not adequately fight anti-Semitism. I believe Jeremy Corbyn is most certainly not an anti-Semite, but for the Jewish community this is existential for them. For the main opposition party not to be reliable on that issue, which goes to the heart of the very community, is absolutely appalling.”

Impact of anti-Semitism on Labour’s electoral chances

(At 10.12.40am)

JP: “Would you go so far as to say you think the worry about anti-Semitism within Labour's ranks is in itself a complete obstacle to Labour being elected? Would you go that far?”

CF: “I would. I mean if that characterisation - which doesn't affect 99% of Labour activists or people who work for the Labour Party - but if that characterisation continues within the mainstream Jewish community, then the idea that we could ever be elected seems to me to be very, very remote.”

Mural row

(At 10.18.00am)

Sam Coates: “… Could you give us a sense of what you think on, for instance, the 2012 episode where there was a clearly anti-Semitic mural in East London and Jeremy Corbyn appeared to defend it against destruction. He wrote on Facebook that - he basically questioned why you would have to get rid of that. Is that anti-Semitic, by the now-Labour leader, who wasn't the Labour leader at the time? Is it something that should face punishment? Should he have to have done more than just simply say sorry later and disown his own words - and do you think that cases like that should be looked at again and we should be able to talk about cases like that as part of your review and look into everything?”

CF: “The mural is indefensibly anti-Semitic. Any defence of what is an indefensibly anti-Semitic mural is utterly unacceptable. Jeremy, I think, made clear that he hadn't looked properly at the mural and that was his defence in relation to the position. The mural represents a strand of thought in the Labour Party about, as it were, Jewish capitalists being at the heart of a whole variety of things that the Labour Party [unclear word] which is utterly wrong and unacceptable.”

SC: “Is not looking properly a good enough excuse? This is exactly the kind of dilemma that you're going to face with loads of low-level Labour Party members and complaints. I'm sure you'll come down quite hard on the lower level ones. But is, for the most senior people in the Labour Party, not looking properly a good enough defence?”

CF: “Well, now when we are very sensitised to the issue, it most certainly would not. In 2012, things might have been different. But we need - not because anti-Semitism was any more acceptable then - but there was at that time no question but that... [unclear, start talking over each other].

Scope and timescale of anti-Semitism cases review

(At 10.19.50am)

JP: “Picking up on that  there is a perception out there - and it stings some of those around Jeremy Corbyn - they're seen as being  far too inclined to be lenient, over lenient, when it comes to accusations of anti-Semitism. That's why the idea there's institutional anti -Semitism in the party, that's why that argument has - it's said - has the traction it often does. Are you going to give your verdict on that? Will you look at the state of things, including the culture at the top of the party - and either speak out against it, or exonerate them?”

CF: “Well, as to your question, yes. The point you make is exactly what is, as it were, eroding confidence in the Labour Party - that people are too lenient on a crony-ish basis to people who are being anti-Semitic. And if I can't give confidence in what I do - that either that was the position but no longer is, or was not the position - then I will have failed in my role. So yes, I will specifically address that and what's more, I must make people - or fail - believe that the disciplinary system is completely blind to who your friends are in the way that it deals with things. Because that is what everybody thinks - well not everybody, but a lot of people think that.”

JP: “If you're going to give a clear verdict, as it were, from the bench on this accusation, when can we expect that?”

CF: “That depends upon the resources I get, but sooner rather than later.”

JP: “How soon?”

CF: “I think in a matter of months, not a matter of years - and it needs to be dealt with as well on an ongoing basis. People need to see there being a change in the way that the disciplinary system works going forward.”

On whether he would join The Independent Group:

(At 10.24.00am)

CF: “Not at all. I am completely committed to Labour. I am too old to leave. It’s absolutely where I am. But it’s obviously incredibly anxious-making that people, many of whom I would feel were close colleagues of mine in the past and share many of the views of mine, have left. We need to make our party able to hold on to very many of those people who left, who would be regarded as mainstream Labour members.”

JP: “In the House of Lords tearoom, over the rattle of porcelain teacups and all the rest of it, do you hear many of your friends on the Labour side toying with this idea?

CF: “There’s a lot of anxiety in the Lords about the leadership of the Labour Party and there are a lot of people, I suspect, toying with whether they’re staying or not.”

----------

The Government minister for small business, Kelly Tolhurst, also told the programme that her view on Brexit had “absolutely” shifted from Remain to Leave since 2016.

She added that she disagreed with recent remarks from the Prime Minister’s former aide, Nick Timothy.

(At 10.30.30am)

Kelly Tolhurst: “When I voted Remain in the referendum, actually, I could have constructed an argument to Leave or Remain at the time. So I was very, very borderline. I voted Remain because I’ve spent my whole dealing with Europe. So for me, it was more of an economic decision. However, like most of my constituents and most people I speak to, everyone has sort of accepted the result of the referendum.”

John Pienaar: “Accepting the referendum is not the same as agreeing with it.”

KT: “I think it is.”

JP: “So you are now a Brexiteer?”

KT: “Well what I sort of said in my opening remarks was that actually I could have constructed an argument either way.”

JP: “And you’ve shifted towards the Brexit side of that pendulum?”

KT: “Yeah, absolutely. And I’m quite happy and I’m very comfortable with the fact we’re leaving the European Union. So I don’t agree that it’s sort of ‘damage limitation’.”